Voted ugliest building in Britain 2011
Woodsy brings up the theme again of the ugliness of our architecture but more than that, its sheer impracticability:
For years I have been taking note of new buildings and wondering why they were so ugly, why architects and occupiers were more interested in making a statement than in producing a good workable building.
Ever since a friend’s company moved, many years ago, to a then ‘state of the art’ modern building with glass panel walls that cooked them in summer and randomly fell off into the street thereafter it has been obvious to me that some architects don’t know what people need, and more importantly don’t know enough about materials technology and basic physics to do their job properly.
We come back to the same old questions of whether it is incompetence, whether architecture school or wherever they go is now full of leftist “ideas” people with no common sense and ability to predict, extrapolate, project but they’re excellent at getting bits of paper called modern qualifications …
… or whether all that is true PLUS Them ensure that such people do design the buildings, knowing they’re monstrosities in the making, making people luck y enough to have a job’s lives a misery.
The Schiller Institute hit the nail on the head, methinks – though most would probably pass over this explanation as fanciful – and it comes back to the things put in place by, if not directly linked to, the Frankfurt School and subsequent revisionists.
We will have to face the fact that the ugliness we see around us has been consciously fostered and organized in such a way, that a majority of the population is losing the cognitive ability to transmit to the next generation, the ideas and methods upon which our civilization was built.
The loss of that ability is the primary indicator of a Dark Age.
And, a new Dark Age is exactly what we are in. In such situations, the record of history is unequivocal: either we create a Renaissance—a rebirth of the fundamental principles upon which civilization originated—or, our civilization dies.
So this pursuit of beauty is not just an aesthetic thing, it is a political necessity to reverse the doings of Lukas and heirs:
The task of the Frankfurt School, then, was first, to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy through an “abolition of culture” (Aufhebung der Kultur in Lukacs’ German); and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a “new barbarism.”
To this task, there gathered in and around the Frankfurt School an incredible assortment of not only Communists, but also non-party socialists, radical phenomenologists, Zionists, renegade Freudians, and at least a few members of a self-identified “cult of Astarte.”
And it is a quite deliberate attempt to kill off beauty:
“The proper direction in painting, therefore, is that taken by the late Van Gogh, who began to paint objects in disintegration, with the equivalent of a hashish-smoker’s eye that “loosens and entices things out of their familiar world.”
In music, “it is not suggested that one can compose better today” than Mozart or Beethoven, said Adorno, but one must compose atonally, for atonalism is sick, and “the sickness, dialectically, is at the same time the cure….
The extraordinarily violent reaction protest which such music confronts in the present society … appears nonetheless to suggest that the dialectical function of this music can already be felt … negatively, as ‘destruction.’”
Lou Reed – metal machine music.
The purpose of modern art, literature, and music must be to destroy the uplifting—therefore, bourgeois — potential of art, literature, and music, so that man, bereft of his connection to the divine, sees his only creative option to be political revolt.
“To organize pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics and to discover in political action a sphere reserved one hundred percent for images.”
Thus, Benjamin collaborated with Brecht to work these theories into practical form, and their joint effort culminated in the Verfremdungseffekt (“estrangement effect”), Brecht’s attempt to write his plays so as to make the audience leave the theatre demoralized and aimlessly angry.
What minds these people had, what diseased minds that they would do that to society and create a society of beasts who can neither know nor appreciate beauty any more, except in its most terrible form. They called these men intellectuals and if that were so – that they were men [and women] of superior intellect -then how they misused that intellect.
In Christian terms, when you know something to be true and you deliberately twist it and pursue the opposite, that is mortal sin, unforgivable sin. There has to be a cynicism in it, a deliberate attempt to use one’s position – maybe one’s intellect – to lead astray.
I believe these men and women did that and all for a narrative which has as its fourth premise that society must be torn down in order for the fifth stage, the utopia, to be ushered in.
That, my friends, is at best naive and at worst – perverse. We increasingly see the results all about us today and that is what Woodsy was pointing to, though not in these terms.