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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
On Communist Supervillains, Cognitive Dissonance, and IQ.
1 . Communist Supervillains.
Somewhere on the motte I found a link to a 1983 Harvard debate between architects Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. The debate was shocking not only for its content, but for its clarity and its age. It made me do some thinking about communism, cognitive dissonance and IQ. Hence this post.
Alexander and Eisenman are/were eminent architects and professors of architecture. In the debate, Alexander explains his philosophy of architecture. Alexander focuses on harmony. He explains how important it is for the building to accomplish its purpose, for the persons who use the building to literally feel comfortable in whatever that purpose might be. Alexander also explains his process (iteration and full-scale mock up) of achieving that harmony. If the purpose of a square is to provide students a place to relax and feel free from distraction, the square must actually create that mental state. There must be harmony between these things.
Eisenman is a deconstructivist (socialist). Eisenman views the creation of disharmony as a moral imperative. Eisenman explains that architecture is meant to make people psychologically (and sometimes physically) uncomfortable. Buildings must literally impose psychic harm and pain on the people who view and use the building, or it has failed its purpose. An architect has a moral imperative to create such pain among the populous.
This is real supervillain shit. Eisenman is an influential architect, part of a whole school of architecture, who spends his time, and his students time, and untold sums of money, refining their skill at creating buildings that are mathematically ugly, disharmonious, and cause psychological pain to those who view and occupy them. And he explains all of this in absolutely clear and calm language.
Now, for students of socialism, Eisenman's outlook is not noteworthy. Socialists of all stripes are notorious for compulsively committing their thoughts and plans to paper or speeches. However, for me, the Alexander v Eisenman debate highlights the absence of public backlash. At least, not enough to prevent them from making such buildings.
You would think that if an architect responded to a city's call for plans for a new middle school building and said '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,' that his plan would be immediately rejected and that he would probably suffer some sort of social consequences. Apparently, that is not the case. Apparently, you can successfully make that pitch without much trouble.
How is that possible?
2 . IQ
My first hypothesis is that a sufficient number of persons are literally incapable of comprehending these words and ideas, even when spoken plainly and directly. However, I am not familiar enough with the IQ literature to validate this hypothesis.
I am familiar with the basics of literacy levels. As you can see, the levels come with clear examples, and explain what a person at a given level can or cannot understand. If Eisenman's statements were written, then we could plug them into the levels, and determine who would understand.
However, I am interested in who could understand Eisenman's plain statements regardless of medium (written, spoken, etc.). What IQ would be necessary to understand the statement 'I am an architect. I build buildings that harm your mind.'? Does anyone have a source which equates IQ scores with conceptual understanding in a manner similar to the literacy levels?
3. Cognitive Dissonance
My second hypothesis is that sufficiently many people do understand what's going on when they encounter socialists like Eisenman extolling their plans to do evil, but that a majority of those people with an IQ sufficient to understand in theory, are in fact blinded by cognitive dissonance. That is to say, most people's minds will not let them take seriously the idea that whole departments of people believe that turning buildings into psychic weapons is a moral imperative. Even when the evil doers state their intentions plainly and have a decades (millennia) long history of success.
Edit: Adding a comment I made downthread. I rest my case.
@sansampersamp is an architect. Let's see what he has to say about 'where architecture has gone' since Eisenman.
Okay. What does Gage say?
There might be some youngsters or non-english speakers in the audience. Let's double check the essence of Lovecraft:
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.
It’s interesting, because I can see a lot of myself in both of these guys.
Although I’m retired from performing, at various points I have been a musician, an actor, and dabbled in playwriting. And having gone to school with other artists, I’ve been a part of numerous conversations about art - what is art, is art inherently transgressive, what is the nature of the tension between art and entertainment, is it an artist’s responsibility to expand consumer’s horizons, etc. - and I’ve always found myself somewhere in between the two extremes. The dispute between Alexander and Eisenman mirrors the tension within myself. (“Inside you there are two wolves. One is Christopher Alexander, the other is Peter Eisenman…”)
I love pop music. Even the most cloyingly generic, harmonically predictable, lyrically lowbrow, etc. However, I also listen to metal, although far less often than I used to in high school and college. Now, even within the framework of “heavy metal” (which is actually a pretty wide umbrella term encompassing a large variety of sub-genres) I generally prefer music that is slickly-produced, with tightly-controlled and non-dissonant vocals, whether clean or unclean. Listening to metal is a good outlet for feelings of frustration and disharmony, but it is best when it provides catharsis and resolution of those feelings, rather than exacerbating them.
