The Image Of The Man You Do Not See

[porTENT]

I would put this essay in the same category as Tom Wolfes', From Bauhaus to Our House.

Article

I walk around Chicago, and look up at buildings of variety and charm. I walk into lobbies of untold beauty. I ascend in elevators fit for the gods. Then I walk outside again and see the street defaced by the cruel storefronts of bank branches and mall chains, scornful of beauty. Here I squat! they declare. I am Chase! I am Citibank! I am Payless Shoe Source! I don't speak to my neighbors. I have no interest in pleasing those who walk by. I occupy square footage at the lowest possible cost. My fixtures can be moved out overnight. I am capital.

This is interesting quote, after reading it I'm almost convinced now that only capital is truly beautiful and that the old adage of "every building as an image of an unseen man" is an outdated theory of identity.

[Specwriter]

I would put this essay in the same category as Tom Wolfes', From Bauhaus to Our House.

Article

This is interesting quote, after reading it I'm almost convinced now that only capital is truly beautiful and that the old adage of "every building as an image of an unseen man" is an outdated theory of identity.

I believe you are right, porTENT, but I would like to hope you could be wrong.

[TheNiche]

Another quote from the article:

Mies was nevertheless a great creator, an original, whose buildings are at least forthright in their deliberate simplicity. (Please don't inform me of his infinite attention to proportion: I know.) But he and his generation seem to have pointed us down the road to an architecture that is totalitarian in its severe economy.

Authentic totalitarians are rarely economical. Consider Hitler, consider Kim Jong-Il, consider Saddam Hussein. Consider the Al Maktoum family of Dubai. Consider the pharaohs of Egypt, Augustus, Justinian or Napoleon Bonaparte. Consider the monolithic entity that is/was the Catholic church (particularly in comparison to the de-massified protestant factions that served as its competition.

Contrast these totalitarians with the world's largest and wealthiest companies. Big companies must appeal to the masses (both customers and shareholders), and so they build sprawling campuses, their stores branded with a proprietary, inoffensive, clean and consistent corporate image. They appeal to nobody and offend only the insignificant fraction that would dare object to the inoffensive. They are a mirror on society at large. Aside from the federal government and the Catholic church, there was no organization that--a century ago--was so geographically ubiquitous and well-endowed that it could pull off a national architectural advertising campaign. And the masses seemed to embrace it at the time, reflecting a superior, "for god and country" attitude that many historians would now align with...guess what...totalitarianism and/or authoritarianism and/or fascism.

Now, consider the architecture of a sort that does appeal to people. Consider which cities people are most inclined to travel to in order to go sightseeing. Paris, Rome and the Vatican, St. Petersburg, and Istanbul come to mind. The end result is enjoyable, but one would not have wanted to live there as those things that make them enjoyable came about. Even Manhattan or Chicago's Inner Loop, as sterile and livable as they have become (and never forget that those two things go hand-in-hand where the enjoyment of tightasses like Ebert are concerned) were built with the blood, sweat, and tears of their inhabitants, who by and large lived in such squalor as the typical modern-day westerner cannot possibly conceive.

Most people desire to sightsee in such neighborhoods as were built by autocrats or tycoons out of fascination...yet patronize the ubiquitous Bank of America branch because such places were built for most people.

Ebert is not critiquing architecture; he is critiquing people--those who value ornamentation so little--as being somehow less than human. And perhaps, if the proper place of the common man is to stand in awe at the power of the nobility or the clergy (which, considering his choice of photos does seem to be the case)...then perhaps he is right. But I do not think so.

[TheNiche]

.

[AtticaFlinch]

Interesting take, Niche. It takes a highly jaundiced eye to see a critique on blasé architecture as being a critique on the common man at large. I think one thing you've identified incorrectly, at least contextually so, is the role of technology in creating impressive public works. The time periods you've mentioned, and the cultures and peoples who occupied them, weren't blessed with mass production capabilities. The end cultural products aren't elegant and unique simply due to one person's delusions of grandeur, they're elegant and unique because they were built before a time of mechanization and assembly line production. I assure you, if the Egyptian nobles could simply build massive altars unto themselves cheaply, they would have.

Also, and slightly off from the previous paragraph, another thing to consider is that in all the architecture mentioned, with the possible exception of Chicago itself (though I'm not confident of that), all surviving structures that we view with awe and romance are exclusively the domain of the wealthy and powerful who occupied that location in geography and time. Having spent a considerable amount of my adult life studying the scant info available about the common man in both the Southeast US and Mesoamerica, both areas with rather impressive monumental architecture indicating a centralized command of the labor force, I can assure you the domain of the common man in those regions was every bit as bland and uninspiring as the lobby in a Bank of America or the showroom of a Payless Shoe Store.

