这类摩天大厦的典范就是“二战”后建于纽约的联合国办公大楼。它高高挺立，既垂直又扁平，看起来就像一本薄薄合拢的书。它似乎太单薄，以至于让人觉得要用一对很大的书夹来进行支撑，才不被大风吹倒。其实它根本就不需要书夹来支撑，就像所有的摩天大厦一样，这座建筑物已经由深埋地底的坚固钢梁牢牢固定住。这座大厦非常美观，因为它朴实而简单，没有花哨的装饰，没有滴水嘴，没有飞檐，没有雕像，没有曲线，所有的线条都呈垂直或水平状，从一边贯穿到另一边。联合国总部大楼那众多的窗户使大楼不至于显得过于呆板、平庸。这些窗户不仅为室内提供了充足的光线，而且还减轻了大楼的重量。
这座大楼的窗户真的很多！一位家庭主妇晚饭后洗好碗用不到半小时。一个男人几个小时就能把家里所有的窗户擦好。但要把联合国总部大楼的所有窗户都擦干净，想想那是项多么艰巨的任务呀！这些窗户加起来大概有五英亩的面积。
甚至住宅楼的设计也开始顺应当今的用途，而不是乱套传统的风格。美国建筑师弗兰克·劳埃德·赖特是第一代以实用风格设计房屋的建筑师之一。起初，他在国外的声誉比在美国还要大。日本东京那座防震的帝国饭店是他最知名的建筑设计之一。它和你看到的任何一座建筑物都不一样。
欧洲也兴起了这种建筑风格，就像钢筋玻璃房一样，完全是原创。在荷兰和德国，这种实用型风格主要用于建造住宅楼。它们由钢筋和玻璃、砖块和混凝土材料建成。建筑师们把这种材料运用得恰到好处，比过去任何一种风格都要好看。譬如，屋顶都是平顶，而不是斜坡，因为钢筋屋顶坚固无比，足以承受任何积雪的重量。这些平顶又非常适合搭建日光浴室。
古朴的荷兰砖房都有高高的斜顶，这也许使人觉得现代化的住宅会有损荷兰砖房的外观。但是，新式的住宅通常都集中地建在一块。如果在古朴的荷兰式住房的街上建一栋小小的实用型住宅，就会显得不合群。但如果把这些新式房屋都集中建在一块儿的话，那效果就是令人赏心悦目了。光滑的混凝土和玻璃墙面看上去既整齐又干净。
在美国，这种实用型住宅通常没有欧洲建得那么普遍。可是美国却按实用型风格建造了许多工厂、仓库、商店以及办公大楼，这些你在许多大城市里都能看到。它们值得你留心观察，因为可以说，到你长大的时候，这种建筑可能就更加重要了。这类建筑物都有通风设备，即使窗户不打开，室内也一直保持着适宜的温度，而且空气比室外还要清洁。
显然，你在一座实用的厂房上看不到太多的装饰。这样的建筑是靠简洁流畅的线条和美观大方的外形来吸引人的。后期的摩天大厦却因其时尚的装饰值得一看。还有许多公共大楼，如图书馆、火车站也是如此。由美国著名建筑师伯特伦·古德西设计的内布拉斯加的州府大楼，则是最受欢迎的新型建筑之一。它与以往的建筑完全不同，而且也没有人把它看成另类。事实上，差不多全世界人都喜欢它。
一栋建筑物应当建在合适的位置。某座建筑物也许本身很好看，但建在某些地方就显得不合适。如果在摩天大厦建筑群中冒出一座古希腊神庙就是不合时宜。同样，在一个都是哥特式建筑物的校园里，出现一座现代化的钢筋玻璃大楼就让人觉得不对劲。
建筑设计也当与其所处的历史时代相适应。人类历史的每一段重要时期都有其独特的建筑风格，也必然与早期的风格有所不同。虽然现在还有人在建造哥特式建筑，但我们这个时代最重要的建筑风格已不再是哥特式、罗马式或希腊式了。当今的建筑必须要有自己的风格，要有与以往各个时期不一样的新风格。
所以当我们看到一栋大楼，特别是一栋新建的大楼时，我们可以问两个问题：这栋大楼顺应它所处的时代吗？这栋大楼建在这儿合适吗？当然，大楼不会开口回答问题，但是，我们若仔细观察，就会找到答案。也许将来有一天，大楼会开口回答问题。设想一下，让一栋大楼开口说话并不困难，譬如，按一下墙上的按钮，大楼里也许就传来了电子声音：“我是一栋由钢筋、玻璃和塑料建成的大楼。我的设计师叫约翰·琼斯。我建于1992年。我不想自夸，但我确实适合建在此地。希望你也这么看哦。”
建筑领域的另一种新思维就是像在工厂里制造汽车那样来建造房屋。先造出一个钢筋玻璃房，再成百地批量生产，然后组装，支搭，入住。这样一来，房价就会比今天便宜很多，说不定住进去还相当方便呢。刚一开始这些房子也许并不好看，但它们可以随着工厂技术的提高，加工完善。我希望不要把它们刷成蓝色。
还有一种新思维就是建造一批舒适、清洁、有助健康的房子，替换掉每个城市都有的城中村。这些房屋必须精心设计，合理安排，必须要有操场、花园、空地以及充足的阳光。当然租金必须便宜，确保穷人住得起。在相当多的国家，政府已开始为工人及其家属建造这种住房。通常将他们安置在称作“花园城”的地方。
这些花园城都是精心设计的，以确保多家入住而不拥挤。每座小花园城又自成一体，有自己的商店、学校和教堂。一般来说，花园城都建造在大城市的郊区。
美国已经在着手清除城中村，但还有许多工作要做。这是建筑界的又一个新思维，可能会伴随你一块儿长大。有一天你或许会参与这项工作，清除城中村，建造舒适的新房子。
NONS AND SURS
非写实和超现实
“WHY，a six-year-old child could paint a better picture than that！”said the man.
“At least it has plenty of bright colors，”said the woman.“Look at all that yellow and orange.I like it.Perhaps it’s supposed to be a sunset.”
“It looks more like a fried egg to me，”the man said.
The man and woman were in an art museum.They were standing before a painting that really didn’t look much like either a sunset or a fried egg.It was all made of yellow and orange paints except for a small dark blue square near one corner.As they moved on to the next painting，the man shook his head.“Modern art is too much for me，”he said.“I just don’t understand it.”
Many people are puzzled by paintings that are not pictures of objects.Such paintings are called non-objective paintings.Non-objective paintings are not supposed to look like sunsets or fried eggs or people or houses or any other objects.
Have you ever tried to find pictures of objects in the clouds？Did you ever see a cloud that looked like a lion？Many times one can see clouds that look like a landscape with hills and valleys and harbors and islands.But seeing objects in the clouds doesn’t make the clouds more beautiful.The clouds are beautiful whether or not we can use our imagination to see pictures in them.
Non-objective paintings can be beautiful also.They don’t have to look like some object that we can recognize.You can enjoy them more if you don’t puzzle your head over what objects they are supposed to look like.Just remember they are not supposed to look like anything—except a non-objective painting.
Artists who paint non-objective paintings sometimes say，“A camera can make a picture of an object.A photograph will look like the real object.It will have realism.Why should a painter always try to make a picture look realistic？Why should a painter try to do something that a photographer can do with a click of the camera’s shutter？”
How can a person tell whether a non-objective painting is a good painting or a poor one？Why is one building beautiful and another ugly？Why does a moose look clumsy and a deer look graceful？
No.89-1SCHRZO（#86）（《诙谐曲·作品86号》）RAUER（鲍尔作）Courtesy of the Museum of Non-Objective Painting，New YorkBoys and girls who try making non-objective pictures themselves usually find they are fun to make.If you try one you may find it easier to use wax crayons instead of paints.Put the colors on strong and thick.Don’t use a pencil，just the crayons.Don’t just scribble；make different shapes.
When you show your non-objective picture to other people，they’ll probably say，“What is it supposed to be？”
And you can answer，“Why，it’s not supposed to be anything.It’s a non-objective picture.”Of course，most artists still paint pictures of objects.All modern paintings aren’t non-objective.
There are many modern paintings of objects，however，that are just as puzzling to some people as non-objective paintings.That’s because some people think a painting should show objects just the way they look to your eye or to a camera.They think the objects in these paintings should look real；that they should be realistic.
But a painter may not want to paint objects realistically.He may want to get into the picture some of the feeling he himself has about the object.He may want to use his imagination about the object.