Do you ever look at certain buildings and just ask
why? Are they intentionally weird and
tacky or just designed with no taste? Is it a joke? Or was it designed by a child? Well,
all of those things could be true. However, while it may seem like in the 20th century,
some architects just collectively lost their minds, there is an explanation for how buildings
got this way. It’s difficult to categorize these designs into a single cohesive movement. However,
some architectural theorists have collectively described them as “Postmodern Architecture.”
The first time I heard this term though, I was really confused. How could a style be “post” modern?
What exactly does it mean and why do these buildings look so bizarre?
♫ Intro Music ♫
Postmodernism is often defined as a response to Modernism. However, Modernism is already a
really difficult term to define. Hence why I actually have two other videos on that topic.
This video is a sequel to those so I’d encourage you to check them out if you haven’t already.
Postmodern Architecture is even more confusing and arguably the most misunderstood architectural
movement ever. This is because: 1) Postmodernism is best understood as a philosophy, not a visual style.
2) Most “experts” such as academics disagree over its definition. And 3) a prominent
aspect of Postmodern design is that it defies having consistency of formal principles and style,
so how do you define something that rejects being defined at its very core?
In 1959, the architect Robert Venturi’s mother, Vanna Venturi, asked him to design
a small suburban house for her. It is widely considered the first postmodern building.
Vanna did not envision a grandiose “dream house,” she instead hoped for a humble, unpretentious
house with a modest budget. Venturi decided to distort the pure order of the modernist box by
reintroducing disproportional arrangements of classical elements such as four-paned windows,
arches, the pediment, and the decorative dado – which were considered outrageous in modernism.
The exterior of the house was later painted green in 1967 to make it analogous to the surrounding
landscape. The modernist architect Marcel Breuer once said “One thing I never do is use green on
my house because that’s the colour of nature and you never do that.” Thus Venturi thought it would
be a good idea. Venturi also designed the house to fit with his mother’s old furniture which included
some antiques. Eclecticism was unacceptable in Modernism. However, the reality is that
the average person’s furniture collection often tends to be “un-pure” and eclectic.
Robert Venturi would eventually publish several deeply influential books that demonstrate the
shortcomings of Modernist principles, including Learning from Las Vegas (written along with Denise
Scott Brown and Steven Izenour) which I explored in depth in my last video.
In his 1966 book “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture,” he coined the phrase
"Less is a bore” which is a reaction to “Less is more,” a saying popularized by Modern
Architecture pioneer Ludwig Miles van der Rohe. Regarding his design approach, Venturi said:
“I like elements which are hybrid rather than ‘pure,’ compromising rather than ‘clean,’
distorted rather than ‘straightforward,’ accommodating rather than ‘excluding,’
inconsistent and equivocal rather than ‘direct and clear’ ... I am for messy vitality
over obvious unity ... An ar­chi­tec­ture of com­plex­ity and con­tra­dic­tion
must em­body the dif­fi­cult unity of in­clu­sion rather than the easy unity of ex­clu­sion.”
Venturi claimed that he wasn’t intending on starting a new movement. And while he and many
other designers around the world diverged from Modernist doctrine throughout the 60s and 70s
the term “Post-Modern Architecture” wasn’t defined or used to describe this transition until 1977
when architectural theorist Charles Jencks wrote the book “The Language of Post-Modern Architecture.”
Jencks describes Post-Modern buildings as hybrid structures that are “double coded” with
mixtures of modern, traditional, and vernacular elements. Jencks also used the word “revolution”
interestingly, he refers to the old definition of the world, which means “to revolve back” and saw
Post-Modern Architecture as a revolution of ornament, iconography, and pluralism.
In the late 1970s, the Staatsgalerie, an art museum in Stuttgart, Germany,
which has been open since 1843, held a design competition to construct a new gallery next
to the old building. The winning design, by James Stirling of Michael Wilford & Associates,
integrated classical 19th-century elements with modern, industrial materials and aesthetics,
including traditional exterior cladding materials of travertine and sandstone,
a glass gabled roof canopy, an undulating glass facade with apple green window mullions, bright
blue and pink pipes that outline the museum’s circulation paths, and an inner rotunda courtyard
that features traditional elements such as arched windows, columns, architraves, and banded masonry patterns
The historical integration, however, goes deeper than just surface-level visual motifs.
Stirling also organized the Neue Staatsgalerie in a “U” shape that is reminiscent of the
neoclassical arrangement of the old museum. Jim Stirling, along with many other prominent
architects of the late twentieth century, was heavily influenced by the architectural historian
Colin Rowe, who applied the notion of collage, an artistic strategy popularized by Cubists
like Picasso and Braque, to the design and planning of cities and urban architecture.
Although Postmodern architecture is often associated with the rejection of early 20th
century Modernists, many architects who were former Modernists, also abandoned their previous
doctrines in later decades and eventually became known as Postmodernists themselves. These days,
Le Corbusier gets dumped on a lot for coming up with ridiculous plans to tear down Paris
and replace its historic structures with identical modern skyscrapers. His theories
are often used as prime examples of the failures of Modernism. However, works from Le Corbusier’s
later career diverged significantly from his own principles, and those works are often considered
to be examples of early Post-Modernism. In 1954, he designed a Catholic chapel in Ronchamp, France.
