Posted on 10/17/2020 11:25:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
Since the overwhelming majority of Americans have proven time and time again that they prefer traditional architecture, why do government agencies force ugly buildings on the American people?
A new study finds 72 percent of Americans prefer traditional architecture for U.S. courthouses and federal office buildings, including majorities across political, racial, sex, and socioeconomic categories. The survey was conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of National Civic Art Society and polled more than 2,000 U.S. adults.
These findings come in light of the possibility of a Trump administration executive order, appropriately named Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again, that would require that new office buildings in Washington, D.C. be classical in design. Among other things, the order would revise the 1962 Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, which forced modernism to be the official government building style. In response to the leak of the potential order, a bill entitled the Democracy in Design Act was proposed by House Democrats to overturn it.
However, based on the study, it appears Trumps potential executive order would be happily received by a majority of Americans, with traditional architecture the clear winner for all demographic groups, including sex, age, geographic region, household income, education, race/ethnicity, and political party affiliations.
The study showed participants seven pairs of images depicting U.S. courthouses and federal office buildings. Each pair presented one building in a traditional style and one building in a modern style. For each pair, the survey question was: Which of these two buildings would you prefer for a U.S. courthouse or federal office building?
The selected images were edited to ensure fair comparisons. Factors such as sky color, angle of photo, light conditions, distance from building, weather conditions, and the like were all controlled either perfectly (e.g., sky color) or as perfect as possible via careful photo selection and editing.
Below is an example of one of the surveys image pairings:
The resounding preference for traditional design was soundly bipartisan, being favored by 73 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of Democrats, and 73 percent of independents.
Preference for traditional architecture is shared across generations, being the top choice of 77 percent of those aged 65 or older, and 68 percent of those aged 18-34.
Both men and women prefer traditional architecture, but women are more likely than men to want U.S. courthouses and federal office buildings to be traditional, at 77 percent versus 67 percent, respectively.
Kogonada, the director, made his reputation as a video essayist. He has done a lot of work for the Criterion Collection. He started as an academic student of film and then got bitten by the bug to make movies, not just write about them. Columbus was his first feature film.
He was/is very interested in modernism and formalism in film and wanted to explore synergies with modernism in architecture. If that sounds a bit too heavy on the highbrow, theoretical film school level ... well, there's an element in Columbus of a new director getting his dissertation out of his system. I found it interesting enough to watch several of his interviews on YouTube and can appreciate what he was trying to do. But as a filmmaker shooting for a broader audience (as opposed to an essayist for Criterion Collection classic films), he probably needs to rope that down a bit.
His second feature film, After Yang, is a sci-fi film centered on artificial intelligence. It was supposed to release this year but it's in COVID post-production limbo. I imagine it's done, but it's the kind of film that was probably intended as a serious entry on the festival circuit, and that's all up in the air. It's not a tentpole but it would be a shame for it to go direct to streaming with no publicity campaign. Kogonada is obviously a very smart guy who wants to make "intellectual" films. The trick for guys like that is to move beyond the art house scene and find some traction with mainstream audiences. Especially because the theater model may be dying for good due to COVID and the wholesale move to streaming.
Columbus got rave reviews in the festivals and has a 97% critics' score on RT. It got no marketing campaign and only about ten people saw it in theaters. It's streaming on several platforms now and has a considerable and growing following from the word of mouth buzz. I wouldn't call it a "cult" film because it doesn't have any of the edgy weirdness that I associate with that word. Adrenaline junkies hate it. People who have the patience to get through the first 15 minutes rave about it. Columbus was a huge, out-of-nowhere surprise, and Haley Lu Richardson should have won an Oscar. There are high expectations for After Yang centering on the question of whether Kogonada could do it again.
Yes, the tour guides tell of the upgrades to the cantilever done since the structure was built. Wright does seem to have been a bit of an ass and he was certainly a guy who elevated architecture to art. I consider that to be a good thing. It certainly wasn’t unliveable since the Kauffman family used it for many years. It also has standard height ceilings. I’ve never seen any tall people having trouble while I was there.
I was TDY at Templehof AB in Berlin at a AF Communications conference in 1990. I decided to go into East Berlin. This was only months after the Wall fell. I wanted to see what the Communist architecture looked like closer than we could when the Cold War was still a thing.
I took the U-Bahn with some other GI friends to Alexanderplatz Station, which used to be blocked by the East German army, so the train just went thru it without stopping. Now they could. Got upstairs to see the massive Soviet style buildings. It was a cold winter day, and here where these magnificent tan stone megaliths up against a deep blue sky. Not even many doors or windows, but I saw one door and window down the street aways...
We walked over to it, and then we read the sign above the door, “International Sex Shop”. The one window had a blowup doll with the O face in a black bra and suspenders, with a few Color Climax VHS tapes propped up below it.
Had a good laugh, and mentioned it at the conference luncheon. The aide to the AFIC/SC asked me where it was. After lunch we showed them. Got some good pictures of the Colonels walking out with shopping bags (stuff they bought earlier, but who would know). Made sure we got the sign in the photos.
Check out the 2018 built US District courthouse in Mobile Alabama.
Thats the way a courthouse is supposed to look.
RLTW
Yes, yes, YES!! I despise open floor plans- a personal preference. I don’t mind some open areas - there are many examples of the Craftsman era with spaces defined by larger openings and clever use of dividing spaces. But- that’s why we have chocolate and strawberry ice cream- variety:)
I like brownstone and Victorian architecture myself.
Maybe I’m thinking of robie house, bumped my head coming down the stairs. I’m only 6 2.
In my town, the county courthouse in the town square is now a museum. In the county north of me, the classic courthouse houses other offices such as the tax assessor and clerks offices. The courts are in a new building at the semi-rural fringes of town next to a new jail.
There is a beautiful U.S. Post Office in downtown Berkeley, CA. It is in Second Renaissance Revival style and is on the National Register of Historic Places. Its inspiration was from Brunelleschi’s “Hospital of the Innocents” in Florence, Italy. It has a mural depicting California culture and history in its lobby. Astonishing to report, the BLM/Antifa have not defaced this lovely mural in this federal building.
That looks like the Cypress Structure of the I-80 freeway in Oakland, CA right after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake (whose anniversary is today).
I’m just an engineer, not an artist.
If everything is “art”, then nothing is “art”. Using this basis, then you open yourself up to having blank sheets of canvas, with a single splatter of “paint” selling for obscene amounts of money - and that’s happening as we converse. Zero talent, truly “Art by the pound”.
Art is effort, and much like anything worthwhile, it demands time and talent. Art should evoke a feeling, the more complex the feeling (such as “awe, amazement or humor”) the higher degree of artistic talent. I submit that Walt Disney evoked more emotional feelings in any of his works - any single piece you wish to point; than the entire collection found in the Smithsonian’s Modern Art exhibit in DC.
I’ve seen pieces of canvas, with “randomly” sized horizontal lines, crossed by “randomly” spaced horizontal lines, and each block filled “randomly” pieces of trash. And I do literally mean trash - as in debris collected from college trash cans.
I have seen colleges bring in “Artists” that specialize in gathering and documenting what they found discarded in trash, all collected in baggies, labelled on what was found, where it was found, what time, and what he artist was thinking as he gathered the trash.
Naturally, the entire Art Dept. MANDATORY ATTENDANCE presentation was strewn with trash pilled between rows, and on the folding chairs in the auditorium, to drive some obscure point of the “art that surrounds us”. I call BS.
A man with a good eye, an understanding of photography can create masterpieces. But, that is a talent. I have shot thousands of photos, some are worthy of being framed at home, most are not. But the man that can fill a book, magazine, or publish his work with such shots - has a talent.
I cannot draw, I wish I could. But I see both the skilled and unskilled treated “equally”; much the same way a person would treat a gifted sports athlete with a unskilled athlete. No one seems to have the gut to say “Sorry, this is not your skill set, this is meaningless gibberish”.
We have no problem doing this with actors, singes, doctors, lawyers, engineers, chemists, mathematicians, astronomers, carpenters or any other profession.
But, people tend to think that anyone can do art. I guess Leonardo DiVinci and I would emphatically disagree. Very, very few people have the talent to do art, and modern art is a great example that the Emperor truly has no clothes.
The powers that be would rather have ugly and intimidating buildings like the USSR, to remind you whos boss.
Beautiful and inspiring buildings are a threat if they make people happy and aspirational.
If politics are downstream from politics, Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again is great and welcome news.
I give historical tours of DC to high-level public and private sector visitors from Europe. I propose to them that the buildings reflect the people, and they are amazed at how the periodization in architecture directly speaks for the attitudes of the political culture.
They’re usually disappointed by the Reagan Building, which has significant classical elements, as that would mark a return to classical culture, but when they see the HUD and Energy buildings, they get it.
That looks like a kitchen appliance.
Maybe THIS concrete company?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.