Occupy everything, not just Wall Street and London : the power of an idea to overcome corruption and absolute power of capitalism

What I meant above is that if the protesters of Arab Spring assembled at Tahrir Square and elsewhere in Tunisia, Libya etc managed to overthrow, after deaths and long hard struggle ,not just  corrupt governments and dictators after years of human rights abuse by the absolute monarchy, economic decline, unemployment, extreme poverty and political repression. But also not to accept wholesale and blindly the current form of Western-style hypercapitalistic democracy, then there are good reasons that human beings elsewhere stand equal chance to change the corrupt system eating away in their society.

The protesters in Wall Street and London have to take pride that their brethren in the Middle East have only pioneers like Ginsberg and Burroughs to thank for : if the repressive regimes do not stand down, voices of the masses would shout until the demand for justice is met. Thanks also to Henri Lefebvre for opening our minds to the idea that within the social production of space, there are infinite ways within the mental space to canvass a rallying point for social and political justice. I guess the protesters in NY, London and other major cities have to be steadfast and persevere before their demands for 'evil' capitalism could be tamed or removed would succeed:

"Many decent people are locked into the embrace of a system that is rotten to the core. If they are to earn even a reasonable living they have no other job option except to give the devil his due: they are only “following orders,” as Eichmann famously claimed, “doing what the system demands” as others now put it, in acceding to the barbarous and immoral principles and practices of the Party of Wall Street. The coercive laws of competition force us all, to some degree of other, to obey the rules of this ruthless and uncaring system. The problem is systemic not individual."

Rebels on the Street: The Party of Wall Street Meets its Nemesis by David Harvey

IF WE CAN'T BE EQUAL WE CAN BE BETTER

In this story of tragicomedy, Waugh plots the circle of fortunes and misfortunes of the central character named Paul Pennyfeather. There are a few clever literary devices being used such as satire, parody, irony and absurdity to potray the classless protagonist's confrontation of an outdated traditional British society of the 1920s: education system and the establishment's snobbish view of it, the state church and religion, the class system, high society, the legal system and what was it to live, love and die during those times.

Although there are comic moments and almost relaxed relations between different classes of society, Waugh wanted to promote to good old cherished values of the elite upper class and showed his disapproval of the secular world and the future. He nevertheless rejected the idea that there would be any better political system or any at all, that could uplift man or his society from misery.

His beliefs in the goodness of traditional values and social relations put him in opposition to socialist ideals of Karl Marx, whom he is critical of. The fact that a friendly atmosphere existed between different classes of society as depicted in the book and Pennyfeather represents a socially mobile person even during those times,seems to create doubts whether Marx was right in suggesting that there needs to be a class warfare, class consciousness, struggle. Or even revolution. What Marx sees as opium of the masses in religion, Waugh saw beauty and spiritual benefits of it to redeem unfortunate souls and inspire those who struggle to improve themselves without causing upheaval in society.

With a rather an enlightened view of personal endeavour, Waugh depicted Pennyfeather 's triumphs after a going through trials and tribulations of expulsion, imprisonment and failed engagement. Evoking a very biblical allusion, he created the resurrection of Pennyfeather to imply a religious experience and in a sense personifying his idea of faith in divine grace. By using the idea of faith which comes from religion, Waugh tried to promote this well-cherished institution not as a problem but an entity representing order and establishment thus validating the high standards of morality the bourgeoisie (where he came from) should uphold.

Waugh is protective of traditional ideas of the past and its representations and promoted, through the writing, their preservation and reverence when the 'modern machinery' was blamed for causing the destruction of an old Tudor estate. Like Marxist ideals, the modern mode of progress would undermine traditional way of life which would mean an end to aristocracy and elitism. He is sceptical of the future represented by modern buildings that would destroy much cherished social relations of the past as symbolised by historical architecture like the tudor house.

What about secularism? Waugh did not seem to approve this as well: he put a non-denominational clergyman named Pendergast under capital punishment! This is a metaphor that Waugh used to show how the presence of secularism would remove the values of tradition and religion, not just present a philosophical threat that would rob the establishment the privilege to control and set the moral standards. Waugh also tried to associate socialism with inappropriate behaviour as displayed by the drunken behaviour of Silenus, the architect. In some ways it is an early parody of the modern architect. Very leftist,very avante guardian. I am quite certain that a profession such as this invites lots of aesthetic arguments between classicism and avant garde, tradition and modernity would create chaos and disorder,so not very welcomed.

In a nutshell, what Waugh has represented is the same dilemma that many writers and thinkers face at the present: must anyone rock the boat if the lives that we are living right now have been protecting our own interest, our communities, standard of living and the values that are promoted by the establishment as true and good? Perhaps these high-bred spinner of tales and other  idealists should be reminded that a good system would be corrupted one day if it only ensures the prosperity and privilege to idea-making of the few remain so and increase further while the underclass and the middle class get stuck in an endless cycle of mediocrity. Then we would definitely deserve another better philosophy or political system to replace this rot.

BIG Ideas, BIG Money, BIG Misery

Don passos and Ayn Rand who wrote The Fountainhead chronicled the lives of high-spirited, self-driven American individuals at the start of the 20th Century. The former reveal the  protagonists who were real pioneers namely, Henry Ford ( Tin Lizzie), Thorbein Veblen ( The Bitter Drink) and Frank LLyod Wright ( Architect). The latter (Fountainhead) is about the creative, personal, romantic and philosophical struggle of Howard Roark, the visionary architect whose character was moulded after Frank Llyod Wright as many suggested. What we see in these writings is that the American struggles in the 1930s were the same old ones throughout the decades till 2000s: they are determined individuals chasing after the American dream, fight to achieve what they believe in, found success but died in the face of societal rejection of them.

In essence, these characters describe a Faustian tragedy of people who wanted to improve the world within their specific field.  While on one hand, their successes are recorded as a great human endeavour and groundbreaking:

            1) 'Tin Lizzie'     - Henry Ford, industrialist father of Ford Motor Company, pro consumerism and mass production of inexpensive goods, he became one of the richest man in America . Many claimed he invented the assembly line; a pioneer of automobile industry and helped revolutionise the  transport industry,

2) 'The Bitter Drink' - Thorstein Veblen, Marxist and economist, social scientist who was against mainstream economics and   conspicuous consumption;

            3)'Architect' - Frank Lloyd Wright, responsible for some major architectural masterpieces; he started from a radical thinker and moved on to become the leader of architectural modernism; his ideas were controversial;  he advocate of organic architecture where structures were designed in harmony with environment, one of founders of modern architecture in North America

            4)' Fountainhead' - Howard Raork, the architect,  embodies a steadfast individual; a lone fighter who struggles to maintain his vision, honour an integrity to fight for his right to express his personal vision (modernism) and ideas against popular taste(classicism) subjected by mainstream elites who decide the aesthetic value for the whole society, represents individualism against the cultural machinery of established taste. The objectivism as a main theme in this book does not detract a very strong his individualistic love interest, Dominic Francon.

           

On the other, personally, their disconnection with society or a member, some of whom became their proponents without whom they would not achieve their goals, became their undoing.

All of them tried to be radical, striving to promote individual thought in the face of the need to conform, and think outside the fringe created by the society they live in. They were against tradition and their ideas were groundbreaking within the fields that they suceeded, Their struggle was against the fear of the new among those elites who have comfortably ruled and imposed the norms of what are  acceptable in society.

The characters of Dos Passos moved away from the mainstream to realise their ambitions of making the world a better place but like Faust, the more they wanted to experience satisfaction in their fields through sheer hard work, external criticism, personal scandals and poverty, the more they moved further away they were from their main goal of life, or anyone's life for that matter: happiness. The fame enjoyed by these remarkable characters made them a recluse, longing for more simpler childhood. They achieved their dreams but became victims of their own success: lost their sense of innocence inside and longed for their youth.

Architects are constantly torn between being an artistic hence moral individual and professional and political figure. It is a difficult act to juggle especially when he is faced with his own personal desires versus vested interests which the society or establishment dictates. In many architectural schools, there is a constant debate whether students should be more of a technocrat when they leave school and be more like their engineering counterparts and be a productive member of the society, that is, work for the people and not to further their own personal agenda, no matter how brilliant. What they are told by the public is that they should be less of an artist, tortured or privileged, to keep pushing visionary boundaries in which they set, which actually all require an endless and mindless amount of effort to convince others to build or at least listen.

To take a balance approach, the stories remind us that the very idea that these individuals wanted to strive for to find their vision, wealth or artistic creativity in fighting against prejudice and conformism, should be applauded for. But if these advancements of industrial, economic and artistic progress are to be experienced in terms of personal satisfaction, it has to lead to wider experience of empowerment beyond the personal, betterment of quality of life for the masses and removal of hegemony of the best and the brightest. In fact, the fall of the genius comes after the cult of personality has lone gone and left him.

Rage Against the MACHINE!!!!!

" Seen through the lens of this doctrine, the past 35 years look very different. Some of the most infamous human rights violations of this era, which have tended to be viewed as sadistic acts carried out by anti-democratic regimes, were in fact either committed with the intent of terrorising the public or actively harnessed to prepare the ground for radical free-market "reforms"

Naomi Klein, introduction excerpt from the Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,

Although written more than half century ago, the writings of WIlliam Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg are as true and gripping today as it was prolific then in depicting the hypocrisy of the so-called democratic government to maintain 'world peace' via hard-sell propaganda at home and military operations abroad: only to use liberal market policies to force democracies in the so-called despotic governments and to perpetrate crime against humanity as quoted by Naomi Kelin above. Of course if we include WMD, the jargon of choice by George W. Bush Jr to invade Iraq, what the writings reveal make a lot more sense!

Both William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg were contemporaries who form part of the Beat generation in the US and became a worldwide cultural phenomenon in the 1950s. Both showed literary intelligence in their ability to make connections between ancient and religious history and contemporary life.  The two pieces of writings share similar themes of linguistic and literary assault on government as agents of control, censorship and promoter of their brand of traditional values. They show their extremely violent personal expression in writing, in very prophetic way. as they felt  Both represented a generation who suffered alienation from the dominant economic, political and social forms of Dwight Eisenhower's America  While Ginsberg used biblical allusion to show the mythic proportion of his generation's despair and anger, Burroughs  compared the authoritarian nature of modern nation states to Mayan ritual calendars. Apocalypse then (mass disappearance and destruction of ancient civilisations) are precursors to contemporary disasters now (world financial crisis and recession in 2008 till now).

The words within the prose and poem explored their cynicism, disillusion and maddening worldviews of modernity, democracy and progress: capital punishment, drugs, good and evil, and the destruction of nations through wars. Although some find them a bombastic piece of drivel and insanity, those who understood the message realise their ability to pull the wool in our eyes and dissemble reality that one does not see: brutal truth about modern society. They provide a kind of collective manifesto  to urge everyone to get out of their comfort zone, open their eyes and minds and confront different types of injustice, control and influence that the state, media and corporations impose on us. He pointed to the practice of media virus to spread lies. One gets a strange impression that the writing could only come out from the minds of a schizophenic. Scrape through the maddening imageries, we could make sense of the hopelessness that most people feel as if we are prisoners and meek like sheep trapped in an endless rat race  - the current system and mode of living have made us weak, malleable and subservient to authority and global forces.

Burroughs tried to highlight to us the viral effect of language how it is used by the government and media to fabricate a very dystopian future in which the only way to survive is to give in to the powers that be.  Similarly, Ginsberg evoked the idolatrous god in the bible, Moloch, who sacrificed children in the fire as a metaphor to describe megalomaniac monster-like machinery produced by modernity such as war, capitalism, mainstream culture, materialism, conformism and authority, to rob us from our youth and the love for humanity.

Although both Burroughs and Ginsberg have brought a uniquely local awareness to both the mainstream media and culture about the need to reformulate traditional ideas of individual expression, identity and human freedom, the impact of these writings have gone beyond American shores. Many people in the developing nations including those that have woken up to the cries in the Arab Spring and Western countries whose lives have been tragically affected by the world wide recession have been united by very similar concerns that the two writers cried out: rejection of censorship, spiritual liberation, environmental awareness, sensitivity towards indigenous culture, world peace and the right to see, hear and speak.

*POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY

*The famous quote from, Animal Farm by George Orwell

"Social space is a social product……the space thus produced also serves as a tool of thought and action….in addition to being a means of production it also a means of control, and hence of domination, of power."(1)

Lefbve argued that 'social space is produce and reproduced in connection with the forces of production (and with the relations of production).' These ' forces…are not taking over a pre-existing, empty or neutral space, or a space determined soley by geography, climate, anthropology…' (2).

Social space includes: 1)lived spatial practice 2)conceived representations of space and 3) perceived representational spaces. Dialogues  and contradictions exist in nodes and intersections  across different spheres of life: culture and nature, abstraction and reality, past and future, form and inform, the abstract and real.

He acknowledged the overriding predominance and power  of capitalism in the west and he compared this with the production of 'abstract space'. Amidst all the cacophony that is produced in many governments  to curb or not to curb spending to reduce the financial recession, one cannot help but be reminded that capitalism is alive and kicking and there is no way back. This is because with the ' contract that we signed ' with the government to administer the countries economies through democratic elections, we have to give up our own personal space and give in to the abstract space - obliged to live in obedience.  This is also  the space whereby both bureaucracy and the attendant instruments that felicitate the running of the country, which includes ownership of the means of production by private corporation, individuals and state, produce fragmentation, homogeneity  and hierarchical organisation to divide and conquer society.

What I appreciate through his writings is that while capitalism has brought the disparate world communities together through the forces of globalisation(another abstract space), improve the overall living standards of many countries while pulling not a few out of poverty, like so many people I began to feel a lack of individuality and sense of personal identity. We have become more similar (consumer's society) rather than different (tribal festival) through our daily diet of American culture (coke, Mcdonald's, Friends, Lost, Hollywood movies, Apple), standardization (supermarket-packaged products, a familiar line of car brands, )and alienation (urban sprawl is a worlwide phenomena not just American).

In fact, modernity as we know it and to which the term 'progress' is associated, left very much to be desired. Progress mirrrors the quest for great happiness and essence of life (was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhalt) pursued by Faust.  Architects, like Faust, are constantly in dilemma whether to promote independent thought ,integrity, idealism, sustainability and ethics to advance their career though they might be poor first for a long period. This is a slower but satisfying path(to those who can afford it) through which the end may be murky and in the midst of an economic downturn, would be difficult to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Indeed for those who succeeded to promote a self-aggrandized  and socially detached form of manifesto which in itself conceived in abstraction  (Frank Llyod Wright and Corbusier are examples), tragedy has become a too common finale.

Of course in order for many to survive, the alternative (driven mainly by the monetary factor) is to work and submit their creative independence to big corporate offices and give what is demanded from them from hordes of Mephistopheles in the form of unscrupulous developers and unethical clients. Thus capitalism dictates that we follow a certain invisible instruction towards progress rather than bucking the trend Previewand be a rebel without a cause. To this end, many cities look like clones and typologies of one unique environment does not differ from another. Urbanisation as we know it has obliterated local culture, history, and natural landscape as spaces of modernity are internationalised, divided into grids of private property, market and labour.

(1)& (2) Henri  Lefebvre, The Production of Space, p. 26 & p.17

SCIENTOLOGY USED TO BE A POP STUFF

According to David Eagleton, we are living in the age where popular culture or current issues that he would consider as low-brow, has been taken seriously as an academic pursuit in serious journals and up to college levels. He mocked at this rather whimsical approach to studying social sciences, and humanities and would prefer an emphasis on other major concerns that are facing the world today. He mourned the times when serious cultural theory used to be a discipline that produced literary and philosophical  debates and ideas on politics, society, economics and history. He wondered if the younger generation would build on these academic giants and produce more interesting ideas and ideology to seize the opportunity to change the world or improve it post 911 and Iraq War. Alas, the sense of complacency and the 'afflluenza' that has gripped the middle-class and baby-boomers in the last decades made us focus more on the less-meaningful aspects of life.; wealth has made us soft.

Perhaps in reaping the benefits that capitalism has provided in democratising knowledge (Facebook and Youtube seem the perfect vehicle as contemporary media), everyone has the right to theorize on any topic(or anyone) could be the subject of cultural theory? In the past, the bourgeois ensured that literary theory is liberal and left-leaning to allow greater exploration of the mind. Privilege upbringing allowed the fortunate few to dedicate their life-long learning to fight social injustice, oppression, feudalism, colonialism and gender inequality.  But in contemporary times when capitalism is widespread and has become a form of mass 'opium', people are more pre-occupied with consumption rather than creative destruction. We are more obsessed with price comparison website to find the cheapest services and products listen to than rants and protests to redefine an ideology more appropriate and sustainable  than a convenient marriage between democracy and  laissez faire system. For academics like David, there is a concern that we have abandoned studying topics like  Structuralism, Marxism, Post-Structuralism and the like and have opted for sensationalism. Students prefer the erotic rather than the cerebral and esoteric.

How real are David's claims? A quick survey of mostly 'liberal arts' course in the US bring out some fascinating but really bizarre subjects too lame to be taken seriously for the brain matter: Seinfeld and Philosophy at Georgetown University,  Women's Studies disguised as Humanities offer a course on Soap Operas and Desperate Housewives, at State University of NY, undergrads undertake  Cyberporn and Society and discussion on X-rated Japanese comics as assignments for Anthropology of the Unconscious . Instead of discussing political desires of the downtrodden class, scholars are researching on the 'aesthetics, societal and philosophical properties of smut in various academic departments ranging from literature to film, law to technology, anthropology to women's studies.'(1)

Eagleton considers the defects of cultural theory brought about by postmodernism. He argued that many theorists have turned their back to confront important social issues and have conspired with capitalism to advance the course of transformation, diversity and transgression. He objected to postmodernist rejecting the ideas of 'totalities, universal values, grand historical narratives, solid foundations to human existence and the possibility of objective knowledge.' He frowned upon them for being 'sceptical of truth, unit and progress, opposes what it sees as elitism in culture, tends towards cultural relativism and celebrates pluralism, discontinuity and heterogeneity.' (13) Nevertheless, he did not offer any alternatives. His form of Marxist ideals which promote a classless society in which anyone has the right to think ( in opposition to capitalistic oppression) contradicts his exclusive, elitist propaganda of maintaining intellectual status quo of the few.

Perhaps David has overlooked the importance of taking popular culture seriously. History has shown that left to its own device with no critic to debate its pros and cons, it has a damaging effect on politics and economics. Hasn't Scientology been a popular form of science-fiction based meditation on life before it took on a cultish personality? Now it has a very evil capitalistic(and hidden political) agenda all over its hands. Knowledge has been decentralised from the hands of the few (the autocrats, elites and the bourgeois) to the hands of the masses. On one hand, people could form theories that they fancy no matter how ridiculous. On another, the Occupy Wall Street, the Occupy London and Arab spring show that with the help of the power of interconnectivity and immediacy of social networking website and smart phones ( all the marvels of capitalism and globalism), ordinary people can rally each other to  remove dictators even without the help of grand theories of Marxism and whatnot.

(1)Time Magazine Mar 26 2006, Sex in the Syllabus by Lisa Cullen

(13)After Theory, by Terry Eagleton

Sin City Vs Sheiks Playground. Is Dubai the Las Vegas of the Middle East?

"Las Vegas was the intitutionalised wide-open town - an environment where retired Rotarians from deepest Indiana could carry on with pagan abandon, pulses pounding to the assembly-line clatter of a thousand slot machines. In Europe such opulent surroundings had been prerogative of the aristocracy; only in America was it available (at least in theory) to everyone "

Startdust Memories, J. Hoberman , 1996, Artforum International Magazine

"Once the manic burst of building has stopped and the whirlwind has slowed, the secrets

of Dubai are slowly seeping out. This is a city built from nothing in just a few wild

decades on credit and ecocide, suppression and slavery. Dubai is a living metal metaphor

for the neo-liberal globalised world that may be crashing – at last – into history."

The dark side of Dubai, Johann Hari, 07 Apr 2009, The Indpendent

Is Las Vegas Postmodernism gone wrong or is it a little bit more sinister than meets the eye? Much has been said and seen about Las Vegas in various media ad nauseum -  journals, books(some pulp, some academic) films and music. Indelible impressions of its 'iconic' buildings  representing myriad ancient civilisations juxtaposed cheek by jowl with disneyfied monuments have stayed in the minds of many visitors long past their trip. Although architects Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour addressed a particularly urbanistic  observations of Las Vegas in their highly seminal book Learning form Las Vegas, the controversy regarding the book has led to intense discourse that goes  beyond purely architectural and into individual space and experience such Air Guitar by David Hickey.  He homes in on it as a backdrop and canvas for the personal. We would like to believe, especially for those who have not stepped out of their ordinary homeland that Vegas is a well-conjured up fantasy that is just hyperreal, sexed-up by branding and marketing. But in actual fact, as Umberto Eco realized,  it is a 'real city' lived by ordinary citizens who strive on their own terms to pursue the American dreams or the equal chance of winning afforded by the many gambling opportunities.    

The economic engine of Vegas has been pumped  by a strange combination of adult entertainment and family-oriented simulation. This incongruous mix may be considered low-brow youthful culture that attracts retirees who did not experience bohemia or liberating adulthood and probably too crass to the liking of the bourgeoisie in upmarket New York, but Las Vegas, as lived by the working inhabitants, is very ordinary, stripped of formal social stratification. This seems to be the main pulling factor! Unlike the typical rich and gentrified American city where your wealth, values and heritage put you in the pecking order of class and status, Las Vegas seems to be blind to such differentiation.  There is a respect for individual expression of cynicism from physical decoration of human bodies all the way to the simple and honest interior and decorations. The 'homegrown visual culture' shows ordinary people can aspire towards unpretentious aesthetics with no pressure to live within societal norms of rules, virtue or status.

Dubai is Las Vegas on steroids. And more sinister unlike its Western cousin,whose vices are plain to see in a no-holds-barred, in-your-face face sort of way. Eerily enough, this is what happens if life immitates art as it is well-represented in the German expressionist cinema classic, the Metropolis made in 1927. In the movie, the ultra luxurious and vertigious skycrapers are inhabited by 'managers' in the futuristic mega-city Metropolis built by the blood, sweat and tears of those workers who lived and toiled underground. Similarly, in Dubai, there is no doubt it is built  by the' invisble hands'on 'Sand, Fear and Money'. Those of us who are ignorant  or have only been misinformed by the veil created by shimmering and glittering facades of this city's umpteenth, empty architectural spectacle via CNN's Inside  the Middle East segment, would be surprised there is a troika of 3 classes within the society whose medieval dictatorship is alive and kicking :1)the royal ruling Emiratis -  the elites who run the country a la corporation who buys its native people political submission via mass bribery 2)the expats, mostly Westerners working as managers, directors and CEOs of MNCs or state-owned enterprises, who turn a blind eye on human rights abuses (slave trade is one) and 3)the servant and manual labour class whose live precariously as underpaid workers with no hope of returning to their homelands as their passport are confiscated by their employers.

Las Vegas and Dubai make interesting comparisons as superlative cities built from scratch in the desserts but the two have stark contrasts. While both are outward expressions of what are humanly possible with whatever money can buy give-and-take a stretch on mother nature's fragile and extreme ecology, the Sin City triumphs as an endeavour in materialising a liveable metropolitan from a social point of view. Although Vegas has managed somewhat to shed its gangsterous past, its democratic society offers the ordinary people a chance to move upward.  Without a civil society that is built on democratic values, social equality and a relative sense of freedom to speak your mind, Dubai will be running on empty in the near future. In fact, signs have shown not just of a potential ecological disaster, but the recent financial crisis and the Arab Spring have provided impetus for the city to implode and undergo major social upheaval soon. 

Is parametric rhetoric an evil twin brother of speculative derivatives?

I must admit writing a blog is a daunting experience let alone giving a criticism on two essays by 2 writers not so well-know within the architectural academia (unless you are familiar with the Architects Journal writings and French leftist philosophy related to the May 1968 riots in Paris)on two topics that have become too frighteningly familiar by now: the global financial crisis(and its still rippling effects) and  Zaha Hadid's works.

But how do you connect the dots that join the two, seemingly, I mean financial crisis versus Zaha Hadid or rather her personality and her works or Badiou versus Meades. Thecommon thread that binds the two writers that I find is atheism. The former is a communist  thinker while the latter is a ardent champion of secularism. But then again, my knowledge is too shallow to debate on issues of theology or ideology. And here, we are more concerned with history and theory of architecture (the history bit is a deceit and the theory bit is not so theoretical!)Nevertheless,if  both articles are put under closer examination, a common theme emerges concerning hyperreality and the real, the complexity and incomprehensibility of financial market and architectural parametricism and the separation of a system in finance and architecture (both of which are autonomous in its rules and manipulations) with regard to society at large.

Badiou described the recent global financial crisis as a disaster movie being played in front of us. The main actors are the major politicians from the  advanced economies and their counterparts that ruled the bond markets, investment banks and the rating agencies.  But this belies the true human drama, the real as he claimed -  the truth of misery which one bears witness  among the lives of everyday people. Much of this is of course reflected  like a staple diet ad nauseum from the tabloid to serious journals and newspapers. So to frame it in more concrete terms, the financial crisis has destroyed a lot of businesses, crippled retirement savings and investments and the lives of the majority who are not involved in the crisis but were made to bail out the banks and the financial institutions as they were considered too big to fail.

Much of what Badiou had to say is informed by his leftist ideology shaped by thinkers like Guy Debord who was the founder of Situationist International. In Debord's theory, bureaucracy, mass media and capitalism and its myriad permutations are considered as 'spectacle', a kind of brainwashing whereby commodity and consumerism replaces authentic human relationship and independent thought. It is  true in the sense, that what the financial sells and represents are vague  fantasies or illusions dressed in fanciful terms like CDO's(collateralized debt obligations),CDS(credit default swaps) bond yields etc. Ordinary mortals like us would not be able to grasp such a complicated subject like this.

If we compare the complexity of financial markets, one begin to draw parallels with incomprehensibility of Zaha's works which many find quite stupendous, voluptuous or  out-of-this-world, stuffs  of which dreams are made. Even Zaha herself sometimes failed to articulate in lucid and plain English her thought processes with regards to her designs. I am not surprised that without experiencing her architecture, many layman would find her expressions a bunch of goobledygook. As Jonathan Glancey from the Guardian, reacted as a reaction to Roger Scrutons unfair claims against modernist architects like Zaha, "architecture can only truly be understood by experiencing its physicality, rather than whatever theory might underpin it."  

To be fair, many famous architects in her stature, regardless of their sex, sometimes have not fully understood what they have designed or the spatial effects that the buildings produced. One can argue that this is similar to great artists who are often stumped for words to describe their masterpieces.  But that does not mean that these wondrous spaces have always failed in their role to serve the end users, in terms of aesthetics to delight the senses or their usability. Also, Meades pointed out  that much of what Zaha's designs stand for represents originality or artistic vision that has been tested and won in competitions and as a reaction against the blandness of the copy-cat style of post-modernism and New Urbanism. If we always copy history, where goes the future and how original can the present be?

Both modern financial and architectural sector are in the words of Jonathan Meades “smugly hermetic world”. We are familiar with the players but we cannot describe the games that they play. What do common people know about sub-prime loans, securitizations and parameticism and constructivism? The world of jargon is so beguiling it can fool all of us. Also both the architectural and financial worlds are 'spectacles' in the form of big businesses - expensive museums to a wealthy collector  are bond and shares to a high-flying investor. Their complexities are only matched by the amounts or money and energy that are invested  in the manufacturing and creation of their products.

A redeeming feature in the Meades' article is the fact that it has been given a rather rationalistic outlook despite Meades many attempts to be rather subjective and to paint in poetic terms what Zaha's works actually means. He seems to be very sympathetic to the cause of modern architects (Zaha I presume subscribes to most of modernist ethos) in the face of classically-biased post-modernist ideology of Prince of Wales and his acolytes. However, in very emotional terms, Badiou seems to think that the communist past is an answer to the financial woes that the world is facing. Although it is important to remove the greedy and corrupt alliances between politics and capitalism, relying to the good-old days of pure philosophical thinking as a way of finding solutions to human problems  and  destroying both democracy and financial institutions that are centuries old and have proved effective though flawed would not do us any good .

Perhaps Zaha has made concrete fantastic architecture and relished in giving them brush strokes of metaphors and fantastic innuendoes which seem vague. Like the complex world of the global economic system, in terms of bringing down to social denominator, we are at loss in terms of expressing them in real feelings and human terms.