I received an e-mail, called "Heresy," from Jerry Kler about my last column, "Appeal to the Vatican for artistic sanity." Because the e-mail struck me as an unusually typical representative of the genre of objection to my unapologetic and unforgiving opposition to modern architecture, I offer both the e-mail and my reply.
I have invited Mr. Kler to reply to my reply. He says he will, and I will publish that, and his reply to my reply to his reply, etc., if it goes that far. (Isn't this sort of dialogue what journalism is supposed to be all about, and why it is protected by the Constitution?)
The e-mail:
When the Pantheon was designed and built, they were committing the same travesty that you allude to in your article. It would have been better to have a small cave without the soaring and uplifting space. Why do anything different than had been done by the cave dwellers?
The first time I saw the Pantheon as well as St. Peters, I was exhilarated by the forward thinking of the design and how brilliant the conception which leapt ahead of what other buildings were.
Is it so wrong to build for the time we live in while at the same time appreciating and preserving the buildings of the past? Your thinking, which I understand, condemns what is different as satanic. To never leave one period in history is to deny any progression of thinking.
Rather than vehemently disagree with your premise, I was disappointed in the narrowness of your thinking, which does not allow any artistic coexistence. Bravo to the Pope for at least trying to reconnect art and the church, which were so connected in centuries past.
(Signed) Jerry Kler
My reply:
I do not condemn what is different as satanic. I condemn was is purposely different enough to contradict and contrast with what exists as satanic. That's a very big and important difference.
I am not against modern architecture that fosters continuity, but so little of it does so, or even seeks to do so. There is no earthly reason for architecture to seek to "challenge" its users. Mostly that turns out to mean architecture that is hard to build, hard to use, hard to maintain, hard to look at and hard to love, and therefore doomed to a short life.
Continuity is a major tool of building civic space that is beautiful, strong, useful and comfortable for most people. Traditional and classical architecture are all about evolving, not copying. It evolved for centuries and even millennia until modernism stopped it cold. Traditional architects stand on the shoulders of the great so as to move forward with what is the best of the past while adopting new uses, new technologies, even new styles, etc. - without the need for genius to create beauty, but with the potential for greatness when genius participates.
The number of traditional buildings that literally copy those of the past is very, very small. Despite the mischaracterizations of modernists, traditional architects have never sought to remain stuck in the past, but see the future as a continuation of the past, as it is in all natural growth and most of mankind's productions, including most art.
It is modernism itself, not traditional architecture, that fosters a "frozen in time" look. Modernists call it design "for our time," but unlike timeless traditional work whose continuity transcends historic periods, the work of modern architects is often dated as soon as it is completed. You can always tell by looking whether a modernist building was built in the 1950s, '60s, '70s, etc., whereas it is not always easy to pin traditional buildings even to a particular century.
Just because the 20th Century was the "Machine Age" doesn't mean that everything must be designed to be like a machine. Some things can and should be softer and more intimate. Arguably, architecture is one of them. Modern architects have long refused to compromise with this obvious truth.
And finally, it is not just a matter of taste. Judgment requires us to choose among ways of building that are better or worse, on a sliding scale, for mankind and his habitations, big and small. To call it a matter of taste is a tactic for avoiding the need to choose. To call it a matter of taste is an abdication of that responsibility. It is not a responsibility of most people but of people with power in architecture. Modernists adopt this tactic because they understand that most people would not choose their way.
Satanic might be an exaggeration, but enough lives have been worsened by Le Corbusier and his acolytes, and those who have "evolved" modernist styles since then - and have actively blocked a level playing field for tradition - that modernism's serious condemnation is long overdue.
Actually, its condemnation is frequent and powerful, but ignored by the profession.
It is not a surprise that you mistake my meaning. It is the modernist propaganda that regularly and purposely mischaracterizes what traditional architecture is all about, and almost without rebuttal in schools, journals or professional societies of the architectural establishment.
I don't blame you for your attitude; it is typical. But I will be interested in hearing your reaction to a different way of expressing what traditional design is all about. My fear is that you will simply neglect to respond. That is the typical response of modernism. Close the ears. Batten down the hatches.
So, with every hope for openness and dialogue, I am waiting...
Sincerely, David Brussat
Email this author | 
New comments
New photos
Authors
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
Wow. Great response, Dave! You said what needs to be said, and said it well. Keep saying it! And Happy Thanksgiving ...
Report Abuse