See

Every epoch has its matter of expression, and I'm just gonna rant about it.

A completely catastrophic article, so prepare for hyperbolic femboy opinions.

Seeing the modern era

Firstly, the Farnsworth House has to be hammered into your brain.

Form follows function - this is the maxim of modern architecture, thus shapes are simply kept in terms of geometrical initial integrity. The image illustrates this very well. Spatial clarity is another crucial aspect. There are no intended obstructions for the sake of ornamentation. This is inherently in contrast to Rococo or Baroque, which also have massive spatial fields, yet often with heavy decoration.

For the retarded: the difference between them is primarily the colour palette - Baroque has a more "edgy", while Rococo leans pastel and bimbo.

Both keep the fresco, as well as the Roman/Greek "kitsch Säule".

Crucially, you will notice that both modernism and the styles above provide a sense of high volume.

привет, Россия

If you expected an ugly block, you'd be mistaken.

Let me introduce you to the Stalinka.

You can see the business district behind. It’s an interesting contrast, as it shows both capitalist and communist madness.

By philosophy of impression, the Farnsworth House does not intend to "impress" or "oppress" the viewer. It is very accessible in this regard.

Moscow - yes, that’s the city. Also, their business district is small and on the "absolute outskirt." Still, there are some reasons for it to be there, which is the Кутузовский проспект. (While on the other side of the river, the area is the control arm of Moscow, "so to speak," centered around the проспект - primarily harboring Stalinka buildings of sheer brutality.)

Neoclassic, you can call these. Both Germany and the Soviet Union invested in this form of expression in the 1930s.

I’m tired, but did you see the cathedral before? Baaaaaaroqueeee, mhm, yea. We copy a copy.

The same ideas of pillars and their monumental effect are implemented.

Something I will never understand, but maybe every empire has to be inspired by the Greeks and Romans.

It’s a cognitive affection some people have - for an impression of something that has long fallen.

And now that we have established this, we can look at the not-so-pop and fancy part, i.e., the block.

This brings us back to Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, i.e., the Farnsworth House, finished 1951.

Remember Rococo and Baroque? So does modern architecture, with the block and its opponent, the Miesian utilitarian.

Both have the fundamental concept of "form follows function," but the Soviets turned it into a dehumanizing object.

What is good architecture?

I have criticised many of the previous forms; hence this poses the question: what is good then?

Nothing. Architecture only hurts because it creates a dictating space for the human. The imposed mechanism is not dangerous without the human. It's passive, essentially. Architecture does not build itself; the cultural decay, if expressed, fades within itself without those constructing its monuments.

I feel Technically Present, yet Culturally Bankrupt