Re: Architecture and film

On Wed, 1 Mar 1995, Lebbeus Woods wrote:

> As far as my own work is concerned, I consider it anything buti
> dystopian, or in some way implying or even proposing a grimly
> "dys" or negative future. On the contrary I have the optimism
> to believe that we can have a present (therefore, perhaps, also
> a future) in which we creatively come to terms with the
> actualities of our private and shared existences, which include
> the decay and disruption (really the transformations) of
> various existing systems of order. Some people construe this as
> criticism of existing systems, while others find it despairing,
> or dystopian. So be it. I AM critical of existing systems, but
> usually because they resist change, or try to pervert it. I am
> critical of most architecture and architects, it is true,
> because they cling to a status quo that is illusory, albeit
> comforting. I am generally against comforts of reassurance and
> repose in times -- such as these -- that are being radically
> transformed by people, events and ideas that could be turned to
> human advantage, but usually aren't because self-proclaimed
> 'humanists' (many cheery architects among them) won't come to
> creative terms with their true character. It is architecture's
> task, I believe, to come to such terms with the actualities
> transforming our time, as unfamiliar (and therefore) 'ugly' as
> they are, and in so doing reveal the new systems, the new
> 'beauty,' trying to emerge.
>
> Unfortunately, not too many share this view. Architects, like
> Hollywood film-makers, bow too readily to the money people (the
> BIG boys John Young refers to), who all too often pervert the
> transformations of old orders to new ones, by exploiting them
> in the service of maintaining the status quo. The architects
> believe they are supporting a "humane environment," as you put
> it, because they reconfirm the comforting old, familiar ways of
> thinking and living. In other words, they define 'humane' in
> terms of comfort. For me, humane means 'in the service of the
> human.' In a time when the human is being so tested and
> redefined, the only way to be humane today is to have one's
> eyes wide open, and then to act accordingly.

Very nicely put though I wonder what it means. The words could seem to
support virtually anything. Might you be able to elaborate and give us
some specifics. To take only one example. You say:

>In a time when the human is being so tested and
> redefined, the only way to be humane today is to have one's
> eyes wide open, and then to act accordingly.

What does that mean? I certainly can't disagree with it but it sounds
somewhat generalized...perhaps a speech to a graduating class at prep
school, urging the young people on 'to good things and not bad ones.'

Or this provocative passage:

>I am generally against comforts of reassurance and
> repose in times -- such as these -- that are being radically
> transformed by people, events and ideas that could be turned to
> human advantage, but usually aren't because self-proclaimed
> 'humanists' (many cheery architects among them) won't come to
> creative terms with their true character.

What does it mean in specifics? Might you be so kind as to 'name some names'
and provide examples of these cheery ones who it appear, by making us
more comfortable, actually mislead us? (If that is indeed what you mean;
if that is not what you mean...then what do you mean.) Could you give us
an example of ONE idea  or event that 'could be turned to human
advanatage' because of the blindness of 'humanists.' I see lots of idiocy
around, too, and perhaps I even agree with you, my friend Woods, but I
simply can't get a grip on what specifically you are talking about.

David Sucher