International Style and its limitations

Modernism in architecture (or the so-called 'international style') is here to stay. In spite of the fierce critiques of the 20th century's later half, the aesthetics anounced by Le Corbusier are easily recognisable in most contemporary developments, while the Postmodern counterpoints are completely defunct. The defenders of this aesthetic are fully commited to its merits and quick to accuse any of its detractors of philistinism or even populism. Just look at Dezeen's comment section. But if one were to be honest, the dislike of modernism in architecture is more widespread and general than in any other art medium. As an architecture freshman in 2006 I had to discard any prior aesthetic intuition or sense of beauty in order to become initiated in the fine tastes of Gropius, Mies, or F.L. Wright. Or merely in order to receive decent grades. 

After years of training in this very narrow guild, you eventually start to 'get it'; your tastes are shaped to love the international style. Your eyes develop a sort of tunnel vision which zooms in on the villa as if it were a scaleless sculpture with voluptuous shapes and perfectly aligned 'lines of force'. Your inner OSnap alerts you whenever building heights or windows fail to align, or whenever one of those corbusian principles is ignored. Context becomes a nuissance; you don't want to see cars, street lighting or tree canopies in front of your pure designs. Same goes for historical context, everything pre-international style becomes sordid, irrelevant, reactionary, forgettable.

The problem with this mindset is that it can easily be turned into a predictable recipe, unable to move beyond a very limited formal pool. Even its critics seem to be unable to transcend it. What became of critical regionalism? Of Postmodern ironic intertext? Of Charles Jencks' manifesto? Of Lebbeus Woods' brilliant pamphlet which completely eviscerated the modern illusions of functionality and efficiency? Or maybe you are hoping that Patrik Schumacher's 'tectonism' and the parametric / algorithmic approach will save us from the imagination death the international style proved to bring about? I think a city filled with parametric blobs would be even more horrendous than Corbusier's 'Plan Voisin'.

Another problem with the modernist mindset is that it is merely a thought exercise (to which everyone is subjected, whether they like it or not). Even the most ardent supporters of Corbusier's principles CAN leave the lens aside and enjoy the environment of 'Dark Souls', 'Bloodborne' or any other contemporary Romantic masterpiece. They can enjoy the picturesque character of a village in Cotswolds or a city like Bath or Edinburgh. They can have a sense of transcendence while admiring the interior atmosphere of Sacré-Cœur in Montmartre. They are, however, incapable of creating in that language, or even coming close to the qualities of such places in their own modernist designs. It is conceivable that the aesthetic consensus of our profession (in fact, a rejection of aesthetics) is not the only possible outcome among smart and creative types. I don't believe we have reached the end of history, and this applies to architecture just as to any other field.