Style highlights:
- combining previous styles,
- superficial decorations,
- collage, photomontage in graphic,
- playing with the form,
- form individually adjusted to the user,
- using many layers and mixing them,
- pastel colours.

postmodernism

Postmodernism is a movement in architecture, art, which developed as the response on the simplicity and rationality of modernism. It can also be interpreted as opposition to the concept of rational nature of culture and its linear growth. The creators of this style drew inspiration from historical styles, mixed them. Therefore we can say that the lack of a particular style characterized postmodernism. Post-modern design object was supposed to take care of the comfort of the body, mind and the soul of its user. It was believed that creating buildings, objects with a certain message and symbolism will attract users which did not want to live in austere modernist interiors. Therefore, in postmodernism times return to ornamentation took place.

In the era of postmodernism, the boundaries between the elite culture and popular culture blurred, which led to artistic freedom. It was possible to mix the different conventions, languages and styles or combine materials in unconventional way. Postmodernism authors were using all methods, materials, forms and colours in their projects.

Many theoreticians claimed, that we can distinguish two ways of perceiving the postmodernism:     1) the postmodernism as the reaction to aesthetic aspect of the “modernism” in the first half of the 20th century in architecture, art and literature, 2) the postmodernism as the reaction to former “modernity” of tradition of Age of Enlightenment of the XVIII century. The postmodernism was developing particularly quickly in the 80′s of XX century, when modern offices, skyscrapers were building, which led to the necessity of creating comfortable seats and work places. Postmodernists were creating both comfortable and stylish furniture. Furniture were supposed to be quite useful and functional, but their main goal was to excite public curiosity, by applying appropriate motives, colours or shapes. Therefore in postmodernism appear interesting shapes of furniture, where the form was following the function. As far as the architecture was concerned it was claimed that it does not need to undergo the spirit of time and technological progress. Above all it should depend on the context, mood and finally on personal preferences of the architect and investor.

Postmodernism rejected the development of the mass production, which was visible in the Swiss School and the International Style. Designers were taking care of ornaments, symbolism, often with  the dose of the humour. It was considered that the beauty of art comes from the logic and  the order. The assumption was the lack of boundaries, because the art is unpredictable.

In postmodernism, we can identify separate trends, movements:
- classical postmodernism – is borrowing inspiration from the classical styles, projects taken from ancient Greeks and Romans,
- Memphis style – is promoting freedom of expression in the form and colour,
- deconstructivism – is focusing on the form and design without obeying  normal, structural principles, by using unique patterns, forms,
- High-tech style – is underlining showing industrial and structural elements in the noticeable or decorative way.

Representatives:
Robert Venturi, Michael Graves, Philip Johnson, Robert A.M. Stern Judy McKie, Mark Di Suvero, Richard Serra, John De Andrea, Anthony Gormley, Rowan Gillespie, Anish Kapoor, Jeff Koons, Sudobh Gupta, Damian Ortega, Ian Ritchie.

2 responses



Anon,Why is it obvious that Rand never read Kant? Perhaps you would care to enghliten us rather than just throwing assertions around? Also, is it necessary to read primary sources to gain an understanding of ideas? Most physicists today don’t bother reading Einstein. Doesn’t mean they don’t understand Einstein or that they don’t understand relativity better even than Einstein.Also, Kant is tough going; it’s like swimming in treacle. Kant apparently wrote hurriedly for fear of impending death! So I prefer to read about his ideas from other sources. Briefly my take on Kant is that I consider him an important philosopher because he saw far more clearly than any philosopher before him that contemporary rationality had a big problem, namely how theory can possibly be *justified* by observation. Newton’s theory, which he held to be unassailably true, is exact beyond any observation, it applies to all planetary configurations, and in realms beyond all human experience and measurement (eg star interiors). Furthermore, it is impossible to observe a Newtonian force; to measure a force is to presuppose the truth of Newton’s theory! Unfortunately the solution Kant proposed – such as thinking Newton must be apriori knowledge and that “our intellect does not draw its laws from nature, but imposes its laws upon nature” – triggered much of the irrationalism of postmodernist thought. It didn’t trigger the death of philosophy, however, for 20th century non-post-modernist philosophy went on to correctly solve Kant’s problem without throwing out the notion of objective truth. And thus our 21st century conception of rationality is much improved on Kant, post-modernists not withstanding. But Kant correctly saw the problem and that can never be taken away from him.

20 July 2015 16:56


about your Eyah asher Eyah, tell them I am who am I am, or whatever, with the conemmt that it is not an answer.Jon Agrees, a name is not a definition, the question remains unanswered.You Entech is not the Bible, thank the nameless undescribed one. (what happened to my pet name endwreck, given my past occupation it could have been shipwreck)Me I find it offensive to be associated in any way to that book of yours.You a. The book does not say what Jon claimed b. but you did.___ a. Jon the Bible does not provide an answer.___ b. Me, what you said in your Biblical quote does not provide an answer.As a separate issue I will say that I do not think the Bible provides a clear, concise or even coherent answer _ even in the chapter of Exodus under discussion we get a burning bush an instruction take your shoes off, this is holy ground and I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ; now Moses may have known of the God of his father and of Abraham etc, I say may because was raised as an Egyptian with a different set of Gods, (just an inconsequential detail, one of many) and then we go on about names and smiting Egyptians. In the following chapters G shows his human side, instead of telling pharaoh to give up let my people go he deliberately and with malicious and forethought hardens pharaoh’s heart against the idea of a peaceful departure. This apparently, was so that he could demonstrate his power and omnipotence, not to the Egyptians but to his own people, that we show them that they need to keep in line. There were many other demonstrations but for some reason most did not work, even drowning all but a few didn’t work not very good at his job would be a logical description. But sometime, in the future, when he makes up his mind or maybe stubs his toe on the Rock of Ages he will end it all and save only you, Henry, and all your little friends.

21 July 2015 11:53



Comment now!











Trackbacks