Reading every week articles on different historical periods, going back in time and writing small abstracts expressing my personal view on them, enabled me to develop my personal voice and opinion. I remember being very cautious and sometimes shy because I felt that I did not know enough and feared that my judgements might have been one-sided. Luckily, I proved wrong and I appreciate that I have expanded largely my knowledge of both , literature and critical articles, and as a result, my entries have become more confident. The best thing is that I understood that even if some of the texts we`ve covered do not necessarily always relate to architecture, there is always a way to relate and link topics and some answers might appear suddenly if one takes a different look to the subject. It was important for me to step aside from design to have a thought about what we are doing in bigger picture and how it might fit in the cultural, social, historical contexts. I`ve found it refreshing to question the things around us, the society we live in, contemporary values, how our tastes are formed and what they are influenced by, and even the purpose and usefulness of the education we are getting. The ability to question everything is really an important part of what I`ve taken from the course.
One main thing for me is that I have realised that sometimes there are no answers for the questions. I knew this before, but somehow I feel calmer accepting it now, knowing that nothing is as straight forward and easy as I wished it to be. I have also discovered that neither my opinions, nor someone else`s are 100 percent right. Gaining knowledge, making mistakes is a process one has to go through and learn from it, but no one will be able to learn without the ability to analyse - and that is what I got from the course. It is still hard to accept that we are not doing something only for the final result, but for the sake of the process as well, but I am sure it will come.
There were a few shocking thoughts for me that I`ve discovered along the course. The first was we live in a replay culture, a “product” culture. In other words events are repeated over and over on a loop. Within his book, Henry Lefebvre concludes that products are replacing works. One does not have to look far to see the signs of this product culture within our everyday lives. Furthermore, Terry Eagleton developed the thought further. As a society in general, we tend to be looking backwards, using historical examples, and we always seem to be reverting back to past for ideas to use in present. On the one hand I see it being a mistake, however, on the other it might seem as an easy way out, but we would never move forward if we are stuck discussing everyday life. I would agree with Terry Eagleton`s opinion that we inhabit "a social order which urgently needs repair" and we are told that "theory must be harnessed to practical political ends". Yet it is not quite clear what he thinks is to be done. I quite agree with the statement that we are lost generation with no cultural achievements of our own. We re-use what was done before (while it was the 'golden age' of theoretical thinking). Are we growing sick of the world that we ourselves have built up and beginning to long for the old ways of the world? The second was that we are so obsessed with the mass media that we do not really understand that we are being easily manipulated, controlled and oppressed by media now and how easy it is to constrain us (as a crowd). And what is worst of all, we`ve allowed this situation to happen to us ourselves and we don`t even realise how helpless we`ve become now.
Even from the start of the course I was aware of that fact that all the processes, social, economical, political are somehow related to architecture, but now I realize that I have deeper understanding and proof. And as designers we have responsibility to create space according to what we truly believe to be right. What is still an enigma for me is how to educate the client in such a way that he understands all those reasons for design. It is therefore up to us, architects, to get away from this replay culture.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
'Tin Lizzie', 'The bitter drink' and 'Architect' from 'U.S.A.' by John Dos Passos
‘USA’ by Dos Passos is a work intertwining fiction and fact, exploring the lives of major contributors to the beginning of the twentieth century, to the progress and development of the America which exists today. Ambition and dissolution are paralleled between the lives of both the famous historical individuals and the unknown fictitious characters.
Beginning after the First World War, the theme is of embraced opportunity, encouraged by a quickly changing industrialised world. 20th century is all about pushing ideas to their fulfilment, exploring new avenues, possibilities and potential.
The way by which Passos animates the characters to a realist level is clever and a subtle way of delivering his message. He has honed in on the affluent and the successful figures whose success was born from creating the all new modern America (mechanized). Close attention is brought to personal details that make people like Frank Lloyd Wright seem more human, and more understandable. He talks of how they are proud of achievements, and ashamed of mistakes, but at the same time how they have shown qualities that have led to their success in life. In doing this he makes the character easier to relate to, they seem more real, and this makes them seem more vulnerable. It is because of this that when characters like Ford spend the end of their lives reminiscing back to the times before their interventions had changed the world, that you start to feel for them more. For Thorstein Veblen in ‘The Bitter Drink’, he ends up in a shack as an old man, alone, and with no interest in being remembered after his death. How can such a brilliant mind end up in this situation? It is because he is human.
All of these men were successful and have been remembered. All of these men are human. Some people measure success by money, some don’t. For some, money makes them happy, and for others it is self-satisfaction, feeling of achievement and accomplishment of some big. The tragedy of the piece is what has to be sacrificed for success (as there is always tragedy following closely behind success) from the loneliness or isolation of a life spent with narrow-minded pursuit, to personal loss, or lack of acceptance from society. It is quite hard to make any specific conclusion from all three pieces. Undoubtedly there are a lot of layers of different meaning in the text, but generally I believe that it is just a display of the sequence of characters and their stories and the reader is supposed to draw the conclusions himself. And there would not be single definite one, right or wrong solution – it depends on what way one choses to go along, as long as the person is ready to take all the responsibility and consequences.
Beginning after the First World War, the theme is of embraced opportunity, encouraged by a quickly changing industrialised world. 20th century is all about pushing ideas to their fulfilment, exploring new avenues, possibilities and potential.
The way by which Passos animates the characters to a realist level is clever and a subtle way of delivering his message. He has honed in on the affluent and the successful figures whose success was born from creating the all new modern America (mechanized). Close attention is brought to personal details that make people like Frank Lloyd Wright seem more human, and more understandable. He talks of how they are proud of achievements, and ashamed of mistakes, but at the same time how they have shown qualities that have led to their success in life. In doing this he makes the character easier to relate to, they seem more real, and this makes them seem more vulnerable. It is because of this that when characters like Ford spend the end of their lives reminiscing back to the times before their interventions had changed the world, that you start to feel for them more. For Thorstein Veblen in ‘The Bitter Drink’, he ends up in a shack as an old man, alone, and with no interest in being remembered after his death. How can such a brilliant mind end up in this situation? It is because he is human.
All of these men were successful and have been remembered. All of these men are human. Some people measure success by money, some don’t. For some, money makes them happy, and for others it is self-satisfaction, feeling of achievement and accomplishment of some big. The tragedy of the piece is what has to be sacrificed for success (as there is always tragedy following closely behind success) from the loneliness or isolation of a life spent with narrow-minded pursuit, to personal loss, or lack of acceptance from society. It is quite hard to make any specific conclusion from all three pieces. Undoubtedly there are a lot of layers of different meaning in the text, but generally I believe that it is just a display of the sequence of characters and their stories and the reader is supposed to draw the conclusions himself. And there would not be single definite one, right or wrong solution – it depends on what way one choses to go along, as long as the person is ready to take all the responsibility and consequences.
Evelyn Waugh 'Decline and Fall' and 'The fountainhead' by Ayn Rand
When reading the book I noticed the fantastic pleiad of characters, all of which are trying to adjust to a Modern way of thinking and living in the New word of the machine age. The old social structure appears to be old-fashioned and restrictive. The world as Waugh depicts it - is the place, where only sardonic amusement gets you through the day.
Paul Pennyfeather is a nice guy, but he becomes a victim of corrupted, spoiled and degraded public school system. It is obvious that he fails everything before he even starts doing it. All his attempts for deeds are truly pathetic. Silenus is a good parody of the modern architect; detached, dissatisfied, aloof, alone, unlikeable and seeing himself at the centre of the spinning wheel and advising that ‘some people should really not to join in such a spinning wheel of absurdity…’ . Though one would expect better closing moments to come from Captain Grimes, who of course, thanks to his utterly spurious education and capacity to roll with life’s punches, always climbs out of ‘the soup’. Waugh’s Prof Silenus is definitely not comforting, either in his work, or his demeanour.
When ‘Decline and fall’ was written in 1928, the character of the Architect played by Professor Silenus gives an accurate account of the thinking of the profession the time. Ever since the beginning of industrialization the benefits of mechanizes automated engineering was celebrated and many of the forward thinking architects were incorporating standardized components into their designs.
The Famous quote in the book by Profesor Silenus ‘The problem of architecture as I see it is the problem of all art - the elimination of the human element from the consideration of form. The only perfect building must be the factory, because that is built to house machines, not men. All ill comes from man’. This refers us to Corbusiers famous dictum ‘A house is a machine for living in’ Silenus is referred to Le Corbusier, and his modernist viewpoint. His attitude towards most things in life can be summed up in his approach to assessing a beautiful woman, which is by rating the efficiency of her digestive system.
Architecture shall no longer be a product of human emotion or nostalgia. Le Corbusier architecture found perfection with its use of proportions, mechanized design and beautiful seamless detail. The machine at the time was new and a powerful tool giving rise to hope and a broadening of possibilities for architecture.
I think that there are great rewards taken from the design process of form following function. The only problem is that Le Corbusier’s modernist perception did not allow for human needs. For his designs to remain pure, there would be no room for individual character – everyone would have the same of everything excluding even slight possibility for variation. But what a person needs is to bring the excitement and life. When everything is reduced to its functional form, it can mean it loses its own unique character, and becomes soulless neglecting human nature. The design ideally should includes psychological needs and go beyond the purely functionality.
Howard Roark in Ayn Rand`s ‘Fountainhead’ isn’t really likeable, but he embodies a certain virtue. Try to find virtue or dignity in Waugh? That’s impossible. Roark’s virtue is certainly attractive. He celebrates New promising world of skyscrapers and machines. The character of the architect stands for the free-thinking man; he has to endure suffering and criticism as he holds his position and endeavours to change the perception of society towards what he believes Modern design in architecture should be.
His enemy is society’s acceptance of the mediocre, in a society of conformists, the same one we see in Evelyn Waugh`s ‘Decline and Fall’. The dignity is in how one behaves in this old world, incapable of developing. ‘Mediocrity" doesn't mean average intelligence, it means an average intelligence that resents and envies its betters’ Ayn Rand.
As Roark struggles to survive with few commissions for his work, he remains strong and stands for what he believes, unwilling to compromise in the slightest in order to please the narrow-minded clients’ demands, he refuses to explain his process and asks that his work be allowed to speak for itself in its performance, form and beauty. Roark`s triumph is a result of his obstinacy. His success is due to his integrity, unwavering principles and unwillingness to compromise.
The character of Henry Cameron, Roark’s mentor, holds the same ideals as Louis Sullivan (Wright’s mentor), that form follows function. On his death bed Cameron passes buildings that he designed, although he tells Roark to compromise his style. There is still the feeling that he died believing in this style, and more importantly - that he was always searching for the right style. This makes him different from Roark.
The role of the newspapers in the film is that of the manipulative media machine, it tells society what it should think; it produces popular opinion and does not stray from accepted conformity. The exception to this is ‘The Banner’, which supports Roark`s individuality, although it too is eventually forced to relent and conform to popular opinion in order to survive.
I believe if an architect sees his aim in designing iconic, individual, powerful architecture he would have empathised with Roark, but personally I see him as a tragic figure who does not understand that architecture must deal with real issues and not just serve to highlight one man`s self-proclaimed genius.
Paul Pennyfeather is a nice guy, but he becomes a victim of corrupted, spoiled and degraded public school system. It is obvious that he fails everything before he even starts doing it. All his attempts for deeds are truly pathetic. Silenus is a good parody of the modern architect; detached, dissatisfied, aloof, alone, unlikeable and seeing himself at the centre of the spinning wheel and advising that ‘some people should really not to join in such a spinning wheel of absurdity…’ . Though one would expect better closing moments to come from Captain Grimes, who of course, thanks to his utterly spurious education and capacity to roll with life’s punches, always climbs out of ‘the soup’. Waugh’s Prof Silenus is definitely not comforting, either in his work, or his demeanour.
When ‘Decline and fall’ was written in 1928, the character of the Architect played by Professor Silenus gives an accurate account of the thinking of the profession the time. Ever since the beginning of industrialization the benefits of mechanizes automated engineering was celebrated and many of the forward thinking architects were incorporating standardized components into their designs.
The Famous quote in the book by Profesor Silenus ‘The problem of architecture as I see it is the problem of all art - the elimination of the human element from the consideration of form. The only perfect building must be the factory, because that is built to house machines, not men. All ill comes from man’. This refers us to Corbusiers famous dictum ‘A house is a machine for living in’ Silenus is referred to Le Corbusier, and his modernist viewpoint. His attitude towards most things in life can be summed up in his approach to assessing a beautiful woman, which is by rating the efficiency of her digestive system.
Architecture shall no longer be a product of human emotion or nostalgia. Le Corbusier architecture found perfection with its use of proportions, mechanized design and beautiful seamless detail. The machine at the time was new and a powerful tool giving rise to hope and a broadening of possibilities for architecture.
I think that there are great rewards taken from the design process of form following function. The only problem is that Le Corbusier’s modernist perception did not allow for human needs. For his designs to remain pure, there would be no room for individual character – everyone would have the same of everything excluding even slight possibility for variation. But what a person needs is to bring the excitement and life. When everything is reduced to its functional form, it can mean it loses its own unique character, and becomes soulless neglecting human nature. The design ideally should includes psychological needs and go beyond the purely functionality.
Howard Roark in Ayn Rand`s ‘Fountainhead’ isn’t really likeable, but he embodies a certain virtue. Try to find virtue or dignity in Waugh? That’s impossible. Roark’s virtue is certainly attractive. He celebrates New promising world of skyscrapers and machines. The character of the architect stands for the free-thinking man; he has to endure suffering and criticism as he holds his position and endeavours to change the perception of society towards what he believes Modern design in architecture should be.
His enemy is society’s acceptance of the mediocre, in a society of conformists, the same one we see in Evelyn Waugh`s ‘Decline and Fall’. The dignity is in how one behaves in this old world, incapable of developing. ‘Mediocrity" doesn't mean average intelligence, it means an average intelligence that resents and envies its betters’ Ayn Rand.
As Roark struggles to survive with few commissions for his work, he remains strong and stands for what he believes, unwilling to compromise in the slightest in order to please the narrow-minded clients’ demands, he refuses to explain his process and asks that his work be allowed to speak for itself in its performance, form and beauty. Roark`s triumph is a result of his obstinacy. His success is due to his integrity, unwavering principles and unwillingness to compromise.
The character of Henry Cameron, Roark’s mentor, holds the same ideals as Louis Sullivan (Wright’s mentor), that form follows function. On his death bed Cameron passes buildings that he designed, although he tells Roark to compromise his style. There is still the feeling that he died believing in this style, and more importantly - that he was always searching for the right style. This makes him different from Roark.
The role of the newspapers in the film is that of the manipulative media machine, it tells society what it should think; it produces popular opinion and does not stray from accepted conformity. The exception to this is ‘The Banner’, which supports Roark`s individuality, although it too is eventually forced to relent and conform to popular opinion in order to survive.
I believe if an architect sees his aim in designing iconic, individual, powerful architecture he would have empathised with Roark, but personally I see him as a tragic figure who does not understand that architecture must deal with real issues and not just serve to highlight one man`s self-proclaimed genius.
Monday, November 21, 2011
'Social space' from 'The Production of Space' by Henry Lefebvre
To be honest, I had a great difficulty getting through the text partly because I am reading not on the native language, partly because the language Lefebvre uses is way too complicated. I found myself lost in complex ideas described with even more complex language structures. What I gathered out of this particular chapter is that social space is not 'a thing among other things, not a product among other products...' There is a great diversity of objects contained in this social space at different scales. But, for Lefebvre 'repetition has everywhere defeated uniqueness'. I would say that this observation of repetitiveness in the capitalist city echoes the concept of 'Generic City' that emerged in 1990 through Rem Koolhaas 'S,M,L,XL'. The social space should be a product of singular character, politically instrumental.
In the text Lefebvre used Venice to try and explain his meaning although his descriptions of the city where not factual. The way the city functioned was very well documented describing how the location of different businesses evolved around the city in order to make their businesses a lot more lucrative.of different businesses evolved around the city in order to make their businesses a lot more lucrative.
Lefebvre makes a huge distinction between 'product' and 'work'. He moves from a 'thing in space' to the 'actual production of space'. Building upon the Marxist idea of 'production' he acknowledges that the space itself is an 'active moment' that needs to be 'actively produced' and not just left to its own devices. He goes on to say that humanity is killing off nature with signs and images, and labour and products. When talking about social space he describes it as the outcome of a sequence, and set or operations, and so cannot be reduced to the rank of a simple object, but at the same time there is nothing imagined or unreal about it.
Personally I believe in the transition of spaces, their multifunctionality. 'An existing space may outlive its original purpose and the raison d`etre which determines its forms, functions and structures.' I don`t really have any specific conclusion on this text as I think there is a real skill in being able to convey a complicated idea in a way that makes it more easily understandable. This relates closely to our profession - to turn a complicated idea in your head into a language that anyone can start to understand. I’m sure many brilliant theorists would disagree with me argueing that what Lefebvre writes makes perfect sense, but I just think that writing in the way he does gives the impression that he is hiding in words.
In the text Lefebvre used Venice to try and explain his meaning although his descriptions of the city where not factual. The way the city functioned was very well documented describing how the location of different businesses evolved around the city in order to make their businesses a lot more lucrative.of different businesses evolved around the city in order to make their businesses a lot more lucrative.
Lefebvre makes a huge distinction between 'product' and 'work'. He moves from a 'thing in space' to the 'actual production of space'. Building upon the Marxist idea of 'production' he acknowledges that the space itself is an 'active moment' that needs to be 'actively produced' and not just left to its own devices. He goes on to say that humanity is killing off nature with signs and images, and labour and products. When talking about social space he describes it as the outcome of a sequence, and set or operations, and so cannot be reduced to the rank of a simple object, but at the same time there is nothing imagined or unreal about it.
Personally I believe in the transition of spaces, their multifunctionality. 'An existing space may outlive its original purpose and the raison d`etre which determines its forms, functions and structures.' I don`t really have any specific conclusion on this text as I think there is a real skill in being able to convey a complicated idea in a way that makes it more easily understandable. This relates closely to our profession - to turn a complicated idea in your head into a language that anyone can start to understand. I’m sure many brilliant theorists would disagree with me argueing that what Lefebvre writes makes perfect sense, but I just think that writing in the way he does gives the impression that he is hiding in words.
‘Howl’ by Allen Ginsberg and ‘The Job’ by W.S.Burroughs
Both texts represent the Beat movement, its values, logic (if there was any) and attitude to life generally. In ‘The Job’ we see the assault upon language, traditional values, and the controlling system. We see the picture of paranoiac, mad and maddening view on the world. I assume William Burroughs is one of the many from WWII generation to see and feel the world like he does. People are loaded with psychological problems, insanity is in the air. What we read between the lines is a warning to become a part of the machine. More and more people’s minds were thinking beyond the conventional and they were questioning and objecting to their previous generations’ ways of thinking. In that aspect, ‘Howl’ is an important poem as it stated a debate as to what was acceptable to write about, and gave new ideas to how it could be written about, it essentially expanded creativity. Ginsberg writes a continuous flow of thoughts, feelings and impressions of what he sees happening around him.
LSD was being used to experience new things, appearance of hippies and all what 60-ies are usually associated with was kind of an expression of so much wanted liberation, freedom, and escapism from the context to smth more real, true and genuine, released from the superstitions of everyday life and so-called morality of the society. People were not able to sustain the pressure of that modern world and were seeking for comfort in things that opposed to the regime, which was a machine of false consciousness. Everyone was ‘doing his own thing’ not to become part of it. William Burroughs writes on the subject of freedom: ‘Free man does not exist in anyone`s books, because they are the author`s creations. I would say that free man don`t exist on this planet at this time, because they don`t exist in human bodies……’ The main thing that I took from this was his idea of images and words being used as an instrument of control. Moreover, he says that if one takes the TV image with one politician talking and overlay the voice of other - it would still make perfect sense. That illustrates the extent to which society is brainwashed.
