Showing posts with label Brin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brin. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Looking at Modernism with David Brin -6

Sith Architecture: Le Corbusier and Star Wars 
(Return to Part 5)
When I originally sent David the link to my essay, Star Wars: A New Heap I knew he was an unlikely fan of my ideas about Star Wars. I understood what he disliked about the film's plot and the franchises influence on the world of scifi publishing. In no way, shape, or form, did I think I would change David's judgment of the movie (or even wanted to). But because he counts himself a contrarian, I hoped he would enjoy the spirit of my project. I was ecstatic when he replied to my email and have enjoyed the polite sparing of our sporadic correspondence ever since. The subject of our sparing hasn't been Star Wars, however, its been modernity and Modernism. David has made it very clear on a number of occasions that he believed that both art and architecture (but mostly architecture) had gone off the rail some time ago, and has never recovered:
Not the scientists and engineers and science fiction authors, who kept faith with Modernism as a central force for the enlightenment, but by the very communities that you most associate with "Modernism".... the artists and architects, who betrayed the movement absolutely, despicably and almost mortally, at the very level of personality. By preening and flouncing and calling themselves wizard-guru-masters, everyone from Le Corbusier to Wright to Warhol gave in to the old temptations and turned Modernist art and architecture away from the enlightenment's most fundamental notion -- modesty and accountability.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Looking at Do Ho Suh with David Brin - 5

Rachel Whiteread, One Hundred Spaces (1995); David explaining Do Ho Suh's Home Within Home prototype (2011)
(Return to Part 4)
After having seen the Richard Serra and Nick Cave shows, David and Cheryl and I then walked a couple blocks north to see an the two installations of two over-size doll houses colliding in two very different ways by the Korean artist Do Ho Suh at the Lehmann Maupin Gallery. Of the three shows I took the Brins to see, this last one is where I had the most fun, because it was there that David grabbed the reigns from me and his story telling took over. Not long after we had entered the show I was no longer explaining the work to David, he was explaining the work to me and Cheryl and complete strangers; whatever I had hoped might happened when I invited the Brins to look at art with me, this was better.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Star Trek and Gluttony

Deseases of excess; Captain Kirk, Ayn Rand


My friend Guan asked where "rugged individualism" fits into my understanding of the American Dream and pointed me to a post by J. Bradford DeLong. "What has survived throughout is the American myth of rugged individualism," DeLong writes. "The power of this myth has meant that the United States is not, and never will be, a European-style social democracy. People may come together for barn raisings, but America is still the land of upward mobility and opportunity, where the most common questions are, I've done it, so why haven't you?" But the truth is almost no Americans have "done it". Jeb Bush, who is the grandson of a US Senator, son of one US President and brother of another, once claimed to be a "self-made man". Most of those who claim to have "done it" usually mean: "Fuck you, I got mine." Any Rand, "famously a believer in rugged individualism," but after a lifetime of heavy smoking and venomous opposition to government social welfare programs, Rand became ill with lung cancer and accepted Social Security and Medicare payments.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Star Trek and the American Dream

Ben Fry, All Streets (2009): David Brin, Pyramids and Diamonds (2011); Star Trek, Spectre of the Gun (1968)

According to Kevin Kelly "The uber American dream is to build your own comfy place on the edge of wilderness with your own hands." And indeed, that is the national myth; Manifest Destiny that begins with the founding fathers and goes right up to the returning vets of WWII settling the first suburbs. On his site, the author David Brin points to a very different aspect of the American Dream: "The founders started by banning primogeniture, so no family fortune could sit and accumulate, undivided, as a lordly demesne at the pyramid's peak. Instead, they would get divided among the large numbers of children that folks had then -- an intentional act of "social engineering" and outright 'levelling.'" Star Trek had some Manifest Destiny in the mix of its myth - but the greater part of the story it told was the promise of leveling.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Why is there no misogyny on Star Trek? (Dick 5.1)

Gene Roddenberry's original Star Trek crew; The men of Mad Men.

The short answer is: Because it takes place in the future.
My friend Joanne McNeil wrote a fuller answer on her blog Tomorrow's Museum"There are no sexist men in the 21st century, only stupid men.I read Joanne's post on the heels of posting a piece about my "girl phone" and a very confusing argument I had about feminism recently. It also coincided with some recent stuff I read on the subject of manhood now, and as it is remembered on Mad Men.
For the record, I love carrying a "girl phone." Even as my nephew makes fun of it, I like him to see that I have carried it for three years in spite of the ribbing I receive from him and my other friends. I don't spend a lot of energy 'transgressing gender roles' - its not my bag, but I admire those that do. I am very aware of how much courage it takes for a young man or woman to tell their parents they are trans-gender, and enormous sympathy for parent's struggling to come to terms with that new reality. These are people who have stepped off the map of the known world, they are exploring the future. I have no sympathy meanwhile for the pantsless men celebrated in last winter's Superbowl ads. These over grown boys are stuck in the past. Madison Avenue's answer to the prospect of a world of men without chests are men without pants.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

A Crisis in Criticism: Star Wars is not Literature, it is an Object.

Look how sad Luke is; critics need to sort out a better way to decide what lowbrow media they will consider with the precincts of highbrow scholarship.


Joshua Glenn recently posted an interesting critical response to my Star Wars Klein group diagram (which you can see above) on his website HiLoBrow. I explained my original diagram in a post titled  Rosalind Krauss is a Jedi, and Glenn's response is called Star Wars Semiotics. The titles themselves signal two very different approaches to the same problem. Glenn admits to being “wary of structuralist heuristic devices” but dives right in, and does a great job reworking my diagram along more the more orthodox literary model used by Fredric Jameson (who uses the term “Greimas or Semiotic Square”). In my post I likewise freely admit my own limits, which after reading Glenn's post are clearly far more limiting than his (kinda bums me out that Glenn didn't find time to explain what the terms "complex" and "neuter" indicate). So it's not surprising Glenn believes his Star Wars Semiotic Square improves on mine. In the interest of intellectual good will I did my best to answer his requests that “Someone good at drawing or Photoshop should send me a diagram…” I’m not especially good at either, but I've done my best:


Star Wars Semiotic Square according to Joshua Glenn (plus or minus my best effort - turns out the Sith are really hard to draw)

Glenn's post is good natured and whip smart - but he's dead wrong. While he is no doubt the superior semiotician (even if his heart is not fully committed to structuralist heuristic devices, his brain is clearly able to wale away unaffected) and I can't hope to outsmart the guy, mine is the better diagram. The reason is that he is diagramming the film as literature, and I am diagramming it as an object. His is the more conventional reading of Star Wars, but mine is the more revealing and interesting of the two perspectives. Glenn's post deserves a rebuttal - and his while his critique has not made me revise my position, it has mad me aware that it needs to be clarified. But before I revisit the reasoning behind my diagram I want to address the convention approach of film as literature. What I find most interesting about the difference between Glenn's diagram and my own is how quickly the difference manifests itself. His is peopled by characters - stormtroopers, droids, and non-human aliens - mine is constructed out of places and things - ships, farms, and space terminals. This is a telling difference.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Avatar Modern

Avatar has been criticized for revisiting a worn, and some say racist storyline - Dances with Wolves in space with Pocahontas all in blue. What Avatar brought to mind for me however was a much older story, one that was already ancient by 1492.

On the Palette of King Narmer and Victory Stele of Naram-sin we see the savage last moments of prehistory as Narmer clubs an unarmed naked man and as Naram-sin fearlessly speared naked unarmed men - with the support of ranks of identical uniformed soldiers - its good to be the king. These are not battles between equals, these are bullies lording their strength over clearly inferior opponents.

The encounter fictionalize in Avatar it is a variation of this moment. It is serial disaster that was acted out repeatedly and with very little variation all over the globe over the past 5000 years. One way or another the story haunts our entire species.

In his book Ghost Map Steven Johnson writes that “History books tend to orient themselves around nationalist stories: over throwing the king, electing the presidents, fighting the battles.” But, Johnson continues that, “the history book of recent Homo sapiens as a species should begin and end with one narrative line: We became city dwellers.”

European cave art gives evidence to 25,000 years of stable prehistoric cultural production. In all that time it never once occurred to those prehistoric artists to paint one man killing another man.

In his book The Third Chimpanzee Jared Diamond explains that "a gorilla or common chimp stands at least as good a chance of being murdered as does the average human."

It seems, at this late date, highly unlikely that humans are less violent then their primate cousins, and even more unlikely that Europeans are less violent then people from other parts of the world. So it seems reasonable to assume that prehistoric life was violent, but that the violence wasn't celebrated as a victory.

Human nature didn't change, no new lobe appeared inside the craniums of Egyptian and Peruvian city dwellers 5000 years ago. Instead it appears that if your willing to be a jerk of epic proportions it is not that hard to work out the culture technology of terrorizing groups of people from scratch. Once we start living together in dense enough settlements some violent screw figures out pretty quickly how to become King.

If you open an art history survey like Janson’s History of Art there will be a short chapter about prehistoric art. It will show cave paintings of wandering unranked figures, plump game animals, and thin little human hunters spilling out over cave walls without concern for depth or relation to ground. No hierarchy, no power.

These caves and the areas around them are littered with small hand-held wonders. Next to the precious stone cutting tools, simple bone hooks, and the needles carved from antler, archeologists find tiny fat ceramic and stone women with great hips, heavy breasts and carefully rendered vaginas.

These sexy figurines were never intended to sit on a shelf or a pedestal. Instead they were free to move from one adoring palm to the next. It is impossible to say what they were for, but I've always liked David Brin’s hypothesis from Kiln People:

“Oh, the goddess theory was quite fabulous and creative. Though there is a simpler explanation fro why these little figurines are found in so many Stone Age sites. Every human culture has devoted considerable creative effort to crafting exaggerated representations of the fertile female form… as erotic art. We can assume there were frustrated males in caveman days, as today. They must have ‘worshiped’ these little Venus figures in familiar ways.”

Whatever those guys were up to, all the evidence points to the fact that this was a good time to be alive. Skeletal remains show that prehistoric hunters were often as tall as a modern-day Americans, so they must have been very well fed. They enjoyed intact biomes and lived long healthy lives. Cameron is right to make the lives of his fictionalized hunter-gathers attractive.

Page forward in your Janson’s to the next chapter, and everything changes. Human nature is unaltered but the nature of power has gone through a phase transition, a change of state as radical as the difference between water and ice. In this chapter of art history the informal figures make their last appearance as free players. Here they are stabbed with spears, clubbed and their bodies are thrown off cliffs like trash.
The King meanwhile, will be raised above us on some sort of plinth or pedestal. He will be idealized. When he appears in art he's bigger than us, more beautiful and has cooler stuff. He has special weapons (and lots of them), extra decorations, and his dress and insignia are particular to him. He is a fierce martial being.

Key to any image of a king is an army - ranked solderiers moving together as a coordinated body. The Kings are cool and distant. They are idealized demi-gods, placed high above all others, in close proximity with God.
The victims of these bullies are our collectors of ceramic porn. They are vulgar and uniquely expressive in their pain as they are speared and bludgeoned. Their bodies are thrown over cliff sides while their women are shown wailing.
The coarse playful objects of small lives will never totally disappear (the informal figure reappears in Egyptian tombs slyly flushing ducks for a Royal Hunt, and in the shadow of the stern Roman patriciate little pornographic things will be still be passed around), but for the next 5000 years above them will be gigantic ranked orders grounded in domination.
The modern is as different from the premodern as the historic period is from the prehistoric. The grim truth is that modernity was born out of the Columbian Exchange. The disastrous encounter that devastated the Americas but enflamed the imaginations of Europeans.
The Eroticism of that moment is at least partly responsible for sparkingthe Enlightenment. The erotics of the chubby little Venus and the freeform world she belonged to had been totally forgotten in the old world. The democratic revolution that transformed the structure of Europe's dense city life could not have taken place without that charged glimpse of naked humanity (Na'vi/naive) Worlds without hierarchy and power inspired the first Utopias.
Avatar is an encounter between history and prehistory. A truly ambitious sequel would imagine how the encounter with The People once again transforms city life (in 3D).