I think we need to get Ross Douthat out of that gloomy New England neighborhood and send him for an architectural world tour. Specifically to the democratic countries.
12
M aking
A merica
G od-
A wful
11
I love the classical look and support Trump's plan. These buildings represent timeless solidity and strength and connect us to our past. People will disagree simply because Trump issued this directive but the President has been making me very glad I voted for him.
5
Since the 1990s the General Services Administration (GSA) Design Excellence Program has produced excellent buildings & GSA's video about the program provides very clear and compelling evidence of the high quality federal buildings produced.
Ironically the video is entitled "Designing for Democracy," and fortunately it is also on YouTube - in case the GSA takes it down in the same way so many other federal agencies these days are removing climate change data, voting rights data, biodiversity data, pollution data, etc. from their websites.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=562&v=TKYPMSSHCdQ&feature=emb_logo
Douthat simply does not understand what he's talking about.
4
Ross--as a regular reader of your column my opinion of your commentary shifts from topic to topic and ideology to ideology. And, many time I find I agree with your position even when at first glance it might seem the opposite of my progressive leanings. I appreciate your point of view.
But in this column regarding an executive order from Washington on architecture I find your analogy and position so far off the mark that I simply can't believe you wrote this in any coherent frame of mind.
Please sit with Paul Goldberger for an afternoon and have him lay out the history of architecture for you. What it means, why innovation in design is important and what truly visionary buildings give to all of us--experientially, culturally, environmentally and yes, even politically.
Hey, if it was good enough for the Greeks and Romans it must be good enough for us!
No. It doesn't work that way. Look to the future. Stop looking backwards. Architecturally and politically.
22
This is basically not gonna happen. There are simply just a handful of architects and designers that are trained in the classical style and he majority of those work for Robert A. M. Stern Architects. These kind of buildings are way too expensive to design and build.
Every so often someone tries to drag out the classical style. Post-Modernism of the 1980s was the last iteration of classicism done on a large institutional scale. Think of the work of architect Michael Graves.
5
I want my five minutes back.
10
"Diversity" and "inclusion" are euphemisms for discrimination and excuses for patronage.
P.S.: Modern architecture has become a self-referential cult that ignores the suitability of a building for its uses and users. Architecture is not art: it is a branch of engineering that builds to meet human needs.
1
Really? I guess you are talking about the Parthenon in Athens or Notre Dame in Paris, the Pantheon in Rome, or the Parliament buildings in London. I dont think Frank Loyd Wright would appreciate you statement or I. M. Pei who designed the pyramid at the Louvre. Yes architecture is an art and an ancient one. We need more great buildings to make our collective hearts soar and be proud we can build incredible buildings. Engineers are very important to architecture but they are not the designers, its very complicated but thats the simple answer.
15
Ross, do you remember Albert Speer, Hitler's architect who also dictated a return to classical style. And have you seen the great classical edifices that Mussolini had built during his time? (Check out the train station in Milan for one glaring example)
Not to mention what it would cost to build something like, for example, the grand Library of Congress Building. Think of the high ceilings, the wide, grand hallways, the great open space inside the main entrance. A real energy saver, for starters (NOT!)
9
All this theorizing and false equivalency and abuser logic misses the fact that this policy is motivated by the same (actually quite complicated) nostalgic feelings for one's own childhood that lead people like DJT to lament the fact that people don't use hairspray anymore.
13
The thing about classical is it's boring. No one's going to build a 'wow' faux classical building. The guy who needs to surround himself with all the colours that are gold should not be allowed to dictate what the built environment will look like.
The Senate is a lovely building, but it's still filled with craven quislings. You can't fix that with a fossilized facade.
11
Are you living in a fantasy world? The Republicans have worked non-stop for the last thirty years to damage America's faith in the intitution of government, and now they want to patch it over by insisting that government buildings look more institutional? How is this a good thing?
I'd rather have architectural diversity and a party that believes in the positive virtues of government.
8
1. We should not add DC and PR as states because of how it will affect partisan politics but because it is the right thing to do.
2. What a wonder that in an era where Republicans are repudiating even the most basic elements that allow us to live in a democratic liberal state together Douthat worries about the style of the building that these corrupt creatures work in while they eat away at liberty.
9
Ask yourself, would prefer to drive around in an ancient chariot, or a Tesla? Do you wear a toga? Communicate by hand written scroll, transported by foot? No? Than why would you base your architecture on outdated, inappropriate technology?
11
When reading about this latest conservative-manufactured front in the culture wars, I immediately think back to the furor over the Vietnam War Memorial, designed by Yale architectural student Maya Lin. Many conservative's viewed the black wall as unpatriotic and demanded a more traditional statue with realistic soldiers.
Today Lin's creation is one of the most recognizable and visited memorials in the world. Every day hundreds, if not thousands, of people gaze thoughtfully at the names on the wall, many taking rubbings of friends or family lost in that war. Versions of the wall travel throughout the country, visited by veterans and former war protesters, alike.
The statue of three realistic soldiers sits quietly nearby, unnoticed and unremembered.
Perhaps it would be better for conservatives like Mr. Douthat to open their minds to new architectural forms, than to build a wall around the imagination of modern architects.
15
Instead of worrying about architectural style, let us focus on function - does the building work for intended purpose, does it promote energy efficiency, will people feel good about the space, does it work for the surroundings, etc.
I think it is a stretch to declare Trump Hitler because he wants to dictate a certain architectural style. I have seen colleges (including mine) adopt a variety of styles - and some of the new construction looked silly to me.
Small-government conservatism as a political philosophy is obsolete. Our circumstances are changing too fast for 18th-century ideas and politics. The climate crisis and ongoing environmental collapse require immediate action and, one way or another, will transform the way we live. Responding quickly and in innovative ways is risky, but nature doesn't really care.
I'm torn between the idea that we should be encouraging maximum creativity in all things or preserving some of the symbols of the past, like the classical style in government buildings, to be admired as we might a nicely restored Model-T or an old-fashioned butter churn. They are pleasantly evocative of times past but no guide to the future.
2
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the government shouldn't tell us what is beautiful? And that just because you think classicism is beautiful, maybe others find beauty in modernism? Or in another style that should not be dictated by you or our nation's leaders? And do you honestly believe that if we suddenly have a standard of beauty, we would suddenly find our polarizing times dissolved? More importantly, has it ever occurred to you that universities are trying to teach people how to think, rather than what to think? There is certainly no parallel between universities teaching people and a government dictating a style of architecture.
7
If I recall my history; Hitler also ruled on what type of Architecture was acceptable, what type of art, what type of music. How sad for us that we have come this far to reverse ourselves into something so horrendous as to regulate creativity to serve the master’s taste.
There is a reason that conservative ideas have been pushed to the side and relegated to the trash heaps of history; they do not nurture creativity, just the opposite, they strangle it and starve it because creative and independent thought and actions threaten to cause enough of a change that could make that sidelining permanent.
I dream of the day.
7
A requirement to swear an oath to “diversity, equity and inclusion” ... does liberal intolerance and fascism shine any clearer ?
2
Totalitarian architecture. I say let’s do it. We WANT future generations to have monuments to gaze upon and remember when USA went fascist.
7
“But sometimes forcing incumbents to share power is a necessary path to a more stable equilibrium, to an increase in public buy-in and transpartisan trust.”
Americans used to think that way about fair trade practices and monopoly power until about 1980.
2
This is excessively, willfully lazy and naive, Ross. Really pathetic take here.
7
Conservative political power right now rests on the anti-majoritarian Senate, the anti-majoritarian Electoral College, anti-majoritarian gerrymandering of the House, and the currently wildly ill-distributed wealth in the nation. Apparently, from the essay, conservatives are also anti-diversity. Crazy. Is it any surprise the the moderate / liberal majority chafe under right wing minority rule and seek ways around the road block? The debate over architectural styles is entertaining and interesting, but it is at most a minor side show to the larger conflict over the problem of minority political rule, and one that is quite abusive of its power in the bargain. I fear this is not going to end well.
5
Las Vegas -- the part that people actually live in -- is full of mostly modern architecture, particularly the downtown area where the public buildings are.
A few years ago a new government building was built in the neo-classical style. It's gaudy and ridiculous-looking, a scar in an otherwise nice-looking block, with fake, squat columns and a cheap-looking facade. Only a Philistine would find it remotely attractive , which is likely why our City Council likes it -- politicians are rarely known for their taste. Remember when Republicans didn't want government dictating aesthetic and artistic decisions?
I know this concept is anathema to Republicans, but how 'bout we let experts make the decisions? Design should fit the surroundings, and those decisions should be made by people trained to make those decisions.
There was a time when reliance on experts was a cornerstone of conservatism. But let's face it: There hasn't been a conservative Republican in office since 1980.
Also, Hitler loved classical architecture. It's very much the chosen style of dictators, as any well-traveled person knows.
9
I'm shocked, shocked that you support Classical architecture.
It's from heathen Greece and Rome.
There is nothing remotely Catholic about it, even if it is sometimes called Roman Catholic.
This is so unlike you. Why don't you oppose Trump's call for this kind of architecture and demand that all public buildings be built in the form of Cathedrals?
Dan Kravitz
6
"Making American architecture a little more traditional probably isn’t going to get us there, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt"
Oh my, yes. Let's go back to white marble & limestone on everything, and while we are at it put a lot of columns (Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, whatever) in front as well. Hey, if that style was good enough for Germany in the 30s & 40s, it's good enough for us!
7
NY Times, you can do better than this drivel.
11
Trump's architecture plan represents everything that conservatives supposedly hate: mandating top-down directives from Washington elites; stifling freedom of choice, freedom of expression and creativity; and ignoring the market (there's a reason why columns and arches are no longer the norm).
Once beloved by the right, it seems that they have betrayed ideals espoused in Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, who's architect protagonist fights for independent thought in the face of conformity. Unlike the book however, it is now Republicans who want to impose strict mandates to limit freedom of expression and essentially end architectural innovation in the public realm.
10
The real point here shouldn't be about declaring any particular style to be preferred over any other. But there is a real irony is that it should be this administration, of all presidential administrations, that would dictate the classical style.
The classical ideal -- be it in architecture or the fine arts -- can be summed up in three words: symmetry, balance and restraint. One imagines that to those tasked with designing our early government buildings, the classical ideal would have seemed an almost perfect expression of the then recently created government, what with its emphasis on the rule of law and its system of checks and balances.
But fast forward to the Trump presidency, and ask yourself: is there any President in U.S. history for whom the virtues of symmetry, balance and restraint would be less applicable as metaphors than the current President?
7
How ironic and how Orwellian that those who insist upon architecture that supposedly reflects the highest levels of our democracy are the very ones who have corrupted it on the way to destroying it. Very scary stuff.
4
Ross Douthat clearly knows nothing about architecture, nor it's history. "Making American architecture a little more traditional probably isn’t going to get us there, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt..." Yes, Mr. Douthat it could and would hurt. There is more to architecture that picking a "style" as if you are choosing something out of a catalog. Architects, educators and critics have worked hard to inform the public of the role that architecture plays in society and it's value. We don't always get it right but every concerted effort is in a positive direction. A state sponsored/required style won't achieve anything in the cultural and political wars we are experiencing now.
7
Let's all thank Ross Douthat for his contribution to the general media freakout around this topic.
The thing about executive orders is this: they don't appear to have much staying power. So Trump can dictate this for what? One more year? Five more years? The next person in office can toss this executive order in the waste bin.
It's a conservative bragging point. It's not actual change. People wasting time editorializing about this have been Trump-trolled.
3
Hey Ross, did you ever hear of Benito Mussolini? Or Adolf Hitler?
4
From Augustus to Hitler, those who buried a Republic and replaced it with autocracy embraced classicism. Augustus boasted that he had turned Rome from a city of brick into a city of marble, Hitler welcomed the British air raids on German cities, so that he could rebuild them in the style of the regime.
This is not to say that the (neo)-classical style is evil per se. No architectural style is. But all public architecture is a political statement. And the moment stylistic uniformity is dictated from above, it is about inscribing political uniformity unto the public space.
Augustus rebuilt the Roman forum, ostentatiously out of piety towards the gods, and out of respect for his "restoration" of the res publica. But, instead, he turned it into a monument of his dynasty and the new regime, as he did with everything else he built in Rome.
Of course, Ross and most other under-educated conservatives (no, a Yale BA doesn't make one an intellectual) don't know all of this. But they must understand where the idea is coming from.
10
"Over the last generation, our nation’s elite cultural institutions have become more themselves, which is to say that they have passed from being mostly liberal to being monolithically so, with strong internal forces — like Berkeley’s litmus tests — pulling them leftward and no countervailing power remaining on the right. Over the same period, in a trend that obviously feeds into and is fed by the first one, conservative politics has become more populist and anti-intellectual, and conservative voters have become more hostile to universities, the media and other organs of the intelligentsia."
First off, Mr. Douthat, are you "in" or "out" as a member of the media and an organ of the intelligentsia? Inquiring minds, you know.
This statement of yours also clutches at conservative notions best expressed by the joke: Yeah, the conservatives have a lock on the halls of power, but the liberals have a lock on the English Department at UC Berkeley.
And yes, conservatives have a lock on the Senate, the White House, a majority of state legislatures, a majority of state governors, and a majority on the Supreme Court -- not to mention a president and senate majority leader hell-bent on stacking the Federal Judiciary with even more conservatives. But you're gnashing your teeth about how liberals have control of academia.
Why do they? Because science and the scientific method, truth, and the search for truth is the highest value of academia. For the GOP? Not so much.
12
A commitment to “diversity, equity, and inclusion”. I think that is basically a commitment to not being racist and not being sexist. If you assume those to be "liberal" values, then you're kind of admitting that "conservative" values mean being racist and sexist. Of course, as a liberal, I know that for a big chunk of the Republican party racism and sexism are indeed the basis for much of their values. But just the same I am surprised to read a conservative columnist admit that racism and sexism are values of the conservative movement in general
16
"But these two stories, Californian and Trumpian, belong together because they illustrate the evolution of the culture war."
Only because Johnny Deadline needs a premise for his article. We already have a Parthenon. We even have one in Nashville. Can we at last have something that doesn't look like the nth generation copy of a two millennia old idea?
Look up the row when Westminster Cathedral was built. The people who hated it then sounded the way Ross sounds now.
6
To insist that a classical style be place over all others for the sake of aesthetic and political reasons feels a tad undemocratic.
We’re united in a sense of goals and purpose for a more perfect union. NOT an Architectural style.
2
I wish Douthat would pay us a visit to ask how his architectural and social Utopia really was. Many of remember the conservative Catholic country that continued into our adulthood. We know the architecture and it was interesting and functional and charming. At 6' 2" I had to watch myself in residential properties but church and state made churches and state accessible to jolly green giants. Those churches make excellent condos and restaurants.
We had more than our share of Trumps and those who chose their parents well, but they at least they were taught the difference between gawdy and obscene and good taste.
If Trump had chosen architecture instead of lying cheating and stealing we would know Trump design by the gilded and expansive vomitoriums.
4
If, in medieval times, the powers that be - namely the Church - commanded that only classical structures be build, we never would have had Notre Dame, Chartres, and many other beautiful buildings. If we are incapable of creating our own styles of architecture, of art, of literature, what does that say about our culture? Art is inherently imaginative creative; simply reproducing the works of the past is not art, it is imitation.
Art is creative, not imitative. It's never purely creative, but if it's purely imitative, it fails as art. It's a postcard.
4
“Conservatives have political power but feel shut out of cultural power…”
With all due respect, Mr. Douthat, review the photos in today’s Opinion piece “What a Trump Rally Looks Like From The Inside,” by Devi Lockwood, the cultural desert explains itself. I don’t see many in number that would be good candidates for things like the Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs, Chambers of Commerce, local town leaders, Rumson or Baltusrol Country Clubs in New Jersey, the haunts of Republicans of my Dad and Granddad’s time. Does that look like a crowd that cares about culture?
5
Mandating design Mussolini and Hitler would cheer — this is not supporting creative expression, free democratic thought or any architectural advances made in the past 100 years. Just stop indulging the would-be authoritarian with poor taste occupying our White House. We are better than this, Mr. Douthat, Trump chips away at democracy daily — it's nothing to applaud.
5
Douthat compares an initiative to encourage academic diversity to an initiative to eliminate architectural diversity. I can see the value in the former but not the latter. Academic institutions, to maintain their legitimacy as seekers of truth and guardians of the free exchange of worthy ideas, should worry about leftist (I won't say "liberal") viewpoints becoming orthodoxy.
The architecture initiative, on the other hand, far from a reassertion of the value of beauty, represents an assault on the concept. Beauty is style-agnostic. Execution is all. A mandate to ape an older style is a prescription for ugly buildings, pale imitations incapable of conveying the majesty of beloved antecedents. Why? Because good neoclassical buildings are simply too expensive. I mean, the marble alone! Not to mention the lost arts and crafts that lent those old buildings their gorgeous details, their animating spirit. No, I'm sorry, this approach would produce soulless, infantile shlock, fitting only as monuments to the current president.
I'm not hostile to the idea that government buildings should express institutional confidence and grandeur. But modern styles can do that and have done that. Even that most maligned of all modern styles, brutalism, has done it. See the Washington Metro and Dulles airport. We are a heterodox nation, a "composite nation" as Frederick Douglass put it, and our public buildings may confidently and beautifully express that fact.
4
Whatever building styles are to be put up, make them using the most up to date techniques and technologies to ensure they have the greatest energy efficiencies possible. Wherever they are sited, build them with the structural soundness appropriate to the geotechnical environment they are in. Columns if you must but make sure they can handle a good shaking from Mr. Richter.
It's nonsensical to say that anything that is imposed will have a de-polarizing effect.
5
Trump’s “depolarize architecture plan.? Really? Nearly every Trump initiative is designed with an us versus them intent.
5
I'm sorry, but this is simply un-American.
"Classical" style?
NO. A thousand times NO.
3
To this day, one can view panoramas of cities of the former Soviet Union and present-day Communist China seeing that sickening sameness to stifle creativity. Apparently, moral bankruptcy isn’t enough for this administration, let’s add cultural bankruptcy, too.
7
I'd also emphasize here the association of the Neoclassical architectural template with plantation architecture across the southern United States. That correlation is unmistakable, as is Trump's enthusiastic endorsement of it.
8
Stalin loved classical architecture, so did Hitler, both mandated that it be the style of choice for the state -- not surprised to see Trump Thumbing Republicans go down the same path. Just like Roman emperors, they think marble can hid the moral rot of the their empire.
What about truly American architecture like the Chicago School and Frank Lloyd Wright? What about Art Deco? Or Missionary? What about freedom and diversity? So much for Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead"... lol
5
Trumps desire to have classic architecture stems from his need to be imperialistic and emperor like. The Romans were powerful, conquered the known world, had emperors and were imperial - much like Trump dreams of.
Hitler also used classic architecture when he came to power - everything had to be the biggest and most beautiful so the world could see Germany, and him, as a powerful nation. Add that to his use of imperial colour combinations - red, black and white - his use of impressive looking uniforms (SS) and symbols, and he had a winning and powerful combination.
The use of classic architecture will only be the start by Trump - expect the others to be slowly introduced. He spends too much time being impressed by authoritarian and dictatorship military parades not to go down this track - they are what he desires to be.
He already has the makings of a dynasty with his nepotism towards his family in the WH.
If the buildings are built to his specifications, expect them to be gaudy and ugly inside as his hotels are - all that gold looks cheap and nasty, and impresses no-one.
Fortunately Trump may not have many years left, so the damage could be minimal.
4
Trump would reconstruct original Roman edifices ion he could, along with statues of himself everywhere. NERO TRUMP is a severely diseased narcissistic sociopath with no concept of the evolution of this country. He cannot, in that empty space of his addled skull, imagine any innovation, progress, strategic planning or evolution - he's too stupid and uneducated (and has the WORST sense of taste).
The less progress we make, the less educated our population, the better for Trump. That will keep people mad and he will tell them why, not facts.
He can take his "architectural" concepts and shove them. That's where they now belong, and they will fit there.
4
Wow; one of the most absurd pieces I’ve ever read by Ross. Surprised this twisted logic made it onto the page.
What’s next, a discussion of the virtues of the “morality police”?
7
Pure Reactionary politics transferred to architecture, shades of the Third Reich.
4
Oh, goodie, gold toilets and columns.
6
"...conservative politics has become more populist and anti-intellectual, and conservative voters have become more hostile to universities, the media and other organs of the intelligentsia."
Typical NY Times writing. Conservatives are stupid or uneducated, and liberal elites are the intelligent and educated.
Lame.
There are a LOT of mindless conformists amongst Democrat voters.
2
Only got to the 4th paragraph and this:
"...has inspired a general media freakout,with editorial pages joining architects in denouncing"
I consume media of many biases so it is not that Mr Douthat's sophomoric description hints at an opposing bias from mine, it is due to hypocrisy I stopped reading.
Does the negative connotation of 'freakout' apply to his article in an editorial page?
Media, news, and editorial pages, are some of the main reasons we still have a Republic. That some do them so biased as to be propaganda does not mean everyone is.
So I am adding to the freakout by throwing shade on the dishonest defamation of general media.
Too tired of actual media being undermined these days.
;)
7
While we’re at it, let’s make Greek or Latin our official language, ban all drama except Greek plays, dress in tunics, and use only science and medicine from the Ancient World. In what other field would you do this?!!!! Sorry, I forgot, we are trying to turn back the clock back on science.
Classical architecture began as an expression of early democracy but has also been an effective tool of empire and colonialism, widely applied without regard to local climate, traditions, or history. There is a reason why Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, as well as the Confederacy loved it - it represents power and domination of one culture over others.
Also, classical architecture is based on the physics of stone and heavy timber known at the time. The only way to economically build like that today is to build a fake version. Why would we want to do that? There are so many other ways of building that have been invented throughout history. And today, we have the ability to build lighter, more efficiently, and with less environmental impact.
Contrary to the thinking of the far-right, we are not a nation of one cultural background (and never were). And we have excelled when we look to the future and invent. We should celebrate architecture that expresses that diversity and innovation.
9
i'm sure that douthat really does think that our impeached president truly is a stable genius.
3
Mr. Douthat clearly does not understand that the notion of a “conservative intellectual” is an oxymoron, since conservatives check whatever intellect they have at the door before making arguments as ridiculous as the one in this column.
6
The White House is burning, Mr. Douthat.
1
All federal bldgs and any with US funds must now be approved by Trump and if possible Trump's name should be on the facade of every bldg. Trump will decide all federal contracts based on who he likes, all court cases will be decided by how he sees it, all court martials will be decided by Trump, the country will be renamed Trumplandia and Ivanka will be its' princess with half the treasury transferred to her immediately. Anyone disagreeing with these ruling will be placed in Trump reeducation camps and have MAGA hats sewn into their skulls by executive order. All elections are suspended only gop candidates can run.
5
Leave it to Ross Douthat to find evil in an effort to right America's most egregious historical crimes.
Also, are we really defending the architectural taste of a man who puts his name on every building he owns?
4
What a superficial assessment!!! The Trump Organization will probably decide on the style and get the contracts for construction
2
There are beautiful classical buildings; there are banal classical buildings. There are vibrant modern buildings; there are ugly modern buildings. The same goes for other styles. But the point is that the government shouldn’t mandate a style. In the draft order, any project seeking exemption from the classical mandate would have to get approval from a presidential “re-beautification” committee. That sounds like something out of George Orwell. The Trump administration should keep its hands off architecture (and art).
DESPOTIC DESIGN
Mandatory architecture, style by the State,
Dictator-decreed design, unopen for debate.
Mussolini, Hitler, helped along by Albert Speer,
Favored symmetry and columns—chilly, white, austere.
Donald Trump built shiny towers, shrieking out his name,
Even so there’s worry that his White House will proclaim,
In spite of his affection for flamboyant gold and gilt,
That future public architecture MUST be planned and built
With fusty fascist columns, formulaic to the core,
Making our great land look like a cruel, repressive bore. □
17
Does Mr. Douthat recall that in Nazi Germany Hitler demanded that all public buildings be “traditional”? Does he recall the outcome of Bauhaus? To deny the contribution contemporary architects is another end to freedom. While it was refreshing for once for Douthat to write anything other than a defense of Catholicism, embracing this policy is absurd. Should our country resemble the sets for ‘The Man in the High Castle? To conservatives, absolutely. I grow more ashamed of the our country each day.
4
I am amazed at the convoluted reasoning used to try and justify mandating "classical" architecture, which is just a stupid, bad idea. What conservatives don't want to acknowledge is that the world changes, and like it or not, we have to change with it. This is the 21st century. There are so many amazing potential designs that the future holds for us, but only if we are allowed the FREEDOM to explore and experiment. I find it hard to believe that even the most conservative architects in the U.S. would advocate for a return to the past. It's just plain wrong. The author mentions Hitler. Architecture can be used to send a message to society about control and power. That is very much what this proposed policy is about. I disagree that "liberals" or "progressives" have appropriated U.S. culture. Since the Nixon era, conservatives have been working steadily to do just that, to the exclusion and detriment of the vast majority of U.S. citizens. Conservatives believe they know what's best for everyone and now are forcibly trying to tell us what kind of architecture we should have. It won't stop there. Women will be forced to bear children they may not want, schools will teach creationism, religious pluralism will be stamped out, and we'll eventually end up with the U.S. equivalent of wealthy gated communities surrounded by a growing and increasingly poor population living in slums. If only the U.S. would vote for politicians that looked out for their constituents' best interests!
2
Imagine the US Holocaust Museum in the classical, Greco-Roman style. It would be a demeaning monument to the Holocaust.
1
In issuing his Diktat, Donald Trump is in perfect alignment with Prince Charles. Who is, I don’t have to remind anyone, the heir-apparent of a royal family
2
I would refer you, Ross, to the relationship between Hitler, Albert Speer, and the architecture of the 3rd Reich. Or the Soviet architectural diktats of the USSR. Or just watch Chernobyl.
That's what happens when governments want to rule art, architecture, and the aesthetic of a culture. Or, should I say, Kultur.
Give us all a break, please.
6
The conservative mind freaks out whenever it perceives the possibility that mutually exclusive paradigms are at work in our lives. It’s monological in its habits, never quite at peace until all vagrant elements of an equation line up beneath one answer, whether it be God, Truth, or in this case, Beauty.
All artists, in this view, should bow before universal aesthetic principles. So it’s easy to see a similarity between Trump’s new architectural pronouncement and Hitler’s favorite artists. But I’m more curious about what makes a liberal open and curious in the face of life’s multiplicities, while a conservative grows closed and fearful.
If we could put our finger on that, maybe we could begin to have the conversations needed to set at rest some of our trying—and tiring—political polarization.
2
And let's get real, here, for a minute. The cost of building a neo-classical building today that looks remotely like what either Trump or Douthat have in mind and can accommodate a 21st century federal labor force would be absolutely astronomical! But I'm sure the GOP would rather just increase the federal deficit by another trillion dollars than have to balance the country's budget!
3
"Through the fruitful use of power against power, so that different ideologies balance one another in different spheres and it becomes easier for Americans of all political persuasion to invest in their institutions once again."
"Fruitful" use of power? You're kidding, right? Like, there are so many examples to think of I don't know where to start. It appears you're arguing for cultural liberals and arch (no pun intended) conservatives to "build a wall" and reinforce it so they can merely heighten their level of combat and "engage" more. You're more likely to see a "cultural DMZ" that lasts longer than the Korean one.
1
This misses the point being made against a government sanctioned style for federal buildings. It is not an issue of preferring classical styles or contemporary styles. Nobody is objecting to the wonderfully classic work that has inspired us all. And nobody is stating that something new is inherently good.
The point is that no government action should mandate any type of Architectural expression. The architectural solution should be determined by the budget, functionality of the work and the aesthetic choices of the collective minds that are present to evaluate the work. The style arguments should be made at the public level. Not at the bureaucrat level. This inclination to obscure this notion by tying it to other components of politics and tribalism seems weak. Architecture should be influenced by the public body. Not the government. And certainly not by any Politician.
4
And I can confidently say that my own patriotism, my own trust in American institutions, would be modestly increased if public architecture tilted toward the wide variety of forms called classical under Republican presidents and then back toward “starchitect” experiments under Democrats.
This statement, along with the silly and false analogy about universities Mr. Douthat offers, is nonsensical. May we add to Separation of Church and State, Separation of State and Taste.
6
What on earth could you mean by "conterminous with progressive notions of what counts as diversity and what sort of inclusion matters?" Are you trying to suggest that there is a different, conservative view of diversity and inclusion?
2
May the next article be about how ugly and congested our hastily-built, money-driven American cities are.
I envy the Europeans. They've had a thousand years to ponder and reflect about their urban design and functionality.
Delightfully, the time has been good to them, and they to time.
1
These ideologues seem to be hostile toward classical architecture because they think it represents the Roman Empire and its brutality. Actually, I suspect people like Jefferson liked it because it evoked the Roman REPUBLIC, which survived for 6 centuries before it collapsed in corruption, and thus proved the apparent strength of democracy.
Why not study what earlier statesmen thought rather than assuming that you know everything?
2
Berkeley, every conservative's favorite whipping boy. Berkeley is hardly representative of all universities--there are plenty of more conservative institutions Mr. Douthat could have selected. Moreover, John Yoo, of torture memo infamy, teaches law at Berkeley, and the student body is far more conservative than the faculty of the humanities.
Perhaps Mr. Douthat chose Berkeley because it is recognized as an elite institution, but Berkeley's reputation is based primarily on its strength in the sciences. How about other elite institutions? Republican Presidents and big corporations seem to have no problem turning to Ivy League schools for Supreme Court justices and corporate leadership. Even if universities recognized as elite are mostly liberal in outlook, that is a reflection of those who call these institutions elite, not of the universities themselves.
In short, American academia, like American journalism, is hardly the monolithic liberal bastion conservatives make it out to be.
Or maybe the more educated you get--the more you learn of the world, who runs it, and how it is run--the more liberal you become. But this is America, where a politician increases their chances of being elected by pretending to be stupid (if in fact they aren't stupid for real.)
7
Ross. Always seeking evidence and ways to expand his autocracy comfort zone.
7
I think I'll accept Michael Lykoudis's opinion over Ross Douthat's on statist architecture: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/10/i-teach-architecture-trumps-plan-federal-buildings-is-bad-idea/
Instead of a Hitlerian model of grand buildings devoid of people, I'll accept this, "As our students can attest, classical architecture is not a style; it is a dedication to principles of community, resilience and beauty. This idea of the classical was first articulated in the 15th century by Leon Battista Alberti, a key figure in the Italian Renaissance. Buildings are not meant to be mere objects, he said, but should contribute to the fabric of the city, promoting a healthy and nurturing community."
I would urge people to read his Op-Ed in the Washpost linked above. Brilliant reasoning.
2
Restrictions on style, appearance and architecture are some of the first things that dictators pass in order to promote a singular homogenized cultural view to make eliminating voices in opposition easier and easier.
Historically this is well understood. Elimination of difference is essential to build a singular view that supports the dictator's rule. It also cows people into more submission when they see people losing work because they think differently than those in power.
This is really rather obvious. Mr. Douthat's nonsense that something is going on besides Mr. Trump attempting to demonstrate his supreme authority and silence dissent is just that, nonsense.
What a failure.
2
Maybe there would be more Republicans in universities if the Party wasn't anti-education, anti-experts, anti-science, and dealt with facts.
5
Mr. Milikh simply repeats the conservative battle cry: "If we can't control it, we'll defund it!" Whether art, architecture, public television, science, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, if it doesn't serve conservative politics, then it should be de-funded. I admit that much that goes on in academia these days is "wokeness" to the point of silliness. However, conservatives have denounced universities for generations, for daring to teach critical thinking rather than blind allegiance to authority, or questioning the myths of American exceptionalism with historical fact. What a bunch of bullying crybabies.
4
NOTHING that Trump does could ever be "good" for anything or anyone but himself and his small circle of cronies.
2
Want to know what’s really ugly? When people take their AR15 to the woods and shoot the place up. They call it hinting but no real hunter used an AR15 - there is no skill in that.
1
I'm sorry, but I remember a few years back that Republicans declared that all Executive Orders were evil and un-American? Where Republicans lying to us?
5
What’s next? Gold toilets for everyone?
What an absolute waste and a crime against creativity.
4
I'm a liberal. I'd go even further, and describe myself as a leftist. And while I wouldn't support any kind of madates on civic architecture at the federal level, either against or in favor of modern architecture, I strongly favor the use of classical styles in our government buildings.
A building isn't just a box to operate in. Its style makes a statement about what the building represents. With cultural and economic institutions, we want modern, forward looking designs. Opera houses, office towers, museums - we want these designs to be forward looking and vibrant to represent a vibrant and forward looking culture.
When it comes to the institutions of government, we want to make the opposite statement. We want the design to convey stability, strength, and a timelessness that transcends particular trends, people or places. Classical design gives us that. The reason pillars look right in front of a courthouse is because that's what pillars convey - strength, stability and permanence.
Our institutions are under threat as they never have been in my lifetime. Now more than ever, speaking from the Left, I want public architecture that affirms the supremacy of the rule of law, not the rule of men. I don't want a courthouse or a town hall to look individual, quirky, or unique. I want those buildings to say, loudly and with conviction, that America's institutions are stronger than the men and women that come and go in their walls.
2
In other words, we won’t get an America where conservatives trust elite cultural institutions until something happens to eliminate progressives and enshrine the consolidation of conservative power.
No, thank you. Democracy requires a balance, not a takeover, and stodgy architecture has nothing to do with it.
8
Fake classicism? Be careful what you wish for. The monuments and buildings we typically think of as swoon-worthy were built at a time when construction costs were a fraction of what they are today and there was deep appreciation for craftsmanship. Today's "classical" structure is much more likely to be comparable to a McMansion than the Lincoln Memorial.
8
Movement conservatives lost their way when they went all-in with Evangelical Protestants. For the strength of Evangelical numbers, the Conservatives backed "Creation Science" and Young Earth theories, and became outraged at the contempt of academics. Agnostic and atheist Conservatives kept mum about it.
The lack of intellectual honesty continues to cast a shadow.
2
There are Federal buildings all over the country. Classical architecture fits into the landscape in Washington DC. However, in other places in the country, classical buildings would stick out like sore thumb and just wouldn't look right. Architects should feel free to build buildings that fit the local landscape.
I recently saw an FBI building in the Miami area - a beautiful, gorgeous, but decidedly non-classical building. Makes sense. A large, marble, classical-style building in South Florida, where every other building looks less than 50 years old, would look ostentatious, gawdy, and weird.
Plus, for several government agencies, their point of pride is that they are technologically advanced and modern (think FBI, NSA, DoD). Classical style conveys a message that you are stuck in the past, technologically and otherwise. That style is best left to the halls of deliberation, like the courts, libraries, etc., not in offices that want to represent they are at the forefront of technology and the digital age.
4
Democrats and a large number of independents, including myself, seek a reform of our political institutions because Republicans are a ruthless minority faction who have misused them to preserve and enlarge their power.
To be workable, our Constitution requires office holders and their political parties to perform their duties in good faith. Republicans have failed to do so, repeatedly, at least since the Newt Gingrich era. Since Obama was elected, they have pulled out all of the stops and evolved into a lawless minority faction, fittingly led by Trump.
Among countless other disturbing incidents, the following deserve special mention:
- The Republicans' refusal to consider or confirm many of Obama's proposed judges, including Merrick Garland; then their confirmations en masse of Trump's nominees;
- Trump's refusal to comply with or legally challenge the House's impeachment subpoenas , followed by the Republicans' kangaroo trial, followed by thuggish threats against the one Republican at that trial who voted to convict;
- Republican gerrymandering; the stripping of governor's powers when a Democrat wins despite the gerrymandering; and the (packed) Supreme Court's refusal to consider gerrymandering cases;
- Trump's serial misappropriation of funds appropriated by Congress and withholding of allocated funds from regions that he considers hostile to his rule; and
-- the misuse of the DOJ to favor friends and hound foes.
1
@Zola
Or the most recent example: refusing to follow proper trial protocol during impeachable and forcing a "final" vote before all the evidence ( which might have been incriminating to their part leader) was in. As far as I'm concerned, the acquittal was phony ( Trump's favorite word) and his presidency still tainted. by serious accusations.
4
Just imagine a beautiful new classical style visitor center in the Grand Canyon or Olympic National Park. Nobody but a very stable genius could have thought of that.
4
I attended Fordham College in the Bronx back in the late 1950s and early 1960s we used to joke that the style of our buildings were Bronx Gothic. Although it is a pretty campus, we thought it strange that in the New World, buildings were constructed in a Mediaeval style to appear as if they were magically there before Europeans ever arrived in North America.
I have recently retired after many decades of teaching at the University of North Carolina, our nation’s first state university where most buildings are constructed in the style of architecture that prevailed during the period of their construction. There is nothing fake or pretentious about what we do when we add to our campus. It has age benefit of providing those who walk our campus with a tour through architectural styles over the centuries of our existence.
Meanwhile over in Durham, after a tobacco multimillionaire convinced little Trinity College to change its name to Duke University in exchange for a vast endowment, the decision was made to build a new campus in the 1930s in Durham Gothic style. It makes my heart warm when I walk across Duke’s campus and take myself back to the Bronx of my youth. In both Durham and the Bronx I hope no one walks across those campuses and thinks both were settled in mediaeval times.
1
Let’s keep the source in mind. Trump has studied Hitler’s tactics in depth. What does he know about architecture? This is another move toward fascism and not about aesthetics.
3
@Ed
"Trump has studied Hitler’s tactics in depth. "
I really doubt that . Trump is too illiterate to study anything in depth. His militaristic Fourth of July celebration (you know, the one where he referred to Revolutionary War airports) was modelled on a military parade he saw in Paris ( I saw the same parade, and my reaction was "if their military is that great, why does France lose all their wars?")
Mr. Douthat's description of UC Berkeley hiring practices is highly misleading. Per the report linked in the article Mr. Douthat himself cites, the facts are these: a consortium of six Berkeley life science departments decided to, for one year, allocate five of their open faculty positions to the goal of hiring faculty with both strong research credentials and track-records of leading diversity initiatives and plans to continue doing so at Berkeley. The six departments implemented that plan by having an inter-departmental committee make a first cut of the applicants based on their diversity/inclusion record and plans. Note that a science department at a place like Berkeley will typically hire 3-5 faculty per year, so this initiative represented only a small fraction of total hiring in the relevant departments. Note also that the cited report mentions no plans to continue allocating even this fraction of positions to the inter-departmental committee in future years, so presumably even the small fraction in the year cited was a high-water-mark needed to build up initial capacity.
More generally, the analogy to 1950s loyalty oaths is misleading. Those oaths were imposed by state law (see Levering Act on wikipedia), while the current focus on diversity is (as far as I can tell) faculty-led. The focus on diversity and inclusion, then, represents faculties exercising their intellectual freedom to self-organization, not (like the '50s oaths) an infringement upon it.
7
@Stephen Thank you for injecting some actual facts into the discussion!
2
You mean make more government buildings look like they did back when slavery was still legal in much of the United States? Makes sense. The false equivalency here between perverse conservatism in architecture and progressivism in higher education points up why most progressives have no patience for most conservatives. They're always trying to distract from efforts at progress with "Look over there!" and "Not yet." As if diversity, inclusion, and equality were dirty words. To conservatives, they are. They open up the private club. As if conservatives don't already have more than enough private clubs. But no. They want it all. In Greek Revival, no less.
8
Ross, so you propose to enforce your own tastes on the rest of the world? And how would you define classical architecture? Where in time would you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not? Would you limit your thinking to architecture? Or would you also recommend that we outlaw any music written after, say, 1950? What about contemporary art? Or science? Or civil rights? Should we revert to centuries-old thinking in those disciplines as well?
Your point of view is not only selfish and short-sighted, but it does not stand up to the ideals of the United States. If we go backwards on architecture, you're making the case on going backwards on everything.
Please come to your senses.
4
if we take the time to look at the modern UN building, mist of us wd be struck by the beauty of its proportions, regardless if we were aware of the classical numerical laws of taste that it adheres to. why can not there be room for this in the conservatives desire for tradtional archetecture
1
When time finally catches up with Trump, and he is forced to make up for all the stealing from U.S. taxpayers he has done, I would like to see Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago razed to the ground so as never with their gloss and bad taste blight this country's architecture again.
6
To me, this is just another attempt by Trump to remake the country in his own grandiose self-image. Have you seen the pictures of his apartment, in all its gaudy splendor? Colonnades, frescoes and gilding galore. Trump is all about surface, image, and appearance. The fact that the substance does not approximate that which the facade suggests scarcely seems to matter.
7
Architect here. Faux historical styles never look as good as actual historical buildings.
We don't make buildings out of real stone anymore. It's too expensive. GSA is never going to pay for it. The stone you see on modern buildings is just veneer.
My guess is that this EO, if enacted, would lead to a lot of Disney-like fakery, rather than beautiful buildings.
12
Maybe Trump could bring over Prince Charles to advise.
https://www.archdaily.com/582691/prince-charles-10-geometric-principles-for-architecture-cause-a-stir-in-the-uk
Having the advantage - or disadvantage - of being in the design and construction industry for close to 50 years, I have to say that if we're going to have an "official" style of building, we need to make sure the Republicans always wear red clothes and Democrats always wear blue ones; make certain the colors have no shading, either.
This is the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. I've worked on many buildings and bridges, and the "style" of them in no way reflects whether or not it is a good project in the end. Some will be torn down in 10-20 years, some will last 100, and some may be around longer. But we shouldn't impose a "style" on them.
I'll end by saying that the reason I don't pick colors or style is because I've worked on too many projects over the years that I thought were plain butt-ugly, but they were exactly what the owner wanted.
7
The internal Berkeley document linked to here and in the associated article is utterly damning. It takes a special kind of self-righteousness to be so proudly self-incriminating. It’s like criminals posting selfies of the crime on Instagram.
1
What an interesting and insightful essay. Douthat generously assesses the extent to which certain liberal institutions proudly fascion themselves as radical feminist institutions. This institutional re-architecting is of course welcome to certain ascendant class, and by certain, we need to acknowledge that all culture wars thrive on the basest of human instincts, people clanning together to revel in their exclusive status by overtly excluding others. In today's America, black and brown men perhaps, wouldn't dare question white women reaping their due economic benefits under the flag of inclusivity. And of course by publicly touting "inclusivity", attention gets diverted from the "exclusivity" that drives university "excellence" and donations. Threateningly, this overtly political strategy by public institutions blinds people to how it trumps the very values that higher education espouses - facts, truth. So we can perhaps venture that this also predestines, as the Republican culture war eventually did, a call for monolithic classic architecture on all buildings.
Douthat welcomes a proposal to impose a Government- mandated and taxpayer-funded architectural style to which everyone must conform, arguing that it'll give more control to locals and non-experts who must live with the results, and calls that "freedom,", while simultaneously insisting that government funding for universities that listen to the expressed wishes of their communities and construct a shared clear understanding of what constitutes respect, fairness and decency in conduct is objectionable and oppressive. Sorry, Ross,. You can't have it both ways.
10
All schools of architecture have produced both sublime works and crap. There is only good architecture, not good styles. Much of classical Roman architecture was tacky imitation of Greek styles, an expression of conquest and triumphalism. The measure in question will similarly encourage the production of pseudo-classical kitsch, Stalinist Gothic for the 21st century.
10
Thoughtful piece, thank you.
I think one of your assumptions is wrong. You imply that culture and politics should serve the same goals. But isn't it better when the two are somewhat at odds? The government, like any institution, is biased towards keeping things the same, stable and predictable. The cultural leaders in any culture are biased towards creating something new; new ideas, new forms of expression, new ways of seeing the world.
My idea is a simplification, but it helps me understand how "Conservative" voices and "Progressive" voices are both an asset of a healthy, stable, and free state.
Republicans it seems to me look to the past to tie us to something stable and sure; while Democrats are about moving us towards a better future, a "more perfect union". There's hope when both sides respect the other and no one group in either party accumulates too much power that shifts the balance.
Thanks for the conversation.
5
We are now 101 years since the founding of the Bauhaus, and "Modernism" as a movement predates that. The idea that "Classical" architecture is merely a stylistic choice is a canard. Our civic buildings reflect the technology and craft available to construct them. Craftspeople who can fabricate details and ornamentation from before the advent of modern architecture are all long dead, and they did not pass those skills along to another generation. BTW, horse and buggy repair is a totally dead craft, as well. This misguided Trump policy will do nothing more than add extraordinary cost to the construction process, for 19th Century detailing that we simply do not have the talent or technology to execute well in the present day.
8
I’m a very fiscally conservative person but would have no problem taking the “diversity oath” cited in the article. Diversity and inclusion are wonderful things; if your brand of conservatism is against them, then that’s a regressive brand of conservatism!
12
Once again Douthat misses the point. Trump's architecture plan is symbolic of a larger problem, that's why people are upset. It seems silly but it's part of a larger ideology that is anti science, anti modern, and Eurocentric.
And being pro-diversity in education is not the same as being anti-diversity. Being in favor of diversity is not a loyalty oath at all, it's just common sense.
5
I might take Trump's demand for classical buildings if he did not routinely build ugly, modern buildings of no soul, modern or classical. I'm not a modernist fan and I think a lot of bad architecture rolls in under tis label but one only has to look at a housing development down south to see that classicism has its share of atrocities.
I am more alarmed by the idea that diversity and inclusion is an anathema to conservatism in America. Shouldn't our public universities include everyone? Shouldn't they represent a diverse swath of America? Or are conservatives unable to see most Americans as America? This comes down to the core of the cultural dispute. This is not actually about values. It is about who counts as an American. Conservatives have decided that only conservative white men count (women only as helpmeets). Thus they see calls for this as an affront.
There are indeed some on the far left who demand validation and feel attacked if it doesn't happen but there are far, far more on the right who demand to be validated.
4
Some people believe that global warming is a liberal plot. Some white people believe that white people should run things. Some men think that men should run things and that the way women vote shows that letting them vote is a bad idea, contrary to God's design.
Some people believe in tolerance and some believe that we know what bad behaviors are and that they should be discouraged instead of being tolerated.
If we are going to live together we have to choose -- either to be tolerant or to join in pressuring people to obey the correct standard overall or at least in public, with disobedience kept out of sight in the closet. If we cant or dont choose, we will fight endlessly.
We lived together for generations while fighting over segregation. Those who favored it tried to spread it to the whole country, and generally succeeded. Even now most neighborhoods are not mixed.
Some of us believe in the scientific method and some of us believe in the Bible or common sense. We fight to impose our beliefs on our common government rather than subjecting our beliefs to review, because some of us are unwilling to evaluate and test our standards and some of us are unwilling to accept the unevaluated and untested (by our standards, of course) standards of others.
A narrow point. I'm trying to wrap my head around an article that accuses liberals of a fascination with novel forms of political hardball. First and foremost, it is conservatives who have actually engaged in political hardball, transforming the federal judiciary by simply refusing to deal with presidential appointments, and blatantly stealing a Supreme Court majority to boot.
Beyond that, state-adding, court-packing, and Electoral College abolition are hardly novel ideas. Each has been around for decades at the lest.
3
So California schools want to promote "equity, inclusion, and diversity."
That's a liberal view?
What do conservatives want to promote - inequity, exclusion and uniformity?
Actually, sounds about right.
14
Why is it conservatives gripe about liberal universities, when in fact so many universities are run as conservative religious institutions? They love to talk about Berkeley, but no one mentions Brigham Young University or the numerous Jesuit schools.
5
I think that Mr Douhat has misrepresented the purpose of the CA university question. It is not a litmus test--it is a request for further credentials that may not be on an academic CV. If you are taking into account only academic achievements, there are many qualified candidates for almost every academic position. The UC system, however, also has another aspect to their mission than just scholarship, and that mission is trying to help groups of people--people of color, women, economically disadvantaged--become part of the academic community. If you have many people that you could hire, wouldn't you want to find someone that can contribute in more than one part of the mission?
4
I am an architect, and have been one for forty years.
I would like to remind Mr Douthat that many dictators have agreed that the classical revival style, in some form, was, and apparently still is the only appropriate way to construct government buildings. Speer used columns, as did many Italian architects during the later years of Mussolini's reign. Franco was a fan. The column in front of a solid facade created legitimacy in their minds, concealing oppression instead of revealing fascism.
Sometimes these projects were actually good architecture, but always tainted by the association with the men [always men} who commissioned them.
The sin of modernism, in the eyes of conservatives, is often transparency, however symbolic it may end up being in the modern government buildings that possess it.
If you look at the mostly-unloved brutalist buildings of the sixties and seventies, it's not hard to see the fear and defensiveness that they represented in built form. Governments were scared of the restive populations of ordinary people; there was an unpopular and pointless war going on, and injustice of many kinds was being brought into civic consciousness. Brutalist buildings reflected that, like Boston City Hall.
The idea that a fake traditional style of design will create respect for the government that occupies the buildings is just silly, and no more a guarantee of surplus beauty than any other kind of design.
261
@Michael c Just as long as we don't have any more federal buildings built in the brutalist style, like our abandoned U.S. Post Office here in San Diego. That style is very popular here. We have lots of brutalist style buildings here on community and university college campuses; they are one step up from the practical quonset huts buildings they replaced.
8
@Michael c
I have a contrarian narrative.
My daughter is a recent college graduate. She took a sort of "architecture appreciation" class to fulfill one of her requirements outside her major. In the brutalism unit, they were asked to write about a local example, which happens to be where our internationally esteemed School of Music presents its operas, ballets, and orchestral concerts. My daughter grew up in this building, taking six years of ballet as a child and attending operas. So to her, it is a place of beauty and exhilaration--and even refuge, as once after ballet class we were stuck there during a tornado warning and I reassured her that the basement of the Musical Arts Center was probably the safest place in all Bloomington to be if a tornado were to strike. We roamed the catacombs of the building where the bass cases stood like the sarcophagi of pharaohs.
Backstage, one might find the streets of Paris from La Bohème behind the set of The Nutcracker.
She received a poor grade on her essay because her professor felt she didn't understand that she was supposed to dislike brutalist architecture, that she didn't have the "right" response to it.
An ornate or beautiful building can sometimes be a bit of a bully, dictating to us how we're supposed to feel or exist or submit ourselves as humans within it--when in contrast, as we all remember from childhood, there is nothing more appealing to the imagination than a giant cardboard box.
26
@C Wolfe beautiful, thoughtful response! thank you!
7
There is nothing uglier than new buildings emulating the past and built with cheap materials.
7
We need a little "surplus beauty" in our National Parks being defiled by drilling and mining and the beauty of clean rivers and streams that Republicans are so anxious to pollute.
4
If I understand your thesis, the California credo is obnoxious to you as a conservative because it's call for "inclusion" is exclusive.
(sick) (sic)
No wonder we're in trouble with conservatives in charge of the cruise ship.
(And yes, I am comparing Conservativism to a plague virus, deadly and particularly targeted at the weak-minded.)
5
And therein is the problem...
Asserts the author..."[C]onservative politics has become more populist and anti-intellectual, and conservative voters have become more hostile to universities, the media and other organs of the intelligentsia."
Translation: "Anyone who disagrees with me politically is stupid."
And that repugnant, fundamentally anti-intellectual, sentiment is *exactly* why the Democrats have been losing (and will continue to lose) national elections.
Their blissful ignorance leads (inexorably) to their downfall.
And they wonder why...
1
Hey Ross - maybe Trump should decide what's degenerate art and literature while he's at it? Big Brother suits you folk on the right just fine.
9
Why does Ross have to bend over backwards to use the word "conservative," like he needs to flaggingly justify his collapsing worldview in spite of it's failures. It's an intellectuals way of continuing to divide us, while thinking they're "helping."
1
Given this and the couldn't-care-less attitude he has for the U.S.'s forest preserves and other public lands, infrastructure, and air and water, Trump is an Unholy terror.
More sickening is that he has nearly a year left in his derelict presidency to destroy.
5
You were going pretty well there for awhile, Mr. Douthat, until you were undone by the usual conservative's false equivalency...
2
Isn't the lone Roman Catholic opinion writer a little on the nose when recommending Neoclassical architecture?
What an amazing inversion of our national character.
Advocating for “diversity and equity and inclusion” isn’t ideological— it is what has always made America “Great.”
Supporting an “official” neo-classical aesthetic for our public, democratic architecture isn’t traditional— it is ideological.
Freedom from sanctioned speech, (including architectural ‘speech’) and freedom from discrimination are, in fact, conterminous ideas, two key concepts that are enshrined in the Constitution. They are our traditions.
Mr. Douthat, you have the equation exactly upside down.
5
A pledge to promote diversity and inclusion is simply a pledge not to promote white nationalism. Seems like a legitimate goal of higher education. Let white nationalism rage at the margins of society where it belongs. If conservatives don’t buy into inclusion that’s part of the reason their ideology is failing. America is a melting pot. All that matters is being good. Successful politicians build big tents. Conservatives still don’t get it. They want to build walls; they consider themselves holier-than-thou; they prefer exclusion. But their rants are always outdated and wrong, just as they were when they demonized papists. Just get off your high horse why don’t you and allow that exclusion is the first whisper of evil, not good.
6
But let's not go too far and adorn these new monuments to Western Civilization with any more nude statuary. The Greeks and Romans were on to something but let's not get carried away...
3
Perhaps we should let Ross pick out which medical procedures are best for us as well.
7
Didn't we just go through a period when classical statues of Christopher Columbus were being torn down? Looks like we might just have to put them back up.
Conservatives: We are keeping big government out of your lives.
Also Conservatives: All buildings must look a certain way.
7
Am I now going to be required to wear a toga when I go to the post office?
7
Trump Style - still an oxymoron!
Ross, Prince Charles has long advocated classism in public buildings in the UK and it has been an unqualified disaster.
4
Go ahead, design me a "Classical" fifty story office building. I'll wait.
7
i agree, loyalty oaths are bad.
Well, except for the Pledge of Allegiance, of course. Conservatives sure are right to advocate tht all children be required to stand and recite that every morning to one natuon Under God, and punished if they don't, starting from the age of 5 before they know what the words allegiance or indivisible mean.
We certainly shouldn't tell people that if they don't agree with the precepts of diversity and equity as understood by the leaders of the university, they should work elsewhere, like how we tell gay teachers that they aren't allowed to work at the religious private schools that conservatives want to give my tax money to in the form of voichers.
5
If you want 'a little more traditional' in Architecture, then you'd need 'a little more traditional' in the craft & artisanry & materials that brought those buildings to life.
You want columns? Then don't you dare imagine anything less than quarried, solid granite & marble carved by hand.
Your interiors better be paneled with clear, old-growth quarter-sawn tiger-oak raised paneling.
Those steps & mezzanines better be at least as beautiful as NY State's capital building, & you'd better get busy importing Italian stone-carvers up to the job.
The doors to offices? Solid, raised-panel chestnut a full 8' tall, & all your moldings better comply with the geometry worked out in the Parthenon & the Baths of Caracalla.
Your roofs better be batten-seamed, turn-coated copper, & your floors tiled terrazzo & marble.
Otherwise all you're requiring of 'neoclassical' is some gaudy, cheap mcmansion stage-set facade; a prop on a trumpian golf course clubhouse.
Neoclassicism has rules, & craft, & traditions that today's bang-it-together builders know nothing about, & will never, ever again have the patience to learn.
8
Classical architecture is a well known tool of fascist and autocratic leaders. It is a potent symbol of western hegemony and colonialism. The insistence on classical styles for Federal buildings is not a move toward beautification; it is regressive and dangerous. Instead of brushing up on our classical orders, the architectural community should be designing buildings that show innovation in sustainability and reflect the diversity of climate, culture, and style in our vast nation.
9
Mussolini redux.
8
When I was a little kid in the 60s and 70s, my rather conservative parents told me about how America grew better and stronger because we took in people of all races and creeds. In other words: diversity, equity, and inclusion. How sad that Mr. Douthat and today's so-called "conservatives" are threatened by those all-American values.
9
Mr Douthat, what? Federal buildings will adhere to classical Greek and Roman styles to display beauty and foster efficiency, what? Implying that diversity, equity, and inclusion in education is antithetical to conservative ideals, what?
If Trump had anything at all to do with the creation of the proposed executive order, it comes like a bolt of lightening out of the blue. Searching for pictures of buildings with the name Trump on them, I can't believe that the guy that loves Trump Tower suddenly fell in love with Doric, Ionic, or Corinthian columns.
No worries though, since infrastructure has been banished from the federal lexicon, in the future, federal office space will be housed in abandoned strip mall tilt ups.
10
This is a very strange (mis)characterization of the UC system's diversity requirement. Part of the job of university faculty is to guide and mentor students and junior researchers. Faculty members who cannot engage with students and mentees from diverse backgrounds will be unable to perform this part of their job effectively and will, even if unintentionally, shrink the talent pool from which our society will draw the next generation of academics and professionals. The diversity statement is not an oath of fealty to liberal ideals; it's evidence that applicants are willing and able to carry out a major component of the position for which they're applying.
13
No, Mr. Douthat, forced conformity to a narrow set of architectural styles is not a good thing for American institutions. Leaving aside the laughable notion that the gold-plated man, the tackiest in the world, should have any say in matters of taste or asethetics, attempting to enforce any rigid view of "good" (= classical) architectural style is so retardataire and provincial that I cannot believe anyone in this day and age could support it. How are we still having these discussions?
12
have you seen the board of the organization that is promoting this fiasco? talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire.
3
Spare us with this ridiculous deification of so called institutionalism. Not too long ago, some Americans thought that slavery was an institution worthy of going to war to preserve it. Well, as a black America, I beg to differ. For some of us institutions are only as good or as bad as their capacity to serve all citizens fairly and equally. Some white supremacist might think that the electoral college is an American institution worthy of protection; if you ask me, a nation that prides itself as a great champion of freedom and democracy has nothing to do with such undemocratic and unfair election tool designed to preserve white supremacy.
In the end, what really defines American conservatism is its utter dread of political evolution, of change and of time itself; and as a liberal, with an adversary engaged and enraged like that, I feel more contempt and sympathy than anger because no one can win against time.
9
This is no less ridiculous than expecting car manufacturers to go back to building cars in a 1920s style. Why not bring back the steam locomotive while we're at it?
It's not a "de-polarising" strategy to flip back and forth between the present day and acting like it's one hundred years ago, just because conservatives have a problem with anything that developed after 1900 (whether it's buildings or social attitudes).
8
Like makeup or a dress, pretty is as pretty does...or in this case, doesn't. What difference does the architecture matter if the institution is hollowed out to house evil, greedy intentions?
6
This argument would be more compelling if the Republican political right wasn't so racist, anti-democratic, anti-science, and anti-intellectual. The Republican party has been following the strategy of deepening the political divide since the time of Newt Gingrich, with the likes of Boehner, McConnell, and now Trump following suit.
7
Diversity in public architecture makes it entertaining. The idea that there should be some classicist, Trumpian standard is simply ridiculous. I suppose that the next step on the heels of this silliness would be to declare certain forms of art to be “decadent”.
7
One thing the buildings in our Capitol need: windows that open.
3
We, as long-time liberals, find that liberal thought to day is not different from conservative thought--the particular focus is different but the type of thinking is the same.
Liberalism has become just another form of conservatism.
"If major public universities are explicitly imposing progressivism as an orthodoxy, the thinking goes, with diversity-and-inclusion statements as the equivalent of a faith profession at a seminary, then why should right-of-center politicians vote to keep them funded?"
Hmm. That's not quite right.
"If major public universities are explicitly imposing anti-racism as an orthodoxy, the thinking goes, with diversity-and-inclusion statements as the equivalent of a faith profession at a seminary, then why should pro-racism politicians vote to keep them funded?"
There. Fixed it.
10
I reject the binary premise that architecture is either Classical and Beautiful, or else Modern and Ugly. It is true that there are many ugly modernist buildings, but there are others that capture something special about a place and time and are artistically inspiring. Old ornamental architecture with intricate stone and metal sculpture are economically unfeasible to reproduce with today's material and labor costs, so what we risk creating with a traditionalist requirement are weak imitations, like an otherwise simple concrete building...with Greek columns. It seems to me that we can drive our federal buildings to be beautiful AND fit within the society they serve, without necessarily forcing them into poor-man's versions of the older examples they emulate.
4
Institutional respect comes from the top. When had Trump even respected any American Institution. Sorry Trump sees this as a way to consolidate power not respect.
If Trump want institutional respect tell Trump to start setting an example. Which institution hasn't he disrespected.
4
University of California employees (as well as all other California state employees) also have to sign a loyalty oath saying they are not a communist. This is codified in the State Constitution.
3
No, no, no. Ralph Waldo Emerson issued America's declartion of cultural independence nearly two centuries ago, in the 1830s. The U.S. should not build Greek temples, medieval cathedrals, French chateaux, etc. Architects can allude to the past, but should not simply copy it. It's the 21st century!
5
Back to the Kool-Aid drinking, eh, Ross? "Over the last generation, our nation’s elite cultural institutions have become more themselves, which is to say that they have passed from being mostly liberal to being monolithically so, with strong internal forces — like Berkeley’s litmus tests — pulling them leftward and no countervailing power remaining on the right." Um, what do call religious institutions claiming tax exempt status but insisting on public tax payer dollars to fund them?
"This has sharpened one of our many forms of polarization. Conservatives have political power but feel shut out of cultural power, and liberals have cultural power but lack the political power to match." We are shut as a MAJORITY of voters politically because #MoscowMitch refuses to pass any meaningful legislation that a MAJORITY of the country wants, like gun safety laws, infrastructure improvements, green energy incentives and job re-training for those being left behind from coal and natural gas fracking jobs, and so on.
"The second half of the equation explains the current liberal fascination with novel forms of political hardball, to make the most of the Democratic Party’s next rendezvous with power — ranging from mild ideas like abolishing the filibuster to more extreme plans for state-adding, court-packing and Electoral College abolition." You mean, playing like the GOP has to strip voter rights, voter suppress, close polling stations on minority neighborhoods, cheat in ballot counts?
9
And while we're busy steamrolling hundreds of years of technological advancement in the field of architecture, why don't we resurrect classical fashion. If this discussion is intended to dictate style, then let's require that all elected officials must wear togas!
9
As a architect and student of the Nazi Albert Speer’s often awe inspiring work, edicts of uniform neoclassical building design is exactly what Adolf Hitler did.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck. Must be a duck.
16
If the Renaissance was neoclassical and that style saw a rebirth during the Founding -- and if it's going to be reborn again -- let us christen it neo-neo-neoclassical. John Ruskin, right, in "The Stones of Venice" blamed Renaissance architecture for defacing the city's organic gothic beauty with artificiality and imitation? Venetian Gothic was infinitely precious and, say, San Giorgio Maggiore, a blight.
In any case, if Sen. Sanders proposed this change, how many of his supporters would think it was "architectural justice" or some such? The word neoclassical miffs me almost, but not quite, as much as "neoliberalism" -- absent the prefix, most of its employers haven't a clue as to its meaning.
On the matter of liberalism, how odd that the elimination of workers' associations, restrictions, and so on during the early part of the French Revolution was liberation; it's now seen as tyranny (not least by the French). But back to architecture. Much of this strikes me as silly. Much of classical architecture is great, and most of modern architecture is ... not. But that isn't always the case. I'd get tired of an overabundance of "classical" architecture. Modern architecture, done right, is rather fabulous.
But let us embrace judgementalism and stop pretending that what isn't beautiful, is. Let us, in short, find our own style, our own originality, an architecture of dwelling, as the late Roger Scruton would say -- one that isn't just for nomads. Then let us foist it on the world.
1
Mr. Douthat, please allow me to simplify this issue for you. Favoring monumental, neoclassical architecture is what fascists leaders do. Architecture, in this case, is meant to intimidate. It is another sure sign of where King Donald I is taking us, as if any more signs were needed. With all due respect to your carefully considered piece, that's the salient point here.
15
The classic styles were all pretty modern in their beginnings...
Trump is full of symbolisms. He honors Native Americans in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson, for example. He’s adept at verbally paying tribute to a group while the visuals and actions insult them.
This classicism tribute honors not us, but a group of folks with specific ideas on “western civilization”. It is hardly inclusive and diverse at all.
Where are the building that aren’t some shade of white? The subtext screams.
6
I have worked as a professor in South Carolina, Texas, Nevada, and California. EVERYONE asks for a diversity statement! To rep that industry standard as some Berkeley / Libby-Lib agenda is completely disingenuous, or just as bad: uninformed.
And if you expand your definition of the word, you might see that diversity is not just about race, it's about the plurality of academic objectives, career interests, personality types, and learning styles of a student body. It's one of the best ways to assess an instructor's awareness of the challenges they face in the classroom. There's a reason the vast majority of schools require it, and it's a far more professional rationale than the SJW angle Douthat so obviously wants to push.
18
Thank you for injecting some reality into this discussion!
2
Conservatives would be happy if everything went back to the way it was 100 years ago. That's basically what they want.
6
Ross, you do protest too much. It really does take an inventive and malleable mind to equate these collegiate loyalty oaths to the need for more classical architecture.
It would be gratifying indeed to think Donald Trump gave as much thought to this architecture decree as Douthat and many other writers have. Unlike other Presidents we do have a window into his architectural sensibilities in the form of his buildings. I think most would agree they are neither classical nor attractive.
Why this architecture project then? Pretty simple. It will please conservatives and annoy the libs. That's about as far as his thoughts extend these days.
8
I am reminded of the Russian Embassy in Helsinki, Finland. It is an imposing "classical" structure obviously intended by its Soviet builders to intimidate their small neighbor. It is completely out of place in modern Helsinki. "Classical" architecture would be equally out of place in many 21st (or 20th) century US communities.
4
Mr. Douthat, like many conservatives, insists that, “diversity, equity and inclusion” are code words for liberal thought. Yes, probably all liberals include these as values that are high in their value system, however, they are not by themselves liberal ideas. Does the author suggest that in a democracy these ideas shouldn’t be important to everyone? It is conservatives that label these as being liberal ideas and therefore somehow they suggest that the ideas themselves are code for some sort of socialist, liberal agenda. How are they anything but the values of democracy?
8
Ross, much like his colleague David Brooks, make an articulate and reasonable argument that our society could benefit from more institutional structure.
Unlike David, Ross then proposes we accept HIS preferred institution as the best solution for all of us. Further, there is a fine line between "Institutional" and "Autocratic".
Trump's architectural order does not advocate a return to an Institutional memory, it decrees what shall be. Even Ross's own language speaks to this when he writes that we should be willing "to submit ourselves".
7
Diversity and inclusion are not the equivalent of "loyalty oaths," they are necessary preconditions for an egalitarian society. Douthat is usually a pretty reasonable person, but this denigration of equality - a basic principle for any functioning democracy - demonstrates how far conservatism has strayed from democratic principles. There seems to be no corner of the conservative universe left that has not abandoned some or all of core democratic principles.
4
The conversation regarding public architecture mirrors the bigger conversation in American politics, in other words we've got one side consisting of lazy thinkers preferring to live in a glorious but mythological/fictional past.
The conversation extends way beyond architecture. We are responsible for solving our own problems. Look to the past and learn from it, but can we please stop using the founding fathers, a group of wise but flawed individuals, as the end all be all on all matters, that's intellectual laziness. If we cannot solve our own problems, we are unworthy of their legacy. The founding fathers would be embarrassed by the modern Republican party. Yes, look to the past and learn from it, but stop sugar coating it, stop being permanently stuck in it.
No, the conservative initiative on public architecture will not be good for American institutions because it represents exactly the kind of lazy, inadequate thinking that leads to bad solutions which don't address our contemporary problems.
9
I was exhausted reading this long winded opinion piece.
First off why would a conservative object to "diversity, equity and inclusion" at a university? If conservatives feel alienated from institutions of higher education then why haven't they stopped sending their children to them or are they just afraid their kid might get exposed to diversity, equity and inclusion.
The premise that Republican presidents foster classical architecture and Democrats starchitect is preposterous. Please Ross explain to me then why Republican trump has erected all of his glitzy glass towers and adorned them with gaudy gold leaf.
We need to have conversation between liberals and conservatives but if trumps campaign rally last night in New Hampshire was any indication that ain't gonna happen soon.
And Ross we Democrats would gladly give up cultural power for political power. That's a no brainer as they say.
8
"But sometimes forcing incumbents to share power is a necessary path to a more stable equilibrium.." That's just the problem, isn't it Ross? Power isn't shared. It is taken. There is no equilibrium to be found.
1
Ross Douthat quotes Arthur Milikh: "If major public universities are explicitly imposing progressivism as an orthodoxy, the thinking goes, with diversity-and-inclusion statements as the equivalent of a faith profession at a seminary, then why should right-of-center politicians vote to keep them funded?" Many conservatives who wish to stop using public money to support liberal institutions have the opposite opinion when it comes to supporting religious ones, especially schools.
4
As a classically trained “architect” (three tests shy of the license) I should be wholly opposed to modernism. However I will attest to the wholesomeness of 19th and early 20th century modern masters. Those with the Classical training who diverged consciously in the name of safer, cleaner, healthier living in the world’s countryside and urban centers. Corbu, Wright, Plecnik, Van der Rohe, Macintosh, Vagner, Berhens, Loos, Gropius, Taut, Lutyens (...ish).
These practitioners are the common bond between the Classical, Beaux-Arts tradition and the contemporary/modern stylists who dominate the profession today. These are the people we should be looking to for inspiration for our government buildings.
3
For anyone really interested in this debate I would suggest reading the architect/designer Robert Venturi's LEARNING FROM LAS VEGAS, written in 1972 with his longtime collaborator Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izemour. One of the earliest proponents of an alternative to International Style purism (his famous riff on Mies van der Rohe's dictum "less is more": "less is a bore"), he argued for a diversity of architectural style that is reflected in the buildings he designed. Although distinctly modern in appearance, they avoided the restrictions intrinsic to the steel and glass box and were unafraid of being decorative. This eventually developed into Postmodernism, a style that's enjoyed success but, like any movement, produced some remarkable monstrosities. Venturi's musings were entirely aesthetic, not political. It's unfortunate that everything we might consider is now reduced to its political content, even when there isn't any.
3
I'm sorry, but as long as forty percent of Americans believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, it's absurd to suggest that, somehow, liberals have "cultural power" that conservatives don't.
14
The two examples here are a false equivalency. You posit the California example as some sort of unfair gate-keeping exercise, and the architectural executive order as some sort of democratizing equalizer, when it is much closer to being the opposite. Staggering.
10
Trump's order reflects his authoritarian mentality. Totalitarian leaders have always hated modernism in arts, music and in architecture.
10
A wise professor explained that while everybody had opinions, the only ones that really mattered were the "informed" ones.
3
1) Most liberals would find the UC thing outrageous (given the details of the implementation). Both this and the architecture move are bad.
2) Your argument that we shouldn't leave architecture to architects is somewhat undermined by your choice of evidence: the poll you quoted showing how popular all of those classical buildings are was a poll of *architects*.
3) We used to have a cool concept called trade. The idea is that instead of you and your adversary trying to take things from each other, you give him something he wants in exchange for something you want, and both of you end up happier. Isn't that a cool concept?
Obviously, President Trump has not read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand.
3
Mr. Douthat has very little sense of his own hubris. First he tells us, correctly, that conservative politics has become more anti-intellectual. Then he criticizes the academic suspicion greeting the Republican created "Arizona School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership"
3
It's a sad day when "progressive" litmus tests contaminate the life sciences.
Brings to mind the anecdote about famous mathematician Norbert Weiner, who goes home after a long day, and, forgetting which house is his, asks a young girl on the street: "little girl, do you know which is my house?", and she replies, pointing, "yes, daddy, it's that one over there".
How would Norbert Weiner fare with Berkeley's grading scales of "knowledge of diversity, experience in advancing diversity, and a plan for advancing diversity in the future"?
Better put, how would the quality of Berkeley's mathematics department be affected by prioritizing progressive values over scientific originality, creativity, rigor? Are eccentric geniuses to be culled? Is meritocracy to be replaced by the tyranny of political correctness?
Modernism and classicism in architecture are not mutually exclusive. If I had to pick one architect capable of producing designs acceptable to both camps it would be Louis Kahn. And he was American to boot. If you don't know his work, check him out. Unfortunately, Kahn was kind of a genius, and those tend to be in short supply.
1
Court packing is a liberal idea? Surely you jest.
And if you are serious, well, I can't take anything else in this article seriously, I'm afraid.
9
I think Douthat should consider the Vietnam War memorial.
5
@Tor Krogius And the Holocaust Museum.
2
As a card-carrying liberal and amateur architect, I have to admit that Mr. Douthat has made a valuable point. Because Hitler supported classicism does prove classicism is evil. Restoring institutional respect might take many forms. Some not intellectual, but architectural.
There is a place for inventive architecture, but our public buildings should express those elements of beauty that have endured because our institutions have endured. We needn't conclude or fear that Hitler has rendered classical architecture "verboten".
After all, we still smile at his little "people's car".
36
@75 The point isn't that classicism is good or bad (or that it is somehow the abiding model of beauty, which is pretty open to debate); the point is what Hitler *did* with classical architecture and what happened to the arts he didn't like. And the arts he did like, for that matter. Go look it up.
12
@75 Hitler didn't support classicism but a perverted megalomaniac version of it, just like the current occupant of the White House and his entourage promote and embody a grotesque distortion of allegedly American values. Give him a second term and see how much will be left of the enduring institutions you are referring to. Then those "classicist" facades will serve as monuments to people's indifference and ignorance. I sincerely hope this remains a dystopia.
11
To base our 21 Century structures, with our 21st century functions and challenges, on ancient masonry temples ( no heating, no electricity, no ADA, etc. ) is folly. Do you drive around in an ancient chariot or a Tesla?
As an architect, and a citizen, I must say it will take a lot more than faux classical columns to restore trust in our governmental institutions
14
Greek columns existed for a purpose: to hold up the building.
7
If Trump and the Republicans want to have architecture that reflects their tastes and performance, a garbage dump would be better refection. Tell me, exactly what democratic ideals have the Trump administration upheld?
9
Yes, let’s rid ourselves of the elitist bauhaus-esque approach to design and return to a style for the peoples! Calling Mr. Speer, Albert Speer!
6
Ironically, this tenuously connected hodgepodge of Douthat's "things I like" is lacking a foundation.
We should go back to classical buildings because...California!
3
I'm a liberal who usually tries to defend Ross from angry liberals. This time I can't. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the University of California Berkeley actually uses political ideology tests to winnow candidates for the faculty, that should stop immediately. The president of the United States should not determine a style of architecture for federal buildings. Both are obvious examples of authoritarian overreach. As others have pointed out,the example of Hitler should have given Ross second thoughts about this opinion piece.
5
First of all: Conterminous? Full marks for using a fancy word where another would have served. But I am a little smarter now!
Second: Two words--Albert Speer.
All fascists want their own architect. Our Dear Leader is no different. It's all about purification, whether you're on the UCal or Trump end of the spectrum.
4
How can Ross Douthat not be aware of the parallels with official government styles of architecture in other fascist regimes that Trump admires? We would have a "born again" ( pun intended) version of Albert Speer acting as a Kitsch Czar.
8
As an architect and a student of history, this latest fiat from Trump is both saddening and frightening
The push backwards to bygone styles and forms is - like the rest of trumps tropes - is another parallel to a creeping sense we are now living in Hitler’s doppelgänger world.
Before you endorse this rush towards classicism study the failed artist/architect Adolf Hitler and his architect Albert Speer. Look at their plans for Berlin. See how not only literature (book burnings) art (ersatz classical only!) music, dance, but all of the arts - including architecture were extruded and formed to fit one mans ego and madness - and ultimately led to the immoral and murderous regime we know as the Nazi’s
To have Trump - the “builder” (another inside joke) of modernistic gaudy developments - now wish to corral design into throwback forms - is itself a bad joke that makes one cringe.
Then remember how it all turned out...
And Speer - once the golden boy of Hitlers megalomania - ended up using slave labor - typically worked to death - to build armaments and machines of war.
It’s a one way trip to nowhere
Remember: history repeats itself. This latest edict yet another canary gasping for air in the coal mine
11
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Hitler also promoted classical art and architecture.
5
De-polarizing? This is actually an attempt to politicize design! Architecture is the magnificent blend of art and science which at its best reflects time and place and the local values and aspirations of communities where it resides. It stretches boundaries of what is possible, both visually and through its use of materials. To constrain it to a bland, derivative style that conforms to a narrow view of what is appropriate for government buildings is to lose individuality and ambition - both things that actually do make America great (how ironic). This directive reflects the current Administration's anti-intellectualism, and anti-government posture. Government in their eyes should be small and ineffective, and its architecture indifferent and lazy.
Hands off our architecture!
9
This piece exhibits such wobbly intellect - the Jenga principle of architectural stability. I understand Mr Douthat is paid to be contrarian within NYT - that does not mean throw logic out the window with zero credibility on the subject at hand.
What’s next? His take on why a divided America serves our collective interest?
6
Are we really comparing Classical vs. modern architecture? My first thought was that most government buildings I've seen have no style at all, but are just boxy, concrete and cheap-looking. I'd rather have Classical than that. I'd also be fine with other architectural styles. What we mostly have now is not architecture, it's construction.
2
Oh yeah columns are gonna fit that 20 story West LA federal building just fine ... he isn’t talking about those (I presume).
1
Whatever or whoever determines what federal buildings look like, lets make sure they are state of the art energy efficient. This seems like a step Trump planners would omit.
2
Mr. Douthat,
Why are values like the "commitment to 'diversity, equity and inclusion' " which are basic human values, human rights actually, so very frightening to conservatives? Isn't that what the
Constitution generally seeks to guarantee?
Why don't Conservatives wear identical clothes, eat identical food, live in identical houses and go to identical places to worship? Why don't conservatives drive identical cars?
Diversity is the heart of creativity and human interaction and a boon to capitalism.
If Conservatives had their way, like Henry Ford might have said, "you can have any color car you want, as long as it is black."
Diversity isn't just about different kinds of people, it's about different ideas about what is tastes good and is beautiful! How can that be so scary?
10
You couldn’t be more wrong in this article, as someone who works in higher ed. And you are most certainly wrong about the architecture thing—do you know nothing of history, sir? Read up on third reich architecture laws!
Also, if you have a better way to eliminate white supremacy, please let us know, because DEI initiatives lifts everyone up instead of taking the Trump/conservative tack of tearing everyone down. I’m so sick of this kind of narrow minded ignorance, esp. among the educated. Unless of course you’re ok with systemic racism and white supremacy then I guess you might have a point. But on the merits of your argument, nope.
9
The Nazis did that already. It didn't work out well for them in the end. But they created carnage while they were at it. We have learned nothing it seems.
8
I cannot believe this essay was written.
Yes of course professors at a public school should be inclusive. In the same way that students at a public school have free speech, except not in the classroom where it can disrupt others.
And you, a conservative, reals over feels, trust a building with columns more than modern architecture? God forbid you ever see a solar panel.
4
In a newspaper with so many shining examples of false equivalence, this one is truly superb. Trump's edict is just today's demonstration of how he is bringing his vision of America to America, one proclamation at a time.
Ask yourself: what is his vision? What are his goals? Do I want to live in Trump's America?
And as for the nonsensical comparison to University diversity and inclusion policies, which doesn't really bear mentioning, let's fall for it anyway.
Ask yourself: what is the Universities' vision? What are their goals? Do I want to live in that America?
Which America is the one that I want for my kids?
6
The new science of “comparism” .. surely your government mandating architectural style for public buildings has nothing whatsoever to do with diversity, equity and inclusion.. putting this together with government interference in the Roger Stone sentencing issue and it begins to sound more like authoritarianism than democracy..
4
Nothing will ever contribute to conservatives feeling anything but besieged, picked on, victimized, shunned, and this is so chiefly because the mentality of conservatism demands it This whole concept of guiding architecture aesthetically is absurd showmanship, from a reality potus, attempting to insinuate there is something politically insidious about yet another aspect of our society that attempts to be progressive and innovative over time. Before they are done, republicans will have us all literally walking backward, lest we become too liberal with our steps.
3
Wha Mr. Douthat labels polarizing, the rest of us call diversity and forward thinking. During the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, our country proudly displayed the MOST progressive art and architecture to the world as an answer to exactly the kind of fascist, Soviet, and Communist Chinese control over the arts that this administration is promoting here, now. They understood that the glory of Ancient Rome was as undemocratic and tyrannical as it gets. It has never been clearer that the Conservatives in this country oppose diversity, oppose innovation, and oppose freedom of thought and expression in favor of cliche-ridden mediocrity and the propagandist message of broad civil compliance to a hierarchy of official power. They have exposed themselves as Mussolini-Lite.
7
There goes Ross again complaining about any efforts to put diversity and equity in a good light.
Better to focus on "philosophy and class". Whatever that means.
Oh, he also intimates that liberals focus too much on race and gender. Well, Ross stands with those who want to separate the races because of their prejudices and then pretend that he doesn't. Ross wants to return to a time when women knew their place. Religion and philosophy and class? Again - what the blank is he talking about?
7
I don’t understand why this architecture thing is getting so much play. It’s just a building style... A facade in the most literal meaning of the word. It’s fluff. There are so many more pressing matters with the democratic primary going on and Trump’s continuing abuse of his office.
1
It gets a little tiring to read about equivalent infractions when there are none, no matter how hard Ross and other conservative-lites like him try. Inclusion and diversity are not liberal orthodoxy, and do not carry the same weight as the architecture rules this administration is trying to impose.
Ross may be running out of things to opine on.
1
The author misses the point. It's not about the architectural style itself. It's about exerting control from the top, to impose an ethic and aesthetic upon the country which is the approved way to think about such buildings.
It's what one sees from state - sponsored architecture from the various fascist and communist authoritarian regimes, in Spain, the former Eastern Bloc and what's left of Nazi German construction.
So, this isn't just another form of "balanced perspective". It's a way to control. It has a poor history, and should not be imposed upon us simply because Trump wants it.
9
" ... editorial pages joining architects in denouncing the idea of political control over political buildings ... " More like Republican/right wing control via the Trump administration pandering to his base.
1
Oh, those poor, beleaguered Conservatives!
What Conservatives don't understand is that their twisted argument against inclusion circles back and contravenes itself.
Their argument is: We want to be able to express our opinion that society should be allowed to discriminate and deny full rights to certain groups of people.
Examples of things that they want to be allowed to espouse:
That person in the wheelchair should not have the right to eat in my restaurant, because I'm too stingy to add a ramp next to the stairs.
That person there doesn't have the right to rent an apartment in my building because their skin is too dark; it make me uncomfortable.
That person shouldn't be allowed to ride in my taxi, because I saw her holding hands with another woman.
Conservatives argue that a college must allow teachers to express those beliefs on their campuses, even though those statement run counter to the tenets of inclusionsim.
However, they also argue that a Christian college should be allowed to make its teachers sign an oath that they will not voice any opinion that runs counter to the positions of Christianity.
In other words, a Christian institution should be allowed to stifle anti-Christian speech on its campus, whereas an inclusionist institution must be forced to allow anti-inclusion speech on its campus?!?!
Sorry, but you can't argue that both ways.
Requiring commitment to inclusionism is no more seditious than requiring commitment to Christianity.
3
Finding another thing to fight about, and beat each over the head about will not get us further from this cliff we're rushing head long into.
Why not start teaching civics again so folks understand why investing in these institutions matters.
Of course, not calling the opposition silly helps too.
Imagine if the government decided that any news about the government had to be written in a specific style; iambic pentameter, for example. Does that sound foolish? The “classical architecture only” proposal sounds equally daft to anyone educated in architecture.
