As far back as I could read, I've been a history buff, and finally last week I got a short trip to Rome.
It's an amazing city, overflowing an abundance of historica artifacts. It's as if sunrise pulls history out of the earth. People warned me it was a dirty city, but it seemed like the dirt and dust was part of the archeology.
But it was more jarring than pleasing. The main political themes of Rome has been to project awe-inspiring power, whether they were imperial Romans, the Catholic Church, or the fascists. Every structure was built to overwhelm the individual. St. Peter's Square felt - ironically - a bit claustrophobic. The Pantheon was captivating but also a little grotesque. And you have to wonder what in the world possessed people at various points to say "what we need here is another church," because they litter the landscape like payphones in New York a few years ago. There are probably more churches in Rome than Starbucks in New York.
Clearly, the Italian government doesn't have the funds to conserve all the old buildings, however you define "old" in a place like this. There is evidence that many old buildings are built on top of even older walls, many churches are in blatant disrepair, and the commercial freely commingles with antiquity. As it's always been, I suppose.
Strangely, there's very little I can say was beautiful. The proportions were a little off, the landscape too disjointed. It's a great place to learn about the history of architecture, but not how to be a great architect. It's an exposition of history, but most of the lessons are negative. It's a place that amazed and impressed me, but it didn't make me feel good.
And I hope to return again soon.
Comments