It depends on whether you prefer terrible values as a default (pre-Modernism) or no values at all (Modernism/postmodernism). I can't say I find either ideal.

 

Fine arts: my favourite painters come from this time period (the German expressionists like Marc and Macke, the French Fauvists).
Architecture: Le Corbusier, Calatrava and Gehry are my heroes - all post 1900.
Classical music: although my favourites are earlier (Bach, Brahms, Schubert, and the partially 20th century Mahler), I love to listen to works of the past 100 years as well (e.g. Shostakovich, Takemitsu, Gubaidulina).
Photography: obviously mainly past 100 years.

When all is said and done, the past century plays an important role in my art tastes.

 

All 'reasonable' critiques against are the same ole same ole, no form, no theme which returns or is developed, no melody, no 'emotions' evoked and all the other 'usual suspects' put in the line up to identify in this argument.

I would be most interested if those against would name, instead and honestly, what makes them not interested in even touring the 'new architecture' - is it some sense of 'coziness' (what I'd wager) and I use the word a bit pejoratively -- the audaciousness of Schubert, in the longer forms, or Beethoven, or Wagner, etc. is anything but "cozy" -- yet that is what near exclusive adherence to pre-20th century repertoire seems to me to be, still exciting, to be sure, but well within comfort zones. Ironic, in that each one of those composers as contemporaries in their time, dramatically or otherwise, blew the socks of what had gone before - in other words, they were each the 'modernists' of their times.

Now, hundreds of years later, a large group of listeners are wont to grieve that post 1900, composers are 'Singing songs of love, but not for them,' while at the same time they are vehemently devoted to the 'old modernists.'

I would like to know if any of those objecting to the 'already old music', i.e. the modernist and later, would also be happy to take up everything else which accompanied the old music when it was new -- as in, would you want that to be your overall contemporary world. That should be addressed without romanticizing it - it includes life without refrigeration, antibiotics, hot water or perhaps even an outhouse at the back of your rural home or your urban flat, the dentistry of the era, the fact most of us would not be having the privilege of being middle-class, have had available higher schooling, or have a CD or be able to afford to attend one of those concerts of yesteryear, let alone sit in comfort at a computer to discuss such a matter in cyberspace.

In that context, I would love, truly, a sincere answer to what 'rights' - other than free choice as a personal consumer - any of these 'anti modernists' think they actually have to so resoundingly 'dis' the contemporary they truly do not seem to understand past understanding they don't like it because it does not comfort them like the older fare.

Do they think that composers, or music, should stand still because they prefer to live in a Victorian era flat? Ironically, I have a hunch many of us are living in something modernist or later, or some retro-repro colonial house.

What, I guess, is the resistance to the music of their own last century? And why are they so clinging to a past? (A past I have not at all abandoned, but include in my taste for my own century, at least.)

This semi-rant has me formulating the following:
No matter how great and true the love for the old repertoire is within the listener who does not care for 'modernist' music, there is some degree of romanticized or nostalgic escapism / indulgence going on, a retreat to another place, perhaps thought to be a lost better place in a better world. It wasn't.

Much of the above is truly, and sincerely said in hoping to nfluence the nature of what is further contributed here, as the OP has asked.

Personally, I would like to understand the existence of what I see as a widespread general near 'arrested development' with a public who consumes almost nothing but the old when it comes to music, and why to that one past, especially since it is almost exclusively in the area of classical music only and not in the area of any other art medium. My puzzlement may genuinely exceed the puzzlement of those who wonder why others like the modernist music.

I would bet, too, that for many a younger person on this forum and / or the many devoted amateur listeners, getting around to the 20th century is a truly new venturing forth. To any in that circumstance, I would suggest lack of familiarity - sometimes total, is the primary objection and 100% of the discomfort -- which can only be dispelled by repeated listening, not expecting what 200 year old music gives you, nor expecting the same emotional 'experience' - or again 'old comforts.' The old should not be abandoned or 'devalued,' (the more you listen to the new you will realize the old was neither abandoned or devalued) but at least temporarily set aside if there is any hope of finding that another 100 years worth of tremendous music can be a tremendous addition as something more, and further, to enjoy.

 

All 'reasonable' critiques against are the same ole same ole, no form, melody, theme which returns or is developed, no melody, no 'emotions' evoked and all the other gooey and not rational.

I would be most interested if those against would name, instead and honestly, what makes them not interested in even touring the 'new architecture' - is it some sense of 'coziness' (what I'd wager) and I use the word a bit pejoratively -- it is difficult for me to think of the audaciousness of Schubert, in the longer forms, or Beethoven, or Wagner, etc. as "cozy" -- yet that is what the adherence to that repertoire (exclusively) seems to me to be. Ironic, in that each one of those composers as contemporaries in their time, dramatically or otherwise, blew the socks of what had gone before - in other words, they were each the 'modernists' of their times.

Now, hundreds of years later, a group of listeners, many non-professional and without all the years of practice, nor having made a really complete survey of all of music, are wont to grieve that post 1900, composers are 'Singing songs of love, but not for them,' while at the same time they are vehemently devoted to the 'old modernists.'

I would like to know if any of those objecting to the 'already old music', i.e. the modernist and later, would also be happy to take up everything else which accompanied the old music when it was new -- as in, would you want that to be your overall contemporary world. That should be addressed without romanticizing it - it includes life without refrigeration, antibiotics, hot water or perhaps even an outhouse at the back of your rural home or your urban flat, the dentistry of the era, the fact most of us would not be having the privilege of being middle-class, have had available higher schooling, or have a CD or be able to afford to attend one of those concerts of yesteryear, let alone sit in comfort at a computer to discuss such a matter in cyberspace.

In that context, I would love, truly, a sincere answer to what 'rights' - other than free choice as a personal consumer - any of these 'anti modernists' think they actually have to so resoundingly 'dis' the contemporary they truly do not seem to understand past understanding they don't like it because it does not comfort them like the older fare.

Do they think that composers, or music, should stand still because they prefer to live in a Victorian era flat? Ironically, I have a hunch many of us are living in something modernist or later, or some kitschy retro-imitative colonial house.

What, I guess, is the excuse for at least not trying harder to 'catch up' to the music of their own last century? And why are they so clinging to a past? (A past I have not at all abandoned, but include in my taste for my own century, at least.)

This semi-rant has me formulating the following:
No matter how great and true the love for the old repertoire is within the listener who does not care for 'modernist' music, there is some degree of romanticized or nostalgic escapism / indulgence going on, a retreat to another place, perhaps thought to be a lost better place in a better world. It wasn't.

Much of the above is truly, and sincerely thrown out as a gentle gauntlet to try and also influence the nature of what is further contributed here, as the OP has asked.

Personally, I would like to understand the existence of what I see as a widespread general arrested development with a public who consumes almost nothing but the old. Why that population so adheres to the past, especially since the clinging to the past is almost exclusively in the area of classical music only and not in the area of any other art medium. My puzzlement may genuinely exceed the puzzlement of those who wonder why others like the modernist music.

I would bet, too, that for many a younger person on this forum and / or the many devoted amateur listeners, getting around to the 20th century is a truly new venturing forth. To any in that circumstance, I would suggest lack of familiarity - sometimes total, is the primary objection and 100% of the discomfort -- which can only be dispelled by repeated listening, not expecting what 200 year old music gives you, nor expecting the same emotional 'experience' - or again 'old comforts.' The old should not be abandoned or 'devalued,' (the more you listen to the new you will realize the old was neither abandoned or devalued) but at least temporarily set aside if there is any hope of finding that another 100 years worth of tremendous music can be a tremendous addition as something more, and further, to enjoy.

I like modern music, but reading this post makes me wish I didn't.

 

I will start by saying that many people I talk to (anecdotally), they hate Modernist architecture.

One of the challenges with modern architecture is that the reality of putting a building up is the need to "please" (or pass, as they say) those who hold the criteria to permit the property development. Take a look at the numerous ideas that have been put forth to develop Barangaroo here in Sydney. Former PM Paul Keating has his influence to steer it to his direction, for example. Unlike music much of the time, the artistic impetus that might be in the architect does not let itself as loose as when the music composer creates his music. Perhaps this is a silly comparison. The point is modernist architecture criticism often (these days) can become wrapped in its own foil insulted from the realities of the property development project.

Another point is that even architects can themselves be difficult to be consistent. There are huge eyesore by Harry Seidler as well as beautiful ones. Blues Point Tower is a disaster (first picture below), whereas the Horizon (second picture below) is a landmark. (I generally do admire Harry Seidler's work).

 

One of the challenges with modern architecture is that the reality of putting a building up is the need to "please" (or pass, as they say) those who hold the criteria to permit the property development...The point is modernist architecture criticism often (these days) can become wrapped in its own foil insulted from the realities of the property development project.

Of course, architecture is different than the other arts, it has strongly a functional purpose. As you suggest there has to be balance between various factors, not only aesthetic, but adhering planning laws and also blending into the streetscape, & today energy efficiency, etc.

Of course, there is difference between public and private projects.

Of course, like any "ism," Modernism had/has elements that were more utopian than speaking to reality. On paper, it looked good, but in practice it turned out a disaster. A well known example in urban planning is the American Radburn design for public housing. This model of design was transplanted here in post war period (c.1970's?), but in the last decade, those buildings had to be demolished, and ones that addressed the needs of actual real people, not just those made of balsa wood on architect's models, have now been built in the same suburbs.

Another point is that even architects can themselves be difficult to be consistent. There are huge eyesore by Harry Seidler as well as beautiful ones. Blues Point Tower is a disaster (first picture below), whereas the Horizon (second picture below) is a landmark. (I generally do admire Harry Seidler's work).

I'm not a fan of Seidler at all. I think the second one you show is not bad in terms of design, compared to the hideous Blues Point Tower, but it is too tall for the area and sticks out like a sore thumb. His buildings, as the examples I gave in my OP, have an uncompromising quality, not even trying to address the area around them. All I can say in positive sense is that his buildings, from what I know, have good quality workmanship.

Reminds me, a cartoonist in a newspaper here lampooned Mr. Seidler's buildings as like cages for chickens. Mr. Seidler was not impressed and sued for libel. So, Modernist architects love if you wax lyrical about their eyesores - eg. "sleek and elegant designs," but if you say the reality, they get mightily p*ssed off. Reality it seems does not mix with ideology?

EDIT - article on the cartoonist mentioned, Patrick Cook. The article says Mr. Seidler lost the case, I'd guess the judge did not agree with Seidler's agenda, which was basically trying to censor criticism of his building designs.

 

Petrb & mmsbls, I will respond to your posts, probably tomorrow or next few days. Time is short for me, I thought I'd address architecture issues, as HC responded. But thanks very much for your posts.

& as Art Rock's post implies, these do not have to be negative critiques or criticisms. I should have made that very clear in my opening post. You can be positive, negative or in-between regarding any area of this topic, within reason.

EDIT - Here, a recent article I found, talking in I think a balanced way to the issues raised in this thread (it's focus is on contermporary classical, not really Modern, but I think the issues raised are related - this thread is about everything after 1900) -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jan/30/contemporary-classical-music-finds-audience

 

TODAY! is Mies van der Rohe's birthday. Google is celebrating it with their logo. Head on over to check it out.

 

^^Hundertwasser had a logo last year, I think a strong contrast to the Modernist ideology/style, etc. of Mies, but I may return next time to talk about these issues.

 

Sometimes I think that modernistic art failed because the world - our way of thinking - didn't become modernistic along with it. Maybe in the future the world will be ready for the likes of Le Corbusier, Joyce and Schoenberg.

 

Underlying all of these discussions seems to be the basic premise that all art is art - that if you appreciate one piece of music, then in all fairness, you must appreciate all others. Why?

On the other hand, there also seems to be the premise that popularity is the equivalent of validation. Again, why? I've never objected to being in a minority when it comes to what I like.

Does the fact that we might personally embrace something in the past necessarily mean that we are looking for comfort? I unapologetically insist that, in my personal experience, the greatest writer of fiction who ever lived was Sophocles. The last thing I feel when I read Sophocles is comfort. His words, even in translation, jangle my nerve endings like no other writer ever has. The feeling I get from Sophocles is the feeling of substance, the feeling of being turned around and made to look at things I ordinarily wouldn't see, but that, at the same time are both fascinating and worthwhile.

To some degree I get that same feeling from Brahms' German Requiem and from Carl Nielsen's Fifth Symphony. I've gotten that feeling from passages written by Samuel Barber and John Harbison and Monteverdi and Jon Liefs and others too numerous to mention. I don't happen to have gotten it from anything I've heard by Crumb or Carter or Cage at this point in my life. Does it surprise or anger me in some way that someone else might? Not in the least.

Preferring one thing to another is not necessarily criticizing - not even by implication. I just wanted to point that out, because I think that too many people are worried that others are criticizing by implication - by what they choose. That isn't fair.

