We would retain the idea of “beauty as the content of things made, the good of things done, the truth of things known.” (See “Classicism and Language in Architecture,” Carrol William Westfall, American Arts, Winter 2010) These principles (at least in the West) were sketched out by the Greeks in their quest to find principles to organize their political and religious lines.
We would keep the practice of “handing on from the past something useful in the present to make it available to the future.”
Most importantly we would emphasize, as the Greeks did, the reference to “the best,” to seeking distinction between the best and the rest, for us that is related to meritocracy and evolution, which is one the cornerstones of the Twofold Path in the Theoevolutionary Church.
We would attempt to make visible the content of epiphenomenal reality, not “metaphysical” reality, which is a difference we seem to have with traditional classicism.
We would retain the idea of making architecture and art that is congruent with the order of religion, at least, and in some cases the political regime.
As to the anthropomorphic analogy used in classical tradition, we would retain much of this, for example, showing the best individuals and human scale buildings to symbolize Gods and Godhood, as the Greeks did.
We would base our principles on the concept that evolution imitates Godhood, but does not copy Godhood. Each cosmos and each Godhood is somewhat different. This follows through in buildings and culture. To copy whole, as Westfall points out, is neoclassical. To imitate is our Revitalized Conservatism, that seems more in line with classicism, which imitated traditional principles but did not copy them whole.
Man is not a machine, as suggested in modern architecture. We are activated from within to evolve to Godhood, which means we can retain the language of myth, the beautiful, the good, the true. We would perhaps think in terms of Godly selection more than natural selection.
We would keep the practice of “handing on from the past something useful in the present to make it available to the future.”
Most importantly we would emphasize, as the Greeks did, the reference to “the best,” to seeking distinction between the best and the rest, for us that is related to meritocracy and evolution, which is one the cornerstones of the Twofold Path in the Theoevolutionary Church.
We would attempt to make visible the content of epiphenomenal reality, not “metaphysical” reality, which is a difference we seem to have with traditional classicism.
We would retain the idea of making architecture and art that is congruent with the order of religion, at least, and in some cases the political regime.
As to the anthropomorphic analogy used in classical tradition, we would retain much of this, for example, showing the best individuals and human scale buildings to symbolize Gods and Godhood, as the Greeks did.
We would base our principles on the concept that evolution imitates Godhood, but does not copy Godhood. Each cosmos and each Godhood is somewhat different. This follows through in buildings and culture. To copy whole, as Westfall points out, is neoclassical. To imitate is our Revitalized Conservatism, that seems more in line with classicism, which imitated traditional principles but did not copy them whole.
Man is not a machine, as suggested in modern architecture. We are activated from within to evolve to Godhood, which means we can retain the language of myth, the beautiful, the good, the true. We would perhaps think in terms of Godly selection more than natural selection.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment