Final thoughts

The critical reading lectures have certainly been challenging and has no doubt broadened my reading material which up until now has been limited to fiction with the odd biography and history book thrown in. I can't say I will be diving into these texts for fun but there is a certain redeeming factor to them that have added excitement to what is out there in terms of theory and philological thought.

In truth, I'm not sure I understood all the texts, some where just outright confusing and offered no light of a conclusion and so it was left to me to decipher a meaning, a point, a reason. I believe sometimes I failed and I tried to write about my experience of reading the text rather than the text itself as a way of still trying to communicate. Over the 10 weeks there were highlights, in particular Ginsberg's "Howl" and Waugh's "Decline and Fall" - both I really enjoyed reading and will definably encourage me to read more of its ilk.

I'm desperately looking forward to writing my dissertation next year, the last dissertation I wrote was possibly the best academic experience of my life, I did think it was the best thing I ever wrote (until I read it a years later and turns out my dissertation about Julia Margaret Cameron's use of feminine beauty in her work was actually just one big love letter about the woman herself, but even so, it was great to write).

Predictable Humans

The suggestion that history repeats itself is pretty well known, after all, it is well thought that Hitler would have won the war if only he had done his history (don't attack Russia in the Winter people!). We can't help it, we are doomed to repeat our lives and the lives of others. This is why I find the charts of this week interesting and where patterns can be identified, we relise what creatures of habit we really are. Of course the charts can't be taken as fact, there are no guarantees and a civilisation on a whole doesn't have a personality, a memory or conscious; It is not aware of the changing of seasons and so in most cases, it is simply described as a coincidence.

Others however, are deliberate acts, ones of choice and conscious decisions. This possibility the reasoning of post modern philosophy and architecture. Postmodern architecture is one of the most interesting of the recent era, modernism taking a massive leap of new ideas, philosophy and designs for only later and Postmodernism to bring the return of the ornament. A conservative cycle, lead by cause and effect pushed forward, being that that is the nature of new ideas.

Individualism and ownership

I watched the documentary "All watched over by the Machines of Loving Grace" before I saw "The Fountainhead". This documentary had segments of an interview with Ayn Rand and gave me better insight into the person who wrote "the Fountainhead".

Individualism was what Rand believed, preached, wanted and encouraged. It was believed that a hierarchy power in the form of a government was not needed and man could govern themselves. This would work in an economic, social and political system.

Rand has identified herself as the character Howard Roark in the film. An uncompromising, visionary architect that refuses to "give advice or take advice" and struggles to maintain his individualism in the form of his designs. It is only through sheer will (and sheer luck he is a brilliant architect that people come to him) that he is able to continue practising and he finds himself in the position to be sort after and thus targeted by others to keep him under control.

Before I saw the film, I couldn't really imagine blowing up a building of my design because it was altered along the way. I'm not saying I would do that post seeing the film, I am not a criminal after all (and let me be clear, blowing up a building is a criminal act, no matter the fancy speech of the creator and the parasite you can recite in a court) but there is certainly an understanding of why he did it. Ownership of ideas is what he himself argues, that they are created for the individual and that they can be offered up to society to benefit them but that is a secondary cause, his own benefit is first.

Roark is the presentation of freedom; the individual with free will, a man who has come up from the bottom and raised to the top - capitalism in an optimistic sense.

Ellsworth Toohey is the representation of the corruption of power, praising meritocracy and crushing geniuses to keep them with the status quo - communism in its most negative sense. (The bad guy played by an English actor - you don't get more Hollywood than that!)

This isn't surprising nor particularly controversial considering Rand was a Russian-American, escaping communist Russia , she feared the collective and was far keener on being the individual. That probably way Roark was portrayed as the good guy who wins the case, the architecture and the girl.

Le Corbusier = Professor Silenus

Professor Silenus is a character in Evelyn Waugh's novel "Decline and Fall" - he serves as a primary motif of the book and is a humourous parody to the characteristics of an over the top architect.

This book was a refreshing read, though its tone is optimistic and funny, it is by no means not to be taken seriously. The title is taken from Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and is a narration of 1920's high society. Paul Pennyfeather is the observer, not only of plot of this book but in the characters own life. In effect, he has no bearings in life; he is an orphan that has twice he has been punished, through no fault of his own but rather the fault of his 'social superiors'. Which in a sense is an accurate portrayal of what certainly was a true depiction of the class bound society of the 1920's Britain and probably still lingers in some areas of life today.

There is something to be admired in the portrayal of Professor Silenus, a character introduced in the second part of the book. A man of about 25, but whose confidence and arrogance is laughable in his strange opinions.

 " 'The only perfect building must be the factory, because that is built to house machines, not men. I do not think it is possible for domestic architecture to be beautiful, but I am doing my best. All ill comes from man,' he said gloomily; 'please tell your readers that. Man is never beautiful, he is never happy except when he becomes the channel for the distribution of mechanical forces.' "

Le Corbusier is mentioned by name in the book and possibly aligns his character of Professor Silenus. This could because of the post war architecture that was being erected throughout Britain was being particularly modern in its replacement of the old, war damaged buildings, Waugh by have been unhappy with what he was seeing and thus invented a character such as this to point to the strangeness of it all. Maybe it wasn't just the buildings that were damaged in this war, but the class system as well, opening the eyes of many people.

Development is tragic

"All that is solid melts into Air" a title borrowed from Marx, seems to be a rounding up of all the other texts we have read so far. The political theories, architectural theories, hopes/dreams/nightmares of architecture, development and modernism. The latter two being the main themes of the book.

I've found this text to be the most engaging so far, with Berman breaking down the "tragedy of development" into 3 metamorphosis; the dreamer, the lover and finally the developer. Berman uses Goethe's Faust to become each of these, being the detached , the sensual and then the steamroller - that sets out for self purpose, get out of the way or be destroyed.

The last is arguably the most interesting, as the economics, social and political thoughts begin to be conveyed. Faust looks at the sea and sees the potential for it to harnessed for the benefit of humans (but mostly himself), he is allowed to use slave labour in order to build this fresh new city and he turns a blind eye to the destruction and lives it cost to build it.

The "old world" is a phase that is continually repeated, possibly referring to the idea of the old system of the church being the supreme power. The power that holds people back from freedom, a freedom that Faust craves and trying to create.

The "Tragedy of development" is an apt projection of generally what this world is about, trial and error is a phrase we use all the time because generally that's how we learn and move forward. The greatest structures in the world were built with horrific methods (step forward Egyptian Pyramids), even now the stadiums in Brazil for the FIFA world cup killed six people in construction and yet more media coverage has been about the "death pool" England have been drawn in. Development is tragic.

America! F*** no!

To be quite frank, I just do not get american literature. The more famous and the more well regarded a piece of work seems to be , the more I sink into a hole of not understanding the big deal of it all (I'm looking at you Catcher in the Rye). Maybe that's the problem, my expectations are too high and when faced with these famous book titles, I dive in with such excitement that I've only set myself up for failure. Or maybe I'm a product of my environment, a daughter of two working class families, I just don't buy the american dream (or anti-dream), I'm just too practical for that nonsense.

That's why I couldn't bring myself to read On the Road but I did watch the film... it only confirmed my suspicions.

I was however surprised (or shocked) at Ginsberg's "Howl". Wow, a big and non apologetic F YOU to America. The format was a refreshing change of pace and certainly a lot of freedom in the language that has been overly controlled in the other texts. A poem with little grammar and no inhibitions allowed Ginsberg to get a lot off his chest, generally about how shit stuff is.

If Ginsberg is angry, then Burrough is an oxymoron.

The Job is combinations and collaboration of Burrough's thoughts on Watergate, corruption, Scientology, despair, time-travel, totalitarian and lots of other subjects but above all its about free thinking. "All knowledge is yours by right." - That's kinda nice.

Suspicious minds

There is a confidence we have either gained or accepted about the written word, maybe I speak for myself but when I read a book, I believe it. I'm saying I necessarily agree with it, I hope I know my own mind enough not to be so easily persuaded but I definitely have an over whelming faith that the information is true and correct. It doesn't immediately occur to me that the writers have an agenda - pretty naive huh? but I suppose this is what this unit has been about, sussing out what the writers are saying and why they are saying it and so I have definitely become more suspicious about what I am reading.

This leads me to Colin Rowe essays "The mathematics of an ideal villa", and "La Tourette".

The first is comparison between classical and modern architecture and more specifically, a comparison between Le Corbusier thinking and design theories and Palladio.

This essay beings with a quote from Christopher Wren

"There are only two beautiful positions of straight lines, perpendicular 

and horizontal; this is from Nature and consequently necessity, no other than 

upright being firm."

A nice start to a text that was about to dissect mathematical influences from the two architects.

"La Tourette" is a run down of the La Tourette aesthetics, features and form and where I now refer to the earlier paragraph in this post about suspicion in reading texts.
Rowe manages to miss and mislabel some of the aspects of La Tourette and one can't help wonder why. Surely if some glaringly obvious things are not brought up for discussion then how can you possibility take the text as a serious critique of a building if it simply ignores or is ignorant of this. This is certainly no ode to Le Corbusier but possibly more of a revolutionary text to defy the thinking of the time "Form follows function". However, I do like the confidence in Rowe's writing and the fluid language is certainly a breath of fresh air in comparison to the other texts we've been reading.

Space (or something like that)

At first when I read Lefebvre, this is what I hear... (Well the first 2 and half mins anyway). A lot of words and not really saying a lot.

Eventually after ploughing my way through the text, and further discussion, common themes were letting themselves be known...
WORK, PRODUCTION, LABOUR, WORK VS PRODUCTION, PRODUCTION VS WORK, LABOUR, NATURE and so on.

Though the above may have similar connotations and lumped in the same category, Lebebvre argues differences. Work is described in a creative process, production or product is seen as something less noble, more commercial and mass distribution. Labour is seen as a tedious, repetitive state. Nature is described as something that does not produce (definitely not) but creates.

Venice is the example offered up to be a work of all these factors.

"Take Venice, for instance. If we define works as u n i q u e , original

and primordial, as occupying a space yet associated with a particular

time, a time of maturity between rise and decline, then Venice can only be

described as a work"

but then goes on to say that parts of Venice can only be a product through its repetition. I can't help but think, that of a lot of things, whether it a specific city, song, company, photograph etc. They can be described as such and again it leads me to the point made in a previous post that the world can't simply be divided into black and white. Labels that (some) Marxist writers seem so keen to use.

Venice is what can be used to link back to the chapter title, "Social Space". Lefebvre describes the physical space of the city's canal's and streets. The materiality of the stone against the water and social happenings that co-exist in these areas and that these areas where put together for social and political means.

In limited terms I understood what Lefebvre was saying (though it was a constant struggle, was he on a word limit that he had to meet or something?) but I simply don't get why, some of it being so blindingly obvious and others being such sweeping statements.