Key Modern Architectural Styles

Why This Matters

Modern architecture isn't just about buildings looking different—it represents a fundamental rethinking of what architecture should do and who it should serve. You're being tested on your ability to connect specific movements to their underlying philosophies: the rejection of ornamentation, the embrace of industrial materials, the relationship between form and function, and architecture's role in social change. These movements emerged from specific historical contexts—industrialization, world wars, political revolutions—and understanding those connections will help you analyze any building you encounter on an exam.

Don't just memorize which style uses concrete or glass. Know why each movement made those choices and what principles drove their aesthetic decisions. When you see an FRQ asking you to compare two buildings, you'll need to identify not just visual differences but the ideological frameworks behind them. Master the concepts below, and you'll be able to tackle any modern architecture question with confidence.

---

Form Follows Function: The Rationalist Core

These movements share a fundamental belief that a building's appearance should emerge from its purpose, not from applied decoration. Ornament becomes dishonest; structure becomes beauty.

Modernism

• Rejected historical styles entirely—sought to create architecture appropriate for the industrial age rather than imitating classical or Gothic forms
• Form follows function became the defining principle, meaning a building's design should derive from its practical requirements
• Embraced new technologies like steel-frame construction and reinforced concrete to achieve previously impossible spans and heights

Functionalism

• Purpose determines design—every element of a building must serve a practical function or be eliminated
• Efficiency over aesthetics drove spatial planning, with rooms sized and arranged based on how people actually use them
• Influenced urban planning beyond individual buildings, shaping how architects thought about circulation, light access, and user experience

International Style

• Volume over mass—buildings appear as lightweight boxes rather than heavy, solid structures
• Glass curtain walls became signature elements, using steel frames to support the building while facades became transparent screens
• Rejected regional variation in favor of a universal architectural language that could be applied anywhere in the world

---

Art Meets Industry: The Design School Movements

These movements emerged from institutions and collectives that sought to unite fine art, craft, and industrial production. They believed good design could—and should—be mass-produced.

Bauhaus

• Founded by Walter Gropius in 1919 in Weimar, Germany, becoming the most influential design school of the 20th century
• Unified art and technology by training students in both fine arts and practical crafts like woodworking, metalwork, and weaving
• Standardization for mass production meant designing objects and buildings that factories could reproduce efficiently without sacrificing quality

De Stijl

• Reduction to essentials—used only straight lines, rectangular forms, and primary colors (red, yellow, blue) plus black and white
• Universal visual language sought to transcend national and cultural boundaries through pure geometric abstraction
• Influenced architecture through Gerrit Rietveld's Schröder House, which translated the movement's painting principles into three-dimensional space

---

Material Honesty: Celebrating Structure and Substance

These movements made the building's materials and construction visible, treating structure itself as the primary aesthetic element rather than hiding it behind decorative surfaces.

Brutalism

• Raw concrete (béton brut) left exposed and unfinished, celebrating the material's texture and the marks left by wooden formwork
• Monumental geometric forms created bold, sculptural buildings that dominated their surroundings
• Social housing and civic buildings were primary applications, reflecting post-war idealism about architecture serving the public good

Constructivism

• Architecture as social tool—emerged from the Russian Revolution with the belief that design should serve revolutionary political goals
• Industrial materials and techniques like steel, glass, and prefabrication expressed faith in technological progress
• Dynamic, asymmetrical compositions suggested movement and energy, rejecting the static balance of classical architecture

---

Emotion and Experience: Beyond Pure Rationalism

Not all modern architects believed function should dictate form. These movements prioritized psychological impact, sensory experience, and connection to nature over strict rationalist principles.

Expressionism

• Emotional impact over rational planning—buildings designed to evoke feelings through dramatic forms, unusual materials, and dynamic spaces
• Organic and crystalline shapes replaced the rectangular boxes of rationalist architecture, often inspired by natural forms
• Light as design material—architects manipulated natural and artificial light to create atmosphere, particularly in religious and cultural buildings

Organic Architecture

• Harmony with nature—buildings designed to complement their sites rather than impose geometric order on the landscape
• Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater exemplifies the approach, with cantilevered terraces extending over a waterfall and local stone integrating the house with its rocky site
• Natural materials and forms like wood, stone, and curving walls blur the boundary between interior and exterior, built and natural environment

---

Decoration Reconsidered: Ornament in the Machine Age

While most modern movements rejected decoration, Art Deco embraced it—but in a distinctly modern way that celebrated technology, speed, and luxury.

Art Deco

• Geometric ornamentation replaced the flowing curves of Art Nouveau with zigzags, chevrons, sunbursts, and stylized natural motifs
• Luxury materials and craftsmanship like chrome, lacquer, exotic woods, and bold colors conveyed glamour and sophistication
• Skyscrapers and public buildings from the 1920s–30s showcase the style, including the Chrysler Building and Empire State Building in New York

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two movements both rejected ornamentation but for different reasons—one pursuing universal visual language and one prioritizing user experience? How would you explain their different motivations?

2. If an FRQ asked you to discuss architecture as a tool for political change, which movement provides the strongest example, and what specific features would you cite as evidence?

3. Compare Brutalism and Art Deco: both were used for major public buildings, but what do their contrasting approaches to materials and decoration reveal about their underlying values?

4. Organic Architecture and the International Style represent opposing philosophies about a building's relationship to its site. What would each movement say about whether architecture should respond to local conditions?

5. A building features exposed concrete, bold geometric massing, and was designed for social housing. Which movement does it most likely represent, and what historical context explains why this style was chosen for public projects?