The Line Drawn Between

The grand debate between modern and contemporary architecture. People often use these terms interchangeably, and find themselves asking 'What is the difference?' or 'Is it really necessary to draw a fine line between each one?' 

             The difference between modern architecture and contemporary can be met by the modern mantra of "Form follows Function," where the appearance of an object is defined by its purpose.  

Sydney Opera House, 1958

What's important to remember, however,  is that modern style doesn't change. The label "modern" refers to a specific time period when the emergence of new technology and advances in engineering were about. 

What was once modern is always "modern," and we can see that by the common characteristics that bounds this type of architecture -the clean lines, the visual expression of the structure.

Contemporary, on the other hand, is always evolving. It usually follows trends, some of them being the GLocal movement, heavy emphasization on sustainability and green archictecture, and use of natural materials.

Now, is it really necessary to draw a fine line between each one? 

"Elimination of all concept of form in the sense of a fixed type is essential to the healthy development of architecture and art as a whole. Instead of using earlier styles as models and imitating them, the problem of architecture must be posed entirely afresh." 

I think it is necessary to see architecture as an art, and as with art, beauty will always lie in the eye of the beholder. It should be accepted as its own instead of as a revolution to another.