Last words

Literature, and analysing, understanding essays, novels, etc, has never been my strongest subject – in any language. Although the texts were interesting, and thought-provoking to read, I am afraid that my thoughts on them may not have been as coherent, nor as well written. Moreover, I was and I still am sceptical about the idea of having and writing a blog. I have never been great in writing essays, in general added with the thought that anyone could read what I have written is daunting. This is why it took me till the last possible moment to actually put them on the blog.

That being said I did really enjoy reading most of the texts. These texts are definitely not works I would of normally read, and never would I have randomly have picked most of them up by myself. There was such a wide range it what we looked at that, there will always be at least one that you can appreciate. The ones where I was able to identify another work that I knew, by means of comparison, ‘Howl’ and ‘The Fountainhead’, I think were my favourite. I found them easier to align myself to them. For the ‘Fountainhead’, after seeing the film, I would actually like to read the book, to see if my first thoughts on Howard Roark are still valid. On the other hand certain of the essay (as stated in my blogs) I found really confusing, and hard to actually understand- which wasn’t a great motivation when needing to write about them.

The Subjectivity of History

The final texts of the semester are the three table charts, from Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West. The charts are a summary explanation of Spengler’s theory that History can be predetermined. In Decline of the West, Spengler explains that through the investigation of the past, he has “attempted for the first time the venture of predetermining history, of following the still untraveled stages in the destiny of a Culture’’.

Through the book and through the charts Spengler has identified different Cultures. For each one of them he has detailed their beginning, development, and conclusion. Or, in his words, the ‘Spring’ (the beginning), ‘Summer, and ‘Autumn’ (the development), and ‘Winter’ (the conclusion) of each of these Cultures.

The charts are so detailed and well thought out that part of you can help but agree and believe them. However, here in lies the trick, the inaccuracy that you cannot know the spring, summer, autumn and winter of a culture until it has fully concluded. A distance is required between you and the period you are analysing. And even in the case where it is certain that it is finished, how can you be sure the exact moments of change between the different ‘seasons’ of the Culture. The shifts, if they exist, are all subjective to the analyser. There is even an element of subjectivity in History itself. One event could be deemed really important to a specific population, but not noteworthy for another one. Moreover the amount of cultures through history could be more or less than the ones Spengler has selected.

There is also the mistake of if everything is predetermined this will not insight you to do anything. The future doesn’t seem full of possibilities, it just seems inevitable: an inevitable darkness. There needs to be the indication of a future for there to be progress. History is proof that there has been development; different cultures might have gone through things that are similar but they have also learnt from each other, from what has happened in the past. This makes me feel that. even if certain bits seem to repeat themselves, History is linear, and maybe the reason for these repeats is both humans make mistakes, and sometimes have to do something wrong a few times before them learn.

One Against Many

 

 

This is a comment on the film the Fountainhead. I would like to point out that this about the film adaptation of Ayn Rand novel, not the book itself; although Ayn Rand happens to have written the screenplay for the film as well.

The story follows the life of an architect: Howard Roark, who refuses to compromise his work to the views of the collective; “the world of the mob”. When first watching the movie, I, like probably most, want Howard Roark to succeed, be able to come out on top. Every time he gets a client and is able to create his own work, you can’t help but cheer. Throughout the film, the world is sold on the idea that you can’t survive unless you compromise, bend to popular demand. Howard Roark proves them wrong. In his closing argument of his defence, he states that it is through the fight, through hardship, it is when people were alone and fought, suffered that man has evolved, developed: man will continue to become greater through the aspiration of something better, through the belief in himself and his work. “A man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce. […] To hold as his highest possession a sense of his own personal value. And his highest virtue, his self-respect.”

Even though you can’t help but be happy that Howard Roark won the trial, and was able to prove that you can win above the rest of the world. Yes, he unlike the ‘bad guy’, Toohey, doesn’t try and corrupt anyone and change their minds. I even agree with most of what he said in his defence speech: your first drive should be yourself, your want to create, achieve his ambitions. However, I can’t help but have an image in my head on a lone bull charging, with no care for anyone else, no worries what he runs into and what destruction he causes. He will follow his ideals no matter what and that ultimately is scary: he has nothing to stop him. There is danger in having such a closed minded ideal, which can be even more dangerous when it is not just one person but thousands who only think/do as they think is right. There needs to be a moral sense of what is right and wrong. There is a need for wisdom. Taken to extremes, and with the lack of rationality, the outcomes can be very dangerous. If you only had your own interest in mind, with nothing stopping you, you would a psychopath. I am not saying that Howard Roark is psychotic; he uses reason, he is rational. However if the main of his ideas are taken to the extreme, society would not survive. Even in certain scenes I can’t help but think, just for a second, that Howard Roark has psychopathic tendencies. He doesn’t many close relationships: he is a bit antisocial. His relationship with Dominique is really strange and is violent at times, and his friendship with Wynand mainly stems from Wynand’s respect and admiration for him. Moreover, his individualistic ideas tend towards egocentricity. It is his reason that makes him act like this and it is his reason that saves him.

Howard Roark is the voice of reason, but there is a lack of humanity in him. There is a need for compassion. Through The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand promotes the individual, his self-interest, and criticizes selflessness. But without a sense of benevolence, a sense of social conscience, society could not exist: there needs to be a balance between your thoughts, ideals, wants, and a care for the fellow man, and without both you wouldn’t be human. Following this idea, by caring for your fellow man, you wouldn’t want to stop him from his goals either, and possibly helping each other achieve your goals. A person needs others to survive. A person shouldn’t compromise who they are but there needs to be some middle ground; you can’t just be the little kid by himself believing he’s always right, because chances are he isn’t always right, he isn’t perfect: he is human, and he makes mistakes.

As a last point, I wanted to make a quick comparison between this movie and another film: ‘12 Angry Men’. In ‘12 Angry Men’, the protagonist, only known as juror 8, tries to convince the other 11 jurors that there is possible doubt in the guilt of a boy accused of killing his father. In both its one man against the rest, and the rest are trying to make him fold (and coincidentally both ‘heroes’ in these films are architects). In 12 angry men, Henry Fonda’s character is willing to listen to the others’ arguments, to let them try and convince him of the accused’s guilt. However, the tables end up turning on them, when he is able to disprove all their arguments, and one by one get them to agree with him that there is not enough to decide if the accused is guilty or not. In both films the ‘hero’ uses facts, logic, and reason to defend their ideas. There is stubbornness in both characters: stubbornness for the side of reason. However it is my opinion that the juror 8 use of reason is steamed from his belief of justice, and that everyone deserves to be fought for. Howard Roark inflexibility comes from him fighting for only himself. (– He doesn’t even fight for Dominique, who he apparently loves. He basically tells her that wherever she will go, he knows that she’ll come crawling back to him so there is no point in fighting for her.) Only in Juror 8 do I really find that there is a balance between reason, justice, feeling of doing what is right, and actually caring for his follow man.

 

Bursting the Ball

I enjoyed reading Decline and Fall, by Evelyn Waugh, and how absurd it all is. Even as I enjoyed, I could help getting really frustrated. The protagonist: Paul Pennyfeather, cannot catch a break, you can’t help but feel frustration for this character. He is always at the mercy of events, and others and is being used by others. This isn’t improved by the fact that most of the characters are so ridiculous. They continue to fall in the same errors. Grimes continues to stay in his miserable state, always ‘being in the soup’. Margot Beste-Chetwynde has the constant need for a man in her life. Professor Silinus wishes we were machines: he prefers machines to people. To be honest, there is an element of a machine in them and in this novel. This whole book feels like a machine: a wheel continually turning with no stopping or escaping it. Between the beginning and the end of the book there has been no really progression. Not in the main character, or in the society around him.

Man needs to progress, needs to evolve. In the other text taken from The City of Tomorrow by Le Corbusier, when he talks about the damp, he sees the potential of the workers, and what they can and are accomplishing. They do not. It is like the characters of Decline and Fall: you can’t help but get frustrated and want to shake them up. I could help but get really worried by the fact that what if the world was only full of these people: there would be no movement, no evolution, and ultimately society would stagnate and then deteriorate.

Faust, in all his tragedy

In his work All That is Solid Melts into Air, Berman Marshall talks about the persona of Faust. He points out there has been many versions of the character of Faust through the ages, verging from the serious and tragic, to the funny and absurd. However the one he states ‘surpasses all others in richness and depth of its historical perspective, in its moral imagination, its political intelligence, its psychological sensitivity and insight’’ is Goethe’s Faust.

Goethe spent most of his life writing Faust, so as Faust was going through his different experiences and finding/understanding himself through his different ‘stages’, so was Goethe. Through the character of Faust we are to understand that there is constant growth in man because of his wants, and his willingness of how much he will do to get what he desires. What Faust wants above all, in Goethe version, is development itself, all of it, good and bad. It is the devil that allows him to be able to change. Through his transformations, Faust reflects on the idea of change and the need for the new. He starts coming up with new possibilities, to create a better, ‘perfect’ world.  There is a need, a craving that builds within him to continue to experience new things, to try and reach a higher state of being. Once he has started, he can’t stop, gets addicted. It is once he is ‘full’ in his own progression, that that he is ready to develop for others. He has ‘filled’ himself with the maximum he can give himself that he continues with the rest of humanity. Faust want to improve the world is full of good intentions: “he is not building for his own short-term profit but rather for the long-range future of mankind”. However, to him the new can only come by destroying the old.  Faust believes it to the point that he destroys everything that gets in his way. He is unable to see what is really helpful, useful to be able to progress.

It through analysing this text that we see that even if progress in necessary it always brings negative consequences as well a positive ones. It can bring destruction as well as a new better world. There is a need for personal growth before any possible greater development. There is also a need to something to aspire to. However this perfect world, this ‘utopia’ that we should all crave, we should know it can never be achieved as well. Everyone’s ‘utopia’ is different, which makes no one achievable. It is only by wanting it but knowing that that it is unachievable that you’re willing to do as much as you can to develop it, without trying to destroy everything else in the process. With this thought, you find another, maybe less good solution to the problems but a solution where there is no need for any great ‘casualty’ for the benefit of the ‘greater good’. In my previous entry, about the Beat Generation, I had written that in each new generation there is a need to go against its predecessor for progress to happen. After reading this text, I am even more convinced by it. However I am as equally convince that challenge does not mean destruction, bloodshed, etc.

The scream of a generation

 

Allen Ginsberg, author of the poem ‘Howl’, is one of the founding fathers to the Beat Generation. In this counter-culture movement, the young men and women involved in it were trying to find purpose to their lives and the world. They reject that which was defined as the American standard way of life. These ‘standards’ felt dictated, and felt like they were being force on to them. Their search is of everything and anything; even and especially in things rejected by (or hidden from) the general public. They are trying to find their own ‘beat’, their own rhythm through the world. And to find this significance they are willing to transcend / experience all and every means possible. This (famously) included going into altered states through the use of drugs, alcohol, sex, etc.

I recently saw the movie ‘Killing your Darlings’ where you are given an account of how Ginsburg first gets into the beat movement and how the Beat Generation was first created by Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs. In certain scenes you are shown the altered states they would experience. There is a mix everything; a confusion of the real and the hallucinated. You also get a sense of the ‘conformity’ that is trying to force itself on them.

 

My first impression of Allen Ginsberg’s poem ‘Howl’ is that it is intense. What the film had started showing about the things Allen Ginsberg and his friends were going through was only deepened, and made clearer in the poem. Through the poem (and helped by the film) you really get a sense of the thoughts they were having, the ideas, and experiences they had.

There is a raw quality to the poem. It exposes what is trying to be hidden, showing both the beautiful and the horrible in their experimentations. There is a constant feeling of madness, going crazy, trying to break free. Like a caged animal, Allen Ginsberg is letting out a long intense ‘howl’ at the world. He is screaming at the madness he is going through, at the oppression he and his friends feel.  However it only shows it as a collection of fractures of their experiences. These cracks demonstrate the generation’s confusion of their own lives. Moreover, while reading the poem you can perceive movement, and rhythm. Through means of alliterations and repetition, and the overall structure of the poem, you feel the ‘beat’ that Allen Ginsberg is trying to find in his own life.

Although I am not appealed by some of the methods that they use to try and find themselves, I do understand and support their struggle. It is only reasonable to try and find a sense to the world, and your existence in it. They are trying to find a voice in a world that seems odd to them- no wonder they are going to fight back. In each new generation there it is required to challenge its predecessors. It is through this challenge, this endeavour that there is evolution, and possibly a way in getting closer to some kind of meaning to why everything is.

The Confusion

Colin Rowe was architectural historian, and critic, during the twentieth Century. We are here looking  at two of his essays where he describes his impression of certain buildings by the Renaissance Architect Andrea Palladio and the Modern Architect Le Corbusier. In ‘The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa’, Rowe studies both Villa Capra, and Villa Foscari by Palaldio, and the Villa Savoye and the Villa Stein by Le Corbusier. Rowe’s essay on Le Corbusier’s La Tourette Monastery is specifically about the Sainte Marie de La Tourette Monastery, built near Lyon by Le Corbusier in 1960.

In both essays, I found Colin Rowe confusing, having to read them several times. You can sense that he is a fan of more traditional architecture, but seems on the other hand to have mixed feelings on modern architecture. You even possibly get the sense that he changed his mind about Le Corbusier’s work. Between ‘The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa’ published in 1940’s, and his other essay ‘Le Corbusier’s La Tourette Monastery’ written twenty years later , there seems to have been a shift in his opinion of Le Corbusier. Or maybe, he believes that it is Le Corbusier who has lost his touch? (But that just sounds ridiculous). 

To maybe understand this better let’s have a closer look at both essays, starting with the earlier one: ‘The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa, Palladio and Le Corbusier compared’. It starts with a definition taken from Sir Christopher Wren, who distinguishes between what is truly beautiful (natural or geometrical) and what becomes beautiful to the observer‏. Following the comparison, Rowe goes on to say that the Villa Capra by Andrea Palladio, is such a true example of geometrical order and beauty. Continuing the appraisal, he then compares the villa’s geometrical beauty- the structure and overall arrangement of the building, in contrast with the beauty natural of the site around it, the two complementing each other.

However the main of the text is actually the comparison of another of Palladio’s villas, Villa Foscari, built in the 1560, and the Villa Stein by Le Corbusier, built in 1927. Through his analysis of both buildings, Rowe creates a transposition of modern architecture to that of renaissance architecture, and states that even if there is a difference in period, the principles of both villas are very similar.

Through the text Rowe looks at both buildings through the use of mathematics. Specifically looking at the different ways geometry and proportions are used by the architect.  He also keeps in mind how the villas will be used and perceived by their true owners and visitors.

Looking at the structure of the villa’s I got a sense that the technology at the time of Palladio didn’t give him as much freedom as Le Corbusier in the arrangement of his villa: “Palladio’s structural system makes it almost necessary to repeat the same plan on every level of the building; and point support allows Corbusier a fairly flexible arrangement”. However both have a specific reason for the way they arrange their building: Palladio’s need for absolute symmetry (which you continue to see in his other villas - Villa Capra comes to mind), and Le Corbusier’s need for ‘free arangement’ and ‘asymetry’.

One of Rowe’s key points is the idea of proportions: “proportions are a reflection of the harmony of the universe, their basis, scientific and religious, was quite unassailable”. Both architects, in their own way, hold a high importance to proportions in their villas. For Le Corbusier, it is “exactness, precision, neatness that he seeks, the overall controlling shape; and within, not the unchallengeable clearness of Palladio’s volumes, but a sort of planned obscurity. Consequently, while in the Malcontenta geometry is diffused through the internal volumes of the building, at Garches it resides only in the total block and the disposition of its supports.” However Rowe believes that the pure theory of proportions, as geometrical beauty that existed in Palladio has been lost even before modern architecture existed.

 

 

Now for his second essay: ‘Le Corbusier’s La Tourette Monastery’. – Actually before I continue, I just want to point out that unfortunately I have never visited any of the buildings mentioned in these texts. With this statement I continue by saying (and most architects and critics , Rowe included, would probably agree) that without having experienced the building it is a lot harder to understand a description of it - even whilst also looking at plans and sections and images of the building. This is especially the case with La Tourette Monastery.

In this essay I feel that Rowe either completely missed the point of the building, or is refusing to understand the true beauty of it – maybe because it is not geometrical perfect enough for him?

When looking at the plans, sections, and the pictures of the internal and external space of the monastery, you can see that a key element of the building is LIGHT (what an innovative concept of a building- can’t think of any other Le Corbusier building that has a similar theme, …hum hum). You can see that the way in which Le Corbusier has designed his building has all been in aim to how the light reacts with the structure; it is the light that creates the space, the mood of the of each part of the monastery. In a monastery you can assume that there is little sound – monks usually quite quiet, but the ‘sound’ through the building this that of the light: you can practically hear it shine through the openings into the different rooms. The marriage between the structure and the natural light creates the perfect setting, the required level of spirituality, needed for a monetary (- the light could be interpreted as the ‘light’ or ‘voice’ of God).

However Colin Rowe seems to ignore of this, and even seems to ignore half the building in his analysis. This is to the point in which you ask yourself, maybe he reading it in the wrong way (a mistranslation between his Anglo origins and the French architecture? ), or maybe he like me didn’t visit the building? Or, maybe he went to the wrong building? The only thing for sure is that if you want a better understanding of Le Corbusier’s Sainte Marie de La Tourette Monastery, you should definitely not read this text.

 

Producing Profit

I

 

n the chapter entitled ‘Social Space’, from Henri Lefebvre’s The Production of Space, you can’t help but to question the definition to most of the words, you think you know the meaning of. We are first introduced to trying to understand the term ‘production’ and it’s the difference, and the relationship with the term ‘product’. Lefebvre points out that this exploration has previously been studied by Marx and Engels. According to them, ‘production’ can either mean, in a general sense, that if something develops, it is produced, or you can look at it in specific terms, looking at it in terms of ‘products’. According to Lefebvre, ‘production’ is labour; “it organizes a sequence of actions with a certain 'objective' in view”. A ‘product’ is “the result of repetitive acts and gestures”, and there is a reason for why it is produced. He continues by comparing it to ‘nature’ and what is created (not produced) by nature. According to him nature does not produce because there is no thought process behind the action of creating, nature just does, and doesn’t even know that it is doing. However Lefebvre states that it is because of humanity that nature is dying: “nature is being murdered by 'anti-nature' - by abstraction, by signs and images, discourse, as also by labour and its products.” As humans continue to produce, they are destroying nature, and ultimately themselves.

What Lefebvre is trying to get at, whilst trying to properly define these key words, is we have lost the real meaning of these words: ‘production’, ‘product’, ‘work’. The last time they were properly used was by Marx and Engels. They are now only being used as ways to describe the consumer aspect of them: ‘product’ is now only used in reference to the things we buy in stores, and ‘production’ is only used as a means of describing how these ‘things’ are made. We have been so caught up by the buying and selling of items, which we have forgot the essence of these words, the essence in ourselves.

These thoughts are basically very similar to the ones stated by both Badiou and Eagleton in the earlier texts. Production was earlier described as “a sequence of actions with a certain 'objective' in view”. However, the current capitalistic world has only interpreted that in one way, with only one ‘objective’ in mind: profit.

The Debasement of Modern Society

 

After Theory, by Terry Eagleton is really difficult to follow. I had a hard time getting into this text, or really understanding anything within it. (- I just felt that it is important to state this first, before actually getting to what the text is possibly about, as a warning for possible future readers – especially since I am not the only one who is of this opinion). Eagleton seems to want to criticise everything and anything, with no actual real finish to his attacks. He seems to jump from one subject to another, and then maybe a few pages later comes back to add some other new statement to a previous subject. I must admit that it became so confusing that I didn’t read most of it.

However, don’t get me wrong there were a few snit-bits that I found interesting, amusing and I even sometimes agreed with him; when I actually understood what he was going on about, that is. The first thing that was clear was the fact that Eagleton is clearly a Marxist. His ideas seemed to be on the same mind set as Alain Badiou, however he talks more about the general state of the everyday and how most things, even simple things have evolved, unfortunately, for the worst (particularly since capitalism).

What I seemed to understand and more or less agree with was his statement that the general quality of life and value of things is slowly depleting. This is mainly due to the evolution to a more global, commercial world. Through the 20^th Century, the idea of profit has become more and more important. To the point to which the want to make more has reduced the time spent on each object produced, and, ultimately, has reduced the quality of the product. However, the merchandise itself is continually changing, evolving. To keep the desire for the product high, the product itself is ‘improved’. – Which poses the question why spend more time in making a product, getting to the best quality, when you know a new one version of it will come out of few months later with some of the improvements you would have spent more time putting on the existing product? The answer: you don’t, instead you generate the idea of ‘want’; constantly wanting something new, different, better. There is this idea of getting new things as instantly as possible, to be constantly entertained. This feeling is increased by your constant need to compare yourself to other people. This is not just through the means of products, but also through the different Medias. The consequence of this world of consumerism and marketing is the growth disparity between people, and their general debasement.

Money,… Money, ..and Everything else in-between

 

For this entry we look at 'At Home in the Neon' by Dave Hickey and 'Fear Sand and Money in Dubai' by Mike Davis. In both texts, it’s a first person narrative of their impression of a place they visit. It so happens that both places visited are cities in the middle of the desert: Las Vegas and Dubai. I just want to first point that such cities should not exist in such harsh weather conditions. They have been made possible by human intervention, and only exist because of and for human involvement. Through these two texts we see that, like the unusual nature of the existence of these cities, what happens within them is not similar to other cities.

When reading the text, what I found intriguing with both was the fact that the usual description given of these cities in the media, and on a day to day basis is reversed. Las Vegas is mostly talked about in a negative light. It is usually described as the source of ‘evil’, temptation; where you surround yourself with sin. Dubai, a much newer city, is shown in a new world sort of light. It is usually put in a favourable light, trying to promote it as a tourist destination –presented as some kind of paradise.

However in the texts, these preconceived images are shattered. In the ‘Neon’, the author discusses the possibility of finding a home/somewhere to settle/have his own identity in Las Vegas. It becomes a safe place, described as a place where you can get to know yourself – have a sense of identity. In ‘Dubai’ the ‘paradise’ is crushed, by the hidden reality. The author talks about the many evils of the place, which end up being even bigger evils to those you would associate Las Vegas to.

From the Neon, the author argues that Las Vegas is the destination for the ‘little guy’ - someone with possibly nothing, who here has the chance/ opportunity to go up in the world. And in Las Vegas the opportunities are not sugar coated with false promises/information/half-truths: what you see is what you get.

Whereas in ‘Dubai’: the poor stay poor and are treated as badly or even worse than they were before coming and only the rich are introduced to the paradise/ world of consumerism. The rich get to choose between the different themes and choices that are offered to them but there isn’t really a sense of identity: you are just defined between the 5 or 6 different choice options. Or, in another scenario, the rich spend/lose their morals/ideals, everything is blurred: the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ live together, ignoring the ‘chaos’ surrounding them.

-          Las Vegas: everyone is treated the same/ no superiority- everyone has the possibility of ‘making it’

-          Dubai: as long as there is the funding behind it/ as long as you have the money everyone will overlook what you do/ your morals/ what you are doing

Although I have never been to Dubai, I agree to some of this negative image given to it. I never saw the appeal of it, and from what I have heard of people who have been it doesn’t make me want to go. It just seems like just one big tourist trap for people who can’t be bothered to actually go out and see the world. Instead they just end up seeing smaller, lesser copies of snit-bits of different famous places of the world. Dubai is a bit of a messed collage, made from a world travel magazine catalogue. It is in a way for me a summary of everything at this going wrong in the world.

I have been to Las Vegas though. And in a way it is also a kind of collage as well. When visiting it, my first thought was that its just one big roller coaster that never stops.   Nevertheless, I agree with the author in the fact that what you see is what you get. Of course, I also have to disagree with him (maybe because I didn’t live but only visited it) but Las Vegas is mainly about the money. Even if they know the odds, they know that the house wins; it’s the people who are not honest with themselves. They deceive themselves into believing they can beat the odds.

The Little Man’s Sacrifice

 

(Zizek holding Alain Badiou’s book)

 

‘Crisis is the Spectacle: Where Is the Real?’, is taken from the book The Communist Hypothesis, by Alain Badiou. The chapter starts off in an interesting way: comparing the current global financial crisis to a blockbuster movie. Playing also on the link between the financial world and the cinema world, which in itself is a billion dollar industry. However, as Badiou points out, the financial world is not a Hollywood film, where the good guy always win. The reality of it is that is those who run the system that win, that stay in control. And their interests are not to save the weak, “their only ‘responsibility’ is to make a profit”. And the way they make profit is by deceiving the common man. They create things so that we will spend, to create profit. They want us to become dependent on these things and on them so that when they are in trouble, we will want to save them. And it is not them that ends up with a few scratches fighting off the evil, to save us, but it is the simple man, that is hurt and feels the repercussions of their system not working. All the while they are saved, and come out probably even better than before.

In this text, as we can expect from a Marxist, Badiou criticises capitalism and how it is the source of the current crisis the world is in. Capitalism isn’t working. It, in fact, has never really worked, which is why there is so much debt. We just made ourselves believe, and the ones in power made us believe that it did, so that they could make profit on their deception. They want us to become dependent on this system, because they are dependent on us. And we let them. People know that the system is flawed but they are too scared to act on it, try and change it. The failures through History have scared us from starting again and try and find something better. We would rather continue with the same problems, and start in a position of disappointment, than try and have the possibility that the fall is greater; rather the evil they know than a possible new ‘evil’ they don’t know. People have become comfortable in their deception. They willingly spend the money, increase the profit, make the rich richer and then save them because they hope that they make some kind of profit from it as well.

Badiou’s text is quite cynical, pointing out the laws of the world but how can it not be, looking at the state of things you cannot not stop and wonder that he might be right. And then you will dismiss this thought you just had, because you have already been sold on the illusion. The ‘ordinary man’ is ready to suffer. Society is so afraid of knowing the truth, really understanding what is happening, that they would rather the illusion. Society wants to be protected. And it is because of the want to be sheltered that capitalism continues.

The Last Architect?

 

 

‘The First Great Female Architect’, recounts  Jonathan Meades interview with Zaha Hadid for Intelligent Life magazine, summer 2008. In the interview, he not only gives the questions and answers (or for some, lack of an answer) given during the interview but his description and account of the time spent with Zaha Hadid, and his impression of her, and the architecture world she lives in.
The article starts off with a description of her surroundings: her office, and the location of her office in London. In the first paragraph: a description of the employees, all different, but somehow merge into one. In the office everything seems to fuse into one: all becomes Zaha Hadid, there are no other personality but hers that comes out of the description. This is her ‘factory’, making her, who she is.

Then we follow interviewer and interviewee to her apartments, which again a show cases of who she is; the architect, not ‘Zaha the private woman’. Jonathan Meades is here to talk about her as an architect not as a person. Zaha Hadid is probably the most famous female architect alive today. Her name has become a brand, the product of her: what she does and what she designs: from buildings, to fashion, to furniture, etc. Through this text he is trying to understand this recognition, ‘fame’, that has now been associated to Zaha Hadid. He is trying to decide if it is justly given. However for this he also needs to study the architecture surrounding Zaha Hadid: British Architecture today.

From the text Jonathan Meades understands the realities of being an architect today. He doesn’t seem to have great regard for it, saying it has basically become just ‘a very big buisness’. Meades goes on to criticise the ‘low salaries and long hours’ of the business, and the fact that the work of architect in Britain has been undervalued. The consequences are that architects are cut short from doing anything really creative ; ‘British architects who aspire to anything more than polite apartment buildings or self-effacing, production-line offices have to prove themselves abroad’.

When first reading the article, Jonathan Meades seems to be critical of Zaha Hadid as well. When describing her office, her work, how he recounts her answers, it first doesn’t seem to be a positive picture of the architect. Then again, reading into the text, examining it further, you realise that he not only appreciates her and he does think that, as his title describes her, she is ‘the first great female architect’. He commends her for her success as an architect, and a woman architect. One of the other reproaches he does to today’s architecture is still a male dominated world. And Meades congratulates Zaha Hadid for having achieved in such of macho milieu.

Jonathan Meades seems to even agree with Zaha Hadid, on her views on older buildings. As described in the text, Zaha Hadid seems troubled by the number of buildings, which were built in the last 50-60 years and are now being demolished. And rightly so: “buildings used to outlive humans, not least because the process of construction was so long and laborious that permanence was a desirable aim’’. Architecture has become temporal, which Zaha Hadid complains, brings a lack of quality to the architecture.

Zaha Hadid’s work has been commented for being conceptual, futuristic, and just creating what she wants, with disregard to the surroundings. However Jonathan Meades defends her. He agrees with her idea that buildings today shouldn’t just reflect what has already been built. Moreover, defends her work, saying that she does look at the immediate context, and brings it into her design, but through her own process. All her buildings are her but a different, unique part of her, linked with the surroundings, the design becoming her interpretation and response to the site.

Through the text Jonathan Meades appreciates her struggle and commends her for being able to create her own buildings, while uncompromising her ideas.  He describes how Hadid is Zadid Hadid, and not anyone else, how she is unique and how she does not and should not pretend to be anyone else. She is an ‘artist’, ‘’ fighting […] against the architecture of the marketplace, struggling to assert the paramouncy of the artist, ie, of herself, of an uncompromised vision’’.

I am not the biggest fan of Zaha Hadid‘s work. I do like some of her buildings while find others a bit too ambitious. However, I do agree with Jonathan Meades: she is unique, her buildings reflect her style – not similar to anyone else’s work, and you cannot deny the fact that even if you may not like her work, or find certain of her buildings really conceptual, it is her work and she has been able to rise above the general thought to create her own identity.