At 09:55 AM 5/3/99 -0800, you wrote:
> i had a hard time finding the article, but here is the url (after
> you register your name and password):
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/artleisure/matrix-film-arch.html
>
>>How did Muschamp's Sunday "degradation" of movie-multiplex and
>>design ambitions read to readers here? Pretty good list of the 27
>>architectural
>>varieties of self-imprisonment conceits, eh? Including his own crit soup,
>>as he self-laceratingly lashed in closing the lid to his foxhole.
>
> my view is this:
>
> i think Mushamp exists in an architectural Matrix of the sort he
> describes because his analysis is similar to Plato's allegory of
> the (electronic) cave.
>
> the 2 worlds are, one, the Tradition Order of architecture, of
> form, light, material, and structure of the one design. and a
> second Electrical Order, of the Movie and Movie Theater, which
> has a new use of form, light, material, and structure.
>
> between them is the gap, the illusion of the movie projector,
> sending image and sound upon the screen, or cave wall, while
> outside exists the "real" world.
>
> i think that until architecture, history-criticism-&-theory,
> rationalizes this new electrical order, and its attachment to
> a centralized powerstructure (Niagara NYC?), then the real sub-
> stance of this new kind of building will only be judged by the
> old standards of architecture.
>
> that is, deconstruct the movie theater, its structural connection
> with Hollywood, with Advertising, with Media, with the Star system,
> with the e-infrastructure, with SUV's and the Oscar Awards, and
> then we will be talking about the Movie Theater as architecture.
interesting, brian.
but deconstructing the movie theater is being/has been done, probably by
you as well. and deconstructing architecture generally is a similar
exercise. architecture is becoming (and perhaps always has been, more or
less) as much a manifestation of existing power (political/economic as
opposed to electrical/mechanical) as film. hollywood 1999 = the church in
1525. the movie theater as the place where people escape their mundane
existence to experience another reality is exactly what the medieval
church-going experience was in many ways. and hollywood is the vatican in
many ways, though with not as "catholic" (read universal, or monolithic) a
message to convey (though probably much moreso than we would like to
think). i am sometimes shocked at the ways in which our lives are directed
or manipulated (or attempted to be) by film, especially/specifically the
hollywood blockbuster variety. i would love to see an analysis of the
values or ethics or "life lessons" that are expounded by the top 100 movies
of the last few years. sexual love is god, violence is celebrated as well,
traditional morality and organized religion are vilified, an almost
complete subversion of the "message" of or the values expounded by the
equally manipulative medieval church.
the movie theater as vessel for the transporter (like the church as vessel
for a like-intentioned liturgy/performance) is not quite the analogy i
would make, but it kind of works. i liken the medieval cathedral (as
medium) to the modern day movie, in its message bearing function, its
power wielding representation, its creation as the product of many
craftsmen, artisans and a "master builder" (director/architect). i've
always been fascinated by this comparison -- it's intersting to speculate
on the relative weight of the film viewing/liturgy attendance to the
building itself. the movie theater disappears for the film; the cathedral
becomes background, but participates in the liturgy in a very important
way. in watching a film, sight and sound are primary, perhaps even totally
excluding the other senses, much more "virtual." In the cathedral, the
body is more immediately engaged -- sight, sound, smell, taste, touch.
and the regularized (sunday morning/saturday nite) ritualistic aspect adds
to the analogy.
and the extension of this idea to television and then computers is tenous,
but can be made.
but i digress.
>
>bc
>
>
Ronald Evitts
90-96 Stanton St. 3A
New York, NY 10002
212-674-6329
> i had a hard time finding the article, but here is the url (after
> you register your name and password):
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/artleisure/matrix-film-arch.html
>
>>How did Muschamp's Sunday "degradation" of movie-multiplex and
>>design ambitions read to readers here? Pretty good list of the 27
>>architectural
>>varieties of self-imprisonment conceits, eh? Including his own crit soup,
>>as he self-laceratingly lashed in closing the lid to his foxhole.
>
> my view is this:
>
> i think Mushamp exists in an architectural Matrix of the sort he
> describes because his analysis is similar to Plato's allegory of
> the (electronic) cave.
>
> the 2 worlds are, one, the Tradition Order of architecture, of
> form, light, material, and structure of the one design. and a
> second Electrical Order, of the Movie and Movie Theater, which
> has a new use of form, light, material, and structure.
>
> between them is the gap, the illusion of the movie projector,
> sending image and sound upon the screen, or cave wall, while
> outside exists the "real" world.
>
> i think that until architecture, history-criticism-&-theory,
> rationalizes this new electrical order, and its attachment to
> a centralized powerstructure (Niagara NYC?), then the real sub-
> stance of this new kind of building will only be judged by the
> old standards of architecture.
>
> that is, deconstruct the movie theater, its structural connection
> with Hollywood, with Advertising, with Media, with the Star system,
> with the e-infrastructure, with SUV's and the Oscar Awards, and
> then we will be talking about the Movie Theater as architecture.
interesting, brian.
but deconstructing the movie theater is being/has been done, probably by
you as well. and deconstructing architecture generally is a similar
exercise. architecture is becoming (and perhaps always has been, more or
less) as much a manifestation of existing power (political/economic as
opposed to electrical/mechanical) as film. hollywood 1999 = the church in
1525. the movie theater as the place where people escape their mundane
existence to experience another reality is exactly what the medieval
church-going experience was in many ways. and hollywood is the vatican in
many ways, though with not as "catholic" (read universal, or monolithic) a
message to convey (though probably much moreso than we would like to
think). i am sometimes shocked at the ways in which our lives are directed
or manipulated (or attempted to be) by film, especially/specifically the
hollywood blockbuster variety. i would love to see an analysis of the
values or ethics or "life lessons" that are expounded by the top 100 movies
of the last few years. sexual love is god, violence is celebrated as well,
traditional morality and organized religion are vilified, an almost
complete subversion of the "message" of or the values expounded by the
equally manipulative medieval church.
the movie theater as vessel for the transporter (like the church as vessel
for a like-intentioned liturgy/performance) is not quite the analogy i
would make, but it kind of works. i liken the medieval cathedral (as
medium) to the modern day movie, in its message bearing function, its
power wielding representation, its creation as the product of many
craftsmen, artisans and a "master builder" (director/architect). i've
always been fascinated by this comparison -- it's intersting to speculate
on the relative weight of the film viewing/liturgy attendance to the
building itself. the movie theater disappears for the film; the cathedral
becomes background, but participates in the liturgy in a very important
way. in watching a film, sight and sound are primary, perhaps even totally
excluding the other senses, much more "virtual." In the cathedral, the
body is more immediately engaged -- sight, sound, smell, taste, touch.
and the regularized (sunday morning/saturday nite) ritualistic aspect adds
to the analogy.
and the extension of this idea to television and then computers is tenous,
but can be made.
but i digress.
>
>bc
>
>
Ronald Evitts
90-96 Stanton St. 3A
New York, NY 10002
212-674-6329