There is an opinion, shared by professional architects, that there are two directions of further development in architecture. One is traditional, which uses historical styles and facts as a source of formation of new forms. The other direction is a modern architecture that abandons tradition and finds the sources of formation only in modern technology and building materials. Each direction opposes the other, competes, has both supporters and opponents.
Previously, the facades of houses, their interiors were like an open book, looking in which you could get acquainted with the people of past eras. The stylistics were expressed clearly and vividly in each house. The language of architecture was shaped by architectural styles and a system of recognizable images was created. Alas! But now the meaning and the deep essence of these images are forgotten, having become an incomprehensible language that does not find an interlocutor.
The architecture of our time has become detached from historical details and carries little useful information and literary character. The main focus has become abstract ideas and symbols, the handling of space on a level that not everyone can understand and appreciate. Architecture has forgotten the language of past centuries, which relied on a universal vocabulary that could be understood by everyone, regardless of their level and status (spiritual, material).
Opinions are contradictory, but what if we look at them in terms of internal patterns? Just look at the process of forming the architectural appearance of the building, its features, contours, facade. We can observe an interesting picture. Traditional way is typical for the architecture of modern times, from the beginning of the Renaissance to modern architecture!
Contrary to the change of styles, the systematic abandonment of architectural detail, the principle of architectural language formation on its way did not encounter significant changes. Changes occurred in materials and applied technologies, structures and typologies, but buildings stood, trying on new architectural clothes, depending on the fashion, aesthetic or philosophical beliefs.
Architecture is a unified process with a beginning and a logical conclusion, which is what we are witnessing now. Among critics one can hear the opinion that contemporary architecture has reached a crisis, a state of uncertainty, “stupor”. How does this manifest itself?
First, there is a sharp break between the design and construction processes. The builder submits to his will and desires of the architect, paying money for the execution of instructions and orders. In turn, the manufacturer of building materials and structures dictates his terms to both the builder and the architect, putting them in a dependent position. This is the main problem of the organizational process.
Secondly, there is a professional differentiation, in which the architect is not the sole creator. There is a division between architect and designer, architect and designer, and so on. The master does not have the opportunity to realize his plans to the fullest extent.
Third, the problem associated with constructability. Do not combine the design of the building and the selected “outfit” for its architecture.
Finally, most importantly, the attitude. Previously, the building was a creation of “human hands”, the embodiment of the master’s idea to life. Now, it is simply an object of construction, referred to as an object of technical design or landscape.
The true essence of the architectural object is forgotten. Little by little it has been lost, passing from year to year. Aesthetics of deconstruction appeared, the concept of the architectural object was lost.