The Athenaeum Review recently published an hour-long podcast interview of me. Here is the description:
In this episode, we talk with Justin Shubow, President of the National Civic Art Society, about modernism and classicism, the profession of architecture and its role in civil society, public monuments in Washington, D.C., the philosopher Michael Oakeshott, and much more.
In Part One:
On the Eisenhower Memorial, and the role of the General Services Administration in Federal patronage of architecture, for example the Salt Lake City courthouse (2:00) — Is it affordable to build classically today? (8:00) — Can classicism be creative and innovative? (10:30) — Starchitects and expressionism (14:00) — Modernists against classicism: Harvard’s Joseph Hudnut critiques John Russell Pope’s Jefferson Memorial (17:00) — Philosophy, the Zeitgeist and architecture (19:30) — Roger Scruton, the vernacular and architecture (21:30) — Is there anything to learn from Las Vegas vernacular architecture? (25:00)
In Part Two:
What are the institutional prospects for architectural classicism in America? (2:00) — Are modernism and classicism simply culturally relative phenomena, or can they somehow transcend their place and time? (7:30) — The virtues of the Chrysler Building and Art Deco, the last of the classical styles (13:00) — Classical architecture today: David M. Schwarz, Robert A. M. Stern, Allan Greenberg, Roman and Williams (15:00) — On Michael Oakeshott, rationalism and architecture (17:30) — Oakeshott’s political philosophy (23:00) — On philosophy and men’s clothing (26:30) — Joseph Shubow, and the beginnings of an interest in architecture and design (31:15)
***
Transcript
Ben Lima:
Welcome to the Athenaeum Review podcast. Our guest today is Justin Shubow, who’s president of the National Civic Art Society, executive director of Rebuild Penn Station and commissioner of the United States Commission on Fine Arts. With an academic background in law and philosophy, he’s published many articles on architecture and modernism, as well as on subjects ranging from film to men’s fashion. Thank you very much for being with us today.
Justin Shubow:
Well, thank you so much for having me.
Ben Lima:
So, I was reading the report that the Civic Art Society produced on the Eisenhower Monument, and one of the things that struck me, actually, not so much about architecture, but you might say the political economy was the role of the General Services Administration that maybe not exactly in this particular case, but I think it was described as this agency that spends billions and billions of dollars every year on architecture, but it appears to be one that’s fairly remote from the public or public opinion.
And I thought this is an interesting situation where the people who are in charge of making these very important aesthetic decisions about public buildings are seemingly doing so in a way that doesn’t necessarily follow aesthetic principles. And with your background in law and philosophy and so forth, I was curious what your impression was of how this situation with this General Services Administration, how that came to be and whether that has certain aesthetic consequences?
Justin Shubow:
So, sure. I mean, the General Services Administration is an unsexy agency. They are the largest landlord in America. They manage all federal buildings and courthouses. And at times, they are the largest patron of architecture in the country. And they’re almost always the largest patron of art in the country, since one half of 1% of all construction funds goes towards art in and around the buildings. And you add that up and you’re talking huge sums of money.
Now, what the General Services Administration is building when it comes to new federal buildings and courthouses is the physical embodiment of the federal government. And my organization is dedicated to promoting classical public art and architecture, and we have a deep concern with how GSA operates since, for decades now, they have had a bias in favor of postmodernist architecture, and we are trying to reform that process.
I mean, if I can go way back in the history of federal architecture, the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, who were both amazing amateur architects, explicitly chose the classical style to be that of the United States. And Jefferson in particular wanted it to set the tone for all American architecture. They were involved with the competitions and the design of the Capitol building and the White House and the plan of Washington, DC, which is classical in design.
And starting from that time period, and to a large extent up until the 1930s, classical was the official federal style. GSA was founded just after the end of World War II. And around that time period, modernism and architecture had greatly come to the fore. And also, there was great emphasis on saving money, and it’s a lot cheaper to build a simple steel box than to do a masonry building with columns and all sorts of details.
And so, starting at that time period, there was a sea change in design and federal architecture. And generally, you got these very bland, mid-century buildings, brutalism, international style, all sorts of things like that. And ultimately, GSA came to see that their own buildings were pretty bad, disliked by the public, disliked by the people that have to use them. And in 1994, they reformed the process by creating something called the Design Excellence Program, which sought to bring in major architects into the design of government architecture.
And that program, which continues to this day, has buzzwords like innovation, creativity, and it’s sometimes even hiring avant-garde architects, people like Thom Mayne. I mean, it’s pretty rare that the federal government’s ever at the avant-garde. And so, to their credit, the people who created the system and run it have achieved what they wanted to do. But what has happened is there have been numerous federal buildings or courthouses that have been bizarre or ugly or off-putting, and some of them look like alien spaceships.
