Peter Blake’s article, “Are You Illiterate About Modern Architecture?” first appeared in Vogue’s September 1961 issue.
To explore more highlights from Vogue’s archives, subscribe to our Nostalgia newsletter here.
Just as Paris was the heart of modern art in the early 1900s, the United States is now the hub of modern architecture. Globally, renowned American architects—both native and foreign-born—are celebrated for their influential work. Early modern architecture in Europe and beyond drew inspiration from Chicago’s great architects from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. Today, architects in Europe, Asia, and Africa are motivated by the creations of contemporary Americans. Louis I. Kahn, arguably the most innovative U.S. architect since Wright, is a key influence, along with Philip Johnson, Edward D. Stone, Paul Rudolph, Craig Ellwood, and Minoru Yamasaki. European-born American pioneers like Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius, Marcel Breuer, Richard Neutra, and Eero Saarinen also contribute significantly with their American projects.
While the general public might recognize the names of leading pioneers like Saarinen and Johnson, many struggle to distinguish their work from that of lesser architects. The dynamic evolution in architecture often goes unnoticed. To some, modern architecture appears uniform: glass-and-metal grids draped over steel and concrete frames, with little variation or attention to beauty. They accept this similarity, assuming it makes modern architecture affordable.
However, the reality is quite different. Although constructing a modern building today is cheaper than building Chartres Cathedral would be, modern architecture is far from inexpensive—and it doesn’t all look alike. In fact, few contemporary art forms in America or elsewhere feature such fiercely competing factions. The diversity and lack of consensus among American architects are part of its appeal. While glass-and-metal grids are a common feature, they only become architecture in the hands of skilled artists. For instance, Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building in New York, made of glass and metal, stands worlds apart from the shoddy imitations on Park Avenue, much like T.S. Eliot’s poetry differs from ordinary prose. (Moreover, the Seagram Building is one of the most expensive structures per square foot ever built, rivaling Angkor Wat.)
In summary, it’s important to recognize that: (a) many modern structures aren’t true architecture; (b) modern architects use materials ranging from ancient stone to advanced plastics, drawing inspiration from historic piazzas to futuristic sci-fi; (c) modern architecture isn’t particularly cheap; and (d) modern architects don’t equate ugliness with virtue.
Defining what American architects believe is more challenging. A common belief among them is that a building’s structural frame serves as an ethical foundation for architecture. Since modern architecture often originated from functional structures like bridges, dams, and hangars, shaped by engineering needs, many architects are fixated on “expressing structure.”
This focus has sometimes led to unusual outcomes. For example, a talented architect like Victor Lundy in Florida might perform impressive feats with laminated wood arches, while another designer couldIn New York, talented architects like Ulrich Franzen may be captivated by the elegance of hinged steel arches. However, many of their peers, including Lundy and Franzen, have started adorning their buildings with symbols intended to “express structure”—though these often bear little or no relation to the actual supports holding up the roof.
Take Philip Johnson’s Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, for example. It features a striking portico with sculpted arches that appear to be made of formed concrete but are actually crafted from a Texan version of travertine. These decorative elements are carefully fitted around slender steel pipe columns that serve as the real structural supports—columns that would look as flimsy as toothpicks if left exposed.
Mies van der Rohe has been practicing this approach for years. While his iconic glass towers rely on standard steel columns and beams, encased in concrete to meet building codes, he consistently adds vertical steel rails to the exteriors. Shaped like I-beams, these rails are purely symbolic, supporting nothing but themselves, yet they create the illusion of structural relevance.
This trend of “expressing structure” through applied pilasters and porticos is set to take center stage at New York’s Lincoln Center. There, nearly every building will be fronted with arched porticos that serve no purpose beyond “decorating a plaza,” as the 19th-century German neo-classicist Karl Friedrich Schinkel once described it. Philip Johnson embraced Schinkel’s influence without hesitation in his Fort Worth museum design, even reveling in his eclectic style to the frustration of more purist contemporaries.
Some early pioneers of modern architecture would surely be dismayed by these developments. Auguste Perret, Le Corbusier’s teacher fifty years ago, famously stated that “decoration always hides an error in construction.” His contemporary, Viennese architect Adolf Loos, went so far as to declare decoration “a crime” in an essay. Yet, in just half a century, their views have been overturned: through a semantic shift, “decoration” has been rebranded as “symbolism,” and what was once condemned as criminal is now accepted.
