From the TradArch list

On the TradArch list, an internet "forum for the discussion of the theory and practice of traditional architecture," I wrote the following:

This all relates to the larger culture, not just architecture. Western culture today is inchoately, and often unconsciously, rejecting the Modernist idea of cutting the past off from the present. Because we’re reconnecting to the past, and connecting to the past is the new avante garde, for the last 2 decades the right has been more avante garde than the left and the middle, which are still stuck in the Liberal discourse of the 20th century.

There are many different positions on this. Patrick Buchanan and his followers want to turn the clock back to 1950 or so. More extreme people like E. Michael Jones would rather go back to 1650. Those two I disagree with. But some of my best friends are “marching into the past,” as Frederick Turner (author of Natural Classicism), said about himself and the Derrière Garde.

To be clear, I don't want to march into the past. I'm a card-carrying Progressive Democrat who wants to reclaim the discussion of issues that the Republican right has branded as its own. The Conservative / Liberal dialectic that has been foisted on us is a false dichotomy: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and most of the media present those as the only two choices, but that's because the Conservatives are the only ones talking about reconnecting to the past. Ipso facto, ideas which don't fall into the opposite camp are seen as conservative.

If you think as I do that Modern Liberalism has reached a dead end, that's a problem. I just don't believe the Conservative take is the only alternative.

There's a very interesting discussion about all of this, including the use of Classicism today, if we can get people talking to each other, instead of at "them."

Continuing "From the Trad Arch List"

The Tradarch List is an open forum for the discussion of the theory and practice of traditional architecture. Please direct enquiries to the listowner, Dr Richard John.

I think the following post from the TradArch list can be understood without seeing the whole thread of the discussion. Anyone who subscribes to list (see notice above), can see the entire thread in the online archives of the list.

The thread was started by Andrés Duany, who said let's look at Classical architecture today in terms of environmental performance, marketability, production, urbanism and cultural understanding.

From: John Massengale
Reply-To: Traditional Architecture Listserv List
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:19:51 -0400
To: TRADARCH@LISTSERV.MIAMI.EDU
Subject: Re: The New Discourse -- not Thomistic epistemology

Andrés is trying to introduce some new elements to the discussion. I think it’s a problem that so many people immediately say, “No, that's not important, here's what’s important.”

This is all part of the Big Tent discussion. The point is, we don’t all agree on what’s most important! And the discussion tends to be dominated by one faction.

I’m thinking about a post for my blog that begins with a quote from Douglas Duany:

“During the Seaside charrette [in 1981], we had some really interesting discussions about things like the logos. Then the academic and conservative classicists took over the discussion, and suddenly it was, Aristotle said this 2,000 years ago, and Thomas Aquinas said that 1,000 years ago, and the discussion was over. And I hate it, because there's so much more to talk about."

For starters, I’m one of those Classical architects who thinks, unlike Douglas, that Modernism was not a mistake. In urbanism, for example, I think Modernism was useful in breaking that hierarchical part of tradition that kept people in a class system we no longer accept. But I also believe that Modernism’s over as the expression of the culture, and is now just a style.

I don’t want to design Modernist buildings, but I’m not against others doing them. And in this eclectic period we’re in, I think it’s a waste of time to argue against others doing it – because they will, regardless of what we say. So I get bored by yet one more round of Classicism Good / Modernism Bad.

This all relates to the larger culture, not just architecture. Western culture today is inchoately, and often unconsciously, rejecting the Modernist idea of cutting off the past from the present. Because we’re reconnecting to the past, and connecting to the past is the new avante garde, for the last 2 decades the right has been more avante garde than the left and the middle, which are still stuck in the Liberal discourse of the 20th century.

There are many different positions on this. Patrick Buchanan and his followers want to turn the clock back to 1950 or so. More extreme people like E. Michael Jones would rather go back to 1650. Those two I disagree with. But some of my best friends are “marching into the past,” as Frederick Turner (author of Natural Classicism), said about himself and the Derrière Garde.

That’s okay! All I’m saying is, That’s not the whole discourse. If we talk about Natural Law, let’s not narrow the conversation to “Thomistic epistemology” every time. If we talk about Classicism, let’s not insist that there’s only one correct position.

That all sounds reasonable, and some will say, But we don’t do that.

But we do. We need to allow more points of view into the discussion.