 Acest cookies produce a drawing in the 1830s, where he contrasted the Gothic architecture he was supporting and promoting, comparing it with the classical architecture of his own time. But there is something about this drawing, I think, which is worth working on, and that is that both refer to architecture Mae ymddwyr cyfrannu gyda'i gweld yn cyfrannu bod yw'r cyfrannu cyfrannu, ac mae'r cyfrannu ar y cyfrannu cyfrannu yn ymddwyr, am hynny, mae'r cyfrannu cyfrannu cyfrannu oherwydd, oherwydd mae'r cyfrannu cyfrannu cyfrannu cyfrannu cyfrannu, sy'n meddwl am y cyfrannu cyfrannu. Mae'r rhywbeth yn gweithio'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyd-dweithio'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod. If you go to the average English cathedral first, you'll see that many periods coexist at the behedle, classical with Gothic, Elizabethan, Jacqueline, Cleir, Queen Anne, Jordan, Victorian, arts and crafts. The one thing which jazz is the aberrant architecture defying gravity, so I adopted this drawing and changed it showing the state of affairs today. We'll have a pile of sandwiches without any visible support. Billions which create a sense of unease, which do not respond in any way to gravity at all. If you look at any street, as it was up until, say, 1945 onwards, you'll see that the dominant emphasis is on that character, and that verticality depends on a humane architecture that also responds to gravity. When you get a geometry that cuts completely against it, that's the same street as it is today, with aggressive horizontal lines, with a scale of a building which completely destroys that which exists, you get visual disruption. It is that kind of thing which has occurred everywhere which causes me to worry about matters. Something's gone wrong. The modernists demand a tabula rasa, an empty tale. At the same time, they attempted to make connections with the past, and so we have falsehoods of fake history masquerading as architectural history. We are told, for example, that our new verb really begins in the 1880s, but it doesn't. It begins a lot earlier than that. It comes from the Gothic revival. If you look at those peers supporting the old Blackfriars River Ribs, they date from the 1860s, so do the capitals of the urban violent in Farringdon. I read many a student essay when I came across the same statement that there is absolutely no historical reference whatsoever in glass school of art. Well, you've got a canton very from the English vernacular architecture drawn in the consuls in the 1880s. You have Arniveau, you have tall blinded windows derived from Sir Edward Luton's House in Britain, which had been published only a couple of years before. So there are all sorts of references here. Where does it come from? It comes from that book, that tradition book, pioneers of the modern movement, from William Morris to Walter Grobius. That gives the whole thing away, creating that spurious connection between the arts and crafts movement and Walter Grobius. Similarly, those apologists for modernism try to persuade us that the hall at Blackwell by Billy Scott, of the beginning of the 20th century, is really the same thing as Corbusier's artist's studio in Paris of the 1920s, which you see on the right. I don't think there's any truth in that whatsoever. This is a spurious connection. And when we read that the bay windows at Broughton's, on bonus, on Windermere, come amazingly close to the 20th century concrete in Glass Street, one begins to wonder about one's sanity. All about the fact that people are continuously looking with their ears. That is simply the truth. At the conference of the International Congress for Modern Architecture in the 1920s in Switzerland, the great Dutch architect Henric Petros Melaha refused to have his photograph taken with the groups who demanded strip windows, who demanded black roofs, who demanded and issued manifested demanding. Everything that Melaha hated, they tried to root him in as a pioneer of modernism. He said, I have faced all my work on long, tried tradition. You are destroying my life's work. I refuse to have anything to do with you. You are violent criminals. The holy, unholy trinity of modernism. Walter Gropius, as an officer in the cavalry regiment of Imperial Germany. Ludwig Mies, looking while I'm comfortable in his new suit. And the great Lord Corbusier Charles-Edward January descending from the skies, talking a lot of nonsense about the partner on which he clearly didn't understand. In the years before the First World War, there were numerous designs being produced by people like Gropius and Ludwig Mies for monuments to, say, Bismarck. Now, Gropius couldn't draw. Gropius always had to have somebody as his evaluances. All the work attributed to Gropius was drawn by somebody else. If you look at those two designs for monuments to Bismarck, one by Mies, one by Gropius et al, it's actually Adolf Maier, who collaborated with him on many things. You see the long square columns from King Hatschetson's Temple in Dair al-Bahari in Egypt. Drawing on ancient Egyptian architecture on stripped neoclassicism on elementary geometry. In other words, there is a strong historical reference. It's no surprise that there was an exhibition of Ptolemy architecture in Berlin a year or two before these designs appeared. And if you look at the designs