There was a relatively new one in Salt Lake City. There was the cover of the Salt Lake City Weekly had a picture of the building and it said, “How Salt Lake City ended up with a Borg cube for a courthouse.” And I’m not really exaggerating about what it looks like. And GSA has largely flown under the radar in terms of its decision-making. And for us, that’s a great shame since these are not commercial buildings, these are not residences, these are buildings for the American people, and also the people who use them.
And I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of people do support traditional architecture, particularly when it comes to civic design. And I know that many federal judges, too, want a courthouse that looks like a courthouse. GSA’s own materials talk about how the federal judges have to be weaned off of classicism in favor of postmodernism, deconstructivism, whatever you want to call it.
And so, we are trying to bring light to this process since we think that we represent the 99%, admittedly taking on the architectural elite. But I think it’s a real shame and I think it’s something that could change for the better. At the very least, we want to eliminate the bias against classical and traditional public architecture.
Ben Lima:
There are a couple of things you touched on that I wanted to follow up on. One, I mean, you mentioned how there’s this issue of economics and costly materials and things like that. And I believe that occasionally, I’ve heard architects of modern contemporary buildings say things like, “Well, our clients don’t want to pay for nice things like marble or something. And so, you can’t really blame us, the architects, for if we’re representatives of this movement. It’s not our fault that the clients don’t want to pay for fine materials and so forth.” And I’m curious how you would respond to people who say that.
Justin Shubow:
Well, I mean, throughout history, buildings have been value-engineered. This isn’t not exactly a new problem. But when it comes to federal courthouses, these buildings cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And you’re ultimately spending so much money that the additional cost it might require to use some limestone or marble. I don’t think it’s that great in terms of the percentage of the final cost. But at the same time, I would say that it’s worth it. I mean, the federal government is not for-profit … I mean not a for-profit institution.
And you get what you pay for. And if you want to be cheap, then you’re going to get a building that does look cheap. But there are many ways of doing classical and traditional architecture more efficiently than was ever possible in the past. So, for instance, you can use CNC machining to do sculptures. I encourage people to look at the pediment at the Schermerhorn concert hall that is almost completely done by CNC machining, and you can use things like stone panelization to bring down the cost of the materials. So, the cost and the materials themselves are not going to determine whether a building is beautiful and pleasing.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. There’s something else you said a moment ago about the … or I guess the more recently adopted in official values of creativity and innovation. And in some of what you’ve written, it’s very striking that those values … Well, let’s see. First of all, something that’s creative and innovative may or may not have ultimate value. I mean, it could be creative but also ugly or something like that. But more precisely, these values are quite a contrast to the classical values, which you cite going back to Vitruvius firmness, commodity and delight and so forth.
But I guess my question would be, do you think that these ideas of creativity and innovation are inherently in tension with classicism, or would you say that they can be harmonized somehow?
Justin Shubow:
Well, there are a couple of things to say. One is that most architects are not geniuses. And so, therefore, there is …
Ben Lima:
Most of anyone.
Justin Shubow:
Most of anything, most of everyone are not geniuses. And so, there is a certain amount of safety in following tradition. Now, I’m not saying you can’t have some kind of innovation and make change from the past, but the question is to what degree? Because in so much contemporary architecture, the architects go to an extreme, trying to do something that is completely original, that they’re trying not to make it look like anything else that’s ever built. Certainly not trying to make it look like any of the surrounding buildings.
Ben Lima:
Yeah.
Justin Shubow:
I mean, I think that civility is a great virtue in architecture because a building is not like a painting in a museum. It’s public and it ought to harmonize with its surroundings. And so, to some degree, that constrains what you ought to be building. Now, opponents of classical architecture will just say, “Oh, you guys are just into xeroxing buildings, or imitating.” A word that I prefer is emulating. So, you can still be very much be inspired by the whole tradition of classical architecture without slavishly following it.
I mean, you look at the US Capitol building, I don’t think anyone’s going to confuse that for a building in another country. It’s distinctively American. And at the same time, there was a time period around the turn of the 20th century when the federal government was doing a lot of building and they built lovely Beaux-Arts post offices around the country. And so, they were all variations on a theme. And I don’t think the people who have to live in these towns with those post offices dislike the buildings because they do have similarities with other post offices being built around the country.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. Another question on these values, again, referring to the report on the Frank Gehry Eisenhower Memorial, this idea of the architect … Okay. Frank Gehry is an example. I suppose Frank Leiter would be another example. This image of the architect as very, well, frankly egotistical, very self-expressive, saying, “This is about me and my expression in contrast to whoever built the pyramids was very … had a great amount of will and vision, but it wasn’t really about them. It’s not a monument to themselves.”
And this contrast that you pointed out between that temperament of the egotistical temperament and that of Eisenhower who didn’t want to wear medals on his uniform and didn’t like chrome on cars and so on and so forth, this very humble unostentatious temperament. And I wonder if would you say that this self-expressive temperament is especially characteristic of our period, our time, or is it maybe architecture in particular that is prone to that?
Justin Shubow:
So, I think the phenomenon you’re pointing to is that of this architect?
Ben Lima:
Yeah.
Justin Shubow:
The idea that there are these celebrity architects who are brand names and who have a particular brand. When you order a Norman Foster building where you’re going to get, it’s going to look like a Norman Foster building or you know what a Frank Gehry building is going to look like. I think there has been an error that’s gone on in architecture, confusing architecture and art. In art, art can be a perfectly appropriate place for self-expression, even though throughout history, you can debate whether art has always been about self-expression. But you certainly start seeing that in the 19th century, the cult of the genius and so on.
But a building is not a work of art. It has a political component insofar as that it’s public, it’s forced upon us. People have no choice but to live with it, to see it. It just builds the world in which we live. And so, therefore, there are responsibilities of the architect other than self-expression. And you mentioned Frank Gehry, I mean obviously, a very famous architect who does some very striking work. Ultimately, I think he’s in the wrong line of work. I think he’s much more of an expressionist sculptor than he is an architect.
And Gehry himself has said that he doesn’t really care about interiors. And then you start thinking, “Well, what are you actually doing? What’s your line of work?” And so, yes, there has been this big error of infusing architecture with self-expression when really, I would say in most cases, it’s not about you. Look, okay, if you’re an architect designing your own house, which Frank Gehry did or Philip Johnson did, and that house is in the middle of the woods, go for it. Be self-expressive.
But if you’re doing an art museum or a commercial building or a courthouse, it’s not about you. It’s about something else. You have obligations toward the public and toward the client.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. Something else that I was very much struck by in learning about the history of monuments in DC was how apparently the Jefferson Memorial, which dates from 1922, there is an enormous amount of opposition from the modernists at that time who had not yet taken over, so to speak. I guess Frank Lloyd Wright and Joseph Hudnut at Harvard and Columbia University all were strongly opposed to the classical design for that memorial, which of course ultimately was used.
Can you describe a little bit of the kind of … So, I guess this conflict goes back a long time between modernism classes. Could you talk maybe about how it developed between like 1922 and …
Justin Shubow:
Sure. Well, I think mean the memorial was built in the 1930s.
Ben Lima:
Okay. It must have been with the design. I might have that wrong.
Justin Shubow:
Maybe the whole process started in the ’20s, because these things …
Ben Lima:
We’ll try and edit my mistake there.
Justin Shubow:
… can take forever. But when the design was proposed, it was during the so-called modern era in architecture. And certainly, the important schools had been changing, and so many of the leading architects, certainly in Europe, were modernists. And when they saw John Russell Pope’s design for the Jefferson Memorial, which is based on the Pantheon, it’s a Roman temple, they were aghast. You mentioned Joseph Hudnut, the extremely influential dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design. He called the design an egg on a pantry shelf in the middle of a geometric Sahara.
And he also, I would say parenthetically, would later call the National Gallery of Art, a pink marble whorehouse. So, those are examples of the withering critique of classical architecture that you started to see with the ascendancy of the modernists. Now, although the establishment came out against it, FDR who was president, came out in support of the design. He recognized that Washington, DC is a classical city. It was a magnificent design, and furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was a classical architect. And so, therefore, he pushed to get it built. And it’s for that reason why we have the Jefferson Memorial today.
Ben Lima:
I also noticed in some of that discussion of some of that history, I guess this book by Nathan Glazer, who his background was in the social sciences, but he developed this interest in architecture. And it struck me that with your own background coming from law and so forth to public space, I wondered if there was some parallel there where you didn’t study architecture in architecture school, but as a thinker and citizen. Basically, I’m curious about your trajectory from philosophy and law into …
Justin Shubow:
Sure. So, I don’t think my background in law has much to do with my views on architecture.
Ben Lima:
Okay.
Justin Shubow:
But certainly, my background in philosophy has made a difference. So, I was studying philosophy and started to come across philosophers, writing about architecture. And I also have a strong interest in political philosophy and the history of ideas. And I came to see how buildings embody ideas, how they say things about the nature of civilization, how people in a civilization see themselves. And I already felt that the world had gotten much uglier after the Second World War and started reading and learning, “Well, why is that the case?”
And seeing the influence of certain philosophers on architecture such as the German philosopher Hegel, and this idea of the zeitgeist and there being an alleged spirit of the times that architecture must follow. Now, I was studying in what’s called an analytic philosophy department where we don’t read Foucault and Derrida. And honestly, really think that stuff is gobbledygook. And so, it’s very much the English language, common sense tradition rooted in the Enlightenment.
And in my view, so much of modernism and then later when you get to deconstructivism, is rooted in a certain continental philosophy that is fundamentally flawed. And I think if people hear the basis for modernist architecture, they’ll see just how weak it is and then gives a stronger reason for why we ought to reject it.
Ben Lima:
I was curious if you think if there are … maybe in spite of what you … Well, if there are philosophers writing today who are writing about architecture in this way, if there are people that you would cite, I mean aside obviously reading Vitruvius, but other philosophers who you think are important to …
Justin Shubow:
So Sure. I mean, I think the best writer on architecture philosopher writing on architecture I know today is Roger Scruton, who’s a British philosopher who writes about all sorts of subjects. But he has written extensively on architecture and has had a large impact on me, if anything, an overly large impact. I should be my own independent thinker. But he talks about the importance of the vernacular in architecture.
And throughout history, most buildings have not been designed by architects. They were designed by builders or what we would now call contractors. But they could follow patterns. I mean, what literally used to be called pattern books and use this lintel and that column and this window, and you would get perfectly pleasing cities. But with the rise of modernism, the vernacular is completely erased. And now, you have builders who essentially have no idea what they’re doing, and you get things like McMansions, which are just terrible, I think, from everyone’s perspective.
And so, that’s one of the things that Scruton has taught me is the importance of the vernacular. Right now, architects are so far out in their belief system that they have nothing to say to builders. And honestly, I feel like they’re so elitist that they don’t even want to talk to the builders.
Ben Lima:
Right. That’s very interesting to hear about that. And I wanted to follow up particularly on the idea of the vernacular because, well, as you described it with Roger Scruton and the townscapes and things like that, there’s this meaning that’s maybe associated with tradition and so forth. But then on the other hand, I think you also hear about that very same term, the vernacular. I believe, going back to learning from Las Vegas and Venturi and Scott Brown using it to apply to this, well, I guess commercial architecture, roadside architecture, things like this where you could argue, well, this is populist in the sense it obviously meets people’s needs at least commercially, and maybe it is very characteristic of America and Route 66 and this sort of thing.
And a place like Las Vegas is certainly distinctive. But there’s also this obvious downside of, say, Las Vegas or any number of these endless highway strip mall type places where there’s no sense of unity, there’s no sense of place. And maybe certain older traditionalists might argue that commercial architecture, which is not about elite architects, but just about pure business wiping away things like traditional towns. Is there this sense in which vernacular has to be clarified between the more time-honored traditional vernacular and the commercial vernacular that dominates most public spaces in America?
Justin Shubow:
That’s a good question. So, I mean, there are different kinds of vernacular, and you might say that there’s certain kinds that are more vulgar. I mean, the vernacular, the word comes from speaking about language. And there is a vernacular where people speak ungrammatically or they use curse words. And I don’t think that’s the kind of architecture that Scruton would advocate, nor would I advocate that there is a healthy middle ground where you do have, well, in some cases, architects who are schooled in what makes for a good building, but still operating within the vernacular and leading by example for builders and creating good urban places.
I mean, there are movements like the new urbanism and designers trying to create good townscapes, as you were mentioning, as opposed to creating so-called no places, like strip malls, or you mentioned Las Vegas. I mean, Las Vegas is a very strange place. But, so yes, there’s a good and bad vernacular. And an architect should know what is the right way to go.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. This is the Athenaeum Review podcast, and our guest today is Justin Shubow. When we come back, we’ll talk more about classical architecture and urbanism.
[break]
Ben Lima:
Welcome back to the Athenaeum Review podcast. Our guest on this episode is Justin Shubow, president of the National Civic Art Society.
I think this was also in the report on the Eisenhower Monument proposal, this discussion of certain values that are associated with modernism, namely rationalism, hyper rationality, asceticism kind of self-denial, power, efficiency, and then there are also certain values associated with postmodernism, that idea of ephemerality and transience. Nothing will really last very long, so it’s just going to keep changing and building and being destroyed over and over again. And you contrast those with the classical values.
I guess my question would be, in our time and place, it does seem like it’s sort of an uphill battle for classical values and classism in that the status quo seems to lead to maybe kitschy postmodernism on a popular level and elitism on the modernist level. My question is, do you see classism as fighting this uphill battle, or are there reasons to think that they could be hopeful for a classical values?
Justin Shubow:
It’s an uphill battle, to put it mildly. I mean, right now there’s essentially only one or two schools in America that teach classical architecture.
Ben Lima:
Notre Dame, right?
Justin Shubow:
Notre Dame is the main one. And I guess another one is University of Miami to some extent. So, the schools are dominated by modernism, which I mean to include its progeny. And there’s really no diversity of views, and students aren’t taught how to draw. They don’t really learn the history of architecture or prior to modernism. It’s as if the past has been completely erased, and we’re starting from the year zero.
So, architecture is in a very bad state. However, there is, at least among some people who are open a crisis of confidence. Frank Gehry himself said that 98% of what’s built today is S-H-I-T, and you’ll find other architects saying things like this. Now they have no real solution because they’re unwilling to look to the past. But I think there could be a real crisis of confidence in that the whole system could possibly come tumbling down.
Something I take inspiration from is the fall of the Soviet Union where no one predicted that it was going to collapse, and then suddenly it did all at once, because it turned out that no one actually who lived there actually believed in it. And maybe something like that could happen in architecture. I mean, there have been revivals in the past. I mean, the Renaissance was a revival and there were revivals in the ancient world, and we’re, in my view, in an architectural dark age right now. And might take a long time. But ultimately, I don’t think people are going to put up with this ugly, and in many ways, even disposable architecture.
When you look at these steel and glass buildings, they do not have long life expectancies. I mean, if you look at a glass building, an architect friend of mine says, “You’re looking at a pile of caulk because all of those glass windows are attached by caulk, and it all has to be replaced over time.” A masonry building can last hundreds upon hundreds of years. I mean, there are Roman buildings, ancient Roman buildings still in use today in Rome.
And so, there’s a lot of emphasis on sustainability and environmentalism. Well, the traditional architecture very well suits that, so that’s another reason for hopefully there being a return. Furthermore, there are increasingly empirical studies of the effects on architecture on people, so-called cognitive architecture. I mean, they can put sensors on people’s heads so that you can do eye tracking and see how people look at buildings, what kind of hospital rooms cause people to get better faster and so on.
And what we’re finding is that traditional architecture is just superior in this regard. And unfortunately, modernist architecture is such a cult that maybe no amount of argument is going to persuade people. And in fact, when you even get mild-mannered critiques of modernism, the establishment will just come out with guns blaring. An example of this is the book, Morality and Architecture, which was published I think in 1977 by David Watkin. He was just a British scholar critiquing the intellectual roots of modernism, and there were just withering personal attacks against him, and he didn’t want to fight back.
And I think a lot of people don’t want to be on the receiving end of that. Now, I am not a professor of architecture. I’m not an architect. I’m more willing, I think, to speak about this, to say what I think, because ultimately, I don’t need to be invited to those cocktail parties.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. Another aspect of that question might be, I believe that you’ve written about this as well, that if there’s this basic sense of historical relativism that … or deep, it’s a paradox or something. But if people fundamentally have a sense of relativism, i.e. this period in culture has that style, and this period in culture has that style, and every time and place has its own different style, and modernism is one style, and classism is another style. Who are we to say that any one of these is any better or worse than any other postmodernism is the style for today, classism was the style for back then.
I mean, do you try to argue that there’s something deeper? Would you say that it’s rooted in human nature, for example? Or how would you respond to say that someone who says it’s all purely relative to time and place?
Justin Shubow:
Well, I would strongly oppose the idea that it’s relative. And I think that in many instances, there is widespread agreement about which buildings are great buildings. So, I don’t think anyone’s arguing that the Taj Mahal is ugly or that the Chrysler Building was a failure, or that the Cathedral of Notre Dame was a mistake. But then for other things, you will get a lot more debate or you’ll get widespread public condemnation, and it’s only the architectural elite who will defend the buildings. I mean, the classic case being that of brutalism.
And the interesting question is to what extent is there even disagreement? So, when the Boston City Hall was built, a brutalist building, the architect Philip Johnson, who was a leading modernist said, “I love it. It’s so ugly.” And in other words, he’s not claiming that it’s beautiful. He would maybe agree with 99% of the people who see the building, but that his value system is different. Likewise, Frank Gehry has said that life is chaotic, dangerous, and surprising. Buildings should reflect that.
So, he might agree that a building is chaotic and will say, “That’s good,” while other people will say, “That’s bad.” So, it’s not relativists in the interpretation of the building itself in that case, but the value system that people bring to it. I do think that there is human when it comes to the appreciation of the environment, even at the most basic level, uneven floors are going to make people slip or feel disoriented. If you have a mass hanging over your head by what looks like a thread, you’re going to feel threatened.
There’s a book called The Art Instinct that goes into some of the evidence for human nature and art. People like left-right symmetry. There’s all sorts of things that are universal. And not to say that there, of course, aren’t cultural influences outside of the realm of architecture. Just as an example of human nature is, you’ll find in music, similar scales being used around the world, there’s certain just mathematical properties of music that people find pleasing.
Now, in the 20th century, there were composers who tried to do something different, and those attempts have been largely a failure. I mean, concert halls don’t play serialism anymore. And I think one reason that what you might call modernism is music, and music has been a bigger failure than other forms of modernism is because no one wants to sit in a concert hall and be trapped there for 20 to 30 minutes listening to music that they don’t like. If you don’t like a painting, you walk by and it’s not going to ruin your day.
So, I do think there is human nature, and there’s a lot of widespread agreement about what makes for good buildings. It’s only when you come to the 20th century that you start getting widespread disagreement. And there is something, there is evidence that architectural education warps the students’ minds. Studies have found that architects not only interpret buildings very differently than ordinary people do, but they’re unable to even predict how ordinary people will interpret the building or experience it.
