stardustLUST
36175
1030
10
Iron and goldleaf Gateway
Schloss Linderhof Palace
Ettal, Germany, ca.1886.
Arch. Georg von Dollmann
Belgium, Brussels, rue Belle-Vue 46
Architect Ernest Blerot, 1898
Ivano Frankivsk, Ukrainę
Lavirotte Building by Jules Lavirotte in Paris, France, built in 1900
The Hotel Palacete Peñalba is a luxurious Hotel built by a disciple of Gaudí in 1912, whose privileged location in Figueras makes it one of the best places in Asturias , Spain.
Stained glass at facade Casa Cama i Escurra
Barcelona, carrer Gran de Gràcia 15
Architect Francesc Berenguer i Mestres, project signed by Joan Baptista Feu i Puig
Years of construction 1902 - 1904
Art Nouveau stained glass windows and elevator at the Gran Hotel Ciudad de México, Mexico City, Mexico. 1899
Art Deco Lobby entrance, Lexington Avenue, NY 1931. Designed by Cross Architects
Saint-Cyr House
Belgium, Brussels, square Ambiorix 11
Architect Gustave Strauven, 1903
Paris Courtyard in Budapest
A superb building entrance, at 24 place Etienne Pernet, in Paris, the work of the architect Alfred Wagon, in 1905.
Entrance Hall of Antwerp Central Station, Belgium. Designed by Louis Delacenserie. 1905.
Stained glass bacony, house, Catalan modernism, 19th-century, Barcelona, Spain, by architect Narcís Aran i Vidal
La Casa Comalat by Salvador Valeri i Pupurull, in Barcelona, Spain, built in 1911
CASA COMALAT, BARCELONA , SPAIN.
1911
SALVADOR VALERI.
Bruno Zach (1891-1945) The "Riding Crop". An extremely rare, large bronze figure of a dominatrix holding her riding crop behind her back, upon a signed oval bronze sôcle. Signed ‘Bruno Zach’ in the bronze, circa 1924
UnspokenX
For those who are wondering the difference - Art Noveau architecture is when it looks like it's made by Elves. Art Deco architecture is when it looks like it was made by Dwarves.
hickorybakedbeans
artisanbutnotartistic
The third one looks like a woman wearing a corset
phordlesscone
Art Nouveau is Elvish, Art Deco is Dwarvish.
Spidey209
Because it is expensive and under capitalism the number of people who can afford it is ever diminishing.
theresaschu713
Art Nouveau is my favorite followed closely by Art Deco. This is wonderful, thank you for sharing.
UsernameMayBeSubjectToChange
Because reinforced concrete was cheap
unpunnyfuns
Art Noveau looks like it's made by elves, Art Deco looks like it's made by dwarves. Sadly, they both died out during the Great Depression.
fanceydave
RacecarIsRacecarBackwards
Bauhaus
poppaw2
Overwhelming.
bmorekarlthe1st
because capitalism does not reward anything but the cheapest garbage imaginable.
novilicious
This is one of the most beautiful posts I’ve seen here ever. Thank you for making my weekend.
Ricdesan
Its awesome when you let architecture say what it has to say
Morg729
/gallery/H0v3Vsg
laclayton
Never had door envy before!
Yusill
I saw this and it's true. Art nouveau looks like it was built by elves. Art deco was built by dwarves.
CallMeMcGyver
Nice collection, even nicer if they are your photos, but it’s still cool either way.
DignamWhenAskedaQuestion
Cue : The Doors
theshogunofharlemshonuff
Value engineering is the culprit.
woozle
probably money
GorbrushThreekwood
Yes. Time, and ultimately money. In this era constructors need to complete projects with a tight schedule. Modern building techniques on their part limit the possibilities you can do with exteriors and interiors.
hwatL4bloopy
Cost
Anaphriel
No matter the question, the almost universal answer is "money".
xn1992
Thinking WW1 is part of the answer?
ayavaska
Alesund burnt down and was rebuilt, and Riga was being built up in stone right at the height of Art Nouveau. Both have whole city blocks in that style.
Horsebatteries
The Antwerp station is one of my favourite buildings in the world. It is so thoroughly alive and accessible, it's a space that is intensely beautiful and thoroughly practical. But, I want to add that much of Europe's great works of that era were only possible through an economy of colonialism. Every arch, every stone, is indirectly made possible through the exploitation of a people who would never see what their suffering bought.
I'm Belgian, I want to add.
reinharder
This applies to many societies that created great works, whether through colonialism, conquest, ransacking, trade protected through violence. I would still prefer them build something beautiful for future generations or funding artists than just pushing it into their hedge funds or offshore accounts. Not to discount it, but if we take focus on this across most of the amazing things (tech included) in the world then very little is built off of wholesome means.
reinharder
At least when I look at a magnificent cathedral, at no point am I thinking, wow this religion must be swell. I know very well the terror they caused, the horrors wrought in their name, but the architect, the craftsman, the painters, the masons, etc. all did amazing work. Great wealth comes at a cost paid by others and we still have a ways to go to make sure even the day to day items we use are made by people with some measure of control over their lives and/or reasonably safe conditions.
Horsebatteries
What you said reminded me of Oscar Wilde's short story, The Young King. I can strongly recommend it if you're not familiar. https://www.wilde-online.info/the-young-king.html
PeeterGrant
Time & money. Craftspersons that can do this type of work need to be paid for it. Also, builders aren't necessarily building something to last 100 years.
HermitBean
But what puzzles me is that these thing are not that difficult to make these days. We have new materials, computers help with maths and machinery can do pretty much anything in bulk. Sure they wouldn't be as unique or embellished but anything is better than this modern minimalist brutalist garbage. I know it's combination of reasons like safety, cost and most of all PROFIT. But fuck. I wish we would make things prettier or more interesting. And why not make them last longer as well...
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Also you need to be able to pay the labourers pennies, or else it becomes too expensive.
khopesh87
These are all absolutely gorgeous! And to answer your question, at least in part. Probably the biggest contributor to why Art Deco fell out of style was the Great Depression. This sort of architecture & ornamentation was expensive AF, and it just wasn't feasible anymore. Might be somewhat worrying that a lot of new construction is specifically meant to be reminiscent of the Art Deco style. But at the same time, at least they won't just be ugly slabs of concrete & glass.
Saelael
I was going to answer in a single symbol ($), but I like your answer better.
Yacuthulluzan
I’ve heard the modern version called Deco Echo
TeamSpicyTacos
What about Bauhaus ?
bananaspitz
I was just going to say this. It became to expensive to be practical. I’m so glad Europe preserved much of it.
avastmehearty
Isn’t this all Art Nouveau?
avastmehearty
Saw a cool Art Deco hotel in Oban recently
Sechran
I'm willing to tempt fate it if means Brutalism dies a little more.
redsmerf
Sadly, it still rears it's ugly head in modern brutalism. *glares at the hotel that just got built across the way*
khopesh87
Same.
MyRespectableAlterEgo
Beautiful brutalist architecture does exist, just like how shitty art nouveau undoubtedly existed before failing the test of time. Most brutalism is awfully executed, but The Barbican in London is a favourite of mine, and I have a whole coffee table book of soviet bus stops and metro stations that were stunning in their day.
It would help if shit architects stopped excusing their lack of artistry by calling it brutalism.
MyRespectableAlterEgo
To be clear - all the examples posted here are stunning: my point is that to survive the societal change of the entire 20th century, an urban building had to be utterly stunning to make up for its inefficiency... so we don't see all the lesser examples that got bulldozed and forgotten. Brutalism won't face that issue, since it's utilitarian by definition, and there's less incentive to tear down ugly shit if it serves its purpose
LitchLitch
Modernism had more intellectual depth. Deco and Nouveau were ultimately shallow art styles, pretty but romanticism only goes so far.
Iambadatnames1938
Eh, Nouveau was the last breath before capitalism really destroyed the art in artistry
LitchLitch
Nouveau (and Deco) were art forms of the aristocracy, part of the attraction of modernism was its anti aristocratic sentiments. Communism and socialism were significant tendencies within modernism that shaped it significantly. Part of its attraction was that rather than the excessive ornamentation of its preceding movements is that it made the underlying structure visible and was more honest. It answered the needs of the lost generation others couldn't.
Iambadatnames1938
Art Nouveau, which popped up in the late 1800s, often took a stand against capitalism since it pushed back against the mass production and industrial vibes of the time. Artists and designers wanted to bring art into everyday life, focusing on handmade stuff and beautiful designs inspired by nature. This celebration of beauty, personal craftsmanship, and organic shapes was a clear contrast to the cold, mechanical look and sameness that capitalism promoted.
Iambadatnames1938
By shining a light on artisans, Art Nouveau fought against the idea of art just being another product and pushed back against the soulless side of industrial mass production.
LitchLitch
That was really more the Arts and Crafts movement more than art Nouveau, they did tend to fade from one into the other without clear demarcation but that was more the philosophical core of the A&C than the A.N. movement.
Iambadatnames1938
The roots of Art Nouveau can be traced back to the Arts and Crafts Movement in England during the second half of the 19th century.