LEARNING FROM LAS VEGAS PDF
LEARNING FROM LAS VEGAS: THE FORGO'rI'EN SYMBOUSM. OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM. Robert Venturi. Denise Scott Brown. LEARNING FROM LAS VEGAS: THE FORGO'rI'EN SYMBOUSM. OF ARCHITECTURAL FORM. Robert Venturi. Denise Scott Brown. Steven Izenour. The MIT. Denise Scott Brown, Steven Izenour PDF EBOOK EPUB KINDLE. Get Instant Access to Learning From Las Vegas (Mit Press) By Robert Venturi.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|ePub File Size:||19.50 MB|
|PDF File Size:||15.55 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
The social analysts, Barbara G. Brents, Michael Ian Borer, Annelise Orleck, Sharon Zukin, and Matt Wray, offer contrasting views of the plastic fantastic city of Las. Venturi Learning From Las ppti.info - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt ) or read online. Learning From Las Vegas. Citing the authors of Learning from Las Vegas has always been a difﬁculty for anyone writing on that book. Although the book is coauthored by Robert Venturi, .
In , MIT Press began offering a facsimile edition of the original with a preface by Denise Scott Brown explaining the reservations the authors had with the original edition.
Scott Brown to redesign the book. Learning from Las Vegas. ISBN Learning From Las Vegas Revised ed. MIT Press. As Venturi put it: One knew where one was. But the driver has no time to ponder paradoxical subtleties within a dangerous, sinuous maze. He or she relies on signs for guidance—enormous signs in vast spaces at high speeds.
Can we rely on signs for guidance and orientation, as the authors seem to suggest? Do such arrows bring us closer or farther from our need? Perhaps the world is nearer than we think, and any arrow would surely overshoot its mark. Scott Brown expressed it this way: In their words: In the hands of many urban critics and theorists, Gestalt principles were unable to produce adequate descriptions, criticism, or creative approaches to the new type of urban form in America: Freud writes: We must make no effort to concentrate the attention on anything in particular.
Not surprisingly, Rapoport turns toward Anton Ehrenzweig, the psychoanalytic theorist of visual perception, to suggest what kind of vision might be conducive to picking up on the ambivalence in our environment: Motor isolation is meant to ensure an interruption of the connection in thought. The normal phenomenon of concentration provides a pretext for this kind of neurotic procedure: But even a normal person uses concentration to keep away not only what is irrelevant or unimportant, but, above all, what is unsuitable because it is contradictory.
Thus, in the normal course of things, the ego has a great deal of isolating work to do in its function of directing the current of thought. And, as we know, we are obliged, in carrying out our analytic technique, to train it to relinquish that function for the time being. I must speak the language of the everyday. Is this language somehow too coarse and material for what we want to say?
Then how is another one to be constructed—And how strange that we should be able to do anything at all with the one we have!
Instead, Venturi concentrates on deconstructing the binary structure on which the comparison is predicated, emphasizing the 2. As Venturi and Scott Brown note: Consider, for example, the closing lines of his book The Master Builders: Evidently the decreative impulse is meant to risk a loss of voice; to withhold it as a mode of possible recovery and a reassertion of voice. In Learning from Las Vegas, this impulse involves deploying excess as a technique of analysis.
Learning from Las Vegas
That was a way of putting it—not very satisfactory: A periphrastic study in a worn-out poetical fashion, Leaving one still with the intolerable wrestle With words and meanings. The poetry does not matter. Their task is not to create a private, ideal language of architecture, but to locate our ability to mean within the ordinary language and practices we are already engaged in.
Too Noisy Las Vegas!!! Can chatter be so easily converted into meaningful communication? The large gold lettering of Learning from Las Vegas on the cloth cover is overlaid by the black text on the glassine dust jacket, creating a palimpsest of sorts.