So, I don’t think they went into architecture school with a different fundamental view of the world of space and facades, but rather the architecture school has done something to them to make them come out on the other side with ultimately different aesthetic sense, different values. I don’t think it’s controversial to claim that with the rise of modernism, beauty as a criterion was eliminated. So, again, it’s not the idea that, “Oh, you find this beautiful. I don’t.” But rather, beauty is not important, other things are more important, whether the architecture supposedly embodies the spirit of the times or is it sublime.
And in the Birkin sense, does it instill fear? The BBC filmmaker, Jonathan Meades, has a really interesting movie about brutalism in which he defends, but he says, “Yes. It’s sinister and it’s terrifying, and that’s why I love it.” And he has a right to that, but to have that point of view. But the point is these are public buildings and not just in the public, some of them are actual civic buildings. And so, therefore, I just put it to the people, should we be building sinister, terrifying buildings?
Ben Lima:
Yeah. That reminds me, there’s this line from actually one of our faculty here at UT Dallas who you might know, Frederick Turner. I think he said, “We have a human nature and that nature is cultural, and that culture is classical,” making a similar argument to what you were just stating about music and so forth. But my other follow-up was I noted that in the list of buildings, you mentioned the Chrysler Building as a success, and I thought, “Well, okay, this is a modern commercial skyscraper, but one that has some of these virtues.” It is possible in the midst of Manhattan, or it was at least to do something that way. I’m curious if you could say what is it about a building like that distinguishes it from maybe some …
Justin Shubow:
Well, I mean, the Chrysler Building is an example of art deco, which I think is essentially the last of the classical styles. And although it was a brief time period, it’s very popular to this day. And the art deco incorporates the forms of modern technology of cars and airplanes and electricity. So, it’s not suggesting that, “Oh, we’re living in ancient Rome without all that stuff.” So, it is reflecting its time to some extent, if you think that’s important, and it uses some modern materials, aluminum, but it’s ultimately classical in its composition.
I mean, even the basic idea that a building should have a top, middle and bottom. That’s controversial as that might sound. I mean, you see that in buildings like the Chrysler Building. It’s not a box that just has a flat roof. It’s not floors stacked on top of floors. And I would say it’s also it’s a thrilling building. It’s a romantic building. I mean, it’s Gotham. And it shows how classical architecture is completely compatible with the need for large buildings and the needs of cities in the modern era.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. That reminds the sense of the relationship to the comic, I guess Louis Sullivan’s also does some of those very first tall buildings had that same sense of proportion. But let me also ask if there are, in terms the present time, if there are certain architects whom you might single out as being especially accomplished in this era, or architects or specific buildings from recent years that you would point to as very successful examples of these kinds of …
Justin Shubow:
Well, there is contemporary classicism today. I mean, the flame is alive. And I think it’s important that people know that the tradition exists, that the patrons of architecture just don’t have to settle for modern design as if there are no alternatives. One architect who comes to mind is David Schwarz. Another one is Robert A.M. Stern’s office, which recently did an entire gothic college at Yale. Even though such things are supposed to be prohibited, but I think it’s been a success and it’s the place that students are going to want to live in. Another architect I admire is Alan Greenberg.
A more unusual example is that of the firm, Roman and Williams. Now, they’re not strictly classicists. They do all sorts of styles, but they have done work that’s neo deco. They’re not afraid to look to the past and not in a postmodern ironic way, but to make a genuinely pleasing building. And I think that that firm is very successful in what it does.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. I wanted to ask just maybe just one or two questions about your work in philosophy. And I understand that you’ve written on Michael Oakeshott, is that how you pronounce his name, who was a British political philosopher, and I’d actually only heard that name because I think he’s frequently cited in Andrew Sullivan’s political writings, I guess Sullivan’s a fan too. But I was interested … I mean, maybe I could just ask if that side of your philosophical work, Oakeshott, or his ideas about knowledge and rationalism and so on and so forth, is there a connection between that and your work in architecture or is … I mean, would someone like that, his ideas about, I guess knowledge or however you put it, does that have something to tell us about public space and building and so forth?
Justin Shubow:
So, sure. Well, I should know that Michael Oakeshott is not just a political philosopher.
Ben Lima:
Oh, yes. I’m sorry.
Justin Shubow:
I mean, he’s often called that because his most well-known work is political philosophy. But he, like all great philosophers, wrote about virtually every subject, and he has profound things to say about the nature of education, about history, about the nature of epistemology. So, he’s an all-around philosopher and who’s ultimately offering a philosophy of life. Unlike so much contemporary English language philosophy, he is giving a real philosophy of life. And ultimately, the way I see it, he’s trying to show how one can be reconciled to modernity. He’s a conservative in a certain way, but not an angry conservative with the view of this, “Too shall pass, go tend your garden.”
But I strongly admire him. I think maybe he was the greatest English language philosopher for the 20th century. And he does write beautifully about the nature of knowledge and a critique of what he calls Rationalism with a capital R. Rationalism is this idea that all knowledge is explicit, that everything can be written down as in a cookbook. When he thinks or he argues that so much important knowledge is tacit knowledge, you can’t articulate it. It’s only something you can learn via practice, by apprenticeship.
So, he distinguishes between learning to cook from a cookbook versus being an apprentice to a chef. And no chef can ultimately explain everything that they do. And I mean, that’s a prosaic example. But for him, he thinks that this applies to society generally. So, that political systems can never be boiled down to a single algorithm about the rules that society needs to operate, that there’s always tradition going on that’s unwritten, but that is passed down from generation to generation.
And I mean, I think we can see this in architecture, since architecture schools have eliminated the teachings of the past, the great wisdom and knowledge that’s accumulated over time, you get buildings that don’t show any prior knowledge of shadows or light. I don’t think architects today are largely taught to even think about shadows when that’s something that traditionally architects studied in a great detail or learning how to draw, how to see with your eye so much contemporary architecture is allowing the tools to dictate the design.
So, since they’re using computers, you get computer-generated architecture. And someone from Oakeshott’s perspective would say, “Well, don’t be surprised that architectures in such a bad state since you have completely eliminated the tradition.”
Ben Lima:
Right. I think one of the phrases you used or referred to for different kinds of knowledge is Michael Polanyi, someone who’s also in that vein of talking about tacit knowledge.
Justin Shubow:
Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, Oakeshott I don’t think uses the term tacit knowledge, but Polanyi certainly does. I don’t think they influenced each other. But yes, he definitely has this idea of so much knowledge being inarticulable. And that’s why historically for things like architecture, you didn’t just go to architecture school, you were an apprentice. And even today, coming out of architecture school, you don’t know much. You still have to apprentice for a long time.
And if you look at the history of architecture, so many of the most prominent architects really only come to prominence, like in middle age. I mean, Frank Gehry was unknown until, I think, until his 40s. It’s a very hard profession and it can take a long time to get good at.
Ben Lima:
There’s another kind of question I was reading, what you’d written on Oakeshott. So, his approach, you describe, I think as, again, it’s anti-foundational, non-metaphysical skeptical, and this idea that like David Hume or Michel Montaigne, he’s a skeptic, reconciled to the world, that he has a skeptical idealism based on the idea of a self-enacting individual. And reading that I say, “Okay. Well, he sounds very much like a liberal in many ways,” which he is, I guess, and perhaps in some ways a relativist, although I’m not sure about that.
But yet I understand that he’s sometimes regarded as a conservative. And so, maybe my question is how this sorts out his relationship to say liberalism on the one hand and conservatism on the other hand, or he’s a liberal conservative, maybe?
Justin Shubow:
I mean, okay, liberal conservative, these mean different things. I mean, he very much supports the British liberal tradition in the British sense of the term, going back to Hobbes and Locke and the importance of the individual and the common law and the parliamentary system. So, he’s a big proponent of that. Now, he’s a conservative insofar as he thinks that tradition, as flawed as it might be, is a good guide to practice. I think he says “Tradition is blind, but it’s blind as a bat.”
And so much of political decision-making is very difficult and the best hope we have. So, one of his famous metaphors is that of a ship at sea and that we have no destination. We are just basically trying to keep afloat. And that good political decision-making is to keep us on a straight course and not to capsize. And so, there’s no great end of politics. He’s not trying to achieve some kind of social justice. Not that he’s against justice, but that there is no … He doesn’t think that the state has a purpose other than to allow … I mean, he says different things in different books. But essentially to allow individuals to live their lives as they so choose.
I mean, in terms of him being a skeptic, he’s not looking for universal arguments in political philosophy like you might see from John Rawls or Robert Nozick. Rather, he starts from the assumption that, well, at least since the Renaissance individualism has been ascendant. That we think of ourselves as individuals, and this is just the starting place, and that what system we can develop from there, also, especially looking at the tradition. If you live in a good society like Britain or America to try to maintain those traditions, a lot of them are not always articulated.
To go back to what I was saying, that in Britain there’s this idea that some things are just not done. It’s not written down, but we just don’t do that. And so, he is trying to conserve tradition, though I would not say he’s against all change, but he thinks that a lot of social reformers are overly confident in their ability to know the effects of what they’re trying to achieve.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. I also had to ask, I know that you’ve written about fashion or particular men’s fashion. And for those of us, such as myself who have a very limited fashion sense or understanding of men’s attire, is there a way that you would recommend perhaps even from a philosophical point of view, understanding the significance of dress? I know that you reviewed this book on The Suit by Nicholas Antongiavanni, but is there other ways that you might recommend to gain a greater appreciation for that?
Justin Shubow:
So, sure. I mean, first I would note that you’ll find that a lot of people who are interested in architecture are also interested in clothing. Because I mean, part of one of my theories is that clothing is something that combines form and function similar to the way architecture does. And architects are very self-conscious about how they present themselves. I mean, you will find a lot of classicists wearing tweed and bow ties, and then you’ll find all the modernists wearing weird black jackets with 20 buttons, and they wear strange glasses trying to go back to reference glasses worn by Le Corbusier.
I mean, there is a joke that you can spot the architects in the room by how strangely they’re dressed. And what are they trying to say? I’m talking about the modernists. One thing they’re trying to say is, “I am not like you. I’m not ordinary Joe. I have my complicated elite views and will not be restrained by ordinary thinking.” So, a lot of my interest in menswear comes out of my interest in ideas about the presentation of self, and why do people choose the way they choose to dress? Most people don’t do it that consciously. But I think it’s a very interesting subject to study. And you say, I wrote about fashion. I prefer it to say that I have written about style.
Ben Lima:
Style. Yes.
Justin Shubow:
Because fashion changes their fashion cycles. Well, style, I mean, in menswear can last for a very long time. So, the first place I would recommend if people really want to get into this, and this is a good book for I think the sorts of people who listen to this podcast is a book called Sex and Suits by the art historian, Anne Hollander, if I’m remembering right. So, that is a tremendous book about the history of menswear. And I think she does compare the suit to the classical column and things like this and talk about how the suit achieved its apogee in the 1930s.
And it is a great achievement in that it’s something that you can wear in all sorts of social settings. You can wear it to dinner. You can wear it to work. You can wear it to a wedding. It’s incredibly comfortable and free flowing. And that women have nothing like something as versatile and classic as the suit. So, that gives you a sense of some of my interests. And I also think that when a person is dressed a certain way, they just feel better about themselves.
I mean, I know this is like the queer eye for the straight guy approach. But there definitely is something true about it where you can feel very confident and comfortable and know who you are. I would never say that there’s one right way for all men to dress. But if I know something about you, then your personality and all sorts of things like this then … I have gone clothes shopping with friends of mine. And I don’t know, it’s a strange interest, but I think it is very important. And there is a whole psychology of clothing.
I mean, if you think about it, people treat you differently depending on how you’re dressed. If I go into a fast-food restaurant wearing a suit and tie, the person behind the counter is likely to say, “How can I help you, sir?” And maybe be more polite. And of course, maybe that’s a nice thing, and also maybe makes you a better person. If people are treating you better, then you’re going to treat other people better. There are studies showing that when people dress in a white coat, like nurses that they are more helpful to others about. The clothes, really can make the man.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. Well, my last question is, I know that one of the other things I saw that you’d written was a short biography of Joseph Shubow, who maybe was your grandfather?
Justin Shubow:
My great-uncle.
Ben Lima:
Great-uncle. Okay. And I was just curious about maybe if you could tell us a little bit about your background, and had you always had this interest in aesthetics and style and architecture, how you came to your current profession, I guess.
Justin Shubow:
So, first, you’re asking about the Joseph Shubow?
Ben Lima:
Yes. But yeah.
Justin Shubow:
Well, he’s my namesake. He was a rabbi in Boston and also served as a chaplain in World War II. And I think he was a very inspiring figure. During the war, he was serving with the American troops who had just crossed the Rhine, and they ended up having a Passover Seder in Goebbels’ ancestral castle. And it made the newspapers, and it was nice little poetic justice. And best of all, Goebbels actually found out about it. And so, he was a really interesting figure, an important figure in American-Jewish history.
And I’ll stop there regarding that. But as for my interests, I mean, they really bubbled up slowly. I mean, for a long time, I never even thought twice about my clothes. And then at a certain point, I just started becoming more self-aware and started obsessively reading all the books by Alan Flusser and the experts as to what is the so-called rules in menswear. And then I started reading books like Sex and Suits, or the Psychology of Clothes. And in architecture, I mean, I do have early memories of really hating what I now realize is a brutalist public library.
Ben Lima:
Where was that?
Justin Shubow:
That was in outside Baltimore.
Ben Lima:
Okay.
Justin Shubow:
And I just hated it. I just hated it. And I am sensitive to my environment. If I’m in a room with harsh fluorescent lighting, it really bothers me. And I started just looking around and starting to think, “Well, why does the world look the way it does?” And I discovered the book From Bauhaus to Our House by Tom Wolfe, which is really just a polemical pamphlet. And he just started making me feel more confident that maybe I’m not crazy that something really has gone wrong in contemporary architecture and understand the history and the ideas behind it.
Because I think the more you just hear the architects speaking, the more you’ll think that what they’re doing is wrong. So, for instance, I will claim that certain contemporary architects are nihilists, but you will find some of them actually saying they’re nihilists. So, it’s not like, “Oh, they’re reds under the bed.” It’s just listen to what they’re actually saying.
Ben Lima:
Yeah. Yeah. Well, our guest today has been Justin Shubow. Thank you very much for being with us.
Justin Shubow:
Well, thank you so much for having me.
Ben Lima:
This is the Athenaeum Review Podcast. Find out more at athenaeumreview.org.