THE MODERN or industrial
Note that I use modern, in distinction to modernist, simply as a technological description, without stylistic or ideological implications, to indicate buildings that incorporate any of the revolutionary advances in building materials (primarily steel, concrete, float glass) and methods (riveting, welding, bolting, reinforced concrete, steel trusses, tension structures, etc.) that occurred in the industrial revolution, particularly from the latter half of the 19th century onwards. An alternate and perhaps more accurate term to describe these materials and methods would be industrial.
THE TRADITIONAL OR PRE-INDUSTRIAL
In contrast to the modern or industrial methods and materials are what are usually called ‘traditional’ methods and materials; but again, to avoid confusion with the use of traditional elsewhere as a methodological term, these materials and methods might be better described as pre-industrial: stone, clay, timber, reed, bamboo, puddled and blown glass; post-and-beam construction, wattle and daub, solid masonry construction, arches, and the like.
THE TWO AXES
With the meanings of these various terms defined and distinguished from one another, we can now establish two separate binaries, polarities, or axes: on the one hand, we have the design-methodological axis of Traditionalism — Modernism; on the other, the material-technological axis of Traditional — Modern, or, alternatively and perhaps less confusingly, Pre-industrial — Industrial. This formulation makes it clear that it is entirely possible to build a modernist building with pre-industrial materials and methods, or a traditional building with industrial materials and methods. In fact, all modern buildings before the 20th century were traditional in design, the Royal Liver Building being just one of tens of thousands of examples. And what is true then is true today: the principles of traditional design can be applied equally successfully and validly to contemporary buildings, using modern materials and methods, without contradiction.
OPPOSING WORLDVIEWS
It is probably fair to say that, beyond their methodological opposition, traditionalism and modernism also represent opposing philosophies or worldviews. Traditionalism tends to eschew Theory with a capital T and pseudo-philosophical interpretative frameworks, and rejects the idea of architecture as a ‘high’ art whose purpose is to serve as a vehicle for the ego-expression of the architect as unfettered creative genius. The traditionalist designer is happy to work within the ‘rules of the game,’ understands that traditional architecture can be as deeply idiosyncratic, creative, and innovative as modernist architecture, and that the possibilities inherent within traditional design principles are far richer, more challenging, and more rewarding than those offered by the modernist ideal of ‘following one’s own rules.’
HISTORICISM and pastiche
Traditional design is not ‘historicist’ or ‘pastiche.’ Were the neo-classical architects of the Renaissance or the neo-gothic architects of the Victorian era historicists? Are the cast-iron classical columns of the great train stations of the 19th century ‘pastiche?’ Of course not. It is hubris to think that our own time is somehow exceptional or different to all the ages that have passed, or that the modernism that prevails today is somehow ‘better’ than the thousands of years of traditional architecture that came before it. The traditionalist sees the whole history of architecture before the 20th century as a continuum (the word itself comes from the Latin traditionem, ‘a handing down’) and a repository of elements that he is free to incorporate and combine in his own work. This inheritance was rejected by the modernist architects, who instead chose to follow a path that traditionalists would argue is unnatural and even unhealthy, both psychologically and physically. Traditionalists regard the principles of traditional design not as arbitrary or subjective stylistic preferences, but as objectively desirable and appealing, because they are deeply rooted in and reflective of human neurology and psychology.
THE VERNACULAR
Finally, I should note that traditional architectural design can be divided into two broad and sometimes overlapping subcategories: the vernacular and the classical. Vernacular is also sometimes called folk architecture, though it has been argued that vernacular architecture is not strictly speaking architecture at all, but simply building. It is the ‘low’ architecture of the common people: houses, townhouses, worker’s cottages, barns and the like. It is characterised by simplicity and rusticity, archetypal forms, modest scales, local materials, and minimal ornamentation. There are no vernacular architects, only builders, working unselfconsciously and anonymously within a local style passed down from master to apprentice, without working drawings, and with local materials. Vernacular buildings form the ‘ground’ of the traditional built environment.