English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

What are the reasons for the negative reception of modern architecture in the 1960s and 1970s? If we consult the critics themselves, the counter-reaction is a result of the overflow of new semantic insights from disciplines such as psychology and sociology in architecture. But if we turn to philosophy of architecture, Nelson Goodman's notion of exemplification might provide some answers; not only to the critiques of modern architecture but also to the epistemic turn affecting architecture. This article argues that it was the extensive use of a formalist aesthetics of exemplification which led to condemnation of the International Style, Brutalism and Structuralism for producing monotonous, self-referential and meaningless works of architecture. By examining the historical critiques of modern architecture under the lens of Goodman's notion of exemplification, a picture emerges where it is the hegemony of one symbol system, exemplification, that may well be the culprit for the negative response to modernism.

Exemplification as explanation: The negative reception of modern architecture revisited