A twitter account dedicated to traditional European architecture has drawn ire for being a magnet for white nationalism. In a recent article in the Newstatesman, writer Sarah Manavis chronicles how the account called ArchitecturalRevival—which posts pictures of old buildings and architectural details—has become a feed full of anti-Semites, Islamophobes, and white nationalists, their architectural and aesthetic preferences often tethered to their particular ideologies.
The account's more innocuous tweets tend to feature images and memes of classical architecture or new traditional styles that celebrate their beauty and craftsmanship. Repeatedly accompanied with harsh charges against examples of modernism, the International style and modernist architects such as Le Corbusier seem to provoke exceptional anger from the account and its followers. More incriminating, though, is the fact that as Manavis notes, "the account has also shown a preference for cultural conservatives in its 'likes'," which includes the support of figures and accounts that are vocal opponents of multiculturalism and feminism.
One of a slew of Traditional and 'European Beauty' twitter accounts that have become architecture-themed dog-whistles, ArchitecturalRevival has been building an active presence on Facebook since 2012; however, it did not become active on twitter until much later. Despite creating its handle in 2013, it first posted on August 14th, 2017 tweeting "Where there is ugliness, we will bring beauty./ Where there is chaos, we will bring order./ Where there is vice, we will bring virtue." alongside an image of Francis Terry, who specializes in new Classical architecture, detailing an Erechtheion Capital.
The account's increased activity on the site followed similar aggressions made by the alt-right here in the US. Most notably, the NRA's "Clenched Fist of Truth" ad featured images of Gehry's Disney Concert Hall, Renzo Piano's New York Times building, Portman's Bonaventure Hotel, and Chicago's Bean as examples of "liberal decadence." Alex Jones' Infowars, shortly thereafter, created a 15-minute-long video on "Why modern architecture SUCKS."
The ArchitecturalRevival account, whose handle on Facebook ends in the Roman Numeral for 2012 (MMXII), is closely associated with the ArchitectureMMXII account—a now dormant group that was created in 2012 to "celebrate and promote 21st century classical and traditional architecture." Last year, one of their youtube videos was adopted by the UKIP party, a right wing populist party that helped lead the Brexit campaign.
Those posting "If you like X you must be Y" jokes must be either intentionally misrepresenting the article or genuinely missing the point.
Can architecture be boiled down to pure aesthetics devoid of context? If so then architecture is apolitical. Or, does the fact that a work of architecture is created by people, conveys ideas visually to others, and has reasons why it was designed make it inherently political whether it is constructed or not?
I believe the latter. I imagine the traditional European buildings constructed in America during the early days of colonization were seen differently by the native Americans and by the Colonists. Sure, decades removed from their construction it can be easy to ignore context and appreciate their aesthetics, but when you advocate for building more of them (which the twitter account clearly is) that context is called forth again.
Also, that twitter account definitely is not just concerned with pure aesthetics. It has ideas about how society should be and is using traditional European architecture to push them. That said, I'm not sure it helps to call attention to this account.
The responses to this article are really surprising. This article is about a Twitter account that is using the topic of traditional architecture to build a community of hateful, bigoted people. It's obvious if you look at their followers and the comments to their posts on Twitter. I have no doubt there are many people that follow that Twitter account simply because they love traditional architecture, while completely unaware of the predominant ideology behind the majority of the community.
This article on Archinect is, in no way, criticizing or commenting on traditional architecture, and it's in no way equating traditional architecture to any political or cultural belief system. I think it's safe to say that most people that love modern architecture also have deep respect and admiration for historical/traditional architecture.
All 27 Comments
first, why are you giving a second to publish this crap?
second, can it get any more racist than that?
third, what a bunch of idiots......
Did you know about this?
Stop. You're not serious. It's a white supremacists account, full stop.
First, you look at content, then you examine not only followers, but who are they following. Then you return to content, and then you examine responses to tweets.
First, you look at content, then you examine not only followers, but who are they following. Then you return to content, and then you examine responses to tweets.
That's how fucking Twitter works.
no , i didn't know, I didn't need to know. white supremacy is a myth, preserved only by violence and economic power.
So b3, you accept certain behaviour just because that person has the right following or hangs with the right crowd? Or you dismiss certain behaviour purely on not having the right kind of followers? Is that how you work twitter? Just asking...
Chris, you said (bolding mine): ..."take perfectly neutral and irrelevant parts of history, like traditional architecture (it is if you forget the politics, which you should)..."
Which you cannot ever do. Architecture is political. Architecture is the physical form of political, social, and ethical forces.
I still don't know how to embed a tweet but Kate tweeted this yesterday or so:
I'd bet the Egyptian pharaohs were the McMansion OGs.
Donna says: "Architecture is political. Architecture is the physical form of political, social, and ethical forces." Except that architects who think this way put politics over humanism. Politicians use buildings for their own purposes, that doesn't mean they are necessarily designed to be political, especially commercial or residential work.
The reason this gets posted is to tar traditional aesthetics with negative politics. Christopher Wren knew as much when he said “architecture has its political uses.” Or as Schinkel said, “Delight first, instruct second.” That's what a real artist does, not a propagandist.
This ongoing claim to discredit traditional aesthetics is the same playbook that modernists first used to assume total control of aesthetics, and is being perpetuated here, as Donna says none too subtly... Which you cannot ever do. No need to yell. Maybe someone should tell all the liberals who buy into those historic districts of Boston, New York, DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, London, Rome, etc they are actually crypto fascists. This is the most illogical thinking out there.
As someone who's not constrained by any absolutist thinking, be it from the right or left...no thanks. Let people design what they love and it will show through, regardless of their personal politics.
Totally missing the point.
Thayer come on. Where in my post did I try to devalue traditional architecture? I design traditional when appropriate and contemporary when appropriate. I love the Altes Museum AND Angor Wat. What I don’t love is racists.
I also don’t love - or respect - people saying that the method of production of architecture in our society is “neutral”. It’s not. We operate within a system, one that more often than not is harmful to some.
Also, Thayer, read the article. It's an article about media, not architecture. There are many, many people following these accounts who probably do just love pretty historic buildings. There's nothing wrong with that! But it's scary to think that they're getting a dose of subtle (though honestly it's not subtle at all) racism with their pretty pictures.
You say there's nothing wrong with loving and designing pretty historic buildings. Imagine saying that in any school. Be honest. If we allow beauty (or the pretty) to be coopted by fascists, we simply make it more difficult for fair minded people to do good. We're on the same side.
LOL I do agree with you here, Thayer, yes! And I'm remembering that I had an architecture education that was steeped in history: four semesters and lots of analysis of traditional forms showing how they were reinterpreted right up to the year we were in. Beauty can be found in so many different forms, and IMO appreciating differences makes the beautiful aspects intrinsic to different forms all the more wonderful.
While you "love the Altes Museum AND Angor WatYou ", you know there's no way something as visibly traditional like Andor WatYou or a colonial styled house would pass muster in studio, even if it fit into a context harmoniously. And while you're open to beauty in all forms, not so much for those who disagree with you that architecture is political. Beauty isn't political, yet that's been the primary inspiration of artists through out the ages (less so ever since the modernists politicized beauty as bourgeois). Maybe you missed that in the four semesters of history class, or maybe you bought into the propaganda that everything must be political. Claiming to hate racists while discussing a story about traditional European architecture is cute. While you've moderated your stance over the years, I know it's hard to shake off the prejudices inherited from school, especially given our tribal nature.
I'm not sure I agree that beauty has been the primary inspiration for artists - the cave paintings were based on mystical experience. And standards of beauty change over time and culture. If the studio assignment is "design a well-proportioned Colonial house" then there are metrics you can use to judge whether it's successful or not. You're right that very few schools would give that as an assignment - but Notre Dame would.
I wrote a paper on this subject a few years ago for a conference on Architecture and Philosophy, researching just about everything I could get my hands on historically since the Greeks, and I can assure you it's true. Not saying it was the only consideration as politicians and Popes certainly have co opted the talent of artists for just as long, but I'm speaking from the artist's point of view. How about I post it on Archinect and we can see what you think. Fresh air and sunlight are the best disinfectant, especially in this age of fake news and all that other rubbish being peddled by con men.
BTW, there are many avenues to beauty, intellectual and visceral. The only reason I go on about the latter kind is that's the one most people experience their environment, but I'd be a hypocrite to say it's the best. I'm just trying to get a more balanced view, one that accounts for the end user as much as our personal intellectual aspirations. And architecture is certainly more than a beauty show.
You did just hit the heart of it: that there are many avenues to beauty.
As the 19th century writer Stendhal said, there are "as many styles of beauty as there are visions of happiness". So how about my offer?
Yes, of course I'll read it. I can't promise to do it quickly though.
I'll send you the abstract of two papers and you can tell me what you think. Very short, so shouldn't take too long. Thanks
Hi Donna, I'm not sure how to forward you the abstracts since its not a job nor a resume/portfilio. Surely it's partly because of my intranet incompetence, but any help would be appreciated. \../
To give a little context, for those who think this twitter account is just about celebrating traditional architecture, here are just a few of the comments posted by their followers, in response to their complaint about this article on twitter:
^ If you think anti-semitic people/bots/pieces-of-shit like those are adding value to architectural discourse...
Accusations of racism aside, classicists have a point.
Modern art and architecture lacks beauty. Many are in an echochamber of denial. Put pen/pencil back into your hand and you will find beauty pouring back into design.
I refute that architecture is political. Politics has very little to do with daily life, thankfully. People are under the illusion that politics extends as far as he/she/they think, but it does not.
Read any good architects tenets/manifesto and you will find very few, if any, comments regarding politics.
Mike, you can refute it all you want, but architecture IS political. It takes capital to build a building, it takes conformance with governmentally codified restrictions, it takes labor via monetized exchange to build a building. All of those things don't exist separate from a political society.
Mike, I guess your designs suck? AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Architecture, Graphic Design / Signage, Furniture Design SKILLS ( 8+years) AutoCad, (+ 4 Years) Rhinoceros 4.0, (+5 yrs) Hand Drafting, (+5 years model making), (+ 5 years Adobe Illustrator), (+ 5 Years) Adobe Photoshop, (+ 5 years Adobe Indesign), Google/Trimble SketchUp, (+1 yr Microsoft PowerPoint, &Vray for Rhino/Max/Sketchup, ( + 1 Year) Revit
Architecture is Architecture. Built form that functions for people. Form that catches light and casts shadow. This is the essence of architecture, not politics.
Politics is policy. Architects are not policy makers.
It is a fallacy to make politics primary. Architects are skilled and talented at drawing, thinking spatially, and thinking in systems. Maneuvering architecture into the political is a passing fashion. Architecture is not fashion. Building is an extremely resource intensive process, and therefore it's prudent to build something that endures -- fashion ( and political fashion ) do not endure.
Is a home for a family *always* political?
Yes building is extremely resource intensive and that's what makes it political. It can't exist in a vacuum. A single family home in a far flung exurb *is a reflection of a socio-political system*.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but must continue to disagree. I think the adage, 'When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' highlights the flaws in the "Architecture is political" meme.
Perhaps by political / socio-political, you mean economic.
I believe:
Architecture, on this planet, is always political. IIT campus is damn good example of that. Any architecture built throughout human history is a example of that.
Do styles and politics align?
If you say yes, modernism is in a precarious position -- https://www.dezeen.com/2016/04/18/philip-johnson-nazi-past-new-book-marc-wortman/
https://www.theguardian.com/ar...
https://www.tribuneindia.com/n...
So, if you appreciate the classical architecture of Europe you are a neo-Nazi? But Phillip Johnson and Corbusier were actual Nazis. How does that work, again?
Again, read the article. No one is saying that liking pretty old buildings means you're a racist. The article notes that some VERY POPULAR twitter accounts that purportedly exist simply to celebrate pretty old buildings are actually aligning those pretty old buildings with racism.
Chris, I feel equally as frustrated by your lack of comprehension of the article: yours is inaccurate. Here's a sentence from the article that reinforces my point: "Whether or not these accounts themselves are truly pushing white supremacist messages, they are undeniably attracting copious fans who do." Find me a phrase that says that liking traditional architecture is in itself racist. I'll wait. And if I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
Yeah, we've had that debate, n00b, they're both #cucklessfunts.
Disney DECIDELY DOESN'T COURT NAMBLA!
Tiny minds inside heads in the sand. I wonder what the eyes see when they happen upon a mirror.
I agree that all architecture is political, but not at the shallow level prescribed by either neo nazi twitter or McMansion Hell. Remember that traditional, monumental architecture has been used to give authority to democratic institutions like libraries, courthouses, etc. It’s more in how you use it then shallow stylistic prescriptions. McMansions could just as easily house 30 people each
One Saturday afternoon, Jack (not his real name) noted an issue with one of his favourite Twitter accounts. A long-time architecture and urbanism enthusiast, he had been following an account called ArchitecturalRevival for some time. He realised that, despite being an account dedicated to predominantly European architecture, it rarely shared any buildings from Turkey – specifically buildings built by Muslims or for Muslim worship (despite there being hundreds of thousands). So he tweeted about it, saying they should represent more backgrounds in their posts.
Almost immediately after posting, Jack was inundated with hundreds of white supremacist accounts (many suspected to be bots) tweeting racist messages at him. “They are white nations built by white people” one person replied to Jack’s tweet, which has since been deleted after being flooded with so many aggressive replies. “There's no such thing as ‘black Europeans’”, “Stop spreading anti-white propaganda” tweeted two others. “Mosques are not and will never be european [sic]” said another.
Again, painfully unaware.
Painfully unaware is right. It hurts.
Obtuse is not the same as brainwashed. One is oblivious, the other is ignorance.
#dumbasfuck
Who's #dumbasfuck in this case in your opinion, 'Jack' or those white supremacists?
architecture is not political. It’s never political. Building is political. Architecture is the good stuff inside us that persists despite the ugly politics.
Good point, but I'd add that even building isn't always political, unless you see everything in the world being political, which is to abuse the word as to make it meaningless. A person builds for many reasons, practical, aesthetic, and sometimes political. And even when political, so what.
True
So up until the moment architecture gets concretised into built reality it isn't political? Plan Voisin not political? Archigram or Ledoux not political?
If you think this building is cool you support human sacrifice.
that's the logic.
If you post how cool this building is and then more than a dozen people who are proponents of human sacrifice come along and start a dialogue with you that you participate in...?
Ok, dumb people exist. Why is this suddenly surprising? Some assholes tether their foolish nationalist ideology to artifacts...then opponents continue the false association...
If you are looking for architecture that was born from a perfect moral society you won’t find it. The history of the world is mostly dark and ruled by shitty characters. Architecture, music, and art are points of light within that mess...let’s not stop celebrating the light by allowing it to be tethered to stupid ideologies and used as a wedge of political tribalism.
Absolutely!!!
This kind of reaction gives these racist people power. Ignore them or destroy them by pointing out obvious facts...like the fact that Islamic architecture and north African architecture HAS influenced European architecture for a long long time. And the fact that trade and multiculturalism has existed and influenced Europe since at least the Roman times...These fools have zero knowledge of history.
Those posting "If you like X you must be Y" jokes must be either intentionally misrepresenting the article or genuinely missing the point.
Can architecture be boiled down to pure aesthetics devoid of context? If so then architecture is apolitical. Or, does the fact that a work of architecture is created by people, conveys ideas visually to others, and has reasons why it was designed make it inherently political whether it is constructed or not?
I believe the latter. I imagine the traditional European buildings constructed in America during the early days of colonization were seen differently by the native Americans and by the Colonists. Sure, decades removed from their construction it can be easy to ignore context and appreciate their aesthetics, but when you advocate for building more of them (which the twitter account clearly is) that context is called forth again.
