Post by foheadDynasty on May 2, 2017 19:11:01 GMT
Even though all these styles are considered to be international movements they have a characteristic to them which sets each apart. Stereotypically speaking (and likely due to economics and history) if you look at the particular building styles comprising of the time of the rise of each you can attach importance to the influence coming out of each of the respective countries which had a favorable hand in generating the aesthetics.
America's transition period, during the 1930's and thereafter - it is about the "system of the shapes" which naturally derived from the benefit of new materials and technology. America during the 1930's built much of their infrastructure and high rises owing much to the development of steel and low wage labor.
Europe on the other hand was still stuck on the form Art Nouveau. The Eiffel tower for example. And Art Nouveau is inherently a more rich form.
China was always about the effluence of the emperor and his Sinitic culture. Advantageously then, the form of Rococco suited the development of China as it seen as the richest.
America's transition period, during the 1930's and thereafter - it is about the "system of the shapes" which naturally derived from the benefit of new materials and technology. America during the 1930's built much of their infrastructure and high rises owing much to the development of steel and low wage labor.
Europe on the other hand was still stuck on the form Art Nouveau. The Eiffel tower for example. And Art Nouveau is inherently a more rich form.
China was always about the effluence of the emperor and his Sinitic culture. Advantageously then, the form of Rococco suited the development of China as it seen as the richest.