The cover of Learning from Las Vegas is a litany of monotonous one-liners divorced from any thick explanatory before and after; a parody of aphorism, it is all highlights and abbreviation in lieu of either brevity or completeness.
But, of course, our buildings in another sense are extraordinary, extra-ordinary. Are they just words? What words bind us together, willingly or unwillingly? One of their favorite artists, Ed Ruscha, described words in terms of temperature: When they reach a certain point and become hot words, then they appeal to me. Countless people use words and expressions which they either have ceased to understand at all or use only according to their behavioral functions, just as trademarks adhere all the more compulsively to their objects of choice the less their linguistic meaning is apprehended.
We might think that the language of advertising is a way of having words circulate in our world of exchange and exhibition value, but instead it leads to their paralysis. Wittgenstein pointed to this paradox: We want to walk: Back to the rough ground! The task of driving them there, however, is a necessary one, as the life of words occurs to us only after we have seen language as a collection of signs separate from us.
What can be done to give it back? We could think of this movement in terms of two dominant voices discernible in the text though there are others: I go around exposing my doubts. Are we common criminals who need to steal our language back?
Or have we always already had it stolen from us—willingly? Are we victims of meaning? Are Venturi and Scott Brown suggesting—in the spirit of T. As Neil Leach bluntly put it: The Restlessness of the Negative The Modernist Drive for Expressive Transparency One of the primary critiques of modernism that Learning from Las Vegas was engaged in was the dialectic between inside and outside and the assumption that the exterior expressed the interior.
Learning from Las Vegas attempts to make sense of and go on from a situation in which a certain postwar modernist legacy of architecture was breaking down. As Cavell has put it: A shorthand way of thinking about the dilemma of other minds—the mode of skepticism at stake in this chapter—is roughly marked out by Walter Benjamin on the one hand, and by Venturi and Scott Brown on the other.
It is also an intoxication, a moral exhibitionism we badly need. And it is this comparison that enacts the skeptical dilemma about knowing other minds. Where the architectural systems of space, structure, and program are submerged and distorted by an overall symbolic form.
Where systems of space and structure are directly at the service of program, and ornament is applied independently of them. This we call the decorated shed. We think that the duck is seldom relevant today, although it pervades Modern architecture.
Further blurring the distinction, both the Duck and the Decorated Shed are concerned with the function of eating a point to which I will return. Most 3.
In the diagrams the Duck and the Decorated Shed have two window-eyes and a door-nose, but no mouth. The issues of voice and expression— giving expression to voice and voice to expression—are dominant concerns in this chapter and in chapter 4. I simply note here that in the Decorated Shed the mouth or voice seems to be displaced onto the adjacent sign, and in the Duck to the slightly open animal beak in the diagram, in contrast to the closed beak in the photograph.
In calling it a fantasy, I mean that it is an interpretation of reality, and not simply a state separate from reality. It is through fantasy that our conviction of the worth of reality is established; to forgo our fantasies would be to forgo our touch with the world. Crawford Manor and Guild House: The result was, according to Colquhoun, Venturi, and Scott Brown, a biological determinism inextricably linked with a permissive expressionism.
the forgotten symbolism of architectural form
The words and phrases used to describe the Duck are indeed revealing: The facing material is common brick, darker than usual to match the aged brick buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. Its balcony railings recall patterns in stamped metal, and the double-hung conventional windows puncture the surface rather than articulate it; they are explicitly symbolic rather than serving to modulate exterior light.
But at times the comparison seems to take on a life of its own, and suggests the symmetries as much as the asymmetries between the two positions. It seems fairly obvious that in their critique of the Duck, Venturi and Scott Brown are arguing for the irrelevance of any contemporary version of architecture based on the premises of an architecture parlante.
As Detlef Mertens succinctly described this approach: Wittgenstein explains the straits of this condition: You can never get outside it; you must always turn back. There is no outside; outside you cannot breathe.
As Wittgenstein put it: One might say: If we bring these thoughts to bear on the Duck, then its version of absolute expression would also seem to disclose a fear of absolute inexpression. What was once the modernist optimism that we might be able to connect the material with the mental, behavior with its expression, architecture with that behavior, and those conjunctions with political and social change, now manifests itself as the suppression or suffocation of behavior, in which the modernist ideal has been twisted to such a degree that what was to be expressed is no longer even clear.
The Duck marks the region in which the drive for expressive transparency begins to confront its unacknowledged aporia: They are asking some crucial questions about architecture as such that I want to thematize at this juncture: Will architecture have any voice at all at this point in history and in our changing urban environment?
What would it mean for architecture not to matter at all in our staking a claim to the world we live in now? How much is too much architecture and design? How little is too little? How can we prevent the meaning of architecture from suffocating at the hands of its own ideals from being locked in? Or, conversely, how can we prevent its disappearance in the face of and in competition with our media-saturated environment being locked out?
At that juncture, architecture might be left with nothing relevant to say or do, reduced to making strident and empty gestures. If the disappearance of architecture in America is simply embraced as already accomplished in the writings of Jean Baudrillard, in Learning from Las Vegas that possibility is one that must be responded to with all the rigor, imagination, sensitivity, and humor one can muster.
Or simply, how it might become irrelevant in the face of entertainment. What is architecture when space is no longer dominant, and no longer enclosed and directed on an urban scale? When issues of graphicness, electronics, and signage dominate our urban landscapes and require us to rethink the traditional qualities of form and space in architecture—and still remain recognizable as architecture?
The Duck reaches a pitch of expression that is somehow at an inappropriate level for its environment. What this condition calls for is not less exposure, in response to that overexposure, but rather more, and of a different kind. Sexism and the Star System in Architecture. In a different scenario, but drawing on the same logic, Rem Koolhaas suggests the architectural equivalent of a lobotomy, in the form of a radical separation between exterior and interior in the Manhattan skyscraper.
But it is a shed with no secret literally hidden within it. After all, if the Decorated Shed is exemplary of a screened unknowingness, its mode of illuminating that condition is surely through surface and exposure, not depth and interiority. The face which was so recently alive thickens and freezes, and looks nonplussed, while the interruption of the sound invades the screen as a quasi-stupor.
The Decorated Shed calls attention to this fragility. In doing so, they imply that the ways we converse and exchange words and ideas about architecture—about anything—might not express or reveal the attitudes and connections that we are willing to give voice to.
This is all to say that the speech balloon in the Decorated Shed allegorizes the temptation of language to drive a wedge between us and other minds.
But this is not a perspicuous way of putting things. Do VSBI want a reader of primitive judgment, either swallowing good or spitting out bad , as Freud would have it? He then queries: When confronted with such extreme erasures of context, we must consider some different primal scenes for these calls. Imagine the harsh paternal voice of the culture industry ramming something down our throats. Do we take it willingly? Or is it the muttering of a starving man, woman, or child, who can muster only a single word to express an urgent life-and-death need?
She remarks: Deadpan, a scholarly monograph with a silver cover and slip-on box jacket, it could be on the piazzas of Florence, but it suggests a new vision of the very imminent world around us. We should aim to dead-pan the material so that it speaks for itself. It is a way to avoid being upstaged by our own subject matter. Collection Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, It is a mode of rhetorical delivery, used in speeches, public lecturing, and comedy, that is primarily associated with Anglo-American society.
Its presence continues to resonate in the dry comedy of Bob Newhart, Bill Murray, and Rick Mercer, and in the farce of deadpan: His gaze allows an evenness or readiness, in which any object might be as good or bad as any other. This brings us back to Heidegger and the issue of mood that I began to discuss in chapter 1. One might call it, for lack of a better word, a condition of apathy. This is, perhaps, the crucial difference between indifference and equanimity: Venturi and Scott Brown put it this way: This claim might strike us as counterintuitive, as we are so used to thinking about wonder in terms of the extremes of expression—perhaps as open-mouthed and wide-eyed awe or shock—that we are less alert to the fact that an expression of wonder might at times register as inexpression.
