Yet they are both within the realm of “modern art”.

Why push out one and say “the one I like best is THE way.” The ONLY way.

That’s like saying there is only one modern artist or one Renaissance artist.

Modern architecture or architects are no different. Just different “canvases”.

There are many modern art architects. Their styles can vary as much as an artist’s brush.

Or be as different as printmaking to oil.

yet…

they can all fall within the realm of modern architecture.

Why be so literal? So definitive? So “black and white and labled”?

That’s really the opposite of the entire modern movement.

Now of course, architects have a vast catalog of “modern” precedent to either expand on or reject.

This holds true whether you are talking about Agave or Stenger. I’ve been through a bunch of the Agave homes and said “wow! that was a clever idea” as well as “wow! that doesn’t make any sense at all!” Overall, though, I think the clever ideas outnumber the bad ones out there. And, every Stenger I’ve been through has felt at least 50% bigger than it really was b/c his layouts, I think, are fantastic. But who walked through the one on Brady Lane with the bathtub in master bedroom?? Is that “modern”? I guess…experimental? - yes….a bad idea? - most definitely (IMHO)!

In architecture, modern evokes a concern for line over ornamentation, a search for authenticity of expression through the materials of construction, a reconsideration of how public and private spaces were treated in homes, and that which expressed the power of machines in our culture versus that which is produced through craft, guild or more domestic virtues.

Modern architecture for me has its definitive start with the designs and crafts of the Bauhaus, though some may argue that it more properly originates with Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright.

Now off to join the fistfight on the Agave thread!!! ;-)

For me Modern is child of Mid-Century Modern (and grandchild of Craftsman) emphasizing a simplicity of form and conscious reduction of ornamentation. Also I think it means in general that through the use of currently available technology, a home does not have to look or be built in a certain way to be considered well designed e.g. pitched roof or crown moulding.

But it depends on who you talk to. The term means anything that a developer or realtor wants it to. It’s kind of like the term “alternative” for music. In the late 80s and 90s it meant something very specific and was usually found on the very far left of the radio dial. By the mid-90s, record companies got their hands on it and it became pretty much everything you heard on the radio.

My tastes tend toward what I like to call “post-modern” or sometimes I call it contemporary (I’ve been aiming for minimalism with an experimental bent.). It depends on who I’m talking to. If I’m talking to a salesman at Jennifer Convertibles (one of the cheesiest furniture store chains on the East Coast) I know not to use the term contemporary because that’s what he calls an ugly overstuffed leather couch.

This kind of reminds me of an Ikea commercial from a couple of years ago where a woman says something about Ikea being too modern for her and marvels at their new, more traditional styles. I remember thinking Ikea isn’t modern enough for me!

As far as housing goes, I think people should buy what they like! I don’t need a label from some hot-shot realtor to know whether a house is fantastic and will suit me to a T.