Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). (theliberaloc.com)
A commenter on my recent blog updating readers on Frank Gehry’s proposal for a memorial to General Eisenhower points out that I relied on an incomplete report of what California Rep. Darrell Issa said of the proposal’s latest revisions.
Since I interpreted that report as indicating that Issa might be thinking it best to jettison the Gehry proposal, this new information is depressing to me but vital for readers’ assessment of the state of play on the memorial. The proposal by Gehry has seemed to me headed for the dumpster, and maybe it still is, but I hope I have not given readers an unjustified sense of optimism.
Here are more of Issa’s remarks conveyed by the commenter, who styles himself “lux-et-veritas”:
Your blog piece used an article on the DCist’s website by Sarah Hughes as its sole source. It’s accurate as far as it goes but leaves the reader with the impression that Representative Issa wasn’t in favor of moving ahead. I’m sure you read other news reports on the NCPC meeting which support what I heard the man say. For example, the Washington Post reported on the meeting in print, to wit:
“Issa — who said he met with Gehry in California over the Labor Day weekend — noted objections to the memorial’s design but said that the commission can’t provide” “another opportunity for it not to be perfect for someone.” And
“ ‘We can’t go back to square one,’ said Issa, who dismissed calls by detractors to scrap the Gehry design and restart the process.” And
“ ‘With the changes to the design as it is, I’m prepared to support it,’ said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a planning commission member who chairs the House Oversight Committee.”
I thank “lux-et-veritas” for keeping your correspondent on his toes.
Architecture Here and There 
Pingback: Issa beats wimp rap? | Architecture Here and There
Lux, that was a headline, and accurate insofar as can be seen from your extension of Issa’s remarks. A spade is a spade.
LikeLike
Dear Lux et Veritas,
I’m not sure that this is the best forum to discuss these very important matters (having nothing to do with Rep. Darrell Issa), but David Brussat probably doesn’t mind lending us his site. You stated the truth:
“Sadly the Eisenhower Memorial has brought out the worst in some people involved in the debate.” with which I have to agree. My friends the classicists have drawn a line in the sand, against those who consider Frank Gehry our greatest living architect (and who regard any criticism as an annoyance). The debate has exploded way beyond the merits of his memorial design, and yes, it has become personal and at times vitriolic.
And yet this was to be expected — not necessarily here and now, but eventually the contradiction between traditional architecture and the current starchitects had to flare up. There is a lot of pent-up anger coming out.
Best wishes,
Nikos
LikeLike
Thanks,
Nikos,
Any further correspondence will be sent to your email address. I appear to have worn out my welcome on this blog.
best wishes
Lux
LikeLike
Perish the thought! All with something to say are welcome.
LikeLike
Dear David,
Just a comment: I know “Lux and Veritas”, and he is a nice guy and also very informed about architecture. You might find that he agrees with you and me on many issues. So I’m very happy that you completed the quotes on Gehry’s Eisenhower Memorial. It just so happens that I don’t like it at all, yet in the extremely heated debate that it has ignited, it is important to keep the record accurate. It is unfortunate that criticisms of this project are confused with (sometimes correctly, at other times unjustly) with criticisms of the architect.
Best wishes,
Nikos
LikeLike
His critique was spot on. I did not go beyond the single source, and he tagged me. I have said again and again that if the Gehry design is killed because of its cost, because the competition was rigged, because the tapestries can’t be maintained, all well and good. It will be great to block a Gehry for any reason in my hometown. But for the cause of beauty in architecture, and in defense of tradition, there needs to be an aesthetic quotient to the rationale for his memorial’s demise. Otherwise it’s a largely pointless exercise.
LikeLike
Dear Professor,
Thank you for the kind words, wise insight and measured tone. You obviously know David better then I so perhaps you can succeed where I have failed. If you read the prior posts between David and me you will see that the discussion went much further then what Rep. Issa really said.
We can have a civil and even an animated debate on architecture, art or any other subject without it devolving to ad hominem attacks, unfounded accusations and verbal violence. Sadly the Eisenhower Memorial has brought out the worst in some people involved in the debate. I am not naive, I understand that passions run deep not only in architecture but science, mathematics, art, politics and all the other disciplines which have advanced the human race. BUT DISAGREEMENT NEED NOT BE TURNED INTO A BLOODSPORT. Calling Rep. Issa a wimp is not an argument, its an opinion which need not be proffered. And being called a wimp in this sorry affair is mild. Gehry is routinely referred to on one news blog as F—ing Gehry, a potential sculpture who was barely mentioned was immediately branded as a pedophile, people who have said they like the design have been savagely attacked and all this seems to be coming from one direction. if someone doesn’t like the design, fair enough, tell us why and lets debate it. UGLY OR ODIOUS are subjective unarguable conclusions.
I apologize for venting at length but i think its a discussion worth having. Then again, what the hell do I know?
Regards
LikeLike