Skyscraper design soon lost any pretense of art for man's sake, and bowed only to art for business' sake. But the Met's exhibit confidently denies the obvious. After reminding us, without the least touch of irony, that "Skyscrapers are acknowledged to be the most striking American innovation in architecture," the illuminated poster defends the style:

"It has been said that skyscrapers arose because land in the business districts of big cities became so expensive that ways had to be found to make it more 'productive' by piling more people- executives and office workers- onto each lot."

Right, that seems obvious.

"Yet the technical skills that made skyscrapers feasible also revolutionized communications."

And the technical skills that made the atom bomb possible also revolutionized power production.

"In sober fact, only a portion of those who work in business districts need to be so near to one another."

But then wouldn't businesses find it cheaper to build their buildings somewhere else? The exhibit tries to dismiss the economic argument quickly, in the hope that we'll find something else to ascribe those buildings to. The Met is trying to say that there were no greedy practical considerations behind the buildings, and the only other reason for building them would be because they are attractive.

"People are employed in skyscrapers in order to make good, practical use of buildings constructed in the first place to proclaim the glory of the chief tenants."

Is the exhibit trying to explain that business considerations have given way to matters of individual ego in America, and that this kind of ego is different from that kind of business? Throughout the exhibit there seems to be a conscious effort to cover up the contradictions that arose in putting it together.

AMERICA has always had two contradictory desires, two tendencies in opposite directions. The first is to build a new paradise on virgin land. The second is to seem a part of the acknowledged grandeur of Western culture.

Americans fought for the privilege of establishing a bourgeois society. America grasped at the Old Tradition because it was indeed part of it. It found it difficult to learn from the native inhabitants, the Indians, and the more it massacred the Indians, the harder it was to learn from them.

The land was so fertile, plentiful and beautiful, that it seemed to sanction almost any kind of development. Bourgeois America pushed West, and those who suffered its encroachments, especially in the cities, could always move out West too. The point is that the purely practical, and therefore inhumane roots of America were allowed to grow strong before it was necessary to fight against them. There was simply so much faith in the prophecies of America's future that few even bothered to question them.

American business took over in its strongholds, the cities, and boards of directors were more interested in profit than beauty. The first skyscrapers, perhaps even the Flatiron, felt some kinship to public interest. After all, it was a tower in the great tradition, and its architect had decorated it a la greque. With the proliferation of towers, though, skyscrapers were no longer a symbol, except, for example, the Empire State Building, for its sheer height. They eventually could be constructed simply to provide the

maximum amount of room.

At the same time that commercial architecture began to acquire its new shape-solid and rectangular- those who profited from it began to feel a little debt to society. They contributed part of their fortunes to the new "public" buildings. The Metropolitan Museum itself is an example. By the time the Met was built, the City's sky and air had ceased to be public property, and were in fact the property of whoever built its buildings. Individual enclaves- museums and churches- were carved out and set aside to the public domain.