Why don’t we build things in the Romanesque style anymore?

Sorry, Romanesque was definitely the wrong word to use. I don’t really know the correct way to describe it. I’ve just observed that America and Europe no longer produce large scale monuments anymore.

We don't build stuff in old styles because old styles are old for a reason. They were built that way because art is historical, and in the time that they were built, they were necessary, new, and innovative.

But today, it is old and traditional, because it has already been done, and done a hundred times over.

Even though I understand that you find it aesthetically pleasing, you must understand that art is a living thing within the people that exist in a specific place and time, and certain things do no longer apply.

The architecture of the Greeks and the architecture it went on to influence will always be superior to the architecture of today. European architecture beautiful and powerful. It was simple yet intricate. And it will always be better than what we build today.

If art is a living thing then it must currently be suffering from a disease

Because there are cheaper ways to build a structure?

>The architecture of the Greeks and the architecture it went on to influence will always be superior to the architecture of today.

Why? Explain why it is superior? You can't. And the reason is simply because you romanticize the past.

the ancents would probably think the same if they saw some 1km skycraper of today, in its own way it's a miracle of architecture

The west is more rich than ever

...

A small part of it is because it's not wasting money on beautiful things. Why would you spent money on a building your employees work in when you can buy another yacht? Look on architecture as part of the society and you'll find plausible explanations, as nothing exists on its own, but in a certain everchanging context.

>because you romanticize the past.
What an incredibly passive aggressive thing to say. It has nothing to do with the past. If it was just now being built and “modern” art wasn’t modern and had been done thousands of years ago I would say the same exact thing.

Due to its size

Extreme individualism destroyed America and I doubt it will ever recover from it.

>What an incredibly passive aggressive thing to say.

Maybe. But it's the truth. If you find yourself unable to view contemporary art or architecture as beautiful, perhaps you need to learn to see in the same way you already know how to see the beauty in traditional art.

And of course you ignored the main part of my post:
>If it was just now being built and “modern” art wasn’t modern and had been done thousands of years ago I would say the same exact thing.
I’m not even surprised.

>need to learn
I didn’t learn how to appreciate it. It is instantaneously observable. That is why the opinions of people like you are worthless. You could learn how to appreciate shit.

>ART IS SUBJECTIVE MAAAAAAAAAAAN ARTS A LIVING THING MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN ALL ART IS EQUAL MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN
lmao people only say this when their taste is god fucking awful

>ART IS SUBJECTIVE MAAAAAAAAAAAN

Where did I say that you fucking teenage sperg?

Bigot piece of shit all art is equal all art is just as good as all other art but I wouldn’t expect you to understand. You see, I’m spent 40,000 dollars in art school learning these things

even a bot could do better

>And of course you ignored the main part of my post:

Yeah, because it's a bullshit remark, and you cannot possibly know that it's true, because you live now and have been socialized to live in 2018, not 300 BCE.

So stop being an arrogant idiot.

>lmao dude that pantheon is DOPE LIKE SHIT that true art my ancestors did

Economics. Capitalism and Socialism have been the dominant economic schools of thought for the past 100 years and neither is particularly conducive towards art patronage which is what created shit like the Sistine Chapel. Both value economic efficiency far more than artistry.
>we lack the necessary technique, and technology
kek, kys you deluded traditionalist. We live in the most technologically advanced point in human history. We could write programs that could mass produce 3D printed statues on par with Michelangelo's David if we wanted to. The only reason we don't is because they'd be a waste of fucking time.

>I spent 40,000 dollars learning how to appreciate shit
Even a bot has better taste than you

>is because they'd be a waste of fucking time.
And letting millions of North Africans and Muslims suck your tit isn’t?

he's too dumb to google forgery, dont mind him

>derailing this blatantly
gtfo. I never said I supported that shit. That isn't even the topic of this thread.

I said "on par with" dumbass, not literally copying the David. God you neo-reactionaries are fucking retarded.

>Both value economic efficiency far more than artistry.
Your words, not mine

>neo-reactionaries
THIS! THIS SO FUCKING MUCH! Ten years ago my eyesight got incredibly poor but I think I’ll hold off going to the doctor for a bit longer

uhmmmm i wonder what would be the value of something that can be mass produced like that, i really wonder
it's almost like those art pieces had value because they could only be produced by a few handcraft masters

>Importing muslims is the only way to have an efficient economy
China says hi
Which brings you back to my first response to this idiotic post. I never said that the value of such mass produced statues would be equivalent to the David. In fact that's part of the reason why I said making them would be a waste of time. I was refuting the ridiculous idea that marble statues stopped being made because we somehow lack the technological ability in the 21st fucking century that people in the 16th century had for some reason. But sure, anything to support your Great Decline narrative.

>part of the reason
well i would be curious to hear the other reasons

>modern architecture is terr-

Because modern construction methods are way better in every way

Yeah fuck that
This is exactly where l don’t want to live

This wasn't actually built, right?

Another reason being that it's just not something that the rich and powerful value as much anymore. Art and architecture like in OP's picture only came to exist because it's what rich people back in that day wanted to see. Now the paradigm has shifted massively. Monetary wealth in it of itself, is now the primary source of prestige. The rich do still act as patrons of certain areas of art, mind you, but that kind of investment just isn't the source of status that it used to be because of how much socio-economic systems have changed in the past 500 years.

Technological advancement also plays a key role in all of this. The camera is arguably the most significant force in the decline of Realism's value. All of a sudden, marble and paint were objectively inferior tools to use to capture reality. They could never compete in achieving that goal, even in the hands of a master. Pictures themselves even made capturing realism through drawing not as impressive a feat anymore. Pic related was drawn with pencil. Having a static and extremely detailed image such as a photograph gives an artist the perfect subject. So perfect, in fact, that there's nowhere near as much challenge in it. Once again, it's not as if realism has died. There still exist plenty of artists that can still utilize the skills and techniques of the artists of the past, but these are some of the factors that have caused such skills to decline in popularity.

No, but something like it was.

>emmaposter
hug me bro
i was simply shitposting anyway, everything you wrote is correct, especially this last post
drawing can still be cool tho, even if it's true that realism is kinda pointless now

>money is the only thing that matters

Fuck off to your souless commieblock

Because it inspires people too much and lifts the human soul, and the cabal of people who run the world wants people to be miserable and uninspired consumers.

because building technology has come a long way since 1900 and buildings should be materially honest.

>we cant build like that anymore

the technology those buildings were built with is objectively shit

They demolished a 19th century neo Romanesque church in Germany THIS MONTH to make way for a fucking coal mine, despite the thing being a protected building.

youtube.com/watch?v=UGyj3MbSbCo

The Jews

>buildings should be materially honest.
Hey, instead of bricks, stones and wood which are cheap and easy to mass produce, why don't we do everything with glass and steel, which will cost a lot but allow us to make stupidly high constructions?

because you can make better buildings with concrete and steel.

if you have the capital to make a masonry building that caters to your autism feel you are free to do so. developers want to make safe and profitable buildings

You don't get it. The ugly modern abominations you can see everywhere cost more than traditional buildings.

This costed 300 millions:
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musée_des_Confluences

And it need 10 millions a year from the town to stay open.

economic efficiency is more valued than artistry in western architecture

Partially this. Artistry is done for artistry's sake. We don't build things expecting them to be permanent and last forever. Even new parliament buildings.

That’s disgusting

What is neoclassical.

It also cost twice what it was supposed to, Scottish politicians insisted on the very best of everything.

What do you prefer to spend your money on? Movies, video games, and tv shows or marble statues? That's how everyone on the planet is.

You just want to talk about marble statues to virtue signal.

>19th century neo Romanesque
so nothing of value was lost? there's are gorillion of similar churches everywhere in Europe

People love art. They spend time and money going to see art in museums, they buy it to put in their homes.

If humans didn’t care at all about architecture we would all live in cheap and efficient concrete slab houses

So answer the question. How much of your money do you spend on Romanesque style art or marble statues? After all you can't have a lot of these artists if no one even buys their stuff!

Common people were never patrons

>in its own way it's a miracle of architecture
engineering rather

>This is your Brain on burger education

Romanesque style has nothing to do with nelclassical architecturen or art

this looks nice though

developmental biology-esque architecture when
parametricism seems to be similar but it's way too mathematically sterile

muh spending lots of money building fancy buildings is a waste of money and classist

"Old" is a sliding scale in America; in New England there are buildings going back to the 17th century but in the west everything is much newer. My state's capitol literally did not exist in any capacity until ~170 years ago and pretty much all of the oldest buildings didn't get built until the money started rolling in decades later.

fpbp

>You go around towns and cities in America and you can see the old buildings. They are beautiful and powerful.

the bottom line - too expensive.
mods, lock this
thread is OVER everybody go home

literally from 1930

...

...

>after the year 1900
more like 1914 if i were to pin a point

Oh boy, I sure do love yellow and blue vomit.

Because they follow a few principles
They are solid, they have tradition and are based on the ideal proportions of nature and men. You probably heard of the vitruvian man, as have a lot of people.

Vitruvius was an architect who lived in the times of Augustus and who wrote De Architectura, a treatise to cover all of the building arts.

Most importantly, he gave three principles:

FIRMITAS: Buildings should be well built so they will last long. This one is the most obvious.

UTILITAS: They should be useful. They will be used, so their design should keep that in mind and be planned according to what will be its purpose.

VENUSTAS: It should be beautiful. This one is much harder to qualify for us. But to Vitruvius it was about following the human proportions, symmetry and nature. This is often given as the golden ratio (ϕ), which is found in nature often, as well as the human body. Symmetry wasn't about being mirrored, more about being balanced.

english translation here: gutenberg.org/ebooks/20239

built in the 30's in brazil

built in this millenium

it looks great in my opinion

...

built in moscow

Chicago

netherlands
all of this built not ten years ago but it's very well made, you can barely tell

Some russian oligarchs have great taste

you wouldn't even notice it is new if I didn't tell you

Before (shit)

after (not shit)

-ible

Anyway, my point is that if people with money want to do it well it's elementary, there are more classical architecture schools today than there were thirty years ago and this will show very soon

next time we will paint it purple you fucking retard

>Importing muslims is the only way to have an efficient economy
>China says hi

What did he mean by this? Seriously, the Chinese economy is known for its sheer size and rapid growth, not for its efficiency. If it was efficient they wouldn't need to engage in mass protectionism and currency manipulation. If it was efficient they wouldn't be just on parity with countries several hundred million people smaller than them.

t. "I don't understand basic engineering and have no concept of the strength of materials"

go fuck yourself

>Brick and stone are cheap and easy on a massive scale

user, I...

>you can't make classical buildings with concrete
see also: early skyscrapers