Responding to msg by 2F56BEARDD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (syntax
factory) on
>
>i've got it all nailed down except what to say about
>the social consciousness of bauhaus theory -- that
>which says that one should design in response to a
>perceived need in society.
>
>does the parallel work? can you say that one should
>only write in response to the social context?
>
>My colleagues find the parallel too socialist for their
>tastes. thoughts are welcome.
David,
Since your art is wordsmithing I wonder if you might be better
off to climb on the shoulders of
giants and devise a more imaginative terminology for "society",
"social consciousness",
"socialist", "social context" and the like. It's long past
due.
These terms have been so overused, and abused, for most of this
century, and carry so much
prejudicial baggage, that they prevent fresh insights on the
cultural architecture they were
invented to explore.
Their eye-glazing and ideologically-enraging potential preclude
fair and constructive lines of inquiry.
Like "housing", "the American people", "liberal",
"conservative", "good design", "nuts and bolts" and
other thought-stopping terms, they deaden not invigorate. Your
colleagues are half-right.
A colleague at Columbia U could not converse after words with
the root "social" came up.
He said his mind stopped at such words so avidly but poorly
used in substitution
for original thought -- by people of all political bent, not
just on the left. He said the phrase
"free market" had the same effect, for the same reasons. I
suspect his blockage is now universal.
Check out the 19th-century sociological giants, like Max Weber,
and philosophers whom they cite as
precursors in the epistemology of social culture and the
language of societies. I think this will provide
a more fruitful context for conveying how the Bauhaus selected
a narrow, and more immediately
useful, social perspective for its work. It may also help you
explain how that approach petered out
so quickly because of its relative superficiality compared to
the more profound original.
More on this if you like, by e-mail or on Design-L.
John
factory) on
>
>i've got it all nailed down except what to say about
>the social consciousness of bauhaus theory -- that
>which says that one should design in response to a
>perceived need in society.
>
>does the parallel work? can you say that one should
>only write in response to the social context?
>
>My colleagues find the parallel too socialist for their
>tastes. thoughts are welcome.
David,
Since your art is wordsmithing I wonder if you might be better
off to climb on the shoulders of
giants and devise a more imaginative terminology for "society",
"social consciousness",
"socialist", "social context" and the like. It's long past
due.
These terms have been so overused, and abused, for most of this
century, and carry so much
prejudicial baggage, that they prevent fresh insights on the
cultural architecture they were
invented to explore.
Their eye-glazing and ideologically-enraging potential preclude
fair and constructive lines of inquiry.
Like "housing", "the American people", "liberal",
"conservative", "good design", "nuts and bolts" and
other thought-stopping terms, they deaden not invigorate. Your
colleagues are half-right.
A colleague at Columbia U could not converse after words with
the root "social" came up.
He said his mind stopped at such words so avidly but poorly
used in substitution
for original thought -- by people of all political bent, not
just on the left. He said the phrase
"free market" had the same effect, for the same reasons. I
suspect his blockage is now universal.
Check out the 19th-century sociological giants, like Max Weber,
and philosophers whom they cite as
precursors in the epistemology of social culture and the
language of societies. I think this will provide
a more fruitful context for conveying how the Bauhaus selected
a narrow, and more immediately
useful, social perspective for its work. It may also help you
explain how that approach petered out
so quickly because of its relative superficiality compared to
the more profound original.
More on this if you like, by e-mail or on Design-L.
John