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.