Jean-Luc Nancy has posed the question: As Stan Allen has described the latter: How might we relate this to the re presentational strategies in Learning from Las Vegas? They seem to suggest that, with enough patience and resolve on our part, the seams might be rendered visible to us, and thus the world and our desires for the seams that we want might coincide. I see this attitude as informing an intriguing passage in Walden: We know that the inside is different from the outside; it announces that fact in a very straightforward manner.
And what would it be like to know all those possibilities and more? I am thinking of the well-known sequence in Steamboat Bill Jr. Or is that a wellplaced Keaton? Timing is everything.
If Keaton is dashing, perhaps more importantly he is also undashable. It is a restaging of that famous scene in Steamboat Bill Jr. To quote Ruscha: The question is: Are we looking at a further scrambling of those words or at an attempt to make sense of them?
How are we supposed to read them? Twenty minutes or so later, the Rat Man thought what he had done absurd, and he walked over to the stone, picked it up, and replaced it in the middle of the road. Although I am considering these points within myself silently and without speaking, yet I stumble over words and am almost deceived by ordinary language.
Within the car we do not have the same point of view on the city, nor do we have the same city as seen on foot. Again, how do we read these signs now? That is to say, it is the ground of the image that is at stake; the point where the sign manifests, and acknowledges, its own exteriority and conditions of sense. When you see the eye, you see something go out from it. You see the blink of an eye.
They are everywhere: As one author has described it: Yet they do not come from the sky. The time is coming when man will give birth to no more stars. The time of the most contemptible man is coming, the man who can no longer despise himself. I shall show you the last man. What is Love?
What is Creation? What is Longing? What is a Star? On the contrary, it makes a claim for us to embrace the ethical possibilities of those stars come down to earth, with new constellations of meaning and sense, spacing and displacements to be explored, not yet named and not yet disengaged from the force and intensity of those singular stars. In this chapter, I want to engage in a reading that shifts us away from such interpretations, and suggest that it is not so easily categorized, that in fact it puts such interpretations under pressure.
This seems to suggest that Venturi and Scott Brown embrace representation in architecture ultimately I will disagree with this suggestion. This approach to connotation is contrasted with the Duck, which achieves dramatic expression from the connotative meanings of its original structural elements, derived from their abstract function, which is, in turn, expressed through the physiognomic character of those elements also see chapter 3.
Fire Station No. By extension, they are indebted to the theories Colquhoun draws on in his essay: Her claim that Ruscha offers a new vision of the imminent world around us through the collection of facts suggests a fantasy of a presymbolic condition. Pop art thus features a philosophical quality of things, which we may call facticity.
It is perhaps most helpful to consider facticity as Heidegger does. A fact is not merely an event in the world, but rather the assertion of an event. It is a way of bringing to the fore what has been gathered and making that evident.
Its truth is something that grips and does not have to correspond to any given criteria. In many ways, that is dependent on evidencing the becoming of an image: But these kinds of reversals are also in micro-operation throughout the image, and call attention to the oscillating relationship between ground and image.
The sign is placed so that it confronts us more directly, rather than raked at the same left angle as the shed. The traces of ground and surface appear as the energy and force expended in that act of facing or imaging.
The Decorated Shed presents a condition where materiality, language, and image touch upon each other without one grounding the other. Learning from Las Vegas leads us back to our ordinary lives, in which such a condition hardly ever holds. The authors often call attention to the scaffolding, seams, and framing conditions that are within the image yet call out the necessity for us to seam them together differently.
This scaffolding, however, does not extend directly up to support the billboard sign, but connects to an intermediary zone of an entablature-like support, consisting of thin horizontal boards, also seamed vertically, with the name of the billboard company, Donley, prominently located in the center. The scaffolding does not primarily emphasize that architecture is now the mere support for the dominant sign above.
