[qez]

This is weaponized verbiage. "My opponents are wrong because I assume they have harmful motivations." Way to dodge the actual point of contention: whether modern art styles are ugly vs classical styles. Most people should not and do not care whether the architecture "attacks progressivism", because beauty itself is the goal.

[qsort]

I'm sick and tired of "weaponized verbiage", as you put it, as much as the next guy, but I don't agree with your rendition:

> the actual point of contention: whether modern art styles are ugly vs classical styles

This is not the point. The point it (from TFA):

> this executive order would place restrictions on the architectural design of federal buildings

Which is, at a minimum, weird. Why would anybody want to do that (by decree, no less) is beyond me.

[roenxi]

While opinionated, there is nothing weird about liking classical architecture or powerful people imposing their artistic preferences.

I'm not sure how anyone could manage to spin promoting classical architecture as some sort of unpleasant scheme, but I'm sure someone is going to try. The stuff is beautiful. At some point there has to be some admission that Trump isn't wrong about literally everything.

[qsort]

> restrictions on the architectural design

That's not the equivalent of saying 'classical architecture is beautiful', that's the equivalent of saying 'no architecture except classical architecture is beautiful'.

Is St. Peter's Basilica ugly because it is Baroque? Is Notre-Dame ugly because it is Gothic?

Come on, far from me to espouse the "neoclassical bad" twitter-tier nonsense take, but the claim that only neoclassical should be allowed is... weird, Trump or no Trump.

[skewart]

The weird part was banning people from building anything that isn’t neoclassical. The order wasn’t promoting neoclassicism as much as it was attacking everything else.

If the Trump administration’s approach was just to build a lot of neoclassical buildings nobody would have cared.

[rbanffy]

> Why would anybody want to do that (by decree, no less) is beyond me.

Identitarian politicians have done it for ages. It’s about shaping a population’s view of themselves based on an idealised past.

[throwaway59553]

>Which is, at a minimum, weird. Why would anybody want to do that (by decree, no less) is beyond me.

This is what governments and rulers have done since Mankind started building stuff. You're fixating in the legal tecnicalities like a law or executive order, but it has always been like that. Governments and rulers always set the style of public buildings.

The reason for that, is left as an exercise for the reader.

[chrisshroba]

Couldn’t agree more. There are so many unsubstantiated assumptions about intent made in this article.