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.