4 ms·

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 t

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...
    - rendall 5y ago
      Very good point! Who does decide? As an aside, personally, I'd be fine with Brutalism. It's one of my favorite movements. But leaving that aside, if no one decides, then we'll have only function and utility and lowest cost decide, with beauty being not a consideration at all. But I wrote all of that without reading your links. You have not lead me astray yet, so I'll follow those and give you my thoughts later
    - rendall 5y ago
      > I don't think anyone is debating that... If by anyone you mean the author of the essay, I don't actually know what he's arguing. With sincere respect, I don't think you can say you do, either. You and I have happily decided to, as I see it, have a debate irrespective of the OP, and define terms that we can both agree on. So, good, you and I agree that there should be aesthetic considerations and constraints of some kind on Federal buildings. > [1] Apparently I am live-responding. Your first link appears to be speculation about the as-yet unpublished EO. Since then, the EO has been published, so I'm going to skip that without prejudice, so to speak, and revisit as it becomes necessary. I'll leave here a link to the EO itself here: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-beautiful-federal-civic-architecture/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex... I'll read it next. > [2] Overall this sounds really reasonable, to me. I especially like: The development of an official style must be avoided. Design must flow from the architectural profession to the Government and not vice versa. I also like the two-pronged consideration when evaluating an architectural proposal: First, it must provide efficient and economical facilities for the use of Government agencies. Second, it must provide visual testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American Government. For me now the investigation becomes answering these questions: How has the GSA guidelines worked so far? Are the buildings built under those guidelines generally aesthetically successful? If not, how and why did they fail? Are the aesthetic failures at least interesting? Does the Trump EO address the failures, if any? Would the EO fix these failures or create new ones? Finally, since President Biden has the powers to revert this EO, has he done so? If not, why not? After all that, I'd feel comfortable being able to say whether or not the EO was an attack on Progressivism as we defined it (essentially, lifting it from the Wikipedia essay). Does all that seem reasonable?

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...
  - rendall 5y ago
    Very good point! Who does decide? As an aside, personally, I'd be fine with Brutalism. It's one of my favorite movements. But leaving that aside, if no one decides, then we'll have only function and utility and lowest cost decide, with beauty being not a consideration at all. But I wrote all of that without reading your links. You have not lead me astray yet, so I'll follow those and give you my thoughts later
  - rendall 5y ago
    > I don't think anyone is debating that... If by anyone you mean the author of the essay, I don't actually know what he's arguing. With sincere respect, I don't think you can say you do, either. You and I have happily decided to, as I see it, have a debate irrespective of the OP, and define terms that we can both agree on. So, good, you and I agree that there should be aesthetic considerations and constraints of some kind on Federal buildings. > [1] Apparently I am live-responding. Your first link appears to be speculation about the as-yet unpublished EO. Since then, the EO has been published, so I'm going to skip that without prejudice, so to speak, and revisit as it becomes necessary. I'll leave here a link to the EO itself here: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-beautiful-federal-civic-architecture/ https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/ex... I'll read it next. > [2] Overall this sounds really reasonable, to me. I especially like: The development of an official style must be avoided. Design must flow from the architectural profession to the Government and not vice versa. I also like the two-pronged consideration when evaluating an architectural proposal: First, it must provide efficient and economical facilities for the use of Government agencies. Second, it must provide visual testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American Government. For me now the investigation becomes answering these questions: How has the GSA guidelines worked so far? Are the buildings built under those guidelines generally aesthetically successful? If not, how and why did they fail? Are the aesthetic failures at least interesting? Does the Trump EO address the failures, if any? Would the EO fix these failures or create new ones? Finally, since President Biden has the powers to revert this EO, has he done so? If not, why not? After all that, I'd feel comfortable being able to say whether or not the EO was an attack on Progressivism as we defined it (essentially, lifting it from the Wikipedia essay). Does all that seem reasonable?