Dos Passos: U.S.A – The American Trilogy
I am sitting on an overcrowded train writing this blog; there is, I think, something quite appropriate about this with regards to the topic – for me Dos Passos is a bit like watching Hitchcock’s ‘Rear Window’. It is a work filled with snap-shots;of biographies of celebrities of the day; of news-clip entries and of personal diary style entries chronicling Dos Passos’ growing up. It is a book that provides a snap shot of a generation - of the United States of the 1930’s.
The last part of the trilogy, ‘The Big Money’ contains three biographies that were of particular interest – ‘Tin Lizzie’, about Henry Ford; ‘The Bitter Drink’ about Veblen; and ‘The Architect’ about Frank Lloyd Wright. These three men are treated very differently by Dos Passos. Henry Ford is the most despised. The man who embodied the modern American dream is held accountable for the wanton destruction of the American way of life; an exploiter who destroyed his age and perversely then tried to pretend he had not. Ford it would appear was allowed to spearhead progress unchecked – he is a man portrayed as a naive man who was cunning and ruthless and significantly one who potentially did not fully understand the repercussions of what he craved and created.
Chronologically the next biography considered within this book is concerned with Veblen, a 2nd generation Norwegian American – he is a non conformist and an interesting foil to the character of Henry Ford. Veblen does not seek to become, nor is remotely interested in, the American Dream, or the typical American way of life. Veblen is recalled as a charismatic individual whose disregard for and questioning of the established order ensured that he was not comfortable with life, or life with Veblen. Veblen is the personification of a new spirit that started to emerge in 1930s America that challenged the status quo.
The final biography read was about Frank Lloyd Wright, the Architect. Interestingly in The Big Money, Dos Passos elected to write about a capitalist, a theorist and an architect – who presumably is meant to represent the Arts of 1930s America. All of these biographies are concerned with modernists yet Lloyd Wright, possibly because as an architect his work is less intrusive than car manufacturing, is not criticised as Henry Ford is. Possibly Dos Passos is making the suggestion that in any age style, or what is fashionable, will change; furthermore thinkers are rarely appreciated during their own time – but their opinions should not be dismissed out of hand. However, the capitalist will always remain the most dangerous form of modernist. It is the capitalist who should be most watched and treated with suspicion and perversely he is the one who is allowed to proceed unchecked.
Friday 31 December 2010
Wednesday 15 December 2010
Fountainheads
With hindsight I think that in my blogs I have too often overlooked the figure of the architect within the literature that I have read. I have thought about theory in terms of what I take from it; loosely the figure of the architect is considered as I am penning a response, however with the exception of Professor Silenus in Evelyn Waugh’s ‘Decline and Fall’ I have not explicitly considered how the architect is portrayed. There is an article that I read a couple of years ago which muses about how it is the architect that will be the first one dismissed from the island as they serve no real purpose – they look good and wear funky glasses however they cannot save lives, or souls for that matter – best lose them.
Whilst watching ‘The Fountainheads’ I thought of this article, I thought of the portrayal of the architect, and being a woman I thought of the differences in attitudes towards male and female architects. ‘Fountainhead’ is a book written by Ayn Rand in the early 1940s; it was made into a film a few years later and this is how I approached the work. I enjoyed the film immensely; it tells of one man’s struggle to hold true to his ideals and another man’s struggle to prevent these ideals from flourishing. The central protagonist is an architect, Howard Roark, a thinly disguised Frank Lloyd Wright, who is desperately trying to forge a career which is based on building projects according to his personal vision. Unfortunately for Roark his design for anything is based on a practical, modern way of thinking which does not sit comfortably with the established mock Greek and Roman order of the day. In many ways it is a challenging film for an architect to watch, one which made me question how far would I take my own architectural ideals? – Howard Roark was willing to sacrifice emotional and financial opportunities – would I? Or would I sell out? It was interesting to see the manifestation of the architect who gives their life to their art, compared with the masses of architects who seemingly sell out – including the education facilities who despite operating under a veil of radicalism are actually portrayed as draped in the established order. Whilst doing my Part One at a northern institution my contemporaries and I were instructed to not think of any proposed schemes as personal; there is sense in this advice however it also means that work can become throwaway – you become a sell out. Howard Roark took what he did personally – and for that reason he did not become or create disposable, bland architecture.
