This study looks at Alian Badiou's excerpt from THE COMMUNIST HYPOTHESIS titled 'This crisis is the spectacle: Where is the real?'
As with many proponents of leftist politics this is not exactly a balanced piece of writing. It is however, more measured [certainly initially] in setting out its reasoning than many. Badiou argues the point of how absurd and unfair the Capitalist system is with it's lack of grounding in the real, tangible economy and its continued pursuit to widen the gap between rich an poor, powerful and insignificant, bourgeois and proletariat. Despite the subject matter this initially manages to steer clear of manifesto-esque ranting... initially.
If I may backtrack, I would like to draw some similarities with the previous piece by Meades. While the subject matter is very different, both authors employ tactics with which to push their specific agendas. Meades uses Zaha. Whereas Badiou uses metaphor. Badiou dreams of a different political system, one which is not widely supported and Zaha had also toiled for years remaining true to her ideals believing they are the 'right way' despite not fitting with the widely accepted norms.
The disaster movie metaphor is a clear vehicle for his ideas and presumably simple enough for all to follow. This credit crisis, 'the spectacle' is the starting point for Badiou's disaster movie, Europe's leaders the main characters and saving the banks is the objective, but all the time Badiou is suggesting an alternate ending; let the banks fail? what would that entail? Or more importantly, let the people wake up to his reality and realise they are trapped in an unreal system and merely have to look around and see the inequality... then, obviously revolt, switch political and economic systems and live happily ever after...nice idea.
This is the main problem. It just isn't going to happen. I would personally love to see a more equitable division of wealth and a political system devoid of self interest and actually socially responsible. However, while humans are animals, they will still have animal instincts. Badiou grimly highlights the predatory instincts of bankers. Unfortunately, greed is a powerful remnant of our survival instincts which have served us so well for the past million years or so, and served our ancestors pretty well for the preceding 100 million years, to ditch them now is not really an option. We have proven that we are supremely capable of adapting to changing conditions and doing what is necessary to ensure our survival and the survival of our family. So, to blame a few bankers for the worlds ill's seems crazy to me as they are doing what they can get away with in an imperfect system, but is there ever going to be a perfect system? Are humans infallible? NO. There could, for sure, be a better system, but what do you think these same people with a moral vacuum would be like in a Socialist state? I very much doubt they would be blindly towing the party line, they would more than likely be bending the rules to ensure the best for themselves. I also have severe reservations about a system which does not naturally encourage competition. Without competition we would never push ourselves to the absolute limit, never strive for unimaginable success, it would be sad and limited and un-aspirational.
This is a very simple piece of writing, skilled in its distillation of information and clarity of presenting an idea. Presenting economics in a digestible format is undoubtedly difficult but as a piece of writing, the craft is not really there. It does what you would expect from an essay of this type, it turns into a political rant of desires and visions of the future in the 'all we need to do' vein.
I am an idealist, I feel all designers should at least have a little bit of this in them; but I am also a realist. The current system is badly flawed but Marxism is not the answer. There is no perfect system. I have always seen myself as left-of-centre...and still do, but, given a choice of aspirational proletariat wanting to change the world, or, socialist working for my equal share no matter what, I would choose the former every time.
Thursday, 11 October 2012
meades on zaha...
...he wishes... maybe
OK, apologies for the low-brow introduction to my first ever blog and the suggested ambiguity but having read Jonathan Meades piece on Zaha Hadid [ 'THE FIRST GREAT FEMALE ARCHITECT' - Intelligent Life Magazine, 2008] there is some justification for this title and the accompanying confusion.
There is something playful at first about the writing, something willfully provocative in his less than glamorous depiction of her office environment being like a factory. The initial duel between the two conjures the image of a boy in the school playground trying what he can to gain the attentions of a girl he likes, eventually resorting to playfully hitting her and running away giggling. I am not saying this is Meades' approach exactly- Meades doesn't run away giggling. He prods her, looking for a response, looking for some fire, but often gets typically Zaha explanations, the sort of explanation which leaves more questions than answers. This initial discussion ends with Zaha offering an insightful pearl about computers and their importance [but they are definitely NOT a tool] and an unconvincing justification for their absolute domination of her office by silent cad monkeys- she seemingly wants to assure us that because the staff are 'connected by digital knowledge' that the accepted norm of discussing design decisions and solving problems is somehow redundant. Odd. But at the same time she tries to make it seem like it's a good thing. Really? I think we are all left cold by this.
The initial feeling is that Zaha is comfortable, not at all out of her depth with the academic powerhouse, confident in her abilities to field his critique or his questioning. But sometimes it does feel as if she is batting each 'attack' away rather than really tackling anything with substance or meaning, this is frustrating as often you are left with the feeling that the article has moved on without any satisfying resolution to a question... or maybe this is proof that Zaha is more than enough of a foil for Meades, does he get out-foxed by Zaha and her [possibly] occasionally well considered nonsensical English to ensure the 'interview' is conducted on her terms? Saying that, she is definitely capable of getting her point across, adding weight to the previous argument. For example, when talking about her perceived weaknesses in her contemporaries and a certain tutor [Leon Krier] she is more than capable of finding the words to sum up her contempt.
Meades' initial tone seems at odds with the irreverent title, but as we continue, the picture becomes clearer. His opinion of her is not necessarily explicitly clear but our understanding of their complex 'relationship' becomes easier to see. I understand that this sounds paradoxical. Sorry. This complexity is a common theme, and the whole time leaves the reader conflicted about both Meades' opinion of Zaha, Zaha's ability to provide any meaningful answers about her work [surely the point] and, more generally, throughout the interview who is serving who's cause. He is lyrical about her ability, effusive of her principals but at the same time suggests she is self obsessed, secretive, deceitful and a willing participant of a deliberately elitist and self congratulatory world of [AA alumni] architects. I get the feeling that it is this elitist mentality which Meades can't tolerate, and with his sweeping contempt for 99% of practicing architects he is in accord with Zaha. I think on a personal level he really respects her, and even more so as she belongs to the 1% who can apparently make real thought provoking, unapologetic architecture [although he probably inwardly battles with the fact that she is still staunchly AA at heart] characteristics which I am sure Meades would himself recognise.
Both opinionated, both willingly counter-culture, both happy to put two fingers up to accepted opinion and both willing to call a spade a spade when it suits them... although I hope you will forgive the deliberate ridiculousness of that and recognise that Meades would probably rather call a spade a 'wonderfully hewn tool for excavation and exploration, who's use is redolent of zen-like gymnastics'... or something... and Zaha would probably tell you [with a yoda-esque sentence structure] that a spade is not even really a tool.
OK, apologies for the low-brow introduction to my first ever blog and the suggested ambiguity but having read Jonathan Meades piece on Zaha Hadid [ 'THE FIRST GREAT FEMALE ARCHITECT' - Intelligent Life Magazine, 2008] there is some justification for this title and the accompanying confusion.
There is something playful at first about the writing, something willfully provocative in his less than glamorous depiction of her office environment being like a factory. The initial duel between the two conjures the image of a boy in the school playground trying what he can to gain the attentions of a girl he likes, eventually resorting to playfully hitting her and running away giggling. I am not saying this is Meades' approach exactly- Meades doesn't run away giggling. He prods her, looking for a response, looking for some fire, but often gets typically Zaha explanations, the sort of explanation which leaves more questions than answers. This initial discussion ends with Zaha offering an insightful pearl about computers and their importance [but they are definitely NOT a tool] and an unconvincing justification for their absolute domination of her office by silent cad monkeys- she seemingly wants to assure us that because the staff are 'connected by digital knowledge' that the accepted norm of discussing design decisions and solving problems is somehow redundant. Odd. But at the same time she tries to make it seem like it's a good thing. Really? I think we are all left cold by this.
The initial feeling is that Zaha is comfortable, not at all out of her depth with the academic powerhouse, confident in her abilities to field his critique or his questioning. But sometimes it does feel as if she is batting each 'attack' away rather than really tackling anything with substance or meaning, this is frustrating as often you are left with the feeling that the article has moved on without any satisfying resolution to a question... or maybe this is proof that Zaha is more than enough of a foil for Meades, does he get out-foxed by Zaha and her [possibly] occasionally well considered nonsensical English to ensure the 'interview' is conducted on her terms? Saying that, she is definitely capable of getting her point across, adding weight to the previous argument. For example, when talking about her perceived weaknesses in her contemporaries and a certain tutor [Leon Krier] she is more than capable of finding the words to sum up her contempt.
Meades' initial tone seems at odds with the irreverent title, but as we continue, the picture becomes clearer. His opinion of her is not necessarily explicitly clear but our understanding of their complex 'relationship' becomes easier to see. I understand that this sounds paradoxical. Sorry. This complexity is a common theme, and the whole time leaves the reader conflicted about both Meades' opinion of Zaha, Zaha's ability to provide any meaningful answers about her work [surely the point] and, more generally, throughout the interview who is serving who's cause. He is lyrical about her ability, effusive of her principals but at the same time suggests she is self obsessed, secretive, deceitful and a willing participant of a deliberately elitist and self congratulatory world of [AA alumni] architects. I get the feeling that it is this elitist mentality which Meades can't tolerate, and with his sweeping contempt for 99% of practicing architects he is in accord with Zaha. I think on a personal level he really respects her, and even more so as she belongs to the 1% who can apparently make real thought provoking, unapologetic architecture [although he probably inwardly battles with the fact that she is still staunchly AA at heart] characteristics which I am sure Meades would himself recognise.
Both opinionated, both willingly counter-culture, both happy to put two fingers up to accepted opinion and both willing to call a spade a spade when it suits them... although I hope you will forgive the deliberate ridiculousness of that and recognise that Meades would probably rather call a spade a 'wonderfully hewn tool for excavation and exploration, who's use is redolent of zen-like gymnastics'... or something... and Zaha would probably tell you [with a yoda-esque sentence structure] that a spade is not even really a tool.
This interview leads nicely to the next text I will look at. Although, 'interview' is an uncomfortable description for this article it serves my point. An 'interview' would suggest an unbiased interviewer who's role is specifically to gain more of an understanding of the interviewee. None of this is true of the Meades piece. It is as much a vessel for his own ideas as it is Zaha's. It is more of a platform for him to shine- and there is not a hint of subjectivity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)