Reading Blog Post 1
On page 5, the author mentions that many cities of Renaissance thinking had circular city plans that could convey social order by having the palace in the centre, and having the buildings decrease in social standing towards the outskirts. However, the reading also focuses on the social stratification that the Spaniards wanted to implement in Lima and other colonial centres, so I’m left wondering why the circular plan wasn’t used. Because a circular plan would very easily visually demonstrate the desired social hierarchy over the grid system when there was an obvious emphasis on the visual. He discusses both plans as a means of order, but it leaves questions.
In regards to how Spanish colonialism differs from other forms of colonialism, the use of cities as major centres throughout the colonies is intriguing to me because it centralizes the power in distinct areas instead of throughout larger regions. I don’t have full answers yet, but I’m excited to see over the next couple weeks the role geography (the ocean, the Andes mountains) had in shaping interactions with Indigenous people in Peru.
There’s an obvious disconnection between Spain/viceroyalty and Lima/the letrados. The imagined city planning to the actual completion of the city is meddled with an ocean of distance, months of time, and information passing between many hands, that to me it seems like a convoluted game of telephone. I was curious for examples on the discrepancies that eventually arise between the idealized and the actual.
On page 24, the political messaging of some triumphal arches, and how political art has been understudied in Latin America is noted. This stood out to me because as we learn about colonial power structures in Peru where Spain is at the top, it is also important to remember that Spain is towards the bottom of the European power hierarchy and they’re trying to prove themselves to powers like England and France. This is a bit speculative, but I think the political content of the arches might be understudied because they were created prior to when the art historical canon dictates that art “becomes political” at the turn of the 19th century. This is primarily true of French and English art (especially as the people monumentally critique the upper class). Since they have dominated art historical modes of categorization, art that cannot be classified, can be neglected from scholarship, which might be the case here. But either way, I’m going to keep looking for how Spain views itself relative to other European nations.
When the author says “The contrast between Caracas and Botoga may appear contradictory, because in most ways Venezuelan society is clearly more dynamic and modernized than Colombian society” I was confused because he just drops this in regards to the grid organization of the city because given the current political and economic state of Venezuela his statement doesn’t make sense.
Overall, I think the author keeps making claims but I wish there were more examples to back up their points.
"This stood out to me because as we learn about colonial power structures in Peru where Spain is at the top, it is also important to remember that Spain is towards the bottom of the European power hierarchy and they’re trying to prove themselves to powers like England and France." Well, here I might have to chime in to say that it's exactly the opposite. Spain was at that time the European world power, and would remain so until 1700. Precisely one way of keeping such extensive territories united was the creation of cities that at the time communicated quite effectively on this side of the Atlantic, where a series of roads and ports allowed a certain cohesion.