The organically shaped walls, curved roof, and sloped floor represent a shift away from the
rectilinear boxes that characterize his past works; The irregular arrangement of windows
that scatter across the walls goes against the principles of perfect mathematical ratios he
previously embraced. The glazing also consists of a mixture of clear and hand-painted glass,
which appear as Modern interpretations of Gothic and Romanesque stained-glass windows,
a departure from the Modernist tendency of avoiding historical references.
In addition to re-embracing historicism and ornamentation, Jencks identified another
prominent strain of Post-Modern architecture, one that focuses on fragmentation and improvisation.
The Ni-Ban-Kan (also known as Building Number Two), a mixed-use commercial tower designed by
Japanese architect Minoru Takeyama, is meant to reflect the chaotic nature of Tokyo’s environment,
by combining different geometries, juxtaposed patterns, and bold imagery inspired by
commercial supergraphics. The building also doesn’t have any obvious entrance,
as the outside public space is brought directly into the interior, further symbolizing the
building’s integration with the city. This building was designed with the intent of
serving multiple purposes and to evolve over time. As I mentioned in the previous video,
the Modernist motto “Form Follows Function” is often criticized for being
rigid and unrealistic. A building’s function is rarely static and usually changes over time.
This fragmented approach, and the chaotic assemblage of not only shapes but also ideas,
would be further explored by many other designers around the world in the 80s and 90s, which led
to a sub-movement of Postmodernism that is now categorized by theorists as “Deconstructivism.”
So if the radical ideas proposed by Modernists in the early 20th century are so problematic,
why don’t we just forget them and go back to building traditional, classical buildings?
Well, some people are. Architectural revival is certainly something people do all over the world.
However, a regression to the past isn’t always feasible or preferred. Jim Stirling argued that
“we live in a complex layering of cultures where it makes little sense to deny either the past
or the present technical and social reality.” By responding to context,
architecture can acknowledge change and difference while accepting memory.
So how did Postmodern design ideas work their way into the mainstream? In the last video,
I pointed out that Modern Architecture likely took off all around the world during the 40s and 50s
due to its efficiency in post-war construction efforts. Through a similar lens, we can see
how Postmodernism’s rejection of the formal establishment can be appealing in the context
of counterculture and protest movements between the 1960s and 70s. Additionally,
certain Postmodern theories appealed to political movements that valued individualism and local autonomy.
For instance, Jane Jacobs’ criticism of Modernism’s top-down solutions, and her
championing of grassroots, community-driven, and small-business-oriented efforts of neighbourhood
rejuvenation were embraced by new libertarian movements of the 1980s. The proliferation of
Postmodernism, however, cannot be attributed to just a few specific subcultures during one
period of time. The evolution of Modern and Postmodern ideas took place at different times
and in different ways all over the globe, resulting in a variety of movements and
trends that came in multiple waves, diverging and intersecting with each other over time.
However, while it may seem like the embracing of diversity in architecture is a contemporary
phenomenon that is a result of globalization and multiculturalism, rejecting formal architectural
principles through complexities and contradictions has historical precedence dating back to as
early as the early 1500s. Mannerism is an artistic and architectural style that emerged in the 16th
century as a response to the rigid principles of the High Renaissance that predate this period.
Similar to early 20th century Modernism, The High Renaissance was also a period where architects
emphasized the use of strict proportions, balance, symmetry, and harmonious mathematical ratios,
which they argued as objective, universal rules in achieving ideal beauty. Mannerists
intentionally broke the rules set out by their predecessors by experimenting with more fluid
forms, exaggerated proportions, intentional misalignments, ambiguous patterns, and unusual
combinations. Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi were heavily influenced by Mannerism
and argued that the response to Modernism is the new Mannerist movement of our time.
Therefore, postmodern architecture can look weird and unconventional because
it’s often a complex layering of multiple histories or a hybrid of numerous contextual counterpoints.
It may be attempting to connect past, present, and future.
And it isn’t meant to follow a particular set of rules of any established style. A building
may look bizarre and confusing to you, but perhaps it makes total sense to its surrounding community.
The theory of Postmodern Design was a subject of contentious debate from the very beginning.
Some define it as a movement that directly opposes Modernism, others see it as a continuation and
evolution of Modernism. There is no “typical” look for a Postmodern building be because
its look depends on the context. So since the primary rule of Postmodernism seems to be
“there are no rules,” what is even the point of defining and discussing Postmodern Architecture?
Well, personally, I think it’s still an important topic of discussion because while it’s difficult
to define, a consistent characteristic of Postmodern theory, that most agree on, is
that it challenges what appears to be established fundamentals, questions essentialist outlooks,
and considers problems within a multitude of subjective contexts.
So do you think Postmodern buildings are distasteful, populist, and superficial?
Or do you appreciate a more complex, hybrid, and fluid approach to design? Are there any bizarre
buildings near you that you either find ridiculous or interesting? Let me know in the comments below!
Thanks for watching everyone, and thank you to my friends who helped me read some of the
quotes in this video. You can check out links to their YouTube channels in the description below.
If you want to see more videos like this in the future, don’t forget to subscribe
and I’d really appreciated it if you dropped a little tip off in my Ko-fi account, but no
obligation of course. Thanks for your support and I’ll talk to you guys next time! *snap!*
♫ Outro Music ♫