In class today we discussed in depth Charles Jencks' work 'The Emergent Rules' clarifying lingering questions and viewing depictions of his theory in context i.e. architectural examples. Although I found Jencks' work to be very interesting and it has definitely reshaped and informed both my knowledge and outlook on both the contemporary and historical architecture - I found myself unsatisfied upon finishing the reading as Jencks, (to make his point) seemed to have left his own absent centre in his coverage of post-modernism. He seemed to tease and inject notions of post-modernism, modernism, and modernity in his work without really clarifying the ideological implications of the movements and their subsequent impacts on both architecture and societal shifts. That may not be entirely sound but as this is a riff I'm just kind of going with what I'm thinking about.
Getting to the point the passage that struck me is on page 293 that states 'sometimes it idealizes the security of this point of departure, with nostalgia and melancholy, but at the same time it may exult in a new-found freedom and sense of adventure. Post-modernism is in this sense schizophrenix about the past: equally as determined to retain and preserve aspects of the past as it is to go forward; excited about revival, yet wanting to escape the dead formulae of the past. Fundamentally it mizes the optimism of Renaissance revival with that of the Futurists but is pessimistic about finding any certain salvation point, be it technology, a classless society, a meritocracy or rational organisation of a world economy (i.e. any of the answers which have momentarily been offered in the last hendred years).'
Right - what stopped me in my tracks about this passage is the ease and lack of coverage Jencks gives to the last hundred years of sociology. He pretty much summates the works of Marx, Engels, Durkheim, and Weber without so much as nod of praise, simplying covering some of the most noteable sociological works ever in a mere sentence. At first glance, I was almost taken aback at this having spent an unhealthy amount of time studying Marx, Weber and Durkheim last term in Professor Royce's Sociological Theory course (which is great btw) but then I sat there and thought about why Jencks may have done so. Marx, Weber and Durkheim all tried to understand societal evolution to modernity by examination of the social, theoretical and historical components - Jencks on the other hand is examining post-modernist architecture and as a son turning his back on the father shys from these works to expand upon them. Classical sociologists examined the impact of modernity on human identity; Jencks examines the impact of post-modern classicism on contemporary architecture. Jencks does what each of the founding fathers of sociology refer to as 'specialization', in his inspection of just one aspect of societal trend on architecture and would not have been mad at the lack of background on their work but proud of the specialization taken by Jencks in silent reference to their works. Expanding on this and coming full circle to post-modernism, as stated in our reading from David Harvey, 'modernism is to selection what post-modernism is to combination' (Table 1.1, p.43). So what Jencks has done in this article, in my mind, is taken the classical sociological notion of specialization in to his own combination of study in post-modern classical architecture. He did not dismiss the past but like Jencks says of post-modernisms relationship to modernity, he embodied the schizophrenic nature of post-modernity in view of modernity.
Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment