The influence of Goethe’s ‘Faust’ on the theory of Friedrich Nietzsche
Goethe - ... a grand attempt to overcome the eighteenth century through a return to nature, through a going up to the naturalness of the Renaissance, a kind of self – overcoming on the part of that century ... He did not sever himself from life, he placed himself within it ... and took as much as possible upon himself, above himself, within himself. What he aspired to was totality; he strove against the separation of reason, sensibility, emotion, will...; he disciplined himself to a whole, he created himself ... Goethe conceived of a strong, highly cultured human being who, keeping himself in check and having reverence for himself, dares to allow himself the whole compass and wealth of naturalness, who is strong enough for this freedom; a man of tolerance, not out of weakness but out of strength, because he knows how to employ to his advantage what would destroy an average nature; a man to whom nothing is forbidden, except it be weakness, whether that weakness be called vice or virtue ... A spirit thus emancipated stands in the midst of the universe with a joyful and trusting fatalism, in the faith that only what is separate and individual may be rejected, that in the totality everything is redeemed and affirmed – he no longer denies... But such a faith is the highest of all possible faiths: I have baptised it with the name Dionysus.
Twilight of the Idols or How to Philosophise with a Hammer
Friedrich Nietzsche
IX 49
The influence of Goethe’s ‘Faust’ on the theory of Friedrich Nietzsche
Prior to commencing this response it is important to establish the context in which Goethe was writing his epic work ‘Faust’. Started in 1770 and considered by Goethe to be a complete work, not a completed work, in 1831 - it was written over a sixty year period which may be identified as a period of great flux across Europe. In 1789-99 the French Revolution took place; 1804-15 the Napoleonic Wars; 1806 the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire; 1817 the Wartburg Festival; 1818 the creation of the Prussian Customs Union - all of which would have shaped the attitude of the poem, without even considering the personal experiences Goethe had during his lifetime. ‘Faust’ is a work correctly identified as one of the greatest and most important pieces of literature ever written. It is therefore perverse to consider ‘Faust’ in isolation - just as it is necessary to understand the context in which Goethe was writing it is equally as important to appreciate the influence that ‘Faust’ has subsequently had. This is not an article which will give the briefest summary of the many who have been stimulated, however it is the intention of the author to illustrate that ‘Faust’ is a direct influence on one specific type of thought that started to emerge in the late 19th Century. Modern theorists must appreciate the lineage of modern thought and though Goethe’s ‘Faust’ was itself influenced by Lutheran and Kantian writings it still may be seen as a significant, original and pivotal piece in the development of modern theoretical writing.
Many would cite Friedrich Nietzsche as one of the most important theorists to emerge during the late nineteenth century. Nietzsche’s work is a rally against the decline witnessed in the modern age where intelligence too readily appears to be on the defensive and life is defined by an excess of emotion and the need for constant mindless stimulation; his philosophy seeks to stimulate the mind into activity and ‘into becoming productive’ . Typically Nietzschian thought centres on traditional subjects - the problems of being and becoming; determination and freedom, ethics and logic; will and morality – yet his work is inherently contradictory and provoking. One of his earliest and central ideas was concerned with the notion and definition of modern man. In ‘Twilight of the Idols’ Goethe is identified as a Dionysus and for Nietzsche modern man is typified as having an ‘instinct for everything, a taste and tongue for everything’ and one who will create new social values accordingly. This thought is identifiable in the character of Faust who is intent on burning like a brilliant blazing spark rather than being stifled in dry-rot – the re-born Faust is not mediocre, he lives rather than trying to exist; he is the modern cultured man, the image of the ‘emancipated individual...the individual who has acquired too much knowledge for his own good’ . Towards the end of his sane life, Nietzsche once noted that he had ‘fortunately’ created a character out of himself, as he viewed good literature as being identifiable as life itself. He also noted that Goethe had achieved this highest of accomplishments; though this comment is open to interpretation it is plausible, considering the concept of the Dionysus, that Nietzsche viewed Faust as the totality of Goethe and so there is an identifiable influence of the poet on the theorist.
In many ways this earliest of concepts is a starting point for one of the most famous topics of late 19th century thought - the ‘Űbermensch’ or superman. Nietzsche introduced this idea in his seminal work ‘Thus spake Zarathustra’ and it has influenced writers, theorists and artists ever since. However, it was Goethe who first coined this word, not Nietzsche. It is used by the Earth Spirit, who has been summoned to ridicule Faust in his misguided belief that he is akin to this Spirit and the term is little more than a derogatory put down. For Nietzsche the Űbermensch is the embodiment of feet on the ground rather than head in the clouds. It is not a derogatory snipe but rather a fundamental and logical necessity and clearly a concept which had drawn from Goethe’s original ideas in ‘Faust’. Goethe used the expression as reinforcement from the spirit of the fact that Faust was a man; Nietzsche builds on this idea to present a clearer, more noble explanation that man needs to live on the earth. Critically, Nietzsche through Zarathustra then ties the notion of the Űbermensch to the death of God, a pivotal concept for all subsequent theorists. There is no suggestion that God does not exist in ‘Faust’; however through Faust’s craving of a greater reality and a richer life there is an oblique suggestion of alternate religious perspectives and the more theoretical notion of a religion without God becomes viable. The ‘death of God’ is coined by Nietzsche to exemplify the change in values; the previous values provided by God are no longer valid and so without the values is there still the god? The tale of Faust in one way is about the emergence of a new value system and it is plausible to see a correlation between what Nietzsche read and what he wrote about. ‘Nihilism – god is dead, and with him beauty. Everything is permissible; nothing can stop the unleashing of violence. Morality is helpless. Art is not a substitute for life, real life, absent life. Like speculation, like the state, art alienates. It is withering away. It will die leaving us to our nakedness. Nihilism is not decline. It is an ordeal we must endure’ . Similarly to Faust there is still the desire of modern man to reach the intangible nirvana that is a greater reality; there is still a lack of unity and a sense of remoteness felt between people and an overall sensation of isolation is often identified. Faust never truly overcomes this sense of isolation and he muses about becoming an image no more – despite his life Faust is still part of all that is ephemeral. This is another key theoretical notion, with scholars spending much time discussing the concept of life as an image. It is an idea which does not originate in Goethe’s ‘Faust’; however, the popularity of the poem in the 19th Century would have provided a large audience with these basic theoretical ideas.
The tale of Faust is not an original story; many had tackled the fable of the man who sold his soul to the devil but it is Goethe’s poem that is widely considered to be the definitive version. Through the depth and richness of Goethe’s writing an emotional resonance is formed between the characters and the audience. Not only is Faust the modern cultured man, he is also a flawed and tragic man with the tragedy that unfolds relating to the circumstances of the world but also man’s relationship with his fellow man. Schopenhauer identified this relationship as being the most important starting point for tragedy and the consideration of the notion of tragedy was another key element within Nietzsche’s writings. Nietzsche believed that the ‘aesthetic response’ to a tragedy should incorporate both the complete acceptance of the drama and also an alienated distance from it; he did not agree with the need for the Faustian tragedy’s saving graces, such as the salvation of Gretchen, as the overall impact of tragedy is lessened - tragedy should simply be allowed to occur. Erich Heller referred to Goethe’s ‘deficiency’ in this respect as a result of the violent clash between the author’s nature and his historic situation . Regardless, the Nietzschian idea of finding value in tragedy or catastrophe led to the formation of the notion that suffering was an absolute law. Improvement was to be achieved through acceptance and experience of suffering. By dissolving the more commonly held attitudes towards laws of reason Nietzsche was able to introduce concepts which became central to the philosophy of strenuousness. For modern theorists this is basic 19th Century thought; though ‘Faust’ does not specifically lead to the formation of these concepts Nietzsche did feel it necessary to comment about the failing of Goethe’s work as a proper tragedy. The philosophy of strenuousness is a response to the salvation of Gretchen as much as to any other form of tragedy – the importance of ‘Faust’ in this respect is due to it being a piece of literature Nietzsche admired; and so it becomes possible to cite ‘Faust’ as one of the catalysts of the theory.
