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.

After theory, After Shock

The beginning of After Theory by Terry Eagleton poses the question;

"What kind of fresh thinking does the new era demand?"

Eagleton halts on answering this question in favour to blast out his annoyances of the study of current pop culture that I am guessing (not guessing, he makes it quite clear) that studying television programmes as the product of the now, is beneath real academics.

It goes on to a mind boggling, swift and not so swift description of the origins of communism/socialism, or that's what I think is what he was saying as rather than use language as tool to communicate, he uses it to beat you into stupidity so you are left gazing away from the page and murmuring "eh?". Death of the author? More like death of culture in Eagleton's view which explains the title of book more clearly, so what does come After Theory? Cultural theory in political format particularity in relation to Marxism. Or something like that.

The chapter I found most interesting is "4 Losses and Galns", which is a description of the use of language. In my opinion, Eagleton makes more sweeping statements such "Jargon often enough means ideas you don't happen to agree with" - (I would argue with that , the mechanic telling me what wrong with my car means nothing to me but doesn't mean I disagree with his prognoses nor his ability to do the job, similarly I have no special feeling toward Obama and his government but I wouldn't have a problem calling him Mr President. They are just words whether we understand them, believe them or not.) But I do agree with his opinion that language is important when it comes to trust and validity. I have a theory that the Great British Bake off is popular not just because of its sweetness (of the cakes and the situation) but because of the language that is used. The innuendo, the word play, the bad jokes, etc is where it exceeds and where its spin off show the Great British Sewing Bee failed to live up to, its hard to make clean overhem zip line (I just made that up and have no idea if that's a real thing) sound as sensual as a moist succulent brulee. But overall, I find it all of an oxymoron that a writer who makes judgement on those for over using language and jargon, but who has just spent the last 70 pages doing just that.

Good points are raised and made through out Eagelton's reflection of society and its cultural and political impacts but you know the book could be half the size and the same amount of information would have been shared.

So will be ever no the answer to the beginning of the book and mentioned at the top of this post? Probably the answer lies in reading the entire book, which if you do, I think you'll be found banging your head against a wall.

Home and Away

Vegas and Dubai. Dubai and Vegas. Same thing right? To many, yes they are - both are a manufactured environment, very hot, are built in a desert, advertise glamour, celebrities own homes/hotels/whatever else people who have too much money buy and yet in reality they are so very different to each other.

This is immediately evident in the texts of this weeks reading. Dave Hickey's "At home in the neon" certainly puts forth a warm feeling to Las Vegas that is no way similar to that of the straight talking, mainly negative fact checks of Mike Davis' "Fear Sand and Money in Dubai". Even the titles scream of polar opposite of language, Hickey's reference to Las Vegas as "Neon" immediately puts a bright and warm feeling to the forthcoming chapter where as Davis' "sand" suggests a dry, inhospitably environment of the desert.

Hickey's writing I find is far more novel, in that when first reading and reflected upon it, it felt almost like a diary, I've changed my mind since and reclassified it as more of a letter. A unique type of writing as it is both private but sharing feelings and experiences to an audience (even if that audience is just one person). And thats exactly how this came across to me. Describing his adopted home with such pleasant thought and happy tales with charming delight of "food to cocktail"

I can't quite recall most of "Fear Sand and Money in Dubai" such was the density of factual prose and angry sentiment. I've read some of Mike Davis before and his description of downtown LA was on a far lighter note than that of his plain disdain of Dubai.

Though my observations may be sweeping, I don't particularity think they are controversial, many may think the same. Vegas being sin city where you go for a good time in the good ole US of A, where the waitress/strippers/bartenders/card dealers are all part of the fun and are certainly not just the help. Where as Dubai, a supposed paradise, but in the middle of a war torn region and bordering countries has been built up on slave labour and inequality for most of its citizens.

They are certainly not twin cities Vegas and Dubai, maybe distant cousins born from bastard children at the beginning of the 20th century where boom and consumerism came into its own. Luckily we have writers like Hickey and Davis to show as the difference, simply in the tone of their written word.

Indifferent and numb

This week’s reading was in the form of an article by Jonathan Meade about Zaha Hadid's  “The first great female architect” and Alain Badiou “This crisis is the spectacle; where is the real?” a short chapter in his book.

To start off with Jonathan Meade’s article, I immediately am taken with the title “The first great female architect” - ouch, hope you’re not reading Denise Scott Browning - but I suppose this goes into depth as to what is defined as ‘great’. Is Zaha great because she is a genius? brilliant architect? a business woman? or is the great used in the same way as ‘Great Britain’, not so much a nod to its brilliance but rather in reference to its expanse, after all she has created a worldwide brand. Maybe I am over thinking it, so let’s move on.

Meade's language and tone is thrown backward and forward. I read it as if he wanted to write an article about a great architect, was left puzzled upon meeting the architect but remembered he was seeing the architect at the weekend at a party so couldn't be too harsh. Glowing little snippets from the text such as "Zaha has style all right, but not a style." contrast with the overall condescending tone.

When I first read the interview, I instantly forgot it, that’s not to say I didn't find it interesting but rather I didn't gleam anything from it apart from Zaha is a woman and an artist/architect that has five computer screens. Maybe its that I am indifferent to Zaha Hadid's work, neither liking or disliking it, that I pick some critical and some amusing tones.

Alain Badiou's chapter I found far more engaging. Not because I necessary agree with it, in some cases I outright disagree. Condemning the world into a world of either black or white - good guys and the bad guys - us and them just screams of an agenda. But then again of course he has an agenda, he has written a book called "The Communist Hypothesis".

"Capitalism has always ensured that we pay the price for a few short decades of brutally inegalitarian prosperity" Wow, some emotive language used there and makes for a convincing argument that certainly captures the attention of the reader, but on the whole I'm numb to most political talk because it all boils down to theories of the grass being greener if only we did it my way.

Of course what he writes about is something we are all experiencing and currently living through, and yet he is accurate in describing us, the public, as viewers of our own fate, waiting for those who have basically won a popularity contest to make the right decisions ("Save the banks" or not) and see us through to the good times again.