At times, the obsession with symbolizing structure takes on surreal qualities. Some architects, inspired by the thin-shell vaults and hyperbolic paraboloids engineered by innovators like Mexico’s Felix Candela, have embraced what can only be called “imaginary structures.” These designs mimic Candela’s graceful forms superficially but defy engineering principles to the point that they couldn’t stand on their own—requiring hidden supports to prevent collapse. The 1958 Brussels World’s Fair marked a peak in this structural frenzy, with pavilions competing in audacious displays that twisted Perret’s wisdom into: “Construction always hides an error in construction!”
Fortunately, most “structural exhibitionists” have since tempered their enthusiasm. They’ve learned to collaborate with engineers, applying new forms more judiciously. Architects such as I. M. Pei, Gordon Bunshaft, John Johansen, and Victor Christ-Janer have shown that shells, domes, and arches have their place—but that place isn’t everywhere.
On the other hand, many modern architects don’t consider “expressing structure” to be the ultimate goal.Most of a building’s cost is tied up in services such as heating, air conditioning, and plumbing. As a result, some architects have started to highlight these services instead of focusing on structural forms. The leading figure in this movement is Louis Kahn, a distinguished sixty-year-old architect from Philadelphia. His Richards Medical Research Building at the University of Pennsylvania is a striking complex made of brick, concrete, and glass, featuring tall brick shafts that house all the intricate services needed for research labs. These imposing shafts are as powerful as the towers of San Gimignano, which Kahn greatly admires. While they contain the services they are meant to symbolize, they also dramatize them in a way that no cost-accountant would ever approve.
Another example is the Blue Cross Building in Boston, designed by Paul Rudolph, who heads Yale’s School of Architecture. Here, air-conditioning ducts are attached to the façade instead of being hidden inside, running the full height of the structure and resembling small concrete columns. This gives a new twist to Perret’s saying: “Construction sometimes conceals a maze of duct-work.” We can expect more buildings to express services rather than structure, as both Kahn and Rudolph influence their peers. Soon, we might see mail chutes, telephone wires, pneumatic tubes, and even soft drink dispensers displayed on the outside. Or maybe not—many agree with Mies van der Rohe, who recently stated, “You can’t make architecture out of pipes.”
While no architect has ever defined beauty to everyone’s satisfaction, some modernists have tried hard. Edward D. Stone, known for his concrete grillwork screens from New Delhi to his hometown of Fayetteville, Arkansas, speaks poetically about his romantic pavilions. Minoru Yamasaki, a Detroit architect, discusses harmony and serenity and achieves them in his delicate temples of precast concrete. Other architects also eloquently pursue beauty.
However, some modernists mock these beauty-seekers, calling their buildings pretty rather than beautiful. English critic Dr. Reyner Banham has labeled some of them the “ballet school” of American architecture, while others are less polite, grumbling about “exterior decoration” and other breaches of purity. Louis Kahn, who is very polite, believes that having “character” is more important than beauty—an argument reminiscent of spinsters’ views. Mies van der Rohe contends that if a building represents “truth,” it will also be beautiful, borrowing from St. Augustine’s chaste beliefs. Since 1945, Le Corbusier has worked exclusively in raw concrete, and his followers, calling themselves the “New Brutalists,” create buildings that are deliberately rough in form and crude in detail. To them, as to Kahn, beauty lies in the virile ruthlessness of their designs—or, in other words, “beauty is ugliness.” This could be called the Marlon Brando school of modern architecture. (In Japan, the “New Brutalists” have spoiled the effect because Japanese craftsmen can’t build imperfectly, so their architecture in Tokyo and Kyoto ends up looking rather pretty.)
The “New Brutalists” are a serious group, related to the “Action Painters” of the New York School and the “Angry Young Men” of English theater. They believe that a building showing the imperfect mark of human hands, rather than the uniform imprint of a machine, can convey a sense of authenticity and vitality.Some buildings speak more powerfully when they aren’t overly refined. Unfortunately, not all architects have the same skill. A Brutalist structure by masters like Le Corbusier, Louis Kahn, or the young Japanese talent Kenzo Tange can possess the monumental presence of an Easter Island statue, while a lesser architect’s attempt might resemble the plain backside of a grocery store.
Yet the main challenge in American architecture today isn’t the single building, but the entire city and its surroundings. One critic recently labeled this trend “Chaoticism,” but it’s less a movement and more a symptom of our lack of civilization. Each new highway seems to invite a sprawl of cheap commercial development, and urban open spaces often attract further vulgarity.
Many younger architects are striving to combat this decline and create a more civilized, even beautiful, American landscape. They believe the first step is to establish a sense of order, without which neither civilization nor beauty can flourish. They approach this in two ways: some design each new building as part of an architectural “continuity,” considering its impact on nearby structures and spaces. Others focus on larger city planning and urban renewal projects that may take five to ten years to realize.
Paul Rudolph’s Arts Center at Wellesley exemplifies “continuity,” matching the scale and materials of older campus buildings and echoing their neo-Gothic details without imitation. Similarly, Saarinen’s Yale dormitories are modern yet evoke a medieval feel, reminiscent of Harlech Castle and the campus’s Gothic romance. In New Orleans, architects like Nathaniel Curtis and Arthur Davis draw inspiration from the French Quarter and Garden District, incorporating colonnades, balconies, and ironwork that honor the past.
Today’s modern architects are discussing Schinkel, medieval towns, pilasters, and decoration—topics once considered heresies—while only careless builders still champion pure functionalism.
Unlike these builders, whose shoddy work mars American streets, the idealists in urban renewal have little to show yet, as meaningful change takes time. Edmund Bacon of Philadelphia, trained by Eliel Saarinen at Cranbrook, along with his team, has begun transforming the city over the past decade, with more changes ahead. Others like Chicago’s Harry Weese, San Francisco’s John Carl Warnecke, and New York’s I. M. Pei are dedicated to renewing cities across the country.
Sadly, these talented and idealistic architects and planners…Newcomers have barely made an impact on the American landscape. The explanation is straightforward: as long as unchecked land speculation remains acceptable, most construction will be driven not by beauty or city planning, but by tax strategies and quick profits. Americans face a fundamental choice: do they want their land to serve the pursuit of wealth or the creation of a civilization? Maybe both goals can be achieved together.
For many developers, talented architects are a nuisance—and for good reason: these architects reflect on their work, and reflection takes time. Mediocre designers are reliable, quick, affordable, and free from complex ideas. At the same time, exhibitions of exceptional new American architecture win admiration worldwide, and international publications regularly celebrate these innovators. In contrast, the output of less inspired designers appears increasingly shoddy and uninspired. Sadly, it’s also becoming more common.
Yet, the new American architects press on with missionary-like dedication. It’s been said that the United States took nearly two centuries to develop a functional political system, and that the next challenge is to build a civilization. These architects carry that sense of historical purpose, and individuals with such conviction are both formidable and unstoppable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of helpful FAQs about From the Archives Do You Understand Modern Architecture
Beginner Definition Questions
Q What exactly is Modern Architecture
A Its a style that emerged in the early 20th century focusing on simplicity functional design and the use of new materials like steel glass and concrete It often rejects ornate historical styles
Q What are the key features I can look for
A Look for clean lines simple geometric shapes large windows open floor plans and a lack of unnecessary decoration
Q Is modern architecture the same as contemporary architecture
A No and this is a common mixup Modern Architecture refers to a specific historical style Contemporary means architecture being built right now which can include many different styles
Q Who are some famous Modernist architects
A Key figures include Frank Lloyd Wright Le Corbusier Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius
Examples History
Q Can you give me a famous example of a Modern building
A The Fallingwater house by Frank Lloyd Wright is a classic example famous for its cantilevered balconies over a waterfall Another is the glassandsteel Seagram Building in New York by Mies van der Rohe
Q Why did Modern Architecture become so popular
A It was a response to the need for new efficient and affordable housing and buildings after World War I It promised a healthier more rational way of living through design
Q What is the International Style
A This is a major branch of Modern Architecture Its characterized by simple blocklike forms a complete lack of ornament and a focus on volume over mass Think of sleek white rectangular buildings
Benefits Philosophy
Q Whats the main idea or philosophy behind it
A The famous phrase form follows function sums it up The design should be primarily based on the buildings purpose not on making it look fancy Its also about truth to materials meaning materials should be used honestly and not disguised as something else
Q What are the benefits of this style
A It often creates