Article

2020-03-02 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

[TAKIMAG] The president’s executive order starts from what seems to me an indisputable premise, that much if not most of the federal building carried out in the past half century has been at best undistinguished and at worst hideous. But in the 1930s and even later, federal buildings that were (and will always be) a great adornment to the city, such as the Supreme Court and the Jefferson Memorial, were built. And it is not possible that what was possible then should not be possible now.

According to the executive order, classical architecture that takes its inspiration from ancient Greece and Rome symbolizes the American founding aspiration toward democracy and the rule of law. Critics point out that both were slave societies, says the professor, and indeed that the slave-owners in the Southern states of America built neoclassical mansions on their plantations. I think both arguments miss the point, though simply to reject the classical world because it was slave-owning is to deny its other and longer-lasting legacy, and would also‐in logic‐be to reject the founding of the American republic because some of the American founding fathers were slave-owners (and not a woman among them). History is, or ought to be, more than the backward projection of our current moral enthusiasms or obsessions.

Moreover, modernism and its successors are much more tainted by fascist

Continued from Page 4

fascist

...anybody you disagree with, damn them...
and communist ideologies. And while I do not think that classical buildings are in any way aesthetically redolent of slavery‐one does not look at the Maison Carrée in Nîmes and think "slavery"‐modern buildings frequently speak of megalomania, both of the architect and his patron, and it is true that dictators have sometimes built in a style that one might call tyrant-classicism. But high modernism was certainly in vogue for much of the Soviet Union’s existence, with horrible results, combining hideousness of design with shoddiness of execution. Moreover, many of the originators of modernism were themselves of very totalitarian disposition‐they explicitly wanted to legislate the style of architecture for the whole world‐and their inhumanity is obvious from what they built.

However,
some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them...
the political associations of classicism and modernism (and its successors, such as brutalism and deconstructivism) are beside the point. What is important is that classical architecture, even when not of the very best, is never as bad as the kind of things that Thom Mayne builds. It can achieve grandeur through elegance and not merely by size, or by a tendency to make human beings about as welcome in its precincts as weevils in a packet of flour. What is important is to build well and beautifully, and I do not see how anyone could fail to come to the conclusion that (for example) the National Gallery of Art in Washington is incomparably superior to the recent extension of the Tate Modern gallery in London.

But the nub of the professor’s argument is this: "I fear that [the executive order] will ultimately stifle innovation and reverse recent federal support for architectural experimentation." In other words, it will cramp the architects’ freedom to build whatever they feel like building‐with the results that are to be seen everywhere.

Innovation and architectural experimentation are not good in themselves. They are to be judged by their results, not by their newness, their originality or unprecedentedness. It would be an innovation to build a skyscraper of refrigerated butter, but the fact of its innovation would not be enough to save it from reprobation. A triangular wheel would be an innovation, but it would not be an advance.

The article bears out precisely what the executive order’s preamble says: that the modernists and their successors pay no regard to beauty. The professorial author extols the new American embassy in London as follows:

[The embassy] combined provocative design with the latest advancements in security, while incorporating green building systems that reduced energy costs. Together, I believe [it] project[s] the image of a technologically advanced and enlightened U.S. federal government.

Not a word of its beauty, not surprisingly, since it is a monstrosity, admittedly one among many other monstrosities.

And why provocative design? Who is to be provoked, and what for? Architecture is not a cartoon, a play, a novel, a joke. Note also the absence of all mention of beauty or elegance in this dithyramb‐for a very good and sufficient reason. If anything could bear out precisely what the executive order says to justify its promulgation, it is this.

Posted by Fred 2020-03-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Naturally, the architects hate it. They suffer no limits or bounds. Add them to the media/Democrats, and there should be quite a storm.

Posted by Bobby 2020-03-02 09:04|| 2020-03-02 09:04|| Front Page Top

#2 They suffer no limits or bounds. Add them to the media/Democrats, and there should be quite a storm. I very much disagree. After 5 years in architecture/engineering school and 40 plus years practicing both if limits are placed on design we would wind up like the architecture od the old Soviet Union or the Nazi system. If a design is submitted it doesn't have to be accepted but with limits imposed everything winds up looking alike. There would be no inovation.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2020-03-02 17:17|| 2020-03-02 17:17|| Front Page Top

13:44 Abu Uluque
13:41 NoMoreBS
13:39 Abu Uluque
13:36 mossomo
13:36 swksvolFF
13:32 mossomo
13:26 Frank G
13:12 Regular joe
13:12 mossomo
13:11 swksvolFF
13:08 Abu Uluque
13:00 swksvolFF
12:59 Regular joe
12:55 Skidmark
12:53 Skidmark
12:52 Abu Uluque
12:50 Abu Uluque
12:49 Skidmark
12:48 NN2N1
12:46 Skidmark
12:44 Bobby
12:43 Abu Uluque
12:41 Bobby
12:38 Skidmark