"The problem with this order is that it directly attacks one of the characteristics that has always been associated with art – Progressivism." Whatever the rat

"The problem with this order is that it directly attacks one of the characteristics that has always been associated with art – Progressivism." Whatever the rationales of the order, this, I think, is a preposterous remark. Big "P" Progressivism is divine providence for atheists. All manner of hideous things have been justified under the woolly mantle of "Progress". That Progressivism has invaded art and turned it into a fad-driven enterprise full of inscrutable fluff and pretense does not mean that is what art is or what it has always been. That art can change, improve, discover new beauty, etc. does not mean that it must, and even here this is not the same as Big "P" Progressivism because the Progressive, despite the misleading appellation, worships change. Change, for him, is this mystical Progress. Just look at his political slogans, but don't ask him for the measure of the Progress. That is his undivine mystery. That is the his Faith. To inquire is to blaspheme. At least Christianity holds mystery to be thoroughly intelligible, if exceeding human capacity to exhaustively know. The author then writes: "The supporters of this order only wish to retain the classical architecture that is found around the capital because for them it represents a distant past that is always superior to the present and cannot be interrogated." As noted, if there is anything that resists interrogation, it is Progressivism. Note how the author, out of malice or out of foolishness, reduces support for the order to some nostalgia for a mythical past that never was. People like that surely exist, but this is not only uncharitable, it is an unjust dismissal of all those who have better reasons for preferring such architecture. Some modern architecture has its merits, it has its interesting contributions, but there is also a great deal, a great deal of anti-humanism and downright nihilist, to despise in it. The Progressive star architect is more interested in building monuments to his proverbial cock than he is in serving the people who will need to use that building and look at it for years to come. "it is counterintuitive to assume that a progressive group of individuals would prefer to embrace outdated designs as opposed to new and progressive forms of modern architecture." That word, "outdated", is one of the most pernicious words in the English language. It conflates the passage of time with improvement. You can only speak of something being better relative to an end, and the end itself must either be the nature of a thing, or in service of the thing (technology, for example, is in a sense an extension of man; you cannot make sense of technology except in terms of human nature). So you tell me what is so "outdated" about the Stoa of Athens and yet so great about the Strata Center? Believe me, in two hundred years, people will still admire the timeless beauty of the Stoa and will look at the Strata with laughter, amusement, and disgust, if they even remember it at all. Maybe that's the lesson: we ought to reach for the timeless within our own time and place.