Nathan Lott Goes to Court...

And reads a very interesting book! Hamlin's Architecture Through the Ages, to be precise, in which Nathan notes that Hamlin's view of the growth of the Republic, and later Empire, of Rome is much less scathing than many of today's pseudosophisticates who think "Pax Americana" is an epithet. Hamlin notes that Rome's growth could not have come about without a high level of tolerance and acceptance of diversity among her citizens, coupled with a network of efficient commerce and a flair for organization.

These qualities were made tangible in the built form of Roman architecture, which likewise showed a great flair for adaptation, innovation, functionality. The relative permanence of architecture, in contrast to the more transitory nature of other arts, was an impressive visible reminder of Rome's power throughout its realm, especially considering that the majority of all construction was done from public funds. Private property did exist, but generally the bases of power--markets, forums, temples, courts, coliseums, theaters, baths, aqueducts, roads, bridges, shipyards, docks--were built and maintained by the government.

An architectural parallel of America's influence is much harder to find--obviously, the skyscraper is one of America's most visible innovations of form, but these are mainly constructed for profit by private groups, not as means to remind people of America's hegemony. The single family detached house, likewise, is a form more peculiar to America--which has long valued individualism, the sanctity of private property, and mobility for all its citizens, not simply a landed gentry. Again, however, as with the skyscraper, the 3BR 2BA Colonial w/ESIK, frml LR/DR, den w/FP, clg fans all rooms, is not really a very good symbol of a brutal American jackboot on the throat of the world. The closest thing to a formal architectural statement of power abroad would probably be our embassies, but even then, the federal government goes out of its way to insure that local architects and builders are employed in their construction, and the local building vernacular is respected. We don't plop down the White House in every country (although given some of our incredibly horrendous embassies, that might not be such a bad thing). If anything, our military bases are probably the closest thing to an architecture of power, but their form is intensely utilitarian. Although they can be seen as a symbol of power or greed or whatever (if you squint hard enough), they aren't meant to be a political statement in built form--they're just a place to take-off and land.

The power of America's architecture, along with the rest of American culture, is not the result of our forcing it on everyone. Its power is that it is seen as useful and desireable by other people. There is not some bureacrat in Washington trying to make sure everyone in France speaks English, or that Britney Spears is in every record store in Madrid, or that every new building in Hong Kong is a glass box skyscraper. Free people create things, and free people are able to decide if they want to have those things.

Maybe freedom, then, is the architecture of America.

The world could do a lot worse.

(Oh, and Nathan, Sophia's Deli has really good food--I always get the Howard Special--with slaw instead of potato salad.)
posted by Terry at 9:08:00 AM