I found this reading to be confusing and difficult to follow. Despite this the content got my mind thinking and captivated my attention. Modernism could speak to the eternal only by freezing time and all its fleeting qualities’ [Harvey, 1989. p. 21] This statement suggests that modernity doesn’t have a set definition and is determined by the time rather than the name itself. I also believe that this is true, if we compare modernism and postmodernism they have completely dissimilar meanings.
Modernity changes, develops and progressed through time as it encompasses the architectural movements in that time period. Today modernist architecture is seen as a movement that is sleek, smooth and technology advanced which is different to what it was in the past.
I agree with Harvey and understand where he is coming from. I think we need to encompass the future but without destroying the past. I will take this reading and consider it when researching and designing. Taking into account what I know about the past and knowing what I and others around me design will determine the future makes me excited to see what modernism could be in the future.
Harvey, David. The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Chapter 2- ‘Modernity and Modernist’ (pp. 10-38)