This is the first prompter to which you are expected to reply.
This week we are reading the introductory pages to the MOMA Exhibit Catalogue on “Latin American Architecture since 1945.” Last week we discussed how Iberian architecture is defined with chronological periods, and that some of those are considered traditional “Western civilization” periods (Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassical, Modernist, and so on), while others happened exclusively in the Peninsula and (what matters to us this week) in the Americas after the Discovery in 1492 and the ‘Conquest.’
Latin America, Spanish America, Hispanic America, there are many names for the Southern continent and regions of the Americas, which include the continental group of countries/nations deemed “Southern,” those deemed “Central,” and those deemed “Caribbean.” This excludes the massive civilization being built in the United States by Spanish- and Portuguese-Speaking immigrants, who for centuries and generations have contributed to the melting pot of this country/nation. Hence, in a parallel universe to that of “Iberian architecture,” which seeks to deconstruct and decolonize the metropolitan, dominant, white, Catholic-only and Spanish-only epicenter of “Spanish architecture,” I insist that we use “Latino American architecture” to understand the vast extension of this architectural and cultural heritage. The MOMA Exhibit aimed to tap on this extensive treasure trove of buildings, designs, and ideas, from the stones of indigenous peoples to colonial temples to modernist enclaves in the Caribbean. We’ll make a few stops here this week to get a taste of this rich heritage.
How do you understand this difference between Latin America and Latino America? Why is it important to distinguish this in architecture? Take ONE example from the pages of the MOMA exhibit, and explain how you see this difference at work.
You must post your blog entry by Friday at 5PM, and not engage only your free-fall opinion on this matter. Your post must reflect on what we have read and discuss regarding the building you choose from the Catalogue.
Latin America can be defined by looking at the countries south if the Mexican American boarder through a historical and geographical sense. Latin America includes the history before 1492, which is rich with culture of indigenous people. On the contrary, Latino America can be defined by looking at all of the americas through a cultural lens. After 1492, the Iberian culture was able to influence the Latin America culture and create a Latino American culture. Latino American culture exists in places that Latin American culture did not, such as areas of Southern California and Texas. This distinction is important because different cultures, or types of people, have different uses for buildings. A building that may have a lot of valorization for Latin Americans may not have as much for Latino Americans. For example, The Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico probably had an important religious purpose for being built, but is now significant only in a historical context. However for Latino Americans, this structure does not have any religious significance, unlike the Church of Rosario Dos Pretos.
As we clarified in class, the term “Latin America” refers to the geographical composition of the area. In this line of thinking, Latin America describes the 13 to 17 South American and Hispanic countries that make up a unique cultural heritage.
Latino America refers more directly to the Spanish culture. The use of “latino,” as opposed to the American “latin” or politically correct title “latinx,” provides an ethnological meaning and background to the term. When one discusses Latino America in this way, it is aimed directly at understanding the true cultural and Spanish derivative of the area. It adds historical meaning and context to the label. Although the term is no longer viewed as politically correct, there is a beauty in acknowledging the various cultural components that so greatly influenced Latino customs and history that now make the term politically incorrect.
‘Latin American Architecture Since 1945’ argues that Latin American architecture actually began in 1945, when modernity and derivative architecture ceased.This year of liberation and expression, following the tumultuous period of World War II, marked a transformation from Bozart- derivative pre-war buildings into a new wave of independent building/designing.
Overall, the implication of this diction choice is unthinkably meaningful. I would go so far as to argue that each terms refers distinctly to different ideas and aspects of Hispanic culture. Latin America is inherently characterized through language, as it refers to the English terminology. Latino America directly uses the Spanish word and, therefore, evokes a different feeling, emphasizing nuanced details of context.
The determination of which countries should be included in the category of “Latin America” is considered controversial and is often disputed between scholars and economists. Latin America is defined as the group of countries with Spanish or Portuguese as the most commonly spoken language in the specific area of the world known as Central America, South America and the Caribbean. The similarities between these countries are mostly due to the fact that they were all once colonies of either Spain or Portugal. Some economists do not consider the Dominican Republic to be part of Latin America because their economy is so lacking that some question whether it can still be considered a country. The difference between Latin America and Latino America is that Latin america only includes this group of specific countries while Latino America is present wherever Latino culture and peoples are present, especially in the United States. this applies to architecture because only architectural works built in Latin American countries can be accurately deemed a part of “Latin America”. Architecture with Spanish or Iberian influence built outside of Latin America, in the United States for example, can be considered Latino American architecture but not Latin American architecture. For Example, the Boavista Bank designed by Latin American architect and legend, Oscar Niemeyer, is considered to be Latin American architecture because is was built in Brazil. However, although he worked extensively on the design of the united nations head corders in New York, it can only be considered to have Latino American influence.
I am fully convinced that there is no definitive answer to a question that involves so many racial, ethnic, and cultural outliers. However, within the context of this class and research it appears as if Latino Americans are from the united states with Latin American roots while Latin Americans themselves are the national identities of every country, including brazil, south of the U.S. boarder. In architecture this is a critical distinction because of the indigenous roots and European influence in all of architecture from the United States down to Chile. The Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico defines Latin American architecture due to its indigenous roots in architecture and engineering. Simple, monumental, and Pre Columbian are just a few words that summarize The Pyramid of the Sun. These building even challenge the achievements of Iberian influenced buildings. The richness of the Pyramid of the Sun exemplifies indigenous craftsmanship and ability while other European structures such as churches carry characteristics from different schools of thought and design.
Debating which definition is essentially official for the term Latin America or Latino America will be an absurd method since there is no definite description for them. Personally, I would say Latin America refers to the countries from Mexico to Chile and the Caribbean. Latin America would be a more geographic term instead of that of Latino America for which I consider a more deep and cultural definition. Latino America I would say it refers to the culture among these countries. Latino would be more of the people than of the country. Latino America I would include every country before mentioned but also families and generations descending from Latin American heritage who live outside these countries, for example Florida. In my home, San Juan, Puerto Rico, there is a very important architectural monument called El Morro which is basically a Spanish fortification from the 16th century.
As the Pyramid of the Sun in Mexico, El Morro was not technically made by Latin American roots but by Spanish conquistadors. My argument is that as Puerto Rican, I recognize our colonial history with Spain and how they enslaved the Taínos, but without forgetting how dehumanizing was Spain’s influence in Puerto Rico, I have to accept that my blood and race is one third Spanish and I also have to admit I admire El Morro as a Latin American architectural monument. History has been very cruel to Latin America but that doesn’t mean that the primary evidence of monuments as this will be demolished or devalued by the races affected by its history.
The difference between Latin America and Latino America is more geographical and demographic than anything else. Latin America refers to mostly Spanish speaking countries in South and Central America as well as Mexico. Latin America was influenced by Spaniards who came to the Americas through exploration begining from 1492. Latino America however refers to the southern region of the United States especially states like California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Florida where there are high populations of Latino Americans. Places like Texas and California and the states in between were once a part of Mexican Territory and have people of Hispanic and Native American heritage for centuries before America added these states to the union. This is important to distinguish in architecture because Latino American architecture is different than Latin American architecture in that Latino American architecture is more recent and derivative than Latin American architecture. Latin American architecture can be seen in the MOM A exhibit on page in the Nave of Church, Seminary of San Martin, Tepotzotlan, Mexico built in the 18th Century. This church is definitely a derivative of Catholic Churches already built in Europe because the catholicism was introduced to the region and is not native to the region. However Latino American architecture could be the modern university campus buildings in Mexico City. One of these buildings, the School of Engineering and Architecture is an example of modern Latino American architecture and is a derivative of other modern styles of architecture.
*Please note that I have added an image to the “Media” category that I reference in this reply*
I believe that this image of el Edificio Polar is a great visual analogy to the distinctions and differentiations between Latino and Latin American Architecture. In this image the most stand-out piece of architecture is the el Edificio Polar, it towers over the barren landscape. Its straight edges and rigid structure contrast sharply with the curved mountains to the left. Its black and grey color also contrasts with part of the Caracas to the right. This is exactly what Latino American architecture is, a more modern and Americanized building whose features are distinctly of Latin origin. This is because of the fusion of both American and Latin styles. The more traditional Latin American architecture can be seen in what small part you can see of the city of Caracas. This accompanied by the empty landscape makes el Edificio Polar stick out like a sore thumb, reminding us of a different direction that Latin architecture took in the United States.