Wright Chat

The Nostalgia Trap


David

It's hard to disagree with anything in the article. Nostalgia should not be the dominant reason for saving buildings, but the inconvenience of factoring old buildings, even of less than distinguished pedigree, into large-scale redevelopments should not be a reason for demolishing them if re-purposing works to advantage. The Domino and Battersea plans show two architecturally irrelevant structures surrounded by new buildings of stunning banality. Delete the tatterdemalions and what little charm they have to offer, and you have room for more of the dull architecture, the sole benefit of which is rent. In this particular case, my inclination would be to demolish the factories and find a better architect to redevelop the land.

t·ter·de·mal·ion (ttr-d-mlyn, -ml-n)
n.
A person wearing ragged or tattered clothing; a ragamuffin.
adj.
Ragged; tattered.

Although he acknowledged the heroic monumentality of Battersea, he’s slightly mystified by the public affection for the plant—people seem to forget that it is, after all, “a culprit in the history of pollution of the Thames,� and something that has helped destroy the climate. “It’s like preserving Dracula, somehow,� he[Vinoly] said.

Cities are living projects, and must be constantly edited, often by an invisible hand—one structure needs to be deleted to make room for another, an early draft of this neighborhood is recast in a newer, tighter form. If nostalgia rules the day, nothing changes, nothing moves forward.

Italics mine

Isn't the trouble the word nostalgia, which seems to carry a wistful wisp of sentimentality. Sentimentality glosses over the real history, whether it be the industrial revolution's child labor or pollution, a trip to Disneyland today is touted as the All-American family holiday now but the discriminatory practice of excluding men with long hair, African Americans or Gays is buried inside the Minnie Mouse costume. Thousands of square feet of hardwood factory floors are sanded and demarked into exclusive loft living spaces, thousands of people visit Viscaya through the front door- all of it a misrepresentation of history.

The question seems to me is: how do you honor history by repurposing architectural structures without erasing the integrity of social history?

History belongs in books. No matter how historically significant a building may be, an ugly building is just that and nothing more - or a pretty one as well - without an accompanying narrative provided by text. If the story of George Washington had fallen away, Mount Vernon would be just an old mansion. Even Auschwitz needs the story to be fully understood, otherwise it would be only a profoundly ugly set of structures.

If Battersea or Domino had been handsome buildings of intrinsic artistic merit, keeping them would be valid, since art never loses its validity, and setting the unpleasant history aside would not be a bad thing at all. The problem is that neither structure is aesthetically worthy.

To my mind:

History belongs in the minds, muscles and blood of Life.

The structures of Auschwitz need no story. The buildings talk.

Lots of art loses its validity and finishes talking.

Palli,

Well said.
Having been to Dachau, the buildings speak through purpose while some shout and others whisper. Good or bad. There was a building there I could not enter.

Thank you, Palli...

"Lots of art loses its validity and finishes talking."

Really? Such as, what, French Impressionism? Should those paintings be devalued as 'old hat'? Rembrandt? Giotto? Mosaics of Pompeii? Cave paintings of Lascaux? Art comes and goes in fashion, but any work of art worth its salt doesn't lose whatever validity it originally had. After he died, Wright's buildings were out of fashion throughout the 60s, until, arguably, Storrer published his catalog in 1974, sparking a renascence in FLW studies and appreciation. Had they 'finished talking'? (But perhaps you're referring to Peter Max?)

Storytelling has always been one of the principal occupations of humans, which, like art, endures. Buildings associated with historic events, of a positive or negative nature, might very well have a profound impact on visitors, but without the narrative, the context, if you entered without any knowledge of what took place there, if you were told that the buildings in Dachau were an old factory that produced Messerschmidt motorcycles and nothing else, would you still get the same feeling? I doubt it. It's all in the narrative that becomes more real as you come close (though not all the way there) to what took place. The structures of Auschwitz and Dachau do need a story for the buildings to talk.

In the case of Battersea, no matter what small role it may have played in the pollution of the Thames, it seems a trifling reason to keep it around, or, for that matter, to demolish it, especially considering that when it was new, environmentalism as we perceive it today didn't exist, and the long-term effects of factory effluence was not considered or understood. People cannot be convicted of crimes they committed before they were crimes. The building has no aesthetic value that I can see, and I cannot think of any other reason to preserve it.

I'm a bit confused. Are you proposing that the story of Dachau or Auschwitz be preserved only through books, and perhaps photographs... but the structures should be torn down? And because Battersea provided power, not high art or aesthetics, it might be eliminated as well?

Demolish and rebuild? Reminds me a bit of Le Corbusier...

Battersea power station:
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucapaad ... tation.jpg

Adaptive resuse:
http://www.archi-ninja.com/excellent-ex ... ive-reuse/

The Brewery, Los Angeles, the largest art community in the world, began in 1903 as the Edison Electric Steam Power Plant and then as a Pabst Blue Ribbon brewery. Years later it was converted into artist lofts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brewery_Art_Colony

Le Corbusier's vision of Paris:
http://gabaguzik.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _small.jpg

No, peterm, what I said, I thought clearly enough, is that without the narrative, the buildings are without meaning. The presence of the structures certainly adds immeasurably to the narrative. The two work together. I haven't seen the death camps, but I have been to the Viet Nam Memorial in DC, and knowing what it is about makes the experience powerful. If I had not known anything about the meaning of the memorial or its connection to the war, I doubt it would have meant much to me.

I was still digesting the statement "History belongs in books", with the implication (perhaps it was not your intent...) that the artifacts of history are irrelevant, unless they are considered to be beautiful or unless the narrative is first clearly understood. Maybe I have misunderstood you.

Here in Los Angeles, I am grateful that the Brewery was not demolished. It creates a sense of place in the midst of the wasteland which surrounds it, and it is being enjoyed by the people who now inhabit it. But I am clearly biased; I happen to like unpretentious vernacular industrial buildings of the era of Battersea, Domino, and The Brewery.

Roderick-
First of all, French Impressionism is a school of art, a way of thinking and seeing. Individual objects like Monet’s Hay Stacks and Renoir’s le Moulin de la Galette are impressionists works that still speak and you can read their story without knowing their dates or locations- yes even the artists names. But there are hundreds of French Impressionist paintings that have stopped talking and there will always be Impressionist paintings – a few of which speak today.

“Out of Fashion� does not mean “stopped talking�. It means many people are “not listening� or, perhaps, in the your example of Peter Max: we have already heard it, said it and haven’t anything to add. But then I have nothing to say with or hear from a Giambattista Tiepolo, Michael Graves or a Judy Pfaff either.

Do you mean that you only understood what Maya Lin’s work means because you know the history of the Viet Nam War?
You don’t think that the meaning is inferred in the work?
All those names...running your fingers over those names...seeing the cold black marble descend into the earth... that didn’t speak to you?
You have to know the dates and facts of the sordid story? You can’t just weep because she has said it?

I cannot disagree with you more about Dachau or Auschwitz or a 1960’s Woolworth’s Store. It is visceral.

If I may be so bold, I don’t think Wright would believe buildings were without the power of their own story.