Session Ten: Outcomes

It is customary to establish what has been learnt at the end of a course. In this case that is not so easy to pin down, since acquiring critical acumen is a long term process. However here is some kind of checklist:

1. You have been exposed to a variety of critical modes; journalistic (Meades, Self), satirical (Waugh), formal (Rowe), idiosyncratic (Rowe), poetic (Ginsberg), materialist/Marxist (Lefebvre, Eagleton, Davis), Neoliberal (Hickey), Libertarian (Rand), interpretive (Berman), which should have widened your perspective on how to think and write critically. All of these modes are potentially available at the same time, but we have picked exemplars of each type.

2. These examples are sourced both from so called 'high' and 'popular' culture, indicating that critical thinking does not presuppose a particular domain. We can be as critical of Gardeners World as we can the Villa Medici.

3. We have attempted, in sequentially going backwards chronologically, to retrace our critical steps, so providing a 'road map' or grand narrative (of sorts) as to where we have been and where we are now. Essentially we have learnt to use the past to help us with today.

4. Each week we have blogged our thoughts on each text, aware of what we have already done, and wary of what might be next. Hopefully some areas have become more fascinating than others, so preparing your for your Research Methods course next semester, and ultimately your dissertation.

5. By doing all of the above, we have hopefully become rather exhausted by our own opinion, and learnt to respect and enjoy the opinions of thinkers we hadn't encountered before, making us more open  to discerning argument.

FINAL BLOG: for your final and tenth blog, you are asked to sum up your critical thinking experience.

SUBMISSION: You are asked to print out and bind your ten blogs, sequentially 1 to 10 and not in reverse order, and submit them to the School Office on the third floor of the Tower Block on the first day you return from the Christmas holidays at the beginning of the Spring term.

Notes on Session Nine

Reviewing the world of Howard Roark is tricky. I certainly found it so when I wrote my Reputations piece on him for the AR (December 2013- just go to the AR website to download).
This film is undoubtedly melodramatic propaganda, but we also sense a few home truths. After all Goebbels understood that the best propaganda is that which you do not register as propaganda. Whilst the word 'integrity' is spat out at all too regular intervals throughout this film, integrity is still something we all respect and we feel guilty if we do not appreciate it.
It is certainly the case that Ayn Rand pushes herself to extremes; is it all hopelessly overblown? Most of us understand that co-operation and altruism are the route to an even partially successful private life, not obsessive selfhood. But of course I might be wrong; we should certainly not underestimate Rand and her importance in the mythology of the USA.
However the female lead, Domenique (modelled on Rand herself 'in a bad mood') behaves in most peculiar way and gives the most startling looks. Meanwhile her menage with Howard and Gail features one of the stranger 'bromances' (where only one of them can come out top dog and the other has to shoot himself- it's humanity like high stakes poker). Worst we get no clue as to why Roark's architecture is any good in the first place, other than for it's 'integrity' (based on Louis Sullivan aka Cameron). However this is not how it looks, it looks, instead, rather funky. But you can put that down to the rookie set designer.
As to blowing up such a servicable facility because it offends the so called author; that's a field day for all critics of 'the genius myth'.

Notes on Session Eight

It is rare for me to speak for an hour and a quarter on the subject of one book, but I proved it possible yesterday.
The reasons one might be able to do this include the fact that this novel was 'supposed to be funny' but in actual fact, with further contemplation of it's context, personal and otherwise, becomes immensely serious, even profound. It is essentially a satire on the British way of life, our class system and so on, where the hero, Paul Pennyfeather, is rather a dupe. Paul represents us. But it is also a novel whose core message is that you are trapped in your own skin, it will ever be thus, and thus also most depressing. The only way out, for Paul and well as Evelyn, is religion.
Prof Silenus the modern architect's role is hence particularly interesting, for whilst he enters the story as avant garde, full of machine age enthusiasms, he ends it with his tail between his legs, thinking Greece has lovely goats rather than temples. A soppiness for animals seems very far removed from his original concerns.
Making obvious comparison with Le Corbusier is one thing, but bringing consideration of the fate of modernism in general brings rather startling revelations as to how architecture sits within the famework of 'Britishness'.

Session Nine: Objectivism

In this session we shall watch The Fountainhead. In the final session (Session 10) I shall do a round up of all the texts we've studied, hopefully providing take home messages for each, so if you've missed out, please sure you attend in the last week of term.

It is fitting to end our readings with this film. Author and scriptwriter Ayn Rand has been hugely influential in American thinking to the point where Northern California seemed almost exclusively populated by Anns and Randys as Silicone Valley boomed. Her rejection of any form of altruism has been, to say the least, convenient within Late Capitalism, but it did make her an exceedingly bitter old lady. 

There was a spat during 'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here' last night between ex-Playboy mansion playmate Kendra and Edwina Currie. Kendra was pleading the virtues of the self, that she came first, in a way that almost came straight out of the Randian world. It was clear she really believed all this stuff, to the point of sobbing and wailing. Meanwhile I was reminded she only ever seemed to provide one meal for the camp in her trials; conceptually enough for herself. It is perhaps the only time in my life that I could be found agreeing with Edwina Currie, who has clearly been scarred by such thinking, and personally I'm rather rooting for 'Foggy', because he not only wins all the stars, but resigned himself to rescuing trapped campmates from the slammer.

It was a happy accident that Rand chose an architect, Howard Roark, to represent her theories. I wrote a 'Reputations' on Roark for the December 2013 issue of AR if you care to dig it out for further reference.

Notes on Session Seven

The first thing to note about Howl is how influential this poem has been. The array of references across the desk included photographer (and maker of the Rolling Stones film Cocksucker Blues) Robert Frank,    William Burrough's inquisition of language; The Job, Archigram originals and museum pieces, even the first Glastonbury album with lots of hippie extras plus plenty more. All presume to question our assumptions on our notion of freedom, in a climate where we might appear to finally have it, but where the enemy is now a the military industrial complex as much as parental conformity. These are challenged by a new sense of sexual freedom and spiritual enlightenment. I pointed out that spiritual enlightenment has consistently filled a supposed vacuum since Nietzsche declared 'God is Dead' in 1882) In our field, in architecture, it meant questioning what architecture actually was, and who was getting in the way of our so called fresh opportunities (we can make steel any length etc; where did the idealism go?...Put 600,000 people in a field for three days.. etc).
Lefebvre's enquiry in to what language means is rather replaced by an emphasis on the restriction of language itself, since that is the vehicle of authority; or the Media is the Message, a concept espoused by Marshall McLuhan and very popular through the sixties. McLuhan saw us entering a newly tactile world (but he was also a devout catholic, so that would suit him). I wonder how this looks to us now given actual corporatization.

Session Eight: Modernism

Remember this book is supposed to be funny. The idea is to read all of it. It's not long.

Meanwhile, if you are stuck for time, then the moment when architect Professor Silenus arrives is Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the book.

Notes on Session Six

The byword here would seem to be subtlety rather than judgement. It is clear that when we read Berman's interpretation of Faust we gain many insights, one tumbling after another, as to our roles in a developing world. By that we mean an industrial world which has broken free of religion as it's only guiding light. We might find echoes of Faust in the defiant romantic artist; in Michelangelo, Velasquez, Goya, or Francis Bacon, as much as we can see it in our scientists. When it comes to architecture we can see the spirit of mobilisation, of organisation alive in L-C; and we can see echoes in our own lives. Berman was endebted to sixties counter-culture (sex and drugs) and we should read that in to his analysis. We will look at those dreams of escape next week.
Today we can see development gone wrong in China and Dubai, or as the Imperial War Museum becomes a shop, and we should recognize the emptiness this can bring.
But development as a personal thing as much as a physical thing, and a great, ongoing, challenge.
Goethe sees the challenge in the fact that development is unstoppable, that it means there will be victims, including those who develop themselves as well as those who are left behind, that speed is of the essence, and this, as a future for everybody, looks excessively exhausting, especially when enough is never enough. To change this notion of a life, even for yourselves, is going to be a hell of an effort.

Session Seven: Counterculture

Thankfully and appropriately, this poem, Howl, is freely available on the web. It will be a relief for you to read a poem rather than a theoretical text. OK it's a longish poem, but it's a highly significant one; you might say that it seeds a counterculture (rather than revolution) that colours the 1960's. We need to revisit this stuff; it will be freaky.

Notes on Session Five

I think the primary take home consideration here is the value of architectural precedent. Clearly Colin Rowe finds it cardinal to the business of architecture, as did the generation of tutors who taught me, and as would most critics when it came to anything else; T.S. Eliot on literature for instance. Certainly Terry Eagleton accused us of amnesia. In the realm of 'digital knowledge' is precedent as applicable as it was?
Whatever the present case, in looking at Rowe's comparison of Palladio to Le Corbusier we noted that Rowe was doing what his tutor Rodolf Wittkower had done with Alberti and Palladio, and it seemed such a solid proposition that it might make ones contemporary efforts feel a bit feeble in backbone; what with references to Wren, Virgil and so on.
However when we looked at Rowe's 1961 essay on La Tourette we spotted something else; that he was missing out large chunks of what would seem critical to the understanding of that building and was instead focused on his experience of it and his personal interpretation. My view is that this is problematic, and I have written my own essay to explain why; published on my blog Architecture and Other Habits- as 'An Essay on La Tourette'. It comes up right at the top of a Google search.
So Rowe thought architecture was like playing chess or shaking hands; rich in structural protocol, but he also enjoys the personal. Nowhere is this more evident that in his descriptions of his academic environment (as presented in his three volume memoires 'As I was Saying') which seem to directly condition his thought processes; Cambridge, Texas & Cornell. Since I do not want to begin my book with 'Well at LSBU it's like this...' I might be a little wary of that.

Session Six: Modernity

You are asked to read Chapter One: Goethe's Faust: The Tragedy of Development, at least as much of it as you can manage, or enough to get to grips with the story. Of course we are not reading Faust in the original, which is a long poem, but through Berman's eyes, and now yours. It will be interesting to see what you bring to the interpretation of this classic tale, with all likelihood that you have not encountered it before. 

The story starts in a Gothic world, and ends in industrial one, the moral may be that in order to make an omelet you have have to break eggs, but it is more sophisticated than that (and note that in the end Faust is blind to 'care'). A particularly good example of the tragedy of development in architectural terms would be Baron Haussmann's Paris, which I'm sure we shall discuss. 

Notes on Session Four

This is also a reading whose significance can be understood in the first ten pages rather than over the whole chapter. Over it's whole length, we might tend to get a little fuzzy headed, whilst if we read the first ten pages closely many insights can be cleaned. Not surprisingly given the complex nature of the subject, it is very carefully written, with lots of twists and turns and qualifications, so don't try to catch Lefebvre out, it is best to painstakingly go through the text (as we did in the session) step by step.
I tried to illustrate how, with reference to just those ten pages, many issues that crop up in the creation of a dissertation are addressed; ie that this text helps, not hinders, comprehension, and if that is your 'take home message' from this session we have done very well. If you are totally bamboozelled, then it's not so good, and you should try reading it again.
Lots of students have difficulty concentrating on a text, we might refer back to Eagelton and wonder if we should just blame you individually or the time of man in general. Whatever case, Lefebvre states right from the word go that our essential task is the production of knowledge, of understanding and presumably correcting the status quo, not lounging in it. If we imagine in the future a course called 'Uncritical Thinking' what horrors would lie around us?

Session Five: The Birth of Postmodernism

Having got rather tired of the search for truth; we might admire Roland Barthes, but also find his attempt to define love (in The Lover's Discourse) at best poetic, at worst pretentious, lets slide to architectural criticism of the same period with Colin Rowe. 

James Stirling has been described as 'Colin Rowe's pencil', Rowe taught him at Liverpool after the war and they became great friends; Rowe's thinking is all over Stirling's late postmodernist work in particular. However it is two earlier essays from this book, the title essay comparing the work of Le Corbusier to Palladio, and the second on Le Corbusier's masterpiece La Tourette, both published before  I was born, that we look at for this session. It will transport us to a time when form-making was conditioned by issues of tectonics, context and typology, issues now largely forgotten. We shall also, of course, take the opportunity to brush up on your knowledge of Le Corbusier at the same time.

Notes on Session Three

There is something in Terry Eagleton's tone, something of the hectoring parent, that is likely to put us off. Nobody likes being told off, especially when we don't know what we've done wrong. Hence, what can easily be found amusing in Eagleton (because he is quite funny) can easily become annoying. So perhaps it's best to think of this text as a hump we have to get over, so that we can get to the meat of what he's actually referring to (see post below). Perhaps what Eagleton has to say is encapsulated not in the first fifty pages, but in the first fifty words.
So what are we missing out on in general, what is this theory we have come after? Perhaps in essence it is our fascination with identities rather than issues and truths. It is hard not to enjoy Grayson Perry, but he represents precisely that fascination with individual identity compatible with the western democracies as they stand today. Bismarck once said that laws are like sausages, sometimes it's better not to know how they are made. We stand, by comparison, amazingly compliant, transfixed by sausages.
We might be circumspect about all this; that a conspiracy is dissuading us on purpose (this is the argument against neoliberalism) however consider these two events:
In the session I told the story of my niece, studying Event Management in Bournemouth; this weekend, at a family party in the Holiday Inn Stevenage to be exact; that she enjoyed going out three times a week and had never seen a book list (perhaps they don't need one). When pressed, she ran off and hid in the toilet. The next day we rang up to see if she was OK, and her mum said she was fine and 'didn't give a shit'. It's funny, such synchronicity with our subject.
And another, yesterday I was discussing architecture and fashion with a dissertation student, a contemporary subject in trendy architectural circles. I showed her a picture of Chartres cathedral; 'that's not fashion' I said; so as to contextualise our discussion. She could only think of architecture as fashion given the digital revolution, whilst it was pertinent to remember the first industrial revolution was predicated on the cotton industry. her job was to understand how we got to consider architecture as fashion.