Edit: And what I mean by the second paragraph is that Ebert doesn't come across to me as a man who has a chip on his shoulder for the working man. To me, it appears more that he's simply a wistful old codger one scotch shy of screaming at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn. Architectural styles have changed, and construction methods have changed, but by and large, values have not. Ebert's age has blinded him to that. It's a common generational complaint. He just hides it better behind prettier words.

[TheNiche]

Interesting take, Niche. It takes a highly jaundiced eye to see a critique on blasé architecture as being a critique on the common man at large. I think one thing you've identified incorrectly, at least contextually so, is the role of technology in creating impressive public works. The time periods you've mentioned, and the cultures and peoples who occupied them, weren't blessed with mass production capabilities. The end cultural products aren't elegant and unique simply due to one person's delusions of grandeur, they're elegant and unique because they were built before a time of mechanization and assembly line production. I assure you, if the Egyptian nobles could simply build massive altars unto themselves cheaply, they would have.

No doubt about it, mass production causes proportionately less attention to be paid to issues of customized ornamentation. And although it is not clear whether the pharohs of Egypt would would have merely enjoyed the frugality that mass production allowed them, or have just have scaled up the mass of their altars unto themselves--you do have a point. Ebert was talking about chiefly about the style and ornamentation of buildings, and I interpreted that broadly to include any kind of whimsical architectural element.

Also, and slightly off from the previous paragraph, another thing to consider is that in all the architecture mentioned, with the possible exception of Chicago itself (though I'm not confident of that), all surviving structures that we view with awe and romance are exclusively the domain of the wealthy and powerful who occupied that location in geography and time. Having spent a considerable amount of my adult life studying the scant info available about the common man in both the Southeast US and Mesoamerica, both areas with rather impressive monumental architecture indicating a centralized command of the labor force, I can assure you the domain of the common man in those regions was every bit as bland and uninspiring as the lobby in a Bank of America or the showroom of a Payless Shoe Store.

Edit: And what I mean by the second paragraph is that Ebert doesn't come across to me as a man who has a chip on his shoulder for the working man. To me, it appears more that he's simply a wistful old codger one scotch shy of screaming at the neighborhood kids to get off his lawn. Architectural styles have changed, and construction methods have changed, but by and large, values have not. Ebert's age has blinded him to that. It's a common generational complaint. He just hides it better behind prettier words.

I wouldn't argue that Ebert has a chip on his shoulder about the common man; he does not consider the common man, much less the very appropriate (if underwhelming) architectural response to the common man.

[AtticaFlinch]

I wouldn't argue that Ebert has a chip on his shoulder about the common man; he does not consider the common man, much less the very appropriate (if underwhelming) architectural response to the common man.

But would you expect the ramblings of a nostalgic old man to do that? The architectural response to the common man is that of utility. What in utility is there to get excited about? Engineering, perhaps, but the number of people who could appreciate that would be small. Ebert was looking at the artistry and artisanship of architecture, which for him is more accessible in older buildings considering that's the style he's attuned to. His analogy is wrong, but that's what old people mythologizing their pasts do.

Plus, as someone who's studied the past can tell you, not considering the common people from the past is very, very common practice. It's not necessarily an intentional slight. It's just that the physical remains of common people are not as prevalent, and when it does exist in abundance, it's not as sexy. An archaeologist digging in Tikal's suburbs is going to find a lot less cool stuff than an archaeologist boring a tunnel through a pyramid. As such, it's a common mistake for someone to compare the lackluster examples of modern utility existence and ignore that such things also existed in the past, or worse, to imagine that such a utility existence was heavily ornamented as that's all that remains to tell the story. It's a mistake really. Ebert's scholarship is in art, literature and film, not in anthropology or sociology. Actually, considering your training, it's fairly impressive you had caught on to his omission.

[TheNiche]

It's a mistake really. Ebert's scholarship is in art, literature and film, not in anthropology or sociology. Actually, considering your training, it's fairly impressive you had caught on to his omission.

My training?

[AtticaFlinch]

My training?

Sure. At least it's my understanding of your training as you present it here. Considering so many of your arguments (at least the ones that oppose my point-of-view) are based on pure economic cost/benefit analyses, and considering the net effect often ignores or overlooks the human element, I made the assumption this was due to your on-the-job and university training. Feel free to correct me. Besides, I meant it as a compliment, not an insult.

[TheNiche]

Sure. At least it's my understanding of your training as you present it here. Considering so many of your arguments (at least the ones that oppose my point-of-view) are based on pure economic cost/benefit analyses, and considering the net effect often ignores or overlooks the human element, I made the assumption this was due to your on-the-job and university training. Feel free to correct me. Besides, I meant it as a compliment, not an insult.

Economics is the study of how people make decisions. Using empirical data, the "human element" can be identified and properly monetized for the sake of comparability with other components of a cost-benefit analysis.

[AtticaFlinch]

Economics is the study of how people make decisions. Using empirical data, the "human element" can be identified and properly monetized for the sake of comparability with other components of a cost-benefit analysis.

I fundamentally disagree with this, not with the idea that patterns of human behavior can be identified, but with the idea that all human thought and motivations can be assigned a dollar amount. I don't know enough of your field to criticize your statement intellectually, but I nevertheless find the reduction more than a little distasteful. The implication of this is that humans are little more than greed-driven robots, and if that was the case, then no one would bjtch about the perceived lack of beauty in modern architecture.

[TheNiche]

I fundamentally disagree with this, not with the idea that patterns of human behavior can be identified, but with the idea that all human thought and motivations can be assigned a dollar amount. I don't know enough of your field to criticize your statement intellectually, but I nevertheless find the reduction more than a little distasteful. The implication of this is that humans are little more than greed-driven robots, and if that was the case, then no one would bjtch about the perceived lack of beauty in modern architecture.

I'm not saying that there aren't individual differences, but certainly patterns of decision making can be observed and interpreted. Does a young child prefer a set unit of M&Ms or an apple? Or perhaps they prefer a little of both. What happens to demand when the price of one is raised relative to the other? When the price difference between the one and the other is sufficient that children are indifferent between M&Ms and apples, that is the price that signifies the delight of M&Ms relative to apples. And this would be good to know if a public school were contemplating the implementation of some kind of "healthy" lunch program and wanted to weigh medical benefits against chocolate-induced benefits of happiness (among other things).

Is it really so distasteful that someone like myself would willfully (even a little eagerly) assign an equivalent dollar value to your little daughter's squeal of delight at the discovery and consumption of chocolate? People assign value to personal injuries, pain, and suffering every day in courtrooms throughout America. Why not to a toothy chocolate-stained grin?

[AtticaFlinch]

I'm not saying that there aren't individual differences, but certainly patterns of decision making can be observed and interpreted. Does a young child prefer a set unit of M&Ms or an apple? Or perhaps they prefer a little of both. What happens to demand when the price of one is raised relative to the other? When the price difference between the one and the other is sufficient that children are indifferent between M&Ms and apples, that is the price that signifies the delight of M&Ms relative to apples. And this would be good to know if a public school were contemplating the implementation of some kind of "healthy" lunch program and wanted to weigh medical benefits against chocolate-induced benefits of happiness (among other things).

Is it really so distasteful that someone like myself would willfully (even a little eagerly) assign an equivalent dollar value to your little daughter's squeal of delight at the discovery and consumption of chocolate? People assign value to personal injuries, pain, and suffering every day in courtrooms throughout America. Why not to a toothy chocolate-stained grin?

There a difference between an interaction and a transaction.

[TheNiche]

There a difference between an interaction and a transaction.

How do you mean?

[AtticaFlinch]

How do you mean?

I don't know how to concisely explain it. And my kid is not laying down for her nap (no matter how much I bribe her with chocolate). I'm having a difficult time articulating it in the first place, and the distractions don't help, so I'll have to get back with you on this.

[20thStDad]

I don't know how to concisely explain it. And my kid is not laying down for her nap (no matter how much I bribe her with chocolate). I'm having a difficult time articulating it in the first place, and the distractions don't help, so I'll have to get back with you on this.

It only gets worse. We have moved on from offering treats to threatening removal of privileges. This works ok, but you have to figure out whatever it is she actually cares about at the time. One day it might be a pair of shoes, another day it might be a disney princess movie.

[AtticaFlinch]

How do you mean?

Come to think of it, I don't think I can make a solid argument justifying my statement. I just don't like my actions being reduced to a dollar amount. It may be that I suffer from the chronic human condition of overly-inflated sense of self-importance. I think I'm generally motivated by things larger than a constant series of cost/benefit analyses. Maybe not though. Maybe you have a point.

It only gets worse. We have moved on from offering treats to threatening removal of privileges. This works ok, but you have to figure out whatever it is she actually cares about at the time. One day it might be a pair of shoes, another day it might be a disney princess movie.

