I think it is important to look at the philosophy of the time, neoclassicism, which extended beyond just the architecture. This was a very conscious revival or Aristotelian and heroic conceptions of virtue (the martial aspects of which arguably helped lead to WWI) and which championed a certain competitiveness and striving for excellence.
So it isn't too much of a surprise that institutions founded to promote the best of humanity and to cultivate excellence in themselves also tend to survive.
My understanding is that the Belle Époque was the pinnacle of Enlightenment thought, which approved (for instance) of human mastery over nature, as well as what you described. After WWI though we went through a long century of moving away from that
It's actually a very interesting division between what would be considered renaissance thought and enlightenment thought. I think that's part of what makes the neoclassical so interesting.
I'm not a philosopher so the more subtle nuances escape me, but I would actually put the Belle Époque and neoclassicism as a return to Renaissance ideas rather then the peak of enlightenment thinking, which I would say happened more toward the middle of the 19th century. It was all just too pretty and flamboyant to be the true heir to an ideology of dower Scots and Germans. There is definitely more of Pico della Mirandola in it than there is the likes of Hume and Kant.
Maybe? I'm not sure I actually see the Belle Époque as neoclassical; it seems to be that somewhat less than the Enlightenment and the early 19th century. There were very clear ways in which the Belle Époque was trying to be "modern", to give birth to something new. Art nouveau is literally trying to be "nouveau", i.e. very distinct from what came before; it's one of the less neoclassical art movements of the time. And I see all those attempts at improving over nature and what came before as clearly descended from the Enlightenment.
... I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of un-confusing myself, though! I guess all those currents we're naming existed and interacted in complex ways throughout the periods under discussion.
Fantastic work, thank you for putting it all together. Artworks really shine, too. I'm very fond of that period (not in a pseudo-nostalgic sense, but rather a potential study interest), in particular 1890-1900s, for it has... something in the air? if that makes sense (probably not haha). I even wrote an essay drawing some particular parallels between that age and ours, I can DM you if you're interested in reading it.
Would love to read it! I agree that the period is special. Hard to say if it truly is *more* special than any other 20-year period in the last couple of centuries, all history if fractal and full of interesting stuff, but I think it has at least a claim at being that.
It's worth trying to guess what institutions from around now will still be around and prestigious in 100+ years! A lot of recent innovation was computers and internet so that might suggest some answers. Wikipedia, maybe?
Totally, also the Geneva conventions, the World Health Organization, the EU, the world bank, NASA, international space station, we really create a lot of good things in our time of peace and prosperity!
The few decades immediately after WWII seem to have been a time of particular creativity, as well as a period of ascendency for the United States. I'm less convinced about more recent periods (see The Great Stagnation), except maybe the 1990s, but we'll see! It helps a lot that for the most part there haven't been super destructive worldwide wars for a long time
>Countries are the main competing unit, as opposed to individual athletes; as a result, the games are very political.
This is quirky how? All kinds of sports events work like that, you mention a few. There's the Mundial (aka FIFA World Cup) watched devotingly by billions first and foremost, and including the Euro (UEFA championship), the Davis Cup, Rugby World Cup, the Cricket World Cup, the Copa América, the African cup (AFCON), FIBA Basketball World Cup, the Volleyball World Championships, iirc the Tour De France as well, and of course non sports events like the Eurovision Song Contest.
Many of those might be Bell Epoque era institutions, but national team competition is hardly quirky or rare.
Well, like I wrote just two sentences before, "we don’t really notice the weirdness anymore". It's quirky in the sense that there was absolutely no fundamental reason for top international competitions to be organized in this way. Most professional sports leagues are organized by cities instead, and the members of any given team come from various countries that we don't usually worry about. But national teams worked well for the Olympics and it caught on and now we put the national flags of athletes next to their name for a lot of events, as you correctly point out.
>Countries are the main competing unit, as opposed to individual athletes; as a result, the games are very political.
This is quirky how? All kinds of sports events work like that, the Mundial (aka FIFA World Cup) watched devotingly by billions first and foremost, and including the Euro (UEFA championship), the Davis Cup, Rugby World Cup, the Cricket World Cup, the Copa América, the African cup (AFCON),
FIBA Basketball World Cup, the Volleyball World Championships, iirc the Tour De France as well, and of course non sports events like the Eurovision Song Contest.
I think it is important to look at the philosophy of the time, neoclassicism, which extended beyond just the architecture. This was a very conscious revival or Aristotelian and heroic conceptions of virtue (the martial aspects of which arguably helped lead to WWI) and which championed a certain competitiveness and striving for excellence.
So it isn't too much of a surprise that institutions founded to promote the best of humanity and to cultivate excellence in themselves also tend to survive.
My understanding is that the Belle Époque was the pinnacle of Enlightenment thought, which approved (for instance) of human mastery over nature, as well as what you described. After WWI though we went through a long century of moving away from that
It's actually a very interesting division between what would be considered renaissance thought and enlightenment thought. I think that's part of what makes the neoclassical so interesting.
I'm not a philosopher so the more subtle nuances escape me, but I would actually put the Belle Époque and neoclassicism as a return to Renaissance ideas rather then the peak of enlightenment thinking, which I would say happened more toward the middle of the 19th century. It was all just too pretty and flamboyant to be the true heir to an ideology of dower Scots and Germans. There is definitely more of Pico della Mirandola in it than there is the likes of Hume and Kant.
Maybe? I'm not sure I actually see the Belle Époque as neoclassical; it seems to be that somewhat less than the Enlightenment and the early 19th century. There were very clear ways in which the Belle Époque was trying to be "modern", to give birth to something new. Art nouveau is literally trying to be "nouveau", i.e. very distinct from what came before; it's one of the less neoclassical art movements of the time. And I see all those attempts at improving over nature and what came before as clearly descended from the Enlightenment.
... I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of un-confusing myself, though! I guess all those currents we're naming existed and interacted in complex ways throughout the periods under discussion.
Fantastic work, thank you for putting it all together. Artworks really shine, too. I'm very fond of that period (not in a pseudo-nostalgic sense, but rather a potential study interest), in particular 1890-1900s, for it has... something in the air? if that makes sense (probably not haha). I even wrote an essay drawing some particular parallels between that age and ours, I can DM you if you're interested in reading it.
Would love to read it! I agree that the period is special. Hard to say if it truly is *more* special than any other 20-year period in the last couple of centuries, all history if fractal and full of interesting stuff, but I think it has at least a claim at being that.
DMd!
This makes me wonder whether we will look back on 1950 to 2010 as a beautiful era. (Maybe even longer if we manage to navigate this next era well 🥰)
It's worth trying to guess what institutions from around now will still be around and prestigious in 100+ years! A lot of recent innovation was computers and internet so that might suggest some answers. Wikipedia, maybe?
Totally, also the Geneva conventions, the World Health Organization, the EU, the world bank, NASA, international space station, we really create a lot of good things in our time of peace and prosperity!
The few decades immediately after WWII seem to have been a time of particular creativity, as well as a period of ascendency for the United States. I'm less convinced about more recent periods (see The Great Stagnation), except maybe the 1990s, but we'll see! It helps a lot that for the most part there haven't been super destructive worldwide wars for a long time
>Countries are the main competing unit, as opposed to individual athletes; as a result, the games are very political.
This is quirky how? All kinds of sports events work like that, you mention a few. There's the Mundial (aka FIFA World Cup) watched devotingly by billions first and foremost, and including the Euro (UEFA championship), the Davis Cup, Rugby World Cup, the Cricket World Cup, the Copa América, the African cup (AFCON), FIBA Basketball World Cup, the Volleyball World Championships, iirc the Tour De France as well, and of course non sports events like the Eurovision Song Contest.
Many of those might be Bell Epoque era institutions, but national team competition is hardly quirky or rare.
Well, like I wrote just two sentences before, "we don’t really notice the weirdness anymore". It's quirky in the sense that there was absolutely no fundamental reason for top international competitions to be organized in this way. Most professional sports leagues are organized by cities instead, and the members of any given team come from various countries that we don't usually worry about. But national teams worked well for the Olympics and it caught on and now we put the national flags of athletes next to their name for a lot of events, as you correctly point out.
This is absolutely fascinating. Thank you!
>Countries are the main competing unit, as opposed to individual athletes; as a result, the games are very political.
This is quirky how? All kinds of sports events work like that, the Mundial (aka FIFA World Cup) watched devotingly by billions first and foremost, and including the Euro (UEFA championship), the Davis Cup, Rugby World Cup, the Cricket World Cup, the Copa América, the African cup (AFCON),
FIBA Basketball World Cup, the Volleyball World Championships, iirc the Tour De France as well, and of course non sports events like the Eurovision Song Contest.