site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28327 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 23, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

At which timestamps from the debate does Eisenmann state what you paraphrased to "my plan is to create this building, which I believe will maximize the amount of discomfort and pain felt by anyone who gazes upon or enters it" or "I am an architect. I build buildings that harm your mind."? I am not watching all that, but my prior is that you heavily misrepresented what was said because you think communists are evil [and thus they surely must want to make maximally ugly buildings] or because you think those buildings are maximally ugly [and that could only be because communists are evil].

@sansampersamp is an architect. Let's see what he has to say about 'where architecture has gone' since Eisenman.

Philosophical perspectives in architecture have also largely moved on from Eisenman's deconstructive minimalism in the (an) opposite direction somewhat towards Heidegger's object-relational ontology/phenomenology via Harman. See Mark Foster Gage's Killing Simplicity.

Okay. What does Gage say?

It is understandable that Harman would enlist Lovecraft....Lovecraft also frequently enlists architecture and geometry....In "At the Mountains of Madness," Lovecraft writes of a city with "no architecture known to man or to human imagination, with vast aggregations of night-black masonry embodying monstrous perversions of geometrical laws." In "The Call of Cthulhu" he writes of a character who was "swallowed up by an angle of masonry which shouldn't have been there; an angle which was acute, but behaved as if it were obtuse."

...To try to design such a Cyclopean city...would be a lost cause, but to imagine architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reeality is an appealing opportunity....Harman writes, "illusion and innuendo are the best we can do."

There might be some youngsters or non-english speakers in the audience. Let's double check the essence of Lovecraft:

Lovecraftian horror, also called cosmic horror or eldritch horror, is a subgenre of horror fiction and weird fiction that emphasizes the horror of the unknowable and incomprehensible more than gore or other elements of shock. It is named after American author H. P. Lovecraft (1890–1937). His work emphasizes themes of cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries...

So architecture has moved on from Eisenman to getting as close to emparting "cosmic dread, forbidden and dangerous knowledge, madness, non-human influences on humanity, religion and superstition, fate and inevitability, and the risks associated with scientific discoveries" as they can.

No, no. They're not evil. They're just trying to create buildings that replicate the effect of an alien presence so profoundly dangerous that merely conceptualizing a infinitesimal part of it drives you to madness.

This looks more like free association than an answer to sun’s question…

I also think you’re misrepresenting Eisenman and Eisenman enthusiasts. Could you show me where he says “ architecture is meant to make people psychologically uncomfortable,” “Buildings must literally impose psychic harm and pain,” or “An architect has a moral imperative to create such pain among the populace”?

How is it "free" association, it's literally a link to an article a local "Eisenman enthusiast" gave himself. How much closer to "meant to make people psychologically uncomfortable" can you get, than talking about how awesome it would be to do Lovecraftian architecture, but having to settle for mere allusions?

This just strikes me as proof positive for OP's thesis. Cognitive dissonance, no one would be so comically evil to do such a thing, therefore people aren't saying what they're clearly saying.

I think everyone in the chain probably believed what they were saying. I don’t think what @sansampersamp said Gage said Harman said about Lovecraft tells us much of anything about Eisenman!

There's no cognitive dissonance because there's no evil here, anywhere.

Eisenman's buildings range from "fine" to "pretty darn cool" in my view. "...Architecture that similarly alludes to a deeper or alternate view of reality" in a Lovecraftian fashion is also cool. Rad, even. I want more of that. Sign me up. This isn't even some complex "well we have to understand the dialectical nature of suffering and how even negative emotions can be valuable" shit. This is just very straightforwardly an architect who makes cool buildings that he thinks are cool and other people think are cool. There's no malfeasance here, no shenanigans.

To me, your question sounds akin to someone saying "how exactly can you support Harry Potter books pushing Satanic propaganda on our children?" It's hard to provide an answer because I disagree with the entire framing.

The thing that strikes me about your friend's building -- if I understood you correctly -- is that somehow in some intentional way it is not harmonious. That is, Moneo intentionally wants to produce an effect of disharmony. Maybe even of incongruity.

