40 minute read
The Rhetoric of Architecture
The extent and effectiveness to which the backdrop of architecture reinforces the agenda of political speeches.
Thomas Parry
Advertisement
0. Abstract
The presence of political figures in the daily lives of the general public has developed in tandem with innovations of the film and digital mediums that put them there. Since the early 20th Century, the widespread distribution of photography and film in various media has given a face to politicians, as their words are received by an ever-growing audience. But as time has passed and political addresses have become commonplace with the progress of video media, the stage design of political speeches has become more considered and consequential to how a speech is received: a simple office or podium background being replaced by a unique, relevant architecture to punctuate a point for memorable effect. Through a series of case study investigations across the 20th and 21st Centuries — including Nixon and Khrushchev’s famous kitchen debate in 1959, US former presidents Roosevelt, Regan and Trumps’ televised addresses as well as the Queen’s recent royal addresses — I will be looking at the role architecture has played as a backdrop to political speeches. I will show how the impact of a staged background may even go so far as to overshadow the contents of the speech itself, whether this intentionally brings favourable consideration to the rhetoric of the speaker or not.
Compendium
1. Introduction pp. 6-7
• Establishing the concept that architecture plays a significant but often overlooked role in political speeches, being the tonal background that can enhance the impact of such speeches.
• An overview on the methodology to be used in examining each case study, in analysing the spoken words and how they relate to the settings in which they are performed (illustrated through photo images of these events).
• An example and introductory case study examination of the Kitchen Debate to contextualise the dissertation with the contemporary discourse on political speech analysis relating to architecture, with the point of solidifying the evident influence such architecture has in resonating politicians’ messages.
5. Thatcher’s No.10 Downing Street pp. 14-15
• A publicly broadcast display of the “special relationship” between the UK and US on the door to the most politically significant building in the UK, conveying a combination of both power and familiarity.
• The otherwise humble facade of No.10 is here given its iconic representation of the power contained within, with the crowding of dignitaries and security contrasting its appearance as housing, embodying the political yet personal relationship between Thatcher and Reagan.
• In its use as a backdrop to this speech, the architecture of No.10 creates a tone that contrasts heavily with that of the White House address by Thatcher, here being more formal and deliberate in what it is representing.
2. Fireside Chats pp. 8-9
• Conveying a recurring tone of empathy in a relatable, homely setting in one of the first instances of publicly broadcast speeches by a significant political figure, and in doing so, establishing effective precedent.
• FDR is presented in a variety of comforting surroundings that garner empathetic acceptance from the watching (and listening) public towards his political messages, through replication of a home setting to appear as if talking with a close friend or family member.
• These chats created a common and malleable format of broadcast political theatre that enabled FDR and others following him to talk to their audience on a seemingly personal level.
6. The St. John’s Photo Op pp. 16-17
• Trump’s seemingly improvised exploitation of a church damaged during protests as a background for press photography, bringing direct attention to the symbolic nature of the architecture in this unspoken appearance.
• The use of the prop Bible and posing of political figures creates deliberately evocative photos that establish a clear and powerful message, more effective and recognisable than could be done with a speech, and enhanced, even, without any words spoken which would likely diminish the impact of this message.
• The architecture here, despite its inherent religious intent, was not designed as a political stage in this manner or for this specific purpose, yet this political action has manipulated its symbolism to aid a political agenda.
3. The Checkers Speech pp. 10-11
• A last-ditch, emotive outcry by the controversy encumbered Vice Presidential candidate, Nixon, in addressing the public directly to attempt to gain their support and votes.
• Here Nixon is subverting the established staging of architecture through his more direct interaction with the prop setting in exaggerated, emotive body language movements that convey his own emotional message rather than simply mimicking the contextual tone of the public.
• By using this home setting, now familiar to the public, Nixon has expanded on this use of architecture to transition from evoking sympathetic to emotion driven responses from the audience, emphasising his speech.
7. A Garden Centre Press Conference pp. 18-19
• An impromptu venue change caused the focus of what was supposed to be a defiant political address to be on the irregular background instead, becoming a point of ridicule undermining the tone of the message entirely.
• Contrary to the previous case studies, the architecture background is brought to attention more so than the figures involved and words spoken, with the result being that this setting has negatively overpowered the event, to the extent that the speech itself is of no significance and given no authority.
• This case (albeit an extreme) shows the impact of architecture to stage political addresses being of greater significant than the spoken message, and also how this impact is not necessarily beneficial to the message.
4. Royal Addresses pp. 12-13
• A continuation of Roosevelt’s standard set design in the modern form of the Queen’s special addresses, performed on rare occasions when a national issue is of significant enough concern.
• These televised speeches differ from the Queen’s regular Christmas and Parliament addresses in such a way as to appear more humble and more personal, setting aside the apparent power of the figure (much as FDR did) to become an empathetic presence while also retaining an underlying authority.
• This attempted relation to the public is also shown in situations beyond the home environment, showing how such performances have evolved to become further encompassing.
8. Conclusion pp. 20
• Shown throughout the examination of these case studies is the evolution made by the set design of political speeches, becoming increasingly substantial in overpowering the importance of a speech’s spoken contents.
• As political figures are now avoiding new and evocative backgrounds in their addresses, any deviations from this become more obvious and influential on dictating the tone of the address
• Unless coordinated and executed to near perfection, it is perhaps safer for political figures to remain on neutral or otherwise architecturally familiar backgrounds, avoiding the possibility of controversy but also restricting the potential enduring influence that could be achieved.
1. Introduction
Bletter, 1981
As politicians address the audience directly in front of them and those behind a radio, TV screen or even computer, they might give emphasis to certain phrases, punctuate their points with gestures or use props to manifest their message. While seemingly subtle in use, these actions have become increasingly noticeable and frequently analysed. What remains in sight but out of thought, however, is the governing presence of architecture, silently establishing the tone of a politician’s speech from the background. Whether deliberate or not, architecture is used as a form of set design in political speeches that acts as a passive player in reinforcing or diminishing the agenda and message of the speaker. The architecture itself has no decision in its involvement and subsequent affiliation beyond the original intentions of the architect. When represented in media, the physically unaltering spaces of architecture are given new definition through the reinterpretation of a camera lens. By the discretion of the film crew, the space is only presented to viewers from certain limited perspectives that may only capture a single expression of the architecture’s disposition and ignore any others (Colomina, 2001). When this opportunity is appropriated for broadcast political addresses there is the deliberate acknowledgment and manipulation of a space in conforming it to the tone desired to tactfully reflect and accentuate the speaker.
In the discussion by Bletter in Architecture and Ideology (1981), she makes the point that architecture has an inherent political nature from its conception, due to the influences placed on the architect by clients, councils and other governing bodies. While this is generally true in most instances, it is how architecture can and has been co-opted into aiding political agendas simply through its presence which I shall examine, perhaps in spite of any original intentions. Through a series of case study investigations across the 20th and 21st Centuries, I will be looking at the role architecture has played as a backdrop to political speeches, and the effectiveness it has had in supporting and even bolstering these speeches, or perhaps not. These case studies chosen often feature key political figures of significant importance and apparent influence, causing the outcome of their performance to be of greater consequence to the public to whom they are addressing. The historic and technological progression demonstrated in each case study also makes apparent the increasing importance of this background architecture in creating a distinct impression on audiences, as the frequency of such events has increased exponentially over time, causing their significance to decline and so to their influence.
1.1. Nixon chatting with the demonstrator, casually ignoring Khrushchev.
Sochurek, 1959
1.2. Nixon adopting a more relaxed demeanour as Khrushchev confronts him.
Erwitt, 1959
1.3. The resulting Kitchen Debate recorded by the press in film, photography and writing.
Library of Congress, 1959
Nixon and Khrushchev, 1959
To contextualise my topic of discussion in the historic and continuing analysis of political speeches made noteworthy by the architecture they inhabit, I will first introduce the oft referenced Kitchen Debate of 1959, as discussed in Enclosed by Images (Colomina, 2001). It has been well established that this frank encounter between Nixon and Khrushchev, while made to appear spontaneous, was planned well in advance by the American side. In this mock kitchen setting, Nixon appears at ease in familiar surroundings, even leaning and resting his foot on the railing while chatting to the “house wife” character opposite. As his attention then turns to Khrushchev and his temperament becomes more confrontational - pointing his index finger in a variety of gestures whilst maintaining his relaxed composure, with the intention of aggravating his counterpart - the architecture set design transitions to circumstantial background from an instigating prop. Even as the debate moves to a space coincidentally occupied by photographers and recording equipment, the residual tone of the kitchen remains, as does its impact on the two key figures and the roles that have been placed on them - of Khrushchev’s flustered assertion of Soviet Russian superiority and Nixon’s casual dismissal and reproach. Although this example may show the point rather blatantly, and perhaps artificially, it is clear that the architecture here is integral to the message being presented by Nixon: here and now you can see the quality of American manufacturing and lifestyle, nothing said otherwise can disprove this presence. And it is the concept of physical, spatial presence in this message that makes architecture such an effective tool for politicians to establish a resonance to their performances.
2. Fireside Chats
Roosevelt, 1933
2.1. FDR addressing the nation over the radio, sat with his wife and mother by the fireside.
Keystone, 1938
The fireplace is instantly recognisable for its connotations of warmth, comfort and sense of home. Prior to the widespread inclusion of central heating in homes, a lit fireplace was often the central gathering point for family recreation. As such, the imagery of a lit fireplace encircled with resting figures resonates in the viewer’s mind feelings of tranquillity and familiarity, whether this is consciously acknowledged or not. Presented outside of any pre-disclosed context, the image shown here on the left encapsulates this preconception almost perfectly - the mantle adorned with personal artefacts and portraits with a large painting hung just above; family members seated comfortably either side of the prominent fireplace, a collection of books close to hand - the idealised contemporary family home. It would be expected that a range of personal to international topics of conversations could take place in such a casual, intimate setting. And so, in this state of mind is set the tone of addresses given by US President Roosevelt (known commonly as FDR) throughout his tenure, predominantly over radio broadcasts but also televised news reels. Matching his homely setting, FDR’s “chats” would often begin with him addressing the audience at home as “my friends” or “my fellow Americans”, a distinct contrast to the unapologetically authoritarian nature of speeches given by leaders across the pre-WW2 era world. By talking to his public audience on a seemingly personal level - made possible only in recent years with the development of radio broadcasts - FDR intentionally gained empathetic acceptance from his audience for whatever message he was presenting them with. This tone of speaking he had adopted worked in conjunction not only with the setting from which he was seated, but also with the homes in which his public audience listened. In this way he was creating a spatial connection incurring those familiar connotations, despite being a boundless distance away.
In examining this image further, specifically the body language and demeanour of Roosevelt, he still appears to retain the formality and composure recognisable in a figure of authority, despite of, or perhaps complimentary to his staged surroundings. The first and most noticeable indication of FDR’s retained presence is taken from a combination of himself and adjacent wife and mother: them looking onward at him, chairs angled to aid this, while he looks past them (possible at a camera or figure out of picture), also with his chair angled respective of this. While there are the obvious overtones of contemporary gender roles in this symbolism, beyond this could be evident the persuasive mannerisms of FDR; when physically distanced and not the visual centre of the image, attention is still drawn towards him. Subtle references to his commanding presence can even be seen through similarities with the large painting also drawing focus. In both figures, they are seated slightly side-on, in formal dress, with prop papers in hand. Such similarities, although not obvious at first glance, act to add weight to Roosevelt’s apparent casual authority.
2.2. Roosevelt’s first Fireside Chat addressing the recent banking crisis.
National Archives and Records Administration, 1933
2.3. A more decorative backdrop prominently featuring a model ship.
Library of Congress, 1936
2.4. A broadcast late in his tenure, displaying more background props.
National Archives and Records Administration, 1944
Roosevelt, 1942
A large wooden desk strewn with papers, set in front of a deep, curtained window sill, with ornamental chair between: the most common stage from which Roosevelt would deliver his addresses. From his very first Fireside Chat - only eight days into his presidency - FDR established this simplistic, yet effective scene that would become a familiar recognition of the personal talks he would give to the nation. The imagery of a figure sat opposite, behind a table or desk, leans onto the similarity of a friend conversing with you during a dinner. Yet, this same imagery also brings to mind a workplace manager taking a meeting in their office - symbolism that FDR would not entirely want to be associated with in this context. In these early years of primarily radio broadcasts and some photography, this appearance may not have been of great consequence. However, as FDR’s appearances became more prevalent through development of filmed newsreels, so too did his awareness for the inclusion of more personal props. For instance, a large model ship appears in the window, the once sole purpose of which being to frame the seated President, now hinting to the public the interests and personality not usually displayed. In later years this background prop - the only changing component of an otherwise consistent set - is replaced with bookcase shelving, the symbolism of which may be inclined to represent the amassed knowledge and experience of FDR’s presidency. Roosevelt clearly deliberated greatly in preparation of his Chats, claiming to spend several days doings to prior to his broadcasts (Goodwin, 1994). In doing so he was able to establish an effective methodology for connecting with his audience in such a way as to appear as a friend, allowing for the easier acceptance and reduced severity of his political agendas.
3. The Checkers Speech
Nixon, 1952
3.1. Sequential stills from the televised Checkers Speech. 0:38
Richard Nixon Foundation, 1952
3:43
7:50
8:30
Following on from the precedent set by Roosevelt in utilising the architecture of stage design in personalised speeches to the public, this mode of address became commonplace in use by political figures, particularly in the US. President Truman even continued use of the same space as FDR in many of his own broadcasts (Graham, 2020). While this continuity may have held some degree of the persuasion of which it was originally capable, it is of no doubt that the effect had come to diminish over time as the public’s attention grows ever weary, as is often the case with political affairs. And so, it is in this context that the unwavering tone of empathy was so effectively subverted in the Checkers Speech. In broadcast addresses prior, the speaker would often remain stationary, almost as if merging with a background seen only through a limiting camera lens. In this sense the arrangement of the architecture and props in relation to the scope of visibility is of greater significance when stationary, due to the prolonged focus of attention they take. The distinction of the Nixon’s speech, however, is in the movements made both by the Vice Presidential candidate himself and how this is echoed by the movement of the camera in panning across the room. In extending the usual framing of a politician sat behind a desk to include otherwise unseen space, Nixon’s message of subverting “the usual political thing to do” has become evident beyond just his words and is manifested in his and the camera’s actions.
10:16
15:58
18:18
20:49
Through the duration of his time seated, Nixon rarely remains inactive; leaning towards the camera, gesturing, folding and clenching his hands, sorting through papers, all to assert the emotion that drives his words. With all this activity the backdrop becomes of little significance in comparison. Beyond setting the familiar scene (even so far as to position Nixon’s wife looking on with approval, almost mirroring the earlier fireside image of FDR) not a great deal is unique on this stage. What is unique is the composition of this stage - the blend of professional and home environments. In a wholly unlikely arrangement, Nixon’s desk - a place of work - is facing away from the centre of this comparatively large room, made more unusual with his wife, Pat, seated comfortably while angled to watch only him. Even the free-standing ashtray’s placement appears superficial, filling the space between the two without being a reasonable distance from either to use conveniently. These compositional choices sum up to the intentionally staged nature of the broadcast. Whether the truth is being spoken here is made somewhat redundant by the persuasive, emotional manner in which it is being presented. Nixon has not only played into the established effectiveness to which a home setting lends a political speech, but has gone beyond emulating empathy with the public audience, bearing his own emotions for the audience to gain empathy with instead.
Nixon, 1952
3.2. Nixon’s impassioned rise from his seated position behind the customary desk. 23:25
Richard Nixon Foundation, 1952
24:51
26:46
29:00
While the deliberacy to which Nixon uses his linguistic capabilities and body language to punctuate his speeches has been a frequent subject of analysis (Mukhortov, 2018), how this is coordinated alongside the architectural set design further indicates the importance that this setting has in emphasising the emotive performance being given here. As Nixon rises from his seat after more than twenty minutes of maintaining the recognisable Roosevelt-esque position, he has disrupted this convention with the exclamation, “why do I feel so deeply?”. He has now separated from the background and become the sole focus of the audience’s perception, drawing this in further with broad arm gestures and addressing the audience directly: “And I am going to ask you to help them decide”. When standing, Nixon has positioned himself in front of the large curtain and away from the more noticeable desk and bookcase to the left of him and his wife to the right. Generally speaking, the symbolism of closed curtains represents something being concealed - not quite the connotation that would be desired in this context. In contrast to the earlier Fireside Chats - in which the open curtains reflected the open, honest tone of the broadcasts - it is somewhat strange that there is this difference, telling, perhaps, of the staged nature of this performance. Despite this symbolism, however, it does not appear to have taken away from the overall impact of the speech. In diverting from the passive standard by which politicians had come to address the public, Nixon had formulated a precedent in using architecture as a stage on which to subvert the common expectations of a broadcast speech. In this distinction from the expected is the effect that the speech has become more enduring in the mind of the viewers, and thus has made them more susceptible to accepting and even embracing the political agenda set forth through its emotional telling.
4. Royal Addresses
Elizabeth, 2020
4.1. The Queen addressing the camera directly, facing away from the usual desk set up.
Buckingham Palace, 2020
4.2. Utilising the desk to prominently display the portrait prop.
Buckingham Palace, 2020
4.3. A lavishly decorated, wide angled stage clearly stating the Christmas celebration.
Buckingham Palace, 2018
The familiar image of an assortment of relevant props laid out for display on a table, set before a single figure addressing directly the camera lens. In refining this old formula these props have become more astute in their choice and arrangement. The first image presents a small potted plant, appearing to be a bush of miniature roses, the symbolism of which historically represents the unity of England (originating after the Wars of the Roses) - pertinent for the sentiment of this rare address. While the rose also represents love in general culture (which is to a degree appropriate here) it is more likely to have been chosen for the former connotations. Aside from this, the remaining writing board and chest remain constant fixtures in all three cases. The purpose of which likely does not go beyond reiterating the underlying importance of the Queen as a figure of authority. The second image, a second special address by the Monarch within the same year, too features just a single prominent prop in the foreground - a portrait. Shown here is King George VI, Queen Elizabeth’s father, in recognition of his role during the Second World War, as is described in this VE anniversary address. The placement of this prop is not only related to the obvious subject at hand, but also with a fundamental tone of family and connection to people, as is the intended tone of this message of unity during the coronavirus pandemic.
What makes these two special addresses by the Queen of particular significance, aside from the fact of their rarity, is the distinct change in composition and background to the most comparable, recurring events of the Royal Christmas Message. While still maintaining the seemingly essential desk at the forefront of the image, this prop and the Queen are made significantly reduced figures, with the focus instead taken by the brightly lit, golden ornate backdrop. Where in the more recent special addresses the background is blurred slightly and cropped from view - reflecting a more modest tone careful to acclimate to that of the general public - here is displayed an emphatic celebration of wealth and grandeur, the common symbolisms of the presence of gold. Even the framing of portraits shares in this trend, starkly contrasting the plain dark wooden frame surrounding King George. And yet, still the familiar and relatable (although not so much as it once was) fireplace makes an appearance - a classic marker of Christmas - as well as the family displayed in the portraits just in front. Despite the excess of gold, this space is staged as any other typical house celebrating Christmas.
While the circumstances and symbolisms of these images are drastically different, they have been orchestrated to embody the public attitudes towards these different situations. As with the prior case studies the figure, Queen Elizabeth, is given an appearance of shared empathy with the audience, whether that be celebration of contemplation. As one of the most influential figures of the world, there is still retained the authoritative demeanour underlying in each scenario, maintaining the importance intended to ensure the message is given weight when received. The clear distinction between these and other political speeches, however, is the implicit agenda and messages are intended to calm or celebrate the prevailing public attitude, rather than present an entirely new or drastically altered way of thinking.
Elizabeth, 2020
4.4. The ceremonious opening of Parliament in October, full of tradition and circumstance.
Jones, 2019
4.5. The dressed down ceremony performed just two months later, still maintaining but reducing the opulent excess.
Chown, 2019
Looking outside of a home-like setting, political figures have attempted to maintain a sympathetic appearance matching the concurrent sentiment of the public. The throne of the House of Lords is an iconic representation of the wealth and power of the Monarchy, the presence of which dominating the chamber even without the ceremonious attendances of the Queen. The towering golden furnishing’s permanence acts to emphasise the stature of those occupying it and serve as a reminder of their enduring place there even when they are not. This is apparent through the throne’s position in regards to the chamber’s layout, being centred and separated at the far end, backed against the wall so as to become a focal point to which there is no background. The abundant golden appearance, detailed with secondary regal colours of red and black, aids in perpetuating this distinct sovereignty from the already eminently adorned House of Lords. Even the physical mass of the throne contributes to its conveyance of authority through superiority – using its grand size to play on the inherent significance of scale in human perception of hierarchy. This manipulation of scale becomes even more apparent during the ceremonial addresses, in which the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are isolated and elevated amongst a mass of onlookers who appear almost indistinguishable and insignificant by comparison. And so, as the two prime occupants brought into focus, the Queen and Duke’s own appearances are placed under greater scrutiny in whether they contrast or compliment the grandeur of the throne – thus making such deviations as in the December 2019 address more poignant in conveying a starker tone.
In the dressed down state opening the Queen and Duke become separate entities from the throne rather than an extension of it. The cause of this being the disparities of aesthetic for the royal figures, usually blending with gold detailed attire. Due to the significant divide in public opinion during this time of tension surrounding Brexit, it is evident that the Queen’s appearance had been diminished to dissuade a perception of authoritarian power inherent with the imagery of a royal figure on a throne. Where before were the flowing red and white cloak, golden jewellery and embroidery, medals and other adornments, now were undecorated garments unidentifiable as being worn by royalty. Even in place of the Queen’s crown – her instantly recognisable symbol of wealth and rule – lay a hat only distinguished by its floral ornament. This demonstration of altered set design displays a degree of acclimation to the climate of public opinion, here done to avoid unwanted connotations on the Queen’s apparent impartiality. It is also an example of the ongoing evolution of political performances to become further encompassing of various architectural settings when accounting for public perception.
5. Thatcher’s No.10 Downing Street
Reagan, 1982
5.1. The inconspicuous yet iconic entrance of 10 Downing Street.
Godliman, 2013
5.2. Reagan in a crowd of dignitaries giving his cordial parting remarks.
Hulton Archive, 1982
The front door of number 10 Downing Street is often a focal point of UK politics, appearing frequently in the media as a platform for political addresses to the nation. It provides a threshold for those who enter; between the public realm of the ever watching press outside and the undisclosed activities taking place within. When passing through, a person is entering a place of apparent authority and formality. The very colouring of the building’s facade reflects these symbolic connotations, with black often evoking power, strength and mystery. It is even possible that this perceived symbolism originates partially from the building itself, as this colouring was not at first intentional, having once been yellow, but blackened by centuries of smog. As this has been embraced over time, the building and, more specifically, its entrance, have become an iconic enshrinement of the political power of the UK. This is in spite of its relatively modest architecture, in comparison to the grandiose government buildings of other nations, and even other ministerial buildings also within London. It is remarkable, then, that this seemingly unremarkable building has become so renowned - although it is likely its distinct appearance that has also contributed to this. By physical association in the presence of this architecture, any political figure addressing the press or public is given the weight of these properties, enabling their words to carry greater conviction and capability of persuasion.
The building’s function as a home became an overtone of its inhabitation during Margaret Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister, announcing on the 250th anniversary (1985) of its place as the official seat of power that it is “above all, a home - and it is a house of history” (Morrison, 2010). While this has been demonstrated both within the walls of the house and outside, it is this external facade and threshold which hold the greatest relevance, in regards to its frequent and public inhabitation, providing background for public addresses. The combination of a place of power and a place of dwelling is epitomised in the special relationship between Thatcher and her US counterpart Ronald Reagan, displayed candidly in his 1982 visit. Upon concluding their business inside, Thatcher, Reagan and his dignitaries gather at this customary spot, just past the threshold of the door, police flanking either side. In this space not designed for such activities, Reagan delivers his parting remarks before be hurried away by a tug at the arm from Thatcher. This overt display of spouse-like familiarity within the crowd of formal, austere officials echoes greatly the building behind: the formality in dress and composure of the many political figures gathered resembling the uniform, rigid brickwork of the facade; the candour with which Reagan describes his “very heartwarming experience” and interacts with Thatcher, parallels a close friend or family member saying goodbye after a lengthy visit. In this regard, 10 Downing Street had become a most appropriate stage on which to demonstrate and bolster the public’s perception of the special relationship.
Reagan, 1987
5.3. Thatcher’s brief introduction of Reagan in the crowded entryway of number 10.
Hulton Archive, 1982
5.4. Thatcher’s departing speech from the more orderly stage of the White House.
Sachs, 1987
When considering the steps of Downing Street were not designed to hold such press events, their provide an interestingly well composed backing: the wrought iron archway framing the speaker against the neutral door; parallel windows, brickwork and fencing on either side drawing no particular attention, yet remaining a dominant presence of authority; a simple podium as the only prop necessary to indicate the speaker. It is then curious to see how a similar such stage is attempted when Thatcher in turn visited the White House five years later. With the many rooms and vantage points from which a figure is able to address an audience within this site, chosen for Thatcher is, again, an entrance threshold. While it could be true that this is mere coincidence - being that it is indeed the Diplomatic Entrance - the choice to do so here remains a reflection of an endearing parting message to the host, attempting to replicate the personal nature of the Downing Street visit. The formal yet improvised composition also appears to be mimicked here, while perhaps also being upstaged. The closely confined exodus of officials from number 10 is instead an organised arrangement to the side of the speaker, giving more structured support to their placement. Here too the guards on either side of the, again, neutral door are providing a sense of security whilst also showing more ornamental uniforms and brandishing the flag of the visiting Prime Minister. Even the repeated use of a temporary podium shows this desire to maintain a casual yet commanding stature. While, again, parting addresses are likely commonplace for visiting diplomats, the decisions made to compose this stage in this way, in this place leads to at least an implicit forethought foster the idea the special relationship. By manifesting the staged architecture to encourage this preconception, Thatcher and Reagan’s speeches are given greater sincerity and are made more compelling to the public audience.
6. The St. John’s Photo Op
Trump, 2020
6.1. Donald Trump brandishing the Bible to accentuate the church behind.
Sky News, 2020
A sole remark direct at the gathered press when asked, by a reporter, what he was holding: “It’s a Bible”. No other speeches or formal statements seemed necessary in summing up the intent of this appearance. In fact, aside from a decidedly brief monologue of the supposed greatness of the country, no other audible words were even spoken. This event, preceded by a disarray of peaceful protesters being forcibly cleared, became a palpable moment, signalling to all the coerced unity of Trump’s dogmatic actions and the conspicuous religious symbolism.
The subliminal associations formed when in the presence of a religious building, such as a church, are generally conforming to the imposing religious intent emanating from its immense stature. This excessive size manifesting a supposed divine permanence and constant invasive presence made visible to all. It is also, of course, a monument to its believers, in which divinity is at its most tangible form. By association, Trump posing here, a place which has had its iconography corrupted by damage, is an attempt to assert himself as a saviour figure in the eyes of his religious following. The Bible brandished by Trump acts as a prop with which he emphasises this message - the book itself often used in US law as a test of a person’s integrity, through the act of them placing a hand on its cover (as Trump does here) and swearing honesty (Rosefield, 2014)
In this image Trump has positioned himself with the most apparent indication that this is indeed a church - a display board stating as much - visibly behind him. This alongside the Bible makes undoubtedly apparent the religious nature of his chosen setting. Behind this again are the pristine white stone railings of the window balconies. The windows themselves are boarded up, the most evident sign of damage to the otherwise unmarked church. The positioning of the window, mirroring the display board on the right, with Trump central, asserts its presence and significance. The depth of this composition also gives hierarchy within the image, albeit unintentionally: Trump in the foreground being the most visually dominant figure, epitomising his desire to be of focal significance (as demonstrated in this lone appearance); the flanking Bible and church sign lending their inherent religious support as the next most apparent components of the image; and finally the damaged windows, partially blurred and obscured but an obvious presence nonetheless, punctuating an overtone of the circumstances for this photo.
Trump, 2020
6.2. Trump considering the Bible as he poses for photos in front of the damaged church.
Semansky, 2020
6.3. Repositioning to the boarded entrance and steps as an alternative background.
Smialowski, 2020
6.4. Trump joined by a few accompanying advisors in an unspoken line-up.
AFP, 2020
In the improvised progression of posed photos, Trump is at first presented by himself in a variety of positions in front of the church, displaying the prop Bible, purportedly his own. The apparent message of these images being his association with, and backing of the Christian church - showing his support against the damage caused by protests here and elsewhere. Of course, with no religious figures here or prior approval of this photography, this supposed association is provided solely by the architecture. The religious nature and purpose of the church is expected to be a show of approval, despite the inability for this to be otherwise countered in this moment. In this way the purpose of this architecture has been manipulated beyond its religious intent, to become involuntary symbolism for an unproven political bond. In other words, the church has been made to reinforce a political agenda.
The effectiveness of this imagery is clearly apparent, provoking uncompromising support and opposition in the public, political and religious figures alike (BBC, 2020). It is likely that the impact of these photos was greater than if done with an accompanying speech, since the message on show is free to be interpreted in a multitude of ways, as intended, rather than being limited. In doing so the imagery become more potent in creating discourse on the surrounding circumstances (perhaps to distract from the cause and reasoning of the Black Lives Matter protests by diverted attention to the damage caused - albeit not the focus of this dissertation topic). The seemingly improvised photo shoot at St. John’s Church shows the profound impact architecture can have on political imagery, being a unwilling participant of a political agenda. Shown here, the deliberacy to which the building and location were chosen amidst protests gave significant weight to the message being purported by the President. The importance of architecture could be said to have evolved, in a way, to become more purposeful in a political setting than any speech or address.
7. A Garden Centre Press Conference
Middleton, 2020
7.1. Rudy Giuliani addressing the gathered press at a parking lot, with many sat on the bare ground.
Minchillo, 2020
A conference room stage, government building or even hotel events hall are the usual sites chosen by politicians to host a press conference or speech - known for their recognisably formal yet incontrovertible consistency. Any deviation from this setting usually brings with it greater attention to the background, thus establishing a tone that is reflected onto the politician’s address. While in the prior case studies this deviation has been an intentional venture to accentuate the message and agenda being proposed - often to beneficial effect - the disarray shown in this press conference epitomises the adverse effects such a venue can have in contrasting the intended message.
A parking lot by itself is an unorthodox setting in which to gather press reporters and photographers: the lack of seating forcing reporters to sit on the hard, gravel covered ground, or remaining standing for a prolonged extent in the open air. When combined with the irrelevant buildings providing backdrop, however, the situation becomes somewhat more absurd. The aesthetically unremarkable, cinder block and shutter door comprised garden centre takes central position behind Rudy Giuliani’s lectern. The building itself, as is often noted, is located between a adult entertainment shop to its left and across the street from a crematorium - scarcely the usual local of such an event. On clear display across the facade and lot are indicators of the site’s industrial past, with exposed wires and lighting overhead and a large metal girder structure situated just out of shot. Without the context of the topic of address, this setting might imply an interest in the commerce of the local area or perhaps a prior event to have taken place here. When presented with the understanding that this is in fact a legal response in defiance of the recent United Stated general election only creates further confusion. Simply stated, the site has no relevance to the press conference agenda of figures whatsoever. While the reason for this impromptu venue is a matter of some debate (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 2020), the impact it had consequently overstated and even diminished Giuliani’s address, the words of which becoming null in comparison.
Trump, 2020
7.2. The unceremonious entrance of Giuliani and his witnesses.
McGrath, 2020
7.3. An improvised set up.
McGrath, 2020
7.4. Attempting a generic background.
McGrath, 2020
In regards to the prior case studies, the significance of the central figures often lends authority to their presentation and therefore the persuasion of their speech. Contrary to national leaders and royalty, the importance of Giuliani is derived entirely from his employment as President Trump’s personal lawyer, holding no official role in government at this time. It is of interesting note, then, that this event should inherently hold limited potential benefit, beyond bolstering the already staunch support of the declared public voters. In the context of the concurrent US general election, and this being one of many persistent political appearances, this press conference should be no more remarkable than any other. And so it is undeniably the contextual architecture chosen to provide background that distinguished this event apart from the countless others like it. However desirable this distinguishment might be for spreading its influence, it is mitigated by the very factor causing it: the irrelevancy of the setting.
In the face of this overwhelmingly detrimental setting, it is evident there were attempts to convert the site into one more respective of the intended tone of address. A neutral immediate background behind Giuliani is attempted with the adornment of Trump 2020 campaign posters - providing more relevant indicators and expressly stating the camp of which is being supported. Attention here is then emboldened with the line-up of alleged witnesses, intended to give weight to Giuliani’s allegations through their physical presence, which, to a limited extent, could be considered effective (albeit in a more pertinent setting). In this composition alone there is demonstrated the persistent formula of these case studies: a central figure of apparent importance delivering their speech; the display of props (here being the witnesses) taking secondary attention and punctuating the message; and a background architecture that (failingly) solidifies the context and provides a deeper subliminal connotation to the event. It is this third point that has undermined the first two in this garden centre press conference. If done in the safety of a generic conference hall or other staged venue then the outcome would almost definitely have been without such extensive ridicule.
8. Conclusion
Berger, 2012
The influential significance of the backdrops presented in the case studies discussed has proven to have been evolving over time, becoming even more substantial in their presence than the performances and words spoken by the politicians. In the first instances, where President Roosevelt and Vice Presidential candidate Nixon are sat behind their desks, there is established a setting that has been made relatable to their audiences at the time - no great statements were made by this architecture beyond suiting a public interpretation of relatable empathy. This setting still remains a constant presence in political appearances, even as recent as Christmas day this year (2020) on which the Queen again presented herself in the staged home set, replicating the now familiar tone of humble unity prevalent in the coronavirus era. Only when deviating from the common, neutral political stages do the tones of such political addresses become more notably distinct and dependant on their background: if in keeping with the spoken message, this is amplified and made more potent; if a stark contrast to the message, the overwhelming impact is detrimental and made conspicuous only by this ineptitude. The general consensus is, therefore, to maintain an innocuous stage of a generic conference hall or recognisable government building, so as to ensure the emphasis is set solely on the speaker.
As a continuous presence in a televised speech, the composition of the background in relation to the speaker and their props is under constant scrutiny in regards to how this reflects the speech’s content and delivery. When done to emphasising effect, such as through Nixon’s body language or Trump’s posing with a prop Bible, there is a direct engagement with the viewers, as there is more visual interest to attract their attention. In comparison to the set design of stationary addresses, the speaker is instead using their surroundings to a more passive effect, hoping to visually reinforce their tone of address without making any bold actions that could undermine this. These two methodologies of political set design - active and passive engagement - have differing inherent risks to them. The more active interactions risk overstating their intended tone, resulting in the audience disassociating or even reproaching the speaker. Alternatively, a passive stage, on which the speaker remains motionless, lacks engagement with the audience, relying on their subliminal association with the setting rather than stating this outright. Therefore, it is by the political figures’ discretion that they might choose to set a stage with acute deliberacy, so as to accentuate what they set forth to say; or to attempt the safety of an unempathetic background, on which to display themselves as the sole focus. And yet, despite any actions taken in favour of either outcome, factors beyond the political figure’s control will likely still have more circumstantial effect, whether beneficial or not: the unintended connotations of a prop placement; the misinterpreted gestures of subconscious body language; the inescapable setting of an absurdly irrelevant agriculture store.
The Rhetoric of Architecture
Thomas Parry
BA Architecture
University of Greenwich
Academic Year 2020/21
