Summary

Summary

Following the analysis of the previous 11 readings this final text should serve as a summary, linking any parallels, recurring themes or notions between them.

The main themes of the texts have included anti-capitalism, individualism, and the embracement of free thinking and innovation in society. A number of the texts have focused on the outsider’s point of view towards (what they believe) to be a corrupt society. With characters often going against the grain of the socially accepted conventions of modern day living (within the last 100 years in Europe and America). Examples of this can be shown in Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl” or Gary Cooper’s portrayal of Architect Howard Roark in the Fountainhead.

The texts have included readings which I personally might not have read otherwise, however I have (surprisingly to myself) enjoyed the majority of them. Some of the topics explored have certainly made me think about aspects within our society differently, or in some cases, at least made me question these ideas (for example Capitalism, I hadn’t considered there to be an alternative option to this system, or the possibility of a post-capitalist society).

Many of the texts looked at different social classes within our society, none more so than Evelyn Waugh’s novel “Decline and fall”. This witty portrayal of the upper class of society was a much enjoyable read, however the constant way in which the upper-class were able to escape the repercussions of their actions (often due to their social status) was something I found frustratingly applicable to our society today, despite the original publishing of the book in 1928, almost a century ago.

Henri Lefebvre’s book “The Production of Space” explored the notion of categorization between either a “Work” or a “Product”, a very interesting discussion. A subject very applicable to the Model T or “Tin Lizzie” as Henry Ford’s first widely affordable automobile (as discussed in John Dos Passos’s “U.S.A”). By all means I believe people today would consider one of these early automobile models a “work of art” in its preserved state. However, the very process of its assembly line manufacture, with its cheap interchangeable/ easily replaceable parts would no doubt undeniably categorize this as a product at the time of its conception.

Ideas between texts would often interlink with one another to further demonstrate such ideas. The readings as a series of texts have raised some thought provoking discussions on aspects of our society. In a year including Brexit, Trump and the end of Globalism, the selection of readings have indeed felt quite applicable to our current political situation, however ending the series with Howard Roark’s eventual triumph against the system, by sticking to his morals brings an element of hope to an otherwise gloomy outlook.

The Fountainhead, Directed by King Vidor

The Fountainhead

1949 movie adaption Directed by King Vidor, starring Gary Cooper & Patricia Neal

(Based on the 1943 Novel by Ayn Rand)

Summary

The movie begins with our protagonist Howard Roark (portrayed by Gary Cooper) being asked if he “Wants to stand alone against the whole world?” because there is “no place for originality in architecture”, his presumed mentor tells him that “nobody can improve on the buildings of the past” and that “one can only learn to copy them”. Roark is subsequently expelled from Architecture School after he will not follow the socially accepted copy & paste design philosophy, the School believes in.

Roark goes on to get a job in New York City with Henry Cameron, a once renowned and great Architect, but now an Architect who only receives very few commissions. Henry Cameron is portrayed as a beaten man, rambling about his office apparently intoxicated, he implores Roark to compromise now whilst he still can, however Roark refuses to compromise, and Cameron warns him that he is about to begin his journey into hell, a very dramatic metaphor to describe Roark’s personal belief in standing up for what he believes to be right.

Following this scene Peter Keating is introduced, a former fellow student of Roark, Keating is apparently doing very well, rising the ranks of a typical Architecture Practice, this is indicated to be a result of his ability to compromise and conform to the socially accepted practice of the Architectural Profession.

Roark is later offered a commission on a Skyscraper but on the condition that he compromises on his proposed design, Roark refuses the commission on the moral value of his building’s integrity, adding that a building will have integrity likewise to any man having his own integrity and moral values.

Roark goes on to take a construction job in a quarry, choosing that he would rather not work as an Architect if he cannot be the Master to his own vision. Here he meets Dominique Francon, a writer for the “New York Banner” newspaper and the daughter of the quarry’s owner. There is an attraction between them and they are involved in a sexual encounter after a number of meetings.

Roark is invited back to New York after he is asked to design a building consisting of Luxury Apartments. The New York Banner chooses to launch an attack via their newspapers against the building, despite it being described as a magnificent piece of architecture, the newspaper publishes it purely as It believes the public will go with the story, and they need to sell newspapers. Later during the opening party for the new apartments, Dominique Francon is reintroduced to Howard Roark, not realising he was the Architect for the building she admires greatly. Dominique confesses her love to Roark, but says that she cannot be with him, as the world will not accept Roark and she does not want to witness his downfall.

Despite her love for Roark, Dominique Francon decides to marry Gail Wynand (the owner of the New York Banner). Meanwhile Roark continues to take on commissions no matter what the size, as long as he is allowed to design to his own vision, and not compromise. He continues to work on what he believes in and stands by his morals despite the New York Banner’s smear campaign against him.

Gail Wynand contacts Roark as he wants him to design his country home for him and his wife Dominique. He wants the house to stand as a temple for him and his wife, and only him and his wife. Roark agrees to the commission despite, working for the man whose newspaper attacked him undeservedly. Perhaps Roark makes this decision because he is a client to his buildings and not the person paying him?

Wynand also offers Roark the chance to design all the future buildings for his company, if he finally compromises in his designs, and designs to popular opinions and trends. Roark surprisingly agrees to this but sketches a design in accordance with these principals to the disgust of Wynand, who now realises Roark is right. Roark now tells Wynand to never doubt or question his designs again.

Later Peter Keating returns asking for Roark’s help on a low-cost housing project. Roark characteristically agrees on the terms that the project is only built to his own design, and only his design.

Roark goes on a vacation with Wynand and Dominique, however when he returns he finds out the design for the low-cost housing project he helped Keating with has been compromised. Roark is outraged that someone has changed his design and his vision, and with the help of Dominique blows up the construction site in a very satisfying conclusion.

Roark makes himself accountable and stands trial, meanwhile Wynand surprisingly comes to his aid and stands up against everyone and popular opinion for the first time in his life. However, due to the negative effect Roark’s case is having on Wynand’s newspaper, Wynand is forced to retire his support for Roark and publishes a denunciation of Roark.

During the trial Roark provides an inspiring speech outlining the importance of integrity, individualism and free thinking of man and wins the case, with the jury declaring a non-guilty verdict.

The low-cost housing project is agreed to be rebuilt exactly as per Roark’s original vision.

Roark also wins over Dominique who leaves Wynand for him. Wynand now finally realises the power and moral standing of his position with The New York Banner and comes to the conclusion that he never really ran the newspaper but instead the common consensus of the public did, Wynand shuts the newspaper down.

In the concluded act of the film Wynand gives Roark one final commission for the “Wynand Tower”, the building which he believes will stand as his legacy. However, Wynand tells Roark that he never wants to see him again, assuming the reasoning of this is because of Dominique’s decision to leave Wynand for Roark, and the guilt Wynand feels towards not standing up for what he believes in, in life until now. The scene ends with Wynand committing suicide.

Eighteen months later the Wynand Tower is under construction and Dominique meets Roark atop the steel framework as credits role.

Analysis

The Fountainhead is observed as a depiction of one man’s moral standing and integrity, when faced against a series of events in his life all telling him to compromise, much to the detriment to his beliefs. To play against this, other characters in the story such as Peter Keating choose to conform to the status quo, whether or not they actually agree with the actions they are implementing, in order to progress within their roles in society.

The character of Gail Wynand is also a character who has conformed to popular opinion in his past to reach a height of financial superiority. The character of Wynand does have a story arc during the film which makes him realise what he has been doing his whole life (being a yes man) has been wrong, and he finally decides to stand up for what he believes to be right at the conclusion of the film (during the course of Howard Roark’s trial). Despite his redemption, the guilt for the actions of his past are too much and he decides to take his own life.

Despite this negative conclusion to the character of Wynand the Foutainhead does have an uplifting and positive ending for our protagonist Howard Roark, who in the face of such adversity finally succeeds by sticking by his morals.

However, the fact that this story is portrayed in the medium of film, makes one question whether a happy ending has been written in, as it would be preferred by most audiences (so I would be interested to see if this ending is true to the original novel). Similarities in the story can be applied to life in society today, despite a difference of 70 plus years since the original publishing.

It should also be noted that the film seems to draw inspiration from the real-life Architect Frank Lloyd Wright (1867 – 1959). Many of Roark’s design seem to draw inspiration from the broad architectural designs of Frank Lloyd wright, as discussed in the previous text “U.S.A.” written by John Dos Passos. Furthermore, the career of Frank Lloyd Wright also took American architecture forward and implemented change during a time of repetition and duplication.

Similar to Thorstein Veblen (again discussed in the previous text), one has to admire the character and resolve of Howard Roark, standing by his morals and refusing to conform to the norm in order to progress in society, at the detriment of his own values and beliefs. Roark never compromised on his beliefs and in the end succeeded where other “yes men” had otherwise failed or realised the error of their ways.

U.S.A John Dos Passos

U.S.A

John Dos Passos

From John Dos Passos’s “U.S.A” epic, we look at three parts from the chapter “The Big Money”, these three sub chapters are titled: “Tin Lizzie”, “The Bitter Drink” & “Architect” and are discussions of the three men: Henry ford, Thorstein Veblen & Frank Lloyd wright respectively.

Tin Lizzie

The chapter Tin Lizzie is a discussion on Henry Ford – “the automobileer”, ever since he’d left his father’s farm, Henry Ford had been obsessed with machinery. At the age of just 16 he got a job in a Detroit machine shop where he’d work his way up from Night Fireman to Chief Engineer.

He was the eldest son of an Irish immigrant who during the Civil War had married the daughter of a prosperous Pennsylvania Dutch Farmer, he was brought up to a life of farming near Dearborn in Wayne County, Michigan. However, like many other Americans at the time, Henry Ford grew up hating the harsh environment and working life of the farm.

Ford preferred to tend after the machinery and let others do the heavy work. His mother had taught him not to partake in life’s vices, such as drinking, smoking, gambling or to get himself into debt, and he never did.

When Ford was 40 years old he started his now infamous “Ford Motors Company”, and had big ideas on more than solely the design of the motor cars. Ford understood the principals of business and that “the big money” was to be achieved by the implementation of economical quantity production, quick turnover and cheap interchangeable/ easily replaceable standardized parts.

In 1909 Ford launched what is now regarded as the first widely affordable automobile: The “Model T”, or as it was more commonly known the “Tin Lizzie”. The launch was a huge success selling over 10,000 units, in later years Ford would be selling almost a 1,000,000 of these models a year.

The work at Ford’s factory saw not only the improvement in the design of the machine, but also in the efficiency of the labour required to produce the machine. In 1913 Henry Ford established the first assembly line, that year saw profits grow to somewhere in the region of $25,000,000, however with the introduction of the assembly line, work became monotonous and Ford had trouble in keeping staff on the job.

The consequence of the assembly line meant that Ford had to increase wages as a form of compensation for essentially dulling down the work. However, now with the increased wages, the dream of employees owning a Tin Lizzie of their own was now becoming a reality, although some may see a certain sense of irony in this dream, working on a product, in the hopes of obtaining a copy of the product for themselves.

The Bitter Drink

The second part of the text to be analysed is “The Bitter drink”, the chapters forms a discussion on Thorstein Veblen, the Norwegian-American Economist and Sociologist. He was a known critic of capitalism.

The text starts by introducing the Veblens family, a family of freeholding farmers in Norway. The chapter goes on to introduce Thorstein Veblen, as a young boy he is described as “a hulking lad with a reputation for laziness and wit”, or perhaps at this point in his life misplaced potential.

It is described in the text, that the Norwegian people at the time are reported to believe there to be only two callings for an honest man, these being either Farming or Preaching. They are described as being suspicious and carried a certain dislike to the townspeople’s way of life, who are described as mostly American migrants, attempting to grow two dollars where one had previously existed. These people were shopkeepers, middle-men, speculators and money lenders, interested in politics and mortgages, and in turn despised the Scandinavian dirt farmers they lived off.

When Thorstein was seventeen his parents decided to attempt in making a preacher out of him and sent young Thorstein off to college. Here he excelled at academic learnings and is noted in producing award-winning essays, he later completes a Ph D, and becomes an extremely well educated member of society.

However once Thorstein has graduated and returned home, he turns down several offers of employment, perhaps feeling as if manual work and labouring jobs are contributing to a system he does not agree with, and struggles to respond to job offers with a positive “yes”. He spends time unemployed and becomes bitter towards society. 

Now spending his time back at the family-home he would discuss theology and philosophy with his father and tinker with new inventions of machinery. During this time in his life the economy was becoming tough for the agricultural industries and the price of wheat was declining together with the general belief in God. Other members of his family began growing tired of his unemployment and lack of contribution to the family financially.

Eventually Thorstein took on a number of teaching jobs at a number of different universities throughout his lifetime, but always remained unmaterialistic and perhaps somewhat bitter towards the capitalist society he found himself part of. In 1929 he died, and among his papers a pencilled note was found:

“It is also my wish, in case of death, to be cremated if it can be conveniently be done, as expeditiously and inexpensively as may be, without ritual or ceremony of any kind; that my ashes be thrown loose into the sea or into some sizeable stream running into the sea; that no tombstone, slab, epitaph, effigy, tablet, inscription or monument of any kind or nature, be set up to my memory or name in any place or at any time; that no obituary, memorial, portrait or biography of me, nor any letters written to or by me be printed or published, or in any way reproduced, copied or circulated”.

Whether a person may agree with Thorstein’s beliefs regarding society and capitalism in particular, one has to admire his commitment to his morals, even in the most extreme of life’s experiences, death.

Architect

The final part of the text to be read is simply titled “Architect” and is a look at Frank Lloyd wright. The hugely influential American Architect and Writer.

The text begins by describing Frank Lloyds Wright’s desire to become an architect after having seen the dome of the new State Capital building in Madison collapse. This was believed to be a result of bad workmanship in the supporting piers, some thieving contractors skimping on materials in order to save a politician’s bonus, or perhaps the result of a deadly error in the Architect’s plans. However, the resulting catastrophe ended the lives of a number of people and was an event which impacted the young Frank Lloyd Wright.

His training in architecture is reported to begin with the reading of “Violet le Duc”, the apostle of the thirteenth century and of the pure structural mathematics of Gothic Stone Masonry. He went on to work in the office of Adler and Sullivan in Chicago, alongside the proclaimed “father of skyscrapers” Louis Sullivan.

After several years Frank Lloyd Wright had developed his own style of “Prairie Architecture” (inspired by the broad flat landscapes of the American Mid-West) and left the office of Adler and Sullivan to set up his own studio in Oak Park, Illinois.

Designing broad suburban dwellings for rich men, he became a somewhat “Preacher of blueprints”, breaking the mould of the copy and paste architectural routine that had previously gripped America. Frank Lloyd wright was leading the movement that led to the swift constructions methods using materials of glass, bricks and steel in present-day America.

He loved the experimentation and new possibilities enabled by these new materials of steel, glass, concrete and the endless possibilities of new metals and alloys.

It is later reported that the building involving perhaps the most of Frank Lloyd Wright’s influence, is the Imperial Hotel in Toyko, a building which at the time of devastating earthquake of 1923 was one of the few buildings to remain standing. It was upon hearing this news of the building’s survival, and subsequently the survival of it’s occupants that Frank Lloyd wright was reportedly at his most-happiest. Having come full circle from his initial reasoning to pursue a career in Architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright had succeeded in the very notion of his dream.  

Decline and Fall - Evelyn Waugh

Decline and Fall

Evelyn Vaughn

Evelyn Waugh’s novel Decline and Fall is a comedic observation of the class structures in 20^th century Britain, although first published in 1928 it seems as applicable to society today, as it was then.

To first understand Decline and Fall we look at Waugh himself, educated at Hertford College, Oxford, Waugh later became a school teacher at Arnold House in North Wales, very similarly to Paul Pennyfeather, the main character of this story.

Decline and Fall starts with Paul Pennyfeather as a student at Oxford University, however his time here as a student is cut short when he is expelled after being caught up in the antics of the Bollinger Club (a play on the notorious Bullingdon Club, whose past members include politicians such as David Cameron & Boris Johnson, amongst other members of high society).

Following Pennyfeather’s expulsion from the school, he takes a teaching job at a School in North Wales (again drawing parallels to Waugh’s own life) and soon starts mentoring one of the pupils - Peter Beste-Chetwynde, the son of the wealthy, yet somewhat mysterious Margot Best-Chetwynde.

In Part 2 of the novel, Margot Best-Chetwynde purchases the Historic Tudor House “King's Thursday" in Hampshire, England. King's Thursday is much loved and respected by the surrounding resident's and is described as " the finest piece of domestic Tudor in England". However, Margot Beste-Chetwynde does not share the same regard for King's Thursday, when she responds to a newspaper reporter on the subject of purchasing the historic property she quotes that she "cannot think of anything more bourgeois and awful than timbered Tudor architecture".

Margot Beste-Chetwynde decides to demolish and rebuild King's Thursday much to the outrage of  the local residents. It is here, that one of my favourite characters is introduced to the story: Otto Friedrich Silenus or as he likes to be known: Professor Silenus (no way in part to be mistaken for "silliness" I am sure).

Professor Silenus, who was brought to the attention of Mrs Beste-Cheywynde following the rejected design for a chewing gum factory in a "progressive Hungarian quarterly" (his only other completed work being the decor for a cinema film of great length and complexity) is tasked with the new design for King's Thursday, following Mrs Beste-Chetwynde's instruction for "something clean and square".

Eventually Paul Pennyfeather and Mrs Best-Chetwynde develop a relationship and are to become married, however Paul is oblivious to the real source of his fiancé's wealth (which is implied to be a number of high class brothels in South America) and is arrested on the morning of the wedding due to him running an errand for her, in relation to her criminal business (much to his naivety).

In the last part of the story, Pennyfeather is sent to prison for seven years with charges of Human Trafficking and aiding Prostitution. However Paul decides to take the punishment himself in order to protect his future bride's honour. After spending a short time of his sentence in jail, Mrs Beste-Chetwynde is able to organise the fake death and escape of Pennyfeather, using her money and social status. The story ends with Pennyfeather taking on a new identity and continuing  his studies back at Oxford where the story had originally started.

Evelyn Waugh's portrayal of the upper class of society, is extremely amusing, however there is a recurring and more serious theme to Decline and Fall that the rich and powerful are somehow above the law.

It is the young and naive Paul Pennyfeather who receives punishment from the criminal actions of Mrs Beste-Chetwynde. The demolition of King's Thursday can perhaps represent a physical metaphor for her social status and power enabling her to do as she pleases, much to the outrage of the local residents, and society.  

A sad consequence that I feel is as relevant today and it was a century ago. The motions of society go round-and-round for the everyday man, desperately trying to cling on. Whilst the upper class and social elite remain seated comfortably in the middle, observing our struggle.

The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa - Colin Rowe

The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa

Colin Rowe

1976

For this week’s reading we explore the essay "The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa" by Colin Rowe, a Historian and Postmodern Theorist. The essay compares the works of Andrea Palladio and Le Corbusier.

The text first describes Palladio's "Villa Rotonda" in Vicenza, Northern Italy. Villa Rotonda (built between 1566  - 1571) is completely symmetrical, based upon a square plan, each of the four sides identical to one another, and each side having its own projecting portico. The building is the ideal centralized space, situated prominently upon the crest of a small hilltop in rural Italy.

In comparison to Villa Rotonda, Rowe describes Le Corbusier's "Savoye House", built in the 1930's and situated in Poissy, in the western suburbs of Paris. The Savoye House is described as a machine for living in, an arrangement of interpenetrating volumes and spaces, and an asymmetrical building in contrast to Palladio’s Villa Rotondo.

Palladio's landscape for Villa Rotonda is much more agrarian and bucolic than Le Corbusier’s Savoye House, and writing in other texts Palladio describes the "ideal life of the Villa".

Palladio believes that the owner of Villa Rotonda will enjoy and reflect on the geometric order and harmony established at the villa. Rowe quotes that "if architecture at the Rotonda forms the setting for the good life, at Poissy it is certainly the background for the lyrically efficient one".

Perhaps the most important comparison made between the two Architects works is the comparison of Palladio's "Villa Foscari" in Mira, near Venice, Italy, and Le Corbusier’s “Villa Stein” the house in which Le Corbusier designed for Mr and Mrs Michael Stein at Garches, in the western suburbs of Paris, in 1927.

Upon first viewing of these two buildings, they may seem so entirely unalike that to compare them against one another may seem fruitless. However, when looking at them in their simplest forms, as volumetric blocks, they display similar attributes in size - both blocks measuring 8 units in length, 5 units in depth, and 5 units in height. Furthermore, each building is set out on a similar grid with horizontal proportions of both buildings reading in sequences of 2,1,2,1,2. 

However, whilst there are similar proportions in the horizontal plains, the vertical plains front to back are somewhat different. With Villa Foscari reading 2, 2, 1.5 and Villa Stein reading 0.5,1.5,1.5,1.5,0.5, Le Corbusier's use of the half unit allows for compression of the central bay transferring interest elsewhere. Whilst Palladio secures a dominance for his central division with a progression towards the front portico, focusing attention on these two areas.

Palladio believes that the use of solid walls requires absolute symmetry, whereas Le Corbusier's use of a more framed structure allows for a more free-arrangement.

Rowe identifies another prominent distinction between the two buildings being the roofs, with Palladio's Villa Foscari forming a pyramid superstructure amplifying the volume of the house, Le Corbusier's flat roof, swiftly terminating the building's enclosure and perhaps diminishing from the house's volume?

The interesting idea demonstrated in Rowe’s writings is how forms we may think are very similar can end up being very different to one another once they have been separated and purposed. The key example of this being Le Corbusier’s Villa Stein and Palladio’s Villa Foscari, two very similar structural grids, but the use of solid walls, openings and supports can result in the two spaces feeling completely opposite from one another.

A Work or a Product? - Henri Lefebvre

The Production of Space

Henri Lefebvre

Social Space - Parts 1 & 2

In the Chapter "Social Space" of Henri Lefebvre’s book "The Production of Space", Lefebvre discusses the differences between a "Work" and a "Product". Lefebvre describes a Work as having something “Irreplaceable and unique about it" whereas a Product could "easily be reproduced exactly, and is in fact the result of repetitive acts and gestures".

When delving into some rather philosophical thinking, Lefebvre proposes that something is only a Work when it is not purposely trying to be a Work....

In fact the very purpose of attempting to create a Work results in, and detracts from achieving the creation of a “Work”. It is a ‘Work” because it simply is. Lefebvre uses the analogy of nature when proposing this idea.

Similarly  this reasoning can also be applied to Art.  The intent of creating Art actually detracts from the concept of “Art”.

Lefebrve quotes that “no work has ever been created as a work of art”, one can interpret this statement to mean that the inherent processes used in trying to create a work, will detract from the overall goal of achieving a work.

Lefebvre goes on to question whether “Art” as a specialised activity, has destroyed works and replaced them by in fact “Products” destined to be exchanged, traded, sought after, valued and reproduced. One example of this, may be the discovery of a beautifully decorative Vase. Let’s assume that once this vase was used with a purpose, but since its discovery it is now to be stored and observed in a Museum, where it has now become an object, only to be observed.

If it's functional use has stopped, has it has now become a product? An un-purposed, perhaps over valued (depending on how one assesses it’s “value”, if we are to associate its value to mere capital attribution alone?) object. That in turn, has now become linked with all kinds of attributions that society is now agreeing that this Vase warrants. Is it now a product of society?

If we took people away from this reasoning, the object would go back to being a Vase with a simple function. It is society that produces these assumptions and transforms the vase into something more. 

Another example of this might be a Cathedral, there is nothing holy or spiritual in the place materialistically, the stone it is constructed from may be no different from the stone quarried out of the earth for a Kitchen worktop somewhere. The important factor in which defines the Cathedral as being a "Holy or Spiritual" space would be the use, the way in which the building is used, respected and worshipped in. It is the activity space that makes the place holy or spiritual.

To summarise, Lefebvre proposes that the production of space is not by done through the craftsmanship or choice of materials, or even the arrangement of said materials. But rather through the qualities and feelings that our society will associate with places.  

Howl - Allen Ginsberg

Howl

By Allen Ginsberg

1955-1956

For Carl Soloman

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness"

Mad is certainly one way to describe this reading. With themes of free love, drugs and creative freedom the poem was extremely controversial for its time. The poem was branded as obscene upon release and the distribution of the poem was even prohibited! that was, until the decision was later overturned in court and the poem was declared to be of "redeeming social importance".

The poem is written in three distinct chapters that can be better interpreted upon multiple readings.

I

The first chapter describes his friends, the "angelheaded hipsters" and outcasts of society. Ginsburg expresses throughout this first section how these people have been damaged by their inability to conform to the conventional society of Post-War America.

II

The second chapter of the poem talks of a figure who is continually referred to as “Moloch"

“Moloch whose love is oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the spectre of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the mind! Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch. Cocksucker in Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch!”

Moloch is portrayed as a force of evil and can be interpreted as Capitalism or the indeed the Establishment. Moloch is referenced as Banks, Oil, Electricity and Stone, all prominent items within our society and of Capitalism.

III

The third and last chapter is a much more personal addition to the poem, speaking to Carl Soloman (of whom the poem is dedicated to). Ginsberg met Soloman when he was admitted to the Columbia Psychological Institution in 1949, although he refers to the institution as Rockland in the poem.

The poem is now frantically  building up to a crescendo, in which each line  builds upon the previous line, the poem can be interpreted as taking the reader on a journey in to Carl Soloman's madness, perhaps a metaphor of Ginsburg and Soloman's relationship.  

Ginsburg gives a deep and meaningful social commentary through Howl, and more specifically expresses his views against it. Today Ginsberg is widely recognised as a prominent figure for the Beat Generation and one of America's most highly regarded poets. 

Geothe's Faust: The Tragedy of Development

Goethe’s Faust: The Tragedy of Development

Marshall Berman: All that is Solid Melts into Air

First told as Johann Spiess’s “Faustbuch” of 1587, and again the following year in Christoper Marlowe’s “Tragical History of Doctor Faustus”, there has been many adaptions of this iconic story, however the adaption that this text will be following will be the one written as a play by Johann Wolfgang von Geothe, commonly known as “Geothe’s Faust”, first published in 1808. It is often referred to as Faust Part 1 and Faust Part 2.

In the commentary provided in Marshall Berman’s “All that is Solid Melts into Air” the story of Faust can be traced through three metamorphoses:

·        The Dreamer

·        The Lover

·        The Developer

The Dreamer

The story starts with the Dreamer, Faust is a middle-aged man with no partner nor children, he finds himself detached from the world. As a doctor, Faust becomes depressed as he starts to doubt himself, his purpose, and his work. Feeling as though he has killed more people than he has saved, Faust conjures up some spirits through the use of magic.

Faust conjures a spirit named Mephistopheles who is commonly understood to be the devil.  

The Lover

In the second metamorphoses "The Lover", Faust meets Gretchen whom he develops a bond with. Gretchen can be seen as a representation of everything Faust has left behind.

Gretchens's brother Valentin (a soldier who is described as mean and vain) becomes jealous of Gretchen. However Faust's and Gretchen's love does not last.

The Developer

After the ending of his love with Gretchen, Faust becomes depressed and feels isolated again, not knowing what he will do next.

Faust starts developing an area of land but finds resistance in an elderly couple who decline his offers of compensation if they were to move. Faust is unable to fully achieve his new creation. However Faust in his fury tells Mephistopheles to get rid of the couple by any means, but does not want to know the details of how this is accomplished. When Mephistopheles returns and tells Faust that he killed the couple Faust is angry and feels upset with what has happened and banishes Mephistopheles.

After all this has come to pass Faust is visited by three spectres: Need, Want, Guilt and Care. Faust succeeds in driving the first three spectres away but cannot escape the fourth of these ghosts, being Care. After all he has accomplished Faust cannot bear to confront anything that might cast shadow upon his work.

Jane Rendell: doing it, (un)doing it, (over)doing it yourself - Rhetorics of Architectural Abuse

Jane Rendell: doing it, (un)doing it, (over)doing it yourself

Rhetorics of Architectural Abuse

In this week’s chapter: Rhetorics of Architectural Abuse, Jane Rendall describes to the reader the doing, (un)doing and doing-it-yourself, of architecture.

To explain these three practices: we start with the “doing”, Rendell describes the “doing” of architecture as a utopian act of creation with simply no fuss or mess. Happening almost by magic the architect simply creates as if by accident.

Secondly, the “(un)doing)” of architecture is portrayed as subversive acts towards the building, for example the improper use of spaces once they have been created, or somehow using these spaces and forms of a building inappropriately.

Thirdly the act of “overdoing it” or “doing-it-yourself” is described as the time post-completion of a building and the time more specifically of when it is being used, occupied or enjoyed. It is during this time that the re-use, re-purposing, modifying, altering, decaying, destruction and general swaying from the original building’s ideologies occurs.

Rendell describes her experiences of her somewhat unconventional living arrangements, for example Rendell quotes:

“In my home the boundaries which control and contain public and private activities were intentionally blurred and transgressed. The bath sat in the centre of the room space. The roof space was bedroom, workroom and living room, and many other places all at once. From the bath you could look up into the sky, and down into the toilet, or directly onto the stove, beyond it to those eating at the table, and further through the window into the street. The beauty of lying in the bath and being able to talk to the person lying in the bed next to you, or downstairs to the person preparing food in the kitchen, showed to me the importance of rethinking the kinds of divisions of spaces which we so readily accept.”

 The reader receives an impression that Rendell has some issues with the way in which architecture has been taught to her, feeling as if she has been taught the wrong way, to obey the conventional.

Although it may be extreme, one has to admire her re-interpretation and reuse of spaces, it is interesting to imagine how spaces can be repurposed and explored in different ways from the conventional.

Mathew Crawford: The Case for Working with your Hands

Mathew Crawford: The Case for Working with Your Hands

The Separation of Thinking from Doing

In this chapter Mathew Crawford explains the purge of traditional skills in the early 1900’s with the introduction of the assembly line, the separation of the planning from the execution, and the large scale change across industry to a more fragmented approach to manufacturing with particular regards to Henry Ford’s motor car company as a catalyst to this assembly line process.

Crawford goes on to explain how this change has not only affected manufacturing and physical jobs, but also white collar and service sectors. Crawford explains how, although there is an “eagerness to end shop class & get every warm body into college, thence into a cubicle” white collar professions are also subject to the same routinizations and degradations that hit manual fabrication a hundred years ago. 

Crawford goes on to explain that the professional jobs are also being afflicted with the same processes to divide up tasks and hand over knowledgeable activities to an ever shrinking group of elite workers at the top, and use more and more administrative clerks and assistants to complete these processes, “transferring the knowledge, skill and decision making from employee to employer”.

Crawford rather eloquently compares this to how “computers are transforming the office of the future to the factory of the past”.

Crawford finishes this discussion by asking “What is it that we really want for a young person when we give them vocational advice?” and concludes that the only credible answer as seen by him, is one that “avoids utopianism while keeping an eye on the human good: work that engages the human capacity as fully as possible” perhaps indicating that a young person trying to decide on what career path to take, should pursue one of which might fully engage and challenge them as much as possible, and not for them to end up as a another cog in the corporate machine. 

Crawford concludes his thoughts by stating that this “humane and commonsensical answer goes against the central imperative of capitalism, which assiduously partitions thinking from doing”... a rather thought provoking statement. 

Paul Mason: Post Capitalism A Guide to our Future

Paul Mason: Postcapitalism - A Guide to our Future

Chapter 9: The Rational Case for Panic

This first part of this chapter discusses the direct correlation between economics (or more specifically “the market”) and climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or from here on referred to as the IPCC (an organization working with the support of the United Nations) has stated in their fifth report (published in 2013) that the planet is unequivocally warming. Furthermore, the IPCC is confident that this is primarily caused by human beings using carbon to fuel economic growth.

For the past four years, even though the world has not agreed on a method for preventing dangerous climate change, the world has agreed on a target of reducing global warming to an average temperature of 2°C (3.6°F) above the pre-industrial level.

In Paul Mason’s book: Postcapitalism: a Guide to our Future, he reports that to remain under the two-degree global warming target “we – as a global population – must burn no more than 886 billion tonnes of carbon between the years 2000 and 2049 (according to the International Energy Agency). But the global oil and gas companies have declared the existence of 2.8 trillion tonnes of carbon reserves, and their shares are valued as if those reserves are burnable.”

Mason goes on to explain that with the huge amount of money invested in fossil fuels by private companies and corporations, it is not in our current interests, or rather the “Global Elite’s” interests to decrease our dependency on these limited resources. He arrives at this conclusion by suggesting that if people actually believed we would be reducing the amount of carbon we are burning, and achieve the 2 degrees’ target, the stock market valuation for the top 200 carbon burners would not accumulate to an astronomical $4 trillion in total.

Furthermore, Mason reports that in January 2014, John Aston the British Government’s special representative on Climate Change quoted “the market left to itself will not reconfigure the energy system and transform the economy within a generation”.

Mason suggest that with the energy industry owned by private corporations, no real change is going to be accomplished, or certainly not enough to meet our Climate Change initiatives.

Rowan Moore on Patrick Schumacher

Rowan Moore on Patrick Schumacher

Rowan Moore is an Architecture Critic for the Observer Newspaper, in September 2016 he published an article on Patrick Schumacher, director of Zaha Hadid Architects and alumni of London South Bank University.

In the article Rowan Schumacher is portrayed as an Architect who is Pro Capitalism, and a Brexit supporter who loves the idea of escaping the “paralysing embrace of the EU’s interventionist regulatory overreach”. Schumacher is also portrayed as unapologetic for working for various Dictators, attacking a list of “moralising critics” of whom Rowan Moore considers himself to be one of.

In the article Moore gives some background to Schumacher, born in 1961 Schumacher started working with Zaha Hadid in 1988, and rose to become her “right hand man” continuing working with her up until her death earlier this year. Now Schumacher has taken control of the 400-strong practice and continues as the lead figure in their design across the world.

Schumacher is a strong believer in Parametricism, best described as “a way of designing buildings in such a way that every element can change in response to the multiple parameters – the way people might move through it, for example, the frequency of encounter, their dwell times – to which it is subjected. It exploits the ability of computers both to process complex information and to conceive complex architectural shapes”.

This idea that you feed every single piece of data imaginable into a computer to process your building is a divisive notion, as opposed to the intuitive judgements upon which architecture usually relies upon. Schumacher sees Parametricism as architectural style of capitalism, who believes in free enterprise as the best means to the “human development of prosperity and freedom”.