Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Monday, 14 February 2011
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Monday, 11 January 2010
From Here To Modernity
Cool new website from the BBC and Open University
http://www.open2.net/modernity/
http://www.open2.net/modernity/
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Modernity, The Machine and The Arts
In order to write this extended blog I started by reading through everything we have done so far, not all the books, but at least my blogs, some by others and some of the articles and extracts we have read. It seems an interesting journey that we have been on; all part of Paul’s evil plan no doubt!
So on that basis I felt it appropriate to look at the idea of modernity and the machine and relate it to various aspects of the course that we have covered. Although this is meant to be about one aspect of the course surely they are all related!
I have always been interested in how ways of thinking, in terms of the arts, have come about and have always looked at the development of movements as a way to give reason for their existence and invention. So for Zaha Hadid to claim she is anti contextual comes across to me as total rubbish. I know she means it in the physical sense, but I don’t think you can really separate design simply based on its physical appearance and the appearance of things around. Surely there is much more to it than that! A good example of where we are in terms of architectural development though, add to this the monstrosity of Dubai and surely with the opening of the Burj this week everyone is thinking WTF (excuse the horrible abbreviation). How the hell can something like that be being built and opened when we are in the midst of one of the biggest economic crises of the last hundred or so years? That’s where we are, but how did we get here!
So if we are to understand the world around us, or the context in which we live, we have to look back at history, not necessarily in some sort of nostalgic trance and definitely not as if development were the only thing that mattered like our friend Faust. I see it simply as a means to understanding, which in turn enables us to move forward. I have to admit, however, that my history is rubbish despite my father being a historian. I do have a good knowledge of art and architectural history at least so I am using that as a basis for argument.
To understand where we are and where we are going is then what we are trying to achieve and in terms of architecture we need to look at society and its development as a whole. Looking at Eagleton was a chance to try and understand theory itself, but to then look at Lefebvre was equivalent to jumping in at the deep end. Lefebvre’s most important work was on understanding the importance of space and its production; this has particularly influenced the world’s attitude towards urban theory. He was a Marxist thinker and is recognised to have significantly increased the scope of Marxist theory.
So Lefebvre is particularly important in terms of gaining understanding in the development of our current social position in relation to the physical world. Understanding whether space is a product would first of all require understanding what a product is and this falls back to Marx. Marxism however is, or was I should say, a sociological, economical and political philosophy and whilst it is fascinating isn’t directly linked to our understanding of our current architectural position. It is however a link to understanding society and in turn how current architectural and urban culture has come about.
The past hundred years has been a crescendo of development, basically ever since the industrial revolution the world has gone ape! The capitalist system which we have settled in has allowed continual growth, building and building like a Faustian machine. Progress is what the world survives on, if we weren’t moving forward what else would we be doing!
What I particularly liked about the Marshall Berman book (another Marxist) was his use of literary and artistic subjects to help define what has happened in the modern age. In the same way we looked at Evelyn Waugh and his satirical story about the decline of power in British society after World War I. We also looked at Allen Ginsberg and the other beatnik writers as literary examples of modernism, even Dave Hickey, although not part of the beat generation, had a distinctly beatnik style and those guys were all about going against the machine! Whilst Waugh’s Decline and Fall was written at a time when Le Corbusier was a prominent figure in world architecture, Archigram were at work at more or less the same time as the beatnik writers, so when we look at the parallels of these different art forms it helps to define the mood and societal condition of those periods.
Cinema, being the most public of art forms, is particularly representative of its period. Whilst not always visually so there is nearly always some representation of the time it is made, whether it be from the way cameras are used or the way narratives are put together or the general cinematic style. The Fountainhead was a good example in that it was about an architect and the rise of modernist architecture. Ayn Rand, whilst dedicating the film to architecture, was really only using architecture as a vehicle to relate her ideas of selflessness and remaining true to ideals in the face of influence from others. This was part of her philosophy, Objectivism, which was a sort of capitalist agenda based on the idea that reality exists outside of perception. This is to say that the individual is supreme and that selfishness is a virtue, a load of rubbish really. Far more interesting to me is the style of the movie as it is indicative of the Hollywood of the time and whilst Rand’s intentions are somewhat askew the subject matter is still a great representation of the state of society and architecture at the time. King Vidor, the director, holds the title of longest spanning career as a director from 1913 to 1980! He must have been the perfect choice to direct The Fountainhead as he is recognised to have produced some of the most creative films of the twenties and thirties usually dealing with idealism and disillusionment with contemporary life!
The twenties was, next to the fifties and nineties, the most economically prosperous period in recent history. In terms of the arts generally this was also an incredibly important time as the foundations had been laid for a burst in creativity. It was a time when cinema especially was exploding, indeed the big studios were created then and they made more movies per year in the twenties and thirties than they do now! Vidor would have seen all this happen, he did indeed make the largest grossing film up to that point in 1925; The Big Parade which was an epic anti war World War I romance story. More importantly the twenties gave us Expressionist cinema which had become incredibly popular in Europe and used strange camera angles and dark lighting for effect. These were visually captivating movies which were often poignant in there subject matter such as The Cabinet of Dr Caligari which was an anti bourgeois movie and made in the same year that Decline and Fall was written! FW Murnau made an expressionist version of Goethe’s Faust and there was Metropolis, Lang’s 1927 film about the social crisis between the lower and upper classes set in a futuristic urban dystopia. All this at the same time as modernism in architecture, the machine aesthetic, indeed the building as a machine and the mass production of building.
It seems to me that these artists and their movements were more often than not almost directly responding to the society that was building up around them. So using them as ways to understand our cultural and social development in the modern world is absolutely the way forward. As Terry Eagleton said in The Politics of Amnesia the golden age of cultural theory is past, it appears to be similar in the arts, do our buildings now make huge bold statements about the condition of society? They do but not in the way I’d like, they’re more like pop stars of the built environment, just look at the Burj!
So on that basis I felt it appropriate to look at the idea of modernity and the machine and relate it to various aspects of the course that we have covered. Although this is meant to be about one aspect of the course surely they are all related!
I have always been interested in how ways of thinking, in terms of the arts, have come about and have always looked at the development of movements as a way to give reason for their existence and invention. So for Zaha Hadid to claim she is anti contextual comes across to me as total rubbish. I know she means it in the physical sense, but I don’t think you can really separate design simply based on its physical appearance and the appearance of things around. Surely there is much more to it than that! A good example of where we are in terms of architectural development though, add to this the monstrosity of Dubai and surely with the opening of the Burj this week everyone is thinking WTF (excuse the horrible abbreviation). How the hell can something like that be being built and opened when we are in the midst of one of the biggest economic crises of the last hundred or so years? That’s where we are, but how did we get here!
So if we are to understand the world around us, or the context in which we live, we have to look back at history, not necessarily in some sort of nostalgic trance and definitely not as if development were the only thing that mattered like our friend Faust. I see it simply as a means to understanding, which in turn enables us to move forward. I have to admit, however, that my history is rubbish despite my father being a historian. I do have a good knowledge of art and architectural history at least so I am using that as a basis for argument.
To understand where we are and where we are going is then what we are trying to achieve and in terms of architecture we need to look at society and its development as a whole. Looking at Eagleton was a chance to try and understand theory itself, but to then look at Lefebvre was equivalent to jumping in at the deep end. Lefebvre’s most important work was on understanding the importance of space and its production; this has particularly influenced the world’s attitude towards urban theory. He was a Marxist thinker and is recognised to have significantly increased the scope of Marxist theory.
So Lefebvre is particularly important in terms of gaining understanding in the development of our current social position in relation to the physical world. Understanding whether space is a product would first of all require understanding what a product is and this falls back to Marx. Marxism however is, or was I should say, a sociological, economical and political philosophy and whilst it is fascinating isn’t directly linked to our understanding of our current architectural position. It is however a link to understanding society and in turn how current architectural and urban culture has come about.
The past hundred years has been a crescendo of development, basically ever since the industrial revolution the world has gone ape! The capitalist system which we have settled in has allowed continual growth, building and building like a Faustian machine. Progress is what the world survives on, if we weren’t moving forward what else would we be doing!
What I particularly liked about the Marshall Berman book (another Marxist) was his use of literary and artistic subjects to help define what has happened in the modern age. In the same way we looked at Evelyn Waugh and his satirical story about the decline of power in British society after World War I. We also looked at Allen Ginsberg and the other beatnik writers as literary examples of modernism, even Dave Hickey, although not part of the beat generation, had a distinctly beatnik style and those guys were all about going against the machine! Whilst Waugh’s Decline and Fall was written at a time when Le Corbusier was a prominent figure in world architecture, Archigram were at work at more or less the same time as the beatnik writers, so when we look at the parallels of these different art forms it helps to define the mood and societal condition of those periods.
Cinema, being the most public of art forms, is particularly representative of its period. Whilst not always visually so there is nearly always some representation of the time it is made, whether it be from the way cameras are used or the way narratives are put together or the general cinematic style. The Fountainhead was a good example in that it was about an architect and the rise of modernist architecture. Ayn Rand, whilst dedicating the film to architecture, was really only using architecture as a vehicle to relate her ideas of selflessness and remaining true to ideals in the face of influence from others. This was part of her philosophy, Objectivism, which was a sort of capitalist agenda based on the idea that reality exists outside of perception. This is to say that the individual is supreme and that selfishness is a virtue, a load of rubbish really. Far more interesting to me is the style of the movie as it is indicative of the Hollywood of the time and whilst Rand’s intentions are somewhat askew the subject matter is still a great representation of the state of society and architecture at the time. King Vidor, the director, holds the title of longest spanning career as a director from 1913 to 1980! He must have been the perfect choice to direct The Fountainhead as he is recognised to have produced some of the most creative films of the twenties and thirties usually dealing with idealism and disillusionment with contemporary life!
The twenties was, next to the fifties and nineties, the most economically prosperous period in recent history. In terms of the arts generally this was also an incredibly important time as the foundations had been laid for a burst in creativity. It was a time when cinema especially was exploding, indeed the big studios were created then and they made more movies per year in the twenties and thirties than they do now! Vidor would have seen all this happen, he did indeed make the largest grossing film up to that point in 1925; The Big Parade which was an epic anti war World War I romance story. More importantly the twenties gave us Expressionist cinema which had become incredibly popular in Europe and used strange camera angles and dark lighting for effect. These were visually captivating movies which were often poignant in there subject matter such as The Cabinet of Dr Caligari which was an anti bourgeois movie and made in the same year that Decline and Fall was written! FW Murnau made an expressionist version of Goethe’s Faust and there was Metropolis, Lang’s 1927 film about the social crisis between the lower and upper classes set in a futuristic urban dystopia. All this at the same time as modernism in architecture, the machine aesthetic, indeed the building as a machine and the mass production of building.
It seems to me that these artists and their movements were more often than not almost directly responding to the society that was building up around them. So using them as ways to understand our cultural and social development in the modern world is absolutely the way forward. As Terry Eagleton said in The Politics of Amnesia the golden age of cultural theory is past, it appears to be similar in the arts, do our buildings now make huge bold statements about the condition of society? They do but not in the way I’d like, they’re more like pop stars of the built environment, just look at the Burj!
Monday, 4 January 2010
Marshall Bermann - All That Is Solid Melts Into Air - Goethe's Faust
In the first chapter of 'All That Is Solid Melts Into Air - The Experience Of Modernity' Marshall Berman uses Goethes interpretation of the legend of Faust as a literary interpretation of modernization. In the other chapters he uses Marxist texts, French poetry and Russian Literature to analyze modernisation and modernism, but I am yet to read that far. Goethe's version of Faust, as Berman tells us, is the most extensive and rich interpretaion there is, not unexpected from a man who spent sixty years working on it. The main difference, we are told, of Goethe's Faust to its predecessors is the desire for development which previous incarnations had represented by more obvious desires such as money, sex and fame.
Berman goes on to describe the most original idea in Goethes Faust as that of the two modes of development in Faust as both self-development and economic-development and that these must be fused to achieve either. He analyses the story in its three parts, The Dreamer, The Lover and The Developer and through this explains how the Faust tradgedy of Development comes to pass. From his desire for knowledge to his unexpected encounter with love and eventually his
unstoppable thirst for development, it is clear why Berman sees this as the original tale of modernity.
1926 German Expresionist Film 'Faust' by F.W. Murnau:
Berman goes on to describe the most original idea in Goethes Faust as that of the two modes of development in Faust as both self-development and economic-development and that these must be fused to achieve either. He analyses the story in its three parts, The Dreamer, The Lover and The Developer and through this explains how the Faust tradgedy of Development comes to pass. From his desire for knowledge to his unexpected encounter with love and eventually his
unstoppable thirst for development, it is clear why Berman sees this as the original tale of modernity.
1926 German Expresionist Film 'Faust' by F.W. Murnau:
Monday, 14 December 2009
The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand - King Vidor
Finally managed to watch this last night, brilliant movie, really enjoyed it in many respects, especially as it is relevant to my dissertation.
So first of all the story (and I havent read the book even though I've been meaning to for years) is interesting because it not only represents the attitude of the time but also romanticizes the architect and his profession. The character Howard Roark is obviously based on Frank Lloyd Wright and whilst the societal attitude conveyed in the movie is one of anti modernity it is clearly pro modernism or at least change and progression as our hero Roark wins in the end despite ridiculously getting away with blowing up a huge development. What is interesting is that the way this romantisization brings the game into the public forum. Hollywood was just getting into full flow at the time and tried and tested narrative constructs were being established.
I would say that The Fountainhead falls into the genre of Film Noir, which interestingly enough was a particularly architecturaly relevant genre. Film Noir was a movement between the early forties and late fifties and was generally hollywood crime dramas, but not specifically and the style drew alot from German Expressionism. Expressionism wasnt solely film based, we all know Munch's The Scream, do I need to mention that this was about distorting reality in order to induce emotional reaction? Anyway the movement gained alot of strength in the film industry with the likes of Lang (Metropolis video in earlier post) whos films used alot of mise on scene and narrative based around the dark fringes of society to create more engaging and moody films as they didnt have the resources of Hollywood. Filmakers like Lang and Siodmak later moved to Hollywood where these techniques and styles went on to form the foundations of Film Noir.
I could go on, but the point is that these movies, Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, numerous others and even Blade Runner(a sort of NeoNoir) are the most architecturally relevant movies around. This is not neccessarily because they are about cities or buildings, but because they are about modernism and the societal shift towards modernity. This is why The Fountainhead is an important film and relevant to this course, because it is a statement on these things, Modernity and The Machine, albeit with a little more Hollywood sheen than its Noir contemporaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
