Dear Vanessa --

* Polly Frost's latest stories feature eroticism, horror, and satire -- sounds pretty tasty, as well as like a happenin' and fresh new thing. Here's a Nerve profile of Polly by Lynn Harris.

* '60s icon and sex kitten Jane ("Je T'Aime") Birkin is now touring as the opening act for Lou Reed. The Guardian's Jason Solomons writes an engaging profile of the eccentric actress here.

* George Hunka has masterminded a new groupblog on a good topic: artsblogging, here. He and blogmates Jessica Duchen and Helen Radice are fast out of the starting gate with postings on such topics as whether or not to dress up for an evening at the theater, and the need for more exchange and discussion among the arts. George's own firstclass blog is here.

* Good lord: public-television fundraising drives, eh? Lynn Sislo has some suggestions for PBS here.

* One of the web's many benefits is how easy it's made it to check out the work of photographers. Recently, I've been enjoying the photoblog (here) of Jonathan Gewirtz, who also word-blogs at Chicago Boyz, here.

* I notice that a new Criterion boxed set of three Jean Renoir movies has just been released; it can be bought here. The three films -- "The Golden Coach," "Elena and Her Men," and "Paris Can-Can" -- share a theme: theater-seen-as-life/life-seen-as-theater. To spring for the not-cheap set or not? Hmm: I'm a major fan of "The Golden Coach," but it seems to me that you have to be in a pretty generous mood to be charmed by the other two films. (I semi-love them anyway.) But Criterion has adorned the package with many tempting goodies ... Heck, I dunno. Film buffs won't want to miss "The Golden Coach" in any case.

* Jerry Adler's piece for Newsweek online is a reader-friendly intro to behavioral economics, here. At one point, Adler is discussing what game theory predicts vs. how people actually act: "The only category of people who consistently play as game theory dictates," Adler writes, "are those who don't take into account the feelings of the other player. They are autistics." (UPDATE: Arnold Kling comments on the Newsweek article here.)

* Speaking of autism and econ, economics malcontents will want to browse the latest issue of the Post-Autistics Economics Review, here. I especially like the idea of using a measure of GNH (Gross National Happiness) alongside the more familiar GDP.

* Surfing around Amazon just now, I noticed that a film I love was released on DVD last year: the Taviani brothers' 1982 Night of the Shooting Stars (buyable here, Netflixable here), a fable-like and panoramic view of one Italian village's experience of World War II. The film is one of the rare movies that operates at the highest level from the very first frame. It's got the magic of early Spielberg, a degree of stylization comparable to the best Fellini, and an intensity of beauty that's all its own.

* Jim Kalb and John Massengale both did a lot of terrific and substantial blogging over the last few weeks. Here Jim takes a long-view whack at how we got into our current post-modern mess; here he comes up with some questions liberals might want to ponder.

* John, meanwhile, has been all over a couple of stories you might not be familiar with. The first is that the British government, egged on by bigshot modernists, has banned the construction of new country homes in traditional styles; John blogs about this outrage here and here. The other (here) is that the Bushies have named Daniel Libeskind the US's cultural ambassador for architecture, whatever that means.

* There's a likable and informative q&a with the economist Thomas Sowell in the new issue of The American Enterprise magazine, here. Here's another long q&a with Sowell.

* The Guardian gives short accounts of the top ten literary hoaxes, here.

Best,

Michael

I love Polly’s stories and I love Polly too. When we start to chat over a plate of sushi, one never knows where the conversation will wend. While we talk about topics deep and mighty, her husband watches us with what he thinks is detached bemusement, but what we know is total awe at the power of female bonding.

I feel so much less weird whenever I bond with Polly. Long live eros ... but maybe not the horror :)

Posted by: Maureen on August 18, 2004 7:32 PM

The British Government BANS the construction of new country homes in the traditional style? It's banning a STYLE?

Think of that for a moment. Something is being banned not because it's unsafe but simply because some with-it modern architects have gotten to some muckity-muck minister (or more likely his wife) and terrorized him into declaring that henceforth olde tudor timber is taboo...by government decree. After all, if he doesn't do their bidding, he and wifey will be sent to - horror of horrors - coventry.

Freedom? Passe.

Ah socialism. Ain't it great?!

Posted by: ricpic on August 19, 2004 6:10 AM

Ricpic, have you looked at the picture of the house "Great Canfield by Erith and Terry" John Massengale site as an example of *traditional house of exceptional quality*, built under previous regulation? Judging by that picture, it's an awful brick parallelepiped with applied pseudo-classical trims and pediment and non-existing site development. It's the Mc.Mansion of the American Midwest anglicized.

I gave him benefit of my time and attention and went and looked at his links:
a) in support of the statement that "John Prescott moved forward with his plan for Britain to build Traditional new towns and houses for the middle class and the poor" - didn't see it at all. These links JM provided are the documents discussing new construction and rehabilitation of sustainable communities, funding and planning issues for them. Only at the very end, under "Construction" header, the description of style and construction methods mentioned at all: "This means, for example, better procurement, good value rather than lowest cost, better design and modern methods of construction." What's more, the Office of Deputy Prime Minister is proposing that "1,800 of these homes will be built using modern, off-site construction techniques".

Not a mention of the the words "traditional style". May be it's hidden somewhere but not in the sited document. So I can't see the support for his statement there is a controversy in British government on this issue.

b) Mr. Massengale's other statement, that released "Planning Policy Statement 7, ...effectively banned the construction of Traditional country houses for the rich..." is contradicted by his own quote from Guardian article (I have to operate by this secondary source since Mr. Massengale didn't give us an opportunity to read actual PPG7 excepts) that "The RIBA (traditionalists-TE) feared the so called “Gummer’s clause” would be scrapped, but instead it has been tightened." (the clause gave green light to construction of more or less traditional country houses using innovative/modern construction techniques and/or materials)

Did I get it wrong? I welcome explanations.

Personally, I can sign with both hands under statement made by that neo-public enemy number 1, Keith Hill, "“The emphasis is on looking to the future — on innovation in design, construction methods and materials,” he said. “We are against the replication of designs from the past.” "

I'm sick and tired of putting 36 turned wood banisters on 10 tread stair flight.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 19, 2004 10:16 AM

Of, and what if that imaginary minister's "wifey" was of traditionalist orientation on the issue;Would you lament disappearance of freedom then?

Posted by: Tatyana on August 19, 2004 10:19 AM

Tatyana, what, exactly, is "pseudo-classical" about the Erith and Terry house? "Bad classical," maybe. But "pseudo"? Are the orders of the Colosseum "pseudo-classical"?

The problem with the Keith Hill statement about "replication of designs from the past" is that it forecloses the possibility of "innovation" within classicism itself (because most modern architects' architectural literacy is so low that they cannot discern an innovative classical design from mere replication), and is the sort of thinking that would have foreclosed some five centuries at least of innovative Western architecture, from Brunelleschi to Lutyens and John Simpson. Hill's statement is pernicious cant.

Posted by: Francis Morrone on August 19, 2004 6:09 PM

Pseudo-, because it is no longer technologically necessary. Architectural form developed parallel with state of structural construction; medieval buttresses are not needed to support walls anymore, however picturesque they look. Otherwise it's Brighton Pavilion all over again.

Unfortunately, in practice there are more bad classicists than "innovators within classicism", and average client likes fake pediments and fiberglass domes, with "Bottichelliesque" murals and "Greek key" friezes, completely out of context. This nonsense doesn't say anything about our time, unlike "classical" 19th century countryside mansions in Central Russia, for example or Art Deco with plenty of adapted classical detail in Manhattan.
Francis, the only image Erith and Terry's house gives me is of a red-faced, beer-infused stout parvenue, squatting in the empty field. (If I may follow your example of empty labelling).

