The Implications of Neoclassical Architecture in the American South: A Study of The Parthenon at Centennial Park
The Greeks are known in the architectural field as the authors of antiquity, the roots of the architectural profession, and fathers of beauty. Neoclassical style has been used as a marker for prominent buildings in every corner of the world- particularly in America. We see that many markers of society- art museums, government buildings, churches- are all built with an ode to Greek architecture. Its influence has been extended to all parts of our nation. The Greeks are the foundation of our democracy and our architecture. But as this monumentalization of Greek architecture has taken place in our society, it has imposed with it ideals that do not always ring true in the course of American history. The Greeks and just democracy have an inherent bond that ties the two together, and they have always carried a notion of freedom, equality, and equity for all. Yet, Greek society and American society of the late 1800s monumentalized an exclusionary sense of freedom. In Greek and early American democracy, the tale of the white male as property and power holder is one we all know quite well. As buildings were championed in the 1800s to reflect the ideals of the Greeks, we must look at them now with more critical eyes. How has the monumentalization of Greek architecture excluded people of color and caused our society to center around paramount ideals of beauty, democracy, or freedom? What are the social implications of the architecture we see? Located in the heart of Nashville, Tennessee lies The Parthenon at Centennial Park; a complete reconstruction of the Parthenon that once stood in Ancient Greece. This paper will analyze the reasons behind the replica Parthenon, the people who built it, what the symbolism of the building means for 1890s America, and how the replica’s shift from monument to museum rooted its importance in American culture.
The Parthenon at Centennial Park was created with all intentions of being the show-stopping piece to the Centennial Exhibition of 1897 in Nashville, Tennessee. At a time when Centennial Exhibitions were the fad in America- they showcased the great improvements being made to society through innovation, engineering, architecture, and the arts- it was necessary for the larger cities to have showcases of their own. Yet, there was always a dichotomy of competition with Europe that was present for early Americans. As a young country, it was almost necessary to show through these world fairs how the minds of Americans could compete with centuries of cultural learning and tradition that was available across the European continent. On one hand, Americans wanted to showcase their skills and knowledge of the great arts to heighten the overall taste and reach of the American people. But on the other hand, these exhibitions always showcased architecture from the Greeks or Romans, an architecture that was home to the European nation. As America won her independence in 1776, the Centennial Exhibitions all over the states were to take place 100 years later to commemorate the century of American independence “with ceremonies expressive of the gratitude and pride of a great nation”. The exhibitions signaled to the masses how far the American people had come, and how they too could compete with the international exhibitions of Europe at the time.
In an attempt to reach out to the political ideals of the nation, The Parthenon became the centerpiece of the exhibition. The commission was appointed to architect William Crawford Smith to be built according to the plan of the original Parthenon in Athens. On the exterior, the pediment, frieze, doric colonnade, and sculptures of the Elgin Marbles were constructed. Though not exact, these exterior aspects of the Parthenon were attempted to be as accurate as possible. The difficulty in reconstructing the Parthenon was presented by the lines of the structure- in the original Parthenon, all columns arch towards the center to create an optical element to the structure. Because none of the lines in the Parthenon are completely straight, the building process for the replica became complicated. Despite the intention of the architect to make the Parthenon exact, the original plaster replica stood with straight lines to ease the building process and complete the building in time for the exhibition. Though unable to attain the exact lines of the Parthenon in minute details, the Tennessee remake stood, on the exterior, to be a very close reconstruction of what stood centuries prior. The interior plan, however, was never considered to match the original Parthenon plans as it was needed to exhibit art for the fair. The Parthenon, once completed, would be the only full-size replica of the structure to exist.
The intention behind the Parthenon at Centennial Park was bound, from the beginning, by a core of racist thought. The Centennial Exhibition of Tennessee was originally proposed as a commemoration of Tennessee joining the Union a century prior. Though seemingly significant in the history of Tennessee, it is widely known that Tennessee, as an original Confederate state, had much deliberation over its unification into the Union. The fair was planned and partially funded by the Nashville, Chattanooga, and St. Louis Railway company, which appointed its chief civil engineer to lead the project. The chosen director of the project, Eugene Lewis, had many intentions for the Parthenon, and how the fair would look at large. His visions for the Centennial Exhibition were to create “a gleaming White City arising on the site of the old West Side Park” where “the neo-classical motif was also an ideal visual symbol of the New South”, because the New South had adopted progressive ideals which meant “there was even a place in this brave new world for women and blacks- albeit in separate but equal facilities”. Lewis was responsible for selecting architect William Crawford Smith, previous captain and colonel of the Confederate army, to carry out his visions for the project. For both the build, and later on rebuild of the project, famous “Lost Cause” sculptor, one who even held the title “Sculptor of the Confederacy”, George Julian Zolnay was chosen to recreate all the sculptures. Consequently, the Centennial Exhibition showcased many historic documents of the state, along with memorabilia and swords from previous Confederate generals. We must not ignore these simple, blatantly obvious facts. The Parthenon was constructed in a time where racism was a factor to society and prevalent in people's everyday lives. Racism, in this case, had a seat at the table. It is one thing to recognize a building for what it is supposed to stand for- that is freedom, democracy, and equity of a new nation in this case. Yet those ideals are suddenly placed into question when we understand the context of who was enforcing those ideals, or lack thereof. I am not claiming here that the Parthenon in its construction was racist, but merely that we must acknowledge the social fabrications of society in the time in which it was born and the people who brought it to life.
In order to understand the intention behind the building further we must look at the social movements of the time. In Nashville, at the time of the replica’s construction, parks were open to all people, but despite that lawful decree, there were many societal customs. In all parks there was a “customary segregation” which led to most parks being white-only, Centennial Park included. (See Photo A in the Appendix) It wasn’t until 1901 that Nashville formed a Board of Park Commissioners in order to “create and maintain a park system” and regulate how parks were being used. In 1912, due to the effects of “customary segregation” and the need for the black community to enjoy public space without the prying eyes of the whites, the first blacks-only park opened up in the city. Though legal segregation continued until the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the later half of the twentieth century, we must analyze how even the usage of parks was limited to the black community. It can only be inferred that events such as the Centennial Exposition were reserved for white society as well. As the Centennial Exposition was a world fair intended to showcase improvements in American minds and expose the American people to the fine arts, its location of the fairground, which were eventually donated and turned into a park, particularly a park that was known to be segregated is an interesting, though not unexpected, choice. How could the exposition expose all of society to the great arts and the beauty of architecture if it was located in a place where only half of society was allowed? Furthermore, we see through the exclusion of the black community that the architecture presented in the Centennial Exhibition of 1897 only aimed to serve the white community. (See Photo B in the Appendix) It can be almost certain that a building, in this case the Parthenon, constructed by people who supported the Confederacy and encouraged exclusionary society, did not intend for the architecture to serve people of color.
After the Centennial Exhibition of 1897, the Parthenon continued to stay as the centerpiece to Centennial Park. Much of the dialogue that existed around the monument showered its praises. It was so beloved by the Nashville community that the monument was kept to showcase temporary art exhibitions until it became a hazard to the public at large. The disintegrating building began to lose its facade, piece by piece, and the Parthenon was declared a public safety hazard in the fall of 1919. It was at this pinnacle moment in the Parthenon's history where a beloved monument, intended for temporary uses, became a monument set in stone. The Parks Commission of Nashville began funding and appointing a new architect to “fix” the problems the plaster Parthenon was creating. The Parthenon was described as the “cultural mecca” of Nashville at the time, and “it had to be restored or demolished. The latter course was unthinkable and protested against by the people of Nashville who had learned to cherish it as a distinctive Nashville institution, thus the former was mandatory”. The Parthenon was reconstructed and returned to its glory by December of 1925.
In considering any form of a monument, it is necessary to analyze what is being commemorated. The Parthenon here became a “cultural mecca” for the city of Nashville, but to what extent did all of society feel that way? As segregation began to fade in the parks, and the parks gradually became open to all people, there were no ties between people of color and the Parthenon- people of color were not allowed to participate in its conception and therefore had no relationship with the Centennial Exhibition. Furthermore, the Parthenon presents an interesting dilemma for what we consider a monument to be in architectural theory: architectural monuments are often built to commemorate a past or a specific history. Yet we see how architectural pieces, particularly like the Parthenon, which are woven into the fabric of our society become monuments over time due to their continual presence. We now understand why the Parthenon was built, but we have yet to uncover why it has lasted as a monument. As depicted through the illustration in Photo C of the Appendix, multiple buildings were constructed for the Centennial Exposition of 1897. Yet of all the types of architecture shown, the Parthenon lasted due to its impression on society. This “cultural mecca” would not have been rebuilt if it were not for the attachment of white society to its presence.
In looking at what the Parthenon commemorates, we must also analyze what category of monument it falls into. In more recent times, architectural theory has categorized monuments into two vastly different things: apologetic or triumphalist memorials. Due heavily to the work done by Esra Akcan, monuments are constantly placed under one of these two lenses. The Parthenon, in its entirety, is a triumphalist monument. It beacons that the United States is a democratic society, and along with it it claims that we, like the Greeks, will be considered as one of the greatest civilizations. “In the early twentieth century, modern societies tried to define their modernity and to secure their cohesiveness by way of imagining the future”, as seen with the Parthenon but, “it now seems that the major task required of any society today is to take responsibility for its past”. The Parthenon was created and existed in a time where society looked forward. Monuments such as this one, “manipulated collective memory by overemphasizing and stabilizing the dominant voice and thus by taking part in cultural repression”. Still in the thick of segregation and lack of the Civil Rights Act, there was no need felt by greater society to apologize for the acts it had already, and was continuously, committing. Due to the recent development in the social fabric of the nation, there is a greater understanding of the ways in which our society has failed its members, particularly people of color. The Parthenon stands in its triumphalist ways because it fails to recognize any of the mistakes our nation made in the first century of its existence.
Is there potential, that through the Parthenon, we have created a monument of souvenir for what Greek society used to be? In Susan Stweart’s On Longing: Objects of Desire, the Souvenir, she presents a claim that often in the world of souvenir, the actual past is erased in order to create a past that is most available for consumption. Furthermore, she lays claim that in this consumption of the souvenir, we will have to recognize “the loss of pure nature” as what the souvenir represents is bound up within the picturesque. While the physical application and typical definition of what a souvenir is does not apply to the Parthenon in a traditional sense, in the most abstract of ways, the theory reigns true. With the passing of time we have seen the original Parthenon in Athens decay into the ruins that stand today. We have allowed for pure nature to run its course. In Tennessee however, we have imposed on the Parthenon Stewart's idea of “eternal death”. We have taken the Parthenon, the view of its prime, and constructed it to be this way forever. Furthermore, we have physically brought it back from Greece, and adapted its use to suit our needs. Through the romanticization of Greek culture, we have bound up what once stood as a pillar of Greek society and attempted to apply it as symbolism for our own society. In this way, the Parthenon is no longer true to itself, but a symbol for whatever we choose to impose on it. Due to the falsehoods of what democracy meant in America in 1897 and its exclusion of people of color, the Parthenon stands as the epitomization of souvenir. It was built for consumption, for a fair appeasing white society, and for showcasing the progressiveness of America. When in reality, that time in our history was not progressive at all. When the Parthenon was built, it attempted to reach out to the local colloquialism of referring to Nashville as “the Athens of the South”. This nickname was derived from the fact that Tennessee is the said “birthplace of Jacksonian democracy”. The Parthenon, however, instead of symbolizing democracy stemming from the Greeks, is a replica that really served no great purpose for the people. Prior to its shift into a museum, the monument was created and lasted as a matter of consumption, housing no art, and not fulfilling any need for society besides being a reminder of the Centennial Exhibition that once stood. After its use in the exhibition, the Parthenon, in its decay, only posed a threat to the safety of the public. (See Photo D in appendix)
The pivotal moment for the Pathenon at Centennial Park was when it officially became recognized as a permanent gallery, and hence changed its fate from monument to museum. During the reconstruction process for the Parthenon, a tornado struck the city and tore across the monument, causing extensive damage to the roof and funds for refurbishment to become inadequate. In a most illustrious pursuit for accuracy in the rebuilding process, funds were used in making sure extensive care was taken to have molds constructed from the Elgin Marbles, even with the difficulty presented by the marbles being housed at the British Museum in London. The exterior of the building was finished in 1925, but the interior had remained untouched from when it was first built in 1896. In December of 1925, Grand Central Galleries held a show within the Parthenon. A show so successful, it kicked off donors of private art collections to furnish the newly-understood ‘museum’ in the subsequent decades. With the promise of a prestigious art collection, the Parthenon had a new meaning for what it could provide to all of society. The Park Board Commission approved greater funding to remodel the interior and several years later, in 1931, the Parthenon was fully remodeled. Since its transition from monument to museum had lasting impact on how society used and viewed the Parthenon, “in 1974 the Parthenon was officially placed on the National Register of Historic Places [for] recognition of the importance of the role the Parthenon has played in the cultural history of the Mid-South”. This exchange in the Parthenon’s purpose allowed for the building to have greater reach- potentially fulfilling its previous title of a “cultural mecca” for the city.
In looking at its shift from cultural monument to museum, we see how the perception of the monument changed. In its role as The Parthenon for the Centennial Exhibition, the Parthenon itself was the form of art. Its presence in Centennial Park in the subsequent years was justified by the public because of the reminder it had of the Centennial Exhibition and how the building stood mutually exclusive from anything that was once shown inside. Upon the remodel and the Parthenon becoming a full-fledged gallery and museum, the Parthenon shifted from the passive role that a monument holds in culture to that of a much more active role. Museums, as beholders of art, tend to have a much greater say in depicting culture and taste. They require people to enter, to think, and to reflect. Monuments, though they in recent years have begun to take this approach, do not traditionally require the pensive action of museums- action which tends to have more lasting psychological effect on the viewer. The shift of the Parthenon from monument to museum, though pivotal in its ability to require funding and stay in the park in the first place, can be seen as pivotal in the cultural lens as well. The Parthenon was able to shed its past life as a monument, along with it the story of its birth, the denial of people of color, and some of the unjustified reasons for its continued upkeep.
In this new found light, one may see how plausible it is to argue that the adaptation of the Parthenon to the American southern scene was not unjustified. Culture, as a completely malleable and intangible thing ever present in society, can be impacted upon by the works of others. And if it is true that our democracy was founded upon some Grecian ideal of democracy, though both Grecian and American democracy were exclusionary and inherently flawed in their conception, why should we not adapt our buildings to reflect aspects of our culture as well? It is true that “a promotional strategy to display a country’s cultural achievements in the international area can be observed in the early international exhibitions of the second half of the 19th century: arts and crafts, later technological innovations and industrial products, even exotic forms of culture from the colonies were proudly offered as proof of the richness, prosperity, and progress of a nation”. These international exhibitions aided in the spread of multiculturalism, and “with the expansion of the railway network,” particularly in the case of Nashville Railroad Company’s involvement with the fair, “and transatlantic steamer transportation, cultural export took off as a commercial enterprise”. The logistics of how culture was shared and moved across localities aided in the development of “artistic mobility”, and because culture has no tangible borders, one could claim that the culture of European nations was thus brought to the states. It is not unfathomable to believe that Parthenon came to existence merely because Americans wanted to partake in Greek culture, and to use a pillar of one culture as a cornerstone for their own.
My question however to the valid point of multiculturalism is this: what good has it done the American people to do something that has already been done before? Why, in our pursuit to show the “enlightened” values of America must we appropriate a culture of the past? The struggle with the Parthenon is not that it merely exists somewhere else, or did exist, somewhere else at a different time. The struggle in understanding its necessity to the American southern scene is that it was claimed to be a pillar of progressiveness from its beginning, but it was created by people who did not believe in even the meager ways southern society was ‘progressive’ in the day. We as a society cannot accept a monument that is built for democracy, and for freedom, when freedom and proper democracy are not even available to all those who call themselves American. Furthermore, the symbolism of the Parthenon suggests, this symbolism of free democracy was only present to white males at the time of its conception. We perpetrated false ideas of what equality, democracy, and freedom meant in America through the Centennial Exhibition. Not only must we acknowledge this, but we also must look at the forefathers of Greece to see that they too were exclusionary in their democracy. What good does it do to keep perpetuating a narrative that is not whole and complete in its telling? Democracy has existed for centuries but it has almost always excluded people of color and women. I wonder to what extent we can criticize the founders of our own democracy when they were working from the example of men so many centuries before them.
Proponents of the Parthenon at Centennial Park could claim that a monument’s use value does not justify whether it should be built or not. In the years following the Centennial Exhibition the Parthenon sat without real purpose in the park. It was a placeholder, but moreover a monument that did not require public interaction. As defined by Riegl, every monument to be constructed has multiple values- but it is up to the viewer to decide which is most important in the monument's consumption. While the Parthenon could not always provide significant use value to the public in the years it sat empty and unapproachable, “by common definition, a work of art is any tangible, visible, or audible work of man of artistic value; a historical monument with any of the same properties will posses a historical value”. The Parthenon, in its simple existence, possesses all the values Riegl claims monuments have: use value, historical value, artistic value, age value, newness value (at certain times in the monuments history), and the list goes on. But what is interesting about the values Riegl presents, is that often the most significant is a museum's deliberate commemorative value. This value is best portrayed with the purpose “to keep a monument from becoming history, to keep it perpetually alive and present in the consciousness of future generations”. The deliberate commemorative value is the value the public places on the monument, it is the value of what we commemorate. In the case of the Parthenon, this value becomes the paramount factor in its inclusion to society. It is due to the love of the public for the monument, for the vision it commemorates, that it had to be rebuilt.
It would be an unfair, and furthermore incomplete, critique of the Parthenon if we did not acknowledge where the monument is today. The Parthenon still sits at the center of Centennial Park, but is now home to a number of programs put on by the state. It serves as an educational art museum, with one of its main goals to “educate the public concerning the Parthenon and the civilizations which built it, both in Athens in the 5th Century BCE and in Nashville, Tennessee from 1897 to present”. The Parthenon is supported by the Centennial Park Conservancy and hosts a plethora of public programs that encompass art, architecture, archeology, music, and theater. From the Parthenon’s change to a public art museum in 1931, and the beginning of public participation in the museum’s programs, the Parthenon truly flourished into a beckoning light for the city of Nashville. In 1990 a replica statue of Greek goddess Athena Parthenos was finished to stand at the head of the interior. Since the 1990’s the Parthenon has operated as one of Nashville’s leading museums.
In looking over the history, symbolism, and theoretical implications of the Parthenon at Centennial Park, one can more closely analyze the implications of neoclassical architecture in the American south. The American south, with a history plagued by slavey, the Confederacy, segregation, and the overall mistreatment and denial of rights to people of color, a monument beckoning the proclamation of democracy of the nation and freedom is not what one would imagine fits in this landscape. The Parthenon, through my analysis, has changed and evolved as society has evolved. Upon its conception in the Centennial Exhibition of 1897, the people who brought it to life had no intention of the monument becoming a cornerstone in Nashville’s culture. It was a temporary monument derived from many believers in the Confederate cause. Due to this foundation, the monument inherently had no connection to the black community in Nashville. Furthermore, the segregation of the time, and the segregation that continued to be allowed in this country until the later half of the twentieth century, was a gatekeeper of the monument from people of color. We see how its use and enjoyment in the greater first part of the twentieth century and its attribute as a new centerpiece to Nashville’s culture were all for white society. Through the monumentalization of Greek culture, the creators of the Parthenon in Nashville used the rebuilding of the Parthenon to symbolize not true, equal, and just democracy here in the United States, but the continual exclusivity of democracy suited for the white man. This adaptation of the Parthenon to American southern society is in its own way, America’s souvenir of the Greeks. We have taken the Parthenon, frozen it in time, and suited it to define what we want in society. Inconsequently, the Parthenon’s shift from simply a monument connected to the Centennial Exhibition to a museum aimed at serving the public, pivoted the importance of the monument in society. With the gradual inclusion of all people, and the new museum’s role of being an active partaker in fine arts and the business of societal taste, the Parthenon at Centennial Park redirected who it aimed to serve.
The Parthenon at Centennial Park will always beg the question of necessity. In seeing the only full scale replica of the Parthenon at its prime, the viewer must stop to question why. Why as a society is this, the marker of another nation, one of our own monuments? How has this had a role in history or lack thereof? It is my hope that going forward in our nation we ask these questions to ourselves and we attempt to understand the history behind such monuments and whether or not they were inclusive to all of society and perpetuated a narrative that was true. As the chain link of history continues to develop, and new values and viewpoints are placed into the forefront, we must continue to look back with critical eyes to the things that have come before us. The Parthenon in Nashville, Tennessee stands as a reminder that our monuments can represent different values to different groups of people, and in order to understand its necessity in society today, we must look back and question the lens under which it was built.
Works Cited
Coleman, Christopher K. “From Monument to Museum: The Role of the Parthenon in the
Culture of the New South.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 49, no. 3 (1990): 139–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42626877.
Welsh, John. “THE CENTENNIAL EXHIBITION.” Scientific American 30, no. 19 (1874):
296–296. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26035908.
Thruston, G. P. “THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AT THE TENNESSEE CENTENNIAL.”
The American Historical Magazine 3, no. 1 (1898): 8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45340226.
Kaplowitz, Craig Allan. “A Breath of Fresh Air: Segregation, Parks, and Progressivism in
Nashville, Tennessee, 1900-1920.” Tennessee Historical Quarterly 57, no. 3 (1998): 132–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44001682.
Akcan, Esra. “Apology and Triumph: Memory Transference, Erasure, and a Reading of the
Berlin Jewish Museum, New German Critique, No. 110 (Summer 2010), 153-179.
Klaic, Dragan. “CULTURES BEYOND BORDERS.” In Mobility of Imagination: A
Companion Guide to International Cultural Cooperation, 1st ed., 13. Central European
University Press, 2007. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7829/j.ctv10tq6d1.4.
Riegl, Alois. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin” trans. Kurt W.
Forster and Diane Ghirardo, Oppositions, 25 (Fall 1982).
“Education.” The Parthenon. Accessed May 19, 2022.
https://www.nashvilleparthenon.com/education.
