You are here

Video: Why Modern Architecture sucks - according to Paul Joseph Watson

Paul Joseph Watson asserts that "We are being indoctrinated to accept ugliness as a form of beauty." This is what is proposed for Melbourne and for most cities in Australia: oppressive tower blocks and architecture that dwarfs individual humans. It is a trend that began after the first world war and accelerated after the second world war.

AttachmentSize
Image icon why-mod-archit-sucks.jpg8.04 KB

Comments

So true - this should have been a huge social issue a long time ago. Architectural schools seem to destroy creativity - why do al modern houses and other buildings look the same? Big ugly boxes. Is there no one who comes out of archicture school who does not adore and worship boxes? What sort of mental lobotomy do they go through in their 5 years of training?

And the press presents these things as though people want them - an example from today's paper:

"on how our appetite for high-density living is transforming Melbourne and Sydney."

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/2016-census-the-high-density-lifestyle-now-spreads-way-beyond-our-cbds-20170630-gx21w4.html

Being forced into high-density living because that is all that is available or can afforded. Suits investors, and developers who can sell more apartments if they are stacked up high.

And why do we have graffiti - what a weird behaviour, I think the video is right - young people look at these impersonal buildings and can think that they deserve nothing better than to be painted in a way that reflects their soullessness.

The building builder wanted to make a statement of slef adoration and power, The graffiti tagger uses that as acanvas to make their own narcissistic statement.

Matt

At the risk of seeming to start an esoteric aesthetic discussion which could bury the important points made in this video, the principle of form follows function can lead to excellent aesthetic results. The problem with the mega buildings which are the targets of this commentator is that the function which they are often trying to fulfil is not justifiable in the first place. How can a good result be obtained when it is seen as necessary to treat people as files and therefore store them in buildings based on filing cabinets? One needs to look at the complexity of what functions a building for people really needs to fulfil. These "storage units" would fail on many counts e.g connection with the outside, connection with neighbours, facilitating autonomy or control over immediate environment. There would be many other requirements for a reasonable quality of life and if these functions were built in the buildings would look very different. The problem is that the number of inhabitants seems often to be the only function that is satisfied and of course you end up with a soul-less monstrosity that is not even safe.