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2004 9:21 AM

Tatyana -- But "technological necessity" never dictated style. Circa 1400, some northern Euros wanted to build Gothic churches, so they did technologically what they needed to to achieve them. They didn't build Gothic churches because late-medieval technology required them to. Technology serves people's ends. It'd be awful if we let it dictate our ends.

But I'm always puzzled by arguments that buildings should express or reflect "technological necessity" or "the spirit of the times," or any such thing. Sez who? Why shouldn't owners and builders build in whatever style they choose? If someone wants to put up a new house in the Georgian style, only with air conditioning and good plumbing, why shouldn't she do so?

Me, I prefer to root for that house to be a better and more attractive new Georgian house than to tell the owner she should have created something in a different style altogether, because the times demand it. And if there are architects and builders who serve that clientele, I root for them to do a better rather than a worse job. But why quarrel with the existence of such a market?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 20, 2004 11:10 AM

Tatyana,

Just so I'm clear, the superimposition of the orders on the Colosseum was illegitimate? Weren't they "out of context"?

Do you believe that the aesthetic has no independent authority, but is entirely subservient to other factors, such as the technological?

Why does the mere fact that someone may wish to build and live in that Erith and Terry house not "say anything about our time"?

It seems to me that "our time," in any given time, is a very eclectic assemblage of things, including everything that has been made up to that point. An example is my living room. Its decor is the product of a billion and one historical accidents, entrepreneurial urges, and movements of the spirit that could produce this room, just as it is, perhaps *only* in the first decade of the 21st century, although the room in fact contains not a single thing actually produced in the first decade of the 21st century. It says as much about our time as this summer's brand-new method of manufacturing glass.

Posted by: Francis Morrone on August 20, 2004 11:21 AM

You mix few things together, Michael.

What clients want and what architect proposes are two entirely different matters. Opinions vary on primate of either one, like in the old chicken/egg story.
Some say - architecs should serve the public; others - architects' duty is to educate stupid ignoramus (how to make plural of that? No classic education, sorry...).
I don't want to get into that now. Mr. Massingale, as I understand here, is talking only about architect's side of the issue.

Now, I didn't say technology requires anything from architect. I was saying all along that it is a tool, absolutely (exactly like CAD, btw - and don't you start with this one again!)I said it's a parallel relationship.
Gothic cathedrals were possible because the builders/architects of the time knew how to build elongated domes. Their aestetic concepts were supported by technological knowledge of the time.
If Roman builders knew how to make ogee arch, apart from the matters of aestetic ideals and Greek traditions, I think there would appear architects to try to implement it.

As to the 'spirit of the times', French of 17th and 18th century have their Chinese fancies, but they brought aestetics, materials and technology of their time into the projects, so when we look at them today, these "tea rotundas" and "Chinese pavillions" speak of French Baroque (or Rococo), not of Pekin Palaces.
The problem with your homeowner is that her quasy-Georgian mansion speak only of bad replication. It is not exactly Georgian (otherwise, oh horror!the kitchen and bathroom will be Georgian, too!). Materials, layout, construction technology and furniture aren't Georgian. Life of the inhabitants is not Georgian. Nothing, in fact, is Georgian - except few applied architectural decorative elements in Georgian style. In 50 years, not mention 100, if you look at at that house it will say nothing to you except ridiculous vanity of the builder.

In my view buildings should follow the life of the people who'll enhabit them. If you don't have time to seat in a parlor, or play lute in your music room, you don't need them in your house. If your second floor is not supported by fat columns, you don't need them for decoration. If your windows use 6'x 3' glass plate, don't glue fake muntins on them. If you don't wear crinolin (not you, Michael, but The Wife - although I'm sure she'd look marvelous in it) - don't buy cheap imitation of Louis XIV fouteil(sp?).

There is no such thing as "better and more attractive new Georgian house" - we aren't Geogians.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2004 12:15 PM

I was busy typing "my answer to Chamberlain" - I mean, Michael - and didn't see Francis' comment. I hope I did answer some of your questions there. (In fact, so busy I didn't preview. Sorry for my usual misspelings.)

Haven't seen your living room can't say anything about it. I trust, though, you don't have fiberglass columns and st.steel coffe tables painted to resemble antique pewter there. On the other hand, I doubt your ceilings are 7' high, as was appropriate to 16th cent. populace or you heat your living room with tapestry on the wall, as in medieval castle.
Colosseum as well as classicism of Russian countryside mansions, or Brunnelleschi, even Palladian villas for that matter is perfectly legitimate - it's interpretation of classics in contemporary context, vision of classical ideal thru different historic period's prism. Classic details become adopted, not imitated, and building with classic column order built in 1817 can not be mistaken for the one built in 1927.

Which is not what's the case with Erith and Terry house.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2004 12:45 PM

I was busy typing "my answer to Chamberlain" - I mean, Michael - and didn't see Francis' comment. I hope I did answer some of your questions there. (In fact, so busy I didn't preview. Sorry for my usual misspelings.)

Haven't seen your living room can't say anything about it. I trust, though, you don't have fiberglass columns and st.steel coffe tables painted to resemble antique pewter there. On the other hand, I doubt your ceilings are 7' high, as was appropriate to 16th cent. populace or you heat your living room with tapestry on the wall, as in medieval castle.
Colosseum as well as classicism of Russian countryside mansions, or Brunnelleschi, even Palladian villas for that matter is perfectly legitimate - it's interpretation of classics in contemporary context, vision of classical ideal thru different historic period's prism. Classic details become adopted, not imitated, and building with classic column order built in 1817 can not be mistaken for the one built in 1927.

Which is not the case with Erith and Terry house.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2004 12:45 PM

I was busy typing "my answer to Chamberlain" - I mean, Michael - and didn't see Francis' comment. I hope I did answer some of your questions there. (In fact, so busy I didn't preview. Sorry for my usual misspelings.)

Haven't seen your living room can't say anything about it. I trust, though, you don't have fiberglass columns "a la marble" and st.steel-frame coffee tables painted to resemble antique pewter there. On the other hand, I doubt your ceilings are 7' high, as was appropriate to 16th cent. populace or you heat your living room with tapestry on the wall, as in medieval castle.

Colosseum as well as classicism of Russian countryside mansions, or Brunnelleschi, even Palladian villas for that matter is perfectly legitimate - it's interpretation of classics in contemporary context, vision of classical ideal thru different historic period's prism. Classic details become adopted, not imitated, and building with classic column order built in 1717 can not be mistaken for the one built in 1927.

Which is not the case with Erith and Terry house.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2004 12:48 PM

Wow, what did I do?
Please erase the excess, that was totally unintentional.
Sorry.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 20, 2004 12:51 PM

I can't thank you enough for this link to Jim Kalb's site. This man is a genius. How I long to write essays with this degree of sophistication -- And I can't wait to deploy the newfound Weapons of Ideological Destruction (WID) at ye olde college. Not to mention that the essays have crystallized and drawn out the hithertofore latent theme in the book project I've got going.

Posted by: . on August 21, 2004 6:15 AM

"...buildings should follow the life of the people who'll enhabit them. If you don't have time to seat in a parlor, or play lute in your music room, you don't need them in your house. If your second floor is not supported by fat columns, you don't need them for decoration."

Parlors and music rooms are rooms and in a well-designed house can be used for a multitude of purposes as the inhabitants and their interests change over the years. Moreover, one of the delights of life is to have things which we don't need. I don't need an iPod but I enjoy one. I don'tneed to ski but I enjoy it. Likewise, maybe I don't _need_ fat columns but if I enjoy them why can't I have them?

Posted by: David Sucher on August 21, 2004 8:03 AM

Anyway, let's not get sidetracked. The real and important question is what did the British government actually do? Did it truly ban "traditional" houses?

Posted by: David Sucher on August 21, 2004 8:35 AM

David, you getting into "what client wants" question again, which I've addressed already.