Real criticism takes two forms - constructive (those rare cases where someone with knowledge can actually isolate what makes one product inferior to another), and destructive (the more common form, often observed on forum threads where people just end up insulting someone elses' taste for the reason that it isn't theirs'.) Choosing to listen to Bach or Beethoven or Dvorak is not, in itself, criticism of any other composer. It's just a matter of personal taste, not that much different from preferring hard bop to free jazz.

So, in answer to Sid's original question - I don't think I feel qualified to critique art. Constructive criticism requires more knowledge than I have, and I don't want to be involved in the destructive kind...

 

Underlying all of these discussions seems to be the basic premise that all art is art - that if you appreciate one piece of music, then in all fairness, you must appreciate all others. Why?

On the other hand, there also seems to be the premise that popularity is the equivalent of validation. Again, why? I've never objected to being in a minority when it comes to what I like.

Does the fact that we might personally embrace something in the past necessarily mean that we are looking for comfort? I unapologetically insist that, in my personal experience, the greatest writer of fiction who ever lived was Sophocles. The last thing I feel when I read Sophocles is comfort. His words, even in translation, jangle my nerve endings like no other writer ever has. The feeling I get from Sophocles is the feeling of substance, the feeling of being turned around and made to look at things I ordinarily wouldn't see, but that, at the same time are both fascinating and worthwhile.

To some degree I get that same feeling from Brahms' German Requiem and from Carl Nielsen's Fifth Symphony. I've gotten that feeling from passages written by Samuel Barber and John Harbison and Monteverdi and Jon Liefs and others too numerous to mention. I don't happen to have gotten it from anything I've heard by Crumb or Carter or Cage at this point in my life. Does it surprise or anger me in some way that someone else might? Not in the least.

Preferring one thing to another is not necessarily criticizing - not even by implication. I just wanted to point that out, because I think that too many people are worried that others are criticizing by implication - by what they choose. That isn't fair.

Real criticism takes two forms - constructive (those rare cases where someone with knowledge can actually isolate what makes one product inferior to another), and destructive (the more common form, often observed on forum threads where people just end up insulting someone elses' taste for the reason that it isn't theirs'.) Choosing to listen to Bach or Beethoven or Dvorak is not, in itself, criticism of any other composer. It's just a matter of personal taste, not that much different from preferring hard bop to free jazz.

So, in answer to Sid's original question - I don't think I feel qualified to critique art. Constructive criticism requires more knowledge than I have, and I don't want to be involved in the destructive kind...

So - diagramming the above post:

A. Tangential reply to random comment by previous poster

followed by

B. Denial of OP's request to engage in constructive criticism

Now I know why I stopped posting for so long.....

 

Often, not as functional as it could be.

View attachment 4085

 

Vesteralen- Underlying all of these discussions seems to be the basic premise... that if you appreciate one piece of music, then in all fairness, you must appreciate all others. Why?

This is, indeed, a fair question. I like some Modernist and Contemporary art... and I dislike other examples. Does that make me a reactionary? PetrB seems to argue in favor of the old adage that an artist (and no doubt the audience) must be of one's time. But how do we measure this? It seems to me that we can embrace and support the art of here and now that we admire and take pleasure from... but it will be the future that decides what was truly the "essential" or "canonical" art of our time. By the time of J.S. Bach's last decade he was already seen as outdated and old-fashioned by the majority of the music lovers of the day. You would have been a reactionary listening to that contrapuntal crap when Bach's sons and other composers were heralding in the music of their day. Beethoven's late quartets were equally looked at with dismay. It was only the future that deemed late works of Bach and Beethoven as masterpieces. For anyone to presume that their taste represents the music of our time while others wallow in the cozy comfort of the past, sentimentality, and pastiche seems to me to be slightly pretentious.

Schoenberg (to choose but one example) has had a century, and still he leaves a great portion of the music loving populace baffled. Can we lie the blame solely upon the listener? PetrB would seem to suggest as much. He berates such listeners as being trapped by the coziness of the past. Is this a fair analysis? As Vesteralen suggested, there are any number of older works of art which I embrace without the least thought of coziness or remaining within my comfort zone. Sophocles, certainly... but also Aristophanes, Euripides, and Plato... who outraged me. Can we suggest that we are drawn to Shakespeare, Dante, the Shanameh, Chaucer, Beowulf, Dostoevsky, or Proust out of a desire for "coziness" and comfort? Can I honestly say that I have been more scandalized by Pollock or DeKooning than I have been by Bosch, Michelangelo, or Goya? Indeed... of Modernist painters I have been far more disturbed by Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon than by any of the Abstract Expressionists. Of course, I don't avoid Modern and Contemporary music. I love Richard Strauss, Shostakovitch, Mahler, Prokofiev, Takemitsu, etc... I quite like a far larger slew of others: Stravinsky, Webern, Bartok, Glass, Rorem, Hovhaness, Gorecki, Scelsi, Part, Reich, Glass, etc... I also love Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk, John Coletrane, B.B. King, Muddy Waters, etc...

Personally, I don't buy into this "either/or" dichotomy. I know any number of literature lovers/professors/academics who are profoundly enamored of literature... yet whose focus is narrowed to a single time-period or culture... and this has nothing to do with seeking out a fuzzy warm feeling of cozy comfort. Honestly, this stereotype might just as easily be reversed and one might charge the lovers of Modernism and Contemporary music with merely striking a pose... attempting to impress others as more sophisticated. Or one might argue that they over-value the elements of innovation... newness... as opposed to aesthetic merit. Of course such a stereotype would be just as wrong.

I believe that what Sid/Andre was seeking out was a criticism of any Modernist/Contemporary art (as opposed to the individuals who like such art) that avoids the usual stereotypes or dogma... and certainly a criticism that avoids sweeping statements about Modern/Contemporary art as a whole.

 

Thanks for all your responses.

I'll just reply in brief to as many as I can.

With reference to "the future," as you use Xaltotun, whenever I hear that with reference to music, esp. Modern, I think of the utopian dreams I was talking of earlier with regards to architecture. In theory it works differently than in practice.

Clavichorder's post makes me think of how the exact reasons I like post-1900 music may well be the reason why others are turned off by it. The music of Second Viennese School does have these unique harmonies, and other aspects different from music of before. Of course, they also had strong ties to tradition, Schoenberg's famous quote "I am a conservative who was forced to become radical."

But a person who dislikes Modern musics may well not like it for the reason that I do like it - it's unique qualities.

Vesteralen and Stlukes make me think that one can be a fan of Modern music, but not necessarily a lot of the ideology (& dogma?) attached to it.

I think I agree with mmsbls' thoughts, eg. that music of more experimental kind coming after 1900 may never be in the repertoire as much as much coming before. Or maybe some of the music, but not all of it. THIS article I posted earlier talks of how people are going to hear new/newer music, some for the first time, but these are not regular events. For many, it will be a "one off" type of experience, or not that regular. I am okay with this.

A lot of Modern music is now firmly in the repertoire, we all know a good deal of it here, to some depth. Out there in the "real world" I think it's likely that the situation is different. However, here there is more post-1945 music being performed, eg. THIS concert of Xenakis percussion music last year, and it was well attended and well received. This group puts on one such concert every year, this year it will be Steve Reich (a three hour marathon! But the Xenakis concert was only one hour). Again speaking to how this type of music is a one-off, many people will go to one or so well-publicized concert a year, but I think it's quality rather than quantity - and actual experience - that counts.

 

This OP is of course IN REACTION TO some recent posts which I consider both highly divisive, negative, and unworthy of the forum, like "Thread for those who don't like Mozart," etc.

Why does this post have to be '... of modernism?'
Can you see how ridiculous a posting 'Reasonable critiques of classicism' would be?

Why not have the monitors suppress those silly and negative generalities, since they are so general and so affected by the poster's personal taste and limitations - those are neither 'information' or interesting discussion - and instead discuss the merits of a particular composer?

It is not because I do like early and later 20th century music - along with all the other musics I like and love from 1300 to today - that I say this camp vs. camp divisiveness which seems to be more and more rife on this site is beginning to be severely off-putting.

The "pro / con Mozart" or the "Pro contemporary throw the historical past out the window" postings - tedious kids' stuff, regardless of the poster's age.

There are too many posts like yours now, put up of course 'in defense' of those bad posts, which make me loath to direct a non-member to this site to 'check things out.' In a better world and a better forum, your post here would never have become necessary.

The club member in-house petty arguing has just got to stop.

One way to stop it is to simply never open up the door of Talk Classical again, knowing the crap - and its seriously bad odor - are contained behind that virtual door.

The monitors need to step in with a large mop, a bucket, and some sanitizer, and perhaps slap a good number of hands.

 

This OP is of course IN REACTION TO some recent posts which I consider both highly divisive, negative, and unworthy of the forum, like "Thread for those who don't like Mozart," etc.

