3 ms·

It is an interesting idea, but incomplete. I'd like a definition of Progressivism, and for the essay to explore the idea that modern art promotes this Progressi

It is an interesting idea, but incomplete. I'd like a definition of Progressivism, and for the essay to explore the idea that modern art promotes this Progressivism. Only then could I really evaluate the assertion that Trump's executive order was an attack on it. As it stands, any argument here whether it is or is not an attack on Progressivism stands on shifting ground. Some extras/links: the full text of the executive order; pictures of the specific buildings the EO refers to; the full text of the NCAS arguments. These would help me to get a full context of what's at stake, if anything. To my mind, modern art is largely apolitical, with some very specific exceptions (e.g Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo, Dadaism et. al.) In fact, Futurism was self- consciously Fascist; whatever the definition of Progressivism would turn out to be, I'm certain it would not include Fascism. It seems to me, the writer is doing that which he declared to be irrational and deceptive: believing himself to know what modern artists (or supporters of the EO, for that matter) "had in mind".

cratermoon 5y ago
Progressivism, in this context, can be defined as "the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition"[1]. In particular is reflects the sort of 1939 World's Fair enthrallment with technology and the post-WWII "we can science our way out of all our problems" attitudes. The "World of Tomorrow" of the late 30s Progressivism definitely informed Fascism. See e.g https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p179_179.xml?language=en https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p179_179.xm... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
- rendall 5y ago
  I do appreciate the definition. Still, even there, "The meaning of progressivism has varied over time and differs depending on perspective". I don't know what the author Ben Soto meant when he wrote Progressivism. Enlightenment faith in the civilizing influence of technology? Bernie Sanders-style progressive taxation and social justice? Something else? It's a guess as to what he actually meant.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    Well, I did give you the Wikipedia definition, so I can't fault you for being skeptical, but is there something in about article that suggests that definition doesn't fit, and if so, what? Does it bring to mind a different definition for you? I could also speculate that the author, who I don't know anything about, knows a bit about art history and is specifically referring to the Progressive Era in art and architecture. That would lead to the ideas that came out of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in the late 19s and early 20th centuries.
    - rendall 5y ago
      > is there something in about article The article is pretty clear but the term is vague, as the article itself states. What is core to the term? Can I be pro social-reform and anti-technology, and be Progressivist? We can speculate about what Soto the author meant, but a well-written essay would have thrown in a sentence or two to remove ambiguity and get the reader up to speed. I'm a bit frustrated by that, because it's a debate I would like to have. So, for the record, I think it's a stretch that aesthetic constraints on architecture are an attack on social reform. In a way, requiring government buildings to be aesthetically pleasing is arguably pro social. But, again, the specific text of the EO would help us understand better whether this EO is an attack on anything at all related to "social reform" or "progress" in any respect. I'm going to just go ahead and guess that this essay is a tribal chest-thumping rallying cry wherein true statements are secondary to the primary purpose of staking out a political view. That's why nothing is defined. It's not the purpose. Too bad. It's a neat debate topic.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        > requiring government buildings to be aesthetically pleasing is arguably pro social. I don't think anyone is debating that, but the linchpin of the discussion is really about who gets to decide what is "aesthetically pleasing". What if I happen to really love Brutalist buildings? In 1962 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture”[1], but specifically cautioned against an official style. He wrote, "The design of Federal office building... must provide visual testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American Government."[2] What was wrong with that guide? 1. https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/14466-will-the-white-house-order-new-federal-architecture-to-be-classical https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/14466-will-the-... 2. https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-construction/design-excellence/design-excellence-program/guiding-principles-for-federal-architecture https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-construction/design-e...

cratermoon 5y ago

Progressivism, in this context, can be defined as "the idea of progress in which advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition"[1]. In particular is reflects the sort of 1939 World's Fair enthrallment with technology and the post-WWII "we can science our way out of all our problems" attitudes. The "World of Tomorrow" of the late 30s Progressivism definitely informed Fascism. See e.g https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p179_179.xml?language=en https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p179_179.xm... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

rendall 5y ago
I do appreciate the definition. Still, even there, "The meaning of progressivism has varied over time and differs depending on perspective". I don't know what the author Ben Soto meant when he wrote Progressivism. Enlightenment faith in the civilizing influence of technology? Bernie Sanders-style progressive taxation and social justice? Something else? It's a guess as to what he actually meant.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  Well, I did give you the Wikipedia definition, so I can't fault you for being skeptical, but is there something in about article that suggests that definition doesn't fit, and if so, what? Does it bring to mind a different definition for you? I could also speculate that the author, who I don't know anything about, knows a bit about art history and is specifically referring to the Progressive Era in art and architecture. That would lead to the ideas that came out of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in the late 19s and early 20th centuries.
  - rendall 5y ago
    > is there something in about article The article is pretty clear but the term is vague, as the article itself states. What is core to the term? Can I be pro social-reform and anti-technology, and be Progressivist? We can speculate about what Soto the author meant, but a well-written essay would have thrown in a sentence or two to remove ambiguity and get the reader up to speed. I'm a bit frustrated by that, because it's a debate I would like to have. So, for the record, I think it's a stretch that aesthetic constraints on architecture are an attack on social reform. In a way, requiring government buildings to be aesthetically pleasing is arguably pro social. But, again, the specific text of the EO would help us understand better whether this EO is an attack on anything at all related to "social reform" or "progress" in any respect. I'm going to just go ahead and guess that this essay is a tribal chest-thumping rallying cry wherein true statements are secondary to the primary purpose of staking out a political view. That's why nothing is defined. It's not the purpose. Too bad. It's a neat debate topic.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      > requiring government buildings to be aesthetically pleasing is arguably pro social. I don't think anyone is debating that, but the linchpin of the discussion is really about who gets to decide what is "aesthetically pleasing". What if I happen to really love Brutalist buildings? In 1962 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture”[1], but specifically cautioned against an official style. He wrote, "The design of Federal office building... must provide visual testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American Government."[2] What was wrong with that guide? 1. https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/14466-will-the-white-house-order-new-federal-architecture-to-be-classical https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/14466-will-the-... 2. https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-construction/design-excellence/design-excellence-program/guiding-principles-for-federal-architecture https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-construction/design-e...