Week 7 20.11.09

I have read decline and fall over the last day or so and found it to be a ‘nice’ story. This is not damning through faint praise but ‘nice’ is as good a word as any to describe its nature. I understand from the introduction, and class discussion, that the book is intended to be a social satire describing the failing moral fibre of post war Britain. However it was not the bitter attack on capitalism that I have come to expect from theory two but more of a light hearted funny story with cartoon like characters and a cheerful plot. Despite it promising scandal the humour was simply old fashioned by today’s standards, maybe a little childish, and completely excusable. It did not offend. In light of my opinion of this book I find it difficult to examine the architect, Professor Silenus’ character in any great depth. Silenus and the process of rebuilding King’s Thursday was a manifestation and characterisation of the attitudes of the bright young things. As it happens Silenus’ Corbusian principles appear to harmonise very well with the shock tactics employed by bohemian London society of the time. Waugh manages to make Silenus/Corbu look stupid (- I challenge anyone to read Vers Une Architecture without laughing) clearly showing that such arrogance can only lead to downfall .

My favourite part of the book was the description of the central character, Paul, where for one fleeting moment a glimpse of the possibility of his capability can be seen through his otherwise bumbling story.

‘For an evening at least... Paul Pennyfeather materialised into the solid figure of an intelligent, well-educated, well-conducted young man, a man who could be trusted to use his vote at a general election with discretion and proper detachment, whose opinion on a ballet or critical essay was rather better than most people’s, who could order a dinner without embarrassment and with a creditable French accent, who could be trusted to see to luggage at foreign railway stations and might be expected to acquit himself with decision and decorum in all the emergencies of a civilised life.’

I think that this is a fabulous piece of writing which leaves me asking where can I find one of these gentlemen? Waugh answers this question by reminding the reader that this description is only possibility and that the only interesting thing about the central character is the events that he is involved with. His fate for the remainder of the book is reliant on the decisions of Mrs Beste-Chetwynde the strong female character who lives by independent means courtesy of her numerous whorehouses in the Americas. This is a lovely little observation of the myth of the gentleman and it made me smile.

Week 9 01.12.09

Howard Roark is my tattoo artist- sorry Karl! A man with an unshakeable ego who refuses to do anything other than be allowed to produce his own work. There is no client/designer collaboration here. At one point in the film, The Fountainhead, Roark has no money but still won’t bow down to popularism. For him his is work is divine and it is his and it is part of him to be protected and despite the arrogance required to uphold this view there is little one can do but have at least a grudging respect for that individual. I think that Roark is actually a likeable man, he has a misplaced reverence for his work but also an admirable vindication in what he says. Even if you think he is wrong he has at least a logic which he can apply to his situation, a set of rules an identification of boundaries, something which I know I have not found yet.

As a film it is a little clumsy with the melodrama getting in the way of any meaningful cinema. I haven’t read the novel (but I think I will) which may have had a little more finesse than the over-egged syrup I saw on the screen. The bit about the paper going down for supporting Roark was more than ridiculous but the post modern adornments that were constantly stuck onto Roark’s models were positively genius and nearly made me laugh as much as the character in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfprIxNfCjk Graphic designer vs client the truest thing I’ve seen on the internet). Having said all that stick me in front of any schmaltzy obviously contrived black and white film and, as a golden age of Hollywood nut- you’ll find me a happy girl. I’m such a prole.

As an aside while in Amsterdam I noticed lots of posters in windows saying ‘no fountainhead’. It was not however an expression of dislike for the film or book or even arrogance of designers but an objection to the construction of a huge block of flats in the Dockland Island of Sporenberg called ‘fountainhead’. It strikes me that they could not have picked a more unfortunate name for a controversial building. Was this meant to be ironic?

http://www.amsterdamdocklands.com/navigation/News/Fountainhead.html

Week 10 13.12.09

As a result of ever continuing cash flow problems I have in hand photocopies of the three chapters from John Dos Passos’ USA detailing commentaries on Frank Lloyd Wright, Henry Ford and Thorstein Veblen. As discussed in the lecture this is a book describing the tragedies of a collection who individuals who were significant in early 21st century America.

The one I liked was the story of Veblen- The Bitter Drink. Accused by a fellow student as lazy I immediately empathised with this man. The story describes a very clever and natural thinker who didn’t fit to the path his Norwegian parents, or indeed society at large, sought for him but neither did he feel at ease with the academic life that he was resigned to. Dos Passos repeatedly says that Veblen ‘had a constitutional inability to say yes’ I don’t believe that this was right. He was a man who did not say yes to society, he did not say yes to the things that would lead him to the life that others had or others expected him to have. He said yes to what he wanted to do. To say yes to this above anything else and takes the most courage of all. It is also because of this that I do not believe that he was a lazy man. He was not. He simply did not say yes, because he knew he did not have to and he knew it would not serve him. This man said yes more than any of them, he said yes to more difficult things than taking a job offer or buying a house or a car, he said yes to not taking employment, he said yes to reading Latin and Greek and owning nothing but books and boating on the river and turning up to the university in a coonskin hat. He said yes to scandal on a cruise liner, to living like a hermit and practicing carpentry, to teaching what he believed in and not what he was asked to teach. He said yes to resigning from a job he wasn’t happy to do. These are the hardest things to say yes to, this man is the man who says yes in the noblest way.
These thought were further clarified after ‘googling’ him where I learnt about his theories relating to conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption. Veblen believed that businessmen (or service providers as we might call them today) are barbarians in that they do not do the difficult tasks themselves, they do not produce like farmers or labourers but simply shift goods around, taking a profit for themselves while creating the illusion to the genuinely ‘working’ class that they are necessary and represent an improvement of the basic feudal society history while actually promoting a feudal society run by themselves. This is made possible by man’s disposition to consume or waste money in order to display a higher status when compared others.

All I can say is jeez; if this guy thought this back then he would have a whole lot more to say about it now. The first thing that came into my mind when reading this was Range Rovers. One can buy a perfectly good working car that offers the same amount of utility (I am specifically referring to those idiots who drive clean Range Rovers in cities) for a far smaller amount of money yet the Range Rovers and Range Rover dealers still exist profiting from conspicuous consumption.