Also, that twitter account definitely is not just concerned with pure aesthetics. It has ideas about how society should be and is using traditional European architecture to push them. That said, I'm not sure it helps to call attention to this account.
Yes, architecture persists beyond its initial context and function and is not in anyway bound to it. The original intent/function of the pyramids for instance has been superseded by the more fundamental and universal traits...like their sheer size and time it took to complete inspires awe, represents human ingenuity...etc.
Think about what you're saying Schoon. Years after a colonial building was built by an itinerant carpenter of 1800, a native American kid can't see the beauty of its design because of the cloud of anger from the oppression imposed on his ancestors years ago. You've denied, that kid's and our shared humanity. Regardless of what some racist dick thinks, we are able to see beauty through the years as a product of a human mind. Does this game of association work for other art forms? Go to Paris and see the blood and oppression of French colonial money in every bit of carved stone. See the medieval cathedrals for the peasants who slaved to transport the stone, the baroque churches by a church full of abusers. All those crimes are real, but the joy that some tried to bestow while working in less than optimal conditions was also real. Come up for air.
I clearly said in my post that there is beauty in the architecture AND context attached. You're arguing against something I haven't said. One can appreciate a building's design and at the same time understand its history, I don't know you why you insist you can only do one or the other.
edit: accidentally posted with this account. Schoon is me, Thayer.
I agree that buildings have many readings. I was reacting to your statement that "...decades removed from their construction it can be easy to ignore context and appreciate their aesthetics, but when you advocate for building more of them (which the twitter account clearly is) that context is called forth again" The idea that the negative associations of European traditional or American colonial architecture are inevitable is crazy. Do you really think that's what all tourists to Europe think, even those fully conversant on European History? You could say that about almost every building, regardless of culture and time. The reality is buildings get used by some to make political points but that others can then reverse that political association just as easily. Which association should the passerby be reading, assuming they even know the history you are referring to? You're saying it's inevitable, but it's not. So yes, buildings have many readings, and if you see the whole world in terms of oppressors and victims, god bless you, but to insist that others do also is unrealistic. Imagine never letting a person escape the associations of a bad deed? If you build for the public, their perspective should be paramount as associations change but human nature doesn't.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/29/neo-nazi-rally-pikeville-kentucky-anti-fascist?CMP=fb_gu
If you don't like the Twitter account, use your architect's license to get it shut down.
Sure. Look the other way when it comes ethnonationalist culturalists.
I don't like Disney but if others want to waste themselves on it, they can.
I guess when Disney decides to remake "Song Of The South" we can have that conversation then, until that moment - we have architectural Nazis trying to subtly present a narrative of white hegemony, disguised as historical appreciation.
yeah people suck. I don't expect too much from them.
The architecture of oppression.
Much of the beautiful French Colonial architecture of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh is being destroyed by the modernists much to the alarm of many of the educated people there who want to preserve the country's past. Ooops, I guess they are really Vietnamese white racists sending out bird whistles because they don't care for BIG, et al, because they think it is basically shit.
#dumbasfuck
Phillip Johnson, Corbusier, and Loos were three important pillars of the modern movement. Two Nazis and a convicted pedophile. Quite a foundation you have there modernists. I can see where you think people who hate modernism and express their opinions should be smeared with neo-Nazi associations. Free speech is only for the select few and when you want our opinion you will give it to us beforehand. After all you, and only you, are for "diversity" and "inclusion". Jawol mein herr.
And George Washington owned hundreds of human beings. Perspective, please.
That is exactly his point, Donna. It is a very slippery slope to go down to try to smear a particular type of architecture by pointing to the evils of the people who endorsed it. If colonial architecture is to be tarred by association with slavery, then international style modernism is to be tarred by association with Soviet totalitarianism.
When a ModArch (or let's be more realistic, a ParametricArch) twitter account pops up that attracts and promotes white ethnonationalists I think an article should be written calling them out about it, too. So far that hasn't happened.
Architecture is cool. Agree or you support terrorists.
Architecture is racist. Agree or you support Dutch colonialism.
