I also like Sullivan's use of the term feudal to suggest servitude to some fixed rule. I don't think it's possible to separate Sullivan's recreation of ornament from his architecture or his moralizing; in fact, I think it was the central issue for him. His ornament was an organic expression of life force organized by a rigorously rationalized geometric system, one that becomes effulgent in the best sense of the term. Rather than being applied to architecture, his ornament produced architecture. Some scholars (like Van Zanten)
suggest that his ornamental concepts as shown in his drawings were really incipient city plans so that not only the building but also the whole city can grow from them. Sullivan was one of those who anticipated the 20C obsession for utopian society. wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 2:31:52 PM Subject: Architecture and Morality So far, Frances' has not yet taken her discussion of "architecture and philosophy" into the territory of moral philsophy, but that was where Louis Sullivan's primary theme was developed: "aspirant democracy" is the need or function; "democratic architecture" is the expression (or form). Where Democracy is defined as "the altruistic activity of the Ego" (as opposed to Feudalism which is selfish ) "Democracy is a moral principal, a spiritual law, a perennial subjective reality in the realm of man's spirit. It is an aspiring power whose roots run deep into those primal forces that have caused man to arise from the elements of earth, and slowly, through the ages to assume a rectitude and poise that are of man alone" "You may trace its vicissitudes, obscurations, perversions, decadences and resurrections, its metamorphoses, disintegrations and reformations - but it is not to be denied! ..and will surely find in its amplitude of organized consummation a new philosophy of man." I have a problem with this assertion because, as we trace those vicissitudes, one might well find that "the altruistic activity of the Ego" is more endemic in some societies that have been called feudal (where so much is done out of obligation) rather than democratic (where so much is done for personal gain). And one of the first letters that was published in response to Sullivan's attack on the immorality of contemporary architecture questioned whether "a man who makes a mistake in (aesthetic) judgment is as bad as a defaulter" (possibly an unkind reference to the Sullivan's own bankruptcy) "It may be deplorable (to design a building of "bad character") but it gives us no moral shock" Or does it? Clearly, Sullivan expressed moral shock about such things. Are there any "teachings of ethics or moral philosophy" that Sullivan could use for justification? I don't know. But if humans can be recognized as extraordinary "copying machines" (especially when we're young), wouldn't it be harmful to establish a public, permanent example of "bad character?" (even if the right to do so should be protected by law - and that protection is characteristic of a democratic, rather than a feudal, society) ____________________________________________________________ Protect yourself with the right Health Insurance plan. Click for coverage information. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUOiVqIYni3JrOVQjD4HRDqu pRghJ69e39VWed6gQdFg0WTHnrbv6/
