Author: h.chen22

To understand the exhibits and artifacts seen in the Morgan Museum, it is helpful to learn the history of the man behind the creation of the building. Pierpont Morgan was a successful businessman who created the corporation of U.S Steel and had a hobby of being a collector. Using his wealth, Morgan was able to collect art, rare books, artifacts, paintings, and manuscripts. This hobby of Morgan inspired him to build a private library where he can have a place to put all his collections. After his death, Morgan’s son inherited the private library, then decided to make it public for everyone to.

Inside the exhibits, I focused on 3 main sections that were the most significant to J.P Morgan’s use of the library. The first part is the rotunda of the library, which is an entrance hall to his other rooms. In this area the ceilings are decorated with paintings with religious undertones, and the walls are decorated with pillars which resemble a renaissance and middle ages style. What I found the most interesting in this area was that there were articles of newspaper from Morgan’s time shown as a display. The news consisted of matters that included gay rights, civil rights, and gender equality. This made me think that since J.P Morgan was a wealthy individual and was one of the country’s leading financier at the time, he was likely into politics and had some type of influence with the government.

In the East Room , this is the main library where Morgan placed his collections of rare books. From what I saw, these books mostly consist of religious literature, and bibles in different languages.It is certainly fitting that a collection belongs in this room because of how well organized and remarkable the room is. Along with a fire place, there are 3 story bookshelves, a decorated ceiling with renaissance resemblance, and hidden staircases behind the bookcases. What interested me the most is that a lot of the book that I saw on the bookshelves were not practical books for reading. They are massive in size and stands about as tall as up to my knees. It makes me curious as to what is inside those massive books, which makes me wonder if these books that Morgan collect were ever read or will they just be a decoration piece for his library.

The next room is the West Room, which the room that I enjoyed the most. I found that this room didn’t feel like a museum exhibit, rather it felt like I was visiting somebody’s home office. There are couches and chairs in the room, which makes it more welcoming to guests visiting Morgan, along with the desk that Morgan uses. A recurring theme I see with Morgan’s rooms is that he loved decorated ceilings, and in the West room the ceiling is sculpted and has an unique shape. Another one of Morgan’s favorite style is the Renaissance style, where the room is surrounded with paintings of Italian masters.  The room’s theme is the color red, which symbolizes the power and wealth Morgan had during his time.

After seeing the rooms that Morgan used during his time, I moved on to the more modern parts of the museum. One big change in architecture that I immediately noticed was the change in color and room design. The colors became more solid, simplistic, and easy on the eye. The feel of the rooms were much more relaxed, compared to Morgan’s original rooms where the ceiling paintings and ancient atmosphere can be quite intimidating. The exhibits also became modern as well. Collections now included, props used in films, portraits, drawings, and photographs. Without knowing who J.P Morgan was or what he did, viewers can tell a lot by just looking at his collection and personal rooms. His hobby of collecting rare manuscripts, and his choice in room designs easily tells you he is a wealthy individual. His collections of the type of books and artifacts he has tells you that he was interested in religion, history, and politics. This goes to show that without knowing a person, one can easily tell a lot about that person by looking their belongings and hobbies.

It’s been 2 years since I visited the Museum of Modern Art on 53rd St and I recently went to visit again. It recently underwent renovation where a new section was added to part of the Museum and where new changes took place in the original building as well.

One of the first things I noticed that was different about the reopened museum is the entrances. There is now security before you enter the building to check your bag, along with cops on standby as well. I’m not sure why or what caused this action to be in place, but I don’t have a good impression of it. Having security is normal, but having cops on standby isn’t a good look to me because I don’t usually see that happening for any museum that I have visited before. When entering, some significant things I noticed are new hanging overhead lights and a relocation of the ticket area. The overhead hanging light is a clear rectangular glass box that has dozens of sphere light bulbs inside it. It is an interesting design and choice to put in the entrance lobby area. I think the reason for the overhead light is to give visitors the feeling of the creativity behind a Museum dedicated to modern art, and also for a more welcoming feeling, since the lobby is spacious and can feel empty. As for the ticket area, I noticed it used to be somewhat in the middle of the lobby where it felt out of place. But after the renovation, the ticket area has their own section with a different color than the rest of the lobby, to distinguish itself so that visitors have an easier time finding them, and lines are more organized, which I think is one of the museum’s best improvements. A brand new addition to the museum that debuted after the renovation is the New Creativity Lab called ‘The People’s Studio”. In this room there are art and craft supplies which allow people to draw, create, and even knit. This new addition shows the renovation’s effort to make more interactive areas in the museum, that was lacking before.

I would describe the layout of the exhibits in MoMa as “getting lost in art”. I say that because of the design of the rooms. The exhibit sections follow the same design of a large room with white walls, white ceilings, and a wooden floor. This design of identical colors makes the experience for viewers feel as if they are “lost”. Whenever I entered a new exhibit and was going from room to room, I felt like I was going in circles because how similar each room looked. I got this lost feeling where I at one point I thought, it would be impossible to navigate back to where I originally started from. But, I actually was seeing new pieces each room I went, so that reminded me I was going deeper into the exhibit and not just walking in circles. As for how the design affects the experience of the art, I feel that it allows viewers to focus more on the art and lets them know the main piece of the room. The neutral colors of the lighting, walls, ceilings, and floor is easy on the eye, where it is not a distraction or a gimmick that deflects the focus of the main intended piece in the room.

I would say that the addition of a new section in the MoMa is a success in the way that they did it and it’s purpose. One thing to point out about the way they added the new section is that they built it adjacent to the already existing building, rather than building it on top, giving it more stories and height. By building the new section adjacent, it keeps the identity of the already existing MoMa building, which isn’t too tall or too short. Also, by building it adjacent, it expands the MoMa even further on their block on 53rd St, which shows their dominance of the block that they are on. However, if the new section of the MoMa was built on top of the already existing building, it would change the identity of the MoMa building. If the newly reopened MoMa was to be more than 10 stories tall, it would change the way people see the MoMa. Commercial and business buildings are usually the tall buildings that we see in Manhattan, so if the MoMa were to add height and look similar to commercial buildings, it would certainly lose some of their identity to viewers. Another great part of the new section of the MoMa is that they stayed consistent to their exterior glass window design. The glass window stays true to the Museum’s name of being modern. Most modern museums and even buildings have transitioned to using window exteriors, which symbolize the modern standard of architecture.

If I were to describe the identity of the Museum of Modern Art, it would be a “giant cube that could be changed”. This museum is always adapting and the exhibits in there are not permanent. Exhibits in the MoMa from what I noticed, lasts for a specific number of months before a new one replaces it. Even inside the exhibits, the walls in the room are not permanent either. They  can moved or removed to cater to a new exhibit that is going to be on display. The MoMa is constantly being changed with different exhibits being shown, but it will always remain true to its identity of displaying modern art. It shows me that art is always evolving and new forms of art can be discovered or emerge at any time.

On this trip, I went to a section of Central park know as “The Ramble”. The Ramble is a 38 acre woodland area, which is between 73rd St and 79th St. The area has a maze design to give people the feel that they are in nature. When inside the Ramble, I almost feel like I am not in New York City, rather I am in Upstate New York where there is more nature and woodlands. The abundance of trees and plants blocks the view of the city and any sign of an urban environment. For anyone who needs a break from the city life but can’t leave, The Ramble is perfect place for them to visit and explore. Right across from the Ramble is another section of Central Park called the Bethesda Terrace. This section as we see it today includes a large water fountain and a small tunnel with art inside, which is friendly for all ages to visit. However, a few decades ago this area was not the same place. The atmosphere back then was tense and dangerous, with many crimes taking place there. It shows how far this park has come and the advancements the city made to make central park more friendly to the public. Now there is row boats in the lake, biking/jogging roads, and playgrounds scattered around the park that draws the interest of everyone of all ages in the general public, making Central Park what it is today. Another thing I noticed is that the development of Central Park has European inspirations. For example, the Belvedere Castle in the Ramble was designed using Gothic and Romanesque styles. Due to the competition between America and Europe, this also sparked a lot of development in Central Park, where America was trying to keep up with the advancements in Europe at the time.  This led to the push for a museum inside the park, and sculptures within the park as well, to show that America has a cultural history as well. The museum that is inside the park still exists today, and that museum is the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I focused on the architecture of the interior building. Inside, viewers can spot the interior designs of both the original museum and the new one. The original main entrance of the MET is inside the central park, and this is where the notable difference between new and old can be seen. The original design of the museum includes red brick walls, and grey marble pillars that give it an old fashioned feel to it. Meanwhile, the new design of the MET is dominated by a white color on its walls, floors, and pillars. White is a color that signify a new beginning in many instances, and I think this was the route the museum went towards. To show they moved on from where they began at, new modern designs like windows were used as part of the architecture, new colors were applied, and even the main entrance was moved else where. There is actually a word to describe the MET having their old and new designs coexisting together inside the museum. A palimpsest is when old material on an original piece has been replaced by new material, but traces of the old material still remain. That is what we see in the MET at the original entrance, where most of the museum has transformed into the modern design, but we still see subtle traces of what the museum once looked in the past. Another place where we can see palimpsests are in our own neighborhoods. One particular example I have is when I was recently uptown in Harlem, NY. The area has infamously gone through phases of gentrification. As I am walking through, I see a hip cafe that has modern looking decor, meanwhile right next to it is a local fried chicken joint. The difference in clientele, interior design, decor, and type of food served amazes me. The two completely different type of stores look so odd next to each other, yet they are coexisting. The palimpsest here is that the modern hip cafe is the “new”, while the local fried chicken joint is the traces of “old”, that remind me of what Harlem once was, and used to be.