I actually don't feed my kid chocolate, most especially to get her to sleep. I think the caffeine and sugar might be a bit counterproductive.

Mostly, I give her whiskey.

[porTENT]

There a difference between an interaction and a transaction.

^

Exactly, everyone draws a moral line in the sand. To equate and then leverage domestic experiences as commodities, inherently will devalue such human phenomena. A value judgement that only the morally debased would traverse, however are we to believe this is where capitalism is trending our social mores towards? What is the end game then? I'm thinking something along the lines of the sci-fi movie, Surrogates, where everyone buys and sells virtual experiences.

[TheNiche]

^

Exactly, everyone draws a moral line in the sand. To equate and then leverage domestic experiences as commodities, inherently will devalue such human phenomena. A value judgement that only the morally debased would traverse, however are we to believe this is where capitalism is trending our social mores towards? What is the end game then? I'm thinking something along the lines of the sci-fi movie, Surrogates, where everyone buys and sells virtual experiences.

Ironically, academic cost-benefit analysis that would convert to a dollar equivalent such a breadth of possible impacts is normally done on the basis of theories developed by Vilfredo Pareto, an ardent socialist whose support of fascism in Italy led Karl Popper to describe him as the "Theoretician of Totalitarianism".

To the extent that government (or the public at large) must evaluate the effect of various policies or projects, it should endeavor to identify and quantify all possible human impacts that could be bestowed (or inflicted) upon its citizens. And people may have different ideas about how much involvement the government should have on the private lives of citizens, but most of us can probably agree that an attempt should be made to weigh easily observable material transactions alongside or against human transactions. And to that end, there has to be a conversion factor so as to make the comparisons like-to-like. It can be done.

And what one tends to find when you get into it is that economic concepts apply in a surprising number of non-materialistic social interactions. How many times does AtticaFlinch hug his daughter per day? Why not more? Hugs have diminishing returns. ...what about his wife? To what extent does he divide his time between the two females in his life? And what of his other preoccupations, like HAIF? Attica's family is no doubt fed tasty food of a greater quantity and nutritional quality than is necessary for mere subsistence. He no doubt enjoys that his family is able to appreciate it. But what happens if there's a shock to the household economy (i.e. a job loss, a dramatic pay cut, longer hours)? How might that affect the family's enjoyment of taste, quality, or quantity of its sustenance? How much leisure time in their company would Attica trade off in order to maintain the standard of sustenance that they currently enjoy? Let's shock the system in another way? How does the household respond to a member that exhibits flu-like symptoms? How would it affect Attica if his daughter turned out to be a synesthetic genius. Would the time he spends with her vary? Or what about a second child entering the household; there would definitely have to be trade-offs. What decisions would he make? And what if we carefully measured and observed his decisions to try and examine his revealed preferences? Would that be so evil?

Ah, but Attica is just...Attica. He's too normal for this conversation (going back on-topic, now). Studying him or his household isn't really very fun; it's like studying the architecture of a Trendmaker home. Attica's family is very forgettable in the grand scheme, particularly once you've studied a statistically significant sample of other families. And just as few would go on a Trendmaker sight-seeing tour, few would read a biography about AtticaFlinch's family. Gerald Hines or Phillip Johnson or Pennzoil Place or the Pennzoil Corporation are different. They'd generate some interest. Walter P. Chrysler or William van Allen or the Chrysler Building or the Chrysler Corporation are another matter altogether; they'd generate a fair bit more interest. Napoleon Bonaparte and the streets of Paris are another matter altogether. Peter the Great and St. Petersburg are another matter altogether. Pharaoh Khafra and the Great Sphinx are another matter altogether. What made them tick? They're interesting because they're unusual. But with each successive example, I am more convinced that I am fortunate for not being part of a society that builds very many memorable things.

[porTENT]

Ironically, academic cost-benefit analysis that would convert to a dollar equivalent such a breadth of possible impacts is normally done on the basis of theories developed by Vilfredo Pareto, an ardent socialist whose support of fascism in Italy led Karl Popper to describe him as the "Theoretician of Totalitarianism".

To the extent that government (or the public at large) must evaluate the effect of various policies or projects, it should endeavor to identify and quantify all possible human impacts that could be bestowed (or inflicted) upon its citizens. And people may have different ideas about how much involvement the government should have on the private lives of citizens, but most of us can probably agree that an attempt should be made to weigh easily observable material transactions alongside or against human transactions. And to that end, there has to be a conversion factor so as to make the comparisons like-to-like. It can be done.

http://www.ara-pacis-museum.com/

This is a very favorable angle I'll admit but I reference this particular building because this museum represents a deliberate echo of that era's fascist architecture machine. The museum was also reportedly panned by both critics and residents but I think it will age well in context to Vittorio Ballio's nearby trendsetters.

(from wikipedia, 1937)

Granted, Meier's design is just as heavy handed as it's predecessor it is a conservative design by keeping the scale of it's predecessor. More importantly and to the point of all this, is that this is the architectural product from that era's outlook on lives. So in a way the critique of late Internationalism (like that of the Pennzoil towers or Meier's entire projects list) is not so much it's sterility but the image of distant power that strikes any casual observer or Ebert as alien in contrast to his non-ADA compliant churches rich in detailed ornamentation. People see the architecture of old world as it is expressed in the new world, or as tourists/voyers. It's an image or mental construct that has been tamed by an unending machine of economy to where things are today, style wise. So much that the image of "Rome in Houston" or "Houston in Rome" has become the common transaction of many new builds. However, I would not put it above recognition that Attica could theoretically live/work in an architecturally interesting home/office of timeless preservation representing not only the parlance of our era but also in his own terms it's "utility."

...

I am more convinced that I am fortunate for not being part of a society that builds very many memorable things.

That's funny because PVDF's aren't going anywhere's much like the proverb of the oak tree and the blade of grass during a hurricane.

[AtticaFlinch]

Granted, Meier's design is just as heavy handed as it's predecessor it is a conservative design by keeping the scale of it's predecessor. More importantly and to the point of all this, is that this is the architectural product from that era's outlook on lives. So in a way the critique of late Internationalism (like that of the Pennzoil towers or Meier's entire projects list) is not so much it's sterility but the image of distant power that strikes any casual observer or Ebert as alien in contrast to his non-ADA compliant churches rich in detailed ornamentation. People see the architecture of old world as it is expressed in the new world, or as tourists/voyers. It's an image or mental construct that has been tamed by an unending machine of economy to where things are today, style wise. So much that the image of "Rome in Houston" or "Houston in Rome" has become the common transaction of many new builds.

But that's not Ebert's lament. He's pissy because he sees the grandiose old next to the utilitarian new without thinking about context. In other words, he doesn't recognize old once had utilitarian buildings too, but that those have invariably spent time with the business end of a bulldozer. He's under the false impression the past was somehow better than the present. It's a malady that affects all older people. I think his problem is that he views his surroundings through the eyes of an old man, not that he views his surroundings through the eyes of a modern man.

However, I would not put it above recognition that Attica could theoretically live/work in an architecturally interesting home/office of timeless preservation representing not only the parlance of our era but also in his own terms it's "utility."

I'm much too spartan for that. My office and my home pretty much meet the definition of the word utility as it applies in modern day America.

[dbigtex56]

It's a malady that affects all older people. I think his problem is that he views his surroundings through the eyes of an old man, not that he views his surroundings through the eyes of a modern man.

Is your view of the world the same as it was ten years ago? twenty? If not, you're suffering from the very malady you decry, m'lady. Find a toddler to set you straight, or better yet, a fetus.

Why oh why must old people delude themselves into thinking that a lifetime of experiences, education and thought count for something?

[TheNiche]

Is your view of the world the same as it was ten years ago? twenty? If not, you're suffering from the very malady you decry, m'lady. Find a toddler to set you straight, or better yet, a fetus.

Why oh why must old people delude themselves into thinking that a lifetime of experiences, education and thought count for something?

I have to agree with you that it isn't necessarily an issue of old age. In fact, judging from those that have commented on ornamentation, downtown lighting, or issues of that sort on HAIF, I would tend to think there's a stronger correlation with younger folks and with African-American subculture. Still, there's room for doubt... HAIFers are a biased sample of the population. I'm not ready to go around promulgating a new stereotype just yet.

[AtticaFlinch]

Is your view of the world the same as it was ten years ago? twenty? If not, you're suffering from the very malady you decry, m'lady. Find a toddler to set you straight, or better yet, a fetus.

Why oh why must old people delude themselves into thinking that a lifetime of experiences, education and thought count for something?

Wrong on two assumptions.

One, I'm no lady. I realize my nom de HAIF can probably be construed as the feminine form of Atticus, and in fact part of the inspiration for my name was based on Harper Lee's brilliant portrait of true American nobility, but it was also inspired by a successful prison riot. It's not feminine, it just looks that way.

Two, I am unchanging and immutable. I'm godlike in that way.