John,
I finally went and read *Geography of Nowhere*. It's a very different,
and I think far superior, sort of book than *Home From Nowhere*.
What struck me about *Geography...* is how much of a historical work it
is. While, as a professional, you may be familiar with all the ground he
covers, I am not, and I am impressed with Kunstler as that rare thing, a
journalist with a heart and historical sensitivity. He is also the better
sort of polemicist; it is very obvious he has a strong position, and he
sets out his reasons for believing it. And I think he shows occasional
flashes of extraordinary insight: into the translation of modernism into a
style, into people's awareness of automobiles in their environment, into
Disneyworld. Saying that he supports Disnification is a hard criticism
indeed--he plainly hates it.
*Home from Nowhere,* on the other hand, is much more journalistic, and I
think displays the failings that you lambaste him for; my impression is
that he probably was, in part, capitalizing on the success of
*Geography...*--if his editor didn't ask him for a second book, it was
only because the editor was asleep at the switch.
>
> He also offends, like Witold, like a number of today's popularizers,
> with his promotion of architectural superficialities. This is what
> links him to the real estate mavens -- and too many architectural
> critics and scholars -- who emphasis the scenographic, the stylistic,
> the literary, the VRML, to conceal ignorance (maybe willful) of
> underlying deficiencies that remain deliberately unaddressed by
> successful Trump-emulative marketing.
>
I'm honestly not sure what you mean, here. In his books Kunstler concerns
himself with history, economics, and quality of work--hardly superficial
matters. He plainly regards what you call "scenographic," "stylistic,"
and so on as more important than you do, but he's hardly blind to
underlying deficiencies--in fact, he seems to agree with your point.
>
> For this reason you are correct to note Kunstler's novelistic
> tricks to sustain interest in his shallow potboilers. He also speaks
> in that carnival-con fashion, as I noted in my earlier critique of
> his lecture. He's not serious about architecture and planning, he's
> done very little reading or research.
>
Hmmm...he's done what I would reasonably expect of someone whose prime
interests are political, historical, and social--though it is possible
that the holes in his knowledge are also the holes in mine. I do wince
every time he slams Modernism, but then, I tend to think of the ideals of
Modernist designers; it's certainly fair to call them on the carpet for
falling short. The way you write about him, you sound like you'd like him
to have done as much reading as someone with a non-professional degree in
the field...or, hmmm, what would you recommend to fill in his knowledge?
My knowledge?
>
> He writes in HFN that he got into it as a way to make a living while
> he works on his, ahem, serious work. He confesses to surprise at his
> commercial success: see the end of HFN. This lie is claimed as truth
> by quite a number of architectural -- trade -- promoters, that you can
> be paid well for hustling shoddy products.
>
I think it pretty likely, actually, based on the differences between the
two books. Who'd have thought that *Geography...* would sell as well as
it has? A thoroughly crochety, polemical book on a subject which "everyone
knows" the public doesn't care about? Advocating a genuinely unpopular
position? (Anyone as critical of car-oriented city plans as Kunstler is
advocating an unpopular position!)
Shakespeare wrote for the crowds, and many greats in the arts have done
popular work because it paid--I don't think you can dismiss their work
simply because of that. Truthfully, if we are to see an improvement in
the current abysmal state of the built environment--and I think you, me,
and Kunstler all agree on that--some showmanship and hustling is
necessary. That is not a conclusion I come to easily or happily--I *hate*
salemanship--but unless an effort to persuade is undertaken, people are
not going to be persuaded in the face of the sellers of nowhere and
nothing. You said it yourself: there are plenty of people who are in the
business of promoting shoddy products and practices; if we are, instead,
to have quality, we needs must promote that, instead.
I think--correct me if I am wrong--you are concerned that he is feeding
yet another nostagic design movement. I fear this may be so: certainly
Kunstler doesn't seem to have many new ideas. Still...the meeting of
nostalgia and reality *has* produced some excellent buildings and city
plans. Who would give up Craftsman bungalows on theoretical grounds? Or
most of Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck? Or H. H. Richardson, for that
matter? It may even be that the nostalgia conceals important timeless
concerns...
...but that is a matter for another essay.
--
Randolph Fritz
randolph@xxxxxxxxxxxx
I finally went and read *Geography of Nowhere*. It's a very different,
and I think far superior, sort of book than *Home From Nowhere*.
What struck me about *Geography...* is how much of a historical work it
is. While, as a professional, you may be familiar with all the ground he
covers, I am not, and I am impressed with Kunstler as that rare thing, a
journalist with a heart and historical sensitivity. He is also the better
sort of polemicist; it is very obvious he has a strong position, and he
sets out his reasons for believing it. And I think he shows occasional
flashes of extraordinary insight: into the translation of modernism into a
style, into people's awareness of automobiles in their environment, into
Disneyworld. Saying that he supports Disnification is a hard criticism
indeed--he plainly hates it.
*Home from Nowhere,* on the other hand, is much more journalistic, and I
think displays the failings that you lambaste him for; my impression is
that he probably was, in part, capitalizing on the success of
*Geography...*--if his editor didn't ask him for a second book, it was
only because the editor was asleep at the switch.
>
> He also offends, like Witold, like a number of today's popularizers,
> with his promotion of architectural superficialities. This is what
> links him to the real estate mavens -- and too many architectural
> critics and scholars -- who emphasis the scenographic, the stylistic,
> the literary, the VRML, to conceal ignorance (maybe willful) of
> underlying deficiencies that remain deliberately unaddressed by
> successful Trump-emulative marketing.
>
I'm honestly not sure what you mean, here. In his books Kunstler concerns
himself with history, economics, and quality of work--hardly superficial
matters. He plainly regards what you call "scenographic," "stylistic,"
and so on as more important than you do, but he's hardly blind to
underlying deficiencies--in fact, he seems to agree with your point.
>
> For this reason you are correct to note Kunstler's novelistic
> tricks to sustain interest in his shallow potboilers. He also speaks
> in that carnival-con fashion, as I noted in my earlier critique of
> his lecture. He's not serious about architecture and planning, he's
> done very little reading or research.
>
Hmmm...he's done what I would reasonably expect of someone whose prime
interests are political, historical, and social--though it is possible
that the holes in his knowledge are also the holes in mine. I do wince
every time he slams Modernism, but then, I tend to think of the ideals of
Modernist designers; it's certainly fair to call them on the carpet for
falling short. The way you write about him, you sound like you'd like him
to have done as much reading as someone with a non-professional degree in
the field...or, hmmm, what would you recommend to fill in his knowledge?
My knowledge?
>
> He writes in HFN that he got into it as a way to make a living while
> he works on his, ahem, serious work. He confesses to surprise at his
> commercial success: see the end of HFN. This lie is claimed as truth
> by quite a number of architectural -- trade -- promoters, that you can
> be paid well for hustling shoddy products.
>
I think it pretty likely, actually, based on the differences between the
two books. Who'd have thought that *Geography...* would sell as well as
it has? A thoroughly crochety, polemical book on a subject which "everyone
knows" the public doesn't care about? Advocating a genuinely unpopular
position? (Anyone as critical of car-oriented city plans as Kunstler is
advocating an unpopular position!)
Shakespeare wrote for the crowds, and many greats in the arts have done
popular work because it paid--I don't think you can dismiss their work
simply because of that. Truthfully, if we are to see an improvement in
the current abysmal state of the built environment--and I think you, me,
and Kunstler all agree on that--some showmanship and hustling is
necessary. That is not a conclusion I come to easily or happily--I *hate*
salemanship--but unless an effort to persuade is undertaken, people are
not going to be persuaded in the face of the sellers of nowhere and
nothing. You said it yourself: there are plenty of people who are in the
business of promoting shoddy products and practices; if we are, instead,
to have quality, we needs must promote that, instead.
I think--correct me if I am wrong--you are concerned that he is feeding
yet another nostagic design movement. I fear this may be so: certainly
Kunstler doesn't seem to have many new ideas. Still...the meeting of
nostalgia and reality *has* produced some excellent buildings and city
plans. Who would give up Craftsman bungalows on theoretical grounds? Or
most of Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck? Or H. H. Richardson, for that
matter? It may even be that the nostalgia conceals important timeless
concerns...
...but that is a matter for another essay.
--
Randolph Fritz
randolph@xxxxxxxxxxxx