It is easy to ignore complaints from X or Facebook accounts, even those with hundreds of thousands of followers – especially erstwhile they concern specified trivial subjects as the form of the late commissioned building. We will ignore 1 post, another woman of the sage, due to the fact that we agree with the criticism, possibly even make it available further. It will not pass through to us that in this way we can unwittingly support the utmost traditionalists for whom the offensive on aesthetic grounds is simply a front for promoting our views in a wider social space.
Hostile modern architecture moods increasingly penetrate the planet of politics, where they service as a justification for conservative, nationalist and sometimes liberal projects. any rebuild full capitals in the Classicist kind (or possibly alternatively disneyland style), others halt at destroying monuments of modernism. However, average housing communities are most frequently affected, even though there is no better evidence of advancement in construction in the 20th century.
“The Art of Godless Communities”
The Culture Critic account has over a million followers on X. At first glance, it is simply a profile throwing pictures of good castles, old churches and rich tenement houses. However, if we follow his activity more closely, we will find repeated comparisons of old and fresh architectures, to show the inherent ugliness of the latter, more minimalist and functional. Digging further, we will get to the content clearly ideologically marked, e.g. the compilation of classical sculpture from Fountain Duchamp, signed with “art in spiritual society / «art» in an ungodly societyIt’s okay. ”
We will besides discover material with American alt-right characters, like Tucker Carlson. In fresh years Admirer of Vladimir Putin and erstwhile presenter Fox News besides commented on the improvement of architecture, stating that its modern edition hates people and crushes their spirit. In a akin tone, he writes many seemingly apolitical accounts on social media, accusing modernist buildings not only of disfigurement of cities, but even demolition of civilization.
The reason behind this is the belief that modern architecture is part of a globalistic conspiracy, the eventual goal of which is to make Western societies, deprive them of their identity and culture. In this vision, the number 1 enemy is the large block, often inhabited by the immigrant population, which promotes the integration into the traditionalist communicative of xenophobic and racist elements. Modernist architecture itself is frequently blamed for the formation of "gett", even though it was more crucial than the form of buildings that the government managed them, the shortcomings in public infrastructure, etc.
For the far right, it is profitable to bring the problem to the issue of aesthetics. This will not aid solve the housing crisis, on the contrary – in the West it encourages the demolition of affordable residential settlements and the surrender of land to developers – but it will strengthen stories about the collision of civilization, where tradition and beauty stand on 1 side, and on the another the ungodly modernism, liable for all evil, from disfigurement of cities to immigration.
From niche complaints to state policies
In the Netherlands, beginning to “modernist, multicultural project“ The right-wing extremist Thierry Baudet will avenge the imposition by globalists of hostile urban environment and “a planet without home”. Incidentally, his criticism is not limited to any architecture created after the 19th century, but besides touches music – Baudet attacks rap or rock. In neighboring Germany utmost architectural tradition represents AfD, calling for a return to a more "people" and closer to the "German spirit" of construction. It may seem that nationalists believe that cultural minorities will besides magically vanish along with violent blocks.
While AfD or Baudet are more or little on the political margin, akin architectural views in a relaxed version are increasingly found at the tops of power. In Britain, the advocate of conventional architecture is King Charles, who has long lobbied for construction in styles known from the times of his distant ancestors. Following this lead, the Tory government in 2018 set up a Building Better commission, Building Beautiful, giving her rudders to Roger Scruton, a leading antimodern ideologist who commented on Grenfell Tower fireHe said 72 people would avoid dying if the building was nicer.
As arbitrators of beauty or ugliness, conservative politicians have set themselves up. On the part of the government, there is assurance that the Ministry of Housing will halt the construction of “depressive” modern blocks, favouring more conventional forms, supposedly nicer to the eye – specified as those seen in built with the support of King Charles “the feudal Disneyland”That's the town of Poundbury. On the another side of the ocean, the corresponding decision was passed for Donald Trump's presidency (and cancelled by Biden) Order Making national Buildings Beautiful Again. The paper explicitly condemned the architecture of brutalism and deconstructivism while ordering the construction of fresh Classicist buildings.
However, the most ambitious architectural reactionary task remains Skopje 2014. North Macedonian nationalists decided to completely change the face of the capital, which as a consequence of the 1963 earthquake lost its monuments and was rebuilt in the kind of Yugoslav brutality. Since the monuments were missing, they had to be created – the demolition of exceptional constructions from the 20th century (or their hiding behind fresh facades) was begun to place buildings copying ancient Greece in their place. The rulers thus sought to make a false sense of intimacy with ancient Macedonia. Snow-white buildings with colonnades and dozens of monuments appeared, mostly historical figures, having nothing to do with modern Macedonians.
Nostalgia for the past rightly passed
The capital of North Macedonia can be utilized immediately as a informing communicative – only a fewer years after Skopje's reconstruction, it turned out that aside from dubious aesthetic qualities, the new-old architecture has primarily terrible quality of performance. Marbles break, gypsum plates fall off, Styrofoams get out of the facades, and many of the erstwhile white columns virtually rot. Of course, traditionalist architecture does not request to be so tacky, but it would require immense financial expenditure.
The North Macedonian task has been criticised from the start for wasting crucial public funds, and it has not been decently implemented, due to the fact that even more funds would be needed to do so. The exquisite decorations and noble materials are not cheap. Therefore, contrary to many traditionalists' ideas, the old cities (except for fewer exceptions) were not filled with awesome palaces and secession buildings, with which Baudet likes to combine violent blocks. In fact, the equivalents of a large album were hideous renters or makeshift huts.
Modernism as an architectural current developed in consequence to times erstwhile full neighborhoods of destitution functioned behind the pompous central boulevards. He promised to supply all people with decent surviving conditions, and he mostly fulfilled that promise, even if he did not avoid mistakes.
On both sides of the iron curtain were built to power blocks with inexpensive but comfortable apartments, which contributed to the leap in the level of life of average people. The "Share blocks" here had more merit than the houses in the suburbs, which are highly inefficient forms of construction, but much closer to the perfect promoted besides by any Polish politicians.
Traditionalists are right about 1 thing: architecture is political. Therefore, they consciously advance a return to the past, wanting to push through a hierarchical and conservative model of society in a package with old architecture. Pompastic, classical buildings can simultaneously cover the shortcomings of social construction, the fall of which correlates with the rejection of modernism. Of course, this does not mean that progressives must uncritically support modern architecture. It is diverse, uglier or nicer, more or little functional – but solutions must be sought within it, not in the ancient past. We can't cover the housing crisis with gips.