I’ve had arguments with friends who are into far more intentionally-bizarre-and-alienating music than I am, and I find myself taking the Christopher Alexander position: Why is bad for music to make people feel good? Why would you listen to something that’s designed to be grating? What is the point of Merzbow and Melt Banana? Theres some mental block within me, as there is in Christopher Alexander, that renders it impossible for me to even comprehend or model the mental state of someone who enjoys that stuff. Yet conversely, when I talk to someone who hates metal music, I find myself in more of the Eisenman stance, explaining why some level of dissonance can actually act as a sort of beauty in itself, by providing contrast to more harmonious and pleasant feelings. A more nuanced and varied palate is good for everyone, right? The world can’t all be sunshine and rainbows all the time. Where’s your outlet for negativity?
When it comes to movies, I’m far far closer to the Eisenman stance. I just get almost nothing out of the predictable Dashing Virtuous Hero Defeats Evil Villain and Saves the Princess story, unless it is executed absolutely masterfully. I have said multiple times (with only a bit of exaggeration) that I never want to watch another movie with a happy ending. Not that I don’t think such movies should be made! I believe that the common people need and crave that style of entertainment, and I don’t want such things taken from them. But I’m very happy that some filmmakers still throw a bone to people like me who like our films challenging, ambivalent, stimulating, and nihilistic.
This sometimes gets me into fights with smart people of a more conservative bent, who lament the very existence of non-didactic art. They seem to believe that all art exists (or should exist) to promulgate pro-social narratives about virtue. But where does that leave people like me, who are more comfortable inhabiting mental states full of tension and anxiety and alienation? They can’t understand what anyone would get out of watching Seinfeld (a show about nothing!) or the films of Woody Allen. They can’t comprehend why someone would want to watch Requiem For A Dream. Well, they can stick to watching the ninety-fifth installment of The Fast And The Furious, but I’m happy that they haven’t yet succeeded in stamping out all art that doesn’t comport with their preferences.
So then we get to the question of: is architecture an art in the same way? Does it contain philosophical and discursive content, such that an architect who merely gives the unwashed masses what they claim to want is the equivalent of a musician who writes nothing but (as John Lennon accused Paul McCartney of doing) “writing silly love songs.” Clearly there’s nothing wrong with a musician who writes abrasive or unhappy or disharmonious music, so long as he doesn’t force everyone to listen to it. A building is different, though, because everyone who passes by it is forced to look at it. And when it’s a building that people are forced to look at every day, because it’s in a busy area, or it’s a government building that people have to interact with against their will, there is absolutely an element of forceful psychic harm being done to people. Like strapping them to a chair and blasting Dying Fetus at them all day.
But then, what does that mean for a man like Peter Eisenman? His chosen art form is architecture, and that’s what matters to him. Should he be forced to live in a city where there are no buildings that suit his tastes? Where all buildings are harmonious (and all music is David Guetta, and every film is a Disney movie) and he is treated like a villain for wishing to introduce some element of his own tastes into it?
In the debate, Eisenman says he’s very happy to be able to live in New York City, where there are eight million people who feel the same way as he does. This is interesting to me because I nearly moved to NYC, I had an overall great experience when I spent a week there in 2016, but it had never occurred to me that the thing people actually like about the city is all of the disorder and disharmony. Those seemed like things everyone agreed were unfortunate downsides that one must suffer through in order to access all the better things about the city. I never thought there was any serious number of people who embraced the chaos and disorder - the graffiti, the cacophony of car horns and unintelligible conversations, the mishmash of architectural eras, the homeless zombies and the occasional smell of human urine and shit - as a positive good! And it occurred to me, hearing Eisenman say that, that there are probably people who have the power to make NYC less disharmonious, but choose not to because they want the city to be a refuge for those like them who have disordered internal lives and who want their external world to mirror that disorder.
I think that people like Eisenman - and people like me, when I’m in one of my more disagreeable moods - need and deserve to have the opportunity to indulge their own tastes and to see them reflected in at least some small corner of the world. The problem is giving them immense power to force their tastes onto the great mass of people who will be harmed by them against their will. If people want to seek out novelty and disharmony, it should be there for them to find. It shouldn’t be the first thing people see every day when they exit their front doors. It shouldn’t be shoved down their throats every day. And if Eisenman feels that he is having treacly vapid harmony shoved down his throat every day, then he needs to suck it up and come to grips with the responsibility that a minority has to the majority around it.
To force this off on a tangent, please let me have some examples of this:
If you had a few more mainstream and a few less mainstream examples, that would be great. (I have some ideas — e.g. Taxi Driver, Dog Day Afternoon, Paris Texas — but love to hear of this is on the right track or you have completely different ideas.)
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure I associate this with the “inflict psychic pain” category. I’m more in the camp of “this describes a difficult but likely universal experience”.
Uncut Gems is my ur example of a painful movie done well. European or Japanese torture porn, even the very basic example of Trainspotting, is emotional masturbation for nihilists. Technical competence for actors can be displayed in the grey experiential spaces between saturday morning cartoons and A Serbian Film, but a great performance can be teased out in relatively benign normie works like Marriage Story or even Jojo Rabbit. Depressing films don't automatically translate to quality scripts, unless we assign said value to it on our own preference matrix.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link