In reference to Modernism, I personally don't find a significant relevance on whether there is a presence of God in architecture or not-unless there are religious complications that are relevant to the use of the building. (Churches, etc.) With that said, the aforementioned will be the only time one will read about my comments on God and architecture. Nature on the other hand carries much more of an importance to me when I think about architecture and specifically modernism.

What is the relevance between nature and modernism?

For the purposes of this post, I did not choose to acknowledge the usual definition of nature, where it is characterized in all of its ubiquity and variety. Instead, I considered the Presocratic definition, where nature's beauty is best defined in its simplicity, characterized only in elements such as water, fire, air, and earth. In a sense, the definition of modernism that we find in the World Encyclopedia matches this simplicity: “Twentieth-century movement in art, architecture and design and literature that, in general, concentrates on space and form, rather than content or ornamentation.” (Bump 499)

Because of modernism's emphasis on space and form, it can be suggested that they indeed, mirror the Presocratic concept of elements on the grounds that they each concentrate on form and structure which above all come before ornamentation and superfluity.

Though Amanda pointed out that modernism has its extravagant and ingenius designs that may contradict what I previously said, we find that Modernism also has a “loose” definition: “Modernism is a weasel of a word, whose meanings slip and slide. They always have. Not that one should use 'modernism' and 'always' in the same sentence.” (Paradise Now, Bump 500) In effect, we also find that this style of architecture is symbolic of change like Ruskin defines in his “Changefulness” of the Gothic style. Though it doesn't physically characterize the moving clouds or swishing oceans that we most often think about when we hear nature, it does show how our society is progressing. Like Pallavi pointed out, our technological and social advances also count as a form of our natural progression. Thus, the advent of modernism is just as important as the Gothic, Spanish, and Mediterranean styles of architecture. It is in our nature to progress. Where else would we be if we stayed in the dark ages?

In response to Ruskin's criteria of how a building reflects nature, I find that modernism fits in most of his categories with the exception of “roughness.” Which is probably one of the reasons why I prefer modernism to our other forms of architecture. Modernism never ceases to fascinate me, mainly because it is to a certain extent, unpredictable. (contrary Le Corbusier's design)

As a personal preference, modernism has a significant place in my architectural style-probably because I am an advocate of societal progress and I enjoy the feel of the big city that is dominated by large behemoths of glass skyscrapers and curious metallic edifices.