Entry Nine: Parody - Evelyn Waugh's 'Decline and Fall'

Evelyn Waugh's 'Decline and Fall' is a parody set in the twenties in England and Wales and was published in 1928 by the English author. The novel is a piece of satire which comments on the divisions in social classes, social conventions of the time and human behavior to name a few of the themes.

The chapter we have read refers to the grand Tudor country home of Margot Beste-Chetwynde called ‘King’s Thursday’ and describes how everyone in the county marveled at its magnificence. Waugh refers to the country home and how it had retained all its historic features, and has been kept exactly how it was originally intended for the last three centuries;
“unmodified by any of the succeeding fashions that fell upon domestic architecture. No wing had been added, no window filled in…”

King’s Thursday had been recognised as ‘the finest piece of domestic Tudor in England’ by some of the ‘high society’ who regularly visited for parties. They were in complete admiration of the ‘unspoilt’ Tudor home. However, it had long been ‘unsuited to modern requirements’ due to its only intention being to restore which also meant it had avoided any updates from plumber or engineer. It was barely possible to live there with less than twenty servants.
Margot Beste-Chetwynde had bought the home after it had been empty for two years and commissioned Professor Silenus (I definitely see an implication of the word ‘silliness’ here due to his obscure remarks and odd mannerisms) as her Architect, who attracted her attention through the rejected design for a chewing-gum factory.
When the neighbours find out the house is to be knocked down and rebuilt they are up in arms about it.
Silenus tells a reporter “The problem with architecture as I see it is the problem of all art – the elimination of the human element from the consideration of form…. All ill comes from man.” For the modern architect – humans are very separated.

In terms of modernism I think Waugh comments on social resistance to change. It is not possible to accommodate to ‘how life was’ forever. There are connections here to what was spoken about in my blog of Goethe’s Faust- things have to change but there will always be opposition to it.

Entry Eight: Colin Rowe - 'Mathematics of the Ideal Villa' (1947)

Colin Rowe’s essay on The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa was first published in the Architectural Review in 1947. Rowe was an architectural historian and critic. Within this particular essay he compares the works of Palladio and Le Corbusier.

Colin Rowe begins his essay with a quote from Sir Christopher Wren about the idea of beauty being either natural or customary where; natural beauty is from geometry consisting of uniformity, equality and proportion, and customary beauty is down to familiarity to something, which is not in itself lovely. Wren describes geometrical figures as being ‘naturally more beautiful than irregular ones’ as well as perpendicular and horizontal as being the ‘only two beautiful positions of straight lines’.

Rowe makes a ‘diagrammatical comparison’ between Palladio’s 'Villa Foscari' (the Malcontenta), dating from the 16th Century, and Corbusier's 'Villa Garches', dating from the 1920s. He describes what he believes to be 'fundamental relationships' between the two. These include firstly comparisons with the geometric ratios and then a comparison of the structures, plan and so on.
He talks of a lot of mathematical 'coincidences' and some would argue that he is in fact distorting information to create evidence for his argument by plucking these thoughts out of the air.

Rowe goes on to say; ‘Development was, therefore, less a matter of innovation, than an extension of ideas already implicit.’ This implies that in architecture, we have been regurgitating the same ideas for decades in one way or the other. This is certainly true to a certain sense, I don't believe any form of 'design' is truly 'unique' as I believe everything we do has got to be influenced by our own experiences within society and our acquired knowledge and understanding of the world.

Entry Seven: The Production of Space - Henri Lefebvre

I found this text the most difficult to tackle and was so relieved to be reassured in the following class discussion that I was not alone in thinking that it was a difficult one to get your teeth into, a lot of rereading went on here!

Henri Lefebvre was a French Marxist philosopher and socialist. His work spanned over sixty years and he wrote more than sixty books and three hundred articles. He died in 1991, aged 90 years old.

Lefebvre takes on what has been described as 'word interrogation' in the chapter 'Social Space' from the book 'The Production of Space'. He talks about the differences between the words 'work' and 'product' are spoken about in this section and the concept of 'the production of space' where the word production has been a word were the meaning has been gradually lost over time.
The description of the product is something that is easily replaceable through replication whereas a work is something that is unique and therefore, irreplaceable.

When talking about 'Art' he describes how producing artworks with the intention of being sold, exchanged and so on, in fact takes away from the artwork and makes it instead a product. I think this is definitely the case when creating artwork for the subject 'Art & Design' at GCSE and A-Level stages, when producing artwork with the intention of fulfilling specific criteria to get me into the next stage of education. 'Works' should be created out of the beauty of creating a 'work', out of love and admiration of a type of craftwork, it is not something which can be mass produced.
This is just one first look of this text, it is a meaty text which I'm sure needs to be revisited many a time and I'm sure I will revisit this reading in the future.

Entry Six: Counterculture - Allen Ginsberg's 'Howl'

Howl by Allen Ginsburg is a poem published in 1956 about counterculture in 1950s America. The poem itself is split into three sections. There are themes of sexual liberation, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and anti-capitalism.

The poem is one of the most well-known poems to be associated with the writers of the ‘Beat Generation’ who explored these themes amongst others and greatly influenced American culture and politics in the post-World War II era throughout the 1950s.
Another contributor to great ‘Beat Generation’ literature is William S. Burroughs with his novel ‘Naked Lunch’ (1959). He is one of the authors mentioned in the footnote to Howl ‘holy Burroughs’ and both works ‘Naked Lunch’ and ‘Howl’ caused a lot of controversy at the time and were the centre of obscenity trials in America but the judge decided the poem was of ‘redeeming social importance’.

I.

The first section starts with,

‘I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness’

This section describes the experiences of the outcasts of society who don’t want to conform to the controlled and oppressive post-war (WWII) America. 

Ginsberg represents their experiences in graphic detail in what seems like an archaic mess of writing; in 'Notes Written on Finally Recording Howl' (1959), he describes how he let his innermost thoughts, feelings and experiences flow out in just one mad sitting;
"I thought I wouldn't write a poem, but just write what I wanted to without fear, let my imagination go, open secrecy, and scribble magic lines from my real mind--sum up my life--something I wouldn't be able to show anybody, write for my own soul's ear and a few other golden ears. So the first line of Howl, "I saw the best minds etc.," the whole first section, typed out madly in one afternoon".


I think in writing the poem this way, as if it was really for his eyes only, in sort of a therapeutic outburst, we really see the reality of his experiences.
This first section is by far the longest and we go through it with a good rhythm;

"I depended on the word "who" to keep the beat, a base to keep measure, return to and take off from again onto another streak of invention" (Notes Written on Finally Recording Howl).

II.

The second section talks about the figure 'Moloch'.

'Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men!'

This can be interpreted as an evil demonic figure, or money or the establishment itself. It seems to be a cry out against conformism and capitalism.

III.

The last section talks of Carl Solomun in Rockland, (a psychiatric hospital) where he describes his solidarity with him.


Ginsberg gives a stark, personal and real voice to his experiences in the 1950s. It is a strong and evocative piece of writing which gives us a true insight into social experiences in post-World War II America. 

Entry Five: The Tragedy of Development

In Marshall Berman's book 'All that is Solid Melts into Air', we understand the story of Goethe's Faust.  Goethe’s Faust was a life-long work of his, which he started from the age of twenty-one right up until the year just before his death at the age of eighty-three.

I think this is very apt as the characters are able to experience the breadth of life and drastic developments in Western society as Goethe himself does.
Goethe’s Faust is driven by the desire for development, he experiences three stages of what Goethe refers to as ‘metamorphoses’.

In the first metamorphosis, Goethe uses Faust to depict ‘The Dreamer’.
‘Faust lived alone and dreamed.’ His mind was restless and not put to use, trapped within the four walls of his room. Isolated from his neighbours.

In the second metamorphosis, ‘The Lover’, we read about how Faust develops when he gets into a romantic relationship.

‘He intertwined his life with the life of another person, and learned to love.’

In the third and last metamorphosis, Goethe depicts Faust transforming through ‘his last incarnation’-‘The Developer’.

Faust now ‘connects his personal drives with the economic, political and social forces that drive the world; he learns to build and destroy… He pits all his powers against nature and society… He strives to change not only his own life but everyone else’s as well…. to construct a radically new social environment that will empty the old world out or break it down.’
In this last section, he has finally found a fulfilling purpose for his mind. This section starts with Faust and Mephistopheles alone on a jagged mountain peak. They are lethargic and lacklustre, when suddenly Faust gets enraged at the idea of the sea’s energy not being put to use, it is surging endlessly backwards and forwards without achieving anything and now he wants to drive the idea of harnessing nature’s energy forward. He then proceeds to develop, he takes his visions and puts them into concrete programs, he ruthlessly builds the modern world through intensive labour. This labour should know no bounds, day and night, land and sea, everything must fall before the rush of production and construction. Before now he has been on a path of self-development which now alters itself to a path of economic development.

At the end, amidst the noise of construction, he proclaims himself ‘fully alive’, something he seems to have been desperate for throughout his life, therefore, he is now ready to die. He has developed himself and the world around him until the very end.

Goethe conceives the developer as tragic as well as heroic, we are supposed to see not only how Faust has put the world on a great new path of amazing possibilities, but the suffering to humankind which he has ignored. This is reflected in the capitalist society we live in today where power is held in the hands of a few and they are driven by profit and egoism. Power in the wrong hands can harm our society and our environment. Goethe’s Faust was written during the time of the industrial revolution so Goethe will have seen for himself how drastic economic change can cause harm as well as good. We must take responsibility for the suffering we cause whilst drastic economic changes take place.

Entry Four: Jane Rendell's chapter in Occupying Architecture (1998) 'doing it, (un) doing it, (over) doing it yourself- Rhetorics of Architectural Abuse'

Jane Rendell addresses the idea that as architecture students, we are let to believe that there is one way of 'doing architecture'. The prestigious role of architect is that of 'imagining architecture' and then 'doing architecture' and that is that, and you can move on to the next architectural dream. Rendell was taught that 'doing it' was that of making things stand up, the 'right' way to do architecture.

Rendell then moves on to talk about her concept of '(un)doing it' whereby although a space may be initially designed in a specific way, it is not necessarily going to be executed in that exact manner forever or even at all. The occupant of the space can indeed change the purpose of the space for their own requirements and there isn't much that can be done to stop this.

The next idea of '(over)doing' it I believe refers to thoughts that those in the architectural profession think too highly of themselves as the only ones possible of the privileged activity of architecture. However we are in fact '(over)doing it' and indeed everyone can be a part of the activity.

I think Rendell does well to question the whole institution of architecture and the way in which we our taught and the way in which we may believe we are great 'makers of space' when we actually aren't. There is a definite main theme of anti-establishment, and we are given a push and shove towards a re-imagination of spaces and re-evaluation of the architectural system.

Entry three: Matthew Crawford - The Case for Working with Your Hands

In the Chapter 'The Separation of Thinking from Doing' from Matthew Crawford's 'The Case for Working with Your Hands', he offers an overview of how the disassociation of individual thought and action has led to the degradation of work.

This entry addresses how over the course of the twentieth century, workers have become a cog within a machine, easily replaceable by allowing 'craftsmanship' to die by dividing all work into smaller processes. We are now channelled into office cubicles or factory lines and the human brain is prohibited from fully engaging.

'The Wheelwright' example describes how the worker has a complex and rewarding job to do as he feel stye natural kinks in the wood, no piece of wood is the same as the next, he has to listen to his material and feel how to work it. This is craftsmanship, no wheel he makes is the same as the next and a  machine can do this same job.

Corporations took over central control of 'the machine' and forced the workers into being 'standardised parts'. Implementing this and changing the workforce from being 'craftsmen' to being just a small part of the process comes across to me as very sinister. It diminishes job satisfaction and leads to everyone being and feeling completely disposable.

Entry two: Paul Mason on Postcapitalism - 'The Rational Case for Panic'

In this blog entry I will discuss Paul Mason's book 'Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future', focussing on the Chapter: 'The Rational Case for Panic'.

I have been passionate about the environment since my early teenage years when I first started to develop a greater understanding of the planet and how the world's population uses and abuses the Earth as they please. I found Paul Mason's chapter 'The Rational Case for Panic' very compelling and it has certainly made me panic in a positive way. I have never known too much on economics but obviously I am aware that the world is driven by profit and is controlled by wealthy corporations. However I did not know just quite how outrageous the situation was in regards to control and power over the strength of the carbon fuel industry.

For example, Mason highlights that in 2011 $674 billion was invested into exploration and development of fossil fuels. (Then Saudi Arabia decided to collapse the price of oil, with the aim of destroying America's new hydrocarbon industries, bankrupting Putin's Russia in the process.)

Also, between 2003 and 2010, climate-denial lobby groups received $558 million from donors in the USA.

Although this seems so evidently ludicrous and unjustifiable, those who have power in these industries fail to understand the catastrophic damage we have already done to our planet and the inevitable and pending chaos we face imminently. In my eyes, these kind of actions deserve jail time for those who are involved.

The wealthy companies who control the big markets (such as the US markets) have pulled the wool over their eyes and will not let the knowledge of extreme destabilisation of a 4.5 billion-year-old planet get in their way. 

Germany however have managed to fight against the carbon fuel industries and completely destroy them by heavily investing in renewable energy and giving priority to renewable generators over carbon fuel producers to supply energy. These kind of decisions need to be implemented on a worldwide level in order to make desperate drastic changes. Overruling decisions need to be enforced by powers of governments worldwide, as in Germany's case, power stations were forced to pay the German electricity grid to take unwanted electricity off their hands on days where renewables have been able to produce more energy than normal and have taken priority. 

Overruling powers need to be put into place in order to have any attempt at slowing down the destruction of our own planet and to safeguard future populations. 

Entry one: Rowan Moore on Patrik Schumacher

Discussed text: Zaha Hadid’s successor: my blueprint for the future

I am writing this blog in order to start a continuous dialogue with myself where I will try to decipher articles of architectural interest. The first article, see link above, discusses a fresh idea of 'parametricism', an ideology imagined by Patrik Schumacher where all future buildings should be delivered by inputting every imaginable factor into a computer which leads to a building which can change in response to all these parameters. He is certain in its 'rationality' and 'obvious superiority', thriving in the thought of a logical ending- there are no doubts or uncertainty, just scientific reasoning. Through this process parametric designs will have the same curvy and complex 'look'.

However, there are many flaws to this way of thinking, the results of this equation will entirely depend on what parameters are put into the program.
Who will decide what they are? Will that not be an endless list which can never possibly be perfected?
If a human will be deciding what needs to be fed into the computer in the first place, it is still subjective as to what the important factors affecting a building are to be. This still leaves us without a conclusive formula for creating the 'perfect' building, every site will have a multitude of factors and there will always be a multitude of answers, never one definitive answer.

Although, I am not entirely overlooking the fact that computers can provide us with unimaginable ways of delivering and progressing architecture. I believe we have only just begun to unleash the possibilities which computers and programming can give to the world of architecture. There are many ways we can use programs to architecture's great benefit. Even in the beginning of my architectural career I have benefitted from using 'Ecotect' which analyses solar gains when placing your 3D Sketchup model of your building into the program. It helps you to figure out where to place your windows/how many/which size in order to create your required daylight and sunlight levels. I am very intrigued as to where computer programming can take architecture, however, Schumacher seems to want to cut out the middle man (the human mind) and I don't see this as ever working as ultimately a human will always have an input.
The lack of proof also puts Schumacher in a strange position seeing as he is so forthright in the philosophy of parametricism. Zaha Hadid's Riverside Museum in Glasgow looks completely incongruous with its surrounding and much of  the internal spaces are redundant. Seeing as Schumacher now runs Hadid's former practice, I would've expected him to provide us with a wealth of evidence to backup his claims, this is not the case.

I do not see how architecture can base itself entirely on scientific data in the future, rather than human intuitive judgements and I don't believe that there can ever be an ultimate algorithm which answers all as who would decide the definitive list of all important factors? I am yet to be persuaded of this ideology, Schumacher.