“I am certain of nothing but of the holiness of the Heart’s affections and the truth of the Imagination‹What the imagination seizes as Beauty must be truth‹whether it existed before or not‹for I have the same Idea of all our Passions as of Love they are all in their sublime, creative of essential Beauty. . . . The Imagination may be compared to Adam’s dream [of the creation of Eve — Paradise Lost, VIII, 460-490] — he awoke and found it truth. . . . I have never yet been able to perceive how any thing can be known for truth by consequitive reasoning. . . . O for a Life of Sensations rather than of Thoughts! It is a “Vision in the form of Youth” a Shadow of reality to come‹and this consideration has further convinced me . . . that we shall enjoy ourselves here after by having what we called happiness on Earth repeated in a finer tone and so repeated. And yet such a fate can only befall those who delight in Sensation rather than hunger as you do after Truth.” --from an 1817 letter by Keats
Consider logos (truth) vs. ethos (Truth – as used above – or, equivalently, “truth”). Keats appears to have been writing on behalf of the former. From this, I wouldn’t conclude that an appropriate appreciation for the latter would have been beyond his ken.
Keats appears to be encouraging readers to look beyond the metanoias associated with their particular disciplines and cultures in general. In this sense, he seems to be deconstructionist.
Root Glen remains the enclave that it would have been in your experiences @circuitrider. This Times article, tangentially, discusses the Glen’s national champion Norway spruce:
Well, if it were about campus beauty, St. Lawrence would beat many of the schools on this list, and it would out-class Hamilton by a margin. I liked them both, but St. Lawrence’s older buildings, combined with their stunning newer facilities, would allow them to punch WAY above their weight if aesthetics were a real thing in assessing a school’s merits.
Alas, it is not. If it were, we’d talk about St. Lawrence in the same breath we talk about Amherst, which, in my view, does not have a super pretty campus. It’s nice - don’t get it twisted - but it’s not breath taking from an architecture point of view. But, of course, those two schools are never linked in any way in any conversation ever.
Vassar, in my humble opinion, takes the cake on pretty schools, followed by Bryn Mawr. Williams ain’t bad, and Wesleyan has its appeal. St. Olaf, to me, was a surprise stunner. But St. Lawrence is absolutely beautiful.
I think Amherst is very attractive. Perhaps not breathtaking architecture (although the new science center will be spectacular), but a really lovely natural setting.
Vassar has a fantastic library and the lakeside/creek is gorgeous, but the central campus where the dorms are felt kind of like a military base.
Probably the nicest looking small campuses I have ever seen are Colgate and Scripps, but you are making me want to visit St Lawrence.
@ThankYouforHelp , I agree, Amherst has a very nice campus … even beautiful, and the setting is very nice too.
You captured my only point … there aren’t a lot of stunning buildings at Amherst. Most or all are nice, some are really cool, but what does it for me at Amherst is the setting and the way it all comes together. Compare and contrast Wesleyan … it has a healthy handful of very handsome buildings, but the style is all over the place and the layout seems/is ad hoc. Some people actually like that aspect of Wesleyan; I don’t.
There is, of course, individual preference to account for as well. Some people, like me, truly enjoy the harmony of “sameness” one encounters at Middlebury, Stanford and Connecticut College … campuses that seem to have been built entirely on the same day. Other people hate that and find it boring.
Wesleyan has that wonderful hilltop observatory that, I think, has governed the placement of buildings over the years. You’ll notice that nothing has been built in front of it that would obstruct an expansive view that goes both ways, from the playing fields below or from the top the hill itself. The treeless field can look a little destitute on ordinary days. But, when it gets filled with people, like on Commencement Day, or during Homecoming when it is jammed with tailgate parties, the effect can be quite dramatic.
Amherst has the opposite problem. It’s built on a small plateau that descends downward on two sides so that half the campus disappears once you get past the Mead Art Center which has a difficult time holding its own architecturally, IMO. The new science building is destined to be in the downhill area, relabeled, “The Greenway”, surrounded by newly planted trees as a way of ameliorating the fact that, topographically, it is in a world of its own.
I’m okay with Middlebury. They have a lot of contiguous land and they’ve made good use of it over the years. But, let’s face it, those buildings virtually disappear in a snowstorm.
@circuitrider , I’m guessing that parking lot and land to the immediate right of Fayerweather (if you’re facing Andrus) will eventually be used for building purposes.
Also, any word on when Wes will get back to the new science building? I think Roth made the right call at the right time, but eventually it has to come. Wes’ rep in STEM is too important.
Will they knock down Shanklin to do it? Hate to see any example of that architectural style, which is one of my personal favorites, go away. As they say with open spaces: when it’s gone, it’s gone for good.
Let’s face it: everything and everybody disappears in a snowstorm at Middlebury.
^I imagine there’s some room for tweaking the edges of Andrus Field. There is a rendering of Wes in the future that shows a saltbox shaped structure being built there, lined up with Fayerweather. Nothing dramatic. Probably a dormitory.
The future of the science center is a sensitive subject because one of Wesleyan’s wealthiest alumni, the founder and former CEO of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, has pretty much been the driving force behind it. It’s been on hold ever since the financial meltdown of 2010 and my understanding is that any plans to revive it would be from scratch, including any consideration of what to do with Shanklin. My completely unsolicited advice would be to build a twin to the present science tower. People are used to it; I’ll bet it would be relatively inexpensive to construct; and, wouldn’t require tearing down any other major buildings.
^ honestly, if nothing else came of it, the destruction of that tower would be worth whatever the new complex will cost. just my $0.02.
In all seriousness, Wesleyan is a charming physical campus, and there is potential to make it even nicer. Cleaning up that mess across the street from Olin would be a great thing for the school. It’s not just the buildings; it’s the space itslf. I’m sure with modern architectural thinking, the green and open spaces would be as thought-through and planned as the buildings themselves. New buildings of that sort completely re-define and re-create space. I love it.
But I also know Roth is keen on getting Wesleyan into safe financial territory before he steps down. I think he’s done that, or is damn close. He has done a good job of being disciplined, and not ‘building just to build’. Closing in on $1 billion in the next couple of years, you’d think Wes would be able to fund the project. In any event, new science digs and a new dorm are probably in order in the medium-term future.
As it relates to Boger, his recent $20 million gift, his leadership throughout This is Why, and Boger Hall, seem to suggest that he and Roth are on the same page and the relationship is a good one. I’m guessing there will be more $$ coming from him in the future. Boger definitely appears to be a strong proponent of Wesleyan.
Btw, I’ve seen renderings of the new science complex from back in 2008. Other than the razing of Shanklin, which would be a tragedy, it is a pretty picture.
A “twin” to that hideous Kit Kat bar? No no no. Wesleyan’s life science departments are arguably the best of any LAC and deserve a structure or structures that reflect this. Where to place these new structures would require some creativity, but Wesleyan does own significant land out by where the home for wayward boys used to be. Perhaps out there. Then destroy Shanklin and the Kit Kat bar–tower and library–and build something to house an innovative new department or interdisciplinary initiative. Sustainable energy research–encompassing material and electrical engineering, physics, etc., all in one building. Why shouldn’t Wesleyan be the LAC that spearheads research into a domain that our world must face ASAP, if it isn’t already too late. By the way, I visited Wes in 11/16 and 11/17 and was not happy with the new student center. Its design is arbitrary, the materials used are cheap, and it already shows signs of wear. They should have taken their time with the layout and used materials that will hold up. It was very sad to see a patch of grass where MoCon had been. That building had great character and was so solidly constructed that demolition required more powerful equipment than anticipated. The natural view one had while eating was calming and during snowstorms astonishingly beautiful. In the new dining hall you just feel trapped in an arbitrary space with inexplicable (and I think non-structural) architectural details. Nonetheless, I loved my trips back to campus. The kids are still delightful.
Aesthetically, the science tower wears its age better than just about any other building constructed at Wesleyan in the modern era, including Mocon (let’s not re-litigate that here. I can think of some egregious razings at Amherst and Williams, too.) The people who don’t like it today probably didn’t or wouldn’t have liked it forty years ago either. But, like it or not, the monolithic grid is a staple of mid-century modern architecture. And, unlike the center for the arts which is nearly impossible to pin down without constantly being on the move, the science tower announces what it is before you even get near it. It fairly shouts “Big Science”. That’s no small feat for a LAC.
I agree with MiddleburyDad2. The Science Center looked dated 20 years ago. I don’t mind the grid pattern when it’s done with finesse as at Yale’s Beinecke Libray, but Exley just ain’t pretty. MoCon wasn’t just about nostalgia. It gave you the feeling of eating outside, which I loved.
