Showing posts with label Modernism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Modernism. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Hidden Garden


Queen Elizabeth Jubilee Garden, Mississauga, Ontario
[Photo By: KPA]


The Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Garden is a tiny space located behind Mississauga's City Hall. The grass needs patching, and a blue bench in the far corner needs some paint. This is indicative of the absence of recently retired Mayor Hazel McCallion, the forceful, formidable leader of Mississauga, who never lost an election, and who had to retire when (because) she reached her nineties. The entire city center is full of her touches, giving this rather bland Toronto suburb a character of its own. I fear, though, like the park, there may not be other dedicated leaders to continue McCallion's legacy. They are more interested in promoting multiculturalism. The link leads to Mississauga's yearly festival Carassauga which tells us that "Over 72 countries [are] represented at 28 Pavilion Locations, throughout Mississauga" - note the 72 countries all represented in Canada! This is not an international event, but a local and national one. This clearly refers to the multicultral and not international nature of the event. Dedicating parks to English monarchs is far from the agenda of Mississauga's, and Canada's, leaders.

Here is more from Mississauga.ca on the park:
The Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Garden is located at 300 City Centre Drive and was originally named Civic Garden Park or the Rose Garden. It is 0.17 hectares.

This garden has been part of the Civic Centre since it was originally dedicated on July 18, 1987 by The Duke and Duchess of York. Fifteen years later in October 2002, Buckingham Palace agreed to have the garden formerly named The Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Garden in commemoration of Her Majesty The Queen's 50th Anniversary of Her Accession to The Throne. (The full article is available at Mississauga.ca)
As always with beautiful things in our modern world, we have to deal with the ugly alongside it, competing for space and for attention.

Right in the middle of the garden, there is a hideous, rusted iron "sculpture." I tried to find its title, and its creator, and was able to do so at the Mississauga.ca website.


Anne Harris (1908)
Canadian
Northern Eye
Bronze
1995


Here is how the website describes it:
The sculpture the Northern Eye done by Anne Harris is cast bronze and steel and is a more humanized example of Harris' work which tends to be more geometric and mechanical in character. This piece evokes a definite sense of vulnerability and is a provocative and dynamic piece as it displays the artist's interest in interior and exterior space and also poignantly references the human body as a vessel and the body, metaphorically, as a wound.
The author of this description is at odds about how to describe a work he clearly dislikes, but he cannot be forthcoming about his opinion, where the Art God reigns supreme in modern culture.

Below is Harris's Monarch. A faceless head-like structure. I wonder why the park chose Northern Eye, other than its obvious Canadian reference? The park is after all commemorating Queen Elizabeth. Well, the committee which made this decision was wary even of the Northern Eye, and I would think that its members couldn't find it in them to put this lump of "monarch" bronze in the garden dedicated to their queen.

This little garden is hidden in many aspects. It is hidden from view. This diminishes its importance and its association with a British monarch. It is hidden in intent where codes and representatives have to be used to deflect, or to diminish, its original and true intent. Harris becomes its cover, and Queen Elizabeth is put on the periphery. It's grandeur is hidden, or diminished, where the flowers and plants are small and unassuming, considering it was set up to celelabrate Queen Elizabeth's jubilee.

I am therefore at odds about it. Its small size, and removal from a grand and open space, gives it charm and character. But it is too small for what it represents. It would have been better to have given it another name altogether, and to remove Queen Elizabeth's identity. Better to have no monarch at all than one with such diminished presence.


Anne Harris (1908)
Canadian
Monarch
Bronze
1974

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, November 8, 2013

The Great War and a World Shattered

A World, Shattered
By: Sage McLaughlin
Posted at What's Wrong With the World

The spiritual crisis engulfing the West entails not only revisionist academics’ skepticism concerning the Resurrection as an historical fact, or of the doctrine of the Trinity. So decadent and thoroughgoing is the skepticism of modern man that a willful embrace of ugliness, a worship of personal power for its own sake, and an unrestrained exaltation of the self are the most obvious features of our culture and our public life. A rejection of form as such is implicated here. There is a calamitous discordancy in all our public rituals. Our national anthem is seldom performed with reverence and beauty, being reduced to wild and extravagant displays of “range” on the part of the performer. The confused Novus Ordo Catholic liturgy celebrated in virtually every contemporary parish lurches from the sudden, crashing onset of noise, to awkward silence, is afflicted by incessant contradiction in the movement of the unconsecrated to and from the altar, and suffers from a near-complete absence of coherent form that is the necessary picture frame of ritual. Disorientation is our preferred orientation.

The last hundred years would seem to bear out Fr. Seraphim Rose’s contention in Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age that Western man, having once received and accepted the truth of Christian revelation, could not but descend into nihilism and madness if ever he rejected it. I will not bother trying to defend that proposition, though of course there are many people who would dismiss it or find it offensive. Still, what in economics has been referred to as a hermeneutics of “revealed preferences” might be worth something here; that is, the truth about people can be discerned not by asking them what they think about a subject, as in a public opinion poll, but by watching what they say and do under relevant conditions. And we can say that the disintegration of the Christian consensus, the embrace of a thousand heresies that put man and his politics in place of God and His divine Law, and the rejection of the “Old Order” of the European monarchies ultimately manifested itself in the mechanization of mass murder known as the First World War. Thus when the German Expressionist painter Otto Dix (1891-1969) went to fight in the trenches on behalf of the Kaiser, he said that he carried with him two texts: the Holy Bible, and Frederich Nietzsche’s Also sprach Zarathustra.

The Great War was, in one sense, the end of the world. Dix’s often grotesque, desolating works in the years during and after that war (which I do not recommend beyond their interest as objects of analysis) do not so much portray the visible destruction of the European cities, which were left largely unmolested by the shells; indeed, one could have toured Munich, Paris, London, Budapest, or Prague in those days without detecting that there even was a war. Instead, the images Dix crafted are of a world shattered, and it is striking to me just how closely the artistic style of the period resembles nothing so much in aspect as a broken mirror, a lugubrious expression of angst by a civilization that no longer knew what it was, but was haunted by the terrible knowledge that all things were now twisted and misshapen. His self-portraits vividly show us the transmogrification of the Western man, beginning with the scowling 21-year-old Dix’s Self-Portrait with Carnation (1912):

Self-Portrait with Carnation (1912)

By the end of his first few months during the “Phony War” of late 1914, we see the piercing, knowing eyes recede into anxious blots of doubt, lurking beneath the prominent golden sun of the gunner’s insignia, the bright baubles of state obscuring the increasingly faceless and uncertain man:

Self-portrait with Gunner's Helmet (1914)

By the time of Self-portrait as Mars (1915), the human being is annihilated, having been reduced to the raw material of the apocalypse, a metallic figure with a wheel in place of his heart, the self now scattered as shards in a maelstrom:

Self Portrait as Mars, 1915

The Western art world, influenced by cubism and led by Expressionists like Dix, was belching forth an endless stream of content that was evocative of cataclysm, of a world broken and devoid of beauty. This visual style, replicated in thousands of similar images from the interwar period, was perhaps most famously delivered to a mass audience by the classic Robert Wiene film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Robert Wiene (1873–1938)
Scene from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, 1920


It is a remarkable point that The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is sometimes credited with introducing the concept of the “twist” ending in cinema, and that the particular twist envisaged here is the now-shopworn script in which the main characters are revealed to be the inhabitants of an insane asylum, the entire story a homicidal delusion. Such was the logic of the cosmic cul-de-sac of post-Kantian modernism, which promised a morality that was both universal and a product of the human mind.

Robert Wiene (1873–1938)
Scene from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, 1920


All of this was brought into focus for me by a piece of architecture that was not, surprisingly, the work of a corrupt American Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Nor was it the work of Daniel Libeskind, whose original concept for the post-9/11 reconstitution of Ground Zero was an adolescent expression of avante garde contempt for ordinary standards of beauty and form (his colleague Jeffery Kipnis probably said more than he intended about the contemporary art world when he remarked of Libeskind, “There’s only one Daniel in the world of architecture. I’m glad there’s Daniel, and I’m glad there’s no other.”) No, I am myself a modern man, so of course what actually got me thinking about this particular continuity in our art and architecture was the new football stadium for the Atlanta Falcons. Though long an enthusiast of organized sports, I just cannot imagine what would attract a person whose only knowledge of the subject was this artist’s rendering to take part in anything that happened in that building.

The incessant braying of our loud, vain, ugly public rituals signifies terminal decay. Now having been inured to it, there is next to no offense against beauty and dignified public order that will not find its defenders, all the more if it is packaged as entertainment. Spectacles of apocalyptic violence and destruction are more popular than ever. They are no longer even expressions of introspective horror, but of positive delight at the cleansing of a world devoid of meaning and coherence, and a return to something simpler--the void. Incredibly, this was the “promise” of the First World War which, many people do not realize, was in its beginnings very popular and a cause of exhilaration and even optimism across Europe.

It occurs to me that what all this imagery prefigures for the human race is indeed a cleansing fire, but not one of our own making. In contrast to that unhappy thought, in my next post I will take a glimpse back at the beauty and the order that still was, even amid so much turmoil and confusion, and still might be, if only in our own little gardens. But now, to bed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, November 7, 2013

From Error to Truth

St. Thomas of Aquinas
Detail from The Demidoff Altarpiece, 1476
By Carlo Crivelli (1430-1494)
The National Gallery of Art, London


Laura Wood, from The Thinking Housewife, writes:
“The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.”
— St. Thomas Aquinas
Contemporary depictions of saints, and other biblical personalities, including Jesus, render them in soft light with benign faces. I think that couldn't be farther from the truth. The guidance from error to truth is a tall order, but also requires the greatest of humility. Those who undertake this, with the saints and Jesus as their guides, must realize the enormity of their task. Jesus knew this. And Saint Thomas of Aquinas shows this burden in his portrait above.

Below, on the left, is Diogo Morgado as the 21st century rendition of Jesus, from The History Channel series The Bible. Even if this Jesus were to get angry (in front of the temple, for example), or he suffers on the cross, he would end up looking like a Ken doll. (Would Mary then be a Barbie? I should work out this "artitist" project and make myself famous at the next Venice Biennial). A feature film is planned for February 2014, "inspired by the success of The Bible," as this site tells us. What epic can a Diogo Morgado, the actor slotted to play Jesus, inspire?

Ken Doll and G.Q. Jesus
The tattoo and the stigma are interchangeable.


Jesus from Cecil B. DeMille's 1927 The King of Kings
Played by H. B. Warner


Hollywood directors and actors of the 1920s and 1930s, and perhaps as late as the early 1960s, who produced the majority of Biblical films (worth watching), gave us the best filmic renditions of Jesus and other Old and New Testament forces. H. B. Warner played Jesus at age fifty-two. Granted that Jesus was a young man of thirty-three in the scriptures, but what contemporary actor that age can convince us of the path from error to truth? Perhaps the serious Leonardo DiCaprio might do so,


But not him, or him, or him, etc., etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, September 2, 2013

In Vogue, and Out


Vogue Magazine Cover from the 1950s
They don't make them like this anymore


I got the latest Vogue for "free" because of my accumulated Chapters/Indigo points. I do like going through the magazine's glossy pages, although I'm always disappointed at the non-fashionable fashion that makes the cut these days. We have come a long way from the heyday of Vogue, when glamorous models and women fronted the magazine (and its interior, too).

The front cover of the September 2013 issue has a pouty actress, one of the new breed that's taking over the media scene (television, magazines, movies, gossip columns). For what it's worth, it is Jennifer Lawrence (I doubt that she'll stick around long enough to be a memorable cultural icon).



Besides her pouty presence, the magazine has crowded the front cover which so many headlines that it looks exactly like the gossip/fashion magazine Cosmopolitan, which I haven't bought in years.


Salacious and crowded cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine
for September 2013



Farah Fawcette on the Vogue cover of July 1978.
Much less crowded.


I suspect I will continue to avoid buying Vogue in the future (except to redeem my card points).

In this September's issue of Vogue, I skipped through a mannequin-like pose of what I thought was a model. "Another emaciated, dead-looking fashion shot for an uninteresting dress," I thought, as I turned the page.

I found out, as correspondent David J., at Laura Wood's The Thinking Housewife writes:
Good day! While perusing the CNN website recently, I came upon a nearly cheesecake photograph of Marissa Mayer, the current CEO of Yahoo! The picture, intended for this spread in Vogue magazine, immediately reminded me of the following maxim by the late Lawrence Auster.
David J. quotes Lawrence Auster's maxim:
When men occupy a high office, it is for the purpose of doing a job. The job comes first. When women occupy a high office, it is for their self and their vanity. Public boasting about their “power” comes first, along with displays of themselves.
And he continues:
what amazes me about Ms. Mayer is that, despite her reputable academic accomplishments and immense merits in Silicon Valley, she still apparently places her sexual beauty at center stage.
Laura relies:
Well, what would you expect her to do? Of course, she’s using her attractiveness and the novelty of her position to seek attention. She is doing her job. I am sure that’s partly why she was hired though, of course, it would never be openly stated. She would be remiss in not fulfilling these expectations. She is doing her job.
The rest of the interaction is here, with other comments added.

Women may still want to look feminine and men may still want feminine (and pretty) women around, but the image of the pretty woman has changed.

We now have skinny, sculptural women who look like the manequins that pose in store windows. They have dead, expressionless eyes, and stiff wooden bodies. I suppose men are going for this since it shows some kind of prestige. After all, in this feminist world, a working woman, who can also pose for glamour magazines like Vogue, is a big catch. And her skinniness and quasi-inhumanness is a small price to pay for the prestige.

Still, I wonder how long it will be before men outright refuse to be around women like Mayer, who can probably be charming and feminine in her interactions, but who at some point will have to behave like the business woman she has to be in order not to run her company to the ground.

Or, she might assume a subsidiary, but superficially glossy position, and give the real meat of the running of a company to a ruthless male. They can call him all the names, while she gets all the praise.

Again, this is temporary. There is no guarantee that the "ruthless" male won't run her down, or out, while she's busy arranging child-care schedules and fashion shoots with ladies' magazines. Actually, I think that there is ample guarantee that a male colleague will do just that.


Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, posing in a rubber-like dress for the prestigious fashion magazine Vogue,
in the September 2013 issue.

She is wearing a Michael Kors Sheath (that's how the magazine describes the dress) for $1,896


Wikipedia describes a sheath dress as:
...a type of dress designed to fit close to the body, relatively unadorned [which] typically falls around the knees or lower thighs.
The dress looks like its made out of rubber (and that is probably the intended effect), but a closer look in the magazine photo shows that it is wool. Strange, on many counts. Mayer looks like she's lounging on some kind of pool-side chair. And wearing wool? The dress is short-sleeved. Wool dresses are meant for keeping one warm, but Kors and Mayer are not after practicality, but glamour. And finally, this rubber effect gives an S&M; quality to the image. Is that how a CEO wants to portray herself? Apparently so.

Here are some hilarious Vogue 2009 shots titled "Pregnant in Prada" of Mayer in maternity wear, and the various Vogue selections to enhance her pregnancy wardrobe:


"Pregnant in Prada"
Mayer in 2009 Vogue


Here is the 2009 Vogue "Tuesday" ensemble, for the pregnant CEO, from a select group of designers:


Clockwise from left:
Boy. by Band of Outsiders leather-trim blazer, $1,395
lagarconne.com

J Brand 340 leggings-style maternity jeans, $195
net-a-porter.com

Proenza Schouler PS1 iPad case, $685
barneys.com

Reed Krakoff oxford leather loafers, $625
net-a-porter.com


Stylish, they are not. But practical and comfortable, for the busy pregnant lady, with the huge pocket book.

Women have come a long way. Actually, not so long. Look at Jennifer Lawrence's Vogue pose from above, a twenty-three-year-old woman who is pouting like Nabokov's pre-adolescent Lolita.


Left: Sue Lyon as Lolita, in Stanley Kubrik's 1962 film Lolita (after Nabokov's 1955 book, Lolita)
Right: Jennifer Lawrence on Vogue's 2013 cover


Women will be women, and girls will be girls. If left to their own devices, they will simply start to pout, or arrange day-care schedules from their top-floor, glass offices.

And back to CEO Mayer.

Paul, at the Thinking Housewife, writes, referring to a 2013 photograph of Mayer:
And she is not even beautiful. She might have been at one time, but no more. She needs to cut her hair.
This may be a harsh, but Mayer asked for it. She is so busy scheduling executive meetings and nanny pick-ups, that her glamour shots of previous years have gone down the tube.

Hers is the look of the veteran do-it-all female of our era.

Here is the 2013 photograph:



The caption to the photograph reads:
Pictured in 2013, Mayer has often been named one of the most powerful women in business. "I didn't set out to be at the top of technology companies," she told Vogue magazine. "I'm just geeky and shy and I like to code. ... It's not like I had a grand plan where I weighed all the pros and cons of what I wanted to do—it just sort of happened."
Good excuse: she's just geeky and shy, with a million-dollar wardrobe budget.

Here is Mayer, a few years ago, in 2008 (left), pretty and smiling, and the toll on her "it just sort of happened" face in 2013:



As Paul said: "And she is not even beautiful. She might have been at one time, but no more. She needs to cut her hair."

Of course, she had to upgrade (re-upgrade, I wonder how long it took to make her look that good) her look for the September 2013 Vogue article, but its back to business when she gets back to business.

Back to the Vogue issue. The eccentric photographer Annie Leibovitz has done a great job of portraying the Irish landscape, with her series of photographs. The clothes, as is usual in the 21st century depiction of style and beauty, are atrocious, but the scenery is stunningly beautiful. Here's one:



But this is its only redeeming quality.

More dead mannequins in the September 2013 Vogue:


The caption reads:
Tripping The Light Fantastic

Built for women who seem to be really, really going places: practical, everyday chic—no fidgety patterns or trims to muck up travel, intergalactic or otherwise.
The models have names:

Raquel (standing on the right) is wearing:
- Narciso Rodriguez tangerine shift, $1,895
neimanmarcus.com. Céline necklace. Michael Kors heels.

Toni:
- Balenciaga wool-mohair sweater with plaster effect ($1,545)
- Balenciaga Crepe pants ($1,235)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Strands of Connection: Leading us to Abstraction

Strands of Connection
Unpublished article originally written in November 21, 2007
By: Kidist P. Asrat

Paul Strand’s basic idea never changed throughout his photographic career. Starting with his early, slightly out-of-focus 1916 prints to his much later views in Time in New England as well as his huge collection of portraits, his underlying theme has always been to connect.

Photography is a visual medium. But modern artists have a tradition of cross-referencing the sensations – known as synaesthesia. The most famous example of synaesthesia is Scriabin's Clavier a Lumières. Scriabin worked out a system of 'playing' colored lights with the keys of the piano where certain notes would cause certain colored lights to project, thus merging visual and aural experiences. Many other examples abound of artists describing colors that elicit tastes, and sounds that conjure up smells.

The sensation of touch is the least openly discussed of the modern artists' exploration of synaesthesia. Perhaps it is the most sublime or subconscious. And the most personal. It is easier to talk about more distant ideas like the color of sounds or the taste of shapes. To incorporate touch into one's art, both as a physical act and an emotional condition, suggests a vulnerability and a lack or human associations - the art becomes the contact. It no longer becomes an idea, but a necessity.

I believe this is where modern art makes one of its most hidden contributions. When perspective and depth, refined in the Renaissance painters, was slowly removed from the modern artist's technique, the canvass or the surface started to take on an important role. The surface, which started to take on a pronounced presence with the early modernists, continues to be so today.

Many modern artists talk about the material or the medium (the paint, the canvass, the paper) as having equal importance as the colors, forms, concepts and any other dimensions that help them create their art. Modern painters often evoke the surface of their canvass by adding layers of paint to distort the smoothness of the painting and to encourage us to touch these hanging pieces of sculptured paint. This exploration of the surface, both for the artist and the viewer, becomes part of the piece.

We see this reliance on surface in Strand's earliest photographs. His 1916 Chicken: Twin Lakes, Connecticut achieves this by the slightly out-of-focus, grainy quality of his print where the softened surface and tiny dots provides a textural as well as a visual effect. The photograph is also flattened, with no clear perspective, and the chicken dotted around as though patterns on a flat piece of cloth.


Chicken, Twin Lakes Connecticut 1916

His later abstracted - but still recognizable - works appear to lose this soft, dusty effect with their clean-cut and sharply focused prints. Yet, they too are very much concerned with the surface. Under the influence of the cubists, Strand would start to experiment with the geometric shapes that so befitted the angular buildings and streets of his New York series. As his 1915 Wall Street shows, he is using pure basic shapes of rectangles and straight lines (with his famous angled shots) to lead us into abstraction. His shadowy people act more as linear props than human characters. City Hall Park is still using formal structures with the curves and weaves of the linear footpath, and the more willowy human figures, to create recognizable forms. Eventually, he would produce his almost unrecognizable Chair Abstraction in 1916.


Left: Wall Street 1915
Right: City Hall Park 1915



Chair, Abstract 1916

But we shouldn't be deceived by these dehumanized figures and distorted daily objects. Although they do play a structural role in his photographs, the whole exercise is still about touch. The geometry and scattered patterns once again flatten the image, guiding us to explore the surface (and touch it if the museum wardens would let us), rather subsume us deeper into the picture.

All these ideas, I believe, lead to Strand's most beautiful work: "Time in New England". Its themes, the most important of which I think is connecting with America, can be glimpsed in this 1916 precursor "White Fence" shot in Port Kent, New York. Besides the iconic image of the idealized American fence, this is a photograph of pure geometrics. Rhythms and basic shapes (squares and rectangles) dominate to give us once again that disconcerting flatness where we expect conventional perspective. We are invited to connect with, touch, this image of an American landscape.


White Fence Port Kent 1916

Strand’s "Time in New England" was part of his life-long interest in taking pictures of specific locations. He was an avid traveler and took photographs in nearby Mexico and Quebec and as far afield as Morocco and Ghana. Yet "Time in New England" touches us the most. After all, it is his home. It is America. These were the years when he was concerned for his America out in the war fronts in Europe as by what was happening (in his views) internally. He had just completed "Native Land"; his patriotic documentary. “I wanted to look with vivid and intimate clarity into the past” says Strand in "Time in New England". All the more need to connect with those things that appeared to have been lost and bring them back to the surface, and to the present.

His most memorable photograph in this series is plainly titled “Church” which he took in Vermont in 1946. Once again, it appears to be a simplistic view of a quintessential American landscape – the plain New England wooden colonial Church. One can now call it iconic. It seems at though Strand were physically constructing this little church by placing the basic shapes – squares, triangles, the tiny circular window and even the swirls of clouds and scrawled of branches - directly onto the photographic paper. Perhaps it is something he wishes he could actually do, rather than click the aperture and make such a quick reproduction without contact with the parts.

We are also made to feel as though we could pick up these pieces of plank and build our own version, reuniting us with the pioneers who sawed and nailed the wood with their own bare hands. The rhythmic repetition of the horizontal planks provide a roughened texture to be stroked, much like a piece of fabric made out of coarse wool or flaxen. The distorted angle reminds us that we’re looking at a recreated structure, refusing us a suspension of disbelief that a perfected, right-angled building would induce. We are looking at, rather than into, this photograph. Finally, the croppings on the side and on top are an invitation for us to complete the picture, in our computer screens, in our own imagination or into our living rooms. Strand’s pictorial guides encourage us to be part of this picture, to touch it and connect with it, and to reach back into history and perhaps feel the energy and effort put by the plain folk who made this historic contribution. We have touched them, and Strand has touched us.


Church 1944

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:
Paul Strand. Time in New England: Photos.Text selected and edited by Nancy Newhall. New York: Aperture, 1980
Why people photograph: Selected essays and reviews. Robert Adams. New York: Aperture, 1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, June 3, 2013

"Bill on Bill"
Don Quixote Fighting Windmills


The text reads:
City in Bloom

The nonchalant look prevails at the Union Square Greenmmarket on Sundays. A bunch of poppies plopped in a bucket were not arranged by a designer, and yet they have an appeal that would attract an artist's eye. The same is true with the shoppers' attire. It's New York at its most relaxed style moment, excluding the kids who look like summer butterflies in their print dresses and shade hats. The new Andy Warhol statue, a few yards from his Factory, peers over the square from its column perched in a seating area north of the park. It wasn't long before Campbell's soup cans were decorating the pedestal, some holding flowers.
[Photo and text from On the Street, the New York Times Style Section, June 5, 2011]



Bill Cunningham closing in on a burgundy hat. His quest for beauty often brings him up close, usually to color. He probably also liked her yellow clutch. He uses whatever palette he's given, but I imagine he goes out of his way to avoid drab blacks and greys, unless he's infusing some sense of humor into this "colorlessness."



The famous Christian Louboutin red soles, and with leopard print and fur trims. Worth crouching down for. But then again, I would imagine Cunningham was looking for the contrast between the sneakers and the stylish ankle boots. He might even have a narrative: Well-heeled lady with scruffy boyfriend. That seems to be the trendy coupling of our era.



Louboutin originals run for about $1050, knock-offs for around $160. I doubt that the "street boots" on Cunningham's model are the real thing. This fits with Cunningham's "style in the street" vision. And I doubt that he cares too much whether they are real or not. Why not look good for a fraction the price? Equality in beauty. Still, he would know, and everyone else would know, that these are not really the real thing. To see that, one would need to go to the high class, high society functions. There is a hierarchy in beauty, after all.



Cunningham takes a photo of model and actress Carolyn Murphy, which is printed in the fashion magazine Harper's Bazaar. I don't know who she is, but it is typically likely that Cunningham does. His shot looks spontaneous enough that he wasn't part of a photo shoot, and just happened to see Murphy in the street. High fashion meets street sense, spontaneously.

I wonder why he's taking a shot of her head? It must be the pale pink handkerchief she's tied around her head - à la Jackie Onassis?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently did a review of the film Bill Cunningham New York, about the fashion photographer Bill Cunningham. He doesn't figure in Wikipedia's list of Fashion Photographers, and if any of them would know him, it would be through his tiny sections in the New York Times Styles section Sunday edition: "On the Street" and "Evening Hours."

He parallels his work of taking photographs in the streets (and the high society) of New York with Don Quixote fighting windmills.

I would say that is how the artist is these days. Bill is given a certain palette, often of unattractively dressed women who have been told by contemporary style experts that ugliness is the way to go. But he refuses to accept this, although he is somewhat immersed in that culture. His way out perhaps is to photograph all kinds of details to avoid the "whole ugly look." He often does find a pretty handbag, or a colorful shoe in that midst to offset the running style. He is a Don Quixote fighting the windmills.

Here is an article he wrote on his street fashion photography method.

Bill on Bill
By Bill Cunninghham
October 27, 2002

I started photographing people on the street during World War II. I used a little box Brownie. Nothing too expensive. The problem is I'm not a good photographer. To be perfectly honest, I'm too shy. Not aggressive enough. Well, I'm not aggressive at all. I just loved to see wonderfully dressed women, and I still do. That's all there is to it.

As a kid, I photographed people at ski resorts -- you know, when you got on the snow train and went up to New Hampshire. And I did parties. I worked as a stock boy at Bonwit Teller in Boston, where my family lived, and there was a very interesting woman, an executive, at Bonwit's. She was sensitive and aware, and she said, ''I see you outside at lunchtime watching people.'' And I said, ''Oh, yeah, that's my hobby.'' She said, ''If you think what they're wearing is wrong, why don't you redo them in your mind's eye.'' That was really the first professional direction I received.

I came to New York in 1948 at 19, after one term at Harvard. Well, Harvard wasn't for me at all. I lived first with my aunt and uncle. I was working at Bonwit's in the advertising department. Advertising was also my uncle's profession. That's why my family allowed me to come here and encouraged me to go into the business. I think they were worried I was becoming too interested in women's dresses. But it's been my hobby all my life. I could never concentrate on Sunday church services because I'd be concentrating on women's hats.

While working at Bonwit's, I met the women who ran Chez Ninon, the custom dress shop. Their names were Nona Parks and Sophie Shonnard. Alisa Mellon Bruce was the silent partner. Those two women didn't want me to get mixed up in fashion either. ''Oh, God, don't let him go near it.'' You have to understand how suspect fashion people were then.

But finally, when my family put a little pressure on me about my profession, I moved out of my uncle's apartment. This was probably in 1949.

I walked the streets in the East 50's, looking for empty windows. I couldn't afford an apartment. I saw a place on 52nd Street between Madison and Park. There was a young woman at the door, and I said: ''I see empty windows. Do you have a room to rent?'' She said, ''What for?'' And I said, ''Well, I'm going to make hats.'' She told me to tell the men who owned the house that I would clean for them in exchange for the room on the top floor.

So that's where I lived, and that's where my hat shop was. Elizabeth Shoumatoff, the artist who was painting President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he died, brought in Rebekah Harkness, Mrs. William Hale Harkness. She and the ladies from Chez Ninon sent clients over. They had to climb all those stairs, and the stairs were narrow. The place had been a speakeasy in the 1920's. There was a garden in the back with a lovely old Spanish fountain, all derelict. That's where I had my first fashion show. The only member of the press who came was Virginia Pope of The Times. I got to know her very well years later -- saw her almost every Friday for tea. But anyway, her rule was to go herself to see any new designer. So there was this lovely, gracious lady at my first show, and the next day in The Times there was a little paragraph: ''William J.''

See, I didn't use my last name. My family would have been too embarrassed. They were very shy people. This was maybe 1950.

To make money, I worked at a corner drugstore. At lunchtime, I'd stop making hats and run out and deliver lunches to people. At night, I worked as a counterman at Howard Johnson's. Both jobs provided my meals, and the dimes and nickels of my tips paid for millinery supplies.

Society women were coming to get hats. It was a good education, but I didn't know it. I didn't know who these people were. It didn't mean anything to me. And then, of course, you get to realize that everybody's the same.

I made hats until I went into the Army. I was drafted during the Korean War. When I came out in 1953, I was still looking for empty windows. I found one on West 54th.

John Fairchild had just come back from Paris to run Women's Wear Daily in New York, and he knew the ladies of Chez Ninon. John said to me, ''Why don't you come and write a column for us.'' Of course, the ladies at Chez Ninon were thrilled: ''Oh, good, get him away from fashion. Make him a writer.'' They didn't realize what John was really up to. He thought, Now, I've got the inside track on the clients at Chez Ninon, which was every Vanderbilt and Astor that there was. Plus Jackie Kennedy.

What John didn't realize was that the people at Chez Ninon never discussed the clients. Private was private.

I had never written anything, but John was like that. He wanted to turn everything upside down. He just said, ''Write whatever you see.'' He was open to all kinds of ideas -- until I wrote a column about Courrèges. When I saw his first show, I thought, Well, this is it.

But John killed my story. He said, ''No, no, Saint Laurent is the one.'' And that was it for me. When they wouldn't publish the Courrèges article the way I saw it, I left. They wanted all the attention on Saint Laurent, who made good clothes. But I thought the revolution was Courrèges. Of course, in the end, Saint Laurent was the longer running show. So Fairchild was right in that sense.

After that, I went to work for The Chicago Tribune, for Eleanor Nangle. She had been there since the 1920's. A wonderful woman. The best of the best. The Tribune had an office in New York, in the Times building. One night, in about 1966, the illustrator Antonio Lopez took me to dinner in London with a photographer named David Montgomery. I told him I wanted to take some pictures. When David came to New York a few months later, he brought a little camera, an Olympus Pen-D half-frame. It cost about $35. He said, ''Here, use it like a notebook.'' And that was the real beginning.

I HAD just the most marvelous time with that camera. Everybody I saw I was able to record, and that's what it's all about. I realized that you didn't know anything unless you photographed the shows and the street, to see how people interpreted what designers hoped they would buy. I realized that the street was the missing ingredient.

There's nothing new about this idea. People had been photographing the street since the camera was invented. At the turn of the 20th century, the horse races were the big thing. Lartigue was just a boy then. But the Seeberger brothers in France were taking pictures. They, and others, were commissioned by lace and fabric houses to go to the grand prix days at the Longchamp, Chantilly, Auteuil and Deauville racetracks and photograph fashionable women. The resulting albums were used as sample books by dressmakers.

Vogue and Harper's Bazaar were doing a similar thing, but they photographed only name people at society events. And Women's Wear has been photographing socialites and celebrities for years. But the difference for me is I don't see the people I photograph. All I see are clothes. I'm only interested in people who look good. I'm looking for the stunners.

I started taking pictures for The Times in the early 70's, though my first street fashion appeared in The Daily News. Bernadine Morris, whom I had known since the 50's, said to Abe Rosenthal: ''Take a look at his work. You have all these sections to fill.'' Then I got to know Arthur Gelb, and one day I told him about this woman I had been photographing on the street. She wore a nutria coat, and I thought: ''Look at the cut of that shoulder. It's so beautiful.'' And it was a plain coat, too. You'd look at it and think: ''Oh, are you crazy? It's nothing.''

Anyway, I was taking her picture, and I saw people turn around, looking at her. She crossed the street, and I thought, Is that? Sure enough, it was Greta Garbo. All I had noticed was the coat, and the shoulder.

Arthur was marvelous. I came in that morning in late December 1978, and no one was in the department except Mimi Sheraton, the restaurant critic. I showed her the Garbo picture. She stopped typing, got up, and away she went with the picture. Minutes later, the phone rang, and Mimi said: ''Come down here, Bill. Arthur's desk.''

Arthur looked at the picture and said, ''What else do you have like this?'' I had been hanging out at the corner of 57th and Fifth, and I said, ''A picture of Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, the king and queen of Spain, a Kennedy in a fox coat.''

I also had a picture of a woman who turned out to be Farrah Fawcett. I didn't know. See, I never go to the movies, and I don't own a television set.

Arthur said, ''Let's run these.'' The next day, Dec. 30, there was a half page of pictures in the Metropolitan Report.

I never bothered with celebrities unless they were wearing something interesting. That's why my files wouldn't be of value to anyone. I remember one April in Paris Ball when Joe DiMaggio came with Marilyn Monroe. But I was mesmerized by Mrs. T. Charlton Henry of Philadelphia. So chic. She'd take the train up in the morning to Penn Station and walk to Bergdorf, to be there when it opened. And when she came in, she'd say, ''Good morning, Miss Ida,'' ''Good morning, Miss Elizabeth.'' She knew everyone's name.

Back in the 60's, I remember that Eleanor Nangle and I were sitting at one of Oscar de la Renta's first shows in New York when she heard antiwar protesters down in the street. She said: ''Come on, Bill, we're leaving. The action isn't here.'' We got up and skipped out of the show. I knew from photographing people on the streets that the news was not in the showrooms. It was on the streets.

At The Times, when Charlotte Curtis was covering society, she called me one Easter Sunday and said, ''Bill, take your little camera and go quickly to Central Park, to the Sheep Meadow.'' That morning I had been on Fifth Avenue photographing the Easter parade. So I got on my bike and went up to the Sheep Meadow, and there before me were all the kids -- the flower children. All these kids dressed in everything from their mother's and grandmother's trunks, lying on the grass. It was unbelievable. It was all about the fashion revolution. And it was because Charlotte Curtis had called me on the phone.

MOST of my pictures are never published. I just document things I think are important. For instance, I've documented the gay pride parade from its first days. It was something we had never seen before. I documented every exhibition that Diana Vreeland did at the Met, but every picture is of her hand on something. I do everything, really, for myself.

I suppose, in a funny way, I'm a record keeper. More than a collector. I'm very aware of things not of value but of historical knowledge. I remember when Chez Ninon was closing in the mid-70's. I went in one day, and the files were outside in the trash. I said to the secretary, ''Well, I hope you gave all the letters from Jackie Kennedy and Mrs. Rose Kennedy to the Kennedy Library.'' And she said, ''No, they kept a few, but they felt that the rest were too personal, so they threw them out.'' I rescued everything I could and still have it.

I go to different places all the time. And I try to be as discreet as I can. My whole thing is to be invisible. You get more natural pictures that way, too. The only place where I really hung out was the old Le Cirque on 65th Street. My friend Suzette, who did the flowers there, has been with Sirio Maccioni since he got off the boat from Europe, when he was a captain at the old Colony restaurant. Everyone said Suzette tipped me off, but she couldn't have cared less about who was there.

Most people wouldn't believe that anyone would be so dumb to come every day and stand for two hours without knowing whether somebody was coming out. But I like the surprise of finding someone. Most photographers couldn't do what I do because of deadlines. You spend days, weeks, years waiting for what I call a stunner.

I think fashion is as vital and as interesting today as ever. I know what people with a more formal attitude mean when they say they're horrified by what they see on the street. But fashion is doing its job. It's mirroring exactly our times.

The main thing I love about street photography is that you find the answers you don't see at the fashion shows. You find information for readers so they can visualize themselves. This was something I realized early on: If you just cover the designers in the shows, that's only one facet. You also need the street and the evening hours. If you cover the three things, you have the full picture of what people are wearing.

I go out every day. When I get depressed at the office, I go out, and as soon as I'm on the street and see people, I feel better. But I never go out with a preconceived idea. I let the street speak to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 3, 2013

"A Thief is Never Rational"


Guido Reni (1575 – 1642)
Archangel Michael Defeating Satan
1635
Oil on canvas
Dimensions: 293 x 202 cm
Private Collection


I recently posted an article from the Orthosphere, The Metastasy of Wickedness, by Kristor in its entirety and without my commentary.

A poster named Bedarz Iliaci makes some important points about Kristor's thesis. Below is some of their interaction:

Bedarz Iliaci:
Kristor,

BI: I am surprised to find you spouting such modern sentiments.
K: So long as society is so ordered as to promote or encourage or reward vice, there will be vice.
BI: NO. There was sin even in Eden.
K: And indeed, they are not altogether useless, or they would never have succeeded at what they do.
BI: A thief has no social goodness altogether, even though he promotes lock-making industry.
K: The control of vice and the promotion of virtue therefore depends, not on the elimination of the vicious – who are, after all, only responding rationally (if amorally) to the vicious environment in which they find themselves, and who if eliminated will be replaced – but of the weakness and perversity of the system itself.
BI: Isn’t this what Progressives say?. The individuals are good but the system is bad and must be reformed. The the usage of the word “rationally” jars – you are using it in the sense of economists – a purely instrumental thing. A thief is never rational.
Kristor:
Bedarz, you aren’t making sense here.
BI: There was sin even in Eden.
K: That there was sin even in a pure society does not mean that there is no sin in a perverted society. Indeed, that there can be sin even in Eden makes sin in a perverted society seem all the more likely. You make my argument.
BI: A thief has no social goodness.
K: Really? None? He is no good at all to anyone? What about Jean Valjean?
BI: A thief is never rational.
K: Really? The thieves are all wandering about gibbering and drooling like maniacs, with their flies open and their shoes on backwards? How on earth, then, do they ever get it together to steal anything?

That a thing is deformed does not mean it is altogether evil. The zero of goodness is the zero of being. Even Satan retains the glory, power and intelligence of a seraph.

As to whether I am saying something the Progressives say: no. The progressives say that what we do is not our responsibility at all, and that we are wholly the products of our environments. I am saying that while we are certainly influenced by our environments, we are responsible for what we do. Only thus could any of our acts be characterized as either good or evil.
Bedarz Iliaci:
A thief has no social goodness.

Means that as a thief, a man has no goodness. That is, the essence of stealing is bad for the City. Surely, you would not disagree. Thus, the vices, even greed are not conducive to the good of the City even though they may lead to material growth, but inevitably the social bonds are weakened. And thus contra 18C economists private vices do not make for public good.

A thief is never rational.

Simply, it is not rational to steal. You have modern instrumental view of rationality. I take the view that being rational implies having correct premises.

Your point may be recast as - Man is largely formed by his City. We see the acts but God sees the heart.
[My notes: Yes, exactly right. It is like liberalism, which appears to be doing us good, but the system inherently leads to destruction, even if some of its manifestations (early on) appear to do us some good.]

Kristor:
I think I see what you are getting at. The thievery of a man is bad, even though the man himself, qua man rather than qua thief, may not be all bad. Likewise, the thievery of a man, being inherently irrational, vitiates his rationality, even though he might be quite rational in many other respects. Agreed.

Thus, the vices, even greed are not conducive to the good of the City even though they may lead to material growth, but inevitably the social bonds are weakened.

Yes. This was a prominent secondary theme of the post. You are saying the same thing I did.
I searched for the image that the Orthosphere blog has put up as its masthead. The painter is Guido Reni, from 17th century Italy and the painting, Archangel Michael Defeating Satan. This is an apt figurehead for the blog, although we have not yet defeated Satan.

I also found the painting below by Guido Reni of a young David. We can see the character and the strength of David who went on to defeat Goliath.


Guido Reni (1575 – 1642)
David
Oil on canvas
1620
65 x 50 cm
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria
[source: Wikipaintings]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Toward Resilient Architectures: How Modernism Got Square

Toward Resilient Architectures 3: How Modernism Got Square
Michael W. Mehaffy and Nikos A. Salingaros.
MetropolisMag.com
Blog Point Of View
March 22, 2013

As we enter a transition era that demands far greater resilience and sustainability in our technological systems, we must ask tough new questions about existing approaches to architecture and settlement. Post-occupancy evaluations show that many new buildings, as well as retrofits of some older buildings, are performing substantially below minimal expectations. In some notable cases, the research results are frankly dismal [see "Toward Resilient Architectures 2: Why Green Often Isn’t"].

The trouble is that the existing system of settlement, developed in the oil-fueled industrial age, is beginning to appear fundamentally limited. And we’re recognizing that it’s not possible to solve our problems using the same typologies that created them in the first place. In a "far-from-equilibrium" world, as resilience theory suggests, we cannot rely on engineered, “bolt-on” approaches to these typologies, which are only likely to produce a cascade of unintended consequences. What we need is an inherent ability to handle "shocks to the system", of the kind we see routinely in biological systems.

In "Toward Resilient Architectures 1: Biology Lessons", we described several elements of such resilient structures, including redundant ("web-network") connectivity, approaches incorporating diversity, work distributed across many scales, and fine-grained adaptivity of design elements. We noted that many older structures also had exactly these qualities of resilient structures to a remarkable degree, and in evaluations they often perform surprisingly well today. Nevertheless during the last century, in the dawning age of industrial design, the desirable qualities resilient buildings offered were lost. What happened?


Figure 1. The fractal mathematics of nature bears a striking resemblance
to human ornament, as in this fractal generated by a finite subdivision rule.
This is not a coincidence: ornament may be what humans use as a kind of “glue”
to help weave our spaces together. It now appears that the removal of
ornament and pattern has far-reaching consequences for the capacity
of environmental structures to form coherent, resilient wholes.
Image: Brirush/Wikimedia.

A common narrative asserts that the world moved on to more practical and efficient ways of doing things, and older methods were quaint and un-modern. According to this narrative, the new architecture was the inevitable product of inexorable forces, the undeniable expression of an exciting industrial "spirit of the age". The new buildings would be streamlined, beautiful, and above all, "stylistically appropriate".

This was the thinking that gave birth to the modernist style and form language, still popular with architects today and part of a design movement that in various forms has dominated the world for a century. But such choices of style and type are not independent of how well our buildings perform on criteria of sustainability and resilience — a growing body of evidence is damning. So what does recent science tell us about the soundness of this approach to architecture?

Science forces us to conclude that the modernist view of environmental structure itself appears un-modern — and unsustainable. It rests upon now largely discredited theories of culture, technology, environmental geometry, and building form; theories that have never been properly re-assessed by their proponents.

Far from being an inevitable product of inexorable historical forces, the evidence reveals 20th century design to be developed as a series of rather peculiar (historically highly contingent) choices by a few influential individuals. The story goes back to a small group of German, Swiss, and Austrian architect-theorists, and at its seminal moment, the particular ideas of one of them regarding ornament — which turns out to have far-reaching implications.

Adolf Loos’ idea takes hold

In his famous essay of 1908, "Ornament and Crime", the Austrian writer/architect Adolf Loos presented an argument for the minimalist industrial aesthetic that has shaped modernism and neo-modernism ever since. Surprisingly, he built this argument upon a foundation that is accepted today by almost no one: the cultural superiority of "modern man" [sic], by which he meant Northern European males.

Loos proclaimed that, in this new era of streamlined modern production, we had apparently become unable to produce "authentic ornamental detail". But are we alone, he asked, unable to have our own style do what "any Negro" [sic], or any other race and period before us, could do? Of course not, he argued. We are more advanced, more "modern". Our style must be the very aesthetic paucity that comes with the streamlined goods of industrial production — a hallmark of advancement and superiority. In effect, our "ornament" would be the simple minimalist buildings and other artifacts themselves, celebrating the spirit of a great new age.

Indeed, the continued use of ornament was, for Loos, a "crime". The "Papuan", he argued, had not evolved to the moral and civilized circumstances of modern man [sic]. As part of his primitive practices, the Papuan tattooed himself. Likewise, Loos went on, "the modern man who tattoos himself is either a criminal or a degenerate". Therefore, he reasoned, those who still used ornament were on the same low level as criminals, and Papuans.


Figure 2. Ethiopian silver ceremonial cross, carried in liturgical processions,
represents a mathematically sophisticated fractal. Was Loos implying that
observers of such millennial religious practices the world over — dependent
as they are upon ornamented ritual, artifacts, chant, music, and dance —
are no better than "criminals"?
Drawing by Nikos Salingaros.

Built on an essentially racist worldview, Loos’ seminal essay codified a fateful series of four tenets that have seeped into design culture and remain largely unquestioned, even today:
1. Geometrical fundamentalism. The march of technological progress inevitably compels the elimination of detailed or ornamental features, and focuses on features that nakedly display (and celebrate) technological expediency and geometrical reduction.

2. Tectonic determinism. The geometric character of any addition to the built environment can only be a unique expression of its own specific technological moment in history (defined in stylistic terms, of course).

3. Typological prejudice. It follows that all previous architectural geometries of older eras are wholly inconsistent with modernity, and must be marked for elimination. Revival — a constant evolutionary fugue throughout the greatest civilizations — is now rejected, for the first time in history.

4. Modernist exceptionalism. Civilization has arrived at a fundamentally different and superior cultural status, elevated beyond previous historical constraints by its powerful technology. Architecture will serve this technology most appropriately by drawing from a limited form language derived from early 20th century production technology. No other form language is valid or "authentic".
What was this limited form language? It employed the repetitive production of standardized machine components, conceived in the most limited sense (eliminating complex artifacts, tools and utensils, and complex architectural components). It was an extreme strategy to exploit economies of scale and quantity to achieve efficiencies. Those industrial parts — blank flat sheets, razor-straight line cuts, simple unadorned squares, cubes, and cylinders — were standardized to allow for easy and low-cost assembly.


Figure 3. Some holes were evident in Adolf Loos’ theories,
even at the time they were written. On the left, mass-produced Art Nouveau
silver jewelry box by P. A. Coon, 1908. On the right, hand-made Machine Aesthetic
silver teapot by C. Dresser, 1879. The machine aesthetic was an artistic
metaphor of "modernity" chosen by Loos — not a true functional requirement.
Drawing by Nikos Salingaros.

Precisely because of its limitations, this form language made for dramatic, somewhat disquieting new shapes, readily suited to metaphoric use as the attention-getting expressions of a great new age. The raw, simple forms were well suited psychologically to the streamlined shapes of the breathtakingly fast-moving new vehicles like locomotives, aircraft, and ships. In turn, these reinforced the idea of streamlined buildings as a metaphoric style — although, of course, buildings do not actually move.

In an age enthralled with the promise of the future, this radically novel form language became unexpectedly popular and entirely displaced its contemporary competitors, many of which are largely forgotten today. Innovative architectural form languages that emerged included Jugendstil, Sezessionstil (Vienna Secession), Art Nouveau, Stile Liberty, Edwardian, and Art-and-Crafts as well as the early F. L. Wright. In fact, Loos was specifically attacking the relatively innovative forms of Art Nouveau — not the over-the-top rococo work of late Victorian designers, as some assume today.


Figure 4. "The cube ate the flower": how the machine aesthetic
devoured all other form languages, from "Architecture for Beginners"
by Louis Hellman, 1994.
Adapted and redrawn by Nikos Salingaros.

Corporate branding with science fiction

The clever use of machine parts production, through the early application of industrial technology, as a romantic new form language was not lost on Loos’ German contemporary Peter Behrens. Known now as "the father of corporate branding", Behrens recruited industrial minimalism as an aesthetic tool to create a streamlined marketing image to help his client AEG (Germany’s version of General Electric) sell its products. He created striking logos, stationery, advertisements — and buildings, which, in effect, were converted into giant billboards to help to sell the companies and their products.

In taking this momentous step, Behrens was masterfully solving a critical problem for environmental designers offering their services in a new age of standardization and mass production. If we were no longer going to generate the form of buildings in place, through localized craft-like processes, but must rely instead upon (supposedly superior, and certainly cheaper) combinations of standardized parts, then how were we, as designers, going to create aesthetically distinctive works? By "theming" them with an exciting stylized vision of the future to be created by industry (and specifically, by the client company, and by the currently-employed design firm).

So we would turn buildings and objects into canvases to "brand" our companies and our own talents as visionary designers, leading civilization into a thrilling new age. More than that, these packaged designs would have the special allure, in the skilled hands of Behrens and his artistically minded protégés, of a great new fine art. At its heart were industrial manufacturing and the commodification of products.

Working from the self-imposed limitations of this new aesthetic minimalism, the image that Behrens created was of power, industrial might, order, and cleanliness. Above all, it was the promise of a wonderful new technological future. His brilliant recognition paved the way for a dominant theme of modern marketing — one that can sell almost anything if it’s successfully linked to romantic imagery of the future. The allure of such a product is, by definition, beyond any claim that can be evaluated in the present. It is the selling of hope, dream, and desire — even if it is one that’s destined to quickly tarnish and be discarded. Indeed all the better, for planned obsolescence means another "new, improved" product can be sold in its place.

The seductive power of this futuristic message was not lost on Behrens’ young protégés, each going on to have a profound effect on 20th century design. Their names, Walter Gropius; Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris (later known as Le Corbusier); and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, are familiar to architects. In fact, architectural students are required to study and copy them in school. In the next decades they would announce their "total architecture" (Gropius) that signaled a "great epoch of industrial production" (Le Corbusier) and "the will of an epoch" that "less is more" (Mies). In the words of their most important theorist and propagandist, Sigfried Giedion, "mechanization takes command". Our buildings must reflect the unavoidable reality of our modern world.

This was not merely a stylistic prescription that one might (or might not) find visually pleasing. It was a complete blueprint for remaking the world according to specific concepts of scale, standardization, replication, and segregation; all codified within a form of visual culture. It became (especially through CIAM, the modernists’ profoundly influential international group) the template for the urbanization and suburbanization that took place rapidly in the U.S. and globally after World War II, and that still continues at an astonishing pace in China, India, Brazil, and elsewhere. The structure of this urbanization has profound consequences, for better or worse, for the use of resources and other critical issues of our age.

From today’s scientific perspective that structure has attributes that ought to provoke deep concern, if not outright alarm. As the urbanist Jane Jacobs famously pointed out a half-century later, the modernist approach did not reflect an understanding of the "organized complexity" of natural and biological systems that underlies human biology, human life, and cities inhabited by human beings. It reflected instead an outmoded and unfounded but totalizing theory of the nature of cities, of technology, and of geometry itself.


Figure 5. The form language of nature is not mechanical
in the "modern" sense. The only known exception:
Donald Duck discovers square eggs,
from "Lost in the Andes" by Carl Barks, 1948.
Redrawn by Nikos Salingaros.

More recent scientific investigations reveal the richly complex geometry of living environments — including human ones. The geometries of those natural structures "evolve in context" as complex adaptive forms, through a process known as "adaptive morphogenesis". As a result of that process, living geometries have particular characteristics. They differentiate into a range of subtly unique structures, and they adapt to local conditions, giving such environments stability and resilience. They achieve great complexity and efficiency through their evolution — and great beauty, in the form of a perceivable deeper order.

A new view of the nature of environmental structure, aesthetics, and ornament

Key to resilience is the way different parts of geometry lock together into larger functional (but not rigid) wholes. In the most ecologically resilient structures, they do this by forming symmetries across inter-linked scales. The resulting structure has the hallmarks of adaptive, evolutionary self-organization: redundant ("web-network") relationships, diversity of mechanisms and components, innate ability to transfer information among many different scales, and fine-grained adaptivity of design elements.

There is also evidence from neuroscience and other fields that the aesthetic experience of such structures is not a superficial "psychological" aspect, but rather, a kind of cognitive "gateway" allowing us to experience and react to this deeper order of our environment. The artistic dimension lies in the way this gateway is shaped, and in its resonance with other emotional experiences in life. Creative abstractions are added to — but do not replace — the natural complexity of our world. As conscientious artists working to improve the human environment, our role is to enhance, express, and clarify that complex adaptive order. Certainly, it’s not merely to apply a veneer of visually dramatic gimmicks.

In this picture of things, ornament is far from mere decoration. It is a precise category of articulation of the connections between regions of space by the human beings that design them. It can be thought of as an essential kind of "glue" that allows different parts of the environment to echo and connect to one another, in a cognitive sense and even in a deeper functional sense. Ornament, then, is an important tool to form a complex fabric of coherent symmetrical relationships within the human environment.


Figure 6. Is this ornamental embroidery?
Actually, a fractal antenna which, when miniaturized,
makes cell phone reception possible. There is an important
role here for functionalism, understood in a much deeper sense.
Drawing by Nikos Salingaros.

We are beginning to understand that the industrial form language represented a catastrophic loss of this adaptive structural capacity, bringing with it enormous negative consequences for the environment we inhabit. It deprived us of the thought processes necessary to conceptualize the characteristics of resilient environmental structure — web-network relationships, diversity, linking of scales, and fine-grained adaptivity. As one functional example, a certain kind of cell-phone antenna incorporating ornament-like fractal patterns (see above) offers the best performance for its tiny size but cannot be conceptualized within a minimalist form language.

The big re-think

We are now beginning to see a pattern in the momentous changes to industrial civilization of the last century. The excessive reliance on standardization and commodification, the birth of a consumer society dominated by branding and theming, the rapacious and unsustainable consumption of resources as an addictive economic fuel are intimately related to the non-resilience of the form languages that were handed down to us. The products of that related group of form languages are a failing industrial civilization’s "art supply".

True resilience does not result from artistic metaphors, or by sticking veneers over the same failing industrial model.

Biological resilience and sustainability require the capacity to endure, to adapt, and to maintain a dynamic stability in the face of sometimes-chaotic environments. They require the cognitive flexibility that enables the genesis of technological innovations. We will have to think outside the modernist box to find new forms — and new uses for very old forms, just as natural evolution does. It seems clearer than ever that the survival of our planet depends upon it.

Yet we are the heirs of Loos’ erroneous and limiting ideas about geometrical fundamentalism, tectonic determinism, the exceptionalism of modernism, and the typological prejudice rooted in an illusory aesthetic functionalism. All of these dogmas are enforced by self-perpetuating elite privileges, and the proprietary commodification of design as a fashion and brand. Even now, a reactionary old guard, wearing frayed progressive trappings, condemns virtually any use of ornament, pattern, or precedent as reactionary, uncreative, and lacking in imagination.

But in an age that demands new thinking, perhaps it is that attitude itself that betrays the ultimate lack of imagination.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Mehaffy is an urbanist and critical thinker in complexity and the built environment. He is a practicing planner and builder, and is known for his many projects as well as his writings. He has been a close associate of the architect and software pioneer Christopher Alexander. He is a Research Associate with the Center for Environmental Structure, Alexander’s research center founded in 1967, and Executive Director of the Sustasis Foundation, a Portland, OR-based NGO dedicated to developing and applying neighborhood-scale tools for resilient and sustainable development.

Nikos A. Salingaros is a mathematician and polymath known for his work on urban theory, architectural theory, complexity theory, and design philosophy. He has been a close collaborator of the architect and computer software pioneer Christopher Alexander. Salingaros published substantive research on Algebras, Mathematical Physics, Electromagnetic Fields, and Thermonuclear Fusion before turning his attention to Architecture and Urbanism. He still is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas at San Antonio and is also on the Architecture faculties of universities in Italy, Mexico, and The Netherlands.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

“Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”



God and Liberal Modernity
Jim Kalb
The Catholic World Report
March 7, 2012

“How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun?” — Friedrich Nietzsche

“Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” — Alexander Solzhenitsyn

What lies behind the radically anti-Catholic form of society to which we are tending, one in which Catholic beliefs count as patently delusional and Catholic moral doctrine as an outrage that must be suppressed? The power and durability of the tendency show that some basic issue is in play, while the difficulty of opposing it suggests that the issue is somehow hidden, so that people have trouble grappling with it directly.

In fact, the issue is the most basic of all: God or no God. What we see around us are the results of excluding God from how we understand the world.

The very size of the issue makes it hard to see clearly. It’s difficult to stand back and get perspective on something that changes absolutely everything. Western people are mostly practical atheists who see God as an add-on to a world that can pretty much get by without him. Everyday habits and practicalities carry life forward, so ultimate beliefs seem beside the point. When problems do come up—when our neighbor leaves his wife or starts picking pockets or whatever—it is easy to find particular causes: it’s because of the economy, it’s what people see on TV, the guy’s got personal issues, and anyway there have always been problems and religious people are no different from anyone else.

So the link between ultimate causes and their effects becomes obscured, and people who insist on a connection between religion and how we live together seem like cranks. Still, man is rational in the long run, and the basic principles he accepts eventually take hold and determine actions and attitudes. We deal with life as we see it, and how we see it is determined by what we think is real. Since God is the ens realissimum, the most real being, getting rid of him changes everything.

For example, most of us want to deal with life reasonably. To do so we need to be able to stand back and ask ourselves whether what we think and do really make sense. And to do that we have to see the world as ordered not only physically, but intellectually and morally, so that some beliefs and purposes make more sense than others by standards we don’t invent but are implicit in the way things are. That creates problems if we take God out of the picture. We can’t make sense of the world if the world does not make sense, but why should it? Why shouldn’t it be blank incomprehensible chaos?

The obvious response, to Catholics anyway, is that the world exists and makes sense because ideas, meanings, and intentions went into its making: “The heavens show forth the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). There are influential people who do not agree, however, and public discussion has to be based on what such people generally are willing to treat as knowable and real. In an age that rejects God in favor of physical demonstration, and rejects natural moral law for the same reasons it rejects God, the knowable and real turn out to be the objects of modern natural science—the things that can be observed, measured, and described mathematically.

But if that’s what’s treated as real, there’s no place for purpose or meaning. That’s a problem: if the world does not itself make sense, to make sense of it is to falsify it. Indeed, if the world is purely physical, we can’t even talk about it. Speech is something within the world, and if it’s purely physical it can’t have non-physical properties like “meaning” or “aboutness.” (See philosopher of science Alex Rosenberg’s discussion of such issues in his “Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality” and Ed Feser’s comments on same.)

These are—to put it mildly—major problems. We necessarily view our speech as meaningful, our thoughts as directed toward knowledge, and our actions as guided—at least somewhat—by reason. So what do we do? If neither God nor natural law gives us a setting that is morally and intellectually ordered, so that speech, knowledge, and rational action make sense within it, we’ll use main force, and try to impose order and meaning on a purely physical world through our own will. We’ll say that the meaning of the world is the meaning we give it, and its order is the intellectual and practical order we establish to control and shape it to our wishes. In other words, we’ll make will and technology the supreme principles of life and thought.

So it’s Man the Maker instead of God the Creator. We manufacture meaning and order as well as frying pans. Not surprisingly, the substitution of man for God causes problems. If there is no natural order and purpose, because nature lacks those features, the meaning and order we impose on the world will be our own arbitrary inventions. There is nothing to draw on that can make them otherwise. At the level of politics, that means tyranny. Nothing has an intrinsic order and meaning, so those in power invent their own and force them on everything, silencing anyone who spoils the fun by pointing out the emperor’s nakedness. Hence totalitarianism, which is not so much government by terror as government that recognizes no standard outside its own will and purposes: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato (“Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”).

Also hence liberalism and its consequences. Liberals note that if no purpose makes special sense then all purposes must be equally good. The obvious result, since there’s nothing but force and fraud to say which purposes should prevail, is a war of all against all that ends only when one faction wins and forces its preferences on everyone. To avoid that result, liberals propose an alternative: we want our own purposes to be accepted as worthy of support, simply because they are our purposes, so we agree to say that all other purposes are equally worthy. The result is a social contract that takes equal freedom as the highest standard, and makes giving everybody what he wants, as much and as equally as possible, the highest political goal.

The technocratic liberal state expresses that contract. It tries to give everybody what he wants, so it is thought to promote all good things, and outside itself it sees only war, oppression, and ignorance. Liberals believe it delivers on its promises, to a large and increasing extent, so they find it monstrous and incomprehensible to reject it. Since it is based on equality and technological thinking, it is considered the only legitimate and rational form of political association. It is therefore, people believe, our duty to spread it throughout the world, and in our own society to develop its principles and apply them in an ever more detailed and comprehensive way.

But does it work? Does the present-day liberal state succeed in avoiding the totalitarianism that seems implicit in rejecting an authority above human will? Does it avoid the nihilism implicit in rejection of knowable objective goods? And if it respects everybody’s purposes, how about the purposes of Catholics? On the face of it there are obvious problems: how can purposes be given equal status when they conflict? How can equal freedom be the basis of government, when government means command? And assuming there really are basic problems with present-day secular liberalism, so that it doesn’t work as advertised, why do people believe in it, how does it really work, and what do we do about it?

Those are big questions. When influential jurists, theorists, commentators, and politicians insist that Christian moral doctrine is fundamentally immoral, something is askew and it’s important to figure out what it is. We started the exploration last month by discussing problems with the secular liberal conception of freedom. There’s much more to do, though. I’m not going to run out of topics for columns any time soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat