Brave Old World: On Ruining Paris

 

The Montparnasse tower is a highrise of such menacing ugliness that it’s become a landmark. Tourists are fascinated by its bleak destructive power.

Let’s start figuring out how to do this kind of journalism. This is an experimental month: I want to figure out how to do a new kind of reporting that involves you, the investor and the reader. I figured the piece I’ve promised to City Journal about Paris’s architectural vandals would be a good place to start. Here are my questions:

  1. From the Gallo-Roman era to the recent past, almost everything Parisians built was beautiful, in many cases more beautiful than anything else in the world; and at least, not aggressively ugly.
  2. After the Second World War, Parisians lost this ability — entirely. What has been built since then is at best tolerable, and at worst, among the ugliest architecture in the world.
  3.  Why?

What are your questions?

Something catastrophic certainly happened to architecture throughout Europe after the Second World War. Europe is justly famed for beautiful cities, but none of that beauty was created after the war. The mystery of that is profound. What causes a whole continent suddenly to lose its genius? That there’s a connection to the war is clear, but what exactly was the cause and the mechanism of the loss?

Now, I need to make the case that my judgments about this aren’t arbitrary. I’m saying something more objective about beauty than, “I like building A but I don’t like building B.” So I need to start with a robust theory of aesthetics. Here’s what I need it to do:

  • It needs to be able to tell us, in some detail, why Building A is more beautiful than Building B. These principles should be broadly applicable to all buildings.
  • It would be useful to show that these principles may broadly be applied to the idea of “beauty,” generally.
  • I’d like to explore the idea that it’s at least reasonable to associate “the beautiful” and “the morally good.”
  • This point must be based on evidence, the nature of which must be defined. So, for example, I want to look at the criminogenic quality of ugly buildings, and the way people tend to get sick and die sooner when they live in and among them.

I’d like to use these questions to test a few platforms for sharing photos and video with you, as well as some audio and video recordings of interviews, to see what works and what doesn’t, technically and conceptually.

So let’s get started.

Here are some people who might be interesting to interview. This is the National School of Architecture at Paris-Val de Seine (ENSAPVS). It’s supervised by the department of architectural management and heritage of the Ministry of Culture. And it’s housed in a building designed by the architect Frédéric Borel, winner of the National Architecture Grand Prize.

Notice anything about it?

ENSA

That’s right: It’s ugly.

It’s not hideous, but consider what everyone in Paris grows up with, is surrounded by every day, and knows for a fact to be part of his or her heritage. What I’m about to show you are buildings that everyone in Paris walks past every day, and has for his or her entire life:

Paris-Notre-Dame-river-france-XL sainte_chapelle_stainglass_windows_interior palais-garnier-paris-front

Recall: the first photo was that of the school of architecture. Not any old building, but one designed to inspire students to the pinnacle of architectural greatness; one designed to showcase contemporary architectural talent. Yet it is — plainly — catastrophically ugly compared to what people here see around them every day. They don’t just read about those buildings in history books, they see them.

Here’s more work by Frédéric Borel. The school of architecture isn’t a one-off mishap. Have a look at his proposal to build, under contract to the city of Paris, “social housing for the autistic.” He won a design competition for the project in 2010. Here’s how he explains his plan. (It’s my translation.)

This project is will be inaugurated on one Paris’s sites of philanthropic expression: Madame Boucicaut, the wife of the founder of the Bon Marché department store, wished to build a hospital here. This idea, forgotten in the depths of the 19th century, may seem obsolete today. But this didn’t stop us from dreaming about what today’s philanthropic architecture could be, architecture that would not only protect men and their families, but also aspire to love them. Thus our building is designed so that every dwelling is functional and properly lit. But it also seeks to provide luxurious common areas for its occupants and a landscape of enigmatic forms for passersby. It’s almost as if this building could offer more than just what’s required — some sensuality, some poetry …

We respected the urbanization plan, which suggested we build a T-shape building so that the new layout would blend in with Paris’s urban fabric. But we detached the two wings of the T to avoid a locked-in effect and to open freely to the city. This indentation better recaptures the pavilion composition of the former Boucicaut Hospital, built under the scholarly direction of Paul Chemetov.

The angle of the two streets is marked by a joint drawn by two brick lips that breath, offer respiration, to this crossroads without recoiling. At the same time, the garden captures the light that cuts through this in-between space: not the active and hygienic light of the 19th century, but the playful and lazy light of the 21st century.

Beneath the open corner, there extends a large, carved hall. It emerges like the atrium of a hotel, giving every occupant an address that’s truly welcoming, inviting the desire to meet and be together.

The pedestals and handrails on the ground floor sculpt the ground. They lift and detach from the street, creating higher ground; the single-story shelter for the autistic opens from behind to a sheltered garden.

Before I show you the photo, take note — you probably have already — that this is completely incoherent. It’s not my translation (if anything, I tried to render it more comprehensible than the original); it’s even worse in French. The “hygienic light” of the 19th century? Light in the 19th-century was different from the “playful and lazy” light of the 21st century how, exactly? Why is it a source of pride, in the 21st century, that every dwelling is “functional and properly lit?” — all of Paris has been blessed with electric light for more than a century, so that’s hardly an architectural advance. How do you detach the two wings of a T and still get a T? Beats me. The bit about the brick lips that breathe and respire without recoiling is not only as meaningless in French as it is in English, it’s unconnected to any feature of the building that’s lip-like or visibly designed for any respiratory function.

Do you see “sensuality and poetry” in this?

log-Nanterre-1_0

If so, where?

But even weirder is the appeal to the former Boucicaut Hospital. The architects say, explicitly, that they seek to capture its spirit. Now, that building is no more; it was grievously afflicted by flooding in 1910 and torn down. But sketches suggest it was once at the least inoffensive, and perhaps even beautiful:

boucicaut 2 Boucicaut boucicautn

Here is the building with which Paul Chemetov proudly replaced it:

06-MG-AU_Boucicaut_T-SHIMMARU

Now, you tell me. If you were asked to build a home for those afflicted with complex developmental disabilities that cause substantial impairments in social interaction and communication — one that would also be a workplace for people who care for them — which building would instinctively seem to you the better model? The one built for humans or the one that represents a boot stamping on the human face — forever? (I admit I phrased that question in a leading way, but the photos tell the story well enough.)

What happened here is a mystery. The fact that we take it for granted makes it no less a mystery. Why did France become a wealthier country by far, but lose entirely its genius for making beautiful buildings, over the course of the 20th Century? What do you think?

I’m planning to go to ENSAPVS in the coming days to speak to the faculty and students there. The question I plan to ask is, “What exactly are you folks thinking?”

Are there any questions you’d like me to ask? Are there other people in Paris you think I should interview?

(Oh, and don’t forget: Here’s the GoFundMe page. Feel free to suggest any question about this continent that you’d like me to explore: You’re my employers, my investors, and my customers, so I want to know how to involve you as much as possible — and how to make you happy.)

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 126 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    The Flying Fezman: 7. Mass-produced modern manufacturing methods of building materials. Most building materials today come out of factories which manufacture products using either linear or planar processes. Extruded aluminum channels instead of cast aluminum shapes. Flat, saw-cut stone veneer instead of individually hand chiseled stone blocks. Bricks aren’t individually pressed by hand anymore but rather extruded like toothpaste from a tube and chopped up at rapid speeds. “Funny” shaped custom bricks are more expensive these days whereas when you make bricks by hand, custom is a minor cost increase. Still not really an excuse why you can’t do simple traditional architecture.

    I read about a study that was done to determine precisely how and why a human drummer sounds different from a drum machine.

    The conclusion reached was that the tiny “errors” made by a human drummer follow fractal patterns. In theory, it should be possible to create a drum machine that incorporates the same fractal math to become less distinguishable from a human.

    One might hypothesize that a similar principle could be applied to the manufacture of building materials, allowing for the mass production of “funny-shaped” bricks.

    (As always, I apologize for not having a citation to back up the claim.)

    • #91
  2. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    I think Old Bathos has it right @#14.

