Referat Engleza - The Archigram Movement

Home \| BAC/Teze \| Biblioteca \| Jobs \| Referate \| Horoscop \| Muzica \| Dex \| Games \| Barbie					Search!

Index \| Forum \| E-mail
NOTA pentru REFERATE si ESEURI: Articolele prezentate in aceasta sectiune de referate au scop strict didactic. Ele sunt elaborate de profesori, elevi sau studenti care s-au documentat atent pentru elaborarea lor. Prezenta sectiunii de REFERATE in cadrul site-ului are un rol enciclopedic. Pagina de referate interzice strict predarea acestor materiale pentru orele de curs in gimnaziu, liceu sau facultate!




+ Click: Grupuri \| Newsletter \| Portal \| Ziare,Radio/TV \| Forum discutii \| Premii de excelenta \| Europa

< Inapoi la Cuprins Referate

ADAUGA UN REFERAT! - APASA AICI!

The Archigram Movement

Very little has been written about the visionary, predominantly British architectural movement, Archigram, since it first came to prominence in 1960. Of the scant texts available (of which many are in Japanese, as opposed to English), the authors generally attempt to describe this radical form of architecture only in terms of its designers/innovators - Ron Herron, Michael Webb, Warren Chalk and Dennis Crompton - and the ways in which it differs from the pre-existing traditions. The fascination of an architectural collective, members of which have envisioned leviathan walking cities (Ron Herron, Walking City, 1964), and people living inside bubbles (David Greene, Inflatable Suit-Home, 1968) compels one to question why academics and critics have not yet pursued more detailed studies in this subject area. The aim of the Archigram Group was not only to alter the way we envisage architecture; its members wanted to change civilisation on every possible level - physically, socially and culturally. Since reading Herbert Lachmayer's dissection of Archigram, which states that the movement proposes a `democratic emancipated capitalism, directed towards a humane working environment, pleasure-oriented consumption, and the pursuit of individual happiness', I have questioned the political motivations of the movement. It is my intention to examine one particular aspect of Archigram which has not to date been discussed in any great depth. In this study, I hope to speculate on the political stance of the Archigram movement as a whole, and to analyse the extent to which Archigram may be said to reflect the political and social climate of post-war consumer culture in the West. I will begin by interpreting the collision of two seemingly incompatible economic systems - communism/ socialism and capitalism - which Archigram represents, before moving on to a discussion of the elements of Futurism, Fascism and idealism inherent in the movement. I will also cite other relevant cultural events of the day, influences and world visions.
Drawn from his 1859 Critique of the Political Economy, communism as described by Karl Marx advocates a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production belong to the community, whereas socialism is an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned collectively by the community, usually through the state. In Leninist theory, socialism is a transitional stage in the development of a society from capitalism to communism. Marx perceived that the economy is the driving force behind all social change; that changes in the economic base affect the social superstructure - eg. the legal and education systems - which is raised upon it.

Many of Marx' and Engels' ideas appear to have indirectly influenced the proponents of Archigram. For example, Marx believed in the de-individualisation of society for the greater good. He maintained that a civilisation where everyone was equal, with the abolition of class systems, would lead to a better and more mutually productive society. The designs of Peter Cook and his contemporaries reflect to an extent these notions. They envisioned a society where everyone lived in non-static homes (Instant City, 1968), forging a close link between mobility and freedom. This idea of `travelling environments' would potentially allow settlements or communities to evolve undivided by social strata, with no suburbs or privileged areas. David Greene's Living Pods (1966) are akin to the modern caravan or mobile home - capsules that could move about freely, even underground, and be attached to any number of other pods to create a transient society. In an ideal situation, everyone, rich or poor, would have one of these living pods, and could connect themselves to any other pod, with no regard to social class, financial status etc., but we know from experience that people would soon look for other ways of expressing wealth and social standing. One negative criticism of `pod living' - and of communism itself - is its utilitarian nature and design, and the lack of opportunities for individual expression. It could be argued that, in the capitalist West, notions of de-individualisation, whether in regard to politics or architecture, were doomed to failure. The class system is a powerful divisive mechanism of western society, and attempts to overthrow it (I cite the examples of 20th century Communist Russia and China) have resulted in uneven structures of power, which benefit those at the top of the hierarchy, resulting in an Orwellian society, where `some are more equal than others'.

Another positive concept which links Archigram to communism is the regenerative potential it offers for post-war society. The designs and methods of the Archigram movement could supply a society in need of rapid regeneration following an extended period of conflict the means to rebuild itself, and make the provision of accommodation for a sudden and substantial influx of labour power. These designs could potentially have been implemented, for example, in the post-war years of the former German Democratic Republic, where whole cities lay in ruins, and the extensive construction of compact, practical, utilitarian housing was needed. However, it is important to note that very few of the Archigram designs were realised; prototypes of certain designs exist, but nothing was constructed on the grand scale which the architects themselves had envisaged. The spiralling cost of materials, and a lack of practical expertise, technology and physical resources in the post-war years meant that many designs were never likely to be realised. One could compare the situation of the early proponents of Archigram with that of the Soviet Constructivist architects during the Second World War - they, too, had neither the capital nor the resources to realise their designs. To compensate for this, the Soviet architects began to build scale models of their designs out of paper, which coined the term `Paper Architecture'. The Archigram architects may actually have been in a position to be able to build some of their designs, but no evidence exists to suggest that the physical means were at their disposal at the time to incorporate, for example, their ideas which utilised anti-gravity technology (Ron Herron, Anti-gravity Suit). Therefore, many of the Archigram designs remained as `architecture on paper', and never underwent construction and realisation. Perhaps the most powerful political and economical force in contemporary society is capitalism. The Oxford English Dictionary describes capitalism as an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. In other words, capitalism is an economic model that calls for control of the economy by individual households and privately owned businesses. Such economies include those of the United States and Great Britain. Capitalism is also known as free enterprise or modified free enterprise, because it permits people to engage in economic activities primarily free from government restraint. Despite its claims to exemplify a `democratic emancipated capitalism', it is not possible to argue that the Archigram movement is an entirely capitalist one. In fact, I have identified several instances in which Archigram embraces ideas that go against the capitalist ideology, and are more representative of communist or socialist ideals. However, there are definite indicators that many of the fundamental concepts of Archigram draw on entrepreneurial drives, and advocate a somewhat elitist link between knowledge, wealth, and power. Certain elements of Archigram designs would appear to provide benefits for a capitalist society. The walkways in Ron Herron's Walking City (1964), for example, serve the employer as well as the labour force. By enabling the workers to get to their place of employment more quickly, with no concern for traffic jams, businesses would save themselves money, and increase their productivity. More importantly, walkways give the illusion that they are created for the workers' convenience.

The idea of creating a society where people do not have to leave their homes to work also works to the capitalist advantage. Working from home and being self-employed are two concepts which have increased in importance in the modern labour market, but there is one fundamental difference between them. A self-employed worker is effectively in control of the means of production on a small scale, whereas the person who works at or from home opens their private domain of leisure and relaxation to exploitation on the labour market. Once again, the idea of working from home is portrayed as being convenient for the worker, making their working hours and conditions more flexible, but the real benefits are reaped by big businesses, as workers put in longer hours and reduce company overheads. As David Greene implies in his prologue to the guide Concerning Archigram, someone could be considered as being in their office when using a mobile phone for work-related purposes.

Another idea that could be said to correspond to capitalist ideology is the idea of renewable cities. Renewable cities, which could be founded in an instant, mushroom overnight, and be disbanded with ease, point to the importance of the mobility of workers in an increasingly global market. Here, architects could be employed to continually redesign buildings to satisfy the growing supply-and-demand philosophy so characteristic of 1960s London and New York - two of the most dominant capitalist cities in the world. Consumer culture is a prominent feature of capitalist societies, and encompasses everything from clothes to cars to buildings. Archigram saw the potential to profit from these fickle trends, and exploited them in their designs. For example, Dennis Crompton, Ron Herron and Peter Cook's Instant City consisted mainly of nightclubs, festivals and retail stores - but very little in the way of housing - the individual pleasure principle dominates, and the notions of community and the domestic sphere are secondary: Archigram [...] provides a new agenda where nomadism is the dominant social force; where time, exchange and metamorphosis replace stasis; where consumption, lifestyle and transience become the programme [...]

In 1960s Britain and America, those involved with sectors of commerce and those who owned the land on which industry was built wielded the most power - they owned the means of production. By offering the potential to build renewable cities, the architects of the Archigram movement cleverly created a niche for themselves in the market - they wanted to ensure that their creative impulses and their skills would be in demand for the foreseeable future. Like true capitalists, Archigram's ideas were largely based upon the necessity of making money and being competitive. In a complex discipline such as architecture, those with knowledge and experience in the field are able to choose to whom they make their specialist skills available (the highest bidder!), which again provides strong evidence that Archigram is in fact an architectural and artistic movement based largely on capitalist convictions.

Lachmayer's term `democratic emancipated capitalism' also posits a link with the idea of repressive tolerance, a rationale drawn from the objectives of Marx and Engels, and elaborated by the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School were a group of philosophers, theorists and critics - including Marcuse, Goldmann, Macherey, Adorno - who were determined to find an explanation as to why capitalist societies were failing to progress to socialism and communism, as Marx had predicted. The fundamental idea of repressive tolerance allows a person to believe they have a certain degree of freedom, but without the controlling powers actually relinquishing any of their authority. In his 1965 essay, entitled Repressive Tolerance, Herbert Marcuse states that: [...] within a repressive society, even progressive movements threaten to turn into their opposite to the degree to which they accept the rules of the game. To take a most controversial case: the exercise of political rights (such as voting) in a society of total administration serves to strengthen this administration by testifying to the existence of democratic liberties which, in reality, have changed their content and lost their effectiveness.

Here, Marcuse reveals the token gesture of voting under capitalist administration. We often talk about the importance of voting to exercise one's democratic rights, and in the same breath, condemn our `freedom of choice' as a choice between three different versions of the Conservative party! Repressive tolerance also works to a less overtly political agenda. To illustrate this, I will draw on Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World. Huxley depicts a sinister world where government agencies provide accommodation, full employment, entertainment, reproductive possibilities and even recreational drugs, for those who are conditioned to serve the system.

Those who `comply' are rewarded with illusions of pleasure and freedom as the government see fit to provide it. Many other cultural productions, some modern and some less so, advance a similar paranoiac world view: Fritz Lang's film Metropolis (1926), George Orwell's novel 1984 (1949), Alex Proyas' film Dark City (1998) and Andrew Niccol's Gattaca (1997).

So how does repressive tolerance relate to the politics of Archigram? The regeneration projects of the post-war years gave way to exciting innovations in all areas of cultural production. In 1960s Britain and America, car and home ownership were increasing, manufacturers found a new generation of consumers to appeal to in the realms of pop music and fashion, and the public and private spheres began to mingle to a greater extent than they had ever done before. The Archigram manifesto envisaged a society in which technology would create and allow integration of all facets of life. They sold an image to the populace, an image of work, consumerism, pleasure and happiness combining simultaneously to create a comfortable existence for the everyday family. It is easy to see how these ideas could be brought into the service of repressive tolerance - the proletariat is sold an illusion of ownership, of comfort and stability, of participation in democratic exchange, which conceals the fact that its members are not in control of the means of production. The aim of practising repressive tolerance is to prevent social revolution; to prevent the proletariat from (rightfully) claiming the means of production. Archigram could be regarded as being complicit in the perpetuation of this illusion - this, arguably, is the true nature of the `democratic emancipated capitalism' of which Lachmayer speaks.

Another historical and political movement that bears a striking resemblance to certain aspects of Archigram is the Fascist anti-artistic society of the Futurists. Arising in Italy in 1909, Futurism sought to replace traditional aesthetic values with the characteristics of the machine age. Like Archigram, Futurism was a short-lived movement, which appeared originally in the form of a written account of its aims and objectives, in this case by Fillippo Tommaso Marinetti, whose 1909 Futurist manifesto is mirrored by the 1961 Archigram manifesto, published by David Greene. There are yet more parallels between Futurism and Archigram. Neither movement can boast the talents of any female designers, reflecting again the masculinist dominance characteristic of capitalism. Whether this came about by accident or by design, one's attention is drawn to the exclusionary practices and the misogynistic arrogance of many of the Futurists. Could Heron, Crompton, Greene et al be guilty of the same exclusion, or is architecture, by its very nature, an (albeit decreasingly) male-dominated discipline?

By making a clean break from traditional architectural values, Archigram hoisted itself to the pinnacle of the truly avant-garde and truly modern. A part of this rejection of tradition and the architectural styles that had come before meant designing architecture that was disposable, that could be replaced the moment a better design could be implemented. The Futurists originally conceived of this principle, but took it one step further. They were interested only in the most immediate ideas of the world, and had little or no interest in anything - buildings, books, paintings - that had been created and canonised in the past, as is evidenced by this quotation:

A screaming automobile that seems to run on grapeshot, is more beautiful than the Winged Victory of Samothrace... we want to destroy museums, libraries, and academies... make war on moralism, feminism and [...] liberate this land from the fetid cancer of professors, archaeologists, guides and antiquarians.

As far as the Futurists were concerned, it was their duty to destroy anything that did not represent the spirit of the moment. However, erasure of the past can also be problematic, particularly in a Fascist context. Of course, the Archigram architects exhibit similar ideas regarding the preference of the modern over the antique, but they have not taken them to the extremes of the Futurists. One could argue that the Archigram architects removed the extreme right wing ideology and utilise the more admirable aspects of the Futurists attitude to cultural renewal. For example, the Futurists believed that war was the most effective way of creating a `clean slate', whereas Archigram advocates the use of existing and developing technologies to advance one step at a time. Perhaps the most productive similarity common to both Futurism and Archigram is their obsession with the future. As early as 1914, Antonio Sant'Elia began working on the first ever designs for Futurist architecture. Exhibiting under the title The New City, his designs might be regarded as a blueprint for the designs of Archigram, which has itself been described as a type of neo-Futurism. Archigram would take this fixation with the future much further. Its designers were creating in an exciting era of the world's long history. They were obsessed with creating something fresh and innovative, and with the rejection of accepted tradition, but unlike Futurism, this idea was based on profit, not on an anti-historical passion. When the Archigram group formed, architecture was still constrained by post-war administrative practices and dull functionalism, but the apprehensions of the immediate post-war period quickly gave way to a new era of hedonism with the end of rationing and the start of the economic boom. These positive developments were naturally reflected in the cultural output of the day, including its architecture. The 1960s were the years of the Space Race, and this only fuelled the desire to create something based entirely upon the great unknown of the universe, not to mention pitting the technologies of the capitalist West against the Soviets. Evidence of the influences of space-age technologies abound in Archigram designs: The use of antigravity technology and self-contained, mobile living environments for example, or Peter Cook's Plug-in City (1964), which could perhaps be plugged into David Greene's Logplugs and Rokplugs (1969) - a perfect balance between natural environment and technological advances. Capsules, robots, pods, skins and exoskeletons all feature. The very way in which the architects chose to illustrate their designs also combines imagination and technical ability - it is evocative of space-age cartoons (see, for example the cover to the 4th edition of the magazine Archigram) and accomplished technical drawings (eg. Peter Cook's Design for the Entertainments Tower, Montreal (1963)).

The proponents of Archigram would later claim that they intended to create a society in which people could shape their own lives and satisfy their own needs. To an extent, they were influenced by the growing sense of optimism in 1960s Britain - the designs of Archigram reflect the exciting possibilities which an era of great social change opened up, and are idealistic in that they naively represent a utopian balance between man, technology and the environment. The Archigram group's ardour does not even seem to have been dampened by the fact that they lacked the ability and/or the resources to realise their designs. The Archigram movement can be said to reflect the political and social climate of post-war consumer culture in the West in three main ways. Firstly, as I have shown, it represents the meeting-point of two conflicting ideologies or world systems - the capitalist, and the communist/socialist ideals - the so-called Cold War. Secondly, the `democratic emancipated capitalism' (as described by Lachmayer) to which Archigram lays claim could be a phrase which in fact describes repressive tolerance - which, contends Marcuse, explains why contemporary society has not been able to evolve to the `higher state' of communism. The designs of Archigram offer a curious amalgamation of the individual and the communal. They appear to provide all the conveniences and luxuries that one could wish for - they `give the people what they want', masking the fact that the freedom to travel to work is precious little freedom at all. It could be argued that designs such as Archigram architecture, which revolve around desire-based product, and supply and demand, induce political complacency, hindering further social advances. Finally, Archigram reflects many of the traits of current consumer culture, which identifies positive trends and attempts to fulfil demand by going `one step further', utilising all the available technologies, and constantly on the lookout for new potential markets. After riding on a tide of optimism in the 1960s, Archigram's greatest weakness has become its position as `architecture of the mind' - a great many of its designs are impractical, and cannot even be constructed by using modern technologies. Most of the Archigram designs - like teleportation and other space-age fantasies - are simply doomed never to be realised. However, they remain a source of inspiration, a testament to the power of the human imagination, and a time in history when it seemed as though anything were possible. In a new incarnation, and utilising all its creative potential, Archigram may even be able to carve a niche for itself in the new millennium.