Why does this post have to be '... of modernism?'
Can you see how ridiculous a posting 'Reasonable critiques of classicism' would be?

Why not have the monitors suppress those silly and negative generalities, since they are so general and so affected by the poster's personal taste and limitations - those are neither 'information' or interesting discussion - and instead discuss the merits of a particular composer?

It is not because I do like early and later 20th century music - along with all the other musics I like and love from 1300 to today - that I say this camp vs. camp divisiveness which seems to be more and more rife on this site is beginning to be severely off-putting.

The "pro / con Mozart" or the "Pro contemporary throw the historical past out the window" postings - tedious kids' stuff, regardless of the poster's age.

There are too many posts like yours now, put up of course 'in defense' of those bad posts, which make me loath to direct a non-member to this site to 'check things out.' In a better world and a better forum, your post here would never have become necessary.

The club member in-house petty arguing has just got to stop.

One way to stop it is to simply never open up the door of Talk Classical again, knowing the crap - and its seriously bad odor - are contained behind that virtual door.

The monitors need to step in with a large mop, a bucket, and some sanitizer, and perhaps slap a good number of hands.

Uh, March? This is resurrected, no?

Anyway, there can be generalizations because these musics have different roots. Different aesthetical bases.

 

I actually like the first building, in a sort of gritty way.

Surely every larger city in the known world has dozens of equally nondescript generic high-rises such as this? The Abstract Expressionist painter, Robert Motherwell, spoke out against such repetitive generic architecture (and track housing developments)... and admitted that such were a distinct failing of Modernism.

 

Sure they do. Even so, I sort of like this gritty city-ish architecture. It's kind of nice, in its own way. Robert Motherwell can say what he wants, I still find some value in these allegedly ugly buildings.

Hey, I'm an architecture student btw.

 

I sort of like this gritty city-ish architecture. It's kind of nice, in its own way. Robert Motherwell can say what he wants, I still find some value in these allegedly ugly buildings.

Hey, I'm an architecture student btw.

The problem with such architecture is that human beings must live in that ugly building... must come home each day and be exposed to it again and again. Frank Lloyd Wright noted that "A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines." It would take more than a few vines to make this building appear the least bit hospitable. John Ruskin, William Blake... and many others have recognized that the lack of "beauty"... the lack of any concern for the human scale and human need... and the imposition of an industrial aesthetic has a dehumanizing and depressing effect. But one of the worst aspects of Modernism... in art, music, or architecture... is the arrogance and lack of consideration by the "artist" for the wants of needs of the audience. In the case of the painter, the audience can simply move along and look at something they like. In the case of music, one always has the option of turning off what one dislikes. In the case of architecture, however, someone has to live or work in these abominations. I had to attend college classes for two years in a brutalist concrete building that would have served better as a bunker in WWII.

 

I am rather ignorant of architectural issues. I assume there is tradeoff between cost and form. If the top building is architecturally awful in form and such buildings exist everywhere, why do architects design them that way? Is it cost (not just of the building but also the design time)? Are there other reasons?

Incidentally, while the form of the balconies in the second building may be attractive to many, I personally would prefer to live in apartments where the balconies were rectangular, and therefore, had more space (function over form). I assume function and form have significant tradeoffs as well.

 

He gets 'better' (or is that 'uglier'?):

 

Those buildings look so cool like a futuristic castle.

 

In typical english weather:

 

Some of the apartments in the Trellick Tower posted by Headcase above actually are privately owned, according to wikipedia entry (quote below in italics). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trellick_Tower

Private properties inside the tower now (Sept 2007) sell for between £250,000 for a one-bedroom flat to £480,000 for three-bedrooms, whilst the tower itself has become something of a local cult landmark and was awarded a Grade II* listing in 1998.

So looks like some people like this buidling which I think most people would see as an eyesore, a case of urban planning and architecture gone wrong. But yes, people's tastes can vary - maybe its a nostalgia for the 1960's, a 'retro' thing (just as the various 'comebacks' of '70's disco music or Motown or R&B - or maybe its a case of 'its so bad that its actually good' type thing?). Dunno, but I just hate these bloody things, its not like visual art or music that you can choose to view/listen to or not, once it's there, it tends to stay there for ages (but some of these things are being torn down now, but the things replacing them often aren't that much better, unfortunately).

 

It's when discussing modern architecture people become most agitated and close-minded in my eyes. The world would be boring if everyone lived in a reconstruction of grandma's house though.