Located on the edge of campus is a congregation of boxy gray buildings known as the Center for the Arts, or the CFA if we’re being hip. Perhaps you’re familiar with it. Eleven stone angular buildings centered around a wide grassy courtyard. According to legend, upon its completion in 1965, the CFA was originally intended to work in harmony with the nature that surrounds it. Of course, the University’s landscape has changed a lot since then.

Perhaps you’re also familiar with its controversial appearance. The CFA drastically contrasts with most of the other architecture on campus in a manner that can seem jarring at first sight. It can bring up many questions: Why does it look so different? Who decided on this design for the Center for the Arts? What did it used to look like? I admit, I once had some of these thoughts going through my head when I was introduced to the CFA. However, I also took it a step further. I, like many others, wondered: is it supposed to be ugly? It might seem odd, but after initially being put off by how it looks (how superficial of me), I eventually came to develop a profound respect and appreciation for the CFA amid all its quirks. I believe that it is indeed worthy of its place on campus, and I won’t tolerate any further CFA slander.

One common grievance against the CFA is that it’s not cohesive with the rest of Wesleyan’s construction and sticks out like a sore thumb. During campus tours, prospective students and gawking parents are wowed by the grandeur of Olin’s ionic columns and the picturesque spire adorning the chapel that greets anyone who walks up the hill. Those same onlookers are then stunned to find that the place where their beloved offspring will study theater, music, or dance looks the way it does.

One area renowned on campus is College Row. It’s the epitome of classic New England historical universities: a lineup of buildings with matching hues and styles that can make anyone who is into dark academia feel right at home. But, if we’re talking strictly about uniform themes, even this view isn’t completely harmonious. I’m talking, of course, about the glass room [Zelnick Pavilion] that completely interrupts the Rory-Gilmore-at-Yale fantasy that Wesleyan has got going on here. Whilst it would be completely fine on its own, among its surroundings, this little addition is an eyesore of sorts. Other examples of Wesleyan’s lack of architectural consistency are Olin and Exley, competing libraries that could not be more different from one another yet are separated merely by a short crosswalk. Some might argue that since Olin is geared more towards those interested in the humanities and Exley appeals to more STEM-oriented students, the buildings themselves reflect these distinctions. But this has nothing to do with cohesiveness, and there is nothing similar about their architectural styles. 

If we don’t hold these unrealistic similarity standards for all the other buildings on campus, why should we hold them for the CFA? Actually though, unlike other buildings on campus, the CFA was designed with the rest of the structures on campus in mind. Architect Kevin Roche, who was well versed in the ways of both ancient and modern architecture, combined these two schools of thought in executing his design. The use of mortarless construction was employed in the CFA’s creation, an ingenious technique used famously in Greek architecture and seen in modern buildings, thus tying it to the visual Greek elements seen in other buildings on campus like Russell House. Professor Joseph Siry has given lectures elaborating on this exact point.

These facts, unfortunately, may not convince some that the CFA isn’t still ugly. To these critics, I say that there are plenty of uglier buildings on campus to criticize. For example, the Butterfields, while relatively functional, have a (somewhat unjust) bad rep that is perhaps due partly to their appearance. Situated in an odd corner of campus, they don’t exactly welcome you in with their garish red window outlines and dull brick exteriors that frankly, are evocative of prisons. The three buildings, while made of the same material, are not symmetrical to each other even though they all take on similar crate-like shapes, nor does their asymmetry seem to contribute anything to their overall design. If anything, the weird half-fourth levels that can only be accessed from some stairwells and various layouts across each building just add to the pervading feeling of confusion that the complex exudes. It doesn’t even have the excuse of being built on a substantial hill– like Clark does– to make up for it.

Another, and arguably uglier, building on campus is the Usdan University Center. It may be the largest congregation point for student life due to its optimal location and the variety of resources it offers, but it is by no means a treat for the eyes. Completed by Kallmann McKinnell & Wood Architects in 2007, it replaced the popular McConaughy Hall (or MoCon for short) that used to grace Foss Hill. Usdan, with its strangely small roof structure and corner columns that stop being stone two-thirds of the way up and turn into some sort of metal, falls short of being an adequate replacement for MoCon, whose futuristic spaceship shape and imposing tall windows have become nothing more than a mythical tale of the past.

Since it is the Center for the Arts, it would make sense for this group of buildings to be conducive to creativity. And while in a word association game the response to “art” might not usually be “drab slabs of uniform stone” perhaps that is exactly the point. The CFA’s minimalist design is genius in its simplicity. It provides the perfect backdrop for all the artistic and imaginative events that happen in this complex and offers its own distinct style. The CFA is content to sit back and watch the magic happen and if one does happen to look closely at it, they can prepare to be delightfully surprised. It is modern and unique while still drawing on classical architecture. As much as it might not be to everyone’s taste, one has to admit that it’s not afraid to make a statement and does so without interfering or taking away from the work of students. After all, didn’t so many artists who were ridiculed for being different eventually become revered? The very fact that the CFA’s appearance is up for debate is evidence that it is at least worth taking a second look at before being dismissed. The CFA deserves at the very least respect if not adoration; and if this still isn’t convincing enough for die-hard CFA haters, perhaps they can be tempted by its system of underground tunnels.

Emma Kendall is a member of the Class of 2024 can be reached at erkendall@wesleyan.edu.