This article was kindly sent to us by Gabriele Mastrigli. Altough we’re not fond of Leon Krier past speculations and despite the controversy about his political attitudes, the article proves interesting and we mostly agree with the thesis exposed.
Be sure to check the illustrations and the “mysterious” (auto-ironic?) quote!
The article appeared originally in Architectural Design – May 1985, whose cover showed a “terrifying” version of Peter Eisenman.
Please correct this immediately. Leon Krier is not and never was a Nazi sympathizer.
The very article you refer to states says “Not for the first time, Krier had been called a Nazi sympathizer by a self-righteous Modernist.“ and you continue to perpetuate a lie instead of giving the correct information
It does go on to make the senseless remark that
Classical architecture, from this point of view, was at the very least an enabler of Naziism, if not a straightforward expression of it.
??? Since when can “Classicism“ become an enabler of Nazism. Only idiots can do this. Classicism was given to us by those who gave s democracy.
This argument is a base way of trying to prevent anyone expressing any positive argument for the use of traditional or classical architecture.
Dear Colum Mulhern,
your words are frankly nonsense:
1) my introduction to Krier’s article does not take any stand about neither his political position nor the architectural language he works with, therefore there is nothing to correct;
2) the linked article, of which you evidently read only the first three lines, is a response to a previous article and a defense of the architect, which also includes a written text by Krier himself, in response to Vidler’s critiques.
Hope in the future you’ll use the same amount of time for accurately reading before writing such superficial rants.
best
fosco lucarelli
I can assure you I read both fully.
There is no need to mention the “controversy about his political attitudes“ if you give them no value.
On the contrary, I give value to what I write:
To affirm that there is no controversy is A position, and I’d add: a debatable one. Conversely, to affirm that there is a controversy, is precisely to state that a debate has been going on, during years, around Krier’s positions. Would you deny that a strong figure such as Anthony Vidler, among other, argued about that, regardless of your opinion?
From Wikipedia: “Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion.”