In The Edifice Complex, Deyan Sudjic argues that architects are often employed by people with power to create and design buildings and complexes that seem to exert a certain message of power. Sudjic argues that architects and the rich and powerful who have the resources to employ these architects almost have an ulterior motive when they create and design buildings and edifices. To defend his argument, Sudjic uses the case of Saddam Hussein and describes the whole process of building and constructing the Mother of All Battles Mosque as a way “to use architecture to glorify himself and his regime and to intimidate his opponents.” Sudjic goes on to describe the certain elements of the mosque’s deisgn that seem to exemplify Hussein’s power and rule. Not only was the design of the building itself a depiction of Saddam Hussein, but his placement of his architecture throughout Baghdad exemplified his power and rule to his people and his enemies. In essence, Sudjic argues that behind every building that is created, there is an architect and a very rich man who wants to convey a message.

Though Sudjic makes an interesting argument, I find his argument to be a bit overreaching. I think that Sudjic generalizes and assumes that with every building, there is a certain meaning behind its construction. Though I believe that in most cases people and architects do build to convey a certain message, I also believe that it is possible for a person and architect to build simply because they enjoy the art or design and have no other motive but to enjoy their work. Sudjic makes an interesting case using Saddam Hussein as an example to exemplify his argument, however as a despot, I would assume that he had every intention of exemplifying the extent of his power in all manners possible. I believe that the majority of others, even those who are rich and powerful, do not build with the intention of showing off their wealth and power. I think that Sudjic’s argument makes it seem that the rich and powerful use architecture as an almost justification of their power and wealth. Though many people do create with that intention, I do not believe that this assumption can be made for everyone.

I believe that Sudjic is looking for meaning in places where there are no meanings. Rather than believing that there is an ulterior motive of exhibiting one’s power and wealth, I think we should take buildings as they are and enjoy them for their design and hard work. Sudjic’s argument reminds me of the English teacher that dives too deep into a story trying to extract meaning from every single line to create grandeur explanation of the author’s motive and intent.