Talk:International Style (architecture)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm not sure exactly how "International style" is used in English, but, according to my Swedish language sources, the term was originally used for functionalist architecture during the 20s and 30s, but today instead refers to the architecture that spread internationally after WW2 and became the dominant style during the period 1950-70.
So, if this applies to the English language as well, this article should deal with Le Corbusiers buildings in Marseille and India; Niemeyers in Brasilia; the UN HQ, etc. The information present in the article now should then be moved to Functionalism (architecture).
Note: In a Swedish context, within the field of history of architecture, "funktionalism" refers to a style in architecture in Sweden during the 30s and only during that period. Swedes in general, on the other hand, tends to call whatever they intepret as "modern architecture" "funktionalism" or, in everyday usage, just "funkis".
/ Mats Halldin 14:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit this city[edit]

I can't possibly edit this article! Modern design -- stemming from the vaguely idealistic Mies and Co. and breeding like pod people all the way down to the direct insult of Ikea -- is chiefly responsible for the miserable, unlivable cities we of the 21st Century have inherited from the 20th.

I can't edit this article; but you can, perhaps. And if you're thinking it might be entirely within our guidelines to balance the tolerant worship of this page with a little criticism from respected sources (you'll find a great deal of it), then I won't revert it. John Reid 11:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The logical fallacy of form follows function is an example of where this type of architecture goes horribly wrong --Cnadolski 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:S Weissenhofb.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:S Weissenhofb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

International style (architecture) International Style[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't this article be entitled International Style? The term is a proper noun, coined in 1932 by Phillip Johnston and Henry-Russel Hitchcock for their exhibition and book, and it is clear that it was intended as a title for a particular bounded body of architecture rather than as a mere descriptive. Moreover, is invariably rendered as "International Style" in architectural literature. If the new capitalisation is agreed upon, the "(architecture)" suffix becomes redundant and can also be removed.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Consedering the move to International Style; I am against moving Mach10 (talk)
What's your reasoning?FrFintonStack (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - as that would give it a name which was only distinguished by case from the dab page at International style. Keith D (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well what about International Style (architecture) then? (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite sources using the capital S? Dekimasuよ! 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


N No consensus to move. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Image copyright problem with Image:S Weissenhof.jpg[edit]

The image Image:S Weissenhof.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of capitals for subject title 'International Style' (architecture)[edit]

I'm surprised that the previous discussion of this topic resulted in the outcome: 'no consensus to move'(to capitalising the 's' in 'style').

The main objector to changing to the capitalisation could only, in the end, ask for any example of the use of the capitalisation in the literature in defence of his/her position. In fact, there is almost complete consensus in the literature about capitalising the 's'. Try Taschen, for instance; try your rival Britannica; try almost any Google of the subject, or any Google of any book on the subject.

As a point of grammar: the word 'style' is a part of the name of the architectural movement - hence International Style. The movement is not named 'International', and as the word 'style' is a part of the movement's actual name, it is, as had been stated in the previous discussion, a proper noun AND a title (and proper nouns and titles are capitalised in the grammar). If there is no consensus on this it is only because some of those debating the issue do not know their English grammar. The title, therefore, should read 'International Style', and as long as Wikipedia do not use the capitalisation it is in error. Hughes Hall (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughes Hall (talkcontribs) 19:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lists and Le Corbusier[edit]

In my edit earlier I sought to put the lists in rational order (alphabetical or chronological as appropriate). I opted for Le Corbusier under "L" on the basis that that in toto was his chosen name, rather than "Corbusier". But if there is a consensus for "C", please revert - I will not complain!

(and my vote would be for "Style") Davidships (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a few architectural books that refer to Le Corbusier in their indexes, listing him under 'L' only. e.g 'Le Corbusier Tragic View of Architecture' by Charles Jencks. Fine book, by the way. Hughes Hall (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as suggested.  Sandstein  12:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

International style (architecture)International Style (architecture) – Per the previous move request from 2008 and several comments above, the term is a proper noun. It is how it appears in Hitchcock&Johnson, Britannica and the Encyclopedia of 20th Century Architecture. Should actually be uncontroversial, but a previous move to "Style" in 2006 has been reverted, and the request above opposed (both without reasoning), therefore making this formal request. ELEKHHT 21:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, that's they way I have usually seen it, as opposed to some other styles which are ad-hoc, and indeed this may be the exception since it was intended from the beginning by its founders to be a style. Just did a quick check in my library of four books with these results: David Handlin's American Architecture, Kenneth Frampton's Modern Architecture: A Critical History and William J.R. Curtis's Modern Architecture Since 1900 all use the capitalized version, while NOT using it on others (e.g. Romanesque Revival style). The lone dissenter seems to be Macalister, but theirs was a general treatise on American domestic architecture, where the International Style wasn't particularly predominant. Again, it is an unusual case of a proper noun (when compared to other styles), but given its historical circumstances, it nevertheless is the case. Morgan Riley (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Those are very good books you have, thanks for the further research and explanation. --ELEKHHT 23:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gropius and "International Style"[edit]

This article, Introduction, para 2, last sentence: "Previous uses of the term in the same context can be attributed to Walter Gropius in Internationale Architektur, and Ludwig Hilberseimer in Internationale neue Baukunst.[2]" - cited to Panayotis Tournikiotis, "The Historiography of Modern Architecture".

But according to his wife, quoted in the British periodical 'Design' in 1974, Gropius did not "use the term in the same context", and this should not be attributed to him:

"Ise Gropius attacks ‘stylists’

Ise Gropius attacked the way in which the so called ‘international style’ became part of the language of modern architecture and design in a lecture delivered while she was in Britain last month. In doing so she made some penetrating criticisms of the attitudes of both Philip Johnson and Russel Hitchcock. She said, ‘This terrible misnomer was invented by Philip Johnson and Russel Hitchcock after they visited the Bauhaus in Dessau as very young men. They found that the School had published a book by Gropius called “International Architecture” which was a far cry from “International Style”. ‘It only showed’, Mrs Gropius continued, ‘international examples of contemporary architecture by people with the most diverse design principles. All that united them was an honest approach to the solution of contemporary building problems and Gropius had meant to help their efforts with this publication. He had no idea that this would be distorted into a “style” idea which he had always opposed." Design, issue 304, April 1974, p18, News Ed. Conn Hughes Stanton, published by the Design Council, London.

I would suggest that this reference be removed, or, at the very least, qualified by the addition of this sentence : "(although his wife stated that Gropius did not use use the term in this context, and was personally opposed to such a concept)", with a citation to the above. Robocon1 (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I agree - they have been removed; but most importantly, the references used in support of the claim were incorrect.--TTKK (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing the tone of the article[edit]

I had noted some excellent points above about the tone of this article. The term "International Style" can be traced to a specific event, an exhibition in 1935. The term "international style" is little used these days, and often a pejorative sense. The style of architecture referred to is more often called simply 'modernist architecture', though also often 'functionalism'. I have re-written the first half of the article to give more emphasis to the original source of the term, the exhibition and book, including the buildings featured in them. With the exception of the section on Israel, I feel the sections that follow, on Europe, North American and elsewhere, are quite basic, at best.--TTKK (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cover photo change[edit]

I suggest changing the photo of the cover of the magazine "International Style" to a building that exemplifies the style. This is the format that is used in virtually all other pages regarding architectural styles and makes it easier for the reader. But I know that if I find a building I think shows the style clearly, it might not mean the same thing to another person. Thus, I would like to open a discussion regarding a building that truly shows the International Style and deserves to be at the very top of this page. Thank you. Laurelpeter122 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Style (architecture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)