Posts Tagged ‘marshall mcluhan’

The Man with the Movie Camera

Sunday, December 28th, 2008


The Man with the Movie Camera (1929) 67 minutes

Nearly as soon as cinema was invented were there theoreticians who wrote about the expansive possibilities of film to change the way we document and understand architecture. In fact, Modern architecture can be seen as an attempt to reconcile the possibilities of technology with the way we build. Walter “the J is like a Y” Benjamin, Le “Little Devil” Corbusier, Aldo “Crayola” Rossi, Bernard “Ah-” Tschumi, and Rem “Cool-Hizzy” Koolhaas, just to name a few, have all famously used film to advance ideas about architecture and urbanism.


Cinema is the dominant medium of today (though that may be changing), and this is no small potatoes. There have only been a few changes in dominant media since the dawn of history; first was language and oration, the Renaissance gave birth to perspective and thus monocularcentric text and image, and then the twentieth century gave us relativity and motion. Eisenman would call these moments of change shifts: from theocentric to anthropocentric to technocentric; Marshall McLuhan would say they were sensual-spatial: from aural to visual to electro-acoustic.

Dziga Vertov was one of the first to experiment with the extreme technical possibilities of film. Vertov uses slow-motion, fast-motion, jump-cuts, extreme close-ups, double-exposure, freeze-frames, Dutch-angles and tracking shots to document the day in the life of a Russian city. This film is unabashedly ambitious in its attempt to document space and urbanity free from the tethers of literature.


Rem Koolhaas as the l’homme d’architecture par example du jour (that’s French for “dude be the man right now”) presents an interesting case for a study of the intersection between film and architecture. Though his contemporary Bernard Tschumi more explicitly draws on film as a possible source of architectural inspiration (see The Manhattan Transcripts, Architecture & Disjunction), Remment Koolhaas actually was a screenwriter before he became an architect (he wrote, among other things, soft-core porn scripts for Russ Meyer–which explains some of the pages in his book, Content).  Though it’s hard to say anything specific about Rem, which has a lot to do with the way OMA runs, it nevertheless may be interesting to use him to understand the contemporary condition. For if we are to assume the canon of critical architecture, then we could use Rem to theorize a paradigmatic shift from criticality to post. The moment that this occurred, if I were to try and pin it down Charles Jencks-style, would have to be around 1997 with the appearance of Frank Gehry’s Bilbao. But Gehry himself, who was born Ephraim Owen Goldstein in Toronto, Canada, never was a player in architecture beforehand—he was building parking garages in California before Bilbao. Rem, then, could be the architect that represents the shift from a critical paradigm to a projective or post-critical paradigm (see Jussieu vs. Porto). And if we grant him that, then he is in rare company indeed. For before Rem, James Stirling was the man sitting on top of the fulcrum that swung from Modern to Post-Modern (see Leicester vs. Stuttgart), and before him Le Corbusier was the man that spanned pre-Modern to Modern.


But of course, this is all predicated on the idea that we accept criticality as a continually valid project for architecture, and not a distinctly Modern-with-a-capital M and Western invention. For criticality may be fatally linked to Hegel and the distinctly twentieth century notion of a canon, to say nothing of the contemporary challenge that Asia presents to criticality (more on that later). It also may be interesting to note that those three Fulcrum Men: Corb, Stirling, and Rem, came to architecture after initial careers in other fields. Le Corbusier was a painter and never had a formal architectural education, James Stirling went to art school and served in the military before attending Liverpool University (as someone who was trained as a painter myself, I love pointing out other architects who were also painters), and Rem wrote porno screenplays before going to the AA in London. However, this makes sense if we understand that any creative act is as equally destructive as it is creative (one could use the laws of thermodynamics as an analogy). It seems to point to the idea that there is nothing so dangerous to the status-quo as an artist bent on destruction. Which is why I’m a lifetime member of the NRA.

Just kidding. Or am I?

(originally written 2/13/2007)

Simulacra and Simul-Action!

Friday, December 26th, 2008


The Matrix Reloaded (2003) 138 minutes

The Matrix Trilogy is one of those series of movies within which there resides a host of possible thematic explorations germane to an architectural film series. First of all, and maybe most pretentiously, there is the discussion of the Baudrillardian metaphysics of image and reality; it is no secret that the Wachowski brothers planted numerous references within the movie to his book Simulacra and Simulation (even though Baudrillard himself has said that movie “stemmed mostly from misunderstandings” of his work). Secondly, one could discuss the philosophical problem that has come to be known as the “brain in a vat” problem, which perhaps found its initial formulation in Descartes as the “deceiving” or “malicious demon” problem (to which his solution was, famously, cogito ergo sum). The discussion, in its most simplified, has to do with the ineluctable synaptic distance between our five senses and the known anatomic locus of our cognition; the problem and its fundamentally inescapable insolvability is the universe within which the premise of the entire trilogy traverses. All of which has to do with the reconciliation of vision and architecture, that being the primary subject of an ocularcentrically critical architectural space which has remained the dominant episteme since the Renaissance, and which may or may not have been superseded by McLuhanian electro-acoustic space in the 20th century. Or maybe more tectonically, one could discuss the various scenescapes and digital-apocalyptico architectures the film visualizes, most notably of which may be the 8 mile loop of California highway that was built entirely for one really awesome car-chase scene in this movie. Perhaps then the discussion could segue into an exposition of the fairly recent concepts of the technosublime or technorococo, two catchy-sounding concepts made possible primarily by advancements in digital modeling technologies (sublime as defined in the most antiquated Burkean-derived-from-terror sense, not in the more po-mo sense of elevated beauty). Discussion of various versions of Maya and their respective impacts upon the architectural profession would undoubtedly ensue.

This is all fine and well. But I think I’ll leave those topics for more appropriate venues, this one-page film notes handout not being one of them. Instead, I’ll talk about how the mastermind behind the Matrix (to those who have been living under a rock for the past decade: the Matrix, in the jargon of the eponymous movie trilogy, is essentially a souped-up computer program used to simulate reality) is a guy named, “the Architect.” We even are introduced to “the Architect” character in his room of infinite TV screens, like a 21st Century re-imagining of the panopticon that Foucault wrote about in Discipline & Punish.

How did it come to be that the man who enslaves all of humanity to generate electricity is named “the Architect?” Why couldn’t he be called, “the Structural Engineer?” Or, “the Contractor?” Aren’t they also capable of enslaving humanity in the service of their egos? No? At this point I can hear Keanu Reeves saying, “Dude, no way.” Why not?

Why does the title of architect have slight malignant undertones? Our fellow Yalie George W. Bush, in all his unknowing subtlety, even dubbed Karl Rove, his most trusted cabinet member and campaign director, “the Architect.” It makes him sound so scheming, like he’s behind a big desk somewhere rubbing his fingers together and saying, “Eh-xcellent,” like Montgomery Burns in the Simpsons (who, coincidentally, is another Yalie). It seems like hubris, architecture, and Yale all go together.

Well, who knows. Anyway, there are some really sublime action scenes in this movie.

(originally written 10/5/2006)