Sketches of a Critique of the Arch

My previous post on the Arch was not really a critique in any systematic sense (though the comparison to the statue of Louis IX might have been suggestive to some), but comments I have since received have suggested to me what the lineaments of such a critique would be:

An excellent critique
of "placeless"
architecture.

• A public architecture of placelessness: the defining feature of modernist architecture is its lack of place; public architecture, on the other hand, succeeds primarily through conveying content, essential to which is a sense of place; a placeless public architecture is therefore a kind of contradiction.
• The purpose of fascist architecture was to make the individual feel dwarfed, while exalting the potential of collective action (cf. the fasces); the resemblance to Mussolini's never-completed arch is therefore not incidental, but actually quite central to the artistic effect of both structures.
• In comparison, the defining feature of a monument like the statue of Louis IX or the Jefferson Memorial is humanity: they commemorate certain individuals whose lives we regard as exceptional, and perhaps as models to our own; Louis IX may just inspire someone to do good for someone less fortunate: nobody ever reflected on their life because of a giant hunk of metal.