About "multifunctionality"- that's the architect in you talking, used to "big picture".
Rooms, in ideal, should be designed for the purpose, and bedroom by it's size and configuration is different from parlor. In well-designed home you don't have to change purpose of the room along the way.
Practically, though, interior designers's most challenging job is to adapt architect-designed houses for lifes of people who will actually live there. And if 30% of 12'x15' living room, the biggest room in the house, is taken by disfunctional fat columns, you can be sure the client will beg me to remove them to make space for his computer station.

But you're right, we digress from Mr.Massengale's posts.
Before discussing ban on traditional houses, though, I think there is more important question Mr. Massengale seemingly is unconcerned with.
Why the government even in the position of banning something as private as design of citizen's houses?
What happened to "my house is my castle" principle, or may be growing behind the curtain got me mixed up and that wasn't British thing at all?

State is not your friend.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 21, 2004 9:32 AM

"." -- I find Jim an amazingly clear and interesting thinker and writer. Don't miss the q&a we did with him. Part one's here.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 21, 2004 1:41 PM

Yes I know this is OT, but, Tatyana, when you write:

>>Classic details become adopted, not imitated, and building with classic column order built in 1717 can not be mistaken for the one built in 1927.
Which is not the case with Erith and Terry house.

Yes, classical details should be adapted (the word I think you meant), and that's certainly what the great American architects of the late 19th and early 20th centuries did, and what the best of today's classical architects do (John Simpson, for example).

But your very 19th-century historicist attitude seems not to see that pure imitation can be just as much an expression of a time and a place as an "adaptation of classical details." And that's where all historicism runs aground. I just can't see how anyone can divine a pure, essential spirit of the time, rather than the muddled mess that a spirit of the time actually is, and that expresses itself in a million human ways among which fat columns in the living room might sometimes strike just the right note.

I also think the most wonderful houses by far are the ones where people have found innovative uses for old rooms and spaces that were not designed for their present function--from the office in the barn to the formal dining room in what used to be a garment factory. New York apartments carved out of loft spaces or subdivided brownstones are often particularly marvelous in such adaptations of space.

Posted by: Francis Morrone on August 21, 2004 6:00 PM

No, Francis, I don't think people can define (is that the word you meant) the classical style of the times they live in. Or very few people can, any way.
I don't think Brunelleschi woke up one morning and decided - Gee, let us build essential Renaissance building. Nevertheless, when we think now of essential Renaissance building, we think of his Cupola, which, by the way, was impossible to build in Ancient Roman times, even if somebody would conceive such idea, without technological innovations of 1400's.

Office in the barn or loft in industrial building are rehabilitations, and we're talking about new construction here.

Also, if I understood J.Massengale's posts correctly, there are two applications of the new government regulation for new construction here:

1. Government-subsidized sustainable communities. These are being build for either low-income families (I didn't quite get the term "key-workers"), or for lower middle class families. In this case, certain frugality of budget is essential and so off-site fabricated partial construction appears to be an economic solution. In this situation, there is little room for expensive customization like music salons or Georgian floor plan schemes.

2. Country houses for the wealthy built on their own estates. Plenty of opportunities for any imaginable (and unimaginable) whimsy. For what I care, if paying client desires to imitate Brunellechi's Cupola on his stables - hey - no problem, absolutely, milord (or milord-wannabee). Or if the client's day starts with the Royal awakening ceremony - he can have his own Versailles.

I am very flattered to learn I have 19th century historicist reasoning. Being a traditionalist is a Good Thing, isn't it?
Especially since what I said is a product of my own modest attempts of thinking.
Don't have much time for reading about great theoretical subjects - have to put 36 wood balusters on a 10-tread stair flight, you know.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 21, 2004 6:59 PM

>>I don't think people can define (is that the word you meant)

No, I meant "divine." Thanks all the same.

Posted by: Francis Morrone on August 21, 2004 8:59 PM

And I meant "adopted".
Thanks for your attention though.

Posted by: Tatyana on August 21, 2004 10:33 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?