after, after theory....

the hyperbole that accompanied this book has left me scratching my [aching] head.... 'original, funny and brilliant' says the independent, 'exhilirating' according to the Guardian and there are many more. I will admit that I have so far only read about 1/3 of the book, and that took me almost the whole day! However, as yet, I have not been even a little tickled by his humour nor have I been particularly exhilirated... Ploughing through this book has at times felt like a fruitless task, had I not been studying it I would have given up long before... only once have i found a book so diificult and slow to read and that was steven hawking's 'a brief history of time'... ok, that has balanced up the wild praise, now for the reasonable findings.

Like the Hawking book, my difficulties have stemmed from not really understanding the subject matter... Within my demographic I don't think an ignorance of the finer points of theoretical physics is a necessarily a rarity, much in the same way that knowledge of cultural theory along with its leading proponents is less than extensive. I recognise that it probably purely my own failings which have kept me from getting as excited about this book as I should. But if the intention is to break down barriers and promote healthy debate then why be so incredibly obtuse? is it because you have flogged the dead donkey that is revolutionary socialism and been rejected by the masses even though it seemed such an obvious choice... so now you have no faith in humanity so have no interest in making yourself understoof. fuck the people right? they don't know whats good for them anyway. I must say this frustration was also clear in a previous text by XXXXXXX

So Eagleton is a smart guy, clearly. I think this is partly the problem. It is apparently meant for mere mortals so his insistance on repeatedly referencing people, ideas, philosophical paradigms of which the layman is largely going to be unaware, means he alienates his core target. This in itself is not a problem if things are adequately explained, in this case, they are not.

herman hertzberger on the future of architecture.

So Herman Hertzberger decided [was paid] to come to our uni and share with us all his thoughts on the future of architecure. I must say, this is pretty big coup and the lecture theatre was suitably excited and as such, he was playing to a sell-out crowd. I should preface this by saying that 'Bergers ideology and sensibility have been a big influence on how I approach design, and I am constantly suprised by the quiality of the delivered design and purity of delivered product, for anyone reading this with experience of seeing a project through from concept to delivery will know how hard it is to maintain such strong integrity of concept. I am not so naiive to think that he is faultless; but the strength of his successfull work is so good and so full of revolutionary ideas that he should be judged on that alone. For anyone should recognise that if you are willing to try new things, you will not succeed every time.

The beauty of Hertzbergers revolutionary ideas is that they seem so simple. They are completely human and as such strike me that they should be the cornerstone of designing spaces not some refreshing idea. I think  Hertzberger's major strengths and the basis for his rigorously sociable schemes are his vision and his empathy / humanity... he understands how people will use spaces and what people need even if they, themselves are not aware. His schemes are charmingly simple, this means people find it easy to mock. There was a charming line when talking about his influencve for making informal university working spaces, and was an insight into human nature. Taking the unique productive atmosphere of a library he recognised the importance of being 'alone together' to stimulate and motivate, rightly understanding that surrounding yourself with people with a common goal is crucial to creating the best atmosphere.

I must admit that along with the very reasonable and insightful predictions for more responsive and flexible architecture in the coming years, I have to question his insistance that building 'must' become inherintly flexible, totally adaptable; with the logical development of this idea it suggests a depressing abandonment of purpose built design. This seems extreme and really is dismissive of the role that architetcts will play in the future of building. I wonder if he was a student with his career stretching ahead of him rather than being in its twilight whether he would be so dismissive of the future of design? I think not. If i felt my career would be dictated by 'typical plan' architecture i would quid now! I wouldn't take his extreme position but the principal is important. 

henri lefebvre on social space... and why its dangerous not to kick leaves and drink beer.

OK. Now. Where to start. It has taken two reads and a few discussions and much surprisingly painful thought to get to grips with Lefebvre. Please permit me a mini vent [read rant] before I sink my teeth into what I think he is getting at. So are these Marxist kids serious? I feel that they are the worst possible advertisement for what is essentially a pretty simple and reasonable proposition for an alternative system. They love discussing some things in the most minute of detail [Lefebvre's TWO incomprehensible pages on the various understandings of the definition of the word 'production'..seriously????] and then leaving other areas woefully spartan- [like an idea i have discussed previously as why they conveniently ignore the fact humans are inherently greedy so wouldn't necessarily be receptive to their social vision, despite using the very same fact to argue against capitalism] This calamitous combination leaves even the most open minded onlooker perplexed and wondering if it's all really worth the hassle before deciding to just go for a pint as their heads hurt. That is not actually close to being true; you get my point though.

Like the texts we have already looked at, Lefebvre seems similar in that he is a bitter ageing man, looking at a system he is bitter has not yet worked and only half hopeful that they will ever succeed, this realisation leading to bitterness and a resignment that the only people still receptive are so specialised that they have developed their own means of acceptable discourse. Much like where Meades sneers about Zaha's AA pidgin, I feel these old-school Socialist have developed their own self reassuring elitist pidgin. All embracing? Nope. Ironic, right?

The text is called 'Social Space', despite this, the vast majority of the piece is about production and its social commentry immpact... narrative... Space is used as a vehicle to talk about wider ideas. The discussion of 'production' is interesting, when extended to its most extreme interpretations, it is clear Lefebvre is eagre to warn against mindless production, really he is arguing we should question production not mindlessly follow directions, he is basically saying we are all accountable. Ergo, we should question our surroundings and challenge them, revolutionary thought.

We are again thrust into a battle of reality and unreality. This juxtaposition is obviously a clear distillation of ideology, and is a tool which each of the Marxist writers we have encountered so far has used, the real [socialism] vs the unreal [capitalism]. Lefebvre warns against our belief in images, saying that they lie... or rather that they seek to conceal their truth and should be regarded as a trap. This language is intended to engender caution in the reader.

There are many contradictions in the idealised vision Socialism and again there are several which appear to me in this piece. While talking about production, he warns against senseless repetition, obviously a close relationship can be made with this repetitious process, capitalism, greed, high exchange value -vs- use value, deceiving the consumer. Then concedes that production is absolutely necessary. He battles with the conflict of product -vs- work and uses Venice as an example where both may coexist- or where neither is true. Where 'product' is conceived and made, and essentially a lie, or at least a tool to conceal. Whereas a 'work' is natural, and therefore honest.

I would say that Lefebvre has certainly got a  few compelling arguments but his inability to convery those clearly and concisely to the reader makes the whole exercise unnecessarily tedious. I think he has lost the necessary distance from the subject to be able to really make sense of it and translate that to something a non-specialist would be comfortable reading. I get the strong impression that rather than throw on his coat, kick leaves in the street and have a few pints,  Lefebvre would stay on his own reading the works of past 'masters' formulating ideas and definitions . Distancing himself from his very own reality and ultimately alienating himself the public he would wish to influence.

where is your humanity?

a small yet incredibly irritating detail struck me the other day while i was looking for somewhere to sit in the sun for 2 minutes to write a message. I was in the city around all the offices between liverpool street and monument, and started to cast my eye over the usual suspects for places to perch. green space-no, benches-no, public building steps-no, building plinth- bingo! i was in luck, and it was bathed in the nice evening sunshine and there was space... lots of space, for such a nice spot it was strange no one else was taking 5 minutes to enjoy the beautiful day.... i approached... and then I realised that they had inlaid sharp metal teeth into every horizontal surface to stop you sitting there! what? why? will having people engaging with your building spoil its use for the owners? will they make it look ugly? do they pose a safety risk? what is so abhorrent with having people sit outside on your plinth? why is your plint so fucking special? where the fuck is your humanity?

I have a good mind to take an angle grinder to your teeth and reclaim some public space... yolo mofo!

Diamonds in the desert

So this week, diamonds or cubic zirconia? Real or imitation? I will again look at two texts;‘AT HOME IN THE NEON’ from 'AIR GUITAR' by Dave Hickey and ‘FEAR AND MONEY IN DUBAI’ from 'EVIL PARADISES' by Mike Davis, both, unsurprisingly from the title, set in the desert locales of Las Vegas and Dubai. Aside from the sand, my first impressions of similarity are thematic, with a recurrence of last week’s idea of reality which in this case is emphasised by its juxtaposition with the unreal. 

The tone of each being quite different. Hickey is positive and lyrical and uses personal experiences to enlighten the reader and suggests a 'real' whereas Davis uses data and filmic simile throughout to draw attention to this unreality through intangible abstraction.

At home in the neon gives a glimpse of life in Las Vegas, but more than that it gives a feeling of what it is actually like. It is brilliantly lucid in its depiction of this unique desert city. While it initially seems a strange habitat for a critical academic, we are taken on a journey to justify why Hickey feels there is no better place to call home. This journey uses clear reasoning of small or seemingly inconsequential matters [such as the aspirations of a waitress] to show that Vegas is the true reaction to the fake, or the staid routine which is prevalent throughout the rest of America. It allows, or rather encourages people to be themselves and judges people on what they do rather than what they have. It seems counter-intuitive that in an environment which survives by tantalising the [reckless] senses, one is essentially a master of ones own destiny and as such is an embodiment of the American dream. The real is on the surface, there is no ‘secret Vegas’.

 If we compare this to the Mike Davis piece on Dubai it really does highlight their differences. Dubai looks a similar proposition at first glance to Vegas, like a diamond and a lump of zirconia; they both glisten in the baking sun. However, upon close inspection the Dubai stone reveals itself as nothing but an expensive fake. Davis’ piece allows this closer inspection. It is pristine, gigantic, awe-inspiring and polished, but overwhelmingly- it's strange. It wants to have the biggest, the best, the shiniest, everything! It wants to be No.1, whatever that means- [nonesense obviously] but different rules apply in fantasy land. Interesting comparisons are drawn with Speer's [read Hitler's] plans for Germania. Similarities of scale [vast] of ambition [biggest at all cost, just for the sake of it] of realisation [exploitative] of role [propagandist] of conception [delusional] and of shear optimism. However, Speer [Hitler] was desiging for the 2000 year Reich, for all their woes, you could not level short-termism at the German pair. With rising sea levels, harsh climate, short lifespan materials and a rapidly dwindling oil supply, Dubai feels like a crazy ephemeral joy ride.

It is an ostentatious hyper real environment which is minutely controlled to batter your senses. It is a place where stuff is valued, materialism is encouraged and where gratuotous displays of wealth are commonplace. For me, Dubai feels like an interpretation of a city, and an interpretation of a desire rather than a reaction to a demand.

This is in marked contrast with the other text. Hickey highlights what is Vegas’ most unique attribute, describing it as ‘flat line social hierarchy’ this attribute is particularly counter intuitive given the context of a money-driven industry in a capitalist economy. But it is exactly this context which ensures this hierarchy. Money doesn't know fame, or clique, or reputation. It is completely subjective. People are defined by and therefore treated by the way they behave. This behaviour is totally independent and self-governed.

Vegas is defined by two charming rules; 

1. Post the odds and 
2. Treat everyone the same. 

This simple democratic process would be an interesting way to run a government, would it not? Especially in these times where we always hear people banging on about ‘transparency’ ... I like the idea of a system where you know where you stand. Imagine DC standing up in the commons and saying ‘you have a 1 in 5 chance of leaving University and getting a job you actually want... or Osbourne saying that ‘ there is  a 30% that our deficit reduction plan is likely to succeed’... or Gove saying ‘there is a 90% chance I will make a terrible decision’... then at least we would know where we stand. As Hickey delightfully points out; 'Vegas cheats you fair'.

 If you will grant me one final metaphorical foray it is like a shape-shifting alien taking a human form so it can move among us, taking perfectly all the attributes that make up a man but taking none of the depth or the imperfections. Greeted with this perfect, polished specimen you would be acutely aware of its strangeness; the absence of flaws would be both imperceptible and yet glaringly obvious. The alien would probably be happy to be different.

You are not free to inhabit Dubai in the traditional sense, and certainly not in the make-your-own-rules type of way that is possible in Vegas. Dubai requires its ‘abaya’ to always remain in place, to mask its imperfections and hide its stupidity, and as such it requires order and necessitates governance.

The sheiks new clothes.

On a side note, and unable to resist a quick foray into pop psychology...Freud would have a field day with Hickey! Parent issues, almost recreating his fathers life, unable to move on, yet trying to escape the monotonous American life of the suburbs with the picket fence imagery, using the idea of escaping [the hell of] mom and dad and fucking Ithica...or anywhere. And being so damning of Americans being ‘parented into senility’. Ouch,