The High Line experience for me I feel was overrated. In both instances when I went on my own time and as a class, the place fails to amuse or excite me. Although that is my personal opinion of the experience, I am an overall fan of what is High Line is, where it came from, and what it serves to people. For one, I love the fact that the High Line doesn’t have a admission price and is free for everyone to enjoy. This tells me that the place welcomes all types of people and isn’t catered to a specific demographic. It is a walk way that includes unique benches, different types of plants, sculptures, views of the city and unique looking buildings along the way that gives variety for viewers to look at. Looking back at the history, the High Line was originally a railroad that would lift heavy freight trains from the Manhattan streets. These trains would carry meat, dairy, and produce to warehouses and factories, mainly in the Meatpacking District in NYC, hence the name. However, by 1980’s the High Line and its function became obsolete and since there wasn’t anymore use for it, it was being planned for demolition. But thanks to the effort of residents of the Meatpacking District, they were able to come to a negotiation with the mayor to preserve the High Line and make it into a landscape part of NYC. This effort had led us to witness the High Line as a one of a kind park that thousands of people visit and enjoy everyday. The High Line itself is both an architectural and cultural landscape of New York City. It is amazing to see an abandoned railroad transformed into an elevated park that is unusual yet still loved by many. The cultural aspect of the High Line is that it represents the resilient spirit of New York residents and the foundation of the High Line. Along the High Line, you can still see glimpses of old meat packing warehouses and factories that allude to the original function of the High Line. Instead of letting the city destroy the High Line railroad, residents decided to keep it and transform into something to be enjoyed and cherished by future generations to come.

After seeing the High Line, I was able to visit “The Vessel” for the first time. This structure is very popular among New York City residents and I was finally able to see it for the first time in person. It was an exciting experience because of the peculiar design of the structure and the large size of it. The most exciting part of the experience was walking up the stairs to reach the top. To make the experience even more crazy, the day I went was really windy and started to rain as well. When you finally reach the top, you are rewarded with an amazing view of the inside structure of the Vessel and the surrounding area of Hudson Yards. The design to me always reminded me of a bee hive and that the people inside are inside a hive. I love the symmetry of the structure and the subtle bronze color of it, which I feel makes it satisfying to look at. It is not too “in your face” or flashy, but more subtle, warm, and makes a statement. To me, the development of Hudson Yards and The Vessel is a huge success. In terms of an architectural standpoint, the structure is amazing. As for business, it is a great tourist attraction that can bring the city a lot of money, especially from the surrounding shops. Also my favorite part of the development of Hudson Yards is the new addition of a subway station for the 7 train. This is a great for commuters such as myself to get off or enter the station at such a populated busy place.

 

On this trip, I went to visit the Panorama of NYC inside the Queens Museum of Art. This museum is located inside of Flushing Meadows-Corona Park, and is right next to the popular Unisphere structure. The panorama of NYC is a miniature reproduction of all the 5 boroughs, which includes The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and Staten Island. However, calling it “miniature” is an understatement because of how large the panorama actually is. When you walk into the room, you are standing on top of a cat walk that gives you a view of the panorama  from above. The unexpectedly large size of the room and panorama display gives viewers a “wow moment”, especially since we are viewing it from a bird’s eye view, giving us a new view experience of our city. I like the design of the room and I think the placement of lights and structures were carefully designed for the best viewing experience. The room is about the size of 2 large gymnasiums and the elevated catwalk surrounding the room lets viewer get a clear picture of all the 5 boroughs in the center of the room. Another design I felt was unnoticed and I appreciated was the lighting in the room. While most the lighting in the room is focused on the panorama in the center of the room, I noticed the catwalk is dark and has minimal lighting. I like this for the fact that it lets viewers know what to focus on and that the panorama is the star of the exhibit. Probably the most coolest feature of this exhibit is when the panorama goes into night time mode. The room goes almost completely dark, and there are lights coming from the little buildings in the panorama, which almost resembles how the city looks like at night when you look out from an airplane window.

The panorama has changed the way I see the size of the city. When I think of my own city, I just think of 5 mere boroughs. But after seeing the panorama, I realized how big those 5 mere boroughs actually are. Each borough is like it’s own city with their own unique buildings and identity. Manhattan is the heart of the city where the atmosphere is fast paced and where the major buildings are. The Bronx and Brooklyn are places where there is deep history and iconic culture. Then there is Queens and Staten Island where the atmosphere is more relaxed and the place is more residential. New York City can be described as “quality over quantity”. It makes sense why in only 5 relatively small boroughs, the total population reaches a little over 8.5 million people. In such a diverse city, the place is home to people from all places of the world, making any borough suitable for anyone. I have lived in Queens and commute to different boroughs almost my whole life, but there are still places in NYC that I am unfamiliar with or never been to. I was able to identity some notable places I never been to was the Far Rockaway islands, and a lot of the Bronx. This goes to show that NYC doesn’t have to be large in size to have abundance. An interesting thing that I noticed when looking at Manhattan was the street structures and patterns. The grid pattern stayed the same since the city was first developed in the late 1800’s. It reminds of the “Timescapes” short film I saw and how far NYC has come since the beginning of their foundation. Manhattan is the center of NYC with the major buildings, and it makes me wonder will other boroughs start to look like Manhattan in the future. Queens and Brooklyn already have a urban city environment in parts of Long Island City and Williamsburg. My thought is will other boroughs begin major urban city development? How will this affect lower income residents who are already struggling?

The panorama overall was well made and gave viewers a feel of what the whole New York City looks like. The details on the buildings were well made, where I can recognize many major structures, such as Madison Square Garden, the High-bridge, Central park, and more. One thing I would say about the Queens Museum of Art is that because it is in a somewhat secluded location in Queens, it doesn’t attract as much visitors as other museums like the MET or MoMa. This is also not a bad thing though, because it gives visitors a more relaxed experience where the environment is less crowded, quiet, and it is a place where people like myself would prefer. A suggestion that I have for the panorama is that there could be interactive features that allows viewers to see it more up close, or control certain features within the panorama. It gives the exhibit even more to look forward to and might even draw in more visitors to a secluded Queens location.

On this trip, I visited the downtown financial district in Manhattan. In this area, I got to see the World Trade Center Memorial and the Oculus, along with the mall inside.

Starting with the World Trade Center Memorial, I liked the structure and the design of it. I think it contributes well as an landscape to the city, and to the landscape of the financial district area. I saw that the structure commemorates the victims of the attack on 9/11/01, by having their names on the side of the structure, where everyone can see it as they are walking by. However one thing that I didn’t feel was the eerie feeling that a lot of people have said to felt when seeing the site. I wasn’t at the country or state when the attack of the twin towers happened, so that is why I don’t feel the strong connection that many people felt when seeing it. It makes me realize that this memorial affects people depending on if they got to witness the event that occurred. For those people who were in the country and got to witness the attack first hand or on the TV, seeing this site will give them flashbacks, memories, or eerie feelings that other might not have. To me, this honestly is just another memorial to me. This isn’t out of disrespect to the victims, but it is because I hadn’t experience 9/11 the way many people did during the time, so I don’t feel the connection to it. Also one thing about the structure that I would criticize is the design. I think the design is wonderful but I don’t understand the concept. If I were to see this structure without having knowledge that it was called the World Trade Center Memorial, I would no idea what this structure meant. The design itself is already solid and makes a statement, but there could be more things done with it or remind people it’s a memorial for the victims of 9/11.

