Obsolescence and Desire: Fashion and the Commodity Form

In North America, fashion is so finely knit in our culture, especially amongst the youth. This is why at shopping malls the stores are bombarded with the latest styles and trends. If all shopping malls were for some banal reason ever to be shut down the public would have something to say. Architecture on the other hand, holds less value in our society. Why is this? In Winnipeg, our city has invested in architecture such as the LEED qualified Mountain Equipement Co-op, the Louis Riel Bridge, and the new MTS Centre, but there still lacks a major public interest in architecture. Must we market architecture and give it a symbolic meaning for the public in order to draw interest in our ever devalued field of study? Of course, there are the well known architects such as Rem Koolhaas of Prada that dominate in the US, but I can guarantee not many youngsters in Canada have heard of the name. Maybe if architecture is filtered into the media, just like songs from less-then-famous artists are filtered into soundtracks, it too can become a growing interest in North America. Maybe then will the public be more concerned when placeless strip malls are thoughtlessly plunked into our urban landscapes, and provincial laws challenging the importance of architects in our society are accepted.

Obsolescence and Desire: Fashion and the Commodity Form. By Gail Faurschou

Much is consumed today to achieve a social status; a life style in which we believe will fulfill our desires. However, these desires embedded within us are not our personal desires at all, but the desires in which society has led us to believe are our own. For example, Ralph Lauren is marketing his line of “total environment”, a line of all home essentials as a system of objects, which in turn grants one with Ralph Lauren’s perfect life. Why do we associate objects with a lifestyle? When the consumer purchases a commodity, it is not the commodity as an object which temporarily gratifies the consumer. Instead it is the symbolic meaning of the commodity, its symbol in our media smothered society which gratifies us, and temporarily makes us happy. The symbolic meaning of the commodity “describes the void, the locus of the relation, in a development which is actually a way of not experiencing it, while always referring to the possibility of experience.” It makes no difference in our minds if the commodity is physically present to us at all. The mere awareness that we own the commodity, or are in the possession of the symbolic meaning of the commodity, is what triggers our gratification, and is what is used to strategically market the tangible product.

Temporary Contracts. On the Economy of the Post-Industrial Landscape.

In our post-industrial world, everything is perceived as temporary. Strip malls existing for over 30 years are seen as old and in need for extreme renovations, or abandonment. The divorce rate in the US is at 60%. Wal-mart sells the land on which they are constructing a new store, and then lease the land until the store inevitably shuts down. In fact, today it is almost unimaginable for our society to think long term. What disgusts me is the devalue developers employ on buildings, when they consider them as an object with a timeline. All the embodied energy it takes to build a building is not lost; it is transferred as heat, pollution, and wasted non-renewable resources into our environment. We must shift our perception to thinking of the built landscape as ever-changing, instead of temporary. Instead of designing for an anticipated end, we must design for an anticipated change. Architects must begin to think ahead, beyond 30 years, and imagine possible technological and economical changes which in turn change the way we theorize architecture altogether. Maybe one solution to a building system will be a structure built into the landscape which can be modified in size or form over time to suit the needs of the changing program of the occupants. Or maybe architecture all together should be temporary, transportable or collapsible.

Obsolescence and Desire: Fashion and the Commodity Form.

“as most theoreticians of advertising tell us, this expansion has become possible to the extent that commodities are now marketed first and foremost as ‘symbolic’ goods and only secondary as utilitarian objects”

When you think of the logistics behind this quote it is pretty hard to fathom coming from a consumerist’s perspective, but in actuality this is nothing other that the truth. This may be a conscious or subconscious action on our behalf, but essentially what all post-industrial humans value is an image. When it comes to consumerism we primarily consider what a product will do for our personal ego, rather than the functionality in which it will provide. For instance, last week I read an extremely interesting article about Apples’ recent triumph in terms of their marketing/ branding tools, which has foremost become the strategy behind their success. Now this is more of a topic for last week’s discussion on post-industrialism, but I wanted to make reference to a statement that was made in terms of ‘symbolic goods’ and their value to our society. It was suggested that the white headphones that we are so familiar with have developed into a signature for i-pods around the world. Police reports over the past year have actually stated that thief’s target people sporting i-pods over any other mp3 players. So basically what the article says is that people are going to the extent of buying white head phones to disguise their miscellaneous players in order to create a particular image of oneself that is essentially deprived the values of today’s established society. Although we may chose to deny the power of consumerism and symbolic commodities, but our actions tend to speak louder than words.

Obsolescence and Desire: Fashion and the Commodity Form.

“reciting the Lauren motto for the decade: ‘fashion is a function of lifestyle’ – a tautological slogan which could easily and more appropriately be reversed to ‘lifestyle is a function of fashion’ ”.

It is this exact quote that makes me question the society that we are living in today, the values that we look up to and essentially the ulterior motives in which control our everyday existence. I think our postmodern consumerist society has not only begun to dictate the products we buy, the clothes we wear, the architecture we aspire, but basically the entire status quo that we thrive to achieve. In this instance I am particularly drawn to the notion of individuality, which essentially poses a question; does individuality honestly exist in our ideal society, or even better has it ever existed at all? Referencing back to the film “Blast from the Past” which is staged in the 1950’s era, it was apparent that the notion of the ideal American lifestyle significantly begin to dictate what society was intended to value. The picture perfect family in front of the house with a white picket fence and nice car in the driveway begin to establish the ideals that all families aspired to attain, which essentially snowballed into the modernistic version of that picturesque appeal today. This ad by Ralph Lauren not only is trying to promote his individual line of commodities, but rather is trying to see a lifestyle in which using these products will create. Essentially this is the element that distracts individuals from their personal uniqueness, in order to take on the newest, latest fad so that one could achieve the amazing lifestyle that advertisements portray it to be. The notion of image is created through these designers in the means of fashion, so by simply sporting their name one is to assume that they live a particular lifestyle in which that label creates. So is achieving individuality a disillusion that is unattainable, or is it a forgotten entity, which isn’t even thrived in the first place?

"pave paradise to put up a parking lot"

“We are building neither a sustainable landscape nor a sustainable culture. Yet our profession seems barely to notice the predicament. Our magazines celebrate individual stylistic successes, while our academic journals debate critical theoretical issues that only marginally relate to building”.

I was particularity intrigued by this statement because personally I feel as if professionals are doing the exact opposite in terms of creating sustainable design. I think that architecturally designed epics are at the utmost level of creating not only a sustainable landscape, but also a sustainable culture. I have been working at a large architectural/ interior design firm in Winnipeg for the past year and from my experience quality and a building’s life cycle is a significant element in the design process. Take LEED for example; this organization is becoming more and more recognized in today’s society and in terms of new architecture, most clients are interested in devolving under these terms not only just to create a sustainable building, but also to be recognized as doing so. I actually had an interesting conversation about LEED with one of my firm’s principles and he said that architects are always thinking about sustainability before LEED was such a huge fad, but now this just make the public more aware of the contribution in which architecture is beginning to embrace. Another organization that I just became certified under is the Canadian Specification Canada organization and under their lead they specifically talk about a building’s life-cycle and how it is important to consider not only the pre-construction, but also the post-demolition, which to me states how the profession is beginning to further recognize our part in the environment. In my personal opinion professional designers look at using better materials that will last longer, which is why their projects are more sustainable than a local developer who is more about the here and now. Looking at suburbia developments is where I see a problem (which is significantly what the article is about) because they are interested in the least amount of time for construction, cheapest materials and past completion, they could care less about the life span. Basically these ‘design solutions’ are what I would consider temporary, but when it comes to the majority of professionals I feel as if they are more about the long-term investment and that’s what is being sold.

week three_article four_blog ten

Gail Faurschou_Obsolescence and Desire: Fashion and Commodity Form

“…it is not the method of selection, much less the specific products themselves that need concern us anymore-only the label they will bear.”
-Faurschou

This is the power o f the brand name, of the label in contemporary culture. Increasingly, labels and brands have come to carry associated values, status, prestige, meaning and ideologies which are packaged and contained within a name, rather than the product the name is stamped on. There are many examples that this is the case. Timex vs. Rolex, Cavalier vs. Corvette, Fruit of the Loom vs. Calvin Klein; each of these names elicits different responses and raises different preconceived notions within us. Increasingly, every brand-name in contemporary culture has an entire existence associated with it; a parallel universe as Faurschou would call it. Consumers, by purchasing products showcasing different labels, are attempting to define their own existence, identities, ideologies, values, meanings and status via the mechanism of the brand. Has architecture not become a branded commodity? Consider the ‘big names’ in architecture at this time: Eisenmann, Ghery, Koolhaas, Tschumi et. al. What are these names if not brand names? Are clients (cities, individuals, organizations, and the like) now, more than ever purchasing an architectural brand? “Well of course the new museum is magnificent; it is a Gehry after all.” Is architecture simply a given ideology, a certain aesthetic which is to be consumed? Is this our new role as architects? As cultural producers? To simply be another of the perpetually changing hottest brands? Can we even avoid becoming branded in a contemporary culture which sees and refers to everything around it as commodity? Is everything ‘new’ within contemporary culture inherently and immediately taken in, consumed, and regurgitated shortly thereafter? Why does it so often feel that such consumption is inevitable, uncontrollable even? Is there a way for architecture and other modes of cultural production to combat their own consumption as commodities? Could there even be a way to subvert the brand name, the label, to our use as designers?

week three_article four_blog nine

Gail Faurschou_Obsolescence and Desire: Fashion and Commodity Form

“Today, the properly postmodern consumer’s clothing will match his or her furniture, which in turn will be coordinated with all other living accessories to complete the “total environment”-a virtual total experience.”
-Faurschou

Does a concept such as the virtual have any weight any longer in a culture which finds it increasingly difficult to separate virtual and real? Is much of what we experience today not in some way shape or form virtual? And when does a virtual world become reality; more real than real itself? Consider the examples supplied by Faurschou: of the parallel universes' offered by Lauren’s various fabricated environments of the ability of contemporary cosmetics to custom-build a new you. Such developments are, in many ways, equivalent to the holodeck from Star Trek: the Next Generation episodes our parents used to watch where a single white-walled room was capable of becoming a new destination, a new environment, in a moments notice and at the command of a voice. Such once futuristic possibilities do not seem even remotely as fantastical as they once were. Increasingly, we exist in virtual realities, in virtual space, and to some extent, in virtual time (although time is perhaps one of our most enduring constants). Perhaps the place of architecture and of cultural production lies within these new realities, these new frameworks of time and space. Perhaps we should embrace the potentialities that these parallel universes hold, and explore them wholeheartedly, rather than searching for ways out of them. Rather than searching for a return to something previous, perhaps?

week three_article four_blog eight

…everything belongs to design, everything springs from it whether it says so or not: the body is designed, sexuality is designed, political, social, human relations are designed….This “designed universe” is what properly constitutes the environment.
-Baudrillard

week three_article three_blog seven

Ellen Dunham-Jones_Temporary Contracts: On the Economy of the Post-Industrial Landscape

Very near the end of her article, Dunham-Jones writes, “we are building neither a sustainable landscape nor a sustainable culture…yet our profession seems barely to notice this predicament…the more we as a profession ignore the dominant, mainstream built landscape, the more we marginalize our work and ourselves both in the economy and in the culture.” This statement brings to the surface what is (for me at least) a very important question: what is the point of architecture, theory, design, and cultural production if, through the execution of these, we isolate ourselves from those people and things which we are trying to influence and change? What is the value of ‘theory’ if it not only cannot be accessed and received by the masses, but a portion of academia and our profession as well? So often it is my feeling that architecture and architectural theory has chosen to pursue intellectual avenues that are isolated from everyday/contemporary culture. So often, our work seems (or at least feels) undervalued, devalued even. Perhaps this is our own doing? Have we theorized our way out of a vocation? Have we rendered ourselves useless by conveniently choosing to avoid the ‘mainstream’? When and how do we plan to bring ourselves out of this isolated position? Are we too late to do so?

week three_article three_blog six

Ellen Dunham-Jones_Temporary Contracts: On the Economy of the Post-Industrial Landscape

Sustainability. In contemporary times sustainability is electric. It is the hot buzz-word, the new band-wagon, the coolest catch-phrase. But beyond simple hype, what is sustainability? To sustain is to give support or relief to, to supply with sustenance, to nourish, to prolong, to buoy, and to support as just. Sustainability is the capacity for something to be sustained; of or relating to a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods. As sustainability (cultural, historical, political, economic, architectural, agricultural, and certainly, ecological/environmental) becomes an increasingly important issue in contemporary global society, will we see the beginning of a shift away from the concept of the temporary contract, and its associated ‘values’ which Dunham-Jones identified in the late 1990’s? Are we not already beginning to witness such a shift? Consider recent concerns with environmental sustainability and sustainable building practices/architecture. Are these not examples of a move away from a cultural mindset centered upon short-term profit and minimal commitment? Perhaps, in the near future, the desire for many differing forms and applications of sustainability will become the driving force behind our cultural production and our cultural mindset. Will we see a corresponding/associated shift away from nomadic culture? Will architecture and other methods of cultural production once again become valued as “enduring cultural artifacts?” Is sustainability to become our new narrative?

week three_article three_blog five

Ellen Dunham-Jones_Temporary Contracts: On the Economy of the Post-Industrial Landscape

Let us consider, for a moment, a possible future. Let us suppose that within the next few years a plentiful, clean burning, completely green fuel (hydrogen, canola, whatever) for heating our homes, running our vehicles, and powering our cities emerges and is successfully integrated with existing technologies. If this were to occur it would be quite believable for contemporary culture to continue to expand and develop much as it is now, with “speed, mobility, and malleability being its central attributes of cultural production.” Indeed, with ecological sustainability less of a global concern than ever before, there would seemingly be little reason for culture, certainly global culture, to shift its current course. Consequently, the ongoing creation and expansion of edge cities; the move to suburbia and beyond to exurbia would seemingly proceed unabated. The result of temporary contracts, these “cities only in scale” (as Dunham –Jones would identify them) would continue to be the nexus of our post-industrial landscape. In such a future how is architecture to create those characteristics of cities and city life which have long been viewed as valuable: community, public space, public services, place, memory, history, etc? Can such concepts and constructs be applicable in different ways and in new forums; redefined if you will? Let us consider, for example, telecommunications and perhaps its greatest user interface, the internet. Can we establish meaningful virtual communities within such a technology? How can we create virtual public space? Can place be established if it is severed from a geo-physical context? Would re-applications of such concepts not be more in line with our current postmodern/post-industrial mindset? Or are we to seek to operate outside of this cultural mindset somehow; to attempt to direct it and have some influence over its formation and growth from an external position? Or perhaps our old notions/characteristics of ‘city’ are to be discarded, tossed to the garbage pile of the no longer relevant?

Temporary Contacts

“post-industrialism can be defined as the convergence of the information age and the service economy”

In today’s day and age our 21st century civilization is largely run by a post-industrial sense of dependency. We have reached a point where technology is increasing faster than we have the means to keep up and is continuously evolving to a point where it is taking over our everyday life. For instance, being an architecture student my dependency on technology is strongly apparent, to the point where I have my i-pod playing…at the same time it is changing into my laptop…which is fighting my piers over the closest outlet…then I plug in my digital camera to upload pics to the laptop…while trying to talk on my cell phone at the same time. After juggling this combination of battery-powered technologies for the past two years I would strongly agree that we are living in a post-industrialism reality.

One element that the article strongly focuses on is how this post-industrial era has led to a world, which is “designed to be consumed and therefore is inherently of temporary value”. Now I was completely interested in this element of the discussion because it is in fact a largely recognized problem that has to be dealt with. Not only is this in regards to architecture and design as the author focuses on, but also most consumerism products today have the same constraints. For example look at all the technological products that I discussed above:
a. they are all items which become outdated almost directly upon purchase and are superseded by newer versions
b. their lifetime span and level of quality is constantly diminishing to the point that most only last a few years at the most
c. even the software programming that runs these products is updated

So basically I couldn’t agree more with the author because almost everything in our everyday lives is on some what of a short scale expectancy level and this makes me think, have we merely become acceptable of these conditions or rather are we just living for the here and now? Do humans prefer to ignore the inevitable until the point of enactment, rather than trying to deal with the problems that we are continuously faced with? This is a little off topic, but a friend was telling me the other day that there is proven information that global warning is basically at the tip of an iceberg and in years to come it will continue to worsen, but people have essentially chose to hold off of facing the inevitable. So this makes me question even further if our society is one to marginally ignore issues as long as possible, rather then taking initiative towards potentially changing the outcome? I think this is the ultimate question, regardless of the medium they are essentially all viewed the same.

week two_article two_blog four

David Harvey­_An Enquiry into the Origins of Social Change

In his concluding arguments, Harvey identifies postmodernism as a historical-geographical condition. From this intellectual position, Harvey pens the following:

from this critical basis, it becomes possible to launch a counter-attack of narrative against the image, of ethics against aesthetics, of a project of Becoming rather than Being, and to search for unity within difference, albeit in a context where the power of the image and of aesthetics, the problems of time-space compression, and the significance of geopolitics and otherness are clearly understood.

Such a statement leads one to many questions. For instance, what is the ethical/moral responsibility of architecture? Does architecture today not continue to discard its ethical responsibilities in favor of aesthetics and the image? Does our culture not dictate such an approach? Furthermore, does architecture still remain, much as it was at the time of Harvey’s writing, lost in a state of being, rather than becoming? Are we not still in a search for an architectural present which is “valid only by virtue of the potentialities of its future…as a permanent spiritual revolution?” Most of my being believes that we are indeed still lost in such a quest. Problems such as the power of the image, of aesthetics over ethics, and of time-space compression are more prevalent in contemporary culture than ever before (thanks primarily it seems to major technological advancements, i.e.: the World Wide Web). However, perhaps there is hope for the future. Consider, for example, from a moral/ethical point of view architecture’s recent interest in and desire for environmental sustainability (and perhaps more generally, sustainability of all types). Does this not in some way signal a return to morality and the ethical practice of architecture? Perhaps we are finally beginning to recognize the necessity for architecture which is becoming?

week two_article two_blog three

David Harvey­_An Enquiry into the Origins of Social Change

On page 185 Harvey writes, “if this is where the developers are heading, can the philosophers and literary theorists be far behind.” He writes this with regards to the emergence of ‘Deconstructivism’. Such a statement crystallizes a number of interesting questions. What is the true power of architecture? In what sphere(s) of culture and life do have a leading role? Do architects have any control over the general trajectory that culture and cultural production chooses to take, or are we merely responding to social/political/economic factors that we have seemingly little control over and to the needs/desires of clients and developers who have their own underlying agendas? Does architecture lead or follow? Is it not a mechanism for change on a variety of levels? If we think specifically about our own local/regional context, how much influence does architecture truly have? Sometimes it seems the answer is ‘very little’. Perhaps this is because architecture and the work of architects are not valued in our ‘regional culture’ as much as they should be, nor are the services of architects utilized as often as we feel they should be. So the question then becomes how are we as students of architecture to convince mass culture of the inherent social/political/environmental value of architecture in a city and a region which embraces the ‘prairie mentality’: one centered upon thrift, sales, deals, and the cheapest means possible? How do we convince people of architecture’s relevance and importance not only in terms of its ability to create form and define space, but as a method of social, political, and environmental commentary?

week two_article one_blog two

Fredric Jameson_Postmodernism and Consumer Society

On page 177, Jameson posits the question, “Do we really need the concept of Postmodernism?” This query, conceived of and recorded in 1988 during the heart of what is generally recognized to be a postmodern era, is as equally interesting today as it was when originally stated. Do we have need of the concept of postmodernism today? If so, in what way is it (still) useful? Furthermore, are we in a postmodern age today, or is postmodernism, as outlined by Jameson, ‘dead’, much in the same way that it is generally recognized that high modernism is ‘dead’? Do the concepts and ideologies of both Modernism and Post-modernism still have importance? It would seem to me that they do. Perhaps these concepts and ideologies now serve as a mechanism by which we are able to locate and understand our architecture of today; perhaps the language of contemporary architecture lies somewhere between the utopian language of high modernism and the pop-cultural language of the masses that postmodernism utilized. Then again, perhaps not. Perhaps, more than ever, we exist within what can generally be called a postmodern culture/mindset; one of pastiche, nostalgia, and a series of “fractured perpetual presents.” Are some of our most influential theoretical concepts today not strikingly similar extensions of previous postmodern theories? Consider for example, Koolhaas’s ‘Bigness’. Does it not propose an architecture similar to that which Jameson documents in the Bonaventure Hotel; one which “no longer (attempts) to be a part of the city, but rather be its equivalent… its replacement or substitute”? Furthermore, are such developments now not only ‘possible’, but even perhaps ‘practical’? Do such concepts not situate us further within a postmodern existence than ever before?

week two_article one_blog one

Fredric Jameson_Postmodernism and Consumer Society

On page 171, Jameson presents us with the word ‘realism’. He writes, “cultural production has been driven back inside the mind, within the monadic subject…if there is any realism left here, it is a realism which springs from the shock of grasping (this) confinement.” In postmodernism, Jameson finds not realism, but nostalgia. A nostalgia which is a result of a culture’s inability to focus its own present as though “incapable of achieving aesthetic representations of (its) own current experience.” It would seem that in contrast modernism was very much a search for that which was real (even though modernism rendered itself null when it defined realism strictly in terms of universals). Is contemporary architecture in a similar battle with/against/for realism? How do we define ‘realism’ in terms of its relationship to contemporary architecture? Can we return, somehow, to realism as a mode for generating meaningful architecture; as a means of cultural production which can look at the world around it as a direct referent? Can realism even exist as a concept today, or is it impossibility within our current cultural mindset? Furthermore, if we can somehow return to a cultural mindset which values and searches for that which is real, how can we insure its cultural creations will differ from/avoid the previous pitfalls of Modernism?

'Popular Capitalism and Popular Culture' by David Harvey

It’s interesting because upon reading the first article by Jameson I could completely sympathize with the argument that he was creating, which was based on the dispute as to whether or not postmodernism is just an extension of modernism. So when it came to reading the second article by David Harvey, I was intrigued by the means in which the different authors chose to evaluate the same topic and essentially conclude different things.

“like Jameson, though with greater precision, Harvey treats post modernity as a historical condition. Unlike Jameson, he feels it is possible to analyze its levels in such a way as to move outside and beyond it” (180).

• Basically Harvey goes on to discuss how postmodernism is in fact a reflection of modernism, but that is deserves more respect as an individual entity then Jameson gives it
• For instance Harvey refers to postmodern as a mirror of modern, but at the same time says that the mirror is cracked and therefore reflects various different perspectives or ways of interpreting what is already known
• Now this is something that Jameson actually comments on in his article is that by slightly shifting history as we know it and creating something that is marginally different, it cannot be accepted as a revolutionary idea
• Previous to reading Harvey’s article I was convinced by Jameson’s argument, but now I not so sure
• The problem that I see with the latter and that Harvey seems to understand as well is that where does the credit go now, because essentially history is a prevalent factor, but the distortion of it seems to suggest otherwise?

Aside from the slight conflict between theories, I found it interesting to see the affect in which post modernity has played and assumingly continues to play on civilization. The notion of image-building (which Harvey focused on though the example of the political and economical systems implemented in the US), whether society agrees or not is an extremely large part of how this world functions on a day-to-day basis. Some may be reluctant to believe, but no matter what area of society that we are talking about whether it be architectural, fashion, personal aesthetics, professional, etc image could be considered on of the most elements of profit. For instance I have seen this marginally through my part-time job in an architecture firm where selling yourself is just as important if not more important when it comes to establishing a professional contract. So when putting together a proposal it is important for the marketing staff to understand who the client is, what they are about and which staff members would most appropriately suit the job. Oh and no matter how superstitious this may sound, all elements about a first impression will dictate the relationship that could be potentially made upon that interaction. This element is one of the main reasons that branding has become such a popular edifice in the architectural world today because everyone wants their own identity and therefore it is important to understand the complexities that are involved to do so.

'Postmodernism and consumer society' by Fredric Jameson

The Bonaventure Hotel.
After reading through the article I was initially drawn to the discussion regarding the Bonaventure hotel in LA, for one because it was a direct relation to architectonics and design and secondly because I am going to LA in a few weeks, so this intrigued me to research the hotel even further.
The architect is John Portman, someone that I have never heard of before but according to the article he focuses on commercial design around the US. The reason that he particularly discusses the Bonaventure Hotel is because it is a direct play of post modernity against the ‘elite and great architectural modernists’.

“these newer buildings are popular works on one hand and that they respect the vernacular of the American city fabric on the other, that is to say they no longer attempt as the masters and monuments of high modernism to insert a different, a distinct, an elevated, a new utopian language into the tawdry and commercial sign system of the surrounding city”(172).

• So basically this form of architecture has chosen to look to our modern precedence and is then able to respect and appreciate the vernacular architecture in order to further integrate and into its surroundings
• The architect isn’t hung up on ‘reinventing the wheel’ as they say, but instead looks at indulging he wheel in order to design a sensible language which is in sync with the language of the rest of the city
• Obviously architects today are interested in designing the most amazing buildings yet, but I think the force that drives them is wanting to create something beautiful and functional that responds to the local design culture, rather than purely trying to establish a new architectonic altogether

So with that being said, Jameson makes an interesting reference to the hotel’s ‘insertion into the city fabric’. My understanding from the article is that this building is attempting at creating its own city within the city. So although the architecture itself responds to its urban surroundings, there are also aspects on the entire complex, which begins to take on an entirely new presence.

So are there in fact glimpses of a new ‘postmodern architecture’ prevailing?
-the walkways take on a ‘new category of closure governing the inner space of the hotel itself’
-this building appears to create a unified space within itself, which references back to the beginning of the article where Jameson questions whether or not unity can be created ‘in itself or in the very modernism it seeks to displace’
-so is this city within a city a new thing or is the architecture simply making reference to the large scale being the city in itself?

This poses various questions which essentially are discussed in the article such as how do people experience the space in relation to a regular building, how does the organization or space reevaluate the motion through it and what are the connections to the exterior city if in fact Portman is creating something completely separate?

'Postmodernism and consumer society' by Fredric Jameson

If I had to summarize the general ideology of this article (and the element which initially interested me) into a brief sentence, I would say that it’s an abstract delineation between modernity and post modernity. So basically what the author is trying to understand is why the 2 design eras are considered different from one another. According to his implications, he believes there are distinct connections that get carried up both streams so why have we tried to signify postmodernism as its own individual entity? Does it in fact pose the suggestion that originality and innovation are terms of the past?

The obvious conclusion about modern society today is that all ideas are rather a reinterpretation or disguising of something that preceded it. This is especially prevalent in design school where it is extremely rare, if not impossible to design a space or anything for that matter that is completely objective or undetermined by any form of precedence. It can occur consciously or not, but its obvious that every post-modern idea that we generate is somewhere rooted in history in some shape or form.

Now this is along the lines of what Jameson is beginning to discuss in terms of postmodernism becoming an extension of modernism and in fact he makes 2 interesting connotations as to why this may be occurring:
1) “most postmodernists are emerging as a reaction against the established forms of high modernism”
• in this understanding you begin to see where the notion of unique and original ideas get lost
• essentially what’s happening is that the modernist era was such an outrage against everything that civilization was familiar with till then, so as it established it became recognized for its individuality and uniqueness
• so therefore postmodernists believe that by taking the individuality which was established by the modernists and reacting against it would be creating a new form, but in fact it is just a play off of something which has already been undermined

“this means that there will be as many different forms of postmodernism as there are high modernisms in place, since the former are at least initially specific ad local reactions against those models” (164-165).

2) “the effacement in it of some key boundaries or separations”
• now this is where the notion of consumerism begins to play a part in postmodernism, initially differentiating it from modernity on various levels
• Jameson is referring to the implicit connection which is drawn from historical precedence to postmodern designs in order to attract the viewers/ consumers to the product
• I definitely think this is a marketing strategy which is strongly emphasized in today’s day and age, not saying that its positive or negative because that’s an entirely new discussion on its own

“they incorporate them to the point where the line between high art and commercial forms seems increasingly difficult to draw” (165).

seminar 1_ blog requirements.

-blogs are to be conducted and posted three-four times per week
-blogs are to be between 100-250 words in length
-blogs are to be submitted at the end of the term in pdf format upon CD/DVD