In class before break, we talked about monuments and "monumentality". If you recall, Loos declared that only two types of Architecture exist: the monument and the tomb.
Now, at first I thought what Loos said was incorrect because his definition would leave out the vast majority of buildings I would personally consider to be "Architecture". However, upon thinking about this more, maybe Loos is not so far off the mark as I originally thought. Although his statement is extreme, maybe there is some truth to it.
To me, a monument does not have to be the standard monument i.e. the Washington Monument. To me, a monument could be anything that represents something much larger. To me, such structures like Michigan Stadium are a monument, because it represents history and tradition of a school. Maybe I consider this a monument because I am such a football fan and I am a die-hard Blue fan. Looking out side of Ann Arbor, there are many things I would consider "monumental".
In my hometown of Detroit there are many monuments, things that a person from anywhere can see and recognize one unique place, Detroit, Michigan. To me, the cities most amazing and recognizable monument is the Renaissance Center. It dominates the Detroit skyline, is visible from a long distance away, and is recognized as part of Detroit by almost anyone who has ever seen the downtown. But, this large glass architectural masterpiece represents more than just the city itself, it represents what the city and its residents are about. The city has always been known to be at the forefront of production and technology, the city itself represents an "American Renaissance". Now more than ever, even with the many negative views of the city of Detroit, I believe the Renaissance Center represents the cities strength to make it through any "dark age". It is a monument to perseverance and hard work and hope for the city and the country. To me, that's what a monument is. When seen, it inspires people, it takes peoples breath away, it makes people think.
