Modern or Contemporary: What's the Difference?
10 Homes Illustrate the Essence of Modern and Contemporary Styles
I am an architect and writer living in New York City. I have Bachelor of Architecture and Master in Urban Planning degrees, and over ten years experience in architectural practice, split between Chicago and NYC. Currently I'm focused on writing and online pursuits. My daily blog can be found at http://archidose.blogspot.com
I am an architect and writer living in New York City. I have Bachelor of... More »
What is the difference between modern and contemporary architecture? Why the distinction? At their most literal, "contemporary" is the architecture being produced now, the architecture of the moment. "Modern" architecture breaks with the past — specifically the traditional styles of before the Industrial Revolution.
So in this sense "contemporary" is not limited to a single stylistic thread. And "modern" recalls the early- and mid-20th-century architecture embodying the ideals of the machine age: an absence of ornament, structures of steel or concrete, large expanses of glass, a whitewash (usually stucco over brick) or another minimal exterior expression, and open floor plans.
While this starts to define the difference, there is an evident use of the term "contemporary" that refers to a particular strain of design today, such that new postmodern, neo-Classical or other neo-traditional buildings are not included. The term's use is clearly narrower than the literal definition, yet it is still rooted in the now; contemporary architecture is of its time, therefore innovative and forward-looking. In this sense it is rooted in the modern, even if it does not resemble it stylistically.
The photos that follow respond to the question, "modern or contemporary?" I hope the answers will elucidate the similarities and differences between the styles, further aiding the appreciation of both styles of architecture.
So in this sense "contemporary" is not limited to a single stylistic thread. And "modern" recalls the early- and mid-20th-century architecture embodying the ideals of the machine age: an absence of ornament, structures of steel or concrete, large expanses of glass, a whitewash (usually stucco over brick) or another minimal exterior expression, and open floor plans.
While this starts to define the difference, there is an evident use of the term "contemporary" that refers to a particular strain of design today, such that new postmodern, neo-Classical or other neo-traditional buildings are not included. The term's use is clearly narrower than the literal definition, yet it is still rooted in the now; contemporary architecture is of its time, therefore innovative and forward-looking. In this sense it is rooted in the modern, even if it does not resemble it stylistically.
The photos that follow respond to the question, "modern or contemporary?" I hope the answers will elucidate the similarities and differences between the styles, further aiding the appreciation of both styles of architecture.
| Modern. In the case of this photo, the question is a trick one, because we are looking at a house from 1939. It features expansive glass in a semi-circular volume, a cantilevered upper floor, corner windows, and a whitewash finish. This residence in Austin, Texas was the inspiration for the four-condo project in the distance by Hugh Jefferson Randolph. Private Comment
|
| Modern. The neighboring four-condo project by Hugh Jefferson Randolph is clearly rooted in the modern architecture of its nearby predecessor: whitewash surfaces predominate, corner windows are evident, and cantilevers and overhangs can be found. Another aspect of the modern style that they both share is an intentional asymmetry, a departure from the Classical bilateral symmetry that was prevalent before the 20th century. Private Comment
|
| Contemporary. The MuSh Residence is an obvious departure from the previous project. Instead of white, the solid walls are covered in zinc with randomly spaced reveals. A cantilever is found, but its relationship to the main volume is more complex (not just an extension of it, like the first photo), and it is offset by a notch on the other side. The house may be boxy and flat-roofed like most modern architecture, but its idiosyncrasies make it contemporary through and through. Private Comment
|
The MuSh Residence (the name and alternating upper-lower case make it quite contemporary too) is actually comprised of two cube-like buildings: a three-story house (previous photo) and a two-story volume with garage adjacent to the street; between is a courtyard. The shorter volume has the same skin and literal expression of circulation via glass. The composition is much more free-form than modern buildings.
Private Comment
Modern. A couple of projects by Amitzi Architects of Israel embrace the tenets of modern architecture, or what is also referred to as the International Style, after the 1932 MoMA exhibition curated by Philip Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock of the same name. That exhibition articulated the ideals of modernism as a style, uniting buildings and architects across the globe through the articulation of volumes, walls and windows. House L does it so well it looks like it could have been made 70 years ago.
Private Comment
Modern. House K by Amitzi Architects features simpler volumes than House L, but the solid walls are treated to the same whitewash. The window treatment is of note here; the louvered screens cut down on direct sunlight. Even though hermetically sealed office buildings — the high modernism of Mies van der Rohe — give the impression that modern architecture ignores climate, many early- and mid-20th-century modern buildings used architectural elements in response to sun, wind, etc. This simple house is rooted in that modern vein.
Private Comment
| Contemporary. Like the previous example, the Skyline Residence in Los Angeles uses architectural elements to cut down on direct sunlight. Yet the design by Belzberg Architects articulates the horizontal wood planks in a manner that is contemporary: they angle and overlap, giving a feather-like appearance. The form of the house is also quite interesting ... Private Comment
|
| ... And the front of the house gives an indication of what is going on: the second-story cantilever creates a carport but also a surface for watching films, something quite LA. This "drive-in theater" represents a hybrid condition: it's a house and a cinema. This further roots the house in a contemporary style rather than a modern one, since the latter preserved distinctions between various aspects of life (live-work-play, etc). Private Comment
|
| Modern. This long and low house in upstate New York is a simple composition of stone and glass floating atop the landscape on a plinth of sorts. The roof overhang, supported by slender round columns, shields the full-height glass wall from summer sunlight. Each element — roofs, walls, plinth — combine to create a strong horizontal composition that recalls the modern houses of Mies van der Rohe. Private Comment
|
Modern. Another Miesian house is this house on Long Island by Stelle Architects. A solid bar with pool supports and sits perpendicularly to the glass box. The open floor plan is apparent in the transparency through the box. This house is clearly modern, almost orthodox except for the manner in which it is raised above the surrounding dunes.
Private Comment
| Contemporary. Full-height glazing does not solely a modern building make. What at first looks like a glass box framed in red is a contemporary interpretation of one, sheared and shifted in the middle. Here the ribbon-like continuity of the stucco-red frame is the most overt expression, a sharp departure from the clear structure and framing of modern houses. Private Comment
|
| Contemporary. This last photo illustrates one vein of contemporary architecture: sustainability. This extreme example, a demonstration home called ScrapHouse spearheaded by Public Architecture, is completely fabricated from salvaged materials: railroad ties, street signs, shower doors, and even phone books. As participating designer Jensen Architects indicate, "some materials were re-invented for their intended purpose," a consideration that makes this project as contemporary as can be. Form does not exist before the building is realized, it is driven by the atypical design palette of salvaged materials.
Private Comment
Next: More about contemporary architecture from John Hill |
Comments
Karen Ho Fatt says:
I have always used the 2 terms interchangeably but I knew there was a distinction but could not quite put my finger on it. Thanks for making it more clear form a historical perspective.
13 months ago ·
Like
Gregory Haynes says:
Great job John! This is always the thing I have to describe to my friends. Now I will just point them to your ideabook :) I'm especially thrilled that the MuSh Residence was the first project you used to describe Contemporary. They'll be flattered back in the studio :)
13 months ago ·
Like
cyndie says:
I've never even been a fan of either type of architecture (also assumed they were the same), but I have to admit, I was totally drawn into this article. I now want to know more about them and their interiors as well. Thanks for the inspiration John!
13 months ago ·
Like
Denise Vilim says:
I'm so glad you posted this John. After some researching a few years ago, I came to view Modern design as having black and white, straight lined, unadorned, starck elements and Contemporary as an off-shoot of modern, but adding color and curves. Now that I've read this I can see that was in part correct, but I did not realize there was a time period aspect used in defining these styles. I still think it's a little confusing, but half way through this ideabook I began guessing the style before looking at the description and I guess correctly each time, so I have definitely learned something here!
And as always - stunning example photos!! Thank you!
And as always - stunning example photos!! Thank you!
13 months ago ·
Like
chezlindy says:
I regularly drive by the home at the top of this thread -- it is in a neighborhood filled with traditional homes (brick cottages, center-hall colonials, etc.). I'm sure the neighbors were horrified when it went up in 1939. While it still stands out in this neighborhood, I see it more as a 30s-era nod to the future, much like the 40s era colonials are a nod to a previous century. In that sense, it fits -- it's a reflection of the thoughts and leanings of that time.
13 months ago ·
Like
sukibenson says:
Never been a fan regardless of what you call it. My description would be a bit more colorful I am afraid.
13 months ago ·
Like
Becky Harris says:
I totally thought the first house was The Gropius House! You can definitely see the International Style/Corbusier influence; what a wonderful house.
Now, just to through some more confusion into these words, would you consider the MuSH house to be Post-Modern? It looks very PoMo to me, thought I'm not quite sure I could put into words why.
Now, just to through some more confusion into these words, would you consider the MuSH house to be Post-Modern? It looks very PoMo to me, thought I'm not quite sure I could put into words why.
13 months ago ·
Like
Becky Harris says:
P.S. Awesome article. That's what I meant to say first in my comment and I got sidetracked :)
13 months ago ·
Like
Thank you so much for posting this! You make it clear and easy to understand.
http://blog.17thandriggs.com
http://blog.17thandriggs.com
13 months ago ·
Like
John Hill says:
Becky - In a sense most contemporary architecture is postmodern, because that style -- for those not familiar with the term in architecture, it uses historical elements in ironic ways (columns as railings, for example) that veer from their traditional uses -- opened up architectural expression to the extent that just about anything goes. Yet I still associate postmodernism in architecture as a historical style that few architects practice today; some that did design in that style in the 80s segued into strict traditional architecture (Robert A.M. Stern). One could even say that contemporary architecture is a melding of modern and postmodern styles.
13 months ago ·
Like
Becky Harris says:
Thanks John! I was referencing the way you use it; that helps me a lot. I think I tend to associate it with the exaggerated or ironic use of elements, ala Robert Venturi or Philip Johnson (AT&T building). But then I get all mixed up between PoMo and Deconstructionism - it's never quite clicked in my head.
13 months ago ·
Like
Robert Mace says:
Like chezlindy, I drive by that top house often. It's a beautiful place. Having done some (amateurish) research on the house, I placed it as Streamline Moderne, an offshoot of Art Deco (curves, flat roofs, portholes, glass block, light color). Reading about Streamline Moderne, it seems to be a pleasant collision between Art Deco and Modern.
Looking forward to the next post!
Looking forward to the next post!
13 months ago ·
Like
Joanne Ledbetter says:
another good example to see and compare, my alma mater, Pasadena Art Center College of Design!
13 months ago ·
Like
freebetty says:
When are we going to colors, like primary colors, on the walls of those beautiful houses
13 months ago ·
Like
John,
Thanks for posting. I love the subject, I do both Contemporary and Modern, and sometimes it is the same.
jerry@jerryjacobsdesign.com
Thanks for posting. I love the subject, I do both Contemporary and Modern, and sometimes it is the same.
jerry@jerryjacobsdesign.com
13 months ago ·
Like
Thanks for sharing our 29th + Wooldridge condominium project and how it relates to the adjacent historic 1939 home. Our goal was to be compatible with, but not to mimic or overshadow, the original.
Bubba67, thanks for pointing out the more decorative Art Moderne elements of the home, which are more evident in the front of the house. Credit to the original architect, Roy L. Thomas.
Bubba67, thanks for pointing out the more decorative Art Moderne elements of the home, which are more evident in the front of the house. Credit to the original architect, Roy L. Thomas.
13 months ago ·
Like
lspswr says:
Love the history and architecture lesson! Thanks so much -- love your ideabooks and have learned so much from you!
13 months ago ·
Like
Valerie Bowles says:
I also recognized the first photo immediately. When we looked for modern in Austin, there were only two listings, but they were appropriately labeled as modern. One owner was very adamant that it was modern and not contemporary. Here's the one we chose. It has an international style.
13 months ago ·
Like
snowbunnie says:
Thank you, thank you! People (including many design professionals) interchange and misuse the terms constantly. Thank you for an informative and long overdue post.
13 months ago ·
Like
Christina Ebbers says:
I've always been a little confused by the distinction between contemporary and modern. Somewhere along the way I got this idea in my head that I dislike contemporary but love modern. However, this is entirely in reference to interior details as opposed to the the architecture of homes as a whole. For some reason I've associated the word "contemporary" in interiors with a rather un-imaginative trend-driven style that seemingly everyone that I know between the ages of 40 and 80 has embraced. Olive green, wicker furniture, muted colors, and safe safe safe.
It appears that I've associated that look with the word "contemporary" simply because that's what those homeowners that I've known saw as the current and in-style look, so they themselves labeled it as "contemporary". But clearly that is too narrow of a definition.
I would be very curious to see someone examine the modern/contemporary issue in regards to interiors. Do you think it would have basically all the same points as related to architecture?
It appears that I've associated that look with the word "contemporary" simply because that's what those homeowners that I've known saw as the current and in-style look, so they themselves labeled it as "contemporary". But clearly that is too narrow of a definition.
I would be very curious to see someone examine the modern/contemporary issue in regards to interiors. Do you think it would have basically all the same points as related to architecture?
13 months ago ·
Like
linhome says:
John - love this ideabook and your other ideabooks as well !!! This is a great article. We just bought Mid Century Modern home in Maryland and we are adding some contemporary aspects to it. This whole MCM is a new thing, and we are trying not to "change it" up too much to lose its "MCM" look. I think cje4 has a great idea of someone examining the modern/contemporary look for interiors.
13 months ago ·
Like
diosatx says:
Thank you for this information and your ideabooks. I have learned so much by reading your posts. We purchased a house that our friends and some professionals have said is contemporary, and I now know is modern. The house is definitely different from the other houses in this 80s traditional neighborhood.
13 months ago ·
Like
John Hill says:
Glad to see so many comments on this topic. cje4's idea on an interiors version of this post sounds like a great idea. Stay tuned.
13 months ago ·
Like
Christina Ebbers says:
Yay! I eagerly anticipate the interior reboot of this topic. :)
13 months ago ·
Like
Ashwin Architects says:
Good work, thanks for posting
Good environs make good life!
Good environs make good life!
13 months ago ·
Like
It seems you have distilled the distinction pretty well, but the vernacular use of both terms still muddies the waters. The term contemporary is more misunderstood than modern. I began to ponder this in a blog post of mine (http://bit.ly/ifUAIM ) because I saw the terms used incorrectly as well as interchangably. However, I also believe "modern" does not have to limit itself to the philosophical or stylistic time period of the late 19th century - early 20th century. Regardless, I think this was a good article. It makes it difficult to point to a building and give it a label...maybe that's the best part.
12 months ago ·
Like
John Hill says:
lee - I see your point, but when looked at in terms of form and style "modern" refers to the aesthetic of the International Style in the early-to-mid 20th c. Or to put it in another, potentially confusing, way: today modern is contemporary, but contemporary isn't necessarily modern.
12 months ago ·
Like
Actually, I've never understood why Houzz has two different categories for "modern" and "contemporary". I don't really see a distinction that is relevant to us architects or to potential clients and the general public. While there may be academic interest in defining and parsing different "-isms", I don't think it matters in day to day architectural practice.
Being modern (or contemporary) isn't a style, it's an attitude. It's not about copying a particular pre-existing style (colonial, arts & crafts, mediterranean, or even "Modern" with a capital M - which to me means 1920's International Style). Granted, all designers are affected and inspired by what came before, but there's a difference between copying from and being inspired by. This is not a value judgement in and of itself, as great (or terrible) design can come from either approach, and different circumstances and clients may merit one path or the other.
My guess is that if you polled architects about whether their work is "modern" or "contemporary" you wouldn't get a meaningful distinction. And if those of us who live and breathe this can't tell the difference, then it really is just semantics.
Being modern (or contemporary) isn't a style, it's an attitude. It's not about copying a particular pre-existing style (colonial, arts & crafts, mediterranean, or even "Modern" with a capital M - which to me means 1920's International Style). Granted, all designers are affected and inspired by what came before, but there's a difference between copying from and being inspired by. This is not a value judgement in and of itself, as great (or terrible) design can come from either approach, and different circumstances and clients may merit one path or the other.
My guess is that if you polled architects about whether their work is "modern" or "contemporary" you wouldn't get a meaningful distinction. And if those of us who live and breathe this can't tell the difference, then it really is just semantics.
7 months ago ·
Like
ellie48 says:
Thanks John for an interesting post. I've always known that there is a difference between modern and contemporary, but I didn't 'know' the difference. I will now however try and keep the explanation of the differences simple!! (: Thanks again so much for your explanations.
4 months ago ·
Like
Kaylana Check_Dawna says:
What is the difference between contemporary and modern landscape architecture?
3 months ago ·
Like
John Hill says:
ruffslitch - Not sure there's a set time for that sort of thing, but a lot of contemporary architecture loses its freshness after a decade.
Kaylana - Not sure I'm the best person to give an answer to this, but I think many of the same ideas apply, especially in the way modern landscape forms parallel modern building forms. A similar parallel can probably be found in contemporary landscape. What might distinguish the two is a more systems-based approach that prizes native species and other means of, say, reducing water usage in contemporary landscapes versus form and surface being important in modern landscapes. But again, I'm probably the last person that should be answering this question. Regardless, maybe an ideabook on that topic is needed...
Kaylana - Not sure I'm the best person to give an answer to this, but I think many of the same ideas apply, especially in the way modern landscape forms parallel modern building forms. A similar parallel can probably be found in contemporary landscape. What might distinguish the two is a more systems-based approach that prizes native species and other means of, say, reducing water usage in contemporary landscapes versus form and surface being important in modern landscapes. But again, I'm probably the last person that should be answering this question. Regardless, maybe an ideabook on that topic is needed...
3 months ago ·
Like
Today's Articles
