Sunday, February 9, 2020

Architecture on the Frontline of the Culture War


U.S. Capitol Building - photo by Martin Falbisoner [CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)]

The President of the United States wants to make classical Greek and Roman architecture the only state-sanctioned architecture for all future federal buildings, and he wields the power to make it so. Demonstrating again his penchant for chaos, President Trump is set to enact an executive order whose bigly overreach will be impactful to communities across the country. 

Predictably, many architects, architectural pundits, and the American Institute of Architects expressed alarm and outrage, roundly criticizing the proposed executive order as soon as it appeared. The AIA immediately issued a statement, saying it (and by implication its membership) strongly opposes uniform style mandates for federal architecture, averring that architecture should reflect our rich nation’s diverse places, thought, culture, and climates. And of course, it should. The problem is the widespread condemnation plays directly into the President’s hands. 

I suspect outrage from the architectural profession is precisely one response President Trump was hoping for. Whether he actually signs the executive order is now immaterial because simply drafting it has achieved much of the effect he sought. The President’s followers denigrate many of my colleagues in the architecture profession as members of a liberal “cultural elite.” Architects, while not politically homogeneous, do mostly fit the bill, and the AIA’s reflexive (albeit necessary) response to the proposed executive order only serves to sustain the narrative that we are out of touch with average citizens. 

Trump speaks to the resentments that galvanize his supporters. He does this by starkly delineating camps—you’re either with him or you’re not—and deploying a rhetoric of divisiveness. The wording of the executive order is meant to appeal to a specific audience, and only secondarily to a broader population who shares a disaffection for the examples of modern, contemporary architecture that fail to speak to them. For that primary audience, the executive order is yet another coded “dog whistle,” a thinly veiled appeal to those who long for an American culture they understand and relate to, to the exclusion or diminution of others that are not their own. He may not be the “very stable genius” he claims to be, but Trump and his handlers have masterfully harnessed his ego and instincts to nurture disturbing undercurrents.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with classical architecture as a style. A classical design can be as inept, ugly, and dysfunctional as any other building. It can also be astoundingly beautiful and entirely appropriate in the right context. Context aside, the problem with a mandated, state-sanctioned form of classical architecture is its historical connotations, particularly those we associate with fascist regimes. Hitler’s Nazi Germany promoted a variant of neoclassical architecture as an “authentic” expression of German identity. Benito Mussolini favored Rationalist Architecture, a monumental, very much stripped-down style as the official vocabulary of Italy’s National Fascist Party. Trump and others who advocate traditional, classical architecture derived from ancient European precedents as somehow authentically American ominously echo the nativist ideology espoused by some of history’s most notorious dictators. 

In his article for Forbes, Juan Sebastian Pinto nailed it by characterizing the “stylization of politics [as] one of the most dangerous indications of totalitarianism,” and that “if anything should not have a style, it’s the architecture of the American state.” 

As the AIA noted in its plea to its members, design decisions should be left to the designer and the community, not bureaucrats, and not plutocrats in Washington, DC. All architectural styles have value and all communities have the right to weigh in on the government buildings meant to serve them. 


Wayne L. Morse Federal Courthouse - Photo by M.O. Stevens [CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)]

Eugene’s own Wayne Lyman Morse Federal Courthouse would, of course, look much different if its architect had been obliged to design in an overtly classical idiom. While some consider the idiosyncratic courthouse as designed by Thom Mayne of Morphosis to be alien to Eugene, try to imagine a porticoed and pedimented marble edifice of equal size in its place. In my opinion, our federal courthouse is more authentic to Eugene as well as the American identity because it does reflect the freedom of thought and expression that are essential to democracy. 

This blog post is by far my most political to date. I don’t like dipping my foot into these waters, but it bothers me to see architecture weaponized to achieve political ends. It bothers me too to see people so distracted by the paralyzingly partisan and polarized discourse that has replaced informed debate these days. Architecture is important, but the Trump Administration is cynically employing architecture to advance a political agenda and distract us from actions it seeks to hide in plain sight, including a willful and criminal avoidance of its responsibility to address calamitous climate change, social injustices, the provision of affordable health care, and the ticking timebomb that is the federal deficit.

No comments: