Modern
Commentary
I found myself eventually warming to Modernism having always equated it with post-war, unimaginative, poorly built New Towns like Crawley or the Brutalist visions of Erno Goldfinger [Trellick Tower, London].
Where Modernism succeeds is when its architecture expresses its function in a plain, form-follows-function rational, unadorned fashion bereft of any unnecessary cutural, religious or political symbolism. The United Nations building fits that rationale. One can see that this is an International building that owes little to the antecedents of any one country. It also looks to the future not the past.
It is also 'honest' where there is no disguise of the engineering that went into the building. There is no implied strength where none exists or design feature where not needed. It avoids the pastiche or conceit that goes into the building of something that (although well meaning) pretends to be something it is not [e.g. Podium Shopping Center - Bath]
Modernism can also be innovative and dramatic like Niemeyer's Brasilia Cathedral or Peutz's Glass Palace [Netherlands 1935], which looks very contemporary.
Response
I think that this is a sensitive and perceptive analysis of the high Modernist style. At its best, Modernism was indeed capable of producing buildings which possess a refreshing and invigorating elegance of style allied to a rigorous economy of means. I would, however, introduce the caveat that the apparent functionality of high Modernism is often achieved through the lavish use of expensive materials and very high-quality design and construction techniques (I am thinking here in particular of the work of architects such as Mies van der Rohe, who were never shy in their use of decidedly non-'functional' materials, such as marble, polished granite, or even bronze,in their more prestigious commissions!). Which would seem to suggest to me that the sleek minimalist chic of high Modernism was perhaps often not quite as 'unadorned' or as purely 'functional' as the Modernists themselves would have us believe...?
