Building for humans: architecture after modernism

Christian Century, March 10, 2009 by Matthew J. Milliner

Glazer identifies the fissure underlying abstract architectural discussion today, a discussion lost for some time in the smoke and mirrors of postmodernism. Those who seek to follow a contemporary architectural discussion are rightfully puzzled by the opacity and baffled to hear architects say, for example, that they are now "beyond building." Glazer, however, provides a cogent explanation for the bewildering intellectual atmosphere: "Architecture in recent years has turned away from the pragmatic social and behavioral sciences to the wilder reaches of critical theory because its early efforts to design better housing turned into a failure."

Critical theory is the study, inspired mostly by thinkers in the Marxist tradition, of how social meaning is generated and maintained by social elites. Critical theorists examine texts-and buildings--for how they uphold traditional meanings and, presumably, repressive social orders.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

From a Cause to a Style is not a wholesale condemnation, and the book's elegant, judicious tone keeps it from ever descending into a harrumph. Modernism may be an ideal style for certain kinds of buildings or monuments. Glazer concedes, for example, that the very modern Vietnam Memorial is a success. But the limits of the style are evident. Modern simplicity makes for wonderful factories, claims another of Glazer's repentant Modernists. However, "let a religious belief or a social ideal replace cubic foot costs or radiation losses, and nothing happened. There is not a single modern church in the entire country that is comparable to a first-rate cafeteria."

According to Glazer, critical theory is now the ruling mindset of architecture. As a result, Glazer has little hope that an architecture of beauty is on the horizon. Today's "starchitects," such as Frank Gehry and Daniel Libeskind, seem more interested in generating buzz than in creating humane models for urban life. Furthermore, because postmodern architecture lacks the narrative force to fully overturn the anathema on ornament, Modernism has reasserted itself.

Not only would it embarrass architects to design decorative detail or call for it; they wouldn't know how to do it, and there would be no craftspeople to provide it. The workers who once carved and sculpted the decorated surfaces of buildings in the late 19th and early 20th century simply don't exist.

Glazer's solution is a sober one. We should cultivate appreciation for the accomplishments of the now unrepeatable past. If ever there was a charge to jealously defend premodern churches, Glazer provides it: "We can preserve the buildings of the past. We can't build them again."

Conservation of premodern architecture, however, may be an insufficient strategy, especially considering that a recent survey conducted by LifeWay found that most people prefer churches that are built in the traditional, premodern style. One indication of what a renewal of traditional architecture and urban planning might involve is the book Till We Have Built Jerusalem, by Philip Bess, head of the graduate school of architecture at the University of Notre Dame, which is spearheading a countercultural focus on traditional design.