by Wilhelm Kreis for monuments to the heroic German army after it has conquered the world, you will see that the language of 1941 and 1943 is no different at all. In other words, that trend continued. It was there in the office of Peter Vairans, where both Gropius and Ludwig Mies worked the long square columns from ancient Egypt, the simplified elements drawing on stripped neoclassicism. And nowhere can you find that better expressed than in the former Imperial German Embassy in St Petersburg. There it is as it is today, minus its sculpture at the top. Now those elongated columns, again, were very much the official architecture of the Third Reich. This is, of course, 1913. The job architect was Ludwig Mies. Ludwig Mies, also on his own account, produced numerous designs. He came from a craft background in Aachen, in North West Germany. He produced designs drawing on the stripped architecture of Schinkel, on ancient Egyptian architecture, and indeed on that simplified neoclassicism that Schinkel used in numerous rivers in and around Berlin. And just before the First World War, in Breslau, which is now the watch office in Poland, there was a great exhibition of 1913 to celebrate the centenary of the Wars of Liberation and the Great Defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig, when the forces of Poland, the various German states, and Russia, defeated Napoleon and righted the army's power. Those exhibition buildings include works by Panziposi, which you will see at the top right. You will see it's in fact a concrete version of Greek architecture. And at the same time, he was designed office blocks, all in country, but with simple means of support between the floors. Those buildings are actually contemporary. And it's extraordinary that in Poland, in a city that was absolutely devastated in the latter days of the war, as the Red Army advanced, the restoration of the old city has been carried out particularly. And at the Church of Saint Elizabeth, which is crammed full of filerary monuments to German families, has been meticulously restored with all the inscriptions done in gold. That says something about civilization, and it's about civilization that I am concerned. Also, just before the First World War, there was an exhibition by a cologne designed, one of the buildings in Model Factory was designed by a legend, by a grubbys, but mostly by Adolf Meyer. And if you look at the plan and compare it with a Ptolemaic Temple, you will see that there are strong similarities. There are also, I think, in the office block elements from the work of the American architect Frank Lloyd Wright, whose work had just been published by Vasselord in Berlin in a beautiful folio edition. The defeat of Germany and the collapse of the monarchical system left Germany not only ruined, but a basket case. Germany swung to the left, and various architects, including Ludwig Mies and Gropius, allied themselves with what they saw as a kind of Soviet of architecture. Ludwig Mies attempted to exhibit some of his works, Gropius refused on the grounds that it was reactionary. So we have a transformation. Mies, in German, means something that sounds shabby about a nasty. He changed his name to Mies by adding a bioresis on the E, so Mies means nothing, and added Van der Roa, which sounds vaguely grand, that's being reassuringly Dutch. The transformation then was complete. He became a modelist and rejected all the work he'd done in the past. Through the influence of Henry van der Belver, the Belgian architect, Gropius had been appointed head of the Grand Dupal School of Art, Environmental Art, and when the monarchical system collapsed, he was able to accept the appointment under the Republican government, but changed the amalgamation of all their schools of art in Weimar and called it the Bauhaus. He claimed that it would be uniting all the arts. He claimed that it would be like a cathedral workshop, a building workshop, a large, if you like, and of course it was nothing of the sort. He also said it would be based on science, and he appointed people like this who must have looked very reassuringly scientific. Johannes Itten, who followed cult based on ancient Zoroastrianism, who shaped his head, wore a strange garment, insisted that all his students had an enema first reading in the morning, and fed them garlic paste. He also pointed Gustav Nagel, who insisted that capital letters were elitist, and so that's why his name is spelled with the word case. Now, this is very difficult in Germany because all minds have capital letters. This is hardly a scientific rationalism, is it? And if you look at virtually everything Gropius wrote, the opposite of what he said is the truth. In fact, what Gropius created, and at least now it's arguably created a cult, and a dangerous cult can be defined as a kind of false religion. The adoption of a system of belief based on mere assertions with no factual foundations, or an excessive almost idolatrous aberration of a person, a person's or an idea, or even a fact. And the adoration given to Luc Corbusier, as he called himself like all the potatoes, is one example. A cult is destructive, it isolates its believers, it claims superior, but spurious knowledge, and gravity demands subservience, conformity of regions. It's adaptive brainwashing, it imposes assertions as dogma, it will not countenance any descent, it's self-referential, and its tame intellectuals are brought on board to construct branding narratives tailored to suit the story. To create a bogus history to convince the den. And it invets its own arcane language, incomprehensible to outside, and so that is exactly what has happened in architectural education. Since the war, every architectural school was taken over by people who brainwashed students, and the students are waking up. I'm saying to tomorrow, who realised what they had been taught was nonsense. So we get Ludwig Mies, a scholar in our course himself, designing an office block with a series of elements, aggressive horizontal bands, the structures hidden inside, the structures that collect, the centres that collect, heavy weights on glass, don't look right. The same thing happened at the past time, perhaps, where Eric Mendelsen did the same. That kind of language has become ubiquitous. For the first time in the history of architecture, something had happened that was aberrant. It was obvious, pious, he said, he would keep politics out of things. So he had designed a monument to the workers who had been shot during the cut-litage pooch. It was denounced by the Dutch as a cheaper idea. Ludwig Mies van de Rua also designed a monument to the murdered communists Carl Lee, and it goes, I look so bad whose body was found in the Lundberg canal, shot by the Freikor. Now, if you have publicly identified itself with this sort of thing, it's very difficult to embrace yourself with another crowd of thugs doing the same thing. Gropius and Coe moved to Dessau, where they created masterpieces of workers' housing. You can see how well they're worn from the picture on the top, right. That kind of dystopian environment of leaks, hideousness, lack of humanity became endemic throughout Europe and America. The Bauhaus has been held up as a model of teaching. Well, the embrace of large areas of curtain walling glass made the rooms behind the glass uninhabitable. You couldn't work in them unless you had blinds so much for function. So in fact, a lot of this kind of thing is about imagery and packaging. It's not about function at all. And when Corbusier proposes to demolish the whole of Paris from Notre Dame North to Montmartre, replacing it with telebox, one begins to understand what the future might be. You'll notice that the drawing on the right shows the ground completely given over to the motor cars. Everybody is shut up in telebox. The reality, as Louis Hellman showed, was slightly different. Get us out of this hell. Aeroplanes, while they're almost in a cry at your telebox, and all the rest of it. Crying, vandalism, uninhabitable, disturbious. This is the world we have been given. And all the publications produced by the modernists, light, Corbusier, for example, held up grain sizes as a model of the kind of architecture he was going to create. But he shaved off the pitch roofs. The top picture shows the building as it actually was, a Corbusier doctor picture to show it had to have the obligatory flat roof. It's like those pictures of the polyp mural of which undesirable figures have been illuminated. He also based his aesthetic on ocean boat ships of the Titanic vintage, and on bombers of 1919, making the whole thing look incredibly dated now. It's like this sort of thing that's vaguely nautical, upper works. This kind of image, raising buildings on the stills, long strip windows, fake nautical connections, this became the language that was used in the period of the 1920s to the, I think it's already, the 1960s. It became known as international modernism, and it was such an aspect in the exhibition, the Weisenhoff exhibition in Stuttgart in 1927, which was organised by Ludwig Miers van der Roa, and various people, Groddus, Maier, Le Corbusier and others contributed. We had the language, therefore, that was to be adapted, not just adapted, but became compulsory throughout Europe and America by a series of curious quirks. By not everybody was convinced, a lot of people didn't like the coercive aspects of this, the demands, the assistance, the totality and disregard of everything else, including, I'm very glad to say, people in Britain. People like Stephen Tennant, the Simwells, Cecil Beaton. It was called by those Baroque, but I don't see very much Baroque in it. It was a kind of, I suppose, cinematic lavishness covered in gold leaf, langua and humour. The point is it's found, and there's no found in the humourous work of people like Groddus, Miers van der Roa, or Ludwig Miers van der Roa. Osbeth Lancaster got it absolutely right. What's the difference? What's the difference? Except that in the Soviet example, capitals have been astued on the ideological ground. But the architecture on the right is expressive of its purpose, unencumbered with cripples of degrade bourgeois taste. Quite so. We're also told that Gropius, Miers van der Roa and all these people fled as refugees in nothing of a sort. They, on the other hand, entered designs for the Reichstag competition that they sponsored by Adolf Hitler. The barhouse, which by this time had moved to Berlin, was not closed by the Nazis. It was closed by Miers van der Roa. He wanted to ingratiate himself with the new regime. And if you look at the architecture produced in the Third Reich, you're told it's all stripped neoclassical. It