Bombastic Classicism

Paul Goldberg, writing for Vanity Fair, has an interesting critique of the classical Bomber’s Memorial in London. In it, he argues that classicism is not able to encompass the complexity and nuance of memorializing something that comes with mixed feelings:

I say that not to make a historical judgment but to point out that this memorial commemorates an aspect of World War II fraught with ambiguity, even now, and classicism rarely serves such situations well. Classical architecture is absolute, simple, direct, and clear. It evokes associations with nobility, grandeur, and high aspiration. There is no irony in classicism, and there is rarely any ambiguity. Indeed, this is surely part of the reason that the classical style has so often felt right for courthouses in the United States: dignity, clarity, fairness, and propriety are what we want from the legal system, and we like buildings that announce this to us at the outset.

But is it what we want for a public monument commemorating a chapter in history in which, for all we respect the courage of those who are being honored, may still bring about mixed feelings about what they were called to do? The bombastic architecture renders the complexities of this historical chapter moot. The Bomber Command Memorial made me grateful yet again for the genius of Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial, in Washington, D.C., which so brilliantly and respectfully paid tribute to the fallen soldiers while acknowledging a nation’s complex and contradictory feelings toward their mission.

I’m not sure classical architecture would be capable of such nuance under even the best of circumstances.

As I have already mentioned, The Providence Journal’s David Brussat provides the rebuttal to this argument in his article about the Bomber Command Memorial in London:

Nuance is what historians are for. Monuments articulate the abiding truths of history [e.g., freedom over tyranny]. When architects use architecture to articulate nuance, they end up articulating nothing.

Putting aside the issue of style for now, let’s explore the precedent of Maya Lin’s Vietnam Memorial. The Vietnam Memorial is clear, concise, and simple. The nuance is in the reading of the message rather than in the design itself. Gehry’s Eisenhower memorial is lacking the clear, concise forms and tries to push a narrative rather than a simple message. The Bomber Command Memorial is simple in its forms but leaves the nuance to historians. My feeling is that whether nuance is included or not, we should make memorials that are immediately discernible and are clear and concise. The Vietnam Memorial and the Bomber Command Memorial both fit. The Eisenhower Memorial does not.

I personally would tend to leave the nuance to the historians. If the decision has been made to memorialize something then that infers that society has deemed that thing worthy of memorialization in some way. We should celebrate that which makes it worthy while leaving the complexity and ambiguity out of the physical design. A monument is not history or commentary but rather a celebration of good - whether it be triumph, courage, accomplishment, honor, or love.