Truth, Irony & Humor | i. culture of congestion

“Manhattan has generated a shameless architecture that has been loved in direct proportion to its defiant lack of self-hatred, respected exactly to the degree that it went too far.”
“Metropolitan architecture thus defined implies a 2-fold polemic . . . Both squander the potential of the Culture of Congestion.”

Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan

 

The problem with postmodernism

  
My criticism of postmodernism in architecture and other fields is that some of its proponents seem to be motivated by the desire to deny objective reality or absolute truth. Such an attitude will never be tolerated in the sciences that actually deal with objective reality (STEM), but other liberal arts seem to be okay with the idea that anything should be tolerated. This is not exactly a bad thing if you’re just talking about paintings or sculptures. Inspiration can come from anywhere and this leads to great variety. In architecture this is okay if the work is seen purely as a work of art, an icon to be seen and noticed. But architecture is also part of the social fabric, meaning that we have a certain responsibility - in the form of respecting the context and surroundings, in the form of showing sense, sensibility and sensitivity.

The postmodernists correctly realized that the modernist pursuit of objective answers in architecture was flawed, but their response to the situation was far from ideal. The pioneers of postmodernism seem to have started with a good intention, but their successors repurposed it to ironically serve their own little egos. “I should be able to do anything I want and get away with it, because it is all about me there is no truth,” said the postmodernist, much like an immature teenager rebelling against the strict values and rules of the parents.

Postmodernism is trying to be a little too politically correct, accepting of most things with minimal critique. They say that there are multiple truths, but forget that truth by definition rules out other statements that are not coherent with it. By saying there are multiple realities and histories, they dilute the very idea of what truth means, which according to me is an even more serious offense than just denying it. Truth is not something that you can wish into existence. It needs to be pure and independent of flawed perception or imperfect communication. There are only multiple opinions, and it is easy to confuse that for truth.

Perhaps truth is not something that we should even be concerned with when trying to create subjective beauty, except in the form of using objective facts and figures that may guide the design process and functionality.

The problem with modernism

  
They propose an objective solution to a “problem” that is obviously subjective. While they definitely reflected the spirit of the age in their works, and their dedication to truth and purity was commendable, they let themselves be too taken away by their own reflection in the glass, going so far as to prescribe a final architectural “solution”. Perhaps it was the excitement of creating architecture using new technology at a scale that was never explored before, that lead them to this delusion of grandeur.

Moving on   

  
Our heightened sense of ego makes us want to think that we can address a lot of social issues, even things outside our domain. But we can't be engineers and “solve” architecture. We can't be psychologists and assume responsibility of peoples' problems. But maybe we can create spaces that make it a little easier for people to have fun and be happier, whether in the cities or the suburbs.

Let engineers be like modernists finding solutions, let artists be like postmodernists asking for acceptance and tolerance, and let architects be wise enough to move on from the dogma of old ideas, to not over-romanticize any one ideology and to not let our ego fool us into taking ourselves too seriously - all this while trying to make the world a better place to live in for all, and maybe have some fun along the way.

_________

In all movements, there are good examples (usually the earlier ones) and there are bad ones (newer reinterpretations). Here I highlight some examples of the eclectic-historic-ironic a.k.a. postmodern buildings that I've come across:

View from my old home in Dubai | 1999 vs. 2010
Growing up I was excited to see all these springing up in the desert, but I wasn't particularly inspired by their forms or meaning in the local context. The city, having never seen a "Modern" phase, has been ironically described by some as "the most Postmodern place ever conceived."

Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai (stereographic projection, 360 image link here) | 2010
"Ugly" is a correct response to many of these buildings.

The monstrosity next to the holiest site in Islam
Postmodernism supposedly rejects totalitarianism, but here it can be seen serving totalitarian needs. Perhaps the irony and humor in using historical reference to destroy local history is intentional and apt.

Gehry's Norton House in Venice, CA | Spring 2017

I can appreciate the humor and irony in postmodernism when it occurs in isolation, but I am thankful that most buildings don't look like this.

Aldo Rossi's San Cataldo Cemetery in Modena, 1971

Some of my favorite postmodernist buildings came from architects who started out as pure modernists, some even being in denial of the post-modernity of their buildings. In this case historical reference occurs not through motifs or symbols, but by being embedded in the colors, materials, plan and structure.

More posts by author