You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
In February 2020, then-president Donald Trump signed an executive order “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.” The order mandated that new federal buildings be designed in “classical” or “traditional” styles rather than modernist or Brutalist ones, sparking a strongly negative reaction from architects and critics.
Trump’s executive order expressed a preference for classical architecture, viewed as more beautiful, enduring and representative of the nation’s democratic ideals. The order criticized modernist styles like Brutalism and Deconstructivism as not being in harmony with American aesthetic values and often producing uninviting or hostile buildings.
Trump’s order argued that classical architecture is closely tied to the United States’ historical and cultural identity, reflecting principles of democracy, stability and grandeur, consistent with iconic landmarks like the White House and the Capitol.
The order was met with strong opposition from the architectural community, including the American Institute of Architects, which criticized it as an attempt to impose a narrow, nostalgic vision on a pluralistic society.
Critics argued that mandating a particular style stifled creativity and innovation, undermining architects’ ability to design buildings that meet the specific needs of their sites, functions and users. They contended that architectural diversity reflects the pluralism and dynamism of American society, viewing the order as political and cultural overreach and a resistance to modernity.
The order’s focus on “beauty” sparked debate about what constitutes beauty in architecture, with critics pointing out that it is subjective and that modernist and contemporary designs can also be beautiful as well as functional.
Trump’s executive order was part of a broader agenda to promote a conservative vision of American culture, symbolically aligning the administration with a historical narrative emphasizing tradition and national grandeur.
In February 2021, President Joe Biden reversed Trump’s order, arguing that architecture should reflect the diversity of American society and that architects should have the freedom to design buildings that meet community needs without mandated styles.
The debate surrounding the order reflects broader discussions about architecture’s role in expressing national identity, defining beauty and the intersection of politics and cultural expression.
For much of the 19th century, design aimed to beautify utility, with objects and buildings not only functional but also richly decorated. Intricate details and historic references connected them to a broader cultural and artistic heritage, elevating everyday objects and structures with artistic value and visual pleasure.
Designers and architects often drew from past styles like Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque, valuing ornamentation that was both decorative and symbolic, representing cultural and historical continuity.
There was a belief that utility and beauty could be seamlessly integrated. This philosophy was evident in household objects and public buildings alike, where aesthetic considerations were as important as functionality, enhancing the quality of everyday life.
In contrast, modernist designers and architects of the late 19th and early 20th centuries reacted against this ornate style. Influenced by the industrial revolution and new materials, they sought to strip away unnecessary decoration, resulting in a stark, minimalist aesthetic that emphasized function, purity of form and material integrity.
Their focus was on functionality, reflecting the principle that form should follow function. Modernist designs aimed for clarity and efficiency without the distraction of ornamentation, embodying a rational, practical and forward-looking mindset.
This aesthetic emphasized simplicity and lack of embellishment, often featuring geometric forms, smooth surfaces and a monochromatic palette. It represented a break from the past, embodying a new, rational way of thinking.
Modernists embraced industrial materials like steel, glass and concrete, often left exposed to celebrate their intrinsic qualities. This contributed to the clean, unadorned appearance of modernist designs.
However, critics argued that modernist design was spartan and impersonal, stripping away the soul of art and architecture. The lack of ornamentation and historical references led to a perceived loss of cultural richness and emotional depth.
While modernism’s focus on functionality created a new visual language for the industrial age, the starkness of its design, particularly in architecture, led to perceptions of sterility and alienation. Large, unadorned buildings of glass and concrete were often seen as unwelcoming, standing apart from their surroundings and ignoring the emotional and psychological needs of their inhabitants.
In a 1925 book of essays on “the dehumanization of art,” Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset describes the shift away from the Romanticism of earlier aesthetics. While 19th-century designers aimed to beautify utility and blend traditional designs with modern materials, their modernist counterparts embraced a starkly different aesthetic.
Ortega y Gasset didn’t oppose this new minimalist, abstract and non-representational approach, but he argued that appreciating modernism required new modes of understanding and judgment.
Ted Gioia, a prominent music historian and cultural essayist, goes further, describing the transition from Romanticism to modernism as “the banishment of beauty from everyday life.” He argues that by stripping away ornamentation and historical references, modernism has impoverished and dehumanized the visual environment.
This critique isn’t new. Toward the end of the 19th century, the Arts and Crafts movement emerged to counter the industrialization of aesthetics. The movement sought to revive traditional crafts and techniques, believing that the medieval guild system, where artisans took pride in producing unique, high-quality items by hand, represented an ideal model for artistic production.
Key figures in the Arts and Crafts movement included art critic John Ruskin, designers William and May Morris, book illustrator Walter Crane, furniture maker Gustav Stickley, painter Edward Burne-Jones and architects Charles Robert Ashbee, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, C. F. A. Voysey and Philip Webb.
The movement aimed to break down the barriers between fine art and everyday life, believing that beauty should permeate all aspects of existence. They aspired to create a holistic aesthetic environment where every object, no matter how utilitarian, expressed artistry and individuality.
Medievalists in the movement reacted against the dehumanizing effects of industrialization, which they believed led to soulless, standardized goods and the exploitation of workers. By emphasizing craftsmanship, they sought to restore dignity to labor and create objects that were both beautiful and imbued with the spirit and creativity of the artisan.
For Morris and his contemporaries, the creation of arts and crafts was not just an aesthetic pursuit but a moral one. They believed that industrialization had alienated workers from their labor, reducing them to mere cogs in a machine. By restoring artistry and individuality to aesthetics, they aimed to counter this alienation and bring meaning and satisfaction back to the act of creation.
The neo-medievalists celebrated the unique and handmade, seeing each handcrafted object as a reflection of the artisan’s personal touch and creative spirit. This focus on individuality stood in stark contrast to the uniformity and anonymity of mass-produced goods, which they viewed as devoid of character and integrity.
Inspired by the medieval and Gothic periods, the neo-medievalists believed these eras represented a time when art, architecture and craft were unified and artisans were closely connected to their work. They aimed to revive the spiritual and aesthetic values associated with that era.
Looking to the past for inspiration and guidance, they sought to revive and maintain historical styles and techniques. In contrast, modernists rejected historical styles and traditions, seeking to create something entirely new and reflective of the contemporary world. Modernists sought to break with the past dramatically and saw their work as a reflection of modern life and its technological advances.
While the neo-medievalists embraced ornamentation, intricate details and decorative motifs, modernists largely rejected these elements in favor of minimalism and simplicity. For modernists, less was more; they stripped away what they saw as unnecessary decoration to focus on pure form and function. Neo-medievalists, however, believed that decoration and embellishment were essential to the beauty and character of an object, reflecting the artisan’s skill and creativity.
Staunchly anti-industrial, medievalists called for a return to hand craftsmanship and artisanal production methods, believing that the soul of art was lost in mass production. Modernists, on the other hand, were more ambivalent or even positive about industrial production. Some, like those in the Bauhaus movement, believed that industrial techniques could be harnessed to produce high-quality, well-designed objects accessible to the masses. They saw the potential for industry to democratize good design, whereas neo-medievalists saw it as a threat to the integrity of art and craft.
The neo-medievalists emphasized human-centered design, where objects were created with both aesthetic and emotional considerations in mind. They valued how objects could enhance everyday life and bring beauty into the home. Modernists, while also concerned with function, often prioritized it to the extent that aesthetics were simplified to the bare essentials. Functionalism became a key principle for modernists, where the form of an object was determined entirely by its intended use, often at the expense of traditional notions of beauty.
Neo-medievalists sought to restore artistry, craftsmanship and individuality to the aesthetic world in reaction to industrialization and mass production. They looked to the medieval period as a model of artistic integrity. In contrast, modernists sought to create a new aesthetic that reflected 20th-century realities, highlighting a fundamental divide between those who look to the past for inspiration and those who seek to break away from it to create something entirely new.
The Arts and Crafts movement’s emphasis on hand craftsmanship, simple forms, natural materials and the integration of art into everyday life has had a lasting impact on design. However, many of its goals have been commercialized into formulaic styles or kitschy products that lack the movement’s original depth and intention.
The movement’s focus on hand craftsmanship continues to influence artisans, inspiring those who value the maker’s touch in creating bespoke furniture, textiles, ceramics and metalwork. Its principles of simplicity, honest use of materials and functionality also laid the groundwork for modernist movements like the Bauhaus, influencing designers such as Charles and Ray Eames.
The visual style of Arts and Crafts, characterized by natural forms and intricate patterns, remains popular across various design disciplines. Its emphasis on sustainability, local materials and ethical production practices resonates with today’s interest in sustainable design and ethical consumerism.
However, the movement’s aesthetic has been subject to commercialization, leading to mass production of items that superficially resemble handcrafted goods but lack the original depth and quality. The popularity of the Arts and Crafts style has resulted in a formulaic approach that often prioritizes aesthetic appeal over its deeper principles.
Despite this, the core values of the Arts and Crafts movement—craftsmanship, integrity, simplicity and a deep connection to materials—continue to inspire designers and makers today, ensuring its influence remains meaningful.
Postmodern architecture emerged in the late 20th century as a reaction against the perceived sterility and lack of ornamentation in modernist architecture. Leading postmodernist architects like Michael Graves, Philip Johnson, Charles Moore, James Stirling and Robert Venturi sought to reintroduce playfulness, historical references and eclecticism, breaking from the strict functionalism and minimalism of modernism.
Venturi, famously declaring, “Less is a bore” in contrast to the modernist “Less is more,” advocated for architecture that was more expressive, diverse and responsive to human needs and historical context. Postmodern architecture embraced eclecticism, combining various styles and materials in a single building and emphasizing designs rooted in their place, culture and history, rather than the universal, context-free designs of modernism.
Movements like Deconstructivism, associated with Frank Gehry and Santiago Calatrava’s organic, futuristic designs, have pushed architectural expression further, emphasizing visual impact and breaking away from modernist rigidity.
However, traditionalists criticize postmodern architecture for producing buildings that they see as disjointed, chaotic and trendy, lacking the timelessness, meaning and permanence associated with classical principles of proportion, balance and order. They argue that postmodern architects’ use of historical references and ornamentation often results in pastiche, lacking the depth and authenticity of original forms.
Beauty was one of World War II’s many casualties. As architecture and consumer goods increasingly became mere commodities, an aesthetic austerity took root. Designs were stripped of their soul, and elegance—once found not only in grand movie palaces but also in home design and even product packaging—gave way to a barren sterility. Where have the Sgt. Pepper–inspired album covers of the past gone? We now inhabit a world devoid of flourish, where, in the name of progress and economy, beauty has been ruthlessly abandoned.
The relentless drive for commercial efficiency and the rise of minimalism created a sterile landscape where buildings serve as billboards and ornamentation, craftsmanship and historical references have all but vanished.
Certainly, former president Trump contributed to this trend with his buildings, which prioritized function over form. Soulless, utilitarian designs that disregard the emotional and cultural significance of beauty have proliferated in the name of modernity and efficiency. The abandonment of the ornamentation and craftsmanship that once made everyday life aesthetically enriching has resulted in a profound loss of beauty and cultural depth in our environment.
As art has been increasingly marginalized in our educational system, students often find themselves without the necessary language and cultural references to articulate their aesthetic judgments. This lack of vocabulary and contextual understanding limits their ability to engage deeply with art, culture and even the world around them.
In a society where STEM fields dominate the educational landscape, the arts are often relegated to the periphery, seen as less essential or practical. As a result, students can graduate with a strong grasp of technical skills but with little understanding of the cultural and historical significance of the arts. They struggle to express why a particular piece of music moves them, why a painting resonates with their personal experiences or why certain architectural styles appeal to them.
Without the language to articulate these thoughts, their engagement with the arts remains superficial, depriving them of the deeper emotional and intellectual enrichment that art can provide.
We in the academy have a responsibility to bridge this gap. We must reintroduce art into the core of education, not just as a subject to be studied in isolation, but as an integral part of understanding the human experience. By helping students develop a vocabulary for discussing art, we equip them to engage more fully with the world. This means teaching them the language of form, color, composition and symbolism and connecting these elements to broader cultural, historical and social contexts.
Contextual understanding is equally crucial. Art does not exist in a vacuum; it is shaped by and reflects the times in which it was created. By helping students understand the historical and cultural circumstances that gave rise to a work of art, we enable them to see it not just as an isolated object, but as part of a larger dialogue within society. This understanding fosters a deeper appreciation of art and empowers students to make more informed and nuanced aesthetic judgments.
Moreover, developing this vocabulary and contextual knowledge can enhance students’ critical thinking skills. When they learn to analyze a piece of art—considering its elements, its cultural significance and its impact—they are practicing the kind of analytical thinking that is valuable across all disciplines. They learn to ask questions, to seek out deeper meanings and to appreciate the complexity of the world around them.
In a time when the visual and performing arts are increasingly sidelined, it is more important than ever for educators to ensure that students are not just exposed to art, but are equipped to engage with it meaningfully. Only by fostering aesthetic and contextual understanding can we help students develop a lifelong appreciation for the arts, enabling them to connect with and contribute to the cultural conversations that shape our society.