The billboard sign calls attention to the fact that the work of the image is always under construction, and that its framing conditions are within the scene of representation. Legibility is not grounded in visibility, nor is visibility grounded in legibility. Here the emphasis on plasticity demands a suppleness of response. The eye does not simply see, it looks; and we respond to that looking.
When the eye blinks it encounters and opens up onto the world in a rhythmic patterning of connecting and disconnecting, opening and closing, surfacing and receding. We get a literal sense of his touch, how the black lines are darker and fuller in some spots and more grainy, porous, and sketchy in others, depending on the rhythm of tactile pressure. There is nary a straight line to be seen throughout the image, nor do the lines of the shed ever meet at clean corners. Thus, the sign evokes a mouth opening and closing as it voices the words in a particular intonation and pitch.
This voice calls into play the sense of hearing in general and makes us aware—as part of its echo and reverberation—that we need to be more attentive to hearing our own voices in order to give voice to what we want to claim for architecture more on this below.
I am not interested in the generalities of this critique, which can be culled from other sources, but rather the particularities of how Learning from Las Vegas engages the relationship between the individual and society that the traditional monument is supposed to symbolically represent.
A claim is inherently fragile and is no stronger than our agreement to go on with the ordinary criteria we are willing to speak for in making those claims. And the claim to community is always a search for the basis upon which it can or has been established.
I have nothing more to go on than my conviction, my sense that I make sense. These words, which we might call a speech act, do not refer to something; instead, they bring something about. It articulates the kind of plasticity that Learning from Las Vegas at its most ambitious moments argues for: Descartes found a way to avoid all sensory deception: In the words of Denise Scott Brown: Eyes shut.
Eyes open. Both extremes are untenable. But do we really know who is the winner and who the loser in this game? Blinking is not an open or shut case. One might say that this diurnality, the everyday world we live in, is something to be achieved over and over again. Its literary correlate would sound something like T.
Venturi and Scott Brown seem to be arguing that we need to be responsive to our environment, which requires repeated acts of looking and acknowledging. Venturi and Scott Brown do not sit on the fence: Stanley Kubrick, And that is inseparable from how a page of Learning from Las Vegas might look to us, and how our palpitation of its vision is enacted by the rhythm of our turning the pages as they lift, separate, and fold back down to contact one another.
Does that mean, then, that there is no difference between the two texts? Yes, of course, many and many a difference.
... bO AMIENS enclosed space
But their coimplication is more contorted than one might believe. But the modesty of the cover belies the success of the paperback edition, which has sold over 80, copies, been reprinted many times, and been translated into some dozen languages.
Indeed, there is every indication that this book will continue to be read by architectural students, architects, professors, and lay readers throughout the world for generations to come.
The changes in layout and design are worth noting in some detail, as they form the basis for much of what follows. The revised edition was, according to Scott Brown, more in keeping with what they intended it to be: The symbolism of architectural form is.
Simply put, besides being completely reset, the revised edition of Learning from Las Vegas was also redesigned. I gave them a Duck. The Design Department at the MIT Press often did multiple takes for book jackets, no doubt exploring the perennial issue of the relationship between cover and text: Was it, in architectural terms, a facade or a wrapping?
You should have seen it. Well, they hated it! I loved it. The shock must come from the contents inside the book. We have shown Muriel what we mean in sketches. We think all the headings. It surely does not express its contents as interior depth; rather, it literally ex-presses—stamps or extrudes the section headings as another surface. The Third I have always been struck by the wonderful photograph of Venturi and Scott Brown riding in a car during their trip to Las Vegas: Scully is often very astute in recognizing how and when Venturi and Scott Brown contribute to their own misreading.
They refer to these colleagues, however, in Latin terms: Often it seems they are suggesting—in a grand telescoping of gradations of meaning—that Cooper literally mis-took; that is, pursued the wrong design. Both Venturi and Scott Brown and the editors and designers at the Press were aware of this at some level, and it deeply colored their mis communication. In a letter to Scott Brown, Ankeny wrote: The others are unusual entries for such a listing Erratum sheets usually list only misstatements of fact.
Matill hired a select group of graphic designers to work with him, including Muriel Cooper, who had been recommended by Gyorgy Kepes, as well as Jacqueline Casey and Ralph Coburn.
She was also exposed to Swiss design through the Boston design scene at this time. From all reports, Cooper used the grid imaginatively, and never merely applied it in a rigid or slavish manner.
I AM A MONUMENT: On Learning from Las Vegas
The schematized text, indicated by arrows or chevron-like lines, suggests that these layouts are primarily concerned with the placement of the images in relationship to the text. The images are clearly indicated by relative size, type, and location on each page, with the corresponding text indicated by the section headings jotted at the bottom of each page. Each column is 11 picas wide with a 1-pica gutter between the columns, which works out to a text page measuring 59 picas wide and 78 picas high.
Each of the three parts of the book follows a slightly different organization based on this grid, but dictated by the number of text columns: While the structure of the book evolved from the Swiss grid system, it was devised to be rich enough to encompass the complex panorama of the archival textual and visual material. Myer, and Donald Appleyard, a tall, rectangular book with double columns of sans serif text, paragraphs separated by line spacing rather than indentation, and generous areas of white space around many of the images.
The book was intended to convey to engineers important views and reference points in the building of roads. The book was bound in corrugated cardboard, printed on brown wrapping paper, and typeset on an IBM Composer, as was Learning from Las Vegas in This would seem to call for a different approach to the relationship of image and text on the page. The visual materials were not only graphically rich, but as content-laden as the text, so the interdependent rhythms of those relationships were important.
The choice was also dictated by a brute monetary reality: We have also done some sketches to show relative size and importance of the different illustrations. In a letter from Venturi to Michael Connelly, written in December , Venturi asked for the following crucial sentence to be added to paragraph six of their letter of agreement with the Press: This represents twice the time spent on a comparable book.
I think Mario should try to drop them very slightly if he can. A letter written by Lee Ewing, a production staff member of the MIT Press, after the publication of the revised edition states this in the starkest terms possible: I do not think it an exaggeration to characterize that tone as one of intimidation.
Some of these incompatibilities were real, while others were retrospectively constructed and exaggerated. Here, as elsewhere, the two editions were worked out over a span of time in which they served differing needs at different points.
Venturi and Scott Brown were primarily responsible for the writing and rewriting of the text, and Steven Izenour for preparing the images. To the right of the studio notes are predominantly 35mm color photographs taken in Las Vegas. In this room you experience one large, moving, linear image of the strip. At eye level to your right is the right side of the strip; to your left the left side. It is in color and rear-illuminated for brilliance and sparkle; by means of motor drives, it changes from day to night and back again every two to three minutes.
Although there was a small catalog produced for the Renwick exhibition by Aperture, here it would seem that the book and the exhibition design had merged into each other. This dramatizes what I have hinted at previously: It is easy to imagine why Cooper thought that her own experimentation with different typefaces and interleaved narratives in Learning from Las Vegas might have appealed to them.
Once I presented the Bauhaus book as a single-frame movie—showing all the pages in rapid succession. In fact, the Ruscha elevations along the side of the pages in the Venturi and Scott Brown mock-up would have set them apart from the rest of the images, as they would have been placed broadside, requiring the viewer to rotate the book.
Comment: Learning from Las Vegas
However, during the design process, the Ruscha elevations were edited down and isolated to a few pages. One can sense the buzz of excitement in the pleasure of trying to account for a new sense of the city, but not quite knowing how to frame that in terms of words or images, or even whether those very categories, and their strict separation, were part of the problem. Not— as Venturi and Scott Brown are quick to note—to avoid judgment, but rather to delay it awhile in order to render judgment more sensitive.
This is epitomized in the many two-page spreads and broadsides that encourage the viewer to imagine they are unfolding and reorienting large sheets of information as their mode of turning the pages of the book. But Venturi and Scott Brown were clearly after some other way of blocking together these issues.
But it would be equally correct to say that legibility is now the condition for visibility as such: It needs contrast to point it up. It certainly accomplished that goal in spades. On destricturation. Considering this text thirty-six years after it was written, Vincent Scully requested that I include the following note: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism Bloomington: Indiana University Press, , p.
Essays —, vol. University of Minnesota Press, , pp. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to LLV are to the revised edition Cambridge: MIT Press, Michael Hays Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, , pp.
An Interdisciplinary Introduction, ed. Routledge, , pp. Cynthia Davidson New York: Anyone Corporation, , pp. The studio included thirteen students, from architecture, urban planning, and graphic design. The Learning from Levittown studio, a companion to the Learning from Las Vegas studio, took place a year later in the Graduate Department of the School of Architecture at Yale, and concentrated on the residential rather than the commercial 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 dimensions of urban sprawl.
It utilized similar visual and analytical methods as the Learning from Las Vegas studio, and there are important references to this studio in LLV. Cambridge University Press, , p. University of Chicago Press, , p. Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy Oxford: Oxford University Press, , pp.
The issue of acknowledgment is woven throughout his writings, but these two citations are the most thematic and sustained explorations of the concept.
Hilary Putnam has put this nicely: This is what Wittgenstein was trying to make room for. Peggy Kamuf Stanford: Stanford University Press, , pp. Viking Press, , p. Steven Rendall Berkeley: University of California Press, Steven Harris and Deborah Berke Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, , pp.
Stephen Mulhall Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, , p. Von Wright, trans. Peter Winch Oxford: Blackwell, , 22e.
The Restlessness of the Negative, trans. Jason Smith and Steven Miller Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, , p. Fabrique Editions, , p. Harvard University Press, , p. University of Chicago Press, , xvii. Autobiographical Exercises Cambridge, Mass.: Unfolding the Work of John Sallis, ed.
Kenneth Maly Albany: State University of New York Press, , p. New York: New York Graphic Society, Oxford University Press, , p. Lines of Skepticism and Romanticism Chicago: University of Chicago Press, , pp. Glenn Gray New York: Simon Sparks Stanford: LLV, p. Jonathan Cape, , p. This essay was one of the introductory readings for the Learning from Las Vegas studio. Quoted in David B. I believe this may be true of some books, but not this one.
An untimely book is never outdated because its untimeliness is already of a piece with its arrival. Thus, any account of Learning from Las Vegas will have to begin and depart from the book itself. As a jointly written endeavor, it quickly led to revealing issues about star power, sexism, gender, and collaboration within the production of architectural knowledge. It was then, and still is, the starting point for any consideration of architecture and urbanism within information- and consumer-driven economies, and of the changing status of the architect within this nexus.
However, this relevance and topicality have often tended to obfuscate the book in other ways. To overemphasize the former would be to tell only half the story. Simply put, I am attempting to bring into relief another way of thinking about the importance of Learning from Las Vegas. Skepticism and the Ordinary In this book I argue that Learning from Las Vegas demonstrates a full-scale engagement with skepticism and the ordinary.
And where better to explore these concepts than in a book about Las Vegas, a city that, according to many, is the scene of sensory overload, illusion, and deception? In its most basic sense, skepticism is about radical doubt: Do we exist?
Do others exist? Can we communicate at all? At its furthest extreme, skepticism manifests itself in nihilism: the radical denial of shared meaning altogether. By contrast, the voice of the ordinary lies in that realm of our involvement in the world and with others that acknowledges the common life and language that we share.
I am suggesting that Learning from Las Vegas enacts an interminable play between skepticism and the ordinary. The voice of the ordinary operates in the book as a counterweight to the skeptical voice that tends to drive out our share in the words we inherit. I am by no means claiming that Venturi and Scott Brown intended to exemplify the struggle with skepticism when they wrote Learning from Las Vegas, merely that the resultant book does so.
For Cavell, skepticism is not fundamentally triggered by our perceived lack of knowledge of the world, as it has traditionally been cast. Rather, it is related to how we respond to and take responsibility for that world. Thus, skepticism often manifests itself in our modes of ignoring what we already know. Refusing such acts is also a possibility. But the persistence of this choice—whether to acknowledge or avoid—just points to the fact that skepticism is a standing threat never overcome once and for all.
Acknowledgment places a strong emphasis on issues of receptivity and responsiveness, and the kinds of mood and attunement that disclose our affective relationship to the world. Skepticism is a way of subliming our language out of ordinary usage such that our voice in words is thrown into question. It can refer to anything in the world we might take an interest in. Thus my interest in the ordinary in Learning from Las Vegas is not just about the everyday words we encounter and use in our daily lives, but also involves questioning why people speak the way they do, and how our investment in words, and architecture, is constitutive of the way we live, mean, and love, or avoid doing so.
What is striking is that he often illustrates the struggle with skepticism through crucial references to architecture. It makes one want to respond with a gesture. But I want to be explicit here: I am not projecting a theoretical perspective onto Learning from Las Vegas that is somehow more profound than the book I am writing about.
One deleterious outcome of interpreting Learning from Las Vegas as simply a postmodern text has been its exposure to a particular kind of Adornian criticism. This species of criticism emerged almost immediately after the book was published, and continues to be the dominant mode of criticism of it to the present day. Of course, a sophisticated Adornian approach to Learning from Las Vegas does not necessarily have to come to these conclusions, and I remark at various points how such a reading might actually intersect with my reading and, thus, come to a quite different evaluation of the text than that provided by traditional criticisms.
A strict adherence to critical theory—based interpretation obscures the subtle aversive criticism that Learning from Las Vegas demonstrates, and which can easily be misinterpreted as uncritical collusion with the culture industry.
In other words, the book is much more critically and ethically charged than has previously been assumed. But it is a bit of a risk to spell out these two words without specifying that I am rethinking what those categories sensibilities?
My third chapter examines the well-known comparison of the Duck and the Decorated Shed, which Venturi and Scott Brown introduced in order to dramatize and exemplify their arguments in the book. What exactly are we willing to put in our mouths, or in the mouths of others? And what are we willing to release from them? I see this as an allegory of skepticism that prompts us to ask what having a voice in architecture means at a time when it is not clear what voice, if any, architecture might have in relation to the increasing informatization of society.
Taking the cliche seriously, the Duck and the Decorated Shed pose the question: What is food for thought? It has certainly been taken in these ways.I do not think it an exaggeration to characterize that tone as one of intimidation. Its balcony railings recall patterns in stamped metal, and the double-hung conventional windows puncture the surface rather than articulate it; they are explicitly symbolic rather than serving to modulate exterior light.
Barbara Johnson Chicago: Do others exist? Simply put, the role that Learning from Las Vegas played in identifying and theorizing postmodernism shifted architecture to the center of cultural debates, a place from which it has never departed.
- FLASH NOVOS 52 PDF
- PDF FROM GOOGLE DRIVE IOS
- MACHINE LEARNING KEVIN MURPHY PDF
- CBSE CLASS 12 MATHS PAPER 2015 PDF
- THE LAST STAR RICK YANCEY PDF
- FLASHES OF THOUGHT PDF
- SNAPSHOT ENGLISH BOOK CLASS 11
- BRUJULAS QUE BUSCAN SONRISAS PERDIDAS EPUB
- GETTING STARTED WITH BEAGLEBONE BLACK PDF
- BOOK FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT