Quote:
Originally Posted by vandelay
Maybe it's unavoidable with a building like this, but I've noticed that a lot of the architectural criticism of the library attempts to discredit neo-classicism/traditionalism by tying it politically to conservatism/fascism, and vice-versa attaching (perhaps Stern's deliberate) allusions to fascist architecture to Bush's presidential record.
Clearly architecture can be an instrument of politics, but dismissing an entire type of architecture a priori, due to politics strikes me as ridiculous and weak-minded.
|
Architecture has always been political. Especially when it comes to talking about architecture that memorializes leaders. That being said, having been to a few presidential libraries, this one seems to be one of the most uninspiring buildings I have seen. It is not the fact that it is neo-traditional, but rather that even at that it isn't a great neo-traditional building. In fact, it isn't even the best building in SMU's campus.