Randolph Fritz wrote:
>
> 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: certainlyHow do
I un-subscribe.
>
> 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: certainlyHow do
I un-subscribe.