Lol @ politics. What a dumb dumb time we live in. Can’t we all just go back to the 90’s. Music was better.
The responses to this article are really surprising. This article is about a Twitter account that is using the topic of traditional architecture to build a community of hateful, bigoted people. It's obvious if you look at their followers and the comments to their posts on Twitter. I have no doubt there are many people that follow that Twitter account simply because they love traditional architecture, while completely unaware of the predominant ideology behind the majority of the community.
This article on Archinect is, in no way, criticizing or commenting on traditional architecture, and it's in no way equating traditional architecture to any political or cultural belief system. I think it's safe to say that most people that love modern architecture also have deep respect and admiration for historical/traditional architecture.
I don't think they are surprising, given the context and history of discussions of this type on the Archinect forum. This thread has scratched open an issue that has been debated many times before here.
I think that there are many modern architects who may have respect for traditional architectures, as historical curiosities, but they believe that to continue to design buildings within those traditions is wrong. For many of these architects, part of their objection is that they see these styles connected to political/social regimes or philosophies to which they object.
This same discussion has happened repeatedly here over the years.
I think the reaction is to the reaction. There is a tendency lately to lump people and things into a political category based on the politics of those who follow or like those people or things. Political tribalism is starting to grab at territory that is otherwise neutral by attaching shallow and ignorant ideals to it. As people educated and knowledgeable about the complexity of such things as architectural history we ought not allow fools to distill and reduce the narrative to suit their agenda and propaganda.
So by lumping the entire thing into a category, accusing it of attracting racists, we are doing so by proxy because we are now accusing the overall concept of liking traditional architecture as having suspicious intent. Ice cream attracts flies...not ice creams fault for being delicious.
Quite the accusation Erik. I challenge you to find one single example where Archinect has published anything equating an appreciation of classic traditional architecture with any ideology. Or share one example of Archinect expressing disdain for this type of architecture. Archinect obviously focuses on contemporary, modern architecture! How that focus can be interpreted as disdain for any other types of architecture is beyond my comprehension.
Do you think that Wired magazine should start covering classic rotary phones and phonographs, just because they are more beautifully ornamented and handmade relative to today's all-glass smart phones and wifi-networked sound systems?
Do you really think the owner of this Twitter account doesn't support the hateful comments and ideologies on display by its followers? Twitter makes it really easy to block people and delete comments. The owner of this account chooses not to do so, and thrives on the support of these hate groups, while ensuring that the posts he/she makes doesn't contain anything specifically controversial. This article would have been published regardless of the style of architecture that was being used to covertly expand the voice of hate.
Paul, I didn't say that Archinect has published anything of that kind. I said that there have been many discussions of that type by members of the Archinect forum.
Architecture is very different from telephones and phonographs.
Example?
Example of what?
Publications like Wired and Archinect are focused on the contemporary and emerging. It's nonsensical to expect us to focus on work from hundreds of years ago.
Can you share an example of "there have been many discussions of that type by members of the Archinect forum". Archinect has zero-tolerance for racism, bigotry, any form of hate. Any comments exhibiting that are immediately removed by our team of moderators.
I'm a contemporary classical architect. I do work like that, now, in the present day. There are many other practitioners like me, addressing the public taste in thoughtful ways.
Re: "discussions of this type" , I never accused anyone of racism, bigotry or hate. I don't know what you are referring to. I said there have been many discussions where people here on the Archinect forums have attempted to diminish contemporary traditional architecture as whongheaded because they connect it with historical racism or authoritarianism.
That's great Erik, while we do not focus primarily on that type of architecture, we still recognize it a style that many prefer, and we cover it on Archinect, including our podcast episode featuring Scott Merrill upon winning the Driehaus Prize.
"there have been many discussions where people here on the Archinect forums have attempted to diminish contemporary traditional architecture as whongheaded because they connect it with historical racism or authoritarianism" - really, is that true? That's the example I'm asking you to share.
There is nothing wrong with being passionate about architectural preferences. For example, I would consider you to be one of the most critical voices on Archinect in terms of your position
On modernism. In this thread you equate it to oppression. That said, we are totally fine with that perspective and consider you a valuable voice here.
Thanks Paul.
For the record, I don't equate modernism with oppression. I was being facetious. I posted a 1960s image of Soviet East Germany to illustrate the silliness of trying to denigrate a particular style of architecture by tying it to politics.
"ArchitectureMMXII" has been around the web for years, and has been pretty innocuously advocating for beauty as a value and a return to trad architecture as a way of achieving it. I don't know who they are. Until very recently, I have not been aware of the white supremacist following. It's possible they have been swamped by alt-right trolls.
Or maybe they agree with the trolls. I have no idea.
This was my impression, that it was an account that is attracting racists but it isn't an account to promote racism or provide a haven for those who do.
I hope that is the case.
The politics/esthetics debate about ArchitecturalRevival founders on quicksand. There is no statement there—I gave it a few minutes—that reflects any sophisticated or deep esthetic awareness. And the offensive reactions are just gut reactions, similarly superficial, without any political awareness at all. I think that's the tragedy of our times, that we take, or have to take, such baldness seriously.
I'm reminded of Congressman Dondero's comments about modern art half a century ago:
Dondero was most notable for mounting an attack on modern art, which he claimed to be inspired by Communism. He asserted that "Cubism aims to destroy by designed disorder... Dadaism aims to destroy by ridicule... Abstractionism aims to destroy by the creation of brainstorms." In 1952, Dondero went on to tell Congress that modern art was, in fact, a conspiracy by Moscow to spread communism in the United States. This speech won him the International Fine Arts Council's Gold Medal of Honor for "dedicated service to American Art. "When art critic Emily Genauer (future winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism) interviewed Dondero in the mid-1950s he stated "modern art is Communistic because it is distorted and ugly, because it does not glorify our beautiful country, our cheerful and smiling people, our material progress. Art which does not glorify our beautiful country in plain simple terms that everyone can understand breeds dissatisfaction. It is therefore opposed to our government and those who promote it are our enemies." When Genauer pointed out the resemblance between his views and those of the Stalinist Communists he despised, Dondero was so enraged that he arranged to have her fired from her job at the New York Herald Tribune.
From Wikipedia. Dondero was a Joe McCarthy sympathizer.
One doesn't have to buy into that kind of silliness (Modern art is a communist plot!) to believe that a lot of modern art is ugly and nihilistic.
Brutalism literally began as an outgrowth of Hitler's Atlantik Wall bunkers. Who among us could fail to be attracted?
"Built between 1963 and 1966, the Church of St. Bernadette in Nevers Banlay materializes the coincidence of two streams of research: "archaeological bunkers" by Paul Virilio based on his book (Bunker Archaeology, 1958-1975) and Claude Parent's research "Fonction Oblique" (Oblique Architecture) which was a modern exploration of the break and slope."
Brutalism literally began as an outgrowth of Hitler's Atlantik Wall bunkers
and then you wish to be taken seriously?
There's little doubt that Claude Parent was directly influenced by the German bunkers. He said so specifically and abundantly.
Where bricks, mortar and steel railways come together in harmony...
This post (and the one I made on East Germany, and the bunker stuff) shows how misguided I think it is to try to taint architectural traditions by associating them with political/social atrocities.
That's why I posted it. Although each architectural tradition or the reuse thereof also has its ideological components of course and is thereby by definition political.
Which one is the church and which one is the bunker?
The bunker is much more elegant.
The Lucerne station, before and after, old (1896) and modern, from the article, would fuel a nice debate in esthetics. Today I'm leaning towards overwrought vs underwhelming. The older station burned in 1971, however. I didn't go far in reading, but am not sure restoring it was even an option. Also much was needed to modernize the station for current demands.
But what they did is intriguing: they preserved the front portal.
None of this was apparent in the AR tweet. It's why we should preserve the past as much as we can, to keep this debate alive and preserve memories, in this case of overwrought times.
Nordic Beauty's selections, again above, make me sick.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.