    Claire, you could do worse than to interview Allan Greenberg, a world-renowned classical architect.  I know Allan and would be glad to try to introduce you. PM me if you’d like to try this route, though I rather think you could successfully contact him yourself.  He’s a charming, affable man, and a conservative.

    Unless you plan to write a book on the subject, I’m not sure you need to go into the whole question of what is beautiful.  I would start with an unstated assumption that the beauty of old Paris is quite self-evident.  I wonder whether the architects behind the horrors you exhibit in the OP even defend their works on the basis of beauty.

    [edited]

    • #92
  3. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Tenacious D:Speaking of ugly modern architecture, have you seen the Canadian Museum of Human Rights? It’s like a giant middle finger to the people of Winnipeg.

    http://www.tourismwinnipeg.com/uploads/ck/images/D80_8027%20cropped%2072(5).jpg

    Yabbut, how is it uglier than the other buildings in Winterpeg?

    banner_img_2.t1440428568

    It’s not like the skyline on the left is a showcase of architectural excellence.

    Such buildings cannot be judged without considering what they are an alternative to. It’s arguable that the museum is an improvement over anything else that’s been built in Winterpeg post-1921.

    The only other showcase building in Winterpeg, that I’m aware of anyways, is the Royal Canadian Mint, which opened in 1976:

    shutterstock_1047552.preview

    Better? Worse?

    • #93
  4. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    raycon and lindacon: it is time to jump in with an incomplete observation: The idea of beauty as a truth (that is; intrinsic) began to die as man began to believe that God, the Creator, had died.

    I would be so much more persuaded of that if I saw that in other fields of endeavor here, the idea of beauty had died. It’s something specific to architecture. In almost every other aspect of everyday life (let’s leave out fine art and music for the sake of argument), Parisians have a tremendous feeling for beauty and an instinct for it. I kept my father company last weekend as he looked for a lampshade — yes, a lampshade. We looked at store after store of the most beautiful, creative, inventive, and artistic lamp shades you’ll ever see. Paris is full of breathtakingly beautiful lampshades. It’s full of beautiful jewelry and furniture, beautiful window-cases full pastries, beautiful womenswear. The impulse to make beautiful things is still entirely part of French culture — but it’s craftsmen, artisans and shopkeepers who keep it alive. It’s in the big things — the buildings — where you see the pathological eagerness to destroy, the vandalism, the indifference to classical and intuitive aesthetic standards. Why?

    I just want to see the pastries….

    • #94
  5. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Misthiocracy:

    Tenacious D:Speaking of ugly modern architecture, have you seen the Canadian Museum of Human Rights? It’s like a giant middle finger to the people of Winnipeg.

    http://www.tourismwinnipeg.com/uploads/ck/images/D80_8027%20cropped%2072(5).jpg

    Yabbut, how is it uglier than the other buildings in Winterpeg?

    banner_img_2.t1440428568

    It’s not like the skyline on the left is a showcase of architectural excellence.

    Such buildings cannot be judged without considering what they are an alternative to. It’s arguable that the museum is an improvement over anything else that’s been built in Winterpeg post-1921.

    Speaking of……has anyone been to the Denver Airport? I have not, but have seen online, the architecture, artwork, sculptures, etc. and they are very sinister? What is the message there?

    • #95
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Maybe you need to investigation the connection between French architecture and other art.  Because I’ve always thought the French do so many artistic things well – the web page with just the right line thicknesses, the covers and overall design of the French notebooks I use for my handwritten notes, the just right studio set for a TV interview.  The Russians, in contrast, go in for the gaudy.  There is nothing gaudier than a Russian stage set.  Mind you, I’ve gotten used to it because I’ve spent so much time watching Russian things on the Internet, and feel comfortable with it now. But it took a while to get over a revulsion to the gaudiness.

    So have French artistic tastes changed in general?  I presume not.  But what’s different about architecture, then? Why haven’t the same skills and tastes carried over?

    • #96
  7. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Front Seat Cat: Speaking of……has anyone been to the Denver Airport? I have not, but have seen online, the architecture, artwork, sculptures, etc. and they are very sinister? What is the message there?

    I have.

    I don’t really remember the architecture. I never noticed the sinister features.

    What stuck out for me was how freakin’ far the airport is from Denver itself! You can’t really see the city from the airport, it’s so far away! (Or maybe I was simply looking in the wrong direction?)

    It’s also freaking huuuuuge. Way bigger, it seems, than what a city of that size would require.

    I have read elsewhere that the reason it’s so far away, and also why its so big, is because it was a great big real estate scam. Some very well connected people got very rich buying cheap land and then selling it to the airport developers.

    15384910808_45e2562fd1Maybe the bizarre artwork is intended to distract people from talking about how stupid the airport itself actually is? You’re too concerned about the demon horse devouring your soul to complain about the long drive.

    • #97
  8. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: The Montparnasse tower is a highrise of such menacing ugliness that it’s become a landmark. Tourists are fascinated by its bleak destructive power.

    What ugliness?  It’s a paragon of elegance and simplicity.  Understatement incarnate.

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: From the Gallo-Roman era to the recent past, almost everything Parisians built was beautiful

    Nonsense.  The only thing to recommend the Roman or Gallo-Roman “architecture” is that it was built well enough to last and was abused lightly enough over the millennia for some of it to last.

    All that old stuff is just architecturally and artistically busy.  The flying buttresses were necessary for tall walls, but their functional necessity in no way beautifies them.  The Old Ones’ architectural detail–gargoyles, &tc–are of a piece with modern house architectural detail where roofs have unnecessary peaks and valleys, installed solely for the benefit of the architect’s and builder’s profit margin, and things like faux brick windows just look like badly bricked-over windows.

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: That there’s a connection to the war is clear, but what exactly was the cause and the mechanism of the loss?

    One connection is this: whole cities were razed to the ground, often more thoroughly than the Romans are reputed to have done to Carthage.  With fall, and then winter, fast approaching, the overriding imperatives were building shelter and getting ahold of food.  There was neither time nor money for art for art’s sake, nor were there Medicis, or even Carnegies, around to pay for something that is little more than froo-froo in a scratching for survival environment.

    And then socialism, euphemized as democratic socialism reared its ugliness.

    Eric Hines

    • #98
  9. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Is it possible that because of the war, the artisans who had the skills and spirit were either killed or so jaded they lost the will to create or even see beauty?

    I visited several museums in Vienna and was astonished at the ‘fine art’ created during and after the war. The works came close to making me feel the horror of the era–at least as much as one could without actually living it.

    I also wonder about the ‘functionality’ concept that really might replaced with ideas like  expediency, efficiency, and economy.

    When beauty is disregarded, not valued, we seem to end up with the sterile, and stark, and clearly ugly.

    • #99
  10. The Flying Fezman Inactive
    The Flying Fezman
    @TheFlyingFezman

    Misthiocracy:

    I read about a study that was done to determine precisely how and why a human drummer sounds different from a drum machine.

    The conclusion reached was that the tiny “errors” made by a human drummer follow fractal patterns. In theory, it should be possible to create a drum machine that incorporates the same fractal math to become less distinguishable from a human.

    One might hypothesize that a similar principle could be applied to the manufacture of building materials, allowing for the mass production of “funny-shaped” bricks.

    (As always, I apologize for not having a citation to back up the claim.)

    Interesting – when I said “funny” shaped brick, I basically meant shapes other than rectangular – something like the slightly tapered and curved bricks that were used in this.  But that irregularity that you talk about has been solved by various companies.  I think some companies essentially throw their bricks in a washing machine to make them look old.  Others have found efficient ways to make handmade brick at a large scale.  But I am by no means a brick expert.  It is interesting, though, how new technology like Computer Numerical Controlled (CNC) machines are making custom, fancy decorations like this more feasible again.  I am working on a project where we are using this company to replicate some old wood trim using CNC-milled PVC.  It’s still under construction, but I’m anxious to see how it turns out.

    • #100
  11. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    Misthiocracy:

    Front Seat Cat: Speaking of……has anyone been to the Denver Airport? I have not, but have seen online, the architecture, artwork, sculptures, etc. and they are very sinister? What is the message there?

