Check out The Pomo Group

[David Morris]

>From: MalignD at aol.com
>
><<It's sort of taken for granted that the lesson of Los Vegas has
>been learned.>>
>
>There's more going on architecturally in Times Square than the laying of 
>neon
>onto buildings new and old.  There's much new construction and it's that to
>which I referred.  If one's idea of post-modernism is a Chippendale top on
>the AT&T building, then, yes, what's going up at Times Square is something
>other, but it's certainly post-modern, if not "Post Modern."
>
>To cite one example: [snip]  It's funny and audacious and, to my sense of 
>the
>word, entirely post-modern.  Most of the new architecture there is 
>similarly
>colorful and bold.
>

If you were to ask the designers of these buildings if they were "Post 
Modern," they would balk, if not outright deny, which is not to say the 
architects have reacted in varying degrees against the first wave of PoMo.  
In architectural circles "Post Modernism" has a bad name, athough an exact 
definition of the term is as elusive there as in literary circles.  Some of 
the indictments against PoMo in architecture include:

1. Pastiche:  Silly references to past styles or works w/o clear purpose.
2. Insubstantial:  related to #1, but more aimed at the realities of modern 
construction.  "Drywall Palace" is a common phrase.
3. Undisciplined:  the whole is less than the sum of its parts.  References 
do not cohere into a whole argument.

These are but a few.  We may still be "Post Modern," but we've rediscovered 
the beauty of the Moderns, and have a sense that history will treat them 
better than us if we don't shape up.

><<Hardly the place to look for today's predominant architectural 
>zeigheist.>>
>
>Are you so sure?  It's at least worth noting that among recent new tenants 
>in
>the area are Conde Nast, Bertelsmann, Morgan Stanley and Skadden Arps.
>

Did the tenants design the buildings?

><<Even though architects are hirelings, working for the Yankee dollar, 
>those
>promoting the "cutting edge" of theory don't give a damn about what
>"everybody wants."  Just ask Frank Lloyd Wright.>>
>
>Architecture in America, good and bad, has been beholden to the corporate
>dollar.  It's the Seagram's Building, not "Mies van der Rohe's black box."

Pointless point.

>And Frank Lloyd Wright resurrected his dead-in-the-water career with a
>commission from 3M.
>

Frank Lloyd Wright was famous for his "my way or the highway" approach w/ 
his clients.  His work at that time was pure genius.  His "resurrected 
career" was his much-diminished work.

Is Viking Press responsible for Gravity's Rainbow?  Why don't we call it 
_Viking's Rainbow_?

David Morris

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com