Off course in Architecture that found the reflection in all the futuristic ideas that were floating around. Architects were no longer trying to rationalize, on the contrary, freedom of forms, personal language was flourishing. Archigram were one of the examples of creating such Utopias. By introducing new rules of design they were exploring the possibilities, searching for new perspectives.
Unfortunately I think that NOW we are totally depressed by the machine, totally corrupted in our minds and thoughts and totally controlled. And what is worse, we got ourselves in this state obediently and without any questions.
LSD was being used to experience new things, appearance of hippies and all what 60-ies are usually associated with was kind of an expression of so much wanted liberation, freedom, and escapism from the context to smth more real, true and genuine, released from the superstitions of everyday life and so-called morality of the society. People were not able to sustain the pressure of that modern world and were seeking for comfort in things that opposed to the regime, which was a machine of false consciousness. Everyone was ‘doing his own thing’ not to become part of it. William Burroughs writes on the subject of freedom: ‘Free man does not exist in anyone`s books, because they are the author`s creations. I would say that free man don`t exist on this planet at this time, because they don`t exist in human bodies……’ The main thing that I took from this was his idea of images and words being used as an instrument of control. Moreover, he says that if one takes the TV image with one politician talking and overlay the voice of other - it would still make perfect sense. That illustrates the extent to which society is brainwashed.
Off course in Architecture that found the reflection in all the futuristic ideas that were floating around. Architects were no longer trying to rationalize, on the contrary, freedom of forms, personal language was flourishing. Archigram were one of the examples of creating such Utopias. By introducing new rules of design they were exploring the possibilities, searching for new perspectives.
Unfortunately I think that NOW we are totally depressed by the machine, totally corrupted in our minds and thoughts and totally controlled. And what is worse, we got ourselves in this state obediently and without any questions.
Monday, October 31, 2011
'After Theory' by Terry Eagleton
To my mind, the book draws out the absurdities of cultural theory. `After Theory` compares the 1960s origins and 1970s heyday of cultural theory, when 'there was a general excited sense that the present was the place to be....because it seemed so obviously the herald to a new future, a land of boundless possibility', with the present state of the subject, where 'quietly-spoken middle-class students huddle diligently in libraries, at work on sensationalist subjects like vampirism and eye-gouging, cyborgs and porno movies'
In a prefatory note he declares that his new book "argues against what I take to be a current orthodoxy". Theory has gone astray, but not because it has encouraged academic obscurantism and grim reductiveness. It is because it has not been political enough. He talks about "fashioning a world in which the hungry could be fed", but takes it for granted that this is not something that would ever concern those professionally involved in politics or commerce. In our present political climate it is not enough to write about a sexy topic, get a grade, get a degree, and get a job. We have to get away from simplistic self-interest and political disinterest. In the chapter entitled “Morality,” Eagleton makes it clear what morality is. It is “all about the enjoyment and abundance of life”.
He speaks of the shortcomings of "cultural theory". We inhabit "a social order which urgently needs repair" and we are told that "theory must be harnessed to practical political ends". Yet it is not quite clear what he thinks is to be done. I quite agree with the statement that we are lost generation with no cultural achievements of our own. We re-use what was done before (while it was the 'golden age' of theoretical thinking). There should be a merge of interdisciplinary study of literature and culture, only then wide range of topics will start being discussed.
Cultural theory as we have it promises to grapple with some fundamental problems, but on the whole fails to deliver. It has been shamefaced about morality and metaphysics, embarrassed about love, biology, religion and revolution, largely silent about evil, reticent about death and suffering, dogmatic about essences, universals and foundations, and superficial about truth, objectivity and disinterestedness. This, on any estimate, is rather a large slice of human existence to fall down on. It is also, as we have suggested before, rather an awkward moment in history to find oneself with little or nothing to say about such fundamental questions. Eagleton writes four chapters that serve to remind his readers that there are such things as truth, morality, evil, and virtue in this world and that it is perhaps time to abandon irony as the primary way to respond to the world’s problems.
Eagleton concludes After Theory by arguing that 'cultural theory...cannot afford simply to keep recounting the same narratives of class, race and gender.... It needs to chance its arm, break out of a rather stifling orthodoxy and explore new topics'. But rather than making these demands and then attacking cultural theory when it fails to deliver, perhaps we should simply be getting on with developing new ideas about the world and how we might change it for the better.
In conclusion I feel Terry Eagleton is trying to explain that we are so interested in the everyday events of our lives that we have totally lost our focus of traditional thinking and the study of society. I personally agree with Eagleton that the grave problem with postmodern thought is that it has given up on asking the big question. Instead, we cultivate our small groups and consider primarily the questions that are important to our unique selves. The aftertaste of the book is that the example of the theory that Eagleton presents is a theory that forces the reader to take sides and passionately argue for them. In short, it is a theory that, while by no means perfect, allows for the reader and the practitioner to engage the fundamental questions that lie at the centre of our very existence. But we shouldn`t anyway forget that we are only humans and sometimes we are weak and have all rights to be so. The important thing is still to be able to raise serious questions as in the book and have a comprehensive discussion.
In a prefatory note he declares that his new book "argues against what I take to be a current orthodoxy". Theory has gone astray, but not because it has encouraged academic obscurantism and grim reductiveness. It is because it has not been political enough. He talks about "fashioning a world in which the hungry could be fed", but takes it for granted that this is not something that would ever concern those professionally involved in politics or commerce. In our present political climate it is not enough to write about a sexy topic, get a grade, get a degree, and get a job. We have to get away from simplistic self-interest and political disinterest. In the chapter entitled “Morality,” Eagleton makes it clear what morality is. It is “all about the enjoyment and abundance of life”.
He speaks of the shortcomings of "cultural theory". We inhabit "a social order which urgently needs repair" and we are told that "theory must be harnessed to practical political ends". Yet it is not quite clear what he thinks is to be done. I quite agree with the statement that we are lost generation with no cultural achievements of our own. We re-use what was done before (while it was the 'golden age' of theoretical thinking). There should be a merge of interdisciplinary study of literature and culture, only then wide range of topics will start being discussed.
Cultural theory as we have it promises to grapple with some fundamental problems, but on the whole fails to deliver. It has been shamefaced about morality and metaphysics, embarrassed about love, biology, religion and revolution, largely silent about evil, reticent about death and suffering, dogmatic about essences, universals and foundations, and superficial about truth, objectivity and disinterestedness. This, on any estimate, is rather a large slice of human existence to fall down on. It is also, as we have suggested before, rather an awkward moment in history to find oneself with little or nothing to say about such fundamental questions. Eagleton writes four chapters that serve to remind his readers that there are such things as truth, morality, evil, and virtue in this world and that it is perhaps time to abandon irony as the primary way to respond to the world’s problems.
Eagleton concludes After Theory by arguing that 'cultural theory...cannot afford simply to keep recounting the same narratives of class, race and gender.... It needs to chance its arm, break out of a rather stifling orthodoxy and explore new topics'. But rather than making these demands and then attacking cultural theory when it fails to deliver, perhaps we should simply be getting on with developing new ideas about the world and how we might change it for the better.
In conclusion I feel Terry Eagleton is trying to explain that we are so interested in the everyday events of our lives that we have totally lost our focus of traditional thinking and the study of society. I personally agree with Eagleton that the grave problem with postmodern thought is that it has given up on asking the big question. Instead, we cultivate our small groups and consider primarily the questions that are important to our unique selves. The aftertaste of the book is that the example of the theory that Eagleton presents is a theory that forces the reader to take sides and passionately argue for them. In short, it is a theory that, while by no means perfect, allows for the reader and the practitioner to engage the fundamental questions that lie at the centre of our very existence. But we shouldn`t anyway forget that we are only humans and sometimes we are weak and have all rights to be so. The important thing is still to be able to raise serious questions as in the book and have a comprehensive discussion.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
'Goethe`s Faust: the tragedy of the Development' from 'All That Is Solid Melts Into Air' by Marshall Berman
“When reason fails, the devil helps!”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
Berman is not the first and is not the last one to be intrigued by the question of development and if and how it influences the human faith. I quite like that he has chosen a literature character and does the analysis of the destiny of one particular hero to then make an analogy to the modern world situation, placing the character in the 'modern person shoes'. Even from school I remember Dostoevskiy`s hero Raskolnikov that was obsessed with the thought: 'Am I a trembling creature, or have I the right?' Both authors develop the same topic of the process of development and the extent of personal involvement in it, the difference is in the fact that Dostoevsky analyses the routes of becoming a 'great man', whereas Goethe takes it from the point where the hero is already a 'chosen one'. But the common thing is that both heroes pursue the same target - find self-assurance.
The tragedy of development of 'Superman' or 'history-making man' (according to Norman O. Brown) is consonant to the theory of the "great man" in Russian literature. To remind briefly, in 'Crime and Punishment' Raskolnikov believed that people were divided into the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary": the ordinary are the common rabble, the extraordinary (notably Napoleon or Muhammad) must not follow the moral codes that apply to ordinary people since they are meant to be great men. An extraordinary man would not need to think twice about his actions. Raskolnikov had been contemplating this theory for months. He believed himself to be one of these extraordinary men and was thus "allowed" to commit murder. However, his plan went wrong; before he was able to make his escape from the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna's flat, her meek-tempered half-sister (Lizaveta Ivanovna) arrived and stumbles across the body. Raskolnikov, in a panic, murders the pawnbroker's sister as well, a crime which, for some reason, does not weigh on him anywhere near as heavily as the initial murder. Although, the fact of the murders themselves did not particularly torment him. What tormented him was the fact that he had "transgressed", and that he was not able to be the "great man" he had theorized about.
His grand failure was that he lacked the conviction he believed to accompany greatness and continued his decline into madness. After having confessed to the prostitute Sonia Marmeladova, she guided him towards admitting to the crime, and he confessed. Raskolnikov was sentenced to exile in Siberia, accompanied by Sonia, where he began his mental and spiritual rehabilitation.
Both texts show us the emerging of self-awareness of a human being. While Dostoevsky shows us self-destruction, Goethe`s Faust ends up destroying everything else, himself inclusive. It is quite obvious that Faust did not have that intellectual fever and from the very beginning thought himself to be the 'great man'. He takes the thought even further and seeks for action that is at the end turns out to be worthless.
What is totally different is that in Goethe`s version the subject and the object of transformation is not only the hero, but the whole world. Faust is led to murders by the desire for creation, Raskolnikov is driven by self-soul searching idea. Both characters commit murder, but the difference is that Faust does not even notice it, as for him the goal justifies the purpose. What is important Raskolnikov is guided by love that saves his soul, whereas for Faust love is something he can`t get a priori and turns into selfish monster. However, sheer desire for development does not lead anywhere and does not bring any fruitful results. Faust`s mistake is that he thinks only of the dynamic process and has a very vague concept of the impact of the outcome. Self-destruction becomes an important part of self-development, the powers of his mind turn against him. He ends up sacrificing himself for the phantom idea. It is absurd and paradox that undergoing self development from despair in his little world -to confronting it in the love stage, he ends up being a destroyer in his final, 'developer' phase. He gets to the underlining principles of forces that drive the world (economical, political, social) and learns how to build and destroy. Even the devil gets lost with Faust`s large-scale ambitions of moving the world. What we see is that depending desires, the scale of devastation enlarges. Moreover, on Faust`s example we see that once any self-conscious evil act is committed, there is no turning back, all the following deeds are becoming even more cruel. What is forgotten is the underlying human principles, moral grounds are lost.
What is frightening is that 'the deepest horrors of Faustian development spring from its most honourable aims and its most authentic achievements'. Hopefully, we are still able to 'develop a critical perspective on historical period' and the subject of moral context of any deed will continue troubling the mankind at least for next couple of centuries and people will reach the enlightenment even if it has to be done through the crisis. I believe there is not and shouldn`t really be any prescribed way of achieving goals and each particular person develops differently, however the goal is to find the way for developing that starts bringing fruitful results, not destruction, and that those results become as important as the process. 'As members of modern society we are responsible for the directions in which we develop, for our goals and achievements, for their human costs'. Unfortunately no one so far has come up with new models of development, but what is important is the revolution in the human nature itself. One should learn to get satisfaction from his actions, only than the results will become advantageous. There should be a point when one ceases the moment in the constant run for future success.
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
Berman is not the first and is not the last one to be intrigued by the question of development and if and how it influences the human faith. I quite like that he has chosen a literature character and does the analysis of the destiny of one particular hero to then make an analogy to the modern world situation, placing the character in the 'modern person shoes'. Even from school I remember Dostoevskiy`s hero Raskolnikov that was obsessed with the thought: 'Am I a trembling creature, or have I the right?' Both authors develop the same topic of the process of development and the extent of personal involvement in it, the difference is in the fact that Dostoevsky analyses the routes of becoming a 'great man', whereas Goethe takes it from the point where the hero is already a 'chosen one'. But the common thing is that both heroes pursue the same target - find self-assurance.
The tragedy of development of 'Superman' or 'history-making man' (according to Norman O. Brown) is consonant to the theory of the "great man" in Russian literature. To remind briefly, in 'Crime and Punishment' Raskolnikov believed that people were divided into the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary": the ordinary are the common rabble, the extraordinary (notably Napoleon or Muhammad) must not follow the moral codes that apply to ordinary people since they are meant to be great men. An extraordinary man would not need to think twice about his actions. Raskolnikov had been contemplating this theory for months. He believed himself to be one of these extraordinary men and was thus "allowed" to commit murder. However, his plan went wrong; before he was able to make his escape from the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna's flat, her meek-tempered half-sister (Lizaveta Ivanovna) arrived and stumbles across the body. Raskolnikov, in a panic, murders the pawnbroker's sister as well, a crime which, for some reason, does not weigh on him anywhere near as heavily as the initial murder. Although, the fact of the murders themselves did not particularly torment him. What tormented him was the fact that he had "transgressed", and that he was not able to be the "great man" he had theorized about.
His grand failure was that he lacked the conviction he believed to accompany greatness and continued his decline into madness. After having confessed to the prostitute Sonia Marmeladova, she guided him towards admitting to the crime, and he confessed. Raskolnikov was sentenced to exile in Siberia, accompanied by Sonia, where he began his mental and spiritual rehabilitation.
Both texts show us the emerging of self-awareness of a human being. While Dostoevsky shows us self-destruction, Goethe`s Faust ends up destroying everything else, himself inclusive. It is quite obvious that Faust did not have that intellectual fever and from the very beginning thought himself to be the 'great man'. He takes the thought even further and seeks for action that is at the end turns out to be worthless.
What is totally different is that in Goethe`s version the subject and the object of transformation is not only the hero, but the whole world. Faust is led to murders by the desire for creation, Raskolnikov is driven by self-soul searching idea. Both characters commit murder, but the difference is that Faust does not even notice it, as for him the goal justifies the purpose. What is important Raskolnikov is guided by love that saves his soul, whereas for Faust love is something he can`t get a priori and turns into selfish monster. However, sheer desire for development does not lead anywhere and does not bring any fruitful results. Faust`s mistake is that he thinks only of the dynamic process and has a very vague concept of the impact of the outcome. Self-destruction becomes an important part of self-development, the powers of his mind turn against him. He ends up sacrificing himself for the phantom idea. It is absurd and paradox that undergoing self development from despair in his little world -to confronting it in the love stage, he ends up being a destroyer in his final, 'developer' phase. He gets to the underlining principles of forces that drive the world (economical, political, social) and learns how to build and destroy. Even the devil gets lost with Faust`s large-scale ambitions of moving the world. What we see is that depending desires, the scale of devastation enlarges. Moreover, on Faust`s example we see that once any self-conscious evil act is committed, there is no turning back, all the following deeds are becoming even more cruel. What is forgotten is the underlying human principles, moral grounds are lost.
What is frightening is that 'the deepest horrors of Faustian development spring from its most honourable aims and its most authentic achievements'. Hopefully, we are still able to 'develop a critical perspective on historical period' and the subject of moral context of any deed will continue troubling the mankind at least for next couple of centuries and people will reach the enlightenment even if it has to be done through the crisis. I believe there is not and shouldn`t really be any prescribed way of achieving goals and each particular person develops differently, however the goal is to find the way for developing that starts bringing fruitful results, not destruction, and that those results become as important as the process. 'As members of modern society we are responsible for the directions in which we develop, for our goals and achievements, for their human costs'. Unfortunately no one so far has come up with new models of development, but what is important is the revolution in the human nature itself. One should learn to get satisfaction from his actions, only than the results will become advantageous. There should be a point when one ceases the moment in the constant run for future success.
'At Home in the Neon' from 'Air guitar' by Dave Hickey
When I first came to London form Moscow 3 years ago I have had a funny story. On my first night in one of London`s hostels I went out quite late at night and asked the receptionist what time they close so that I would still get inside when I come back. He looked at me in a weird way saying: `its a free country, mate`. And I really felt it being so during the years I`ve spent here. However, I have always had a feeling of incompleteness of so much advertised and promised freedom. I can`t really say that London has become my home as Las Vegas did for Dave Hickey.
What we find in the article is praise and love for the city, which appears to be true, honest and genuine. It is simple pleasures of life that Dave mentions that bring him (and not only him) comfort and peace. I believe that it must be that `The secret of Vegas is that there are no secrets` that is so appealing to human nature. It is a city where no false promises exist, a city where `anything could happen, a city that `treats you fair`.
What most of us are searching nowadays (it doesn`t really even matter in which area of live - take any) is hidden meaning, some underlying truth that we are so sure is concealed somewhere, we tend to forget that there shouldn`t necessarily be some sort of complication. And what we see in Hickey`s portrait of Vegas is truth in every little aspect of life. Everyone has same chances, there is no hidden reality, everything is transparent and obvious, in a way even predictable - and that`s the beauty of live there.
Vegas, furthermore, is a city that doesn't have values but, thanks to that it leaves one to who he really is with the cultural background one has accumulated. One is not running for phantom acknowledgements or awards because 'there are no socially sanctioned forms of status to ennoble one's having made it'. He wants to underline the simplicity and sincerity that you find in Vegas since it has never tried to sell itself for what it is not, a city for culture.
This unique city can definitely serve `as heart`s destination` where everyone can stop and have a break from the endless run towards the next fulfillments. If Vegas is really `a wonderful lens through which to view America` - than it might as well prove that all the rest of America is fake and one should beware of second meanings and get in touch with REAL reality.
What we find in the article is praise and love for the city, which appears to be true, honest and genuine. It is simple pleasures of life that Dave mentions that bring him (and not only him) comfort and peace. I believe that it must be that `The secret of Vegas is that there are no secrets` that is so appealing to human nature. It is a city where no false promises exist, a city where `anything could happen, a city that `treats you fair`.
What most of us are searching nowadays (it doesn`t really even matter in which area of live - take any) is hidden meaning, some underlying truth that we are so sure is concealed somewhere, we tend to forget that there shouldn`t necessarily be some sort of complication. And what we see in Hickey`s portrait of Vegas is truth in every little aspect of life. Everyone has same chances, there is no hidden reality, everything is transparent and obvious, in a way even predictable - and that`s the beauty of live there.
Vegas, furthermore, is a city that doesn't have values but, thanks to that it leaves one to who he really is with the cultural background one has accumulated. One is not running for phantom acknowledgements or awards because 'there are no socially sanctioned forms of status to ennoble one's having made it'. He wants to underline the simplicity and sincerity that you find in Vegas since it has never tried to sell itself for what it is not, a city for culture.
This unique city can definitely serve `as heart`s destination` where everyone can stop and have a break from the endless run towards the next fulfillments. If Vegas is really `a wonderful lens through which to view America` - than it might as well prove that all the rest of America is fake and one should beware of second meanings and get in touch with REAL reality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)