In trying to explain the influence of ‘Faust’ on Nietzsche and therefore modern thought it is possibly most useful to provide a simple fact. The ‘Birth of Tragedy’ is an attempt by Nietzsche to establish continuities between myth and history and is a fore-runner to his more renowned works. In this, Nietzsche’s first book, there are more references to Faust than to any other source. Some of these references are to do with the more general Faustian tale; however, the re-iteration of Goethe’s ‘Faust’ as a reference point is indicative of the influence the work had on Nietzsche. No other written work at this point is held in as high esteem by Nietzsche and it is clear that the influence of ‘Faust’ on the development of Nietzschian thought - and by extension modern theoretical considerations - was immense. For some scholars certain aspects of Nietzsche’s writing may be viewed as ‘re-hash, with additions and improvements of his own and [that] of other men, such as ...Goethe’s’ work. As previously mentioned Goethe’s ‘Faust’ draws on Lutheran and Kantian thought; however, for the modern theorist it is vital that ‘theory’ is not simply taken to be that which has been written by the theorists. There is a wealth of material like ‘Faust’ that should never be overlooked.
Bibliography
The Culture Industry; T Adorno
Routledge(1996); London
All that is solid melts into Air. The experience of modernity; Berman
Vesro (1993); New York
Goethe’s Faust The German Tragedy; Brown
Cornell University Press (1986); London
Faust; Goethe (trans by Fairley)
University of Toronto (1970); Canada
A singular Modernity; Jameson
Vesro (2002); London
Aspects of the life and work of Nietzsche; Knight
Cambridge University Press (1933); Cambridge
Introduction to Modernity: Henri Lefbvre
Vesro (1995); London
Approaches to teaching Goethe’s Faust; McMillan (ed)
The modern language association (1998); United States of America
The Birth of Tragdey; F Nietzsche
T N Foulis (1909); Edinburgh
Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ; F Nietzsche
Penguin Books (1896); Aylesbury
Ecce Homo; F Nietzsche
Penguin Books (2004) Suffolk
The mask of enlightenment; Rosen
Cambridge University Press (1995); United States of America
Nietzsche on Tragedy; M.S Silk & J.P Stern
Cambridge University Press (1981); Cambridge
Friday, 28 January 2011
Friday, 31 December 2010
The American Trilogy
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Why Lefebure ought to have listened to Mozart more.
Why Lefebure ought to have listened to Mozart more.
Whilst reading Henri Lefebure I couldn’t help but ponder about composers; it might as usual seem a little tenuous but indulge me. Mozart is one of the most famous composers ever, he used a specific number of notes in a specific way to convey a point, or emotion, mood or attitude – he had an idea and executed it in an way which could be appreciated, understood and learnt from. I find it poor on the other hand that so many ‘theorists’ seem to use words in a way so far removed from that of a composer and his notes; rather than formulating words in such a way so as to create an accessible body of work there seems to be too often the tendency to simply fit as many words into a sentence and therefore confuse any point that they may have been trying to make. I am starting to wonder whether certain theorists actually have a point? Or are they simply playing word bingo with the person using the most words winning. I am glad Lefebure was not a composer.
I do actually believe that Lefebure is trying to make a point; I may be grossly mistaken... It is just a little convoluted. Much of his work I think is simply trying to define language and how specific terminology ought to be applied; for example the term ‘production’. Production is the action of producing something – it does not solely relate to a physical object but is most often used to describe one; production therefore produces products. A product is the result of a process but critically this process is termed production; as long as the same rules are followed the end result or product will essentially be the same regardless of who follows this process. This I feel distinguishes a product from a work; with a work a process may be followed but it allows for individual interpretation. If one compares the water lily paintings of Manet and Monet they are both in an impressionist style, they share a similar location, subject matter, epoch but critically are different to each other. Their work is not a product as with a product there is no variation on end result - these paintings are ‘works’. Monet for example painted many water lily scenes and they are all different because of the ‘individual effect’ . For the record replicas of these works are products and also I consider Duchamp’s toilet to be a work because he signed it; generally though urinals are simply products.
It is however still difficult to categorically state whether a city is a work or a product. I think that within a city there may identifiable ‘bodies of work’ and people who are producing ‘works’ but is it possible to carte blanche state whether a city is simply a product or a work; should each city be viewed independently; should these terms be used in isolation? Furthermore should my attitude towards Nomadic cities, shanty towns or developed cities be different? If I follow through my earlier logic that if a process is followed in specific conditions the end result will not vary then a city cannot be a process; no city has identical development, they are all subjected to the ‘individual effect’; a city is therefore a work. There will be elements within that city that are products, things that may be mass produced, that follow a pre-determined route to reach a specific end goal but ultimately if one considers the city to be the layout, the people, the history, the identity of a place then it surely cannot be seen as anything other than a work. I do concur that space within a city can be produced; that the buildings of one city can be built in another location and that the workforce who are creating a city must see their own involvement as being simply a part of a process. Despite this fact that the workforce actions are more closely linked to creating a product the original vision, masterplan, building, road even have all evolved in a specific way and therefore are no different to Manet and Monet and their paintings of water lilies.
I have started to realise that when considering theory it is a bit like trying to pick wool away from Velcro – everything is interconnected and never cleanly removed and should not be viewed in isolation. Production, products and works are influenced by the individual, the workers, the market, the society, and therefore also by geographic, political, historic and natural events. Maybe this is why so many words are used.
Whilst reading Henri Lefebure I couldn’t help but ponder about composers; it might as usual seem a little tenuous but indulge me. Mozart is one of the most famous composers ever, he used a specific number of notes in a specific way to convey a point, or emotion, mood or attitude – he had an idea and executed it in an way which could be appreciated, understood and learnt from. I find it poor on the other hand that so many ‘theorists’ seem to use words in a way so far removed from that of a composer and his notes; rather than formulating words in such a way so as to create an accessible body of work there seems to be too often the tendency to simply fit as many words into a sentence and therefore confuse any point that they may have been trying to make. I am starting to wonder whether certain theorists actually have a point? Or are they simply playing word bingo with the person using the most words winning. I am glad Lefebure was not a composer.
I do actually believe that Lefebure is trying to make a point; I may be grossly mistaken... It is just a little convoluted. Much of his work I think is simply trying to define language and how specific terminology ought to be applied; for example the term ‘production’. Production is the action of producing something – it does not solely relate to a physical object but is most often used to describe one; production therefore produces products. A product is the result of a process but critically this process is termed production; as long as the same rules are followed the end result or product will essentially be the same regardless of who follows this process. This I feel distinguishes a product from a work; with a work a process may be followed but it allows for individual interpretation. If one compares the water lily paintings of Manet and Monet they are both in an impressionist style, they share a similar location, subject matter, epoch but critically are different to each other. Their work is not a product as with a product there is no variation on end result - these paintings are ‘works’. Monet for example painted many water lily scenes and they are all different because of the ‘individual effect’ . For the record replicas of these works are products and also I consider Duchamp’s toilet to be a work because he signed it; generally though urinals are simply products.
It is however still difficult to categorically state whether a city is a work or a product. I think that within a city there may identifiable ‘bodies of work’ and people who are producing ‘works’ but is it possible to carte blanche state whether a city is simply a product or a work; should each city be viewed independently; should these terms be used in isolation? Furthermore should my attitude towards Nomadic cities, shanty towns or developed cities be different? If I follow through my earlier logic that if a process is followed in specific conditions the end result will not vary then a city cannot be a process; no city has identical development, they are all subjected to the ‘individual effect’; a city is therefore a work. There will be elements within that city that are products, things that may be mass produced, that follow a pre-determined route to reach a specific end goal but ultimately if one considers the city to be the layout, the people, the history, the identity of a place then it surely cannot be seen as anything other than a work. I do concur that space within a city can be produced; that the buildings of one city can be built in another location and that the workforce who are creating a city must see their own involvement as being simply a part of a process. Despite this fact that the workforce actions are more closely linked to creating a product the original vision, masterplan, building, road even have all evolved in a specific way and therefore are no different to Manet and Monet and their paintings of water lilies.
I have started to realise that when considering theory it is a bit like trying to pick wool away from Velcro – everything is interconnected and never cleanly removed and should not be viewed in isolation. Production, products and works are influenced by the individual, the workers, the market, the society, and therefore also by geographic, political, historic and natural events. Maybe this is why so many words are used.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Uncomfortable Armchair Reading - Allen Ginsberg - 'Howl'
I have realised that whatever I write in these blogs is influenced by what is going on around me at that precise moment, but interestingly I seem to create an atmosphere which assists me with my thought processes. Having re-read Allen Ginsberg’s ‘Howl’ I have just started to play Duke Ellington’s take on the Nutcracker suite; there is a link. Poetry is too often thought of as rhyming couplet love sonnets whilst jazz musicians are not expected to play classical ballet scores. Ginsberg’s poem is definitely in the ‘classical’ jazz genre, for me it is a thought provoking piece about modern day life – a non rhyming gritty flash imagery comment about life. It is poetry that should be spoken out loud and not the variety to be sent on perfumed parchment. For me the central theme of Ginsberg’s poem is the disillusionment with modern day life; though the poem was dedicated, it is not about one specific ‘hero’ but rather the many variations of people who are not at ease with life. Initially I thought that the poem was about the many people who are shunned because of their actions; people who for many reasons do not quite fit the mould. However, it is also about the people who have tried to fit the mould. For me it is ultimately a poem about the suffering of man; it is about suicide and life and despair and hope. It is gritty and at times uncomfortable reading.
I think that I ought to expand this thought as this poem creates a persona, or memorial for the crazies who have jumped off the Brooklyn bridge; in a strange way it honours these fallen soldiers for whom life has caused such despair – it is just a thought but maybe I was initially mistaken and the poem is not about the despair of the tormented souls but rather of the poet, and by extension the reader’s despair as they are unable to help or even truly understand the plight. It is the howl of the bystander, the friend, the relative, the poet as well as all the others who despair. I find it a perversely noble poem.
Following this logic, for me the poem cannot be fixed upon the generation for whom it was written; it is transcendent – I read it today, fifty-five years after it was written and can relate and take meaning from it. I suspect that this poem could be appreciated by past, present and future if they were prepared to open up to it as it is not disposable literature – it is steeped with emotion, it spits out thoughts and images – so many variations of despairing, disillusioned, unhinged, tortured, mad people in a modern day developed world are recounted.
This poem could be set and be written for the society of the 1960s; the generation of naked protest; of wide eyed drug induced hippies and the philosopher tramps preaching from cardboard boxes under railway bridges to invisible audiences – there are wide spread photographs. But I find this attitude problematic as it suggests that this raw despair and disillusionment was somehow unique to the sixties. I am sure that people today despair, as they would have done a thousand years ago. The reasons for, the attitudes towards it and the patterns of behaviour displayed may alter – but I am sure all have and will howl.
I think that I ought to expand this thought as this poem creates a persona, or memorial for the crazies who have jumped off the Brooklyn bridge; in a strange way it honours these fallen soldiers for whom life has caused such despair – it is just a thought but maybe I was initially mistaken and the poem is not about the despair of the tormented souls but rather of the poet, and by extension the reader’s despair as they are unable to help or even truly understand the plight. It is the howl of the bystander, the friend, the relative, the poet as well as all the others who despair. I find it a perversely noble poem.
Following this logic, for me the poem cannot be fixed upon the generation for whom it was written; it is transcendent – I read it today, fifty-five years after it was written and can relate and take meaning from it. I suspect that this poem could be appreciated by past, present and future if they were prepared to open up to it as it is not disposable literature – it is steeped with emotion, it spits out thoughts and images – so many variations of despairing, disillusioned, unhinged, tortured, mad people in a modern day developed world are recounted.
This poem could be set and be written for the society of the 1960s; the generation of naked protest; of wide eyed drug induced hippies and the philosopher tramps preaching from cardboard boxes under railway bridges to invisible audiences – there are wide spread photographs. But I find this attitude problematic as it suggests that this raw despair and disillusionment was somehow unique to the sixties. I am sure that people today despair, as they would have done a thousand years ago. The reasons for, the attitudes towards it and the patterns of behaviour displayed may alter – but I am sure all have and will howl.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)