isn't. Look at the aircraft factory up above. Straight from modernism. In fact, there was no official style in the Third Reich. That kind of modernism was acceptable for industrial buildings. And that included that concentration camps. For more official buildings, such as the government buildings, or the great Olympic stadium of 1936 by Darren and Mark, it stripped cacicism was the order of the day. What's the difference between that language and the kind of work produced by Ludwig Wies and Gropius and Maier in 1911? None. We're also told that under Hitler there was no modernism. There's a petrol station. You couldn't get anything more modern than that, could you? Nor that factory building. You see all this has been expunged. It's been brushed out in histories that are not histories. They're propaganda. It's much fair, in itself, designed some workers' houses for the Duremberg rallies. And Bruno Tart, who is one of modernism's deities, also designed that block of flat to see bottom right, but it lost a pitch roof on it this time because it was built on the Third Reich. And I would suggest that the worker, including the hammer, as an example of public art, does not necessarily assume its right wing. Now, in a country that is going hell for leather for arms, re-arming, and for world war, having blossomed your copy book by designing buildings in the memory of communism, you're not going to get an awful lot of work. Gropius, who was absolutely worshiped by the modernist English architectural establishment, was invited to London, where he was set up in practice with Maxwell Fry. And this is a portrait of Gropius by the German painter Max Ost, which I think sums Gropius up and two designs by Gropius and Fry overlooking Windsor Castle. They told the world was not ready for it. I don't think George V was either. So what happened? I mean, what is extraordinary what happened? Well, America happened. The Museum of Modern Art. Philip Johnson, who, hugely a marketer, went on the, accompanied the German army on its invasion of Poland, and sent the country so gay for these beautiful hats and chaps in great new uniforms. And they set up an exhibition called Modern Architecture of the International Style, accompanied by a book written with Henry Russell Hitchcock. This, again, promoted the kind of architecture that would be erected in Stuttgart. And it's very interesting that when the symbol of the Holy Gnod should be part of the Barthas, set up by the wife of Russell, the Holy Gnod said it's quite extraordinary because Hitler shook the tree and the poisoned fruit fell to the ground, and the seeds were picked up and taken to America where they flourished. Meanwhile, Nies van der Roer is busy signing with others a document of the National Socialist Party magazine supporting the seizure of absolute power by Adolf Hitler. You'll see that he did not leave Germany until 1937 when, of course, he had a well-paying job in America to go to. You'll see that he was, as he resigned from the Prussian Academy of Sciences, he ends his letter high at Hitler, and there you'll see at the top of his note paper it's Nies van der Roer. So what happened? Well, the war was again lost by Germany, and suddenly General Motors solved possibilities in the bottom of the stock. Hitler got it, in fact, embraced by the legislature of the United States enabling whole swathes of times to be demolished, and this, again, was promoted by Le Corbusier, who during the war, of course, had flirted with the French Vichy regime and had invented a new sort of person finding ordinary human beings not worthy to fit in his buildings. So, de Peirweil, our darling, is just what we've always wanted in his Unite de Tassan with its inviting internal seats. And this kind of thing is copied, it's copied in London. One absurd commentator said that this was an example of the picturesque. Well, to compare 18th century follies, Chinese follies, Greek temples and so on, set in a beautifully contrived landscape, compare that with this is, again, an example of twisted logic, looking with your ears. That's a drawing of the one of Brie, a florae is by me. I carefully avoided the detritus lying all over the ground below. Osbeth Lancaster, again, hit the nail on the head. He saw what this would lead to, the complete obliteration of the urban fabric, the fact that here we have workers' flats on Piloti, the workers would have to put up in the air or driven on the ground. The whole of the earth would be given up to motorcars and that would be that. The poor over Paris church is left there, is a kind of national monument of the empty, and in the middle of the traffic round of that is a medieval gateway to what had been the last area. I think that's astoundingly accurate. It's also not known, or not generally recognised, that in Coventry, in 1939, it's proposed to demolish Coventry and replace it with a modernist paradise. It must have been a terrific relief when we looked about it in the job of demolition for and we had this instead. We are told that the spire of St Magnus Church, later I've come to the table, was an untold boon and therefore the tower block built at the other end of the precinct was a modern example of a vested element to offset all the area down. Everywhere we have seen the same thing adopted in Glasgow, tower blocks and flats, most of which have had to be demolished. We