PE: That is correct.

CA: I find that incomprehensible. I find it very irresponsible. I find it nutty. I feel sorry for the man. I also feel incredibly angry because he is fucking up the world.

Audience: (Applause)

PE: Precisely the reaction that you elicited from the group. That is, they feel comfortable clapping. The need to clap worries me because it means that mass psychology is taking over.

Is this good enough for you?

Transcripts are easily available online.

I am not watching all that, but my prior is that you heavily misrepresented what was said because you think communists are evil [and thus they surely must want to make maximally ugly buildings] or because you think those buildings are maximally ugly [and that could only be because communists are evil].

And if he provides the relevant quotes, are you going to change your mind on anything substantial, or just grudgingly concede that specific thing?

No need for this epistemic meta-jousting, full transcript is here. The quotes obviously aren't in there but I was reading them as a (poor) attempt to summarise Eisenman's position.

The quotes obviously aren't in there but I was reading them as a (poor) attempt to summarise Eisenman's position.

Because it's sun_the_second that put the quote marks around them.

How is it a poor attempt?

The things that I was talking about last night -- I was doing empirical observation about -- as a matter of fact, it turns out that these certain structures need to be in there to produce that harmony. The thing that strikes me about your friend’s building -- if I understood you correctly -- is that somehow in some intentional way it is not harmonious. That is, Moneo intentionally wants to produce an effect of disharmony. Maybe even of incongruity.

PE: That is correct.

CA: I find that incomprehensible. I find it very irresponsible. I find it nutty. I feel sorry for the man. I also feel incredibly angry because he is fucking up the world.

Audience: (Applause)

PE: Precisely the reaction that you elicited from the group. That is, they feel comfortable clapping. The need to clap worries me because it means that mass psychology is taking over.

Someone from the audience: Why should architects feel comfortable with a cosmology you are not even sure exists?

PE: Let’s say if I went out in certain places in the United States and asked people about the music they would feel comfortable with, a lot of people would come up with Mantovani. And I’m not convinced that that is something I should have to live with all my life, just because the majority of people feel comfortable with it. I want to go back to the notion of needing to feel comfortable. Why does Chris need to feel comfortable, and I do not? Why does he feel the need for harmony, and I do not? Why does he see incongruity as irresponsible, and why does he get angry? I do not get angry when he feels the need for harmony. I just feel I have a different view of it.

Someone from the audience: He is not screwing up the world.

PE: I would like to suggest that if I were not here agitating nobody would know what Chris’s idea of harmony is, and you all would not realize how much you agree with him ... Walter Benjamin talks about “the destructive character”, which, he says, is reliability itself, because it is always constant. If you repress the destructive nature, it is going to come out in some way. If you are only searching for harmony, the disharmonies and incongruencies which define harmony and make it understandable will never be seen. A world of total harmony is no harmony at all. Because I exist, you can go along and understand your need for harmony, but do not say that I am being irresponsible or make a moral judgement that I am screwing up the world, because I would not want to have to defend myself as a moral imperative for you.

Perhaps my literacy level is not as high as yours, so you will need to help me as exactly where you see a desire to "maximize the amount of discomfort and pain" or "harm your mind", or a claim that "buildings must literally impose psychic harm and pain on the people who view and use the building".

How do you understand the words "harmony" and "disharmony"?

Also, when he says "And I’m not convinced that that is something I should have to live with all my life, just because the majority of people feel comfortable with it." how does that not straightforwardly say he wants to make people uncomfortable?

I primarily understand harmony and disharmony in terms of cleaving to notions of geometric proportionality, e.g. as formalised by Palladio. You could probably extend that to congruity in style and materials, both internally and in context. Personally, I can see deviations from this as well-executed or ill-considered, but it'd be an exceptional case I'd consider to be psychically harmful.

In the second case, he's saying he wouldn't like it if the entirety of his aesthetic experience was like Mantovani, who he regards as popular, but a bit vapid, saccharine, and unchallenging. I'd agree that some buildings, such as his Berlin memorial, succeed by being more challenging and this is appropriate for it's purpose. Conversely, most people wouldn't style their own house en brut, but it still appeals to some people.

But here you're softening the original statement to make it sound plausible. If he really wanted to "maximize the amount of discomfort and pain" his buildings have an unambitious amount of rusty syringes and razored door handles.

I primarily understand harmony and disharmony in terms of cleaving to notions of geometric proportionality, e.g. as formalised by Palladio. You could probably extend that to congruity in style and materials, both internally and in context. Personally, I can see deviations from this as well-executed or ill-considered, but it'd be an exceptional case I'd consider to be psychically harmful.

I feel like something is being left out by such a technical definition. You can define harmony in music in terms of mathematics too, but I don't think it's wise to completely leave out of the defintion, the effect being constantly bombarded by disharmonious chords would have on a person. And I'm pretty sure Eismann is aware of that, given all the talk of "comfort".

In the second case, he's saying he wouldn't like it if the entirety of his aesthetic experience was like Mantovani, who he regards as popular, but a bit vapid, saccharine, and unchallenging.

What is supposed to be the difference between "challenging" and "deliberately causing discomfort" in your opinion.

But here you're softening the original statement to make it sound plausible.

No, you're doing the opposite. For example OP was explicitly talking about "psychic" discomfort and pain, and you deliberately left that out to make him look ridiculous.

Also, an architect will be limited by building safety codes, and the threat of having his license taken away and/or going to prison, which will prevent him from fully leaning into his sadism.

I am skeptical that:

  • Eisenman actually said "I want to maximize psychic harm with [all] my buildings" or something that a person of reasonable IQ and no "cognitive dissonance" could interpret as that.
  • This approach of maximizing disharmony and harm can be generalized to all socialist art.
  • Disharmony in art (in any amount) is so obviously harmful that you'd have to be low IQ or a motivated thinker to disagree.
  • Disharmony in art (in any amount) is so obviously counter to the purpose of art that you'd have to be low IQ or a motivated thinker to disagree.

The quotes from this specific debate will likely not change my mind on 2, 3 and 4.

This approach of maximizing disharmony and harm can be generalized to all socialist art.

Do you think this portrayal of his views is more honest than his portrayal of Eismann's views?

Disharmony in art (in any amount) is so obviously harmful that you'd have to be low IQ or a motivated thinker to disagree.

That's not what he said. He's saying one of the reasons one might deny that Eismann's aims to maximize disharmony is because they're too low-IQ to understand what he's saying.

Disharmony in art (in any amount) is so obviously counter to the purpose of art that you'd have to be low IQ or a motivated thinker to disagree.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that in the even that you do understand what Eismann is saying, you might be inclined to go into denial, because no one could be this comically evil.

The quotes from this specific debate will likely not change my mind on 2, 3 and 4.

What is the point of all the navel gazing about what Eismann specifically said, if you're not going to change your mind about anything substantial then? If it's just about the specifics of what he said, maybe focus on that?

I do think OP would generalize to all socialist art. Ex. here.

I’d say 3 and 4 are covered by the “middle school” section. OP is using Eisenman, socialists, disharmony as moral imperative, and Brutalist high schools interchangeably. He also categorically ignores the possibility someone might agree with one or more of those things. That partitions anyone who does into the stupid, the motivated reasoners, or the evil.

What is the point of all the navel gazing about what Eismann specifically said, if you're not going to change your mind about anything substantial then?

Not the person you’re responding to, but the entire discussion is pointless if its main outrageous premise turns out to be completely false. You’re not going to convince me on points 2 through 4 either, but if Eismann did in fact explicitly say he wants to inflict psychic harm, then we can have an interesting discussion about why such cartoonish levels of villainy are allowed to exist in society.

Instead, it appears that Eismann only talked about creating artistic disharmony, and then you equivocate artistic disharmony with psychic harm. The original question of “How is that possible?” is answered with “Because the scenario presented simply wasn’t true.”

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats