Nice summary

MODERN ARCHITECTURE  was a great social reform movement. The avantgardism that masquerades as Modernism today is little more than shallow, narcissistic, fickle fashion.

Comments

[Matt Edens]

I'll buy social reform movement.

But, great?

[David Sucher]

You'll have to ask Massengale, of course.

But to my limited knowledge it would qualify as "great" because of its comprehensive & novel vision which combined social and environmental reform. Not too many like that: maybe William Morris? Who else?

[Brian Miller]

And, there remain "great" modern buildings. Only a relative few, and generally not in the middle of an intact urban fabric, but I'm not willing to say that we should be only building Victorian cottages now. (Especially given how awful modern materials and workmanship would make the neoVictorian stuff). :)

[Matt Edens]

Okay, I was being a bit glib. Sure the scale and scope was indeed wide reaching and could therefore be called "great". But whether it resulted in great things is, well, open to debate.

And that critique doesn't automatically translate into a yearning for the gingerbread of yesteryear, a manifestation of middle class aspirations and gaudy "good taste" that live on in today's McMansions.

And Morrison was hardly the only Victorian who embraced social and environmental reform. I'd say that, rather than his handicraft ideas, the machine-era modernist pioneers like Gropius wereessentially putting a socialist spin on on the "model village" movement in 19th century Britian.

[Matt Edens]

Whoops, meant Morris.