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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)