Thanks Jefferson

Happy 4th of July!

In honor of America's independence, I'm going to focus on Thomas Jefferson, or T.J. as people call him here, and his relation to UVa's architecture.  Before I get to that though, here are a few pictures of Campbell Hall, the A School, for those of you interested.  It's my home for the next 3.5 years.

Personally, I am not a fan of Jeffersonian architecture.  Though classicism has its place and is certainly beautiful in some regards, it holds no place in a modern context.  The reason it remains popular is because of the obsession with the authentic.  The Rotunda at the center of the Grounds and the surrounding lawn, offices, and dorms, are "special" because they have historical value.  Age-value or disciplinary memory as Riegl might put it.  People find some sort of fascination with the original structure.  

But the Rotunda is not original.  Having been burned down in the late 19th century, the Rotunda was rebuilt and restored.  Even though the design is similar, it is by no means purely authentic.  Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on who you are, this does not matter.  In the same way that people visit the Pantheon (which the Rotunda was based off of) for its authenticity, it is no longer a temple and serves no religious function.  For all intents and purposes, the Pantheon is fundamentally a different building, programmatically speaking.  Likewise the Rotunda is no longer authentic in this way, despite its "classical beauty." 

Furthermore, Jeffersonian architecture is an ironic disorganized organization of structure.  Etruscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite styles litter the column capitals of a single building.  For some this eccentricity might be appealing, but there is not consistency in style.  Of course his intent was probably to show some sort of progression of history or to embrace the past.  Regardless, it looks out of place and not clearly thought out, like someone threw together some styles to create a building.  

I do not entirely dislike Jeffersonian architecture, however, and fundamentally I agree with his architectural theory, that of a utopia.  If architecture can influence the actions and lifestyles of people, then we can create buidlings that manipulate people in such a way as to make the world a better place, a perfect place, even.  Obviously he was wrong in thinking this was a possibility, but it is the idea that is important.  Certainly it is worth trying, even if your actions only influence a few.  I feel like many architects have a similar mindset, giving themselves ultimate agency in the way the world works.  I've got a lot to say about utopian architecture since I wrote my fair share of papers on the topic as an undergraduate, but I'll keep it brief.  Utopianism is idealistic and impossible on principle, but an architecture that can encourage certain ideals or change a person's morals is not out of the question, and design that accomplishes this is easily the most productive form of architecture.

In other news, classes start tomorrow so I'll say goodbye to my free time right now and if I find the time to post more, I definitely will.  Thanks for reading.