Session Four: Structural Thinking

Having got over the hump of Terry Eagleton, it's time to engage with what he was actually cracking on about first hand. Once we've tried, we can conjecture on whether Lefebvre really manages to encounter truth or not. We shall certainly admire his effort and it will hopefully at least provide us with fresh insight regarding our criticism of Gardeners World and Grand Designs, never mind Gogglebox.
You are asked to read Chapter Two; Social Space. Since most of us seem to think that social space is Starbucks, it's a good idea to probe further.
In particular we will look at Lefebvre's discussion of Venice in terms of 'work' and 'product', a distinction he no doubt draws from Karl Marx's 'use value' and 'exchange value'. We all want to build heaven (in all senses) but the question is always how much does it cost (in all senses)!

Notes on Session Two

There are several points to register in this pair of readings ( a particularly good one in my opinion, for the sum is far greater than the two parts). The first is to realise that while Dave Hickey doesn't think he's writing theory, he is espousing one, and meanwhile in his enjoyment of simple pleasures; 'walking down the street in your own choice of attire' or the move 'from food to cocktail' at first we can hardly disagree with him. His presentation of Las Vegas as the epitome of the American Dream is hence reasonable; surely a much better place to reside, if you are a bit rock n' roll, than 'fucking Ithaca'.
And Hickey is very rock n' roll. I illustrated that if you read around his work, you will discover he has become more candid about his past with age; he's done a lot in more ways than one, and survived. He also couldn't give a damn what other people think, and this is a laudable quality that seems to come with age. Further reading around Hickey also tells us he left Las Vegas when the corporations took over, and when his maverick status became untenable at the university. So there lies the question; was Las Vegas as good as he said it was, and what has it become now and where has the American Dream gone?
If Hickey enjoys the old American Dream, Mike Davis clearly doesn't. He dislikes Las Vegas as much as he dislikes Dubai, and is happy to compare the two in a way that, if we follow Hickey (and Trotsky for that matter as quoted by Davis) is impossible. This brings up a the question of 'content' in architecture (see Zaha) and the vacuity we tend to see in Dubai, where a feudal government has appended a modernity without the associated principles. The fact that Diarmuid Gavin, famous for his love of plants, was hired to promote the city of sand on UK TV, says it all.
Unfortunately Davis can write less well about either Las Vegas or Dubai than Hickey might, and we can learn from that too. His opening paragraphs, for starters, a science fiction parody, are rather cumbersome (look and see where, precisely, they are cumbersome). However, Davis provides us with useful information, good facts, and we are greatful for that, because Dubai not a pleasant scenario, or is it? Perhaps it's difficult to care? Tell me.

Session Three: Education

Now we have discussed contemporary architecture, architects and urbanism, how about education? Seeing as you are now paying for the stuff; that would seem reasonable. Please read at least the first fifty pages of this little volume, it doesn't matter that the focus is 'cultural theory' and that you will never have heard of many of the subjects mentioned; you should still be able to get the drift.

Session Two: 9/11

These two texts introduce a word you may not be familiar with; neoliberalism, a term still not recognised in spellcheck, yet representing the universal ethos of western power. The first is Dave Hickey's 'A Home in the Neon' from the book Air Guitar: Essays on Art and Democracy (1997). This delightful piece explains the pleasures Hickey finds in Las Vegas, a place we generally might not think of being a home at all. The second is 'Fear, Sand and Money in Dubai' a riff on 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' perhaps, by Mike Davis, collected in the book Evil Paradises (2007). The two texts straddle the period our world changed, 9/11.

Please read these texts before the next sessions; Monday 13th Oct for P-T, Friday 17th October for F-T where they will be discussed further, then write your blogs on these subjects after the session, so setting the pattern for the rest of the course.

Mike Davis text: http://newleftreview.org/II/41/mike-davis-fear-and-money-in-dubai

Notes on Session One

It is in some ways fortunate that you have two weeks to digest the first three texts, and that the part-time students get a chance to discuss them again tomorrow morning. This is not just because the contemporary situation presents us with some difficulties but also because the ground has to be laid, our 'foundations in reverse' need to be established. So here's some help with the take home message from the first session.
Alain Badiou's text is the most contemptuous, he is so uncomfortable with what is going on he has to parody it. As a Marxist philosopher and mathematician he has all the equipment at his disposal; this can be daunting for even a post-graduate student in 2014. I would suggest if you have no clue about what that Marxist background might entail, you read the excellent Marx for Beginners by Ruis. It will take you less than an afternoon.
Will Self was chosen as representing an opposite creed, well known as a 'psycho-geographer' he is far more of a phenomenologist; he is far more interested in (perhaps more resigned to) looking at the world rather than changing it. Whilst there are so many negatives in the project surrounding Battersea Power Station, Self is hence more mournful than angry. Phenomenologists tend to enjoy 'the experience' of architecture rather than it's materialist basis.
Noting the difference between these positions is important because as we move forward it will become clear to you that while I behave more like a quasi grumpy Marxist, Matthew might be described as a softer phenomenologist, so as you move toward in to your dissertation you will find yourself negotiating the territory between the two viewpoints and the two of us!
However Jonathan Meades would not fit kindly into either camp of thought, he is more impresario, more maverick, he would probably find Badiou hard work, and Self sulky. With his talent for stringing phrases together, he focuses us on language, and when he encounters Zaha, this is what he is most disappointed with, her ability to articulate (and our ability to articulate) what architecture is doing. But perhaps Meades is rather like Zaha, in their different fields of endeavour; with the shared attitude: 'art for art's sake'? Perhaps that's where we are now; so how does it feel?
Please note, no session next week for the full timers.

Session One: Contemporary Writing

Image: Polly Borland

You are asked to read three essays and write two blogs over the first two weeks of this course:

The first is Will Self on Battersea Power Station, a Diary piece written for the London Review of Books (18th July 2013). It is easily available on line and registering with the LRB archive is probably a good idea. It reflects on the contemporary building environment here in London with some disdain.

The second is Jonathan Meades on Zaha Hadid 'The First Great Female Architect' (also easily downloadable) which gives us a cleverly thought through (perhaps too clever for some) appreciation of the role of the celebrity architect. It was first published in the ghastly named Intelligent Life, a spin off from The Economist.

The third is Alan Badiou 'This Crisis is the Spectacle; Where is the Real' published in response to the banking crisis of 2008. As soon as you google those words you will find a torrent of student blogs grappling with the notion there might be a leftist critique still in existence; browse through as you wish, but make sure you read the original (first published in Le Monde, but widely circulated).

You are asked to combine your appreciation of any two of the texts in one blog, and cover the third in a stand alone second blog. 

Will each of you send me your new blog addresses to me at davies.vegas@virgin.net which is the default address for contacting me. I do not use university e-mail.

As to what you write, a blog can be of any length but they are best kept short and pithy, especially at this early stage. You should be careful to say something about the writing rather than just mouthing opinion and realise at the same time you are NOT WRITING AN ESSAY. Blogs tend to be about something that worries their author, which over a space of five to ten paragraphs, they elaborate upon.

You might want to check out my own blog Architecture and Other Habits (pauldaviesarchitecture.blogspot.com).

It's best to write your blogs AFTER the class discussion. Due to a long standing engagement there will NOT be a session on Friday 10th October; the reason for this three texts over the fortnight start. My apologies for that.

Advice on Blogging

This course in unique in having orientated it's course submission around each students individual blog. You are asked to create your own blog (with blogspot.com or equivalent) and post each week from the beginning of the course. This year the course begins in the second week of the first semester- week beginning 29th September 2014. Whilst you may be initially nervous about putting your thoughts out there, I assure you of the benefits to your confidence and writing capability that come with the discipline of sitting down and getting to work each week and the pleasure of pressing the 'publish' button. Remember you are not writing an essay at the end of this course.
You will also find plenty of Critical Thinking blogs out there, including some from AA students attending my courses. I have read them all over the years, but be aware that the texts change year by year, and that it is your own critical development we are interested in and not somebody else's. Do not try and fake the process, we are well aware of the limits of theory teaching in undergraduate architecture programmes and if you punch above your weight; it's obvious. Learning to read critically is not rocket science, so please avoid that horrible tendency to pretension; words such as 'ecosophy' or 'syncretism' are not appreciated. Other aspects of style we will discuss as we go along; that's part of the fun.

Welcome

This is the guide blog for this years Critical Readings (component one of Critical Thinking) course for PGDip Architecture students at London South Bank University for the session 2014-15. It provides information about each week's texts and alerts on any room changes (these can be expected) and offers some advice and personal interpretation as we go along. It is generally updated each Sunday and it is advised that all students enrolled on the course check the blog each week and register as followers.