The next part of the trip is the Oculus. The Oculus is a large white structure that looks almost like a dinosaur skeleton. Seeing it at first glance, it is an amazing architectural piece that catches your eyes.  In the financial district where there are many skyscrapers and mundane colors, this bright white peculiar shaped structure stands out in the open and becomes the center of attention. On the inside when you go inside, the walls, floor, ceilings, are white as well. One could argue that this was done on purpose by the designer to make thing place stand out and symbolize “new life”. But by making this stand out, some would call out the designer and say the structure was built to feed his ego. Having it built in the heart of the financial district and making it standout not fitting in with the culture of New York City, it screams, “me, me ,me”. However, while this might be true, it could also be interpreted more positively. This structure could signify the diversity and boldness New York City offers. Not everything has to be uniform and in line with everything else. There is room for difference, innovation, and new ideas. Structures like the Oculus could be inspiration and the beginning of new architectural designs or for people to realize it’s okay to be different and stand out, like the dinosaur skeleton structure in the middle of the financial district.  One thing that I do have to criticize is the mall that is inside. I feel that the stores inside are not catered for everyone. It was catered for more wealthy individuals.

         

For my visit to the Museum of the City of New York, I watched a short film called “Timescapes”. This film showed the history of how New York City came to be, starting all the way from the 1600’s when New Amsterdam became New York, to the city that we know and currently live in. I enjoyed this film for the reason that it gave me a new perspective for the city that I’ve been living in my whole life. When people live in this city, there is a small chance that majority of the people take the time to think about how did this modern and technological advanced city came to be. I got to see how the hard work and determination of the people before us in different eras paved the way for this city.

One of my favorite eras in New York City that was explored was after the Great Depression. I believe that after the Great Depression, the people of New York City displayed great determination and perseverance. When the economy was down and the city was physically in shambles, the civilians didn’t want to give up on the city they lived in. Instead, they wanted to revive it and make it into something even greater. Residents were doing work on their neighborhood buildings, construction was being done in major cities area, and new sky scraping buildings were seen for the first time. Without the strong people of the previous era, I don’t think I would be seeing the greatness my city currently has to offer.

After seeing “Timescapes”, it made me wonder how the development of New York compared to the development of another major city. In Erik Larson’s book “Devil in the White City”, it tells a story about a famous architect and his uprising in the city of Chicago around the time of the early 1900’s. While reading, I saw how another major city such as Chicago was developed, and I compared it to what I noticed about New York City in “Timescapes”. Some things that I noticed about both cities is that there was a huge class separation, explosive growth, and progressive movements. There was the city area, where wealthy individuals lived in lavish buildings, while the working class lived in the slums where homes were in unbearable conditions. Larson describes the Chicago street of the working class area as dirty, foul smelling, and there would be piles of garbage and corpses, which all sound similar to the streets of New York. However, one positive similarity is that both had an explosive growth with new building development and rising population. During that time, New York and Chicago were #1 and #2 in terms of population respectively. Women in both cities were also allowed for the first time to go out by themselves in the street without their husbands to go into the workforce.

After seeing the short film and reading the book, it made come to the conclusion that “Timescapes” was showing the development of New York City in a positive light, as something heroic and wonderful. Compared to Erik Larson’s “Devil in the White City”, the development of Chicago depicts the more harsh reality side of the development of a major city. In New York City, we hear the good side of the determination and perseverance of the people, and all the brilliant leaders that helped shaped the city through the beginning and temporary downfalls. But in the development of Chicago, we are introduced to a more detailed look of the city’s development. As the book points out, when a city becomes more popular and growth is expanding, it also comes with more crime. As the city developed, more problems came along with it such as diseases and pointless murders due to inexperienced police force. Building skyscrapers were also not an easy task because of the way the earth and soil was in Chicago. Bedrock was not easily accessible and hard work was needed to compensate for the lack of natural conveniences, which led to the deaths and illnesses of many construction workers. Although New York City has also experienced similar hardships, the way Larson depicts Chicago gives us the reality that comes with the development of successful major cities.

   

For the first part of this trip, I got to visit and explore the New York Transit Museum for the first time. This museum is actually a decommissioned subway station at Court Street that is still working. One of the first things I noticed when I entered the museum, is that the interior looks almost identical to an actual subway station in New York City. The lighting, wall tiles, floors, and the underground structure of the museum all replicate how a typical subway station would look and feel like. Even on the outside, the entrance looked as if I were entering a subway station about to commute somewhere. With this setup, I felt that this was one of the most unique museum experiences I ever had. Another part that made my experience so unique was how much I related to what was in the museum. I was learning the history of a transport system I use everyday and don’t even think much about. When I step onto the the earlier versions of the subway carts used, it almost felt like I time traveled back into the past. I was in the 1963 version of the 7 Train and I got to see how different the floor was, what railings were used for passengers, the seats, and especially the advertisements. All I could think about was the comparisons between the 7 Train from 1963, to the current 7 Train that I know. This museum is definitely a place I would recommend to all New York City residents to visit. The ticket price is affordable, and seeing the exhibits can really changes your perspective on our city’s transit system. It makes you more appreciative and knowledgeable of the subways we ride everyday and take for granted.

One of the thing that I learned while exploring the different exhibits of the New York Transit Museum were that subways had their own culture. On the subways cars, there are many advertisements and MTA reminder posters. Although I see these posters all the time when I am commuting on the subway, I never thought too deeply about it until I saw it in the museum as one of the exhibits. I saw MTA reminder posters that reminded people to not take up seat space with their belongings, and another one that targeted men to not “man spread”. After seeing those posters in the museum, I came to the realization that the subways in NYC have their own culture that is being promoted by the MTA. The MTA uses advertisement campaigns to promote good behavior, ethics, and norms for subway riders. That is why people follow unwritten rules, such as letting people out the cart before stepping in. This is the outcome of the culture that the MTA has promoted onto subway riders. However, for those who don’t abide by that culture, they will get serious side-eye looks from other passengers.

Another interesting that I learned from this visit to the Museum is some fun facts that I never realized about the subways in New York City. A museum guide kindly did a small presentation for the class, and one fact I learned was that some of the subway cars displayed in this museum, were featured in popular movies. But, my favorite fact that I learned was about the difference between number trains and letter trains. The number trains in NYC (1,2,3,4,5,6,7), are part of the IRT (Inter-borough Rapid Transit) Company. These trains can be distinguished by their subway cart interior. Inside IRT trains, the seats are long, narrow, and there are only 3 doors. Meanwhile the letter trains are part of the BRT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit) Company. These trains can be distinguished by their bench seats, and there are 4 doors on these subway carts.

Even though I wasn’t able to make it with the class to the Brooklyn Bridge Park, I have been there multiple times in the past. I would say that the park is a huge success in terms of popularity. Throughout my time in high school, I remember that this park was the go-to place among a lot of my peers. People of all ages whether student or adult, would come to this park after school to hangout, on the weekends to relax, and even go there for prom pictures. There is a lot of scenery, green field, displays, and activities for people of all ages. One of my favorite things about this park that has me going back is the Pier 2 outdoor basketball courts. These basketball courts are right next to the waterfronts on the East River, where you can enjoy a great view while playing a pickup game. What I love most about the Brooklyn Bridge Park is that most of the activities there are free. This means anyone can enjoy themselves there, and it isn’t catered to a particular group of people. This park is one of the most positive aspects in NYC in my opinion because of the fact that it can bring all types of people together to enjoy themselves with minimal cost.

In chapter 1 of Deyan Sudjic’s “The Edifice Complex”, he discusses the reason why people build, what drives people to build, and how people use use architecture to shape the way we view the world. Sudjic uses Saddam Hussein as his prime example to demonstrate his points. Saddam Hussein is a good example because he was a former leader of Iraq. Typically, the people who are in power with wealth are the ones to make decisions regarding architecture and what buildings are to be made. Hussein’s reasons for building a large mosque was driven by ego, intimidation, and to create an image for himself. By building a large mosque, it was to create the image that Hussein was a devout believer of his faith, it was used as a form of intimidation to other countries after they had just lost a war, and it was to feed his ego, where the specific measurement increments of the mosque all had some connection to his birthday.

After reading Sudjic’s discussion, it gave me a new perspective on architecture and what it means. It made me realize that the architecture that I see everyday aren’t just some building that somebody decided to build one day. There is a much deeper meaning behind the reason why the architect gave the building its specific features, and what drove them. It’s also the work of people of the past that shaped the role of architecture in modern society. Like Saddam Hussein, many other leaders in the past have used architecture as a means of shaping their image, feeding their ego, and for political reasons. What these past leaders realized was that architecture is also synonymous for power, which is why this trend is still going on in modern society. For this reason as Sudjic says, “There may be no fixed political meaning to a given architectural language, but that does not mean that architecture lacks the potential to assume a political aspect.” Popular buildings that we see today might of been made to be “neutral” with no political meaning, but there are definitely hidden political aspects to it. For example, the Empire State Building in New York City might just seem like a beautiful tall building that is a great tourist attraction. But by taking a deeper look at it, it is seen that the building symbolizes the power and wealth of New York City. It is the 45th tallest building in the world, it is a famous building featured in movies, and it is a worldwide icon that people look at and think of New York City’s wealth.