Summary

Strangely, for someone who usually has difficulty with writing and expressing myself, I really enjoyed writing these blogs. Some of the texts were unbearable, on the other hand, others were inspiring and fascinating to read. I think at times I tend to run away with myself and perhaps lose the argument or point that the writer was trying to make, but I think/hope that my opinions and assessments were understood and legible throughout the blogs.

If I was to take anything away from this exercise, it would be that sharing my opinions (which I was quite anxious about doing with strangers) was an enjoyable and liberating sensation. It was also laborious as they required a great deal of editing due to appalling spelling and grammar mistakes. Another thing I got out of this experience was an appreciation for Allen Ginsberg’s and Jack Kerouac’s work, who were previously unknown to me. I was hoping to have “On The Road” finished by this time, so I could undoubtedly finish this summery by sharing some profound, spiritual knowledge, but I haven’t, so instead I will just leave you with one of my favourite quotes:

"who threw potato salad at CCNY lecturers on Dadaism

and subsequently presented themselves on the

granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads

and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous

lobotomy,

and who were given instead the concrete void of insulin

Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy

occupational therapy Ping-Pong & amnesia,"

Fountain Head / Mass Murder

Lebbeus Woods said that this movie "has had an immense impact on the public perception of architects and architecture, and also on architects themselves for better and for worse"'

Should we like or dislike the image that this movie has made for architects. In truth I’m conflicted. I love the fact that Roark, whose design has been grossly changed without his consent, blows it up because as he says himself "I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist". But I also hate that we, as architects, are so often seen as arrogant and pretentious about our designs, which we see as art that is ours and ours alone. This is simply not true, if when Van Gogh painted the Starry Night was asked by his client or an admirer to change the colour of the sky, he with his integrity intact could simply say “Piss Off”. However for an architect, this is not so simple, because we design for others, not just for clients, but those who will walk by, see, live or work in the area. Not to mention the mere fact that our design is not ours alone.

When Roark blow up his design he also destroyed work, labour and taught placed into it by 100's of other professionals. Can we not think of the Project Manager managing the project, the engineers, the layers and the assistants that have played a role in the design/construction? Should we not assume that they take as much pride in their work as Roark; that they see the shambles and fragments of Roark’s destruction as a loss of well laboured and productive work? This movie, in trying to romanticize the thought that an idea belongs to the creator, fails to tell the whole story.

In many ways I agree with this thought, but it’s a very narrow view to take. This belief that an idea belongs to the creator and therefore they should be allowed to control it, somehow reminded me of a interview I saw about Cody R. Wilson, who designed the first 3D printed fire arm and then posted the designs on-line for free download. Listening to him made me livid. I am against people who are unlicensed and inexperienced owning guns; I will also never understand the need for anyone outside the military/police force to own a machine gun. At least a shot gun is built to hunt animals but machine guns are built to kill people. Why anyone would need or want one is beyond me. However Cody Wilson claims his actions are "it’s intently disrupted - that’s true" and that this is a political statement to show that "Gun control for us is a fantasy".

Never in my life have I wanted to kill another person so much by using their own invention against them. Anyone know where the nearest 3D printer is?

Does he not have the right to control his idea/invention? - YES

Should knowledge and invention not be shared? - YES

YES in a perfect world, then again in a perfect world there wouldn’t be mass shootings in schools. There wouldn’t be drive by shooting or armed robbery. I am horrified at the thought of who and for what reason people are downloading these designs and makeing their own homemade killing machines.

His argument is that it is "attractive" that "none of this is serialized as you may notice…… if you are 12 years old you can buy it online which I think is a thing of beauty." and then continues to state that "What’s great right now about America, is that you can buy ammunition on-line". Can he seriously not see the implications of his actions? not to mention that he is undoubtedly destroying the ideas that the creators of the 3D printer had; surely they envisaged their invention as a way to improve the future and not to destroy it.

Dickhead!

Decline and fall of the West

In “Decline and fall of the West” we see an unusual and somewhat obscene architect in the form of Otto Friedrich Silenus. The professor as he likes to be called, dreams of a world that is empty of human life, in fact he says that “All ill comes from man…… Man is never beautiful, he is never happy except when he becomes the channel for the distribution of mechanical forces.' Machines are what he considers a superior race. This character is so ridiculous, as are all the characters in this novel, but at the same time he has some theories and ideologies that can fit into our world. His theory of machines seems to be completely absurd as I don’t know of any architect who wants to design a building which will never be lived in or used by people. Yet Professor Silenus’ general gloominess and hate for all things human, while extreme, does have some actuality. Have we not at one time or another wished for an easier project, one without clients, users etc. A project where the placement of “a staircase” or windows and doors dosen't meant returning to the drawing board (or computer screen for anyone under the age of 20).

It’s not until his final ramblings that we can see that his taught process come to a critical point when he speaks of life on the “Luna Park” wheel, a strange metaphor, but an understandable one. He sees himself near or “at the centre”. His disgust at humans would incline me to believe he would not even want to “join in the game”. He describes the position he is in as being “slower, it is moving and the easier it is to stay on…….. when we do get to the middle, it’s just as if we never started. It’s so odd”. Yet he feels pity for Paul who is “static” seeing him as a “quite different species spiritually”.

I wonder when he talks of the “scrambling and excitement and bumps and the effort to get to the middle” is he describing his time designing the King's Thursday? This was his first large project which he says “I hate and detest every bit of it. Nothing I have ever done has caused me so much disgust.” But he is near to the centre now, yet he hasn't changed much, despite deciding to marry Margot, at learning of her marriage to another he simply reply’s “Oh well, it doesn’t matter really” or does this sudden interest in human life and spirituality hint at a possible interest in his fellow man? Can this change help him to reach “a point completely at rest, if one could only find it”? 

Goethe’s Gretchen - Tragic?

“All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.”  - Blaise Pascal

In truth I feel pity for Goethe’s Faust, as I’m sure everyone does. With all his knowledge and learning he is alone and desperate for a connection to the world. Only in his attempt to kill himself, he finds a connection. This connection is one formed in his childhood to a world he has broken away from. His childhood memories of bells ringing are what brings him back to life; a life once again with purpose and want. It is in Gretchen that he finally finds love and companionship. A girl from and similar to the people in his childhood village. She will never be able to be his equal, be free from the dominant religious and deep-rooted style of thinking.

Gretchen – oh God, not another innocent woman incapable of having her own aspirations, opinions or will! Yes, yes she is just that! Marshall Berman attempts to argue that “Gretchen is in fact a more dynamic, interesting and genuinely tragic figure than she is usually made out to be”, but is she really? I can’t see it. She is confined in this small town until Faust takes her out of it and then she is trapped in his world, a world she will never fully be a part of. Nothing she does is by her own will but by following the will of others. If it wasn’t for falling in love with Faust, what else is her purpose in life? She would be forever trapped whether its in her devout old town, in Faust’s world, in isolation or prison. Either way you look at it, she is imprisoned, incapable of helping herself and a victim to all people and circumstance. Boring! The only tragedy is, not that she dies, but that she has no fight, no motivation. Did she ever really live?

On the Road

I feel like I have to write a blog about this book as we only touched on the subject in relation to Allen Ginsberg “Howl”. This poem - I loved it; Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac’s writing style and techniques are different even though their stories are from the same era and exploring similar views. In their different ways and from different viewpoints, they in their own right telling the truth. This is reflected not only in the stories they share but in the language the use. They talk friends; their language as their stories are unapologetic. Just honest, at least to them. One thing I would say if you are to read “On the Road” is don’t read the introduction. Truthfully with “Howl” I read it without bias. It is unfortunate I read the intro to "On the Road" because as I read deeper into the book and identified with the characters, I realised what a mistake I made reading it. It frustrates me that I know the original manuscript started with “I first met Neal not long after my father died … I had just gotten over a serious illness that I won’t bother to talk about except that it really had something to do with my father’s death and my awful feeling that everything was dead.” rather than “I first met Dean not long after my wife and I split up. I had just gotten over a serious illness that I won’t bother to talk about except that it had something to do with the miserably weary split-up and my feeling that everything was dead” or that he edited out the details of Deans and Carlos homosexual relationship which he said “cemented their relationship”.

Somehow these lies hit hard. But why? The story maintains its ups and downs, it morals and meanings. Still it hurts me to think that while I read this book I see the genuineness of Kerouac’s story, exaggerated as most stories are, but is still truthful in the way he conveys the joyous excitement he felt during his adventures. So why hide his vulnerability at his father’s death? Why hide Carlos and Deans homosexual relationship? If I’m to believe that all or that everything else is real and honest for him at that time, then why lie? And knowing this lie hurts me, I now hope that what he tells is true but I can no longer believe it.

Is he too vulnerable to admit to his readers that grief destroyed him? Was he worried about dragging his family problems into the book?

Was he somehow ashamed or jealous of Dean's and Carlos' gay relationship? Or worried about what affect this truth would have on his friends? Was he protecting them? But then why bother changing the names.

Howl - In Laughter

To truly laugh, you must be able to take your pain, and play with it! - Charlie Chaplin

It’s funny how some people can be so narrow-minded and cynical that they cannot see past what they define as bad language and vulgarity, especially when a poem such as "Howl" can convey such emotion and sincerity. While I often struggle with poetry because it is often contrived, snooty and, at times, the concepts are incomprehensible, this poem captivated me. This affect- as I am no poet and as a dyslexic, I admire how Allen Ginsberg has the ability to express himself in a wonderfully open and vivid way. But I was affected, not just once or in one way but every time I read it, it had a different affect on me. Whether it was sorrow for those "visionary Indian angels" or anger against "Moloch" particularly because "Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy! ". One thing I loved in specific was the humour of it all. I know this is a solemn and tragic poem, about grave issues and depressing times, but Ginsberg in this poem has an extremely dark sense of humour. Maybe it’s just me but I couldn't stop laughing every time I read “Who …… subsequently presented themselves on the granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy, and who were given instead the concrete void of insulin, Metrazol, electricity, hydrotherapy, psychotherapy, occupational therapy, Ping-Pong & amnesia". It’s as if he is saying look, look at just how completely insane and ludicrous it is to have people whose only crime is soul-searching for the unknown, the mysterious and the spiritual.

Is this not funny? We are so desperate for wealth and power that we offer up our sacrifice - sacrificing our food, water and energy sources. We are starving and polluting our future and the future of our children (sacrifice) for our greed (Moloch) and some of us don't even realize it. In fact a large majority of governments (“doctors of insanity”) still don't realise it. We are the blind being led by the blind or worse we see, we fight and we fail, and in desperation beg for a "lobotomy".

Still funny!!

Comparing Palladio to Le Corbusier - Why?

In Mathematics of the Ideal Villa, does Colin Rowe try too hard to identify a connection between Palladio and Le Corbusier? I tend to disagree with Rowe anyway, particularly when he states that “Palladia, writing elsewhere, amplifies the ideal life of the villa. Its owner, from within a fragment of created order, will watch the maturing of his possessions and savour the piquancy of contrast between his fields and his gardens; reflecting on mutability, he will contemplate throughout the years the antique virtues of a simpler race, and the harmonious ordering of his life and his estate will be an analogy of paradise.” Well while I expect many would find this a haven of serenity, I would go out of my mind in this “fragment of created order”. I guess I’m just one of these people who strive in chaos and is at home in mess and dirt.

But back to my original point, Rown declares that “These are two buildings which, in their forms and evocations, are superficially so entirely unlike that to bring them together would seem to be facetious; but, if the obsessive psychological and physical gravity of the Malcontenta receives no parallel in a house which sometimes wishes to be a ship, sometimes a gymnasium, this difference of mood should not be allowed to inhibit scrutiny.” This attempt to compare the similarities of both buildings is a desperate one. Anyone could find some similarities between a shoe and a tube station if they examined them hard enough, but is this enough of a reason to do it? Is it simply because he wished to compare Palladio's Villa Foscari to Mr and Mrs Michael Stein's House, simply because it is Le Corbusier? Does he write about Le Corbusier just to give his text a wider reading audience? 

Is it terrible to say that I’m getting bored of Le Corbusier? Well, what I should say is that I’m getting bored of the constant talks about him. It’s like hearing your favourite song being played every 5 minutes by all stations. It gets over-played to the point where you want to blow your brains out rather than hear it again. I don’t want to criticize architectural courses, but its constant “Le Corbusier this, Le Corbusier that”, it’s a rare moment if you can talk about any other architecture at all.

Please, please just a little less Le Corbusier, before I start to hate him altogether!