Submitted by Enrique Ramirez (not verified) on 1 November, 2007 - 12:54.
I can't help but see some connections between Jarzombek's manifesto and Grafton's piece for The New Yorker (from your last entry). Both seem to advocate a type of recalcitrance at the dual death knells of history and theory. In Grafton's case, the internet search engines and databases that make our lives as researchers somewhat easier can never be a substitute for the flotsam and jetsam of cultural production. In other words, as we are moor'd to the mast, Billy Budd-like, of our own digital afflictions, we realize our need for stuff.
The "stuff" I allude to - the myriad pages of books that detail our own histories, historiographies, thoughts, cultures, et cetera -- is the very context whose death Jarzombek so bemoans. I think this post is so timely because it alludes to many conflicts that I am experiencing as a doctoral student in architecture. I am constantly in awe of my fellow doctoral students in the History Department here -- they have a vast and unsatiable desire to mine the depths of their discipline in order to make sense of what has already happened. But I am also shocked at their unwillingness to invite other avenues of inquiry -- from cultural history, literature, to, dare I say it ... theory? And yet, I sometimes feel that our very own discipline lacks that very thing that Historians are so good at employing -- I think you get some idea of what I mean.
The manifesto is welcome it that it exhibits incredible foresight, while at the same time asking to reclaim something that has been lost. I refuse to see Jarzombek as lamenting something that if not wholly dead, is certainly about to die. It's a clarion call -- complexity matters. Complexity is an organizing principle. It is the organizing principles of all organizing principles.
The post also leaves me a little unsettled for a very odd reason -- does Mark Jarzombek read architecture blogs? If so, I hope he skips over mine ... I feel embarrassed about my own architectural musings after reading his eloquent post.
Some Timely Remarks from Mark Jarzombek
I can't help but see some connections between Jarzombek's manifesto and Grafton's piece for The New Yorker (from your last entry). Both seem to advocate a type of recalcitrance at the dual death knells of history and theory. In Grafton's case, the internet search engines and databases that make our lives as researchers somewhat easier can never be a substitute for the flotsam and jetsam of cultural production. In other words, as we are moor'd to the mast, Billy Budd-like, of our own digital afflictions, we realize our need for stuff.
The "stuff" I allude to - the myriad pages of books that detail our own histories, historiographies, thoughts, cultures, et cetera -- is the very context whose death Jarzombek so bemoans. I think this post is so timely because it alludes to many conflicts that I am experiencing as a doctoral student in architecture. I am constantly in awe of my fellow doctoral students in the History Department here -- they have a vast and unsatiable desire to mine the depths of their discipline in order to make sense of what has already happened. But I am also shocked at their unwillingness to invite other avenues of inquiry -- from cultural history, literature, to, dare I say it ... theory? And yet, I sometimes feel that our very own discipline lacks that very thing that Historians are so good at employing -- I think you get some idea of what I mean.
The manifesto is welcome it that it exhibits incredible foresight, while at the same time asking to reclaim something that has been lost. I refuse to see Jarzombek as lamenting something that if not wholly dead, is certainly about to die. It's a clarion call -- complexity matters. Complexity is an organizing principle. It is the organizing principles of all organizing principles.
The post also leaves me a little unsettled for a very odd reason -- does Mark Jarzombek read architecture blogs? If so, I hope he skips over mine ... I feel embarrassed about my own architectural musings after reading his eloquent post.