An EO signed yesterday that isn't getting as much attention:
Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture
https://archive.is/meaFc
Architectural movements inevitably flow from worldview, reflecting the zeitgeist. Brutalism, for example, is inherently socialistic. Architecture also acts as a way of *further shaping* the beliefs of a peoples. In other words, what we make flows from how we see the world and how we continue to see the world flows from what we make.
This EO is likely a response to the federal and civic buildings that emerged during and after the world wars. By this time, modernism—a result of the industrial revolution—had already gained popularity as an artistic, architectural, and cultural movement. After the wars, Modernism led to the New International Style, a more universalist style of architecture. Brutalism rose as a reaction. Then post-modernism followed. Each of these movements are distinct and deserve their own studied attention, but each of them have played large roles in shaping 20th century civic architecture in the United States and abroad.
The post-war consensus is globalist in its orientation, and, in many ways, so is the architecture that it produces. Universal man is exalted above a man's particular people, place, and culture. In this sense, much of the architecture from the last century can be described as anti-local, giving one a sense that they are nowhere in particular because there is nothing of the local culture reflected in its buildings. So it is understandable that many average people hate 20th century architecture, even if they don't always know the deepest reasons why.
As it concerns this EO, one can understandably ask "who decides what is beautiful?" and it is a good question. I'm not yet certain of who would judge and what standards would be used in that judgement. However, the past century has shown that there are architectural styles that are *more human* and those that are *less human* as it concerns what is communicated both about people and about the the world God made.
Beauty is not merely subjective. Neither is it a civilizational byproduct but a civilizational driver. It is essential for human life and flourishing. That is, we are made for beauty. I hope what results from this EO is civic architecture that honors people and place, that beautifies cities, and that glorifies creation's God.
#plebchain #architecture #grownostr #nostr #design #beauty
Jordan Eskovitz
npub1va…vm9qh
2025-01-21 18:08:16
Author Public Key
npub1vahlaghvx9px4yrdw72a06aw9wj7v8ctn75ptx2mfg5em5y965gqnvm9qhPublished at
2025-01-21 18:08:16Event JSON
{
"id": "a40f8a2445a74dce82466d13c29aaffa70ee8224e307d62f51f86456b9a9d199",
"pubkey": "676ffea2ec31426a906d7795d7ebae2ba5e61f0b9fa815995b4a299dd085d510",
"created_at": 1737482896,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"plebchain"
],
[
"t",
"architecture"
],
[
"t",
"grownostr"
],
[
"t",
"nostr"
],
[
"t",
"design"
],
[
"t",
"beauty"
],
[
"r",
"https://archive.is/meaFc"
]
],
"content": "An EO signed yesterday that isn't getting as much attention:\nPromoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture \n\nhttps://archive.is/meaFc\n\nArchitectural movements inevitably flow from worldview, reflecting the zeitgeist. Brutalism, for example, is inherently socialistic. Architecture also acts as a way of *further shaping* the beliefs of a peoples. In other words, what we make flows from how we see the world and how we continue to see the world flows from what we make. \n\nThis EO is likely a response to the federal and civic buildings that emerged during and after the world wars. By this time, modernism—a result of the industrial revolution—had already gained popularity as an artistic, architectural, and cultural movement. After the wars, Modernism led to the New International Style, a more universalist style of architecture. Brutalism rose as a reaction. Then post-modernism followed. Each of these movements are distinct and deserve their own studied attention, but each of them have played large roles in shaping 20th century civic architecture in the United States and abroad. \n\nThe post-war consensus is globalist in its orientation, and, in many ways, so is the architecture that it produces. Universal man is exalted above a man's particular people, place, and culture. In this sense, much of the architecture from the last century can be described as anti-local, giving one a sense that they are nowhere in particular because there is nothing of the local culture reflected in its buildings. So it is understandable that many average people hate 20th century architecture, even if they don't always know the deepest reasons why. \n\nAs it concerns this EO, one can understandably ask \"who decides what is beautiful?\" and it is a good question. I'm not yet certain of who would judge and what standards would be used in that judgement. However, the past century has shown that there are architectural styles that are *more human* and those that are *less human* as it concerns what is communicated both about people and about the the world God made. \n\nBeauty is not merely subjective. Neither is it a civilizational byproduct but a civilizational driver. It is essential for human life and flourishing. That is, we are made for beauty. I hope what results from this EO is civic architecture that honors people and place, that beautifies cities, and that glorifies creation's God. \n\n#plebchain #architecture #grownostr #nostr #design #beauty",
"sig": "3be24381a318be76f73d891a3ec4a2e0ba7acd3294eb4e2f8e962b65ff827da7d61610834bfff4b3b014acfd97c591968ed3370776ec00e17fd7f390bf3736e5"
}