Tom Wolfe is a journalist and apparently has some sort of background in architecture, based on his vast knowledge of architectural history. This book is not necessarily about drafting or architectural technique or anything of that sort, but more about the world of the architect in the 20th century. He focuses on a group of architects that build "The International Style" in the middle of the 1900's and make this new style less of a trend than a requirement for success in the architectural world. Wolfe is obviously biased against this group's style of building design (constant use of the terms "boring", "boxy", and equally unflattering terms), but he makes many great points about the way this group of "artists" worked in their field of expertise.
The main question that this book raised in my mind was about the art world in general. The men written most in this book were critics of everything that didn't fall into their own style of design. They shunned and ridiculed those that didn't have the same "less is more" mentality and constantly scoffed at classic works of architectural greatness calling all ornamentation and unnecessary decoration "bourgeoisie". The fact that most of their design was only admired by and the architects were only employed by the bourgeoisie they claimed to detest was lost in their bloated heads. The question of the art world that the book raised to me was involved in this pride that the architects felt for their own work and colleagues. They were elitists that would not accept any other form of art as equal to their own pristine style. This attitude made most who didn't like the "International Style" into those who just didn't understand their brilliance and turned regarded them as lesser architects/critics/art lovers. This mentality is what made the "International Style" into the most used (and overused) style of architecture of the 1900's.
Finally, the question that was most prevalent during my read was: how much of art trends and the art world in general is based on undecipherable code and intimidating peer pressure. In my life the only place where peer pressure has defined my taste (that I can remember, anyhow) is in the realm of music. I have probably done this same pressuring myself. I don't really have an answer to this question, but maybe someday I will. How much of our artistic taste is formed because of peer pressure? Hmmm....
1 comment:
It seems like only 5% of our taste is not affected by peer, cultural or marketing pressure. It affects the way we dress, decorate, what we find aesthetically pleasing, etc. Right? I look back on art that I once thought was lovely but now think is ridiculous and know that our tastes are constantly changing with our culture.
Anyways, with artists, there are plenty of artistic trends (which is why we have so many art movements) and it takes an almost out of touch person to create something that is completely unaffected by it's surroundings. Then, that person either starts a new movement or is uncategorized and as a result, usually forgotten. It gets a little more grey with modern art (seems like we're using broader terms now) but in 100 years, it will probably be as clear as it is for us when we look back 100 years now.
Post a Comment