5
When you persuade the citizens of Florence that Bruneschelli's dome should be replaced by a new structure featuring flying buttresses, give me a call.
2
@Frank Oops. Brunelleschi
Trump just nominated Al Speer, a big fan of "classical architecture" who really loves huge big beautiful buildings to lead his federal architecture initiative.
4
Wow! What a reach. Is it impossible for you to make a Conservative Case without finding some way to say Trump is "not so bad" - hey look at his policy on architecture. Seriously? Who is your audience here? Independents? I really do not get this. Beauty may be totally in the eye of the beholder.
2
Ross, you evidently missed that America’s favorite building is the Empire State Building. Or rather, the Art Deco Empire State Building. Long live modernism, America’s favorite architectural style!
147
@Jason And how about La Tour Eiffel in Paris, not Vegas. It was quite modern for its time and many Parisiennes found it horrific.
15
@Jason
Form follows function. I don't know what the exteriors should look like with the interior being cubicles with tread mills powering the computers.
7
@Jason Or that the most affecting architectural achievement in Washington is Maya Lin's Viet Nam war memorial.
29
Hmm - don't many Americans, including a huge fraction of schoolchildren, frequently recite a pledge that ends "...with liberty and justice for all"? That's surely not considered a far-left liberal screed, but it sure sounds to me like an endorsement of diversity and inclusion.
This column doesn't give the exact wording of the pledge posed to the UC applicants, but so far I don't see how the policy can be construed to be a pledge that the new hire will espouse liberal politics.
2
And what exactly is meant by "classical" architecture? If you put a row of Greek-style columns in front of a building or plop a rotunda on top, does that make it classical? Many Beaux Arts buildings from the late 19th and early 20th century are replete with classical motifs, but does that make them classical architecture? I get the feeling that the people who are championing Trump's decision are thinking more about classical looking decorations and add-ons than about architecture itself. A modern building that has spare, clean lines and uses geometry to good aesthetic effect may actually be closer to the ideals of Ancient Greece than all the structures with fancy marble columns, big staircases, and ornate friezes.
6
Am I the only person who really doesn’t care about this? Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate architecture; but my appreciation is pretty versatile. People may as well be arguing over satin paint vs eggshell.
I am mildly sympathetic to Douthat. Having some architecture that reflects our past, however beautiful and sordid it is, would probably be beneficial. There is a strong argument that government architecture should inspire people.
If you go to any downtown you will find government buildings that by most accounts look ugly, and otherwise are undistinguished. When I Uber and talk to people about buildings around town, it is amazing how much people agree about aesthetics. But having a requirement for pure classical buildings would be a bore and there are some very beautiful modern buildings.
Maybe having a balanced panel with conservative and liberal "judges", who are respected and who get along, would be a better way. They could balance the projects if they wanted to go one way or another, or they could find some project that makes sense to all of them.
2
My first reaction is exasperation: Don't we as a nation have more important things to debate than what our public buildings should look like? I imagine a restaurant operator and a public health inspector arguing about minor code infractions while the building burns down.
My second reaction is anger: doesn't the *federal government* have more important things to do than try to impose its so-called aesthetic standards on new building around the country?
My third reaction is relief: I know the federal government *does* have more important things to do, and to the extent that this pointless exercise absorbs their attention, they'll be less able to do them.
1
Let me see if I got this right Mr. Douthat — in a country where Christian conservative Republicans continue, to this day, to blocked federal anti-lynching laws and the Equal Rights Amendment, they are just trying to protect their culture and traditions from godless democrats. When Christian conservative Republicans beat our democracy to death with laws, lawlessness, and attacks on the Constitution they are just taking actions to ensure liberty and justice for all. Sadly, right wing writers work hard to find ways to advance that falsehood with convoluted opinion pieces.
That said, Trump rallies and Republican party actions make clear that power sharing and cultural tolerance is not the goal of that shrinking political minority. Christian conservative Republicans have abandoned morality, respect for the rule of law, and the majority of the Americans who do not share their values, culture, or goals for the country. They do this while waving the American flag, shouting about their deep rooted Christian values, and their respect for the Constitution.
9
Making American Architecture 'a little traditional won't hurt us' is the same ideology as Making America a little Great Again won't hurt us. After all, what's wrong with paying lip service to Bigots and White Nationalists, when there are good people on both sides. Indeed, let's have a spin-off series of an architecture that represents a time when people of color had no rights, women stayed at home and minded their business and only whites were welcome in the country. MAGA
The Greek and Roman Architecture that conservatives hark towards represents a historical placeholder as architecture developed a style to reflect the social changes at the end of the 19th century. In Europe, the classical style signifies the architecture of the Fascists, hence they haven't danced with the style after WWII. In Asia and Africa,it represents a colonial hegemony, and was blown away by the winds of freedom and replaced by a post-colonial modernism of the likes of Charles Correa in India and other places
As the world has moved forward over the last century, neo-cons are slithering out of their lairs and trying to make America a little backwards again. Architecture is easy pickings as most people don't have a clue about it nor do they care about it. From an utilitation perspectice, a courtroom is a courtroom, be it Modern or Neo-classical. However, the design of a courtroom tells as a lot about the justice served in a land- regressive like our past history or progressive of our Modern History.
7
The Senate and the Electoral College are more clearly broken, though. And more directly being abused by the minority.
Culturally, conservatives can and do set up their own institutions, from churches to universities. How can progressives do that? Progressives can't convene their own Senate.
Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial clearly demonstrates diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is an example of what can be accomplished if we approach architecture with open minds.
9
If the conservative impulse brings us more populism and anti-intellectualism, and the liberal one brings us more diversity and inclusion, why should we tend them equally? It's obvious we should cheer liberal progress and work against conservative power. Reasonable-sounding calls (like this one), to put them on an equal footing come across as sinister to me.
6
"This has sharpened one of our many forms of polarization. Conservatives have political power but feel shut out of cultural power, and liberals have cultural power but lack the political power to match."
An interesting article and an insightful observation of the juxtaposition that colors our national polarization and paralysis.
Modern can be beautiful -even a philistine like Ross (who knew?) might approve of Mies van der Rohe's federal buildings in Chicago. Classical can be ugly. Don't forget art deco, arguably the American style par excellence. Are the Chrysler Building and Hover Dam ugly? Maybe the key is hiring talented architects
7
In truth, the quality of the outcome of any creative project is the client. A good client is more likely to get good results (no coincidence that two of the best houses of the 20th Century were designed for the same client, Edgar Kaufman, by Wright and by Neutra). You’ll wind up with what they’ll let you deliver.
2
@Pottree true - you need the right patron as well
I am a liberal who loathes Trump. But modernism was a cultural disaster and postmodernism hasn’t been much better. If Trump wants to control the architectural look of DC, it’s not going to hurt anyone or damage our democracy. This is not the battle to fight.
I remember when UT Austin scrapped their plan for an innovative Blanton Museum in favor of one that "favored the style of campus."
It's a blight and shame to look at.
All because of fear of something new.
Looks like DC is going down the same path.
6
As an architect, I can objectively state that when it comes to aesthetics - be it in art, architecture, or design - there's one thing that we can all agree on -- that we simply can't agree on any one thing at all. :(
1
Keep the fake Roman and Greek pastiche columns and rotundas going, repress and suppress any other expression or style or materials or functionally effective, energy efficient, aesthetically innovative, designs - all at taxpayer expense. Glorifying the past, and it must of course be the re-creation of a European fantasy land. Beautiful and fitting a set canon, however now because it is to be forced, imposed, also it will be received as rigid, stultifying and regressive. No thanks, and especially not at taxpayer's expense.
7
Forget the buildings and substitute religion. Same thing.
Or, we could order up a new federal building for the Navy or Post Office in the style of Angkor Wat. It’s ancient and obsolete. Why not?
Mr. Douthat misses the point completely.
The range of federal buildings built in the last 40 years are an INFINITELY more diverse representation of American cultural ideas and architectural voices than anything this country ever produced in the staid 200 years before.
There is nothing in the code right now that prohibits an architect from proposing a classical language for any federal building, therefore, any stylistic mandate would be exclusionary and, at its core, un-American.
7
Very interesting.
With apologies to Jonathan Swift, I offer Mr. Douthat "A Modest Proposal". His next book ought to be a disquisition on the multifarious ways conservatives can employ encrusted opinions and classical architecture to shore up a wizened white Christian demographic that fears California, blacks, Muslims, immigrants and modern architecture, etc. If Trump is reelected, it might become a best-seller among the "I told you so" crowd.
4
All wars, cultural or shooting ones, are decided by basically one factor, fatigue on one side or the other, or in this case, both. I think our cultural war(s) will subside if only because every one will be so tired by the impasse. Like I am right now when I read an esoteric essay like this. Live and let live.
2
I agree that this is an interesting comparison of the way the two parties attempt to control. Republicans limit choice to what they approve, while Democrats attempt to defend individual choice and diversity. These are not the same thing. they are opposites. Democrats support individuals choices. Republicans support institutional values.
4
I think the government should build buildings that make sense environmentally. They should be easy to heat, easy to cool, healthy to be in and use fewer resources to run. There is no reason that such buildings can’t be “beautiful” in any one of a number of different ways. The buildings can even have classical features if someone wants them. But they should be comfortable for humans to use and to work in. Unless their purpose is to intimidate
12
Elite institutions hire people who are brilliant and have made major breakthroughs in their chosen field. That's why they're "elite" institutions.
While conservative-minded people are among these brilliant people, they tend, in general, to be more of the liberal mind, certainly in arts and literature, but also in many other disciplines. Breakthrough thinking, almost by definition, means you have to embrace the new and progressive.
So, if as you say in your conclusion, Mr. Douthat, conservatives won't trust elite institutions until their progressive power is broken up, wouldn't that then logically result in the institutions no longer being elite?
Hard to have it both ways in my opinion.
5
"And I can confidently say that my own patriotism, my own trust in American institutions, would be modestly increased if public architecture tilted toward the wide variety of forms called classical under Republican presidents and then back toward “starchitect” experiments under Democrats."
What does this sentence mean? Without the last phrase the meaning seems clear, but with it?
@Art Ahh, I see it now. Silly me...
The notion of abolishing the electoral college is "extreme"? Insisting the president be actually elected by a majority of the people--what a crazy notion. Lumping commonsense notions like this in with universally frowned-upon activities like court-packing plays to the central dishonesty of Mr. Douthat's argument.
10
Two points:
First, if there is any "war on beauty," it is vast majority of contemporary buildings built by economic imperatives (capitalism). The odd starchitect building in no way forms the background of our lives. The new retail, apartment buildings, houses, office buildings -- all look alike, none are interesting, rarely do they make a good environment. And they can have columns, bricks -- they can be whatever the client wants. No columns? Why doesn't Douthat go after Walmart for leaving off the portico and dome?
Second, Douthat does not own up to the fact that conservatives never try to persuade, but always resort to force to get their way. In this case, there is a school of architecture contemporary architects that works in traditional styles. They, and others who favor traditional styles, can make their case. But no, no persuasion, just force -- demanding architects design a certain way.
8
When I visited Tahiti, I was astonished at the absence of historic architecture, artworks, and artefacts I expected would be abundant in such an ancient culture. Then it was explained to me that when Captain Cook's arrival opened the South Pacific islands to exploitation by Westerners, particularly Christian missionaries who were horrified by what they viewed as a society steeped in sin, the islands' existing structures were destroyed and replaced by those of a more "civilised" European style. The loss of the ancient Tahitian culture's architectural expression is incalculable, and the message, that architecture should bow to taste rather than express life, is uncomfortably familiar.
6
I guess everybody's forgotten about Phillip Johnson's AT&T building which has the top of a Chippendale clock for a roof. Postmodernism had it's heyday in the 1970s where Robert Venturi and others brought back ornament into architecture. Unfortunately, postmodernism is a hard design to do well. They made some pretty ugly buildings.
I agree with Ross with his critique of UCal. Treating people equally comes from the heart. Besides, you cant have opinions about mathematics, physics and chemestry
Well here's a conservative idea worth thinking all the way through:
"the conservative intellectual journal National Affairs recently published an essay by Arthur Milikh, urging the right to effectively defund the university system — cutting subsidies, ending student loan financing and removing tax exemptions. If major public universities are explicitly imposing progressivism as an orthodoxy, the thinking goes, with diversity-and-inclusion statements as the equivalent of a faith profession at a seminary, then why should right-of-center politicians vote to keep them funded?"
So he's logically proposing that funding, tax exemptions, etc. be stripped from groups enjoying them if they promote an orthodoxy.
Well, the churches will object, but if it's worth blocking national aid to promoters of one orthodoxy, then logically, there's no reason to provide financial benefit to any other.
That would also have to extend to an awful lot of the "charitable organizations" that promote so much mischief with climate denialism and other unorthodox orthodoxies, funded, as tax-deductible donations, by the wealthy and the corporations that benefit from avoiding regulation.
6
I don't know that gold-plated everything necessarily plays well with the specific architectural sensibilities of Albert Speer.
Then again, it might.
6
Speer made things his client liked as symbols of state power and stability. There were design cues from antiquity but mainly they looked like heavy prisons, ponderous and pompous in their proud restraint.
Trump leans more to the flimsy encrusted with the gaudy. I wonder how he would react to an Ancient Greek temple as it once was before the gaudy colors all washed away? He would probably scream for more gilt and glitz to dazzle the suckers.
Ross Douthat should reveal the true motivation: art and artists, indeed any independent thinkers, are a threat. Conservatives have long loathed all modern art, anything that does not focus on realism such as portrait painting or landscapes resembling a photograph. Next, they will try to defund museums for displaying abstract art. It is easy to find online articles decrying Picasso, who by now is universally considered part of the art canon.
The point about university funding in Arizona is disingenuous. The movement to run universities like businesses has long been underway. University presidents now frequently are drawn from industry. This has devastated independent thinking, in particular the humanities, that does not turn a profit, preferably immediately.
As to the conservative idea of splitting California into separate states, keep on dreaming. We will resist you.
9
I am Pretty damn Blue but- modern buildings are ugly. Is that another truth we are all supposed to ignore?
I walked across Penn's College Hall Green the other day on my way to a basketball game at the Palestra. (Penn beat Temple, alas!)
There are a mix of buildings surrounding quad. The 60s buildings are incredibly ugly and mar the entire place.
I am pretty damn Blue, btw.
2
From the column: "This has sharpened one of our many forms of polarization. Conservatives have political power but feel shut out of cultural power, and liberals have cultural power but lack the political power to match."
-------
That's because the conservatives use all sorts of underhanded means for accumulate and retain their political power, such as instituting voter suppression laws, voter roll purges, gerrymandering, etc.
In addition, they have the Constitutional makeup of the Senate, whereby every state has 2 senators, regardless of population, leading to the situation where 52 senators represent only 18% of the population. But they're able to block all legislation coming from the House.
Finally, they have their own propaganda network, known as Fox News, which has totally destroyed the notion of truth.
7
Why am I not surprised that Republicans seem to only feel comfortable in surroundings that are as old-fashioned as their policies? It must feel awful to fear the future so fully so as to ban unfamiliar buildings.
7
If you simply change the phrase to race, creed, and color, you might say theses universities are following the law; as in the 1964 civil right act.
3
The analogy Douthat tries to draw between supporting diversity in education and prescriptive guidelines for public architecture is inept at best and clueless at worst. There are many points that could be made, and commenters have already amply noted that supporting diversity is not a bad concept.
But since Douthat reduces this discussion to politics, one can ask about the desired outcome for both issues. I live in California. The population is heavily diversified—that’s a fact, not a political argument. How does anyone think that supporting diversity in education at Berkeley, for example, should not be required? Should a public university not educate its constituent population equally?
On the proposed architecture restrictions, however, the motive Douthat openly agrees with is to appeal to Trump’s base. Never mind what architects believe. This equating of intellectualism with populism in a professional field is a knee-jerk argument that results in climate change deniers, water quality reversals, and weather maps altered with a sharpie.
But let’s face reality about the rationale. Diversity in education is a good thing which benefits us as a nation. The architecture proposal was made solely to show Trump’s base that he can stick it to liberals.
7
What next? Trump orders VA to use only grandma’s home remedies of mustard plasters and cups of tepid vinegar in lieu of modern medicine? Making the Air Force Oder up squadrons of canvas biplanes?
Why would we insist on locking ourselves into a baggage laden superficial design suggesting the past? Even more importantly, why would we lock ourselves into a scheme that puts a veneer of the fake and obsolete over what we must do today and live with tomorrow?
This federal building nonsense is about more than style but is certainly not about substance. It is about manipulated appeal to the backward and ignorant.
2
@John Vasi Although I abhor Trump, let's try to get one term of trumpism correct.
What is "diversity"? It's a statistical sample of characteristics.
What is "merit"? It's a norm of competence.
What is "equality"? In the US, it's equality of opportunity.
If you take an oath to "Diversity," you are pledging allegiance to a statistical sample of characteristics. If you are in Minnesota you might be bowing before blonde hair and blue eyes.
@Tara The concept of diversity in educational institutions attempts to include more of a representative sample of a given population. It understands that merit is not an absolute standard. Admissions based solely on a standard of academic merit don’t recognize that potential in an individual may well have been squelched by social or economic realities. In the example Douthat cites, Berkeley (a publicly funded university), how can poor black or brown kids, going to bad elementary and high schools, compete on what I believe your definition of merit is?
Is it your position that a Berkeley, for example, does not have an obligation to attempt to educate a representative sample of the population that funds it?
2
The "classical" architecture was consciously chosen to represent Roman and Greek periods because both of those periods involved various forms of a republican government that tolerated slavery.
When will you wake up to the fact that this country was created as a constitutional republic in order to try to paper over the conflicts between democratic ideals and the reality of slave-based economics?
Until conservatives acknowledge that the economy and culture of this country was built on the blood, sweat and tears of slaves and surrender their denial of the extent of racism buried within our history and our present day the cultural civil war will continue.
5
@Brad I am a conservative and I DO acknowledge that the economy and culture of America was built on the blood, sweat and tears of slaves and that inistitutional racism does indeed exist today. Now what? That's a sincere question, not a smart aleck response. We, as a country HAVE to find a way to address this institutional racism or our future will not live up to our aspirations. Thinking more aout it; in what other country do multiple races, with radically different ethnic backgrounds and strongly held beliefs about culture peacefully co-exist? We are not perfect but our ideals point us in the right direction, it just will take longer for us to get there than many of us would like.
@Tim Until recently, India. Also Singapore and Malaysia. Nigeria too is a very diverse nation. South Africa is wildly diverse though still struggles with inequity but is at least acknowledging it.
That is the first bit. Acknowledging it. The second not fostering structural situations that worsen it, like Stop and Frisk, like Poll Taxes (which has been essentially re-done in FL despite it not being the voter's intent. Thanks R's) like prohibitive bail for non violent crime, like segregated schools etc. and etc. This is the issue. Most conservatives refuse to acknowledge reality or dismiss any answer (without coming up with an alternative). If you don't like ours, what is yours and not any of this, everyone be personally accountable stuff because that isn't dealing with the structural racism. I say this not as a smart alack either. But true, if you don't like our answers (which we've offered) what are yours?
No doubt they'll want classic-style coal burning furnaces and incandescent lighting to go with their classic architecture, too.
9
Candles! Beeswax candles only, just like the Founders used... and replace all computers with quill pens on the way to employing scribes writing on parchment and papyrus. A,e sure federal building are seismically unsafe fire traps inaccessible to the handicapped while we at it. Let’s go back to the good old days and gimme that old time religion.
As usual, the proposed building style standards are about style only, not substance.
1
Lest we forget Classical design is classic because its design virtues have held up well over several millenniums. That doesn't mean that the interior of these buildings can't be designed employing contemporary ideas. Paris is a good example.
In the heart of the city they maintain its appearance and historical sense by requiring that the facade be maintained as is, but that the interior can be redesigned as desired. Modern design concepts for governmental buildings can be seen at the outskirts of Paris at the end of the Champs Elysee (La Defense). It works for them.
There is another approach. In response to inevitable Global Warming and resulting ocean rise, Capital designers might consider something like the Parliament Building in Sri Lanka or something more buoyant ... a true Ship of State.
1
I'm a conservative, and Douthat's understanding of modern architecture is seriously lacking. It's stunning that a commentator of his intelligence and curiosity would repeat as true the tired cliche that most modern architecture is running a war on beauty. (I'm reminded of Tom Wolfe's willful misunderstanding of the same subject.) Yes, D.C. contains not a few unfortunate buildings, but one of the most visible new buildings there is the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and it, to my eye, is an example of truly beautiful modern architecture that is also just right for the moment and subject. There are countless other examples of profoundly beautiful and moving modern edifices. If the NYT would foot the bill, I'd be happy to fly around the world with Douthat and give him a tour!
17
On a side note, the most forward looking, advanced architecture today shares a key element with classical architecture - both the real and the stylistic: they are both approaches for the wealthy elite. Who can afford a new Parthenon or a new modern post office or even a house? That for the wealthy, only.
If Trump wants something more access to his base, henceforth let all federal building be built in the style of big box stores: cheap warehouses with phony gimcrackery around the front door. We should be able to confuse a new federal courthouse with a Walmart, right?
3
Excellent rebuttal. The columnist should at least have read the chapters on architecture from Robert Hughes’ inimitable “The Shock of the New” before shoehorning such a vast and crucial subject into his essay.
2
A commitment to diversity is not exclusionary. For a test, what is the opposite of being committed to diversity: A commitment to exclusion.
I am not sure which is worse: the doublespeak like this Mr. Douthat is using to create his arguments in his column, or that he is writing about architecture at all.
5
1. I don’t object to Douthat’s call for a little tradition. But I am pretty tired of his not really having a clue as to what that tradition might be, because it ain’t all neo-classical. That’s a style, not a trdition.
2. It’s especially dumb because a) modern American architecture, generally speaking, starts with Louis Sullivan, b) neo-classical was adopted to reflect the Enlightenment values that the Right attacks, c) Trump et al don’t build, or live in, neo-classical.
3. How come it’s okay for colleges like Liberty and universities like Notre Dame and b-schools like Pepperdine to demand specific Christian allegiances and specific right-wing consensus?
6
It’s beyond me how limiting architecture styles could possibly be “depolarizing”. Only in the fever dreams of conservatives like Douthat do building styles have anything to do with politics. And by making this policy political, Trump, conservatives, and Douthat are increasing polarization over a previously non polarized aspect of American life.
3
As the caveman architect said, "I prefer a classical design for a home, something that looks like a cave or a tree."
4
An opinion piece built on a shaky foundation. If you look at the AIA poll of the 150 favorite buildings of the American public cited by Mr. Douthat, one discovers that:
1. 48 of the 150 were post World War Two.
2. And of those, 28 are public or government buildings.
That doesn't seem a bad track record. This is one case where Mr. Douthat's opinion needs to be more strongly based on facts.
2
"If major public universities are explicitly imposing progressiveness as an orthodoxy, the thinking goes, with diversity-and-inclusion statements as the equivalent of a faith profession at a seminary, then why should right-of-center politicians vote to keep them funded?"
Your premise here is blatantly a faulty one.
Much as you all love to call out academe as an uber-liberal assembly line you'll find, if you look, that most of the concerted effort at indoctrination comes from conservative funders and the demands of conservative politicians (actually, more threat than demand).
But your solution shows some promise.
Let's take a clearer case of political activism in untoward places like, oh I don't know, the Evangelical church.
Not only are these benighted souls ultra-right to their very cores, they violate Federal law doing it, openly and aggressively politicizing their "religious" activities while maintaining special price and tax breaks.
Your question is a good one: why would anyone not committed to domination by a single close-minded sect want their tax dollars to subsidize this illicit activity?
So maybe we can trade: you quit funding universities because, really, what country needs an educated populace?
In return, we will eliminate all subsidies of every religion of every stripe. Income and real-estate taxed at going rates, no price breaks, no special media benefits of any kind.
You in?
9
The idea that this administration should be setting anything even remotely resembling or invoking “norms” should be met with near ER-visit levels of laughter.
3
What a sad waste of ink. Culture wars when no other ideas can come to mind. Such a ridiculous and hypocritical line for a conservative to utter: that this GOP architectural initiative "favors expert control over the building process". It does the exact opposite (which seems a tactic in current vogue).
Is this move a giant step in reducing government? A libertarian strike for free enterprise? No, it is a thinly veiled attempt to control public taste and force the true design experts into a box that feels more comfortable to those timid 'leaders' who crave control. To ignore the potential authoritarian aspects is both dishonest and myopic.
Architecture has historically always been the leader towards innovation and finding better solutions to difficult problems in society. Unless, of course, they are forced to follow some rigid ideological agenda. This article served no purpose than to act as a pathetic cheerleader in a contrived 'culture war'. More hysteria from the right.
5
Seriously now...what kind of lightbulbs?
5
That's not a "De-Polarizing Architecture Plan." That's just willfully stupid for the sake of striking the authoritarian note of ordering uniformity. And it is an empty gesture, like so many in Trump's con game. The process of designing, approving, and building public institutions is longer than Trump will be in office if all goes well in November, and longer in many cases even if it doesn't. The next President, Republican or Democrat, has just one more bit of Trump arrogant puffery to undo.
7
I have seen Donald Trump's taste in architecture and interior decoration. No, thank you.
8
Ross, I like you. You are one of the few conservative writers I can stand to read, and have made some strongly persuasive arguments in the past. However, how is a commitment to "diversity, equity and inclusion" exclusive?
3
Thanks Ross for this bit of distracting fluff.
In the real world Republican foreign policy—more accurately described as the Republicans' lack of policy on everything—does real and lasting harm.
"Philippines Tells U.S. It Will End Military Cooperation Deal"
'The notice comes as President Rodrigo Duterte has been warming up to China and increasingly distancing Manila from the United States, its longtime ally.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/world/asia/philippines-united-states-duterte.html
What a ridiculous article. Hmm...how would a classical design look instead of what we have at the Arizona War Memorial in Pearl Harbor? Or maybe a few nice Doric columns on a classical building for the new visitor center on top of Pikes Peak? As my knowledgeable and professional architect sister in law said, 99% of buildings in National Parks would look ridiculous as classical architecture. Not to mention requiring classical architecture in various landscapes, even cities would be just dumb. Yeah, the State Capitol of New Mexico in Santa Fe would be better as a Greek temple design. Sheesh. Obviously the folks coming up with this proposal aren't thinking about this entire country, are they? I hope we don't take our design sensibilities from a guy whose own NY apartment looks like a high end, gold-encrusted bordello or oligarch's lair.
5
Of course you think that.
I'm an architect. Over the last two centuries, the US government has built in the multiple "classical" styles of Roman Temple, Italianate, Romanesque Revival, Second Empire, and Neoclassicism. Some great, some real duds. I'm a fan of what has been called "PWA Modern" from the 1930's. Federal programs to encourage good design has resulted in many modern buildings that I consider great contributors to their surroundings. In my view, a few, like some of their classical predecessors, are duds too.
This MAGA proposal says, “Classical and traditional architectural styles have proven their ability to inspire such respect for our system of self-government." Respect? That's the con line Trump keeps touting about our country as the world looks at us with horror and pity for having a mean clown as president with a spineless, obedient GOP Senate.
Perhaps we should let Donald approve all the designs. Search online for a picture of his Trump Tower apartment. I am uncertain how many clashing classical styles are attempted there - so many columns, so many moldings, all painted in shiny gold - but this cultural elitist finds it clumsy, grasping, dysfunctional, ugly, and vulgar.
I think it might be good to build some really vulgar Trump buildings. Plaques at the base could be inscribed with GOP Senator's hilariously inane excuses for voting against impeachment, and the building and the quotes on plaques could serve as a warning to future generations.
12
Think of a classicist like Charles Bullfinch. Even his great work celebrating his Enlightenment times was fake because he pasted allusions to classical buildings onto shapes that were not even possible in ancient days and were made of bricks, not stone. We honor the Massachusetts State House today mainly because it is old.
Copying it over and over will just shrink our brains and horizons the ether to be manipulated by autocrats.
1
So now the right wing culture war is moving to architecture? Seriously, now there is such a thing as a "liberal" or "conservative" building design?? When is this going to end with you guys? Has it ever occurred to you that the reason "conservatives" keep losing culture wars is because your leaders keep proposing new (and increasingly ridiculous) ones for no other reason than to keep you fired up and voting for your tribe?
3
The multiple comparisons to architecture and art under Hitler and the Soviets cannot be ignored, and any cultural initiative or directive from Trump certainly has to be viewed from a political and not a cultural or aesthetic motivation. Curiously, no one mentioned that Trump, the builder, the developer, the real estate tycoon was never noted for a fondness of classical architecture, and his rants against the government and all things public was based on the argument that the private sector (him!) was more dynamic, creative, and efficient than the cumbersome bureaucracy of the federal government he now dominates. In fact, one of the most financially stimulating and energizing forces in urban and civic renewal has always centered around iconic works of architecture, often repudiated initially, but eventually embraced to become synonymous or even representative of it's locale. The Eiffel tower was such a place, in it's day. So was the Sydney Opera House. Today, museums, universities, and the Federal Courts continue to be crucibles of innovative public and private buildings, often existing side by side, in harmony, not in conflict with historical architecture that preceded them. Pretty ironic too, that an intellectually vacuous and utterly inarticulate leader like Trump would elicit such high minded, bibliographical praise from a scholar like Douthat. Can you image these two having a conversation about this subject? Trump could not have come up with this.
5
Two governments in the last century tried to dictate architecture. The result was a series of really ugly buildings, some of which still exist in Germany and Italy as a result of Nazi and Fascist politicization of the art. The only thing to be said in favor of Trump's plan is that it may make it easier to find the nearest post office.
3
La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona is spectacular, but would be cut under the classical only proposal. As would Fallingwater by Wright. How could this be good?
2
I believe this column is saying Trump's architecture initiative is very similar to Adolf Hitler's, and Ross demonstrates his fealty to the Republican Party by writing about how Trump's plan is "perfect".
5
A diversity statement on an academic job application is as like neoclassical architecture as a bicycle is to a fish.
A reminder to Mr. Douthat: government (or higher education) of, by, and for the people extends to everyone, not just white guys who think they represent everyone (and won't the rest of you just sit down and be quiet).
The people with the most privilege are the blindest to it.
7
The primary architecture of a Democracy has never been in it's buildings or physical structures, but in it's structures of a government that provides it's people with the deciding voice and a welcoming entrance into the halls of power.
So when travelers visit a nation ( say, China for instance), no matter the beauty of the countries edifices, when they see that most of the prominent positions in government and participants in the countries best colleges and universities come from a single dominant social strata, gender, or race- They realize that are not in a country that respects Democracy.
Just wondering, if we continue on the path advocated by this Administration and it's minions (with their attacks on our guiding principles of diversity and equality in the eyes of the law) in 20 years, although we may have many more beautiful edifices and impressive walls, just what type of government a traveler would think we honor in this country?
This is just too reminisce of Germany in the late 1930s when the Nazi party built edifices that glorified the grandeur of the state and their own distorted views. It’s dehumanization.
2
Am I some kind of blows-against-the-empire firebrand because I would have no hesitation pledging to affirm equality, diversity, and inclusion? Consider whether a public institution should instead require that applicants affirm allegiance to discrimination, Whites only, and segregation? Has the post-WWII period struggles to cast off Jim Crow and ”keeping women in their place” merely been an ongoing skirmish rather than an awakening? Also, when did the anti-democracy features of our Constitution, Senate representation and the Electoral College, become holy writ rather than the regrettable result of political compromises needed to gain support for adoption by the small and slave states? It is as if states with relatively lower population have assumed the role performed by the nobles in the British House of Lords (before that institution was reformed and weakened). The propensity to elect Republican (conservative) senators seems to be the current primary recommendation by conservatives for the status given low-population states. Other than that, what neutral beneficial qualities do low-population states have that makes us (I reside in one) privileged? Please don’t say we are more virtuous because we are rural (which in reality we are not, because most of us live in urban settings.
2
The hyper-distilled version of Douthat’s column appears to be: to make things better, we may need to make them worse. And, alas, there may well be wisdom in these words. As Adlai Stevenson is reputed to have said, “People don’t see the writing on the walls until their backs are up against it.” The longer I live, the more I believe this is true. In some respects, a nation devoid of extremes—a nation of a great, muddling, inclusive, indecisive middle—is a nation going nowhere, but (as Douthat suggested in a recent column) a nation settling into a Lego Movie mantra of “Everything is wonderful.”
1
Hitler & Mussolini did the same thing, no?
5
I think architecture should be based on environmental and conservation standards. Are the classical style buildings able to be heated economically? Do they allow light to flow into the building?
4
The next time Mr. Douthat marvels at a Gothic cathedral (an event I suspect occurs often), he should remember that it was named "gothic" by those who did not like it, in reference to the Goths who plundered the Roman empire (and its classical buildings). Such architecture was "contemporary" when it was built, and incorporated the technical innovations of the flying buttress and the pointed arch, which allowed an abundance of stained glass. In his wonderful essay on contemporary art, Joseph Schickel, in alluding to the those averse to contemporary architecture, said " An architect friend once told me he would be happy to design a Gothic church if the bishop would supply the Goths to build it."https://www.crisismagazine.com/1990/the-sacred-and-the-profane-i-is-contemporary-art-perverted-art
Yes there are ugly new buildings, along with plenty of ugly old ones. But it is clearly not the case that buildings should have to look old to be beautiful.
6
This entire argument hinges on the concept that conservatives need to be willing to use resources that are evidence-based. How can we trust a movement that refuses evidence? I would be more inclined to listen to so-called conservatives if they had evidence that their policies worked. The hallmark of the Progressive Era was a switch to education and evidence as drivers of policy. This has been better for everyone. For instance, I like to know that my food comes from safe sources that the government has investigated. In that same light, I like for my government structures not to fall on me, which is less likely to happen if educated individuals design them using the latest evidence. While I don't necessarily agree in taking pledges because they seem too fascist for my taste, an agreement for diversity is a good thing. I would like for Mr. Douthat to explain, using evidence, that a society that agrees to equity and diversity is a poorer society. I am afraid that Mr. Douthat is dabbling in false equivalencies.
3
One: conservatives can consolidate power wherever they please (e.g., voter suppression), but we have to be horrified for a diversity pledge, that asks to consider all equally.
And you don't see that the best way to build an utilitarian building is where form follows need rather than form follows show of power or anything else.
A very long article to compare apples and oranges...
4
true freedom of thought begins with setting aside the silly controversies of politics and "the culture war."
the culture war has no impact whatsoever on climate change, population growth, productivity stagnation, medical care, state surveillance or any other of our pressing concerns.
at the end of the century no one will care about our "culture wars." the consensus will likely be that we deluded and distracted ourselves at a time when concerted action was necessary.
it won't be "power sharing" but dire emergency that shakes us out of the vanity and pettiness of the present moment. and we'll persist in our fatuous and impudent delusions until that happens.
4
It would be nice to restore faith in institutions.
But swearing "I promise not to be rigid in my thinking" is not the same as swearing "I promise to be rigid in my thinking."
Arguing that it is is just a semantical trick.
Additionally, whoever those architects were in Ancient Greece, it'd be interesting to see what they'd come up with today if you gave them access to glass and steel.
2
That populist Trump couldn't even win the popular vote should automatically preclude this administration from prohibiting cultural diversity ESPECIALLY if it becomes as demonstrably self-serving to uphold the very American institutions of family, faith, higher learning, and government which said populist has already respectively cheated, blasphemed, defaulted, and unconstitutionally betrayed.
Besides, what would Ayn Rand-supporting Republicans say when their individualism's starchitect Howard Roark (of her FOUNTAINHEAD) now has to compromise to all the atlases shrugged via mundanely mandating a classically-bent Peter Keating?
1
Mr. Douthat's begins with complaints about “diversity, equity and inclusion” arise from a suspicion that they may be "conterminous with progressive notions of what counts as diversity and what sort of inclusion matters." But even if that were true, it would not be a logical reason to object to those goals. A reasonable argument requires objections to the actual definition or actual practice.
Mr. Douthat skips the reasonable argument, perhaps because he might have trouble attacking diversity or equity as goals without showing his prejudices. Instead of making an argument against these goals, he attacks them by association. In this way he accepts and even perpetuates, division, while pretending to intellectual curiosity.
There is not space here to properly critique Mr. Douthat on Trump's architectural goals, but suffice it to say that here again he attacks a type of diversity, although he does his best to hide that.
Douthat's essay-long attempt to place the California University goals in political juxtaposition to Trump's architectural ones leads the reader down a long and convoluted path that is pedantically obscurantist, all in service to his unspoken goal of a safe social uniformity.
9
just wait until the classical architecture proposal budgets come back. There's a reason contemporary architecture dominates. It's more efficient.
5
Read the first two paragraphs and decided my back needed a quick trip to the chiropractor more than my mind needed passive exercise on this topic.
2
This is a new low for Douthat. A liberal "war on beauty"?! I wonder how shallow his patriotism is that he needs a few Romanesque columns to lend it support. And what, after all, is Douthat's "patriotism" composed of besides his conservative values? What has he given to the country aside from divisive essays claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is destroying the nation? Has he served in the military or the Peace Corps? Has he volunteered his time to help fellow citizens? Has he strongly advocated that all Americans need to help and support one another? Nope -- he just has a feeling, a "patriotic feeling" that makes him feel comfortable.
13
Ross... if you want to want to write an article about culture wars feel free to express your views, but please leave the rumored executive order regarding architecture out of it. Like many, you seem to be under the impression that architecture is mostly about how a building looks. If only it were that simple. In fact, architecture is a melding of a building's design with available materials, systems, and skill sets, as well as structural, electrical, and mechanical engineering... all while working to a budget and schedule. There are supply chains in architecture, just like there are in other businesses. These days, the stone masons required to carve elaborate Corinthian columns out of granite are in very short supply. Ask for such a column and you are far more likely to get a molded fiberglass facade wrapped around a frame of some sort than an actual column. What were once structural elements of a building, are now little more than decorative additions. And depending on what they are meant to imitate (e.g. - porcelain panels masking as granite blocks) they may or may not be deemed adequately "classical" by whatever the chosen authority is. The end result is likely to look a bit fake, and if it doesn't, that would likely come at extreme cost.
As a "builder" Trump should be familiar with all these factors, and recognize this for the truly stupid idea that it is. That he doesn't seem to indicates to me an idea born from either ignorance or corruption.
12
@Derek Martin Excellent comment, but Trump's knowledge of 'building' was the same as his idea of a 'trump steak' -- a line on an executive summary of something he paid no attention to.
3
Have no doubt that the National Museum of African American History and Culture is motivating Trump. Kind of like erasing plans for a Harriet Tubman $20 bill. As for tasteful, classical architecture, look no further than Trump Tower.
10
Donald Trump is a fan of the federalist style? Really? Ever see the design of the buildings he has built? Glass box/bauhaus architecture with nary a plinth to be seen,not even gonna describe the casinos.
This is typical Douthat, in that he blames the excesses of supposed conservatives on liberals and their orthodoxy, that conservatives have become anti intellectual and anti media and the like because of the big, bad liberals bullying everyone. The reality, Russ, is that the country is not divided into liberals and conservatives in anyone's mind except conservatives. Anything to the left of fundamentalist Christians, white supremacists and corporate laissez faire is considered a 'liberal', and that isn't true. Many people are left of center, center and right of center don't care about cultural issues, they don't want to return the US to the 1950's, they don't want the Bible as law and to be blunt don't understand why conservatism means sticking your nose in other people's right to live as they see fit, and they are the true majority. The GOP base at most is 35% of the population,the radical left is small as well, maybe 15%, that leaves 60% in that middle spectrum neither hard right nor hard left.
Want an answer to the divisions? Don't appeal to the hard right or hard left, be socially moderate and fiscally centrist to a bit left, and you will do fine, and will isolate the radicals.
2
The opposite of "diversity, equity, inclusion" is "uniformity, bias, exclusion." Is that really the conservative agenda?
7
……? because his blue suit and red tie goes better with gray granite and makes him look slimmer?
Really not too far fetched, for the stable genius.
Plus, I would wager that he does not like the most beautiful new building on the Mall, The National Museum of African American History and Culture, at all.
6
Putting up buildings to remind us of the Enlightenment would only remind us how un-Enlightened we have become.
1
I have to say that this is just ignorant argument. Douthat's point seems to be: I want what you have so I'll take yours away. His pretend sophisticated argument is that American institutions or all kinds are tainted and must be cleansed in a manner approved by him and exacerbated by force. He also appears to have confused social institutions with physical buildings, an odd undertaking. And his counter is that controlling public structure design is freedom for him and his people: a sad group I would think if that's the battle they want to have.
5
"Potemkin Village: an impressive facade or show designed to hide an undesirable fact or condition." Not only figuratively but now, apparently carried out in literal architectural form, we have a preview of the Trumpian legacy - which, as in this case, Ross Douthat often manages in his complex manner to rationalize.
I foresee Trump at the ribbon cutting of his faux classical edifices wearing a laurel wreath to keep his signature pompadour pouf intact.
5
Douthat’s description of current guidelines and the proposed Executive Order is at very much at odds with what has been leaked to the New York Times and other media outlets. I’m a layman, but according to what I’ve read on this topic:
1. The draft order doesn’t provide for a wide variety of forms called classical,” but specifies a narrow specific school of Neoclassicism—excluding not only 20th Century styles like Art Deco, Modernism, and Wrightian Organic Architecture, but also widely used pre-20th Century styles like Empire, Queen Anne, Art’s & Crafts, Colonial, Beaux Arts, Richardson Romanesque, Gothic, Byzantine and Egyptian Revival, etc., etc.
2. The current Federal guidelines do not preclude the use of historical aesthetic styles—including neoclassicism—and Federal buildings are sometimes currently built in them.
3. The order reduces the opportunity for local input and variation in overall design and details by requiring a highly structure and prescriptive style; any deviations would require an appeal to a nationally centralized White House-controlled committee.
An example of the aesthetic narrowness of the proposal can be seen in the recent changes ordered to the new Federal Courthouse in Greensboro SC, which wasn't modernist to start with:
https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2019/02/14/heres-how-new-downtown-greenville-federal-courthouse-look/2870895002/
1
Ross' stagnant and myopic views on issues grow increasingly boring and frustrating. He is fighting battles from the last millennia completely ignoring both history before his birth and the reality of the present day.
It has been the Industry of Conservative Thought that has created the divide we are currently dealing with and until we address that reality nothing will get better. Ross is a product of that Industry looking at things in stark two sided terms when in fact it should be far more diverse. Keeping it simple like that is purposeful and intentional and has served the Republican party very well over the past 50 years. By convincing people that the Right is the party that loves religion, loves life, loves strength and power, loves freedom, loves keeping the status quo, loves law and order, loves our country, it was very easy to say that the opposite was also true - that the Left hates all those things. It really is just that simple and with the saturation of Right Wing Media in certain parts of this country trusting a Democrat is like giving your baby to the Devil.
Grow up Ross. Any talk of de-funding cultural and educational institutions is an attempt to make this nation more ignorant so that this simplistic world view is perpetuated. Because the Industry of Conservative Thought cannot show any historically positive examples of their ideology they have to shut it down citing liberal infestation. But in that world Ross is a genius and he likes it that way.
3
Really? National Affairs passes, for you, as an intellectual journal. One that, in all seriousness, advocates de-funding our already-crumbling university system for ideological gain?
You and your ilk are faithless ideologues, unwilling to engage the debates, refine the arguments, listen or learn and develop, preferring the gross power of money distributed or withheld without consideration for the needs of the nation or its students.
If you can't control it, no matter what it is, you don't want it.
This passes for Rossian spirituality, for conservative political wisdom.
Meantime, in your lust to play the victim and cast aspersions, you ignore the real ugliness of conservative influence on campuses across the country.
First, there are religious abominations trying to pass as centers of free inquiry which require similar but far more restrictive oaths of allegiance, which are fine with you.
There are massively well-funded conservative schools of business, law, politics demanding allegiance to (and academic programming in support of) ultra-conservative points of view.
Finally, there's the self-destructive demand of donors, politicians, administrators to decide for faculty and students what constitutes a proper social or scholarly perspective.
You particularly, Ross, and your intellectual bros do not want to teach, do not want the debate, the marketplace of ideas...you just want to win.
1
Surprisingly Mr. Douthat doesn't mention the fact that at some "christian" universities one must be a christian to teach. What's the difference between that and diversity points of view.
2
while we're at it, let's tell fine artists that all their paintings must include donald trump in them somewhere.
5
The author and most commentators are missing the larger point. MAGA desires to impose “classical” architecture [where is the historically accurate gaudy painting of the columns??] flows from two power channels: 1) the raw exercise of power and 2) a fantasy nostalgia for pre-diversity America. I would take the intellectual sincerity of this pending edict more seriously if it had picked, say, Art Deco, but in going for the nebulous “classical” it exposes its intellectually vapidity. The game here is simple, if Obama liked it, we hate it. If non-white non-Europeans played any role at all in its genesis and creativity, we hate it. If higher education hates the idea, we love it. There is no subtlety here; the proposal is all about power, crudely held and crudely wielded.
3
The most helpful thing about this column is the clear description of the beefs each side has with the other over policy and laws. These beefs have grown into mammoth-sized armies of minds trampling the other side under the influence of right-wing provocations supplied by Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, Breitbart, and 4-chan (who disrupted the Iowa caucus) among others. The left is no better, fielding many websites with conspiracy theories and all-out misrepresentation of facts in order to join the right on the battlefield of 'I am right and you are evil'. Whether our government architectural styles suit one side or the other and the roiling fights over such show how far down the ladder of maturity we have all fallen. We are all stupid. The two sides want very different things. https://medium.com/@teresadlonghawkes/who-is-stupid-f2891f550f25 Can we grow up enough to talk things through instead of coming out swinging over every little thing?
surprised he didn't advocate for all buildings having gold leaf and his name splattered across them....
the one oath we all heard don the con take has meant absolutely nothing for 3 years.
1
Its almost as if someone has been watching "The Man in the High Castle" and is taking it seriously.... One group embraces a cult of personality and tries to turn the clock backward and rightward. There's no other alternative world to escape to when we completely mess this one up.
It was never going left, only forward. Vote Blue no matter who!
2
Can't wait for The Trump Heimat Security Building. Guess what? It's OK to use public money for your very own building. This is not about architecture at all.
I wonder how many of the folks here reacting against this piece with their connecting of the dots to the Nazis bothered to click through to some of Douthat's hyperlinked source references. If they had they might have read the following: "From the Arab and Indian worlds to the synagogues of Europe and the subways of Moscow, complex symmetries have always mesmerized us. It’s not a Greco-Roman thing. It’s a human thing."
Trump: “Whenever I'm making a creative choice, I try to step back and remember my first shallow reaction. [And] the day I realized it can be smart to be shallow was, for me, a deep experience!”
“Trump’s [shallow] De-Polarizing Architecture Plan” came from his creative process, which he proudly admits is superficial, small minded & shallow!
1
This new "executive order" -- "Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again", sounds eerily like MAGA. And if the goal is to re-create Roman temples, there is no doubt in my mind that this change was made to erect monuments in homage solely to Trump. Trump sees himself as an emperor - and why shouldn't he? He is limited now only by his imagination and the laws of physics.
But architecture has always been profoundly influenced in totalitarian regimes. This happens in both fascist and socialist regimes that are run by one strong man. Think of the monuments to Hitler and Stalin. Think of the elevation of Mao to a deity. And now we will be looking at these kinds of disgusting architectural spectacles that offer tribute to Trump.
Expect to see large scale statues of him in public squares. Expect to see his name carved into federal buildings, as the "savior of America". Expect federal courts to have wall-sized monuments as an obscene tribute to him.
No matter whether one's architectural taste runs to classical or modern, with this new "order", we are entering a period when America will become very, very ugly.
2
Next our stable genius Trump will order Space Force ships to look like Conestoga Wagons.
3
Fairness, inclusion and diversity are bad? In whose universe? Oh, yeah! The white, male conservative Christian world, the one that is losing its stranglehold on American politics.
Massive faux Greek and Roman temple style government buildings that will double the cost (stone work is expensive) without adding anything to the efficiency. Only reflects the glory that said architecture brought to that same class of domineering white males in a time gone by. Copies with no authentic purpose. Definitely a Republican idea!
1
When Hitler came to power he condemned modernist architecture such as that which was emerging from the Bauhaus movement. He favored the overbearing monstrosities with neoclassical elements because they expressed the power of the “Superman.” They were meant to overwhelm and represent the power of the state. Most of the leading proponents of the Bauhaus modernist movement escaped from Nazis Germany to the US where our freedoms allowed their creativity to flourish. Look around our great cities today. They owe their emerging beauty to the heritage of modernists.
Many of those exiled architects landed in Chicago and perpetuated the modernist movement to the lasting benefit of Chicagoans. The graceful and light two towered Federal Buildings in Downtown were designed by the modernist Mies van der Rohe in the 1970s and boast an Alexander Calder stabile in the plaza area. These buildings are landmarks to the brilliance and creativity of modernists and were brought to you by our Federal Government.
Dictating an archaic architectural style for our Capital is no different than Hitler’s condemnation of modernism. Our Capital should be a built environment that looks to the future, not to the past. Were Thomas Jefferson alive today, he would be appalled at this dictat. Look at his own architectural masterpiece at Monticello. This was no backward looking building in the artistic context of his time but a visionary achievement by someone who would be at home with modernism today.
1
So now and henceforth in Trumpland, we will have conservative and liberal buildings?
Guess which ones will have gold paint on them.
3
I'd rather our buildings reflect forward thinking and American grown design rather than imitate dead war mongering and slave holding civilizations.
2
Your argument is weak Mr. Douthat. We don't need to continue to copy classic architecture. We've already done to much of that. We need innovation in architecture,just as we need innovation in other areas of our culture. No more classic architecture at federal or state level. Innovate.
1
First off, we can't assume that Trump really knows what "classical" architecture is. There's a good chance his conception of it involves lots of tacky gold plate. And heaven forbid we allow the experts -- licensed architectural professionals -- to influence design rather than unlicensed government employees with zero knowledge of design or building. Good grief, Trump's idea of great design is putting his name in giant all caps (and set in a typeface that looks very low rent) on everything he owns.
3
Trump's plan to give precedence to classical architectural forms in the construction of federal buildings and what this says about American institutions?
America appears to be suffering from incredible tension between two definitions of the word institution, with both major political parties having actually the same definition no matter their differences and being hostile to the second and very visible definition of the word.
In numberless fields, everything from sports to the sciences to American music and film an institution is a system in which creativity, evolution to greater heights is paramount, an institution operates something like a kaleidoscope rotating to greater heights of organization and insight, and marks the changes by the greatest accomplishments (say Hall of Fame in baseball, Hall of fame in Rock 'n Roll).
But in politics, dear God, institution means repetition of the same, a pack of cliches, formula and in fact the definition of institution just given in previous paragraph is always threatened with collapsing into the primary definition of the word, something of a fixed and everlasting structure.
Frankly our political parties despise change, seek to fix identity, have everyone on same page, and to effect their designs must exclude anything which threatens to result in institution in second definition of term, to point that now they are constricting all arts and sciences and even sports from improvement.
Decadence of dead institutional mindset.
This is a bizarre mash-up of totally different issues. Regarding architecture, the proposed directive that neoclassical styles should dominate government buildings makes as much sense in the USA as requiring a uniform, and uniformly mediocre, Soviet style did. Or for an example removed from government, as much sense as the Academy that imposed control artistic sensibilities in France until it was overwhelmed by the free expression of the Impressionists and the explosion of artistic freedom that followed.
Regarding the completely unrelated questioning of the politics of minority rule being enabled by our Constitution, it seems reasonable to me to propose the same kind of change that led to women’s right to vote, successfully enshrined in the Constitution. The rights of all citizens to vote and be equally represented in Congress and equally important in presidential elections should be similarly protected. Voting rights were addressed in federal law but not by unambiguous Constitutional amendment. That has proven to be unsuccessful, since the forces that seek to extend rule by a mostly white, mostly Christian minority have been able to overturn the clear intent of the Congress that at one point believed otherwise. And nobody has made a serious effort to get rid of what can most charitably be described as a historical anachronism, the electoral college. And nobody has even thought about getting rid of the Senate, which allows small state voters vastly more power.
2
I'm having difficulty accepting the thesis here. Do we really need to turn the architecture of power into basilicas? Political power in this country is already blessed (?) with the extremism of religious fervor, I don't need buildings to magnify that trend. As another comment noted, this trend was on full display in 1930's Germany and we know how that turned out.
And when did intelligentsia become an epithet? Members of the intelligentsia developed antibiotics, calculus, hydrodynamics, the theory of evolution... Oh! There it is; I see the thesis now.
5
I ask Mr. Douthat to try this thought experiment. In music, 'classical' refers to the era of Bach, Haydn, early Mozart. Would he require all orchestras receiving federal funds only to play a strict, classical repertoire? What about funding for our art museums? New purchases can only mimic Poussin and David? And in literature? The Library of Congress can only accept new novels in the manner of, say, Austen, Balzac and Dickens? Blue blazers and pinstripes for men during Fashion Week? Wayne Newton, yes; Beach Boys, never! On it goes. Contemporary Art is, well, contemporary, that is, of our time. The fervor with which Mr. Douthat and other Republicans cling to simply understood, older forms hides a more cold-hearted failure to accept Art as an essential part of life. (And frivolous for our public schools.) I once witnessed a woman shout in rage as she stumbled on Picasso's GUERNICA at the Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid because, I assumed, it offended her belief that art had to be both anodyne and easily assimilated. In the end, Mr. Douthat begs the question: he assumes that the 'public' doesn't want thrilling, new architecture. One trip to any city which hosts one of these new buildings and he'll quickly realize the trouble is within him. Not with our architects.
2
In the 60s as a student I had a summer job working for Orange County, CA, I had to sign an oath that I supported the constitution of the United States and was not then, nor had ever been, a member of the Communist Party. I'm proud to say I could do so in good conscience (and still could). Such oaths were eventually ruled illegal, but it looks like here we go again--from the opposite side this time. The more things change . . .
Mr. Douthat fails to mention that the Life Sciences faculty search was explitly funded to hire someone who could help advance the departments' diversity goals. It is not surprising, then, that after eliminating applicants without the basic qualifications, the search focused on diversity statements. That focus still left over 200 applicants. The departments were pleased with the outcome of the search.
Universities have long required statements that emphasize teaching and research. Some institutions may give greater weight to teaching, others to research. Some searches may look for teaching that emphasizes large classes of non-majors, others may emphasize the ability to involve undergraduate majors in research teams. The addition of diversity statements reflects changes in student populations and the importance of retaining high ability students. I would argue that these are less politically motivated than the current methods used in searches to fill positions in the federal judiciary.
1
Mr. Douthat characteristically over-intellectualizes both of his points. Universities, by definition, are liberal in the classical sense. Secondly, the practice of architecture itself sprang from local needs and aesthetics. Our civil discourse would be much more satisfying and productive if we could all acknowledge simple common sense as a starting point rather than jumping immediately to the internecine.
Why limit ourselves to stone and concrete when we have glass and steel? Why must we follow Ictinus, Callicrates and Phidias when we can follow Gehrey, Pei, and Hadid?
Classical architecture represents a democracy that benefited free white men and a republic turned empire. With all due respect to the beauty of the ancient temples and the golden mean, it is time to move on.
199
@Luke
Thank you. Mr. Douthat's perspectives on both culture and architecture should be called out for the cultural regression he's espousing.
23
@Luke
Actually, the glass-and-steel rectangle is the preferred building paradigm of capitalism.
4
@Luke
Classical styles encompasses a broad range. I guess you think art deco like the Chrysler Building is an imitation of "white man empire" or some such nonsense. But then it _is_ much easier to just write "something-something white men" and wait for the virtue signals to light up in the sky.
4
In today's Republican Party the phrase "conservative intellectual" is as confusing as jumbo shrimp. Conservative intellectuals have become the dodos of American politics, rumored to exist, but not seen in today's elections.
8
In my home city the central library is an ugly concrete block on a side street. A visiting architect said it was an example of the "brutalist" style. It libraries want people to come and check out books, that is not the message they want to send. The library was built shortly after 1960 when according to this article, architectural rules were changed..
I despise Trump, but if this proposal lets people veto the whims of self-indulgent architects, I'm all for it.
1
@Charlesbalpha The architect's design was not forced on your city; it was likely chosen by a group of citizens, librarians, or the city council. Often the main criterion was construction cost. And the 60s were a bad time for public buildings that often eliminated windows that might increase heating and cooling costs and distract students and workers from their primary tasks.
1
Neo-classical is not the pinnacle of architecture, and I'd rather live in a contemporary building utilizing up-to-date design principles. I have zero interest doing my daily business in a heap of stone and brick with poor lighting and ventilation. It's ridiculous that we live in a world where you can do so much with glass, metal, wood and other materials, and yet insist on building blocky Doric temples. It's almost like the last 1500 years never happened.
2
I was not aware of the diversity statement required by the U of California which is disturbing to me on many levels.
On the other hand, the conservative principle of less government and less local interference is extremely countered by this column. In one example form the article, a building was designed with red brick to match the local architecture and was dropped for this “classical” approach which looked ridiculous in the local context.
So local people shouldn’t have a say and now it is DC that will make the decision?!? One new conservative principle is definitely on display here. Get government out of the way UNLESS we think you are not doing the “right thing”, then you do what we say. Violating conservative principles doesn’t count in those instances.
Got it??
2
Wow. Ross is still pushing the delusion that there can be a culture war. He should have learned by now that the culture will be what the people want it to be regardless of who controls the government, who makes the laws. Now it's architecture? Architecture is not liberal or conservative. It is either modern or copies the past. Of course I should have realized that conservatives would want to change the way buildings look to bring back the feeling of the old days. How pathetic.
The cornerstone of Ross' argument is that by forcing government funded buildings to look like classic architecture is to make America less polarized. Of course it will have the opposite effect. The harder conservatives try to impose their view of how the society should look, the harder the majority of Americans will push back with more extreme views of such. It would just be another nail in the coffin of what was once a united federation of states. The result will be a breakup of America into two lesser countries. We had a philosophy that has worked until Newt Gingrich showed a different way. It was called democracy in which the majority ruled. However, once we allow a minority of Americans to impose their will on the majority, the concept of a United States is dead. Architecture, really?
2
What's polarizing is people like Douthat, who view everything through the lens of "those liberals" and "we conservatives", and then apply that thinking to things as ordinary as building architecture.
The problem is not what people think. It's how they think. It's applying an often ill-informed political perspective to every single issue, from nutrition to architecture to educational institutions, and then using that to cast one side or the other as good or evil, necessitating a firm moral position in response.
You're good if you want this type of architecture, and evil if you want another.
Then you cast that with clever phrasing, like "architects [...] denouncing the idea of political control over political buildings", as if that's an absurd idea, because "obviously" they're political buildings (which actually means they will exist for all of the people for a very long time, not for the politicians that happen to be in power when they are designed), so somehow politicians should "obviously" decide.
How about you limit political analysis to politics? And stop demonizing people for their positions? Why not write an article about how no one in history has ever been right about everything, so clinging to all of your own positions, and imposing them on others, is probably going to be a bad approach?
The WWII monument is an example of tortured bureaucratic design. Dull, unfocused, uninspired, too big, gaudily decorated and pseudo classical. Such a shame. Contrast it to the Vietnam wall or even the haunting (if conventional) Korean monuments.
I don't like the idea of university professors having to sign any kind of philosophical pledge. I thought the university was supposed to promote free thought. However, conservatives have already crippled the higher education system in our country by the massive drop in government funding that has occurred in the last 30 years in public universities. Most of the changes that have grown out of that funding drop have been BAD for students and faculty.
We spend so much time battling over cultural and political power, we lose sight of what is important for our survival as a nation. One of those things is progress in scientific and cultural achievement. Ignorance only gets you so far, no matter how passionate and cunning you might be. Yes, sometimes liberals go too far, but don't kill the cow because you don't like the moo.
1
As a Boomer, I completed a graduate degree last year at a well known private university. I was astonished how things have changed since by undergrad days. There was no ideological battle - the leftists had won. Everyone who wasn't a heterosexual white male was now a victim who must be protected from harmful speech. Any male accused of sexual assault (unwanted touching) was doomed, whether guilty or not. Sky high tuition rates are fueled by incredible layers of administrative fat including extra large "Diversity" departments. It was like a cross between China's Cultural Revolution and Kafka's "The Castle".
1
Or maybe the classical mandate intends to impede innovative green architecture a la reagan who took Carter's solar panels off the roof of the White House.
1
so many words. so little content. this piece seems to have been written so that ross could become enthralled by his own words. simply put..... trump has no such high ideals about architecture or anything. it's about his ego. UC berkeley is a bastion of liberalism and it sometimes runs amok..... but the intention of promoting a larger understanding of diversity in the faculty at a university with a very diverse student body? is honorable.... and at worst? no comparison to trump's authoritarian aggrandizements.
2
The data on the political beliefs (and donations) of the faculties of elite universities clearly reveals what they believe "diversity" means. And Republicans or Scoop Jackson Democrats need not apply. Regarding public architecture, most Americans want functioning building that don't leak when it rains, and have windows that open for the spring or fall. They don't want ugly buildings. And, to paraphrase a Justice, they know those when they see them!
Why are you wasting time, ink and paper writing about such trivialities, Mr. Douthat? Surely there are far more important issues, like Trump trying to defund Medicaid and the CDC in the face of a coronavirus pandemic, or how even Britain is building high-speed rail while we trundle along in Amtrak?
3
A lot of commenters are ahead of me in instantly citing Fascist-era architecture as an example of Classical architecture being used to political ends. As an architect, I'm surprised to find myself somewhat sympathetic to the impulses behind the Executive Order--architecture can convey cultural meaning, and Classical (Greek Revival, Roman) architecture carries a lot of weight as a symbol of civic institutions. But the problem comes when a particular style is imposed from on high. Architecture (good and bad) reflects the culture that produces it, and imposing a particular style by fiat can't mask or hide values that aren't there (or are deteriorating, or changing into something different). And finally: I'll take a well-designed Modernist (or Regionalist, or...) building over a kitschy, poorly designed "Classical" building any day. Slapping a row of columns and a pediment on the front of a building does NOT in any way guarantee a good building.
1
If it's really Trump's plan, break out the gold paint.
7
The matter here is not about some political wrestling for control of cultural institutions. It's about the inanity of institutionalizing any taste, in this case a preference for repititions of insipid, tepid quotations of 'classical antiquity', as necessarily preferable to any other. If doing that warms the hearts of some conservatives, God help them.
1
Under the Trump fist, "classical" architecture will be as phony as "conservative" politics has become. Columns will be pasted on for effect since the materials and skills that built actual classical buildings are no longer available within any budget the federal government would be remotely willing to pay. And several commentators pointed out (and you ignored) the reality that current needs are for buildings that are secure, energy efficient, fully accessible, flexible in interior use, and economical. In other words, contemporary. Architects do go to school you know.
2
To be clear. Mr. Douthat is saying conservatives are against diversity and that this is a worthy cause.
I wish Republicans would be clearer at what they stand for and dispense of euphemisms.
In his book to be conservative is to deny the progress society has made and turn back the clock to were white men like him have the final word, including on subjects they know nothing about such as architecture. Never mind the degrees, experience and artistry professional architects have. A white man will always know better.
2
The administration's architecture guideline is perhaps parody: the hero of Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead", Howard Roark, was an architect who fought against the classic style.
RE: "give local communities and nonexperts a stronger influence over designs."
This is disingenuous. All public buildings are competed for with submissions from different architects and developers.
The government is can select and reject any and all designs. Often the designs for public buildings, especially local ones, are publicized and the public offered a chance to comment and/or vote on them. It's also true about the memorials in DC.
I wonder if it is lost on Trump how most of the old buildings of "classical architectural forms" that He admires, like the Parthenon, are actually temples built to deities?
Temples like to those to Zeus, Apollo, or Aphrodite with the Trump name on them is bound to be very appealing to Him.
1
Conservatives have become so politically correct in their zeal to apply 'conservative' princples to all aspects of public life, including art and architecture, that they forget that they are being more like Stalin - whose cultural tastes were reactionary - than earlier American conservatives who embraced newfangled forms like Art Deco as part of a dynamic, future-thinking America. But that's fitting for today's neoStalinist-allied right (granted, Douthat himself doesn't like Putin and Trump but that's a deviationist quirk).
2
He didn’t quite get his Roy Cohn. Now he wants to find his Albert Speer. The man loves rallies. Expect triumphal marches to a purpose built Nuremberg in his second term.
5
Indeed, a defining character of a Western Dictator is his love for bombastic Classic Greco-Roman architecture. Trump is no exception, and is likely very aware that his taste is similar to that of Hitler and Mussolini. He probably dreams of mass rallies in some colonnaded amphitheater. If we don’t rid ourselves of this frightful person in the next election, that’s is what this country is going get. Meanwhile, stand up all you Albert Speer wannabes!
2
Discussion of the proposed executive order should begin by noting that it does two related but importantly different things: it limits expression, but also identifies a specific style it presumes to embed certain messages or virtues. The first is a matter of authoritarian governance that should concern us in its own right, regardless of our concern for architecture. The second is a position that may be argued, but that is far from settled, either by professionals and the academy or among the broader public. What concerns me is the historical precedent that conflates the two in the use of classicism, ostensibly in service to notions of stability, beauty, and respectability, in fact deployed as a mask for power and bureaucratic authority. I may admire many classical and neoclassical buildings, but this order frightens me.
1
Firstly I find it a little disturbing that a President would dictate architectural style. He should defer to experts in the field on such matters. Secondly, architecture, public or not, should reflect the time that it is built for, instead of harking back to some nostalgic past.
6
I’m stunned that conservatives want to impose this sort of rule on states when most conservatives seem so adamant about states’ rights and are routinely hostile to any rule, law or policy the federal government tries to force on them.
If a state wants marble columns and white stone facades on their federal buildings, great. If not, they should be able to make their own choices.
5
The Federal Office of Personnel Management has for the past few decades required applicants for jobs within the Federal Government’s Senior Executive Service (SES, the highest levels of non-political leadership comparable in seniority to military generals) to address five Core Executive Qualifications (CEQ) in their applications. One of those CEQs is “Leading People.” The applicant is asked to describe how, in their past jobs, they have led teams of people. One element that OPM desires the applicant to address is “Leveraging Diversity,” by fostering “...an inclusive workplace where diversity and individual differences are valued and leveraged to achieve the vision and mission of the organization.” As a former career federal civil servant, I have found the federal government to be a positive force advancing diversity in its workforce through such policies, and in other areas such as the selection of members of Federal Advisory Committees. A responsible government entity, such as a public university, should be a leader in advancing diversity in its community. One step is by ensuring it has a workforce dedicated to such principles. The objection to the UC system striving to achieve goals of diversity is a red herring similar to McCarthyism.
This is a false analogy. Comparing a university hiring policy with public buildings is apples and oranges. Even though a university receives federal funds, it does not represent the government and is not a government office. One can choose which university one wants to apply for a teaching position. One can choose whether or not one agrees with the statement before one signs. Just as students can choose where they want to apply based on the university hiring policy, if they want to investigate it.
Americans cannot choose which Federal buildings they enter to get things done that require a visit there. Americans can not, legally, chose whether or not to pay taxes, nor what the federal government chooses to build with it. We send our elected leaders to congress to represent us with that dispersal, as an infamous Alaskan bridge would illustrate.
An executive order requiring a particular style policy regarding Federal buildings just smacks of an authoritarian government.
2
Hitler called Modern Architecture degenerate. Are you really sure about this opinion piece?
13
Another plea for liberals to help make conservatives feel more welcomed in cultural institutions, this time by accepting architecture conservatives favor. As if that will help. We’ve seen how this drama plays out. For years, conservatives complained that the media was biased, so they made their own media. It has grown substantially and is now a major cultural force, yet we still hear the same complaints by conservatives about liberal media bias. The truth is that conservatives don’t just want inclusion, they want domination and control. Since they largely control government and budgets, they may well get their way but let’s not try to mask what is happening with highfalutin talk of “renewed institutionalism.”
2
Trump wants classical architectural forms. I wonder, what style does he choose for his own properties?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_Manila
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_Punta_del_Este
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Towers_Istanbul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Towers_(Sunny_Isles_Beach)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(New_York_City)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Hotel_and_Tower_(Vancouver)
2
Federal architecture is simply following the latest fads in corporate America. The fixation on hyper-modernism favored by the Titans of capital is transforming our cities into "little Dubai's." Not sure how that constitutes anything other than banality. In the 30s and 40s, Fed Arch was trail blazing. Rockefeller's 60s monstrosity in Albany was at least novel. Political control over style permits experimentation. Let the AIA call the shots and everything looks like a bank or a corporate office park.
2
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
A uniformed architecture that idolizes the state and belittles the individual.
From being Putinesque, Trump is going for the full Stalin.
What next, a slew of 200 foot statues of Supreme Leader Donald all over the USA?
6
You do realize that Hitler and Mussolini also had their classicist building projects? That is not good for anyone.
8
Another distraction?
You didn't mention and should remember, Mr. Douthat, that Adolf Hitler did exactly what Trump proposes. Only classical and classically derived architecture styles were permitted because modern architecture was not considered beautiful. It was considered a degenerative art and eventually all modern art and architecture were banned, not just for government buildings but for all buildings. Then modern architecture was associated with intellectuals, especially the Jewish faculty and eventually all modern architecture as a sign of decadence and communism. the Bauhaus closed in 1933. From then on, it was Albert Speer and his gigantic architecture of the Third Reich. Berlin was cleared of poor people and Jews so that this gigantic architecture could be built, often by the very people who had been removed. The architecture became the substance and symbol of Hitler's government, philosophy, hegemony, and racial superiority. So architecture in the Third Reich was used very specifically not only for cultural but especially for political purposes which led to the destruction of Germany, 20 million people, including 6 million Jews. Are you ready for this, Mr. Douthat?
586
@Nancy Thank you for opening the trumpian playbook for all to see! This administration can be counted on for insidious agendas and we must all be alert to one subterfuge after another. But it's easy to miss some. Every bit of demystification of their modus operandi helps.
32
@Nancy Well said, Nancy! You should write an article about this and not just a comment.
28
@Nancy
Yes. Douthat rehashes his previous column in which he looks through his magic conservative lens and sees “balance” where liberals see “crisis.”
Yuval Levin is deeply conservative and a devotee of Edmund Burke, an 18th century British politician obsessed with tradition and institutions like “families and churches, academia and government.” (Think Margaret Thatcher: “there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families.”) Of course, conservatives are undaunted by applying 18th century paradigms to the 21st century realities – they think time stands still.
Nor does it seem to make any difference to Douthat or Yuval that Burke himself said (and Levin pointed out in his book “The Great Debate”) that his political ideas couldn’t apply to America which was too independent. So, it seems rather disingenuous for Levin or Douthat to try to apply them now.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it is disturbing when we use notions of beauty as ideological hegemony. When we attempt to control human behavior through “institutions that structure appropriate ways to do what we do” we have entered the realm of Big Brother.
It all sounds too much like Albert Speer’s work for Hitler which has been described as “weaponized” architecture. Hitler’s buildings weren’t about freedom, but the control of space. It was architecture as “imperishable symbols of power,” and “delusional, fetishized megalomania.”
Where's democracy in that?
52
Ross is onboard with Central Planning!
2
The executive order on federal buildings reminds me of Hitler's denigration, indeed destruction, of art works he didn't like. The so-called "degenerate art" was shunned, even collected into a warehouse and set on fire. The world lost art that would be in major museums today.
4
I work for a military think tank and we have a statement on diversity and inclusion in addition to a workshop series. While our corporate culture may have done this even if we weren't in the DOD sphere, it's also true that the military itself deeply values diversity and inclusion because their enlisted ranks are actually very reflective of the diverse society that we live in. They want to retain folks and creating a culture that isn't exclusionary based on demographics is important to their end force goals, as it is to ours. I find it disturbing that supporting diversity and inclusion is immediately relegated to the world of progressive values and seen as an assault on conservatism.
6
The conservatives are a minority party, empowered by a skewed political system. It is no surprise that their values don't resonate with the wider culture. Unfortunately, this author mistakens ideology with architectural movements, and failed to consider how style, function, building technology, and human health have evolved throughout the centuries. There's many reasons why we don't build classical buildings, let alone the symbolic reason that, in America and the Caribbean, it is the style of the slave plantation. A style of oppression.
6
Hmmm — the UC Berkeley "diversity, equity, and inclusion" protocol seems to have gotten very little coverage outside of the right-wing blogosphere, as alarming as they make it sound. Might these criteria not reflect the state of the academic job market, where there can be nearly nine hundred applicants for a single position? Which proportion itself reflects the defunding of public higher education? Defunding driven over the last three decades by the overheated rhetoric of the likes of Douthat?
1
Modern starchitect architectural design is often too personally ego driven. A common architecture for the masses puts the emphasis back on the end user. Emphasis on the function and not the form.
2
A point that was brought up when discussing this missive, architectural norms are mostly controlled at the local level. (like all this supposed conservatives would want it) Only an idiot would place a Roman columned public building in Santa Fe New Mexico. But the idiot wouldn't get to first base because of local zoning ordinances. So we are saved from the idiot my local regulation. This seems like a redo of The Fountainhead plot or the piece Tom Wolfe did on Peter Hart. Either way, a whole lot of balderdash, as usual.
5
Many people do not know (or want to forget) that the Eiffel Tower was once a "modern" structure built for the 1889 World's Fair. It was roundly criticised when it was built. It is now a cutural icon that is synonymous with Paris. More than 7 million people go up the Eiffel Tower every year. It is the most visited monument in the world. Then think about San Francisco and the Transamerica Pyramid that was completed in 1972. Many people hated it when it was constructed. It is now a cultural icon that is synonymous with San Francisco. People have been shocked with "modern" architecture through the ages and will continue to be shocked. No doubt the Greeks were shocked with the Acropolis when it was "modern" and before it became "classical." The underlying question here is about control. Like the Stalin, Trump wants to control all aspects of our lives. So-called "Classical Architecture" is yet another element in his attempts to exert control. Stalin gave us Stalinist Architecture. God save us from what Trump hopes to give us. In the end, though, Trump will fail, as do all authoritarians and wannabe dictators such as himself. Unfortunately, Ross, you are a hopeless panderer to Trump's world view and this article aptly demonstrates that. You have revealed yourself for who you really are.
8
"Our nation’s elite cultural institutions have become more themselves, which is to say that they have passed from being mostly liberal to being monolithically so, with strong internal forces — like Berkeley’s litmus tests — pulling them leftward and no countervailing power remaining on the right."
Our elite institutions deal with science and facts, things that Republicans have willfully abandoned.
5
I kept waiting for the part where you would explain what was wrong with "diversity, equity, and inclusion." It must be such an article of conservative faith that it did not require an explanation.
7
Berkeley does not represent Liberal ideology or California. Trump is not a Conservative much less an institution. Suggesting equivalency between the two is silly. Trump just lies.
This writing rests on the brief mention (without context) of an article in Reason by Robbie Soave that itself mentions (without context) just one case where applicants in the life sciences were evaluated based “solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were.” That’s quite different from the idea culling applicants based on their willingness to pledge diversity equity and inclusiveness. Whether you supported diversity or not, if you didn’t have a CONVINCING PLAN to spread it, you were out. But even so, if you want to work at Berkeley in life sciences, just commit to diversity, equity and inclusiveness. if you don’t believe in those things, then go join the Trump administration.
2
Just as you can be against some actions of the Isreaeli government without being anti-jewish, you can be against the "diversity pledge" in California University hiring while still favoring diversity. In fact, that pledge would appear to force young academics primarily interested in teaching and research to find creative ways to kiss all the right places, and others to just look elsewhere. This is not the way to encourage diversity in hiring.
On the other hand, associating beauty exclusivity with the products of ancient Greece and the Roman empire is a prime example of the conservative need to put things back to the way they never were. Surely something beautiful was produced after 400 AD and outside of a small part of the mediterranean region. Oh, and do not forget what happened before Greece!
4
Let me see if I got this right Mr. Douthat — in a country where Christian conservative Republicans continue, to this day, to blocked federal anti-lynching laws and the Equal Rights Amendment, they are just trying to protect their culture and traditions from godless democrats. When Christian conservative Republicans beat our democracy to death with laws, lawlessness, and attacks on the Constitution they are just taking actions to ensure liberty and justice for all. Sadly, right wing writers work hard to find ways to advance that falsehood with convoluted opinion pieces.
That said, Trump rallies and Republican party actions make clear that power sharing and cultural tolerance is not the goal of that shrinking political minority. Christian conservative Republicans have abandoned morality, respect for the rule of law, and the majority of the Americans who do not share their values, culture, or goals for the country. They do this while waving the American flag, shouting about their deep rooted Christian values, and their respect for the Constitution.
Forty years of the Reagan revolution has resulted in 1930's misery and uncertainty for many Americans, while serving up great riches for those aligned with Republicans. Move over Russia an American Christian kleptocracy is about to join you on the world stage.
6
Why in the United States individual state has not its representative architecture?
"our nation’s elite cultural institutions have ... passed from being mostly liberal to being monolithically so." This is exactly the kind of divisive statement that makes me angry -- based on myth, unsupported by any evidence, accusing the left of exactly what Douthat is defending on the right. Mandated neoclassical architecture -- talk about a monolithic policy!
It is voices like Douthat that are divisive and at times, I think deliberately so, in the same pattern as Limbaugh.
2
I'm not sure why the university criteria towards "diversity, equity and inclusion" is so threatening to conservatives. Notice the example Mr. Douthat gives, citing the narrowing down of academic job pool candidates from 894 to 214. What criteria would he have preferred to cut down such a large number of applicants for a small demand of academic positions?
It is interesting that conservatives, especially of the religious social variety Mr. Douthat identifies with, bemoan institutional power for keeping them out of cultural influence. Maybe its just the case that in the free market place of ideas, their views are just not very agreeable.
It is hard to believe Trump has anything more strategic in mind with this executive order against modern architecture than rallying his base against liberal cultural "elites". Its a further example of the politicization of expertise this President helped foster. Its also hypocritical of Mr. Douthat to bemoan cultural decadence while arguing in favor of classical styles.
It's funny that Mr. Douthat's op-ed barely mentions anything actually related to the practice of architecture itself, or why architects have good reason to criticize this proposed executive order. Beyond aesthetics, there are cultural, technological and economic arguments against classical architecture. But then again any consensus of professional opinion, not in line with conservative ideology, can just be brushed aside as liberal elitism.
6
EXACTLY - architecture fuss, just to rally the base against elites. This is the a real genius of 45, to recognize resentment and weaponize it, like an AI program learning to beat humans at Go, seven decades of optimizing personal outcomes with unfeeling, unprincipled testing for the environment prepared by this GOP era.
Has it ever occurred to Mr. Douthat that progressivism has always won throughout history? Conservatism by definition thinks what was is always better to what will be. Conservatism by definition is anathema to change. How then can any higher educational institution be conservative? Higher educational curricula are designed to think ahead. A PHD is received when you deliver new ideas, thoughts, techniques, or findings. Nobody get’s a PHD by reiterating findings of the past.
9
I suppose it's way too easy to take potshots at modern architecture. But I'll do it anyway.
In a recent photo essay on growing poverty and rural decay I ran across a picture of a rather large mobile home that a family was living in even though a central portion of the roof had collapsed, creating a dramatically off-kilter look that, taken out of context, might have appeared intentional.
So I showed it to my wife suggesting this was a new form of modular housing developed by Frank Gehry. To be honest, she wasn't fooled but she did admit a distinct possibility.
As for me, a hard-left-leaning populist, I'm adding celebrity architects to the long list of elites I no longer trust.
@Pelham
Like the trailer probably did, Gehry's designs leak.
But, I attribute that to the lack of rigor in the details that defines America now, notably demonstrated by Boeing engineers and MCAS.
And, I will point out that any effort to cut corners to save a buck will make modern day Parthenons leak also.
Celebrity architects are the least of our problems so I suspect your list is absurdly long.
1
@Pelham It's important to separate motific architecture with others modern movements. Gehry is pure style. He is essentially a sculptor. He developed an aesthetic and the technology to achieve that and beyond this there is not much else to consider. Great architecture aims beyond aesthetics to promote public health, community and well being. His expensive sculptures do little else, other than to inspire. Zaha Hadid is in the same camp.
Um, I know for me, that "classical architecture" notion is just a little too reminiscent of Albert Speer, Hitler's architect. Trump is such a shallow, vain man, suddenly he cares about architecture. Has anyone told him about the pandemic in Asia?
1
@CarolSon: interesting comment that brings up the imprecision of the term “classical architecture”. To me, a 75 year old French immigrant, it means a style derived from Greek or Roman antiquity, with grooved columns, topped with acanthus leaves or, if Corinthian is too expensive, the elegant simplicity of the Doric style. Speer’s architecture is, to me, a modern nightmare of Bauhaus gone Nazi. In any case, I trust that the public buildings funded by our Great Leader will be beeautifuuul and klahssssy.
Is this really important?
3
It's hard not to think of the Nazi architect Albert Speer when contemplating the Trump administration's executive order to establish a classical style for government buildings, because if there was anything Hitler couldn't stand -- it was the thought of diversity.
But then again, that would seem to fall in line with a president who has made it very clear that he wants to reshape America in his own image.
6
A wall, caged immigrant children and now, Germania.
Well, what do you think is next, fellow citizens...?
Fair and free elections....?
6
Seems to me it is Nazi style banning of "degenerate art" and that is the problem for me with Trumps new dictate.
2
Sounds suspiciously like Hitler’s Albert Speer designed horrors which were erected to glorify the Reich. An attempt to put the trumpian stamp on another aspect of our lives.
6
"the Trump administration has drafted an executive order that would give precedence to classical architectural forms in the construction of federal buildings and give local communities and nonexperts a stronger influence over designs."
I'm sorry Mr. Douthat, however this statement, and your understanding of the policy is actually incorrect. The current policy is what provide local consultation on design and planning decisions, and the freedom to adjust proposed designs to meet context (environmental and cultural). In fact the 1962 'Guiding Principles' document actually describes local consultation as a pillar of the policy. (The document is two pages and I recommend everyone read it.)
The new proposal removes local consultation and expertise from the process making it purely political.
Over the past 5 years, for example, very traditional federal buildings have been design and constructed in the south, where the local political and citizens have expressed an interest in that design expression, versus modern architectural expressions in coastal cities.
The current policy allows for that diversity, the new proposal does not.
8
What would it mean to truly have diversity, equity, and inclusion?
Just might result in an architecture that really let the light shine in.
2
Mr. Douthat we should be talking about sharing only if Republicans are ready to share political spoils. Because political clout trumps cultural power anytime. Yes, that is polarizing. It's like asking the beggar to share his spoils. We know how the smug Republicans keep on taking while not giving a penny.
2
So many points to comment on;
"And I can confidently say that my own patriotism, my own trust in American institutions, would be modestly increased if public architecture tilted toward the wide variety of forms called classical under Republican presidents"
Backward Ho!
Jeez, Mr. Douthat I stand and salute the Tomb of the Unknown
Solder, the Korean War Monument and the Vietnam Monument.
I have a different salute for the House of Congress, the White House and Supreme Court buildings; but that's for the inhabitants rather than the classical style of the architecture.
And really Ross, a directive in architecture from a know nothing NYC developer who loves gold toilets?
14
When I was hired by by The Ohio State University in 1983 (I was living in Philadelphia at the time, and was raised in upstate NY) I had to sign a "loyalty" card that said I would defend Ohio from all enemies foreign and domestic. I laughed and thought: are they expecting an attack from Michigan? When I got to Columbus and heard an oompah band in German Village sing "we don't give a damn for the whole state of Michigan, cause we're from OHIO" it confirmed my suspicion (hah!). Loyalty and "pure thought" oaths of ANY kind are a sorry vestige of the 50s, including "one nation under god" and the pledge of allegiance. And as far as an executive order commanding neoclassical architecture, how well did that work out for Berlin and Speer? As one wit put it: America is the first empire to go from expanse to decline without an intervening period of culture. We had a stab at it with post WWII art and design, African American music (Jazz etc.), and film.... but it looks like we blew it.
252
@SP here's one for you too if you've never seen it in a local restaurant near the big Motor (Detroit). "O How I Hate OHIO STATE"......
2
@SP An attack from Michigan has always been a deep and real concern for conservatives in this conservative state. No longer living in Ohio, perhaps I should not opine, but it seems when ever a conservative push for great control emerges, it is always couched in some 'culture war' hackneyed stereotype. Liberal, as in free expression, is feared above all else (except Michiganers). Authoritarian moves for some reason seem as sane and normal, not a dark tunnel to dictatorship. Comfort and security are a primary goal for these timid, tired defenders of the right. Keeping Michigan at bay fits right in.
7
@SP Well, there was sort of a "war" between Ohio and Michigan once (over Toledo in the 1830s).
7
Trump's ideas about federal architecture resemble nothing so much as those of Hitler and Albert Speer and their monolithic visions of the Third Reich. And, I am sure, deliberately so.
5
What you’re describing, Mr. Douthat, is a “political dialectic”, which achieves a synthesis between opposing ideological positions through vigorous discourse. My response is, to quote a very wise starship engineer, “you can’t mix matter and antimatter” and expect anything other than an enormous explosion. Political discourse does not promote thoughtful compromise or social stability because it is, first and foremost, political. Political ideologies are constructed views of reality that have only one purpose— to gain power by enfranchising people to their cause. The very fact that universities are administering ideologically base loyalty oaths is a clear signal that their political positions are becoming less tolerant and more confrontational with antithetical ideologies. This reminds me of Thomas S Kuhn’s book, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, where he writes that science advances not through the evolution of scientific ideas but through wholesale paradigm shifts where new ideas annihilate previously held ideas. If there is a moderation that occurs in political ideologies it is better expressed as a refinement of a current ideology within itself for the purpose to encompass a broader adherence to it principles. With any luck the current paradigms will shift and a more innocuous and less radical political reality will emerge.
Style matters far less than quality. I've seen both beautiful and appalling public buildings in every architectural fashion. I'm sure there are plenty of good architects and builders that want a government commission. The client's guidelines are always important. As for diversity this seems to be increasingly a debate between diversity of the superficial against diversity of thought with the former too often prevailing.
1
Ross is right. A commitment to judging candidates and students by the content of their character and by the quality of their work is some kind of politically-correct form of exclusion
Sure.
And job searches at public institutions (which are governed by very stringent regulations about fairness) can easily fall into loyalty oaths
Sure.
I have served at a large state university for three decades and then some. Ross knows as little about academia as he does about other things. But when he finds a straw man, he likes to burn the hell out of it
8
Remembering history of the 20th century look at the architecture of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and even Communist Soviet Union. All wanted a built a stiff, conservative architecture mindful of the past. Yes the campuses of Yale, Harvard, Princeton UVA snf others have beautiful buildings reflecting Gothic and Colonial styles. But they are all enlivened by newer buildings in a variety of more contemporary styles. The conversation between the buildings creates visual stimulation.
178
@Roy Hammer
Italian fascism loved modern art and actually had very mixed feelings that verged on hostility with regards to aesthetic conservatives. Read the Futurist Manifesto.
2
@T. Warren
Although many of the Italian Futurists did support fascism in the beginning, they were rejected as decadent soon after Mussolini took power. Same thing happened to Russian Modernists when Stalin took over. Mussolini's aesthetic legacy can be found in EUR, which is pretty neo-classic. Seems that dictators find new ideas threatening for some reason.
3
@Roy Hammer
They're not gothic or colonial. They are federalist, new republic, and neo-gothic.
For once, Douthat might have a point, and one with wider application. We've seen the most recent Academy Award nonsense: recoil against recycling/adulation for film about Asian scammers.
How about this: gardener's son goes to sea at 16, by 23 is a captain and ship owner, kills man in fight in Jamaica, flees to Virginia, discovers his brother dead and inherits small fortune, romances socialite but is scorned, joins Navy and achieves international rock star status, celebrated in song and media ("I have not yet begun to fight'), and then dies alone in obscurity. Or:
Poor boy from white trash family works his way through college, becomes Army aviator, his innovations literally change the course of World War II, with colorful Pattonesque manner Berlin Airlift and effective Cold War deterrence, argues against Vietnam involvement and strategy, after 30 years as general astounds friends by running for VP on ticket with segregationist.
Biopics with scope, scale, and impact. Positive impact on popular culture and institutions. You betcha. By the way, John Paul Jones and Curtis LeMay.
2
@Mack - I for one would be bigly happy to have John Donald "Don" McLeroy, or his kindred, being the decider of what Our new buildings should be looking like.
If “diversity, equity and inclusion” are anathema to the author, as an example of intolerable liberal orthodoxy, what would he suggest instead?
7
Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments."
ah - the always crabby Douthat.
dear harvard-educated white guy - inclusion is never a bad thing.
just because classical architecture makes you more comfortable is not a reason for the government to dictate style.
without inclusion or investigation of style - we will forever be stuck in the past - but maybe that's what you would prefer?
7
I personally do not find the neo-classical style to be beautiful. It is a very heavy style which feels oppressive to me. That said, I'm all for community control over the public building designs as long as it is a fair process. We might wind up with some really ugly buildings in any case. I'm surprised that Republicans are for such policies regarding style- didn't they all read the Fountainhead? It's a ridiculous book, but even Ayn Rand knows that classical architecture is retrograde and lacks any creative impetus. Go figure.
1
Am I the only one for whom a call for uniform pseudo-classical architecture in public buildings hearkens back to the fascists? Both Hitler and Mussolini decreed the use of such awe-inspiring architectural styles to symbolize the absolute and total rule of the citizenry by their fascist dictatorships. Their grandeur and imposing style became yet another source of propaganda to parade before the world the strength, pride, endurance and power of their regimes. I find this chilling in the hands of a would-be authoritarian like Trump. Make no mistake - everything he does is about him and only him.
3
Across Europe one can still find examples of Stalinist and Fascist architecture. What is it that you know about trump that leads you to believe that those examples aren't what he has in mind? Ever look at the ugly buildings that he puts is name on? Please explain why you'd think that we need more of those.
2
Ross: HITLER chose neo-classicism as the architecture of his Thousand Year Reich as a means of signaling to society they now live under the thumb of a permanent despot. Virtue signaling at Berkeley is trying to get people to do the right thing by specifically excluding those who willfully seek to harm others through prejudice, racism, and other forms of discrimination. Trump is not Berkeley. He is emulating the rule of fascists. This is a wake up call to prevent his further rise, not some benign academic kerfuffle. Your attempt at equivocation is remarkably naive and completely devoid of understanding of the role architecture plays in civilization.
2
Very good article. But one thing conservatives (actually everyone) should recognize. Business schools, which are highly conservative, effectively run universities--that is, if any academic entity does so. The shrinking of humanities is due, in part at some universities, from weakening of general education requirements led by business school faculty (with assistance from the hard sciences who vote Dem only because of the GOP politicization of science and denial of climate change). The climate at the large universities (and especially elite universities) is exactly as you describe. But I, now in my fourth decade in academia, take the diversity push to be cynical marketing. My own undergraduate alma mater, Wake Forest, plays the diversity card, and does so repeatedly, precisely because the campus isn't diverse. It is an upper-middle class or rich kid institution. The atmosphere outside of the business school is as you say. But there is no diversity there--thus the diversity card. Again, cynical marketing ploy. At least another context for looking at the issue. Again, good article (as always from you).
What is represents great and worthy traditional architecture and culture to the heirs of the white European Judeo-Christian barbarian, colonial and conquering savages who invaded and occupied America is not even agreed upon among themselves.
Let alone Americans who don't share their color aka race, ethnicity, national origin and sectarian ancestry.
There are more German Americans than there are any other kind of Americans by cultural and language and national origin heritage.
Should Americans look to Germany, Berlin, Bismarck, Hamburg, Hitler, Luther, Merkel, Munich,Von Braun, Wagner and Wilhelm II for architectural and cultural insight and inspiration?
1
Three places I visit every time I go to Washington are the Hirschorn, the East Wing and the Vietnam War Memorial. None of the three would have survived a "Classical Architecture" review panel. And Washington D.C. would be the poorer for it.
471
@Dick Muldoon Mr. Douthat is calling for balance. He states, "And I can confidently say that my own patriotism, my own trust in American institutions, would be modestly increased if public architecture tilted toward the wide variety of forms called classical under Republican presidents and then back toward “starchitect” experiments under Democrats." Tilting back and forth, you see.
Interestingly for you, he then goes on to state "Judging by polling on Americans’ favorite public buildings, I would not be alone." Said poll is linked to and the Vietnam War Memorial appears as number 10 on the list of Americans 150 favorite pieces of architecture.
In fairness to Douthat, then, I think you'd have to admit he is making room for your tastes and the poorer world you fear might not be his design.
5
@Dick Muldoon Very good observation. I'd add another one. The flat-out _ugliest_ construct in Washington, in my view, is the World War II Monument, which is a pastiche of neo-classical arcades and columns. It recalls the Victor Emmanuel Monument that Mussolini put up in the 1930s, the most hideous hyperbole in western Europe. When you stand in it, you wonder what side of the war the designers were on.
34
@James McCarthy
You must not remember how unpopular the Vietnam War Memorial was when it was first built. It was called a black gash of shame and critics said its below ground design dishonored the people it memorialized.
It wasn’t until Vietnam veterans and their loved ones embraced it, finding it deeply moving and leaving mementoes to the fallen by the names of the fallen that public opinion changed.
It had been up to Trump it would have been built in a way that glorified the deaths of so many brave men and women, and not grieved for them as the memorial does.
19
"War on Beauty" are you kidding me? What's so beautiful about a sterilized, smoothed granite and limestone reenactment of classical architecture? When governments undertake these giant box buildings dressed up in columns and pediments they always get very cold and forbidding visually. Trump wants this only so he can achieve what he sees as the grandness of power these ancient symbols perpetuate. Autocrats have been wrapping themselves in this imagery for over 2,000 years.
5
For those one or two of you out there who recognize me, I try to keep my Comments in the Times fairly simple - a "lowest common denominator" approach to being a Times Journalist, if you will.
If I were applying to UC for a job, my answer to the question would go something like this:
Our nation has never really lived up to its motto of "E Pluribus Unum." Let's all try to do better on this.
And if they didn't like it, I'd come back to Pennsylvania.
The architecture issue? My question to the GOP on this one is this: What is the current insurance replacement value on the US Capitol Building? Are you going to raise taxes to build all government buildings in that style at today's prices? Really?
Because if you are, I would prefer that you raise taxes to pay for a bunch of other stuff we need more than that.
Sure more executive actions--Trump administration controls everything and Republicans in congress don't care. But architecture! Architecture of merit is of cultural and aesthetic importance must be somewhat free. Some oversight is necessary to keep bad, banal architecture from over running a city like it has in Asheville, NC where I live. But to insist on classical architecture is insane. How would that work in say Hawaii?
A counterbalance to liberalism on a campus? Ross you're off the rails as is usually to case. Stick to religion.
1
Such an improvement!
Now instead of International stye concrete and glass boxes we'll have International style concrete and glass boxes with resin Corinthian columns and spray-foam Doric capitals plastered on their facades.
6
A couple things:
Firstly, it is just inane to somehow have a top down structure on art or architecture. Imposing a particular style will only inhibit creativity and deliver subpar results. Classical architecture and the federal style are just one style among many; they would always be included in any discussion as well as alongside any other. Why take out options?
Secondly, perhaps I am naive, but wouldn't Douthat and R's want these diversity statements? To my reading they would include EVERYONE, including those of a conservative bent. Again, inclusion, including everyone, not limiting others. Of course, blah blah blah, identity politics, progressivism, etc. cries from the right, but why not just stand your ground on being included?
Thirdly, Ross, what about the Fountainhead? You are going against your godhead of conservative thought in Ayn Rand! Get with the program man, don't we need visionary architects and not government deciding things for us?
1
I do love ancient architecture, but it doesn't fit everywhere. I can't imagine a Greek Moakley Courthouse sitting on Boston Harbor -- the thought is grotesque. As long as the new style is appropriate to the site, it makes sense.
I didn't understand Maya Lin's Vietnam War Memorial, until I stood before it and appreciated how it reflected the senseless war and loss of American lives. Architecture can speak loudly, if you let it.
2
Ask me to describe a Federal Building outside of Washington - and the only thing that comes to mind - are buildings from the 1960's-1980s - which all look the same, and look like they borrowed the blue prints from the Soviet Union. I don't know the exact reasons why, but I am guessing it primarily has to do with budgetary concerns. I am all for elevating this style of building, but to wed ourselves to designs from the time the Ancient Greeks, makes us look like we are incapable of original thoughts.
2
In the 60s, the University of California had a loyalty oath question ... Do you advocate the overthrow of the California republic by force or violence? At the time, some thought it was a multiple choice question... :)
84
@News User
It was also a great Golden Girls joke. I recall that Rose Nyland chose "force."
4
@News User I was a clerk in the non-academic personnel office at UCLA back in the 60's and my job, for which I suffered embarrassment occasionally, was to ensure all loyalty oaths were signed before the paperwork went to payroll.
Uh, no. I took that loyalty oath back at Cal in 1969. It was to defend the United States, not California Republic. That being said, I would gladly sign your version today.
First Fake News. Now Fake Buildings. I'm all in favor of good architecture. We don't need to dress up high tech buildings in BC togas.
4
The first paragraph to this essay got me wondering: What is the requirement for new faculty at the University of California?
I found the following on a UC Davis web page:
"As part of the application process, applicants seeking faculty positions at UC Davis are required to submit a statement about their past, present, and future contributions to promoting equity, inclusion, and diversity in their professional careers."
This is vague but it does seem to exert pressure on applicants to conform.
If I were writing the essay, I might stress diversity of viewpoints. I might say that Darwin had to overcome the conventional wisdom when developing the theory of evolution. That Einstein met resistance when he published the general theory of relativity which deviated too far from the conventional wisdom of physics at that time.
I might have said the people with divergent opinions should be cherished and encouraged to express those opinions. That this was part of freedom of speech, guaranteed by the constitution but also essential for the functioning of democracy.
But that's not the pressure that the US Davis statement suggests. And my statement would probably DECREASE my chances of getting a job.
It is exactly because of such pressure that some have started doubting the "studies" produced by political science departments, or sociology departments or even economic departments.
Academics have their own form of bigotry, but they cannot see their own sins.
98
I would think those would be very good essays that show exactly what is asked for. Your point about fear of “them” decreasing your chances are based on a conservative worldview because that is how conservatives would use such a statement o exclude.
41
@Blaise Descartes How do we know that equity, inclusion, and diversity do not include diversity of viewpoint?
27
@Blaise Descartes You are absolutely correct. There is only one viewpoint acceptable. The people deciding whetehr your statement is "correct" already know the answer. Let's say I'm on the verge of a Nobel Prize and say I'm for old fashioned American values. I'd clearly not get the job even though I'm eminently qualified in my field. Eventually all of the people in these jobs will be diversity hires and the current crop of non-diverse diversity lovers will be locked out. Got to love it.
12
With all the other problems and issues we have now in our own country and in the world, this seems puny to me.
We have always had culture wars, always will, because we have a very large nation where regional geography, ethnic influences, economic differences, and our democratic traditions, even in academia and architecture, create opportunities for individuals and groups to periodically assert control.
When they go overboard, someone usually brings them back in line. Obsessing over such froth as this is foolish when we have climate change, racism, an unfit president wildly popular with one third of the country, and trillion dollar deficits going into the accounts of our wealthiest citizens,
60
This may seem like a small thing in the grand scheme of things but it’s just another move to Authoritarianism. It’s another chipping away at our freedom to choose. If you are a municipality and decide classic suits you best go for it, if modern is your thing do it. Now the government is going to force your choice? How is that good? This administration likes to throw the Socialist label on Democrats but this my friends is the real slippery slope to Government overreach.
25
"Forcing incumbents to share power" The way Mitch McConnell shared with Barack Obama? Or the way he shared with Chuck Schumer? Sharing requires that both sides have a minimum of mutual respect. Do you see this in American politics? I don't.
8
So Ross wants us to get architecture advice from people who think gold toilets are classy? As for diversity pledges being liberal, maybe he's right. I once witnessed two old white men comment on a "stigma free" sticker. "What's that" one asked. "Some liberal thing" the other answered. So I guess if liberals are stigma free and diversity, right wingers are all for stigma and whiteness. Got it .
6
Ross, you know nothing about architecture.
First, ancient architectural styles were innovations that related to ancient architectural technologies. Carving flutes into columns was a very practical solution to camouflaging the seams of stacked stone. Contemporary construction technologies, energy requirements, building systems and labor costs make attempts to simulate classical styles a self-defeating endeavor. Its a niche. And it also tends to be visually unsatisfying.
Second, "starchitecture" is dead. Today, there are many talented firms who produce beautiful, well-crafted building. Most architects aren't interested in self-serving "signature" styles. You could argue most never were. That movement reflected a narrow group of clients, often tied to global capital, who felt they needed to behave like art collectors in the architecture market. That movement reflected cities who thought that a signature building would stimulate economic growth for their city instead of actually working out urban policy. They distorted the profession.
Finally, the symbolism of enforced classicism is an earmark of fascism. In Mussolini's Italy, in modern italy neoclassicism reminded italians that they were inheritors of ancient Roman power. Hitler, jealous, commissioned Speer to devise a German equivalent. Speer often presented drawings of his designs overgrown by vegetation. Hitler's ego loved that the Third Reich might be remembered 1500 years later, just like Rome.
7
Ah, Ross. Here you dive into the maelstrom, and don't know what's up, what's down, how to swim. First, to your main advocacy, the Trumpian building diktat. You argue that architectural forms are 'ideological'. How?? They certainly were under Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin + The East Bloc: "Revere The Social State." Where are the modernist buildings that emote Ideology? What they do emote is experimentation in form -- and that's exactly what reactionaries hate-- experimentation, which is a scientific process of curiosity, not a reverential one.
The so-called Right-wing professor you set as a model victim tends not to be hired into many social-studies/reading departments, that is true. But mostly that's because they hate the current reading, so what would they teach? They could studiously publish counter-views and earn a place in the academy, but that's too hard and requires reading. There's little polemic in that, and the right-winger is all fire and brimstone. Nevertheless, his views on coal-burning would not bar him from employment.
The phrase "right-wing intellectual" is now a contradiction in terms. The editors of the New Right journals are subsidized by the Trumpist think-tanks, and are politicians first and foremost. Besides, no ideologue can be an intellectual, left or right. Today's Right Intellectual are job-seekers, reverse-affirmative-action militants, and cultural racists what want Father Knows Best on TV and John Wayne on the cinema screens.
1
Since Trump's base pines for the days when their ancestors fought and died by the hundreds of thousands to uphold the noble institution of slavery, a system which also impoverished them, perhaps all public buildings should be styled after plantation manors. The plantation mentality still persists to this day in the South, where wages are kept low, workers know their place, and unionization is routinely voted down. Once a sharecropper, always a sharecropper.
7
It’s a great idea, with some bi-partisan support. But the media will hate it as it comes from Trump.
1
@Cjmesq0 Actually, it's a terrible idea regardless of where it comes from. If you knew anything about the profession and practice of architecture, you would understand why.
2
Trump’s call for conservative neoclassical architecture for government buildings is reminiscent of the Third Reich’s Albert Speer’s plans for Germany with neoclassical buildings supposedly evoking the power of the Roman Empire and the totalitarian state. In America our buildings should reflect the diversity and artistic freedom of the modern world and should be designed by our best architects whose works are commissioned by panels of architectural experts. It should not seek to revive styles from
another era or impose like in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union a rigid and official style meant to celebrate the power of the state, but which in reality designed buildings that were dreary and sterile!
2
Unifying architecture goes with the personality cult tyrants and dictators long for. Look at Nicolae Ceaucescu, in Romania; he had grandiose "neo classical" tastes. Do we want the same kind of buildings in our country?
3
It seems quite clear that Mr Douthat has never worked at a university. If he had he’d know that conservatives are all over them, that neither diversity nor inclusion are actually taken particularly seriously (one hint - I guarantee that any elite school you check has a significant majority of their professoriate white male), and that even the most inane rightwing thought is actually quite safe at them. On the other hand he’s also more than a little selective with his architectural history. In the actual fascist states, modernism was suppressed and classicism was promoted. And today it is again fascism, in its Trumpian form, doing the same.
4
If the fundamental laws in the books were respected, there wouldn’t be any need for these idiotic conversations. Nefarious ideas and opportunistic goals hide behind political labels: conservative/ liberal. But, as you quote the “ conservative” writer Yuval Levin , you leave out that other “conservative” Edward Blum behind the criminal and outright discriminatory college admission lawsuit against African Americans under the pretense that he’s protecting Asians in higher institutions. His goal is to prevent African Americans to get a chance for a good education. Though voting rights are cemented in the law, “conservatives” are working hard to disenfranchise American voters, mostly African Americans. Mike Bloomberg by giving the city away to his real este developer friends, set in motion the cleansing of Manhattan from working families and left behind the segregated public school system in the country, which, of course, doesn’t get enough money to educate children And, here you have an example of opportunism: He’s been a Democrat, Republican, Independent and back again. Will African Americans support Bloomberg?
Lost me at Democrat’s “more extreme plans for...court-packing...” Douhat’s accusing Democrats of extreme “court-packing”? So disingenuous as to be a flat-out lie.
9
What's your problem with a commitment to diversity, Ross? Are you afraid that you won't be able to compete if people are graded on their merits instead of their gender and skin color?
2
Would this theory work for Church’s also? I really hate the modern Catholic Church in my town it looks like a chimney cap. Will the old fashioned look bring back old fashioned religion? Talk about idol worship. Now we have governmental authority worship.
1
A strip mall is the ideal for conservative architecture: cheap, puritanical, full and neglectful of external costs imposed on others.
This is another swing and a miss from Mr. Douthat.
2
It is Mr. Douthat's choice to go here if he wants. But rather than build a tower of interesting thoughts on a false equivalency he might want to mention up front that Mr. Trump's "taste" in architecture has noble precedent - Hitler and Stalin. They too were autocrats - dictators - who used their power to make architectural style the province of the man at the top. Good company Donald.
What a tiddy and even trade off. 'Conservatives have the political power & Liberals have the cultural power.' Sure they can appropriate public funds & deregulate the EPA until the air is toxic, but hey; Wagner's Ring Cycle is back at the Met. So basically - evens out.
And what Pro-Sports, Talk Radio, Mega Church, Country Music, Fox News Free world does Mr. Douthat live in to think that the 'Cultural' landscape is dominated by Liberals?
That said, it is shocking to hear that these 'liberal oaths' of diversity, equity & inclusion have reached as far deep into the country as the life sciences department at Berkeley. Before you know it they'll make children pledge some oath of allegiance to the state in a morning ritual at public schools.
1
Authoritarians do love their neo-classicism. But sorry, I'm not taking style tips from a president so embalmed by 80's kitsch.
4
You know, there was another guy in recent history, who also liked classical architecture and artists. Hmmm, now, what was his name? Begins with an H, I believe.... Had an architect friend called Speer... didn't get to finish all his planned projects, however.
3
As ever, Douthat's articles consist of a series of paragraphs. I'm always left scratching my head as to what they have to do with each other. Perhaps if he didn't disdain book-learning so much he'd know to have a thesis.
I'm not sure what "media frenzy" about the architectural thing he is referring to. I'm a bit of a new junkie and I hadn't heard of it til now. And I don't particularly have an opinion on it. Classical architecture is nice. The country has bigger problems. Next.
As for the "problems" with universities he sees: first, why do conservatives assume that "diversity, inclusion, and equity" are antithetical to conservatism? That would seem to say more about conservatism than about diversity. Likewise, if learning to rigorously interrogate ideas and cite sources is antithetical to conservatism, well, the problem isn't with the educational institution.
2
Perhaps the "classical" monstrosities of Albert Speer can serve as an inspiration to reactionaries who strive to "make federal buildings beautiful again".
2
Thanks to Mr. Bruni for a considered argument for actual diversity and beauty in public architecture. The current hegemony of “modernesque” has been thoroughly rationalized and its justifying arguments widely disseminated by the architectural taste making Ellsworth Tooeys including modernist-favoring architectural critics and Directors of MOMA.
But even Peter Blake who lionized the captains of modernism later came to see that the movement had a soft underbelly of illogic. His seminal book “Form follows Fiasco” led the way for those of us who began questioning the Corbusian status quo back in the 70’s.
One comment though caught my attention for its apparent ignorance of the cultural divide in the Catholic Church. For the last twenty years a small group has prosecuted a grassroots-based attack on ugly “modernesque” Catholic churches (the commenter refers to theses as an example of the Catholic Church’s lovely modern architecture) in an attempt to restore an architecture that actually reflects the church, faith, catholicity and religious spirituality versus puritan universalist spirituality which has dominated the architecture of the Catholic Church.
This movement is taking over, we are tearing down ugly modern churches and building new beautiful traditional ones and it is not a political movement. It’s the people choosing the architecture they want and architects respecting them enough to give it to them. That is new.
This argument seems to be about "broad minded versus narrow minded."
I suppose a conservative would say they are proud to be narrow minded.
Is it really in the best interests of universities to hire narrow minded faculty? Would not narrow minded faculty result in narrow minded students?
It is interesting that the word "progressive" is built on the word "progress." If conservatives are the opposite of progressives, then one would have to conclude they are "regressive." At least among progressives there is open minded dialogue. Among conservatives the trend seems to be close minded authoritarianism, with the caveat attached that "it is good for the poorly-informed masses who can't think for themselves."
Conservatives would claim that they do think for themselves, as long as the thinking is conservative. They are evidently concerned that progressive "too much thinking for oneself" is too risky a bet that would disturb the conservative security and comfort zone.
This is the choice that every person is confronted with making.
2
Fiddling around with architecture as the world burns. Senators less fit for the office than truly impartial horses would be. A public spellbound by bread and social media circuses. Plagues and barbarians at the gates.
Whatever those elite fancypants historians are rending their clothes and gnashing their teeth about, here at the apex of American exceptionalism I see only reason to celebrate.
1
This can all be distilled to being progressive and forward-looking vs being reactionary and backward looking.
Trumpists look lovingly back to a time, never to return, when they alone accrued all of the benefits society had to offer. For them it is a Golden Age.
What other symbols of that time are they preparing for a comeback?
6
Just the other day Ross Douthat was bemoaning the stagnation in American culture, yet here is today, essentially arguing that modern architecture is ugly and it's a good idea to resuscitate Greek columns. What could possibly be more stagnant than imitating an old style?
Yes, Classical Greek and Roman architecture, with its grandeur and clear proportions, was beautiful to its contemporaries and is still beautiful to most of us today. But there's no pretending there isn't a 2500-year gap between the culture that created it and our own culture.
It's easy to cherry pick the examples to prove the case that the public finds modern architecture ugly. But they don't, or at last don't all the time. People flock to see a Frank Lloyd Wright building, or the Guggenheim Bilbao, or the best Case study house--not because they're ugly, but because they're modern and offer a new and fresh feel for what it means to be alive today.
The real reason behind the proposal to resuscitate columns is to establish in concrete and marble that we are a white mass culture where vibrancy and innovation in the arts has no place.
313
@Emile
The ancient Greeks and Romans (and Babylonians and Indians and the Chinese) had only stone and maybe condrete to work with in their times. The Romans did a really good job in expanding their use.
I would consider the Pantheon in Rome to be the most exciting building of its time because of its innovation of its magnificent dome. People are stilled wowed by it.
We have glass and steel and composites and more, and we can honor and emulate the past of the greats by using these they way they would have, in imaginative and innovative ways.
13
The Eiffel Tower, easily the most beloved structure in France, was excoriated as a modernist eyesore when it was built.
12
@Emile I am not on board with the Trump administration's architectural foray simply because I trust nothing that this regime hatches not to be idiotic, incompetent, malign, or a combination of all three.
But your comment that we are separated from classical architecture by 2,500 years is simply wrong. Classical design was part of the "modern" architect's toolbox right into the early 20th century. It was a living tradition that had evolved and developed ever since its rebirth in the Renaissance. And it had generations of life right here in America, from the colonial period up until the Great Depression or so.
2
Traditional values, in all things, including architecture can be appealing. And the fact that the vulgar Donald Trump, the country's foremost proponent of gold leafed glitz proposes a return to traditional architecture shouldn't be automatically disqualifying. But really Russ, you took all those words to say this? I think succinctness might be a traditional value too.
2
A much better, and more reasoned, approach to the subject than the NYT op-ed that appeared two days. Douthat rightly puts forth that the propaganda needle of so many things in our culture can, and does, swing both ways. Architecture is always loaded with propaganda, whether a LEED building, a suburban hut, a classical temple, or a modernist presidential library (is there any other kind these days?)
I am not a Trump supporter, nor do I like his fondness for gilt surfaces (a narcissistic reference to Midas, anyone?), but he does come from a considerably more informed perspective on architecture than every president since FDR.
@Mike
I don't see efforts to minimize the environmental impact of a building to be propaganda to anyone except climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists.
To normal people, it's just common sense.
1
Perhaps the biggest risk of attempting to dictate architectural preferences is that we’ll end up with a mishmash of styles within the same building in order to accommodate that particular building’s purpose and the amount of physical space available. Do we need to put large Greek columns surrounding the entrance to a 15 story glass, brick and concrete tower housing classrooms or offices? What if the surrounding buildings are Colonial brick structures, utilitarian, attractive, but not classical. Do we throw in a pseudo Parthenon with Ionic overtones as a student center to suit the current government’s disposition? We can theorize the political and cultural implications of dictating inclusionary principles and classical architecture, but the fact is such dictates are counter productive in the long run and ultimately point to a desire to control that which should be determined by rational discourse and logical choices.
2
If conservatives and Impotus decree classic design for government, historians will note how the public more strongly than before connected classicism with revisionism, monarchism, and colonialism. I thought conservatives would be opposed to governmental controls of thought and design.
2
Yeah Ross, down with experts! What do architects know about building design anyway? Lets not stop with buildings, though. Those pesky transportation planners, why are we bound by their decisions? It's my community, I know where the roads should go. Foreign software designers? Let our own people design our software! Stuck up university professors? Trump knows how to run a university just fine, thank you!
6
Mr. Douthat claims that a commitment to "diversity, equity and inclusion" is a facet of "monolithic" liberalism, and this claim is garbage.
A commitment ot diversity includes a commitment to ideological diversity, so it promotes conservatism and liberalism equally.
Mr. Douthat's blunder here flows from the same source as nearly all his blunders. He sees the universe not through the lens of fact vs. lie, not through the lens of reason vs. error, not through the lens of gravitation vs. the strong nuclear force, but through the lens of conservative vs. liberal. And by golly he's going to stick with conservative even if it means rejecting fact, reason, and gravity.
6
Ideological independence is a silly assumption but Douthat completely misses the point. If a city or state is contracting an architect, they already have the ability to contract a classical architect. You don't need to codify a requirement through executive mandate. There's a reason most modern architecture is modern. Quite frankly, whatever style is in fashion at the time is generally cheaper. A lot cheaper.
You're using the most modern materials adapted for the most modern technology and business practices. Rebuilding the old Penn station, while aesthetically beautiful, is financially and practically unrealistic. The upshot of Trump's decision is more red tape and fewer government buildings getting built. Instead of getting the nice new classical building you want, you're going to end up with the new Penn station indefinitely.
2
Let's see... the leader of a far-right political party starts mandating his personal taste in architecture... and Mr. Douthat thinks that's a positive step. Yeah, we're in a lot of trouble.
16
Remember the Soviet style architecture imposed by the authorities in Soviet Russia?
Remember the Nazi book burning?
I am astounded to hear Mr. Douthat's thinking given the increased government role in our daily lives that an official, state imposed aesthetic implies. Indeed, would he endorse an imposition of stylistic norms in other areas of culture...painting, sculpture, theater, music, dance, writing (novels, essays, poetry, and yes, journalism)?
I have always thought that Mr. Douthat's ability to see issues clearly was one of his strengths. That he has failed to grasp the larger implications of this proposed architectural diktat of the Trump administration is truly alarming.
3
"requires prospective faculty members to make a statement affirming their commitment to “diversity, equity and inclusion” — an officially politically neutral trinity that is widely suspected to be conterminous with progressive notions"......Sort of like "with liberty and justice for all", or "all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights" which conservatives have also suspected for years to be conterminous with progressive notions. Nothing so comforting as having Trump for President spouting good old fashion bigotry
2
I like classical architecture and simple hate the new buildings being built - I think the Pompidou center is Paris is downright ugly. It should have been built in the style of the Louvre. It is jarring to see such and ugly piece of architecture next to the grandeur and beauty of the Louvre.
I am glad to see that federal building will be done in classical architecture. I find classical architecture simply beautiful and the new building using "modern" architecture simply awful and jarring to the eye.
29
@Judy Weller The Pomidou Center was finished in 1977.
15
@Judy Weller I live in DC and have worked for the federal government for over 25 years. The federal government is not really building any buildings anymore. Many government agencies are moving to rented space that is built by private contractors.
5
@Judy Weller I've been in the Pompidou at least 25 times. The first time, I hated its architecture. The 3rd time, I understood it. The fifth time, I adored it and reveled in it. The Pompidou is a sculpture immersed in its neighborhood; a masterpiece of form, function, and even tradition, and you should take a 2nd look.
36
Let me see if I got this right Mr. Douthat — in a country where Christian conservative Republicans continue, to this day, to blocked federal anti-lynching laws and the Equal Rights Amendment, they are just trying to protect their culture and traditions from godless democrats. Or, in a country were voter suppression and intimidation is how Christian conservative Republicans maintain liberty and freedom for all.
As Christian conservative Republicans beat our democracy to death with laws, lawlessness and attacks on the Constitution they claim they just want to get along with all Americans. Christian conservative Republican writers work hard to find ways to advance that falsehood with convoluted opinion pieces. However, Trump rallies and the Republican party actions make clear that power sharing and cultural tolerance is not the goal of that shrinking political minority. Christian conservative Republicans have have abandoned morality, respect for the rule of law, and the majority of the Americans who do not share their values, culture, or goals for the country. They do this while waving the American flag, shouting about their deep rooted Christian values, their respect for the Constitution.
9
On the Christian, conservative, Republican order of Christianist loyalties (thank you, Pence), being an American doesn’t make the top three.
1
@old soldier — my apologies for the typos above. Cheers
Excuse me...but, tell me this is really an issue. We have children in cages, a rubrics cube healthcare system, trains that don't run on time (or run at all), teachers driving Uber to make ends meet, potholes the size of moon craters, student debt the size of a 2008 meltdown, NATO is total disarray, North Korea and Iran so to have nuclear weapons--so sorry, loyalty oaths and architectural guidelines somehow don't get my blood boiling.
5
"At the University of California, Berkeley, the state’s flagship school, a recent investigation found that these don’t-call-them-loyalty-oaths are being used to cull job applications across multiple departments. In one case in the life sciences, Robby Soave of Reason reported, 'a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214' based exclusively on whether their statements cleared the diversity-and-inclusion ideological bar."
On close inspection, this doesn't pass the smell test. Firstly, as Douthat declines to mention, Reason isn't exactly the most, ahem, reasonable publication. It's a Right-Libertarian mouthpiece of the Reason Foundation, the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets" which has published such wonderfully terrible conservatives such as Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard. Great.
But aside from that, why should I trust this seemingly-simple second-hand reporting from Douthat? Is it really the case that "'a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214' based exclusively on whether their statements cleared the diversity-and-inclusion ideological bar"? Somehow, I doubt it.
And lastly, why on earth shouldn't applicants to whatever life sciences positions available be evaluated for their commitment to diversity? Not only do most public universities have to serve the entire public, but biodiversity is an important concept in... wait for it... life sciences!
As for architecture, Douthat has terrible taste, but that's okay.
4
"... our nation’s elite cultural institutions... have passed from being mostly liberal to being monolithically so... Over the same period..... conservative politics has become more populist and anti-intellectual, and conservative voters have become more hostile to universities, the media and other organs of the intelligentsia."
The point I take away from this argument is that more education tends toward liberalism, and less education tends toward conservatism, with the reactive forces of darkness and ignorance demanding equal attention with the natural historical forces of enlightenment and knowledge.
"Come over to the Dark Side, Luke."
No thanks, Darth.
I could live with government buildings in classical style, but let's use classical building material as well. Lets use carved, pollished marble in those columns and capitals, and beaten copper for the roofs. But it would porbably be molded styrofoam with a quarter inch coating of stucco.
No thanks, Darth.
6
Your argument is redolent of the initial controversy regarding the selection of Maya Lin's design for the Vietnam War Memorial.
Seeking diversity is a worthwhile process, the inverse of the legacy of exclusion from recorded history, power, and the paid economy, certainly a worthy goal after centuries of legal and academic disenfranchisement.
The Trump administration's executive order is yet another attempt to control the notion of what is America, in this case, an attempt to return the visual landscape to an era of disenfranchisement, to codify it in yet another way, to "other-ize" all of the pesky boogie men that plague Trump and his enablers.
96
@sandy .... also, simply to poke a stick in the eyes of the "libtards" and make them cry. What a jerk!
4
@sandy
Let's not forget the history and design of the "White House.". Pure slavery era neoclassical, complete with the widow's walk.
2
This seems like an apples and oranges argument to me.
Architectural firms charged with designing a government building do not get to construct whatever it is they might come up with. There is still a vetting process, and whichever agency that issues the commission has the right, even the obligation, to choose between competing designs, as well as to give an indication of the style they might prefer to see.
Hamstringing the process by not even allowing government agencies to commission only classical and federal style buildings is absurd. Can you imagine an airport in Neo-Georgian style?
5
@Shartke
No, no the classical style for airport architecture is Georgian Colonialism, you know like the airports that the Continental Army held during the Revolutionary War.
So “diversity, equity and inclusion” are bad because they are liberal dog whistles for what - an effort to make our public institutions diverse, inclusive and equitable? Ross’s complaint is the small-minded conservative complaint that such American values are an affront to their notion of a “traditional” because conservatives would have to swear an oath to uphold values they don’t believe. Therein lies the foundation of literally every problem with conservatives and the Republican Party since Reagan.
5
The Liberal vs. Conservative debate that Douthat describes is taking place in a setting that I fear has moved beyond a tipping point. Over history America has had its share of political charlatans, grifters, scoundrels and ideologues. Their tenure was short as there was an offsetting sense of collective virtue, moral awareness, and community mindedness. That sense has diminished significantly. Our debates are framed in sheer power terms, financial impacts, and libertarian individualistic norms. Without that moral and communitarian counterweight, we are in for a really unsettling ride. The wobbly architecture of our national soul is the most serious threat we face.
1
Since Trump is a small man in so many ways I'm surprised he didn't favor hobbit-style architecture.
The problem with modern architecture is that it is about power and social class.
If you were to ask any sample of 100 citizens to look at, for example, the federal court house in Islip, New York (which from a distance looks like a window air conditioner abandoned in a vacant lot), and then at the Lincoln Memorial; and then ask them which is more beautiful, I doubt that even a few of them would name that court house.
"But it was designed by experts in aesthetics," insist the avatars of modern art. The implication is that the rest of us poor rubes have no aesthetic sensibility, and are therefore inferior. So it is that schools of architecture and the fine arts churn out snobs by the bushel, sneeringly condescending to the common man, because he is "too limited" to understand their superior creations.
The ugliness of much of what Le Corbusier, I. M. Pei, et. al. designed is exactly the point. Its power lies in the fact that the rest of us with "conventional" and "traditional" ideas of beauty have to look that that stuff as we walk or drive by, and cannot escape it if we lift our heads above the sidewalk. Even better, much of it is paid for by the taxes on we poor, unsophisticated hayseeds who are forced to endure it.
What a load of anti-democratic rubbish! It is all about status, notwithstanding that most of us think it is a lot of nonsense.
The classical, in art, music, or architecture, survives because it was pleasing over time, and not just a passing, self-adoring fad.
1
If the terms "liberal" and "conservative" still had significant meaning, the argument of this column make have legs to stand on.
But what is "liberal" about the intellectual straitjacket which incessant political correctness has become?
And what is "conservative" about a president, about whom it was rightly pointed out by John McCain, that no predecessor in that office "has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant”?
Of course there are still important ideological differences on substantive policy issues, but obsolete stock-phrases robbed of credible meaning and hijacked for purposes of short-term propagandizing, spread rhetorical fog and deceit over what might otherwise be clarity and insight.
The notion that president Trump succeeds due to some consistent political philosophy is almost too absurd for words, except that too many people have been deluded into believing something along such lines for far too long.
In reality, the approval of Trump has as little to do with his articulating
"conservative" "values" as with his being admirable, positively inspirational, straight-talking, charismatic, humorous, or competent.
People who cheer him mainly do so because he has a knack for bashing sacred cows that are overdue for smashing. In this case, the notion that there is any value in forever meekly accepting hideously ugly, dysfunctionally designed, over-budget government buildings, just because some "famous" "architect" "designed " them.
@Sage
What is political correctness, and how does it differ from civility?
1
Ross et al. go on and on about orthodoxy at university, implying that if many people share a world view that is not his, they must be doing so because they are coerced, or they are sheep who believe otherwise but to keep jobs must feign something they don’t believe in. Douthat forgets ours is not a totalitarian state and people choose freely. Perhaps educated people have arrived at the idea that liberal valises create a good society using their own heads.
2
I don’t get what is considered unacceptably “progressive” about a pledge to honor “diversity, equity and inclusion,” given that the opposite of that is “uniformity, unfairness and exclusion,” all of which are distinctly anti-democratic and autocratic values.
5
"In politics, it’s likely that you won’t get an America where liberals are institutionally invested in the Senate until liberal constituencies feel that they can be more justly represented in that body — which at the very least requires Democrats to figure out a way to win more Senate seats, and possibly to change the institution somewhat once they do."
What a sweet and innocent vision of the current situation in the U.S. Senate. Those Democrats! Why don't they just get down to business instead of fooling around all the time! They just need to apply themselves! If only they'd do homework for once! How about, at the very least, it requires Republicans to behave with a modicum, a smidgen, of honor and honesty, and to cease their multifarious underhanded manipulations: gerrymandering voting districts; disenfanchisement of legal voters,; and the perversion of the Senate and it's functions and processes. (see Mr. M. McConnell.
Mr. Douthat, your disingenuousness is so brazen it's almost admirable for that reason alone!
5
“diversity, equity and inclusion”
You know, these sound a lot like the values that Jesus Christ held. Who did Christ turn away?
When the right talks about being forced into "progressive" thinking they are saying, "You are forcing them to be decent to others, doing unto them as they would have done to themselves. You want us to treat other people like, you know, people, like it says in the Bible whose verses we only use to justify hurting others not like us."
"That's forcing us to be civil. We want to be able to bully, offend, hurt, cut-off , cut-out people we don't like. Just like the God of wrath in vengeance in the Old Testament."
On the other hand conformity as expressed during the impeachment where all Republicans were told what to do and were expected to literally fall in line, as expressed by McCarthy, McConnell, Limbaugh, and Hannity, and others of FOX News is seen as free thinking. Where no one is being forced to do anything - as long a they agree with the party line.
Just look at the backlash when someone doesn't conform. Look at the hate and venom from Trump. RINO isn't conservative for "good for you independent thinker." The very existence of "RINO" is the expectation of conformity to the party line. Our way or the highway.
There is the both sides argument where is some truth, but the lack of unity within the Democratic party, the lack of lock-step thinking as reported at the NH Trump rally is proof that it is the right that all about forced thought.
6
Just Google photos of the FBI, HUD, Labor, Energy, Education, and HHS buildings in Washington. Trump may be right.
1
Amazing coincidence! A stripped form of neo-classism was also the Fuhrer's favorite style! Ask Albert Speer.
Alex
4
So why not have passengers vote on who should be the pilot of their airplane flight? Or have the community decide the qualifications and training of scientists and mathematicians? Or what if we have the Agriculture Department decide these issues? This would certainly help reduce the liberal experts' grip on ideological purity in these and other similar realms.
5
Another manufactured flash point that invents a problem that doesn’t exist so we’re all forced to join sides, stand our ground and get nowhere. Add this to light bulbs, bathrooms and Mexicans. Contemporary architecture = bad, older styles = good is a false dichotomy that is not based in the real lived experiences of most people. The president know how to cultivate hate and anger and he’s found another way. The writer has just given him. Some help doing that. Nice.....
5
Somehow, the two items mentioned in this article as pro institutional seem more anecdotal. Comparing diversity efforts with a rigid style of facade architecture is a stretch, although both are forms of repression.
It also seems odd to discuss the institutionalizing of anything in the trump era unless it is the institutionalizing of power politics, with its suppression of any balancing agency and destruction of the moral bonds of good faith government.
It's supposed to be a free country, where universities, local government and communities should not be wagged by the suspicious adoption of actual rules by the trump administration.
For trumpists, rules are for the rubes. Power is the only thing.
It's impossible to trust an administration that lies as much as this one does.
1
There is all this angst on the right over universities' liberal bent. Douthat states that "Conservatives have political power but feel shut out of cultural power..."
I just have to ask, so what?
Most of Wall Street went to college, and they are surely recruiting heavily from colleges right now to fill slots after graduation. They are not recruiting from only Liberty University, and yet the next generation of Masters of the Universe somehow erupted from these liberal enclaves, and a lot of them are not liberal.
Nor all all of those judges McConnell is putting out there; they made it through school and retained conservative values.
Conservatism (not populism - Trump's appeal is not to the educated) has marinated the business class thoroughly despite those liberal hellholes that educated them.
So why that angst? Why the feeling that college life is somehow better, and liberals are elites? For heavens sake, some of the most elitist folk we have are on Wall Street.
We are not going to fix the conservatives' insecurity by demanding a whole bunch of white stone buildings with columns.
272
@ Cathy
Yet another gem. You ought to have your own column.
6
@Cathy
I also argue that conservatives are shut out of cultural power. It's foolish. Most Americans are culturally conservative.
It's just like Christians complaining that they're persecuted in America. As long as there's dissent, they feel persecuted.
5
@Cathy
There is such a thing as earned insecurity.
2
A commitment to fairness will do. If we keep pulling from the extremes we are going to pulverize the system. It is already cracking louder and louder.
4
"...political control over political buildings..." (huh?) is just one example of Ross conducting his own "freakout" (as he put it when describing others), and placing everything in a contest of bad, politically powerless liberals who otherwise control the culture vs. conservatives who don't like universities and the "intelligentsia".
This is the biggest pot of nonsense. The whole architecture thing is about architecture, Ross. It's about design and letting architects be creative vs. constraining them into one totalitarian style. It's about innovation and technology that reflects our age and allows for new aesthetic expressions. It's that simple.
People of all political and educational views can still see value in both classical and modern designs. Some conservatives appreciate architecture that might also be appreciated by liberals. Some don't agree. But buildings, whether they are museums, office buildings or some other type, deserve to be seen and judged as individual structures, and as solutions to specific sites and purposes. The process must allow for possibility and surprising outcomes by architects who are alive, not dead. Design should not be frozen in some mythological better era.
It doesn't have anything to do with the University of California's attempt to be inclusive which is an entirely separate topic, no matter how you contort these situations into a relationship to fit what you wanted to say.
Maybe try listening to architects and deferring to expertise.
17
ASU and UC highlight a key difference in how conservatives and liberals view the role of government. Both argue that a public subsidy should bring a public benefit. The difference lies in what that benefit should be. Conservatives subsidize education because an educated populace is essential to our form of government. Liberals subsidize education because education is essential to economic assimilation and mobility. Hence, the Arizona State and California programs.
I have no problem with the Federal government taking a political stance on Federal buildings. Federal governments change. When the conservatives are in charge, we can get one type, when liberals are in charge, we get another. The net result is a landscape of tree rings telling us something about changes in the political climate.
Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with our government that better politicians wouldn't fix. Getting better politicians requires getting better voters. Whom do we see about that?
3
@Nemoknada "i love the poorly-educated". Who said that?
@Blaise Descartes
I don’t think there’s evidence to support your assertion. To be honest, when I read Douthat’s initial comment, I assumed that the personal statement wasn’t simply a pledge of allegiance to an ideology, but was also an opportunity for the writer to prove both writing/communication skills and ability to think, to reason.
Is there anything in what you have written that suggests you wouldn’t respect people holding a variety of opinions? I don’t think so. As so many people have already written here, what about diverse or equity is liberal? It’s not clear why your hackles are up. Plenty of employers have weird, even ridiculous requirements for employment — I once worked for a guy who had written in our contracts that he could fire us if we ever spoke about him, bad or good.
Asking a new hire to support equity and diversity doesn’t seem like a sin.
5
I am in most ways a "far left progressive." But I don't like signing anything that demands I give away my freedom to choose my values. I am avidly committed to inclusion and diversity -- but a loyalty oath in spirit or print I would be against in employment (I taught at a university in the 70s, when I protested Vietnam).
As to architecture -- architecture is an art, public as it is. When government 'directs' its design -- ouch! Trump himself will likely create a committee/cabinet for approving the art that goes into federal buildings -- and into any museums getting public funding, and then?
I'm paranoid enough about where this administration is taking us. I'm setting aside my 'liberal' designation, and don't like the libertarian one. I'm struggling with Democrat. Trump has stolen American. I'd like to be a person committed to freedom that requires a heavy dose of social/community responsibility, an individual who loves (most of) the rest of the humans on the planet that requires immediate care, and hopes to live to see the current arc of justice bent back toward justice and peace away from madness and chaos. But it'd better hurry.
4
What does it mean to "rule culture"? "Ruling politics" is a sensible concept. If you rule politics, you can pass laws, and if other people don't follow them, you can fine them or put them in jail. But if you "rule culture" (defined in this article as having control over UC Berkeley), you can do what exactly? Pass a new diversity policy at a university? And if someone refuses to follow it, then what? If they're a prospective professor, maybe you can refuse to hire them, but there are tons of other jobs they could take, many of which probably even pay more than being a professor. And if someone who is *not* a prospective hire refuses to abide by your diversity policy, what "cultural power" do you have over them? None. The concept of "ruling culture" is meaningless, a way for conservatives who are already over-represented in our political system to craft a persecution narrative. Only political power matters, because that is the only type of power that lets you coerce people who disagree with you to do what you want and punish them if they refuse.
13
I suppose that our present-day Il Duce wouldn't be the first US President to get his fingerprints on the architect's plans. But, adding an element of extremist design control seems to me that it would have a stifling effect on the advancement of building design. We're in an age when we have to consider function and energy conservation over appearances.
As for external appearances: a former colleague of mine considers architecture to be the highest form of artistic expression, and he's not the only person who believes this. As time passes, people change. So does architecture. Everything that humans create (structural designs, art, language, and culture in general) evolves with the passage of time. Some styles of design do come back (I'm still hanging on to all my old paisley neckties, just in case). A diverse society is evident in its diversity of ideas. I am all for preserving historic landmarks, and the neo-classic designs of our DC government buildings, and in buildings in other parts of the country. Stringent adherence to one design in particular will have a chilling effect on artistic potential.
8
It is ironic that the columnist, of course, prefers a return to “traditional “, conservative architectural styles in constructing federal buildings. As a devout Catholic his American Church, at least, has embraced many new, exciting, and innovative forms, both externally and internally, in its places of worship, a clear expression of democratically embracing an innovative, modernistic aesthetic. Why isn’t what good for worship, good for work?
5
Trump is uniquely positioned to lead the way on a classical architecture revival: by declaring that all new and refurbished Trump properties would be done or redone in classical style.
8
We should take the equity, inclusion, and diversity statements more seriously once universities cease to rely so heavily on marginalized contingent faculty and abolish tenure.
Popular taste in architecture and art is conditioned by what we see around us, which in most cases is pretty unsightly. However, in Washington, DC and elsewhere, there are beautiful designs that surprise and delight, while others conforming to classical architectural vocabulary are nondescript, like thousands of others. The times call for designs that incorporate green technologies. Let’s call on the trained and talented experts who can blend form and function. Let's involve the local community in the design process. Look at the initial controversy over the Vietnam war memorial and the power with which it continues to move people – far more than the Iwo Jima monument favored by more traditional taste.
“No taxation without representation:” one of the grievances leading to the American Revolution, so Washington, D.C. and territories should be given stateship or independence if we are to be consistent. Resident aliens should be given the right to vote if they pay taxes. If the Supreme Court cannot hear enough cases in a timely fashion, then the number of judges should be increased to handle the caseload while assuring political balance to reassure as to its legitimacy. If political gerrymandering continues to be allowed, then why not seek to impose requirements for national elections?
4
The present guidelines for new federal buildings, among other things, support the concept that beauty can come in diverse forms. Your op-ed piece implies that traditional architecture design will provide greater beauty compared to alternative, more contemporary designs. Typical of most conservative punditry, you did not support this position with any evidence and certainly not a coherent argument. The reality is conservative political or religious systems throughout history have stifled innovation and creativity. Face it: the "elites" that you dread are responsible for the progress of civilization.
As pointed out by Michael Kimmelman, NYT architecture critic, in his February 7 piece on this executive order, it has been lobbied for by a very non-diverse group, the National Civic Art Society. At any time, but especially now, we need to understand the process that led to this draft executive order with a focus on conflicts of interest. How much have members or donors to this group donated to Trump campaigns, do they own any Trump properties or have Trump golf course memberships, do they stand to benefit financially from this change?
26
This is the age old tug of war between the status quo and centers for learning. The by product of education is thinking and the by product of thinking is innovation. When that innovation is applied to existing conditions in the forms of efficiency and profitability the status quo applauds. However, when that thinking leads to evolution and changes of other sorts, the status quo is threatened. Both the status quo and change when taken to extremes are not what makes for the advancement of any society. But, extreme stagnation is a sure way for a society to wain; while extreme change can be reversed and tempered with the results benefiting all.
Modern architecture can be nonsensical and play to the architects while forgetting the raison d'être. However great architecture is a testament to society's freedom of expression. It must work and serve the program. After that it should make one think. The Greeks already did the Corinthian columns. Instead of referring to the past, society should proceed into the future.
9
Great to have thoughts on bringing us together, politically and culturally. If only. It requires those in power to be willing to talk to one another in order to find common ground.
3
So many disturbing things about this article, but the first is that Mr. Douthat finds the concepts of “diversity, equity and inclusion” to be so abhorrent. I suppose there are folks who hate Mom and apple pie too, but shouldn't we all aspire toward a world that is more diverse, equitable, and inclusive? I suppose a state-sponsored architectural style is not the most important issue of our times, but would Mr. Douthat support a diktat that all government workers wear Mao suits? To my way of thinking, any control by the state over cultural issues should be viewed with suspicion.
53
If you want a model for modern federal institutions, look no further than the EPA's Region 8 HQ in Denver. It's equally impressive, in its way, to the Parthenons of Washington, plus it's LEEDS green as an EPA building should be, it is sunny, has view of the mountains in the distance, and is a . In short, it stands as a monument to what is (or at least, was) good about government. Is the Parthenon impressive? Sure, ask all the slaves that built it 2500 as a monument to Athena, the Greek goddess that the Central Asians knew little about. I say banish the classical architecture of the past. Embrace the future and boost the employment prospects of modern architects.
17