Howl

Howl – Allen Ginsberg

A captivating poem which is at once shocking with its unrestricted language, undisguised portrayal of stark reality and detailed description of the subconscious. Written in 1955 as part of a collection called Howl and Other Poems, it was published in 1956. The world was little prepared for the audacity and effrontery of this poem back then and upon its release, the publisher was arrested and charged with dissemination of obscene material but later discharged after a judge ruled in the poem’s favour.  The poem is now renowned as one of the best works of the Beat Generation.

The Beat Generation consisted of a group of post WWII writers who, along with the cultural ideals they represented became prominent in the 1950s. Hedonists to the core and radical in their disposition, they experimented with illicit drugs, sex and sexuality, eastern religion, antagonising consumerism and the idealizing of ardent, non euphemistic means of expression and existence.

That said, the poem draws extensively from personal experiences of Ginsberg’s and that of his friends but notably among them, the main emotional inspiration for the poem, is Carl Solomon - a psychotic acquaintance of Ginsberg’s who he met in a mental institution and to whom the poem is dedicated.  Ginsberg’s description of youth is reminiscent of Eagleton’s lamentation of scholarly pursuits of the bygone era trivialised by the new generation.

The poem is divided into three parts and the first part, a lamentation, describes the naivety of the youths of America drawing from his own experiences, that of his friends and a host of other colourful characters he had encountered. He believed the interests of these characters were underrepresented in an oppressively regimented and consumerist era (again reminiscent of Eagleton’s discussion on the convention of normative). He describes their experiences in unrestrained and graphic language. This part of the poem is also notable for the use of the word ‘who’ which helps to personify the character the poem engages in the following part.

Moloch, originally a biblical figure and to whom children were sacrificed, again attributes character to the idea Ginsberg is waxing metaphorical about in the second part of the poem – industrial civilisation and its ugly manifestations. There is an echo of Davis’s view of Dubai in the description of Moloch and in parts, one may substitute ‘Moloch’ for ‘Dubai’:

Dubai whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Dubai whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovas! Dubai whose factories dream and choke in the fog! Dubai whose smokestacks and antennae crown the cities!

Dubai whose love is endless oil and sand! Dubai whose soul is electricity and banks!

The third and final part is more refrained and is addressed directly to Carl Solomon. This part is also notable for the fixed base; ‘Rockland’ which is what he called the mental hospital which he briefly attended and in which he met Carl Solomon. Ginsberg also reveals here that his mother too had been mentally ill and may explain some of the sympathy he feels for Solomon. Of the structure, Ginsberg says Part III is, "pyramidal, with a graduated longer response to the fixed base."

The Politics Of Amnesia

The Politics of Amnesia (After Theory) - Terry Eagleton

Eagleton confronts us with a sense of responsibility and urgency as soon as one begins to read this literature. He describes, in colourful language, the shift in intellectual pursuits, the trivialisation of scholarly matters and a conspicuous lack of fresh thinking that the fast evolving world we find ourselves so crucially needs. 

Eagleton then introduces us to the idea of cultural theory and its historic advancements such as recognising; gender and sexuality as legitimate subjects of study and of political significance, that popular culture should not be overlooked and is worth studying. However, I found the discussion on post colonialism most interesting, for obvious reasons.

I absolutely agree with Eagleton that ‘it is one thing to make a revolution, and another to sustain it’. Having grown up in Nigeria and lived in the UK for almost a decade, I have often wondered what narcotics the so called nationalists were on when they put on that charade of ‘struggle for independence’.  I strongly believe they did it for pure selfish reasons and not in the interest of all at all. It was truly a lost cause and the Marxists who harboured illusions about those bloody power hungry middle-class nationalists were right. It is very heart wrenching to see how, as the author puts it, ‘isolated, poverty-stricken and poor in civic, liberal or democratic traditions’ that country now is! Their laurel, the so called independence has been more of a curse than a blessing – ‘that political sovereignty had brought with it no authentic economic self-government, and could never do so in a West-dominated world’!    

