Architect Magazine: In Washington, D.C., where monuments are typically treated as untouchable symbols of national continuity, a legal battle is unfolding that could redefine how the United States treats its architectural legacy. At the center of the fight is the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts—a building that is not only a cultural institution but a national memorial—and a sweeping set of proposed changes by Donald Trump that critics say threaten to irreversibly alter it.
3 comments:
The architecture of America in general is already pretty modern, which I noticed was a big contrast from across Europe. I feel like across Europe there are so many old buildings, to the point where entire towns have only historical buildings, and even to the point where this was a normal occurrence. Then in America, I am more familiar with large residential neighborhoods where every building has been made in the past 5 to 10 years and looks exactly the same. I guess because of this, I am surprised when I see pushback about changing historical buildings. Maybe it is a sort of desensitization, but maybe the nationwide focus on the history of the Kennedy Center will create a greater awareness of the importance of these historic buildings. I wonder what role the public has in these sorts of legal processes. The article vaguely mentions federal laws which creates a sort of pathway for the public to voice their opinions on any changes made to historical buildings.
It’s incredible to me that these architecture organizations are even having to force a legal battle upon the Trump Administration over the state of The Kennedy Center. Architectural, or even just simply historical, preservation laws have always been painted as “untouchable” and generally respected by all, especially when it comes to national landmarks. The celebration and perspervation of human achievement is something that all people can understand as important, and is considered a respect granted by morality. That said, unlike many other monuments, The Kennedy Center is one that is actively used as a theatrical venue unlike many other iconic monuments in Washington DC. I do appreciate that acknowledgement explained in this article by this case, about how it really reflects the fight against power rather than progress. Changes to The Kennedy Center architecturally aren’t necessarily bad or disrespectful, so long as they follow a proper legal pathway, and that should go without saying even without the element of moral respect.
The fact that the Kennedy Center is technically a historical monument and is being targeted by the president because his ego is upset that people did not want him there makes me incredibly upset. He is clearly just using his power to show that he has power and that kind of abuse of power is only one of the many reasons I am upset with the current administration. There are policies in place to protect many different aspects of the American history and people that are being blatantly ignored which makes me wonder about why more people are not upset about the abuses of power that are being shown by the current administration. This fight for the Kennedy Center is one that will determine the outcome of policies for historical buildings all over America and will guide who gets to decide what happens to them. I do not like that this is something that needs to happen, but I will be following this court case to see the results.
Post a Comment