In many ways Roark is also a revolutionary - challenging the grain, changing the order fighting for what he believes in and at the end of the film it is he who is put on the plinth, on top of the world – victorious. It is interesting to consider whether the film has relevance today, - I think that it does, and furthermore whether what is shown is an all encompassing view of architecture. I wonder if Howard Roark had been Helen Roark whether the message of the film would get obscured? Fountainhead is more a commentary on the human condition than a film purely about the struggle of an architect, the point is to hold firm to your integrity and you will eventually succeed; regrettably I feel that this is a naive view, or maybe a hopeful view of the way the world works. I wish that it really was this simple.
Whilst watching ‘The Fountainheads’ I thought of this article, I thought of the portrayal of the architect, and being a woman I thought of the differences in attitudes towards male and female architects. ‘Fountainhead’ is a book written by Ayn Rand in the early 1940s; it was made into a film a few years later and this is how I approached the work. I enjoyed the film immensely; it tells of one man’s struggle to hold true to his ideals and another man’s struggle to prevent these ideals from flourishing. The central protagonist is an architect, Howard Roark, a thinly disguised Frank Lloyd Wright, who is desperately trying to forge a career which is based on building projects according to his personal vision. Unfortunately for Roark his design for anything is based on a practical, modern way of thinking which does not sit comfortably with the established mock Greek and Roman order of the day. In many ways it is a challenging film for an architect to watch, one which made me question how far would I take my own architectural ideals? – Howard Roark was willing to sacrifice emotional and financial opportunities – would I? Or would I sell out? It was interesting to see the manifestation of the architect who gives their life to their art, compared with the masses of architects who seemingly sell out – including the education facilities who despite operating under a veil of radicalism are actually portrayed as draped in the established order. Whilst doing my Part One at a northern institution my contemporaries and I were instructed to not think of any proposed schemes as personal; there is sense in this advice however it also means that work can become throwaway – you become a sell out. Howard Roark took what he did personally – and for that reason he did not become or create disposable, bland architecture.
In many ways Roark is also a revolutionary - challenging the grain, changing the order fighting for what he believes in and at the end of the film it is he who is put on the plinth, on top of the world – victorious. It is interesting to consider whether the film has relevance today, - I think that it does, and furthermore whether what is shown is an all encompassing view of architecture. I wonder if Howard Roark had been Helen Roark whether the message of the film would get obscured? Fountainhead is more a commentary on the human condition than a film purely about the struggle of an architect, the point is to hold firm to your integrity and you will eventually succeed; regrettably I feel that this is a naive view, or maybe a hopeful view of the way the world works. I wish that it really was this simple.
Thursday 9 December 2010
All that is solid melts into air
Two weeks ago I read Marshall Berman’s ‘All that is solid melts into air’ – I focused in particular on the chapters than were concerned with J.W. Goethe’s ‘Faust’. Though I found Berman’s book to be readable it seemed a far better endeavour to read Faust rather than another person’s interpretation or even summary of the play. Generally I avoid reading plays, the legacy of high school Shakespeare means that I prefer to watch plays; I was therefore surprised by how accessible Faust is. Reading the actual work enabled me to appreciate how influential the play is to all forms of the modern arts; furthermore viewed simply as a piece of literature Faust is immensely enjoyable- the interaction between the protagonists, and the language used mean that belying its Aesop fable style tale of morality the play is quite simply a hoot.
On a serious level it is for me a work about the human condition, about want, need, desire, progress, envy, innocence, lust, greed, beauty, even history – off hand I cannot think of a human emotion not touched upon and I suspect that examples of all of the 7 deadly sins are readily available. At its crux is the tale of a disillusioned man selling his soul to the devil in return for emancipation for want of a better word. There are therefore religious elements to the play – the fight for good and evil, saved and damned but possibly Goethe realised that to write the human condition so well there needed to be a foil, or a pinnacle of one side of the human condition. The devil is the standard by which people are compared; he is not a character designed to be ridiculed or admired- he is simply the devil.
The story of Faust and Gretchen in Part One is a love story, a tragic love story that in many ways is the antithesis of what love actually is. Maybe the characters do display some form of love for each other but from the start it is made very obvious that Faust is infatuated and lusts after Gretchen whilst she is won through gifts and praise. Gretchen however is the innocent corrupted, the virgin soiled, life ruined – she herself murders the child fathered by Faust. The love story in many ways is a forerunner of the more obvious destruction that takes place in later scenes. Faust, if symbolically taken to represent man’s greed or development, is seen as destroyer of the simple, ‘honest’ life. Though this is an extremely simplistic overview of the play there are many subtle nuances which are ignored by this statement. Faust, the modern man, the explorer, developer, educator, scientist is also the destroyer - friend of the devil. It is possible that through Faust Goethe was making a more general statement about how advances in modern life must be seen for what they actually are and not too readily viewed as the answer to all prayers. Though a simple love story Goethe is really able to illustrate the thrust of his play; through his destruction of Gretchen’s life Faust feels little regret, indeed no real lasting regret – he does not learn from his actions but rather relives them on a grander scale. Magic tricks are used to create ghost money to provide false economy to a kingdom – the jewels used to bed Gretchen are used in this way to court an Emperor and allow others to perpetuate the destructive love circle of Faust and Gretchen. Whilst within this Kingdom the greed and almost self delusion of Faust is made evident, he plummets to further lows chasing after Helen of Troy because he lusts after her – despite her being a spirit and dead.
Throughout the play the devil is a source of amusement. Mephistopheles is obviously not to be trusted but he does not tell Faust what to do - he presents opportunities and suggests schemes; he moves the pawns in the play to broker situations but it is left to Faust to determine the course. Characters such as Gretchen do resist the devil but they are destroyed; if taken as development Faust is a force to be reckoned with – one which seemingly cannot be stopped. I wonder actually whether Goethe was not writing a play about the human condition but rather warning mankind about the tendencies of the human condition, this being why this play has had such a lasting legacy and is still very relevant.
On a serious level it is for me a work about the human condition, about want, need, desire, progress, envy, innocence, lust, greed, beauty, even history – off hand I cannot think of a human emotion not touched upon and I suspect that examples of all of the 7 deadly sins are readily available. At its crux is the tale of a disillusioned man selling his soul to the devil in return for emancipation for want of a better word. There are therefore religious elements to the play – the fight for good and evil, saved and damned but possibly Goethe realised that to write the human condition so well there needed to be a foil, or a pinnacle of one side of the human condition. The devil is the standard by which people are compared; he is not a character designed to be ridiculed or admired- he is simply the devil.
The story of Faust and Gretchen in Part One is a love story, a tragic love story that in many ways is the antithesis of what love actually is. Maybe the characters do display some form of love for each other but from the start it is made very obvious that Faust is infatuated and lusts after Gretchen whilst she is won through gifts and praise. Gretchen however is the innocent corrupted, the virgin soiled, life ruined – she herself murders the child fathered by Faust. The love story in many ways is a forerunner of the more obvious destruction that takes place in later scenes. Faust, if symbolically taken to represent man’s greed or development, is seen as destroyer of the simple, ‘honest’ life. Though this is an extremely simplistic overview of the play there are many subtle nuances which are ignored by this statement. Faust, the modern man, the explorer, developer, educator, scientist is also the destroyer - friend of the devil. It is possible that through Faust Goethe was making a more general statement about how advances in modern life must be seen for what they actually are and not too readily viewed as the answer to all prayers. Though a simple love story Goethe is really able to illustrate the thrust of his play; through his destruction of Gretchen’s life Faust feels little regret, indeed no real lasting regret – he does not learn from his actions but rather relives them on a grander scale. Magic tricks are used to create ghost money to provide false economy to a kingdom – the jewels used to bed Gretchen are used in this way to court an Emperor and allow others to perpetuate the destructive love circle of Faust and Gretchen. Whilst within this Kingdom the greed and almost self delusion of Faust is made evident, he plummets to further lows chasing after Helen of Troy because he lusts after her – despite her being a spirit and dead.
Throughout the play the devil is a source of amusement. Mephistopheles is obviously not to be trusted but he does not tell Faust what to do - he presents opportunities and suggests schemes; he moves the pawns in the play to broker situations but it is left to Faust to determine the course. Characters such as Gretchen do resist the devil but they are destroyed; if taken as development Faust is a force to be reckoned with – one which seemingly cannot be stopped. I wonder actually whether Goethe was not writing a play about the human condition but rather warning mankind about the tendencies of the human condition, this being why this play has had such a lasting legacy and is still very relevant.
Friday 3 December 2010
Decline and Fall
Decline and Fall
I have recently read Decline and Fall by Evelyn Waugh; it is one of the funniest pieces of early 20th century satire that I have come across. I think that it is a precursor to PG Woodhouse’s novels - a humorous take on the English class system prevalent in the Twenties. It is a book which celebrates the English language - where everything has a meaning, a point, a thought, but it is also a book which at its core has themes of cultural confusion, moral disorientation and societal bedlam.
Interestingly when first published the novel was praised for its ‘almost passionate adherence to the ultra-modern’; in reality this is a most misguided comment as Waugh was a well documented proponent of the traditional. It is through the character of Professor Silenus that the themes of cultural confusion and modernity are discussed. Waugh presents a situation where the old order is torn down and replaced by the modern. Silenus - Le Corbusier in a fictional character’s clothing - is presented as a figure of ridicule but also as a personification of the post war era. The character of Professor Silenus forced me to re-evaluate my personal opinions of Le Corbusier. I had never before considered Le Corbusier in the light of society’s disenchantment with traditional ways in the wake of the Great War; the bonds of history and the established order that were so weakened by the rampant devastation and destruction. Le Corbusier’s thoughts about architecture are entirely logical, the machine age had emerged out of war and society no longer wanted to be associated with ‘before’. Though I have difficulty identifying with ‘the machine for living’ doctrine it is entirely logical and was presumably essential for a society struggling to identify with anything.
Le Corbusier’s attitudes towards architecture are difficult to identify with as we are not in the ‘machine age’. Today in an age of technology - the digital age - Le Corbusier would identify five different points of architecture such as.... actually I am not sure. I think that maybe this is something else that I had not realised about Le Corbusier; it is incredibly difficult to provide an identity for a generation. Le Corbusier gave a style and maybe a new focus to people who needed it. The machine age is not something solely about war and death, but also creation. I think that it is something that I will consider more each time I re-read ‘Decline and Fall’, and this piece must only be viewed as being tentative steps toward a new understanding.
I have recently read Decline and Fall by Evelyn Waugh; it is one of the funniest pieces of early 20th century satire that I have come across. I think that it is a precursor to PG Woodhouse’s novels - a humorous take on the English class system prevalent in the Twenties. It is a book which celebrates the English language - where everything has a meaning, a point, a thought, but it is also a book which at its core has themes of cultural confusion, moral disorientation and societal bedlam.
Interestingly when first published the novel was praised for its ‘almost passionate adherence to the ultra-modern’; in reality this is a most misguided comment as Waugh was a well documented proponent of the traditional. It is through the character of Professor Silenus that the themes of cultural confusion and modernity are discussed. Waugh presents a situation where the old order is torn down and replaced by the modern. Silenus - Le Corbusier in a fictional character’s clothing - is presented as a figure of ridicule but also as a personification of the post war era. The character of Professor Silenus forced me to re-evaluate my personal opinions of Le Corbusier. I had never before considered Le Corbusier in the light of society’s disenchantment with traditional ways in the wake of the Great War; the bonds of history and the established order that were so weakened by the rampant devastation and destruction. Le Corbusier’s thoughts about architecture are entirely logical, the machine age had emerged out of war and society no longer wanted to be associated with ‘before’. Though I have difficulty identifying with ‘the machine for living’ doctrine it is entirely logical and was presumably essential for a society struggling to identify with anything.
Le Corbusier’s attitudes towards architecture are difficult to identify with as we are not in the ‘machine age’. Today in an age of technology - the digital age - Le Corbusier would identify five different points of architecture such as.... actually I am not sure. I think that maybe this is something else that I had not realised about Le Corbusier; it is incredibly difficult to provide an identity for a generation. Le Corbusier gave a style and maybe a new focus to people who needed it. The machine age is not something solely about war and death, but also creation. I think that it is something that I will consider more each time I re-read ‘Decline and Fall’, and this piece must only be viewed as being tentative steps toward a new understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)