    I have.

    I don’t really remember the architecture. I never noticed the sinister features.

    What stuck out for me was how freakin’ far the airport is from Denver itself! You can’t really see the city from the airport, it’s so far away! (Or maybe I was simply looking in the wrong direction?)

    It’s also freaking huuuuuge. Way bigger, it seems, than what a city of that size would require.

    I have read elsewhere that the reason it’s so far away, and also why its so big, is because it was a great big real estate scam. Some very well connected people got very rich buying cheap land and then selling it to the airport developers.

    15384910808_45e2562fd1Maybe the bizarre artwork is intended to distract people from talking about how stupid the airport itself actually is? You’re too concerned about the demon horse devouring your soul to complain about the long drive.

    And they have added this:
    denver-airport-hotel

    20150402__DIA-denver-airport-p1

    It’s a Westin hotel. Supposed to look like a boat or something

    • #101
  12. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Jules PA:Is it possible that because of the war, the artisans who had the skills and spirit were either killed or so jaded they lost the will to create or even see beauty?

    Artists hold a mirror up to life.

    Life for European artists in the 1930s (great depression) and 1940s (war) was pretty dang ugly. Shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that their output in the 1950s (when surrounded by rubble) might be a wee bit on the dark side.

    • #102
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Sorry I only skimmed the comments–there are so many already. I wonder if, as we’ve seen it occur in academia, there was a distinctive need to stand out, to be seen as unique, progressive, daring. It was certainly a way to break from the ugliness of the war, to try to separate themselves aesthetically and culturally from all that came before. Europe had stayed culturally in similar frameworks, except for declaring peace forevermore, and that declaration wasn’t enough to protect them. So maybe a more severe break from the traditional would bring a new enlightenment, a new way of seeing the world–and peace. I think instead they mirrored the ugliness that had already happened.

    • #103
  14. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Front Seat Cat:… The building designs of old are beautiful – where did that inspiration come from? Faith in God (the Sistine Chapel), beauty in nature? These designs reflect a post-modern lens devoid of the holy, the natural world and seems to be replaced by an unnatural, almost distorted view that leaves the viewer or dweller with a sense of detachment.

    I agree! The detachment, the  rejection of faith and holiness, even the destruction of it seems at work when ugly prevails in art, theater,  music, dance and architecture.

    • #104
  15. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:So remember, I’m trying to get all of you involved in shaping the project. You’ve bought shares in a journalist, so to speak, which means you get to decide what questions you’d like me to ask, and of whom you’d like me to ask them.

    Any questions for anyone I might be able to find in Paris? Records you’d like to see? My job is to figure out how to find them. I’m your journalist: You tell me what questions you wish you could ask, I’ll ask them.

    You mention the culture is steeped in beauty – are the traditions that have made France in most people’s minds beautiful and special being handed to a new generation, like baking, cheese and wine making, art, cooking; has the character of France changed with the influx of so many new cultures – better, worse, just different? I would like the hear the perspective from the elder class, as well as French millennials – do they identify with France’ heritage?

    • #105
  16. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    MLH:And they have added this:
    denver-airport-hotel

    20150402__DIA-denver-airport-p1

    It’s a Westin hotel. Supposed to look like a boat or something

    Good architecture reflects the environment in which it’s located.

    The Denver airport is located in the middle of a dry, barren, beige, desolate plain.

    No large structure would look good in that sort of setting. Anything you build is going to stick out like a sore thumb.

    At least they’re trying.

    • #106
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Misthiocracy: No large structure would look good in that sort of setting. Anything you build is going to stick out like a sore thumb.

    And many times, when you tear them down people like me are going to complain about how it’s desecrating the landscape.

    • #107
  18. The Flying Fezman Inactive
    The Flying Fezman
    @TheFlyingFezman

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:Any questions for anyone I might be able to find in Paris? Records you’d like to see? My job is to figure out how to find them. I’m your journalist: You tell me what questions you wish you could ask, I’ll ask them.

    What I would be in intrigued by is where do all the practicing architects in France come from – i.e. what schools do they come out of.   How many french architecture schools are there? What do the portfolios of their graduates look like?  Do you have to have graduated from a french school to be licenced in France, or do they have some sort of reciprocity or a path for foreigners to become licenced?  What are the typical architecture firms that build a lot in Paris?  Are they exclusively french firms or large international firms?

    Are there any architecture schools in France that teach either classical architecture or otherwise traditional architecture (like the University of Notre Dame in the US)?  My guess might be that traditional architecture schools and career paths in France all lead to historic preservation and not new construction – and students interested in classical architecture all go into historic preservation careers of some kind.

    • #108
  19. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Claire,

    One could imagine an architectural version of scared straight. One could force young architecture students to endure Miami all at once. Total Miami immersion. Cruel but necessary. Miami gives new life to the old paradigm of “Garrish but Tasteless”.

    If you don’t have a headache after watching that you need to be watched. Yes, it’s traumatic but we must start somewhere. Taste is out there somewhere we just have to find it.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #109
  20. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Another question I’d like to ask is “does beauty cost more?”

    Is all the nonsense a way to add style on a budget? Maybe a plain box costs the same as a wavy box or a crazy window box.

    The 100 year old buildings here in Pittsburgh have lots of ornamentation. Lions and Eagles and statues and flowers and shapes and patterns. All of it way above the eye. I live in one of those and the ornamentation on the building across the street serves as window art for our pleasure.

    I bet that would be incredibly expensive to do today and what’s the economic sense of being fancy way up there?

    • #110
  21. DialMforMurder Inactive
    DialMforMurder
    @DialMforMurder

    At least the sanitation is better. The streets of pre-napoleonic France literally stank of CoC. We also gave to be much more compliant with OHS, elevators, emergency exits, gas, electrical and plumbing capabilities, telecommunications, car access, environmental regulations etc.

    i do agree the architecture is unnecessarily ugly though

    • #111
  22. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    I don’t have time to read all the comments so I apologize if someone already made this point but I believe that Parisians and Europeans in general lost their ability to produce beautiful buildings, art, music, etc. when they abandoned religion.  Christianity inspired them and now it’s gone, hence the ugly buildings and crappy modern art.

    • #112
  23. DialMforMurder Inactive
    DialMforMurder
    @DialMforMurder

    I’m reading this thread and thinking: Tom  Wolfe (Bauhaus to our house), Robert Hughes (shock of the new), the futurist manifesto.

    i believe there are plenty of people who want to create beauty in the world. But the gatekeepers are all socialist post-moderns. Imagine being a young architect trying to propose 19th century aesthetics to a group of modern real estate investors. Imagine trying to get insurance for it!

    • #113
  24. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Then there is this in Portland, Oregon. The building is what I call Early Reichstag Jukebox. The statue of Portlandia is classical utilitarian. She is pointing out a parking space.

    portlandia

    • #114
  25. Dietlbomb Inactive
    Dietlbomb
    @Dietlbomb

    I think this is part of the reaction to the horrors of Naziism. After WWII, it was decided to reject the Fascist ideology in its entirety, and for good reasons. This led to Western Europe’s total rejection of racism, traditional hierarchies, militarism, and nationalism (to a degree that, given today’s problems, might seem pathological).

    However, just as the Devil quotes scripture, the Fascists laced their ideology with plenty of inoffensive, wholesome values.  They idealized beauty and traditional forms (not that they succeeded in producing them). This itself was a reaction against the awful aesthetic of the post-WWI period, with its embrace of artistic decadence and hedonism. This was one key to the Fascists’ winning of popular support.

    So the powers who created the post WWII landscape, for good reasons, effected total deNazification with a flamethrower. The only tolerated values were those of the victorious anti-Fascist powers: the United States and the Soviet Union. Throughout the West, all the universities and media were staffed with ideologues who embraced a Modernist aesthetic in order to usher in a new order.

    Socialist Modernism has mostly been succeeded by Postmodernism, but to this day, the universities are funded by federal agencies whose prerogative is to instill ideological compliance in their graduates. This is why the written defense of that building’s design was incomprehensible.

