Derick Liu
IDC 4001H
MTBH

Deyan Sudjic seems to be claiming that all architecture holds a deeper social meaning, that every building we see is a product of the ego rubbing of the politically powerful, and influences the public’s perceptions. I can’t fully agree with Sudjic on this complex. Not all structures are built by political leaders, nor are they all built for them; when they are, the meaning and message expressed will not always be interpreted as originally intended.

All of the examples presented by Sudjic are edifices designed by the powerful for the powerful, as such, it only makes sense that they would have these deeper meanings built into them. He doesn’t give any examples of non-government related projects having any connection to politics, yet he still claims that they are heavily influenced by the ruling regime. He’s basically exaggerating it to the extent to call the design of our homes as a political statement as well. There will be a small connection between the structures we call home and politics, but the designs cannot be called assertions and/or claims of power, as Sudjic suggests.

The other problem I found with Sudjic’s claim is the fact that what he claims is based off his interpretation that comes with deeper research in the structures and when, why, and how they were built. For most people what they see is what they’ll get; because of this difference in available information, what they interpret will be different from Sudjic. Most people won’t see the claim of power and dominance that he sees. For example he would call Lincoln Center a construct of the of government to express their intellect, sophistication, and power. However, the common man would see Lincoln Center and see it as a beautifully modern place to listen to and watch classical art; they wouldn’t even stop to consider the sociopolitical backdrop of the center.

The “Edifice Complex” is, if anything, just symptoms of the ego complex and the superiority complex interacting with each other and expressing themselves through architectural design. In the end, I agree with Sudjic on his claim that “the rich and powerful shape the world” but not on a deeply psychological scale as he suggests. They influence it, mostly, at face value.