-
The paragraphs below intend to illustrate the dangers of the constantly shape-shifting eurasian concepts and encourage the cultural continuity of the coherent and solid Kmtyw concepts in architecture and building.
The unilineal-evolutionist-social-darwinist peter j. wilson in his book “domestication of human species” said that “the widespread recurrence of symbolic patterns to be found in constructions and layouts… is something particular to the epoch of domesticated culture, something of little moment to hunter/gatherers or to urban industrial cultures which are, according to him, the previous and latter stages to the domestication stage respectively. He also stated that industrial societies think of power in terms of “destructive force”, and that any sort of power “can now be measured in terms of equivalents of so many megaton blasts”. In other words, wilson believes that industrial-urban societies no longer depict their cosmology in their architecture, nor is their power evidenced in their buildings. “With the advent of literacy, the necessity of depicting ideas in architecture falls away. With writing come other ways of depicting and understanding reality, which lead to the eventual de-symbolization of architecture. Power is demonstrated by the ability to dominate and produce intense forces of destruction, embodied in new stronger arms. In addition, architecture no longer represents cosmic forces, which are usually discussed in texts, so manipulating architecture no longer manipulates ideas about reality.” In industrialized society, architecture has, according to wilson, lost its symbolism and its power. However, he still believes that the argument is valid for certain types of cultures, which he calls domesticated societies, who live in fixed communities in a built environment but are not literate, do not use sophisticated technology, and do not participate in modern warfare.
Ironically, eurasian society also continues to rely on architecture as a symbol of power. This is demonstrated in amerikkka by prominent portrayal of white house during a crisis. The media televises views of the white house not because they are waiting for the president to emerge, but because it represents the office of the presidency. The building itself represents political power. If amerikkkans truly didn’t care about architecture, the president and congress could conduct the business of governance in underground bunkers, like the shadow government after 9/11, just as well and far more safely than on capitol hill https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900891.html . Instead, the amerikkkans were outraged at the thought of government in hiding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_government
The jeffersonian buildings represent the government to amerikkkan society; one of their functions is to represent the power and legitimacy of the government. A government from a bunker would seem somehow illicit. The white house and the capitol building are essential symbols of the amerikkkan government and the amerikkkan cosmology. Interestingly, when washington dc was being planned by l’enfant who had grandiose ideas for the government buildings, they had to compromise due to competing capitalist-mercantile interests represented by thomas Jefferson who had modest ideas for the same, in the intent of reducing the government’s appearance of power over capitalist interests. Consequently, white house was placed slightly off axis from pennsylvania avenue and capitol at an angle to it. Therefore, l’enfant made the powers of congress and the presidency less imposing. Later planners made a similar choice when they placed washington monument off axis as well. Furthermore, by placing a series of plazas between capitol and white house, l’enfant lessened the sense that pennsylvania avenue was an allée between the two. By continuing boulevards on the opposite side of each building, he made both buildings analogous to the plazas; they became “just pauses and stops along a much longer route.”
The town of washington dc also further exemplifies how amerikkkan paths tend not to lead to goals. Because l’enfant planned the diagonal avenues leading from the capitol and white house to be open at the opposite ends, his original conception of the city and the way the city was originally built show that he does not intend them to be paths that lead to goals. However, after visiting europe and studying the cities and monuments there, later members of a committee for the beautification of the city chose to terminate those avenues with goals – the lincoln and jefferson memorials. However, when the memorials were built in washington, even as they closed off the ends of the avenues, city planners managed to thwart the radial layout of the streets and its authoritarian possibilities so that the monuments became options, not goals.
The fractured eurasian psychology creates a conundrum of means towards goals creating competing interests and perpetual conflict. Architecture in itself is a symbol of power but does not function on its own. The darwinist idea of evolving towards atomic bombs (right now they seem to be focused on viruses) as symbols of power despite their less enduring and backward character illustrates the volatile and incoherent character of eurasian psychology… a very dangerous psychology.
The builders of the met life tower sang praises of the connection between the imposing architecture of skyscrapers and power. Their company song touted, “We’re the guardians of ‘the tower,’/ And the light which it enveils;/ It’s a symbol of our power–/ To its height no other scales. …”Citations:
Architecture demonstrates power, GlennM, 2003
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Charles_L%27Enfant
