There might hardly be any other such regressive, non-democratic and authoritarian statement in the history of the post-war democratic west, then Trumps recent infamous executive order about coming hegemony of classical style in architecture. We all understand well that the echoes of Greco-Roman architecture magnified through the multiple prisms of consequent historical periods of renaissance and all the following ‘neoisms’ still sound as an actual call for those craving for power and authority. But imposing on the whole country hegemony of one style in our era of plurality of opinions and abolition of all sorts of restrictions of self-expression is such a non popular, if not to say politically incorrect and non-democratic action.
Architecture, among its other well-known properties of firmitas, utilitas and venustas has another less known property of conveying meanings, which is usually confused with the property of venustas or beauty. Architecture possesses meanings on several levels the most superficial of which and the easiest to decode is its stylistic belonging. Architectural style conveys meanings the same way as fashion styles do; we immediately form some idea about the social or subcultural belonging of someone judging by his or her outfit. Similarly architectural styles also obtain certain connotation in the eyes of people with certain capacity of decoding those meanings. Usually the extent and quality of that capacity depends on the environment where one has grown up and the nature and variety of cultural information and experience that one has appropriated during the course of his or her life. It so happened that classical architecture due to its ornate and richly decorated nature has been mostly the prerogative of wealthy members of the society throughout the history. Thus for many who have limited notion of the origins and nature of classical architecture it indeed stands for power. Above all-for the power of white people and white civilisation.
Authorities have always referred to this property of architecture to make it serve as a statement of their political ideologies. To not to go too far, let’s remember the Gothic architecture which by its scale and spatial magnitude was called to glorify the God, but instead acted as a very obvious statement of the power of the Church. From the recent past we might recall the totalitarian regimes of Nazis and Stalin who used architecture as a means of power statement as well. The latter even disbanded all the existing independent creative groups to be substituted by centralized and state-curated organisms of artistic unions. Ironically enough Trump also seemingly has a favourite, namely the National Civic Art Society to curate his newly-cooked order. This certainly might be a pure coincidence, but I simply can’t help drawing certain parallels between these two political figures...Or at least between their architectural preferences...and believes, that these architectural preferences stood and might stand for.
Yet, besides the notes of authoritarism that are well heard in this draft order, it has another interesting aspect that is worth of analysing. As we are told the order is entitled “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again”. As an architectural critic I have often been confronted by the belief that it is only classical and classicist architecture that possess beauty, particularly as compared to modernist and other late 20th-21st century styles, although usually the beauty of classical architecture has been confused with the ideas of power, wealth, as well as cultural-geographic belonging that this style symbolizes. One of the only cases when someone believing in the superiority of classical architecture explained his preference with arguments other than its symbolic meanings of power and belonging was Prince Charles, who has in many instances accentuated the harmony emanated by classical architecture. And whilst both Trump and Prince Charles hate modernist architecture for its faceless and non-human character, yet their preference of classical architecture has pretty much different argumentation. Trump obviously connects classical architecture with power and cultural-geographical belonging thus turning it fully into a political weapon. Whereas Prince Charles preferred classical architecture rather for its aesthetic and humanistic reasons and for the harmony that it emanates.
The notion of beauty and harmony, that we read in the Trump’s order as well, can’t certainly have a definite and singular meaning, the same way as harmony is not the only property that makes things beautiful. But above all neither harmony, nor beauty can be attributed to a singular style, form or property. Harmony and beauty are states of mind, as well as cultural constructs that change and vary according to time, culture and person. It is not only by means of ornaments that architecture can be beautiful. A plain stone wall can be no less beautiful revealing the intricate interplay and diversity of its veins and sinews, such as the plain marble walls of Mies van der Rohe in the Barcelona Pavilion.
Finally, let me here refer to the recent work of Renzo Piano, which is an ideal example on the background of which Trump’s architectural philosophy reveals its utterly non-humanist nature.
Ironically enough, this building that I want to bring as an antitheses to Trump’s ideas, is nothing else but a courthouse, a type of a building that along with White House and the seat of the parliament (or any other legislative body) symbolizes the country, its believes and power better than any other type of building. The courthouse of Paris by Renzo Piano had the aim of breaking the usual oppressing feeling created by the grandeur of classical architecture buildings. The architect chose glass as a material allowing light and transparency to give a human-friendly and appeasing sense to his building. His thoughts were with the people who enter with problems into this building and might have to go out with even more heavy thoughts and feelings. Hence the building, whether with its inner space or outer look attempts to appease the mental and emotional state of its visitors, instead of transmitting additional ideas of power and (non)belonging, which would certainly render the atmosphere more alienating and hostile to the visitor.
Light, lit and transparent building of glass devoid of any meanings and connotations versus heavy, sombre and opaque building of classical style immediately marking the segregation between those to whom it ‘belongs’ and who visit it. Which is designed for people and which is designed for those who ‘reign’ there? Which is more democratic? Or maybe better to ask, do we need architecture to be democratic at all?