Also, we are brought up close to the examination of postmodernists’ reactions to the idea of collective action under the awnings of different political orientation. Some postmodernists who oppose the notion of individualism (an issue adumbrated in the Meades interview with Zaha) and who think collective action is oppressive counter it with margins and minorities. Liberals however, counter it with the individual. The conservatives on the other hand would much prefer to ignore mainstream social life and capitalise on the political grounds most fertile; margins and minorities, much to the chagrin of postmodernists who tend to be all inclusive majority seekers.

Eagleton acknowledges cultural awareness as the force behind the previously marginalised to finding a voice, become a force to reckon with which can no longer be disregarded.  He posits that the normative is being challenged and that social life based on ‘majority carries the vote’ is a matter of conventions and norms which inherently is oppressive. I think there is an interesting point in that norms, which presumes that one man’s meat should not be another man’s poison, is oppressive.

But equally as fascinating is Eagleton’s argument for why norms are not always restrictive and consequently why going against the grain of the normative is not always politically radical. To be of this view, the author argues, is ‘politically catastrophic’ and ‘dim-witted’. Here, one gets a sense of Eagleton (quoting Perry Anderson) mourning the demise of the old ways, of the traditional middle class and the implications of the resultant low-minded amorphous sub-cultural forms. I thought this bit was particularly funny; ‘But it is true, by and large, that our new ruling elite consists increasingly of people who snort cocaine rather than people who look like Herbert Asquith or Marcel Proust’.

The sense of responsibility which Eagleton evokes in us through this literature comes through a series of carefully organised thought. This equips one with an understanding of the dynamics of a fast changing world and the difficulty in identifying the central driving force due to its curiously ephemeral nature.  But an educated view affords us a better understanding that marginal does not necessarily mean minority, that collective action in today’s world is grossly inadequate and that there is a need to foster a new forms of belonging and sense of tradition. 

Fear And Money In Dubai

Fear and Money in Dubai – Mike Davis

How very fascinating! My reaction to this article will come directly from the heart as a citizen of an oil producing third world African country whose 70% of population live in abject poverty - Nigeria. I just cannot help the way I feel and maybe that will explain much of my sympathetic or sentimental view of Dubai’s seemingly dodgy ways.

From the outset, the author confronts us with Dubai’s appetite for pretty much anything and everything extraordinary and gigantic under his docentship; man-made islands of the world, the pyramids sunken in the shallow waters, mega hotels, chrome forests of skyscrapers, seductive goods; Gucci, Cartier, gold etc. They are all there in quotidian abundance. One cannot help but notice though that within the second paragraph alone, Davis makes two comparisons with America provoking a thought that America is a yardstick by which Dubai should be measured or perhaps there is some sort of competition between those two countries. And this carries on throughout the literature.

I am not entirely sure if Davis’s intension is to make us astounded by Dubai’s spending, affluent ways and therefore convert us to frowning at them or he is genuinely concerned about; the planet and its waning resources, increasing global consumerism, capitalism etc. Much of his tone even in the early stages of the article carries a significant amount of bias; as if Dubai is committing some sort of crime exclusive to the place alone. For example he talks about; ‘Despite its blast furnace climate (on typical 120 ⁰ summer days, the swankier hotels refrigerate their swimming pools)...’ I find this an unfair remark to make given that the most accessible leisure centres here in the UK heat their pools in the winter.

He talks about conspicuous consumption? But is it not surprising that most of the products Dubai displays in dazzling fashion; island world, Burj Dubai, exclusive beaches, carnivorous dinosaurs etc are one way or the other connected to or patronised by people from the West and Europe? In my opinion, it takes two to tango and the laws of demand and supply will always be at work here. For as long as we want the comforts we have grown so used to and find difficult to let go of, Dubai, China or any other country of similar industrious ability or foresight can ask whatever price they deem fit. What I am trying to say is that we are just as guilty of the crimes Davis is parading as being committed by Dubai maybe just not at the same scale.

One might perceive something rather like what Dave Hickey describes in his A Home in the Neon chapter of Air Guitar. The world is a poor lens through which to view Dubai, while Dubai is an excellent lens through which to view the world.

Another issue I find particularly interesting and pertinent to my country is that of the “dialectic of uneven and combined development” that Davis touched on. It is true that if you went to Nigeria today, nearly everyone has an expensive mobile phone or two (and expensive cars!), even people from the remotest villages such as where my retired father now lives. But the country still does not have stable electricity and pipe borne water - I think those are the two most rudimentary of infrastructure. Then we may extrapolate to education, public transport; good roads, telecommunication, healthcare, security ad infinitum! What this creates then is a scenario where people have the near perfect finished products but no clue as to how they got there and ‘no framework of historical possibilities’. Huge chasms of unharnessed potential are glaringly obvious; when people have the latest apple iphone/ ipad but no wireless networks to use the internet and all the applications that rely on the internet to function. When people buy really expensive imported cars with no good roads to drive them on and so within 24 months the cars have to be replaced.

I am in concordance with Davis that fast-tracking is not an appropriate approach to development. In order to fester real development with desirable outcomes, one has to go through the arduous intermediate stages or at least try to understand them and provide a sustainable framework of developing on these. 

Nonetheless, I am sceptical about Davis’s position on Dubai. I have never been to the place myself and much of what I now know about it I have read from this article but there is a side to Dubai he wants us to see and react to it in a particular way too. One has to wonder if Davis has an agenda; if all of these things levelled against Dubai are just some of those, as Hickey puts it, unmarked doors through which the cognoscenti pass and outsiders are so attentive to? I do not think that ideas such as free-trade zones or other incentives are bad ideas if your intension is to encourage investors.

As far as working in Dubai goes, and all the exaggerated claims of diminutive or non-existent rights, I think there is something honourable in exercising ones’ free-will and dealing with the consequences of one’s’ actions. If the place is not favourable for work, I ask; why leave the comforts of your homeland hundreds of thousands of miles behind to work there? And Davis is so funny insinuating unfavourable working conditions saying; ‘...an army of poorly paid Pakistanis and Indians, the largest contingent form Kerala, working twelve-hour shifts, six and half days a week, in the asphalt melting desert heat’. Desert heat? Is it that much different to heat in Pakistan or India?

Maybe some deplorable conditions really do exist or maybe Davis just wants us to see what he wants us to see but I think the onus is on the people who subject themselves to these conditions. If there is nothing in it at all for them, why do it? If one is really not happy with how Dubai does business why aid and abet them? I doubt that these conditions are closely guarded secrets and if people are in the know, why sign up to go there?

Again, it might be a cultural thing innate in me but if one decides to go and work there, one should be prepared to swallow whatever bitter drink comes with that decision without moaning. Except the terms and conditions of the agreement between the two parties (employee and employer) is breached and I think pretty good results have been achieved in some cases.

For me, the rapid development in Dubai is an indication of what is achievable yet so conspicuously lacking in my country. I do however strongly oppose fast track development at this does not solve any problems in the long run. But with resources efficiently harnessed, applied in the right order of priorities and to the right areas of development, a country so rich, not only in oil but a number of other natural resources, may not find itself in such a sorry state. 

A Home In The Neon

A Home in the Neon – Dave Hickey (Air Guitar)

I thoroughly enjoyed this literature and I think it is largely due to Hickey’s language and humour. I found it easily digestible and comprehendible.

We see Las Vegas through the eyes of a person who has grown very fond of it. So fond of it he adopts it as his home – a supposedly most un-homelike of places. But the reasons for his predilection are both captivating and noble. To be superficial, one might think Hickey is looking for justifications for his habits but I believe his reasons go deeper than just that and he makes sure we are introduced to them right at the start of the article.

As a moral bottom-line, Hickey introduces us to his inner child - one he doubts will ever grow up. But what I find most interesting is the idea of a child and its juxtaposition with innocence and moral values in Las Vegas – where ‘fifty-year-old heterosexual guys still room together’ without as much as an eye brow raised. Vegas offers the perfect ambience for his or anyone else’s escapism which festers better/ real social interaction. He expresses his delight at the ‘little quirks’ the city offers and cites an example of a waitress who was content with what she had and looked forward to greener pastures – qualities that are of sound moral values.

He equally expresses his distaste for people without these qualities, who detract Vegas on the grounds of culture and who think culture is all about money. The reason for their unhappiness, as Hickey points out, I find truly interesting; flat line social hierarchy. The idea that money in Vegas is just money, that there are no ‘socially sanctioned forms of status to ennoble one’s having made it – nor any predetermined socio-cultural agendas that one might pursue as a consequence of having been so ennobled’, leaves the detractors of Vegas with pretty much nothing else to feed on. I have often wondered what moral codes people will abide by in such an environment that Vegas provides. I think it is all too easy to confuse genuine moral values with these reasons (and their tributaries under different guises) Hickey points out.

What you see is what you get in Vegas; there are no secrets – like most other places. And it is easy to comprehend why this might take visitors by surprise as it is so plain and simple. It dresses the usually covert or ‘colourful’ intricacies of everyday life elsewhere in high visibility jackets and saves the inquisitive any bother. I particularly like Hickey’s analogy of; ‘America, in order words, is a very poor lens through which to view Las Vegas, while Las Vegas is a wonderful lens through which to view America’. These, all together infuse a feeling of reassurance; that there are no pretences, just like being  at home would and I  think I too will feel at home in such a place.

Hickey’s final argument for Vegas as home relates to the feeling of comfort and hope. The former could be typical of any home; where things you find excruciating in one environment might be particularly enjoyable in the comfort of your own home. But Hickey wraps this around a vague revelation that he might have a habit. He eloquently describes the moments of anticipation that only a gambler or anyone that plays the lottery can identify with; ‘...Vegas lives – in those fluttery moments of faint but rising hope, in the possibility of wonder, in the swell of desire while the dice is still bouncing, just before the card flips face-up. And win or lose, you always have that instant of genuine, justifiable hope.’ He argues further that this hope is genuine, if you win, you win and even though one is aware of the laws of probability, you had a real chance. I too would much prefer to know exactly where I am at, what my chances are and a reassurance that what I make or win I get to keep.

It is clear that Hickey is a matter-of-fact kind of guy and does not like indulgence in pretentious behaviour. I believe there is something very noble and morally upright in calling a spade a spade. If Vegas offers an ambience where; people can be thankful for what they have, look forward to new things, feel free to be themselves, money is just money and social hierarchy is nonexistent, there is always genuine and justifiable hope and a reassurance that there is a real chance of keeping what you win, I think it is a good place to call ‘home’.  

On Zaha Hadid

Jonathan Meades on Zaha Hadid culled from Intelligent Life Magazine, Summer 2008

Another fascinating read and very funny in places too – the back handed swipes Meades was taking at her! But on a more serious note, this article cum interview lays bare some topical issues of architecture schools and architecture profession today.

One that comes up early in the article is that of unnecessary agglomeration of language which Meades describes as ‘a sort of Esperantist pidgin’. We are all slowly indoctrinated to indulge in this  ‘bag of tricks’ in architecture schools and Meades was not forgiving of Zaha for dipping into this bag when she talks about architecture.  He aptly points out some syntactical errors suggesting that Zaha (or anyone else that uses it) might sound like an empty barrel. 

Another one is the issue of how new buildings should relate to their context. I think Zaha’s approach to this question should be a model for the serious student. Showing sensitivity to context should not become a limitation on any project but to prompt new ways of addressing issues thrown up by the site that will forge better architectural responses.

But when Meades pushes further on how she has become successful at creating architecture that is not easily recognised as by the same hand it is clear she is evasive and gives a rather vague explanation. Meades pointed out that this is not a new tactic and that the discovery or revelation of the ‘how’ would be to destroy them. It begs the question why we (students) are constantly nailed to the wall at crits and bombarded with a litany of questions; ‘where is the process work?’, ‘what is the theory behind your proposal?’, ‘what is the program?’ etc but to be evasive or not have an answer will only prompt critics to go on to the next level of investigation that could pull the rug from under  your project; ‘but it could be this’ and ‘it could be that’ – questions which made a colleague of mine reply with; ‘ yeah it could be anything but it’s not exactly mickey mouse, is it?’. She has since gained a higher level of respect from me, my hero!

Further we see the irony of practising architecture in London. A city rich with interesting juxtapositions and an architect who is ‘enthusiastic about this sort of dissonance’ not having a proper accomplishment to her name in the capital? But her continued attraction to the city is another question she scatted helter-skelter about. 

Also, we are confronted with the question of why the profession is and always has been dominated by men? The reasons are put down to low salaries, long hours, office machismo and lack of opportunities for progression. But Meades goes further and tries to spread the bias evenly between men and women architects as a disease that only afflicts architects in Britain irrespective of sex. He posits that architects having squandered the peoples’ reposed confidence in them in the 70s and mid 70s, now have to establish a name for themselves in foreign countries before they regain any confidence in Britian. I am not entirely convinced that that answers the initial question.

However, imbued in this attitude to architects is a limiting factor equally as powerful as taking ‘context’ literally as already discussed. If architecture, in the capital or Britain in the larger sense, is subject to public opinion then we end up with an architecture that tries to be all inclusive and consequently creates a fertile breeding ground for the profit minded capitalist. I agree with both Zaha and Meades on this point that the paramouncy of the architect/ artist should be first place but I would not go as far as pigeon-holing any particular style of architecture as good or bad but whether individual products of such endeavours are. 

The expendability or short-termism of buildings in Britain is another worrying subject brought up by Meades in this reading. This sounds a gentle reminder of the responsibility of architects in creating spaces that are beautiful, fit for purpose, and durable to avoid falling victim to the for-profit capitalist. I think that in the crucial triangle of time, money and quality, we find ourselves in a precarious position where time and money are winning the day. I feel there must be more we can do to bring quality back in popular demand rather than oblige to that architecture should not be daring, beautiful, striking or marvellous.

In the final part of the article, Meades evaluates Zaha’s refrain from talking about her work or architecture and the transformation when she talks about anything else. He makes an interesting point about a different part of the brain being activated. I am not quite sure if dyslexia and being left handed are qualities one is born with or that one develops in the very early stages of cognitive development. It seems common knowledge that most gifted architects have both or either of these conditions but Zaha has neither of them. It makes me ponder; are architects born or made? Or perhaps there are both kinds of architects?

This Crisis Is The Spectacle: Where Is The Real

This crisis is the spectacle: where is the real? – Alain Badiou

This makes a very interesting and enlightening read for me. I can relate some of the issues it addresses to some of my own indulgencies and what the impact of such indulgencies might mean on a global scale. I do not have a mortgage as I am currently in the cadre of people Badiou describes as ‘on such low incomes – or – non incomes.’

But the indulgencies I mean are things I would not have considered having when I still lived in Nigeria. I have lived here for nine years and it is difficult to even point them out. The boundaries between ‘need’ and ‘want’ have been voraciously eroded in that time and in some way or another, I know I now I feed the system.

It is not my intension to set Nigeria (or any other African country, hell any country in the world in the same league!) on a higher platform for getting priorities right (she cannot get it more wrong!), or blame developed countries for making better provisions for their populace. Most of her population’s ability to make do with the least of resources and infrastructure stem out of the governments’ years of shocking indifference to its subjects’ plight. Nonetheless in juxtaposition to the standard of life here in the UK, it is easy to see how those boundaries between what is really important and what is ‘luxury’ become eroded, blurring peoples prudency and consequently leaving them exposed to the predatory exploits of the capitalist.

However in our current predicament, where we have all been so anesthetized by the ‘system’, I welcome Badiou’s crucial wake up call. He very cleverly packed in a relatively short article a bit of background information to educate the less conversant, makes a pertinent comparison of the dire situation we find ourselves to something everyone can identify with – the cinema, offers recommendations as to how we may start to address the afflictions of this financial crisis in the short term and the deal with the greater brutality of capitalism and its devices in the long term.

The same force (capitalism) may be at work in Nigeria or other third world countries of the same genre where the most basic amenities are so few and far between which is aimed at creating a mad frenzy when they are briefly made available at much higher prices. This undoubtedly generates huge profits for the perpetrators. I think either way, Badiou’s recommendations for both political and ideological rethinking caters strongly for both sides of the coin and remains pertinent.