In “Modern does not exist”, Ashkan Shirani poses three important questions in response to Martin Heidegger’s theory on Modern architecture and its impact on civilization. From his own perspective, Shirani speaks to the basic definition of modern and the reality that we are all part of the modern landscape; defining and shaping by the populist standard. This article, no matter which author you agree with, induces the reader to return to a rudimentary but essential critical thinking. Editor: Chance Williams
Modern does not exist
FEBRUARY 21, 2017
Whether we believe in Bernard Tschumii’s idea that architecture is different than an illustrative art; or in Gregotii’s opinion that theoretical research directly affects the action; or the Peter Eisenman point of view that separates architecture from the building versus Peter Zumthor that looks for all spiritual senses in the architecture. All agreements and disagreements about design and architecture purposes , Study of the post-modern theories might help us to clarify where we are standing. The question that comes to my mind is, Do we agree that once there was a Modern period and now we are in Postmodern, or does the modern period even exist, as Martin Heidegger studies over the modern man’s inability to reflect on existence. What is modern? So then we can define postmodern. I think if modern is a period of time, it is always the contemporary area or current era. Modernity is a lifestyle that follows the rules of popular theories of each period. Every period of architecture that became popular was the modern of its time. The same theory could apply to history. Does history even exist? Who wrote the history and the existence of different perceptions, shows us that history is driven by a theory that the writer has in his mind and tries to put into action through the storyline. So, the history of architecture depends on the theory and each architecture is going to be a part of the history sometimes. So, I see the connection of architecture to history in its future, not in the past, and our theory should respond to the future, not to the past or current.