    I don’t think we will recover the ability to build beautiful public buildings until the post-WWII order is rethought.

    • #115
  26. Evan Meyer Member
    Evan Meyer
    @EvanMeyer

    Some more questions for Claire:

    Can you find anyone who loves post-War Paris? De gustibus and all that, there must be some. Their perspective would be fascinating.

    Are there old-timers who’ve lived in both Parises who can reflect on the atmosphere and experience of living in such different built environments? I know that might be impossible to untangle from general nostalgia, but it could be a valuable source of anecdotes to color the data.

    • #116
  27. St. Salieri Member
    St. Salieri
    @

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:

    Evan Meyer:As a point for your investigation, finding someone who has one foot in the world of architectural academy (but only one, so they can still talk some sense) might be very valuable. Can we get an explanation of what modern architects are trying to achieve that isn’t just word salad?

    I’ll ask — and I’ll bring my digital recorder with me. I’ll share whatever they say.

    Seth Pecksniff is the only one that comes to mind!

    • #117
  28. Laura Koch Inactive
    Laura Koch
    @LauraKoch

    I studied a little bit of art history in uni, focused on the art of war and the new Canadian War Museum building architecture in Ottawa.  I get that the modern architects are telling a very different story from before, abandonning references to the divine, to nationalism, to hierarchy, etc.. but to try to figure out why they seem so bent on making things ugly I’d probably begin by asking them how they would approach the task of designing something under the same influence as what inspired Notre Dame de Paris in your photo, or any other similar structure.  I’d be interested to see if their ideas and sketches would be a radical departure from what came before, or whether they would be in keeping to some degree with the genius and insiration from the past.  Their responses might reveal something about today… I don’t know what, I don’t want to make assumptions.  Btw I think France needs to create a new category of laws against this kind of architecture. I have nothing but love for the French, but just reading the description you translated makes me feel like I’m slowly sliding into a mental abyss.

    • #118
  29. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Evan Meyer: Are there old-timers who’ve lived in both Parises who can reflect on the atmosphere and experience of living in such different built environments?

    • #119
  30. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Claire,

    I have obtained access to my “Critique of Judgement” and I am prepared to formally answer your questions.

    Kant classifies Sculpture & Architecture as Plastic Formative Art. Architecture is a more restrained art as it must also serve a utilitarian function aside from its purely aesthetic one. However, to get a sense of why the building in your original photo seems “menacingly ugly” to you, we must understand more of Kant’s general aesthetic theory of Taste.

    Ugly Building in Paris

    Kant says that there are two separate aspects to the Aesthetic Judgement of Taste. When you are judging something as aesthetically pleasing because of its form you are making a judgement of its Beauty. If you are judging something as aesthetically pleasing because of its formlessness you are making a judgement of its Sublimity. How can the Sublime exist? It is really very simple if we remember that we are judging Objective Morality by Subjective Perception. Objective Morality has no form it is a concept. Thus, if a formless perception subjectively suggests a Moral concept then it will be judged Sublime. Very large objects like Mountain Ranges are often judged sublime because they suggest some benign unseen titanic force of nature or Gd. Stormy weather which is often formless is considered sublime. Moses seeing the burning bush which is not consumed is very Sublime. However, when something is unnaturally large and doesn’t suggest a majestic force of nature or Gd but a dangerous immoral presence, we do not consider it Sublime. Instead, we call this object Monstrous.

    The Montparnasse tower is a highrise of such menacing ugliness that it’s become a landmark. Tourists are fascinated by its bleak destructive power.

    This is not correct. The opposite of Beauty is Ugly. The opposite of the Sublime is Monstrous. The Montparnasse Tower is Monstrous, not Ugly. Menacing Ugliness is the only way someone who isn’t a Kantian can react to it. Think about it. They really mean Monstrous the opposite of Sublime. The building is “threatening” not just merely ugly.

    There now Claire, I hope you realize that Kant doesn’t need to say very much about a subject because what he does say is much more fundamental and therefore much more useful than anybody else.

    I so enjoy being this annoying. I might even be more annoying than my father was. Now that’s satisfaction.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.