have also taken from the Bauhaus, quite happy to work for the East German regime, the Deutsche Democrats for the public, which people like Alder Ross, the new-speated Berlin, said it's actually really rather vain. It's rather more convincing than the kind of thing that was going up in West Berlin, which was supposed to be democratic. In fact, what happened was we had a kind of travesty of the truth in that anything classical, traditional, was regarded as fascist and anything modern was regarded as democratic, which of course is an absolute nonsense. So we have disasters like the cruel ego, the state by Minoru Yamazaki, which was only up for a few years. The lefts were you are in search of pisswires. Nothing could be done. It had to be blown up. And it's also not really realized that the same architect's twin towers were attacked in 911. The leader was a graduate of Hamburg School of Architecture who hated what modernists were doing to a level in some of those 11-times cities. And when the Gauleiters got to work in Manchester, they moved people out of their perfectly-restorable houses into this. And these human crescents were called Nash Crescent, Barrier Crescent, and so on. The newspapers wrote about modern Georgian evidence because the modernists said they were blamed after great art did. Within a few years this was the most dysfunctional type of state in Europe. Mushrooms played out of the walls, violent crime, muggings on the high level walkways. Again, it had to be abolished. Now, when you look at marooned buildings, such a top right there in Wolverhampton, look at the reality of what happens with that museum tower locked just behind it, all the detritus, the ruins. That's what it could look like on the left. It's certainly a joke, but somebody asked me what's that monument to move. I said it's a monument of fact-giving for for getting rid of models. Now, let's go back to Germany. 1936 to 8. The Haigpro Factory. Bottom, the Hudson High School in Norfolk. Those citizens who, of course, cribbed from near Sfand-au-Roy. This was illustrated in all the architectural magazines and pasted skies. It was designed as a vast piece of optimism, but unfortunately it wasn't designed for children who froze from there from the winter and baked in the summer. And because it was framed such as not properly designed, the heat made the ceiling span and so on, the glass cracked. The major problems have been horrific. Even in the recent edition of Norfolk in the period of Inver, it admits that the maintenance problem is huge. We also lost the city of Terminus at Helen Cannonsley to that thing on the right by the infamous John Polson who greased the barns of everybody who could find that he could build his chief modelism. And the Smithsons, again gurus of modelism, produced the Robin Hood Gardens which again showed terrible signs of stress. If you look at the staining on the right and the problems of sound proofing itself, these too have had to be the models. What kind of sense does that make? We have put something out of that and have to demolish it almost immediately. And when Stanley Kubrick produced his clockwork model which he didn't need to get anybody to design the sets, the Greater London Council Architects Department have done it for him. High level walkways, all the cliches, all those worn out cliches which we know don't work. There they are. And now we're not happy. We have a complete denial of reality. We have so-called star architects or stock architects. We have graphically denied. We have that building on the right almost gobbling up the other building and it leaks like a sieve. It is almost impossible to use. What is the sense in this at all? None. It's all about packaging. Here you have it again, enormously expensive. And there's something that only can be done with computers to actually draw stuff like this. I think really Helman got it right. This is the big underpants as it's called. An office block in China by Kulhaas. And Helman, I think, will often hit the nail, pathing on the head, since Swindor's Lane, revolutionary architect, Ram Kikas has designed a landmark signature building in the city. I've mentioned how a certain Bauhaus architects went on to work perfectly happily for different regimes. The Bauhaus was not designed by Goebbels at all. It was designed by Figa and Reifat. Reifat went on to rise to a certain distinction in the Third Reich under Albert Speer and another graduate of the Bauhaus went on to design that model of existence minimum with one latrine for 7,000 people the crematorium at Auschwil's Birchenau. I think that drawing on the right by Charlie sums it up because we've got the very line running through the reassuring farm that will be stretched at a smaller cost the burnt offering in the crematorium in the middle based on a supposedly constructed at the Temple of Solomon from the 17th century to a very ten image. Now triumphs of models and I see there's another fire yesterday. We've had tower blocks collapsing systems building which were held up to be models of rationalism traditional building and didn't work and we have the Grenfell Tower within the Temple of Kevin and what we've got it's rather like a TV evangelist and they're a little bit crazy about it but he's telling us about something we know is not true and finally I didn't warn you thank you very much.