Very little has been written about the visionary, predominantly British architectural movement, Archigram, since it first came to prominence in 1960. Of the scant texts available (of which many are in Japanese, as opposed to English), the authors generally attempt to describe this radical form of architecture only in terms of its designers/innovators - Ron Herron, Michael Webb, Warren Chalk and Dennis Crompton - and the ways in which it differs from the pre-existing traditions. The fascination of an architectural collective, members of which have envisioned leviathan walking cities (Ron Herron, Walking City, 1964), and people living inside bubbles (David Greene, Inflatable Suit-Home, 1968) compels one to question why academics and critics have not yet pursued more detailed studies in this subject area. The aim of the Archigram Group was not only to alter the way we envisage architecture; its members wanted to change civilisation on every possible level - physically, socially and culturally. Since reading Herbert Lachmayer's dissection of Archigram, which states that the movement proposes a `democratic emancipated capitalism, directed towards a humane working environment, pleasure-oriented consumption, and the pursuit of individual happiness', I have questioned the political motivations of the movement. It is my intention to examine one particular aspect of Archigram which has not to date been discussed in any great depth. In this study, I hope to speculate on the political stance of the Archigram movement as a whole, and to analyse the extent to which Archigram may be said to reflect the political and social climate of post-war consumer culture in the West. I will begin by interpreting the collision of two seemingly incompatible economic systems - communism/ socialism and capitalism - which Archigram represents, before moving on to a discussion of the elements of Futurism, Fascism and idealism inherent in the movement. I will also cite other relevant cultural events of the day, influences and world visions.
Drawn from his 1859 Critique of the Political Economy, communism as described by Karl Marx advocates a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production belong to the community, whereas socialism is an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned collectively by the community, usually through the state. In Leninist theory, socialism is a transitional stage in the development of a society from capitalism to communism. Marx perceived that the economy is the driving force behind all social change; that changes in the economic base affect the social superstructure - eg. the legal and education systems - which is raised upon it.

Many of Marx' and Engels' ideas appear to have indirectly influenced the proponents of Archigram. For example, Marx believed in the de-individualisation of society for the greater good. He maintained that a civilisation where everyone was equal, with the abolition of class systems, would lead to a better and more mutually productive society. The designs of Peter Cook and his contemporaries reflect to an extent these notions. They envisioned a society where everyone lived in non-static homes (Instant City, 1968), forging a close link between mobility and freedom. This idea of `travelling environments' would potentially allow settlements or communities to evolve undivided by social strata, with no suburbs or privileged areas. David Greene's Living Pods (1966) are akin to the modern caravan or mobile home - capsules that could move about freely, even underground, and be attached to any number of other pods to create a transient society. In an ideal situation, everyone, rich or poor, would have one of these living pods, and could connect themselves to any other pod, with no regard to social class, financial status etc., but we know from experience that people would soon look for other ways of expressing wealth and social standing. One negative criticism of `pod living' - and of communism itself - is its utilitarian nature and design, and the lack of opportunities for individual expression. It could be argued that, in the capitalist West, notions of de-individualisation, whether in regard to politics or architecture, were doomed to failure. The class system is a powerful divisive mechanism of western society, and attempts to overthrow it (I cite the examples of 20th century Communist Russia and China) have resulted in uneven structures of power, which benefit those at the top of the hierarchy, resulting in an Orwellian society, where `some are more equal than others'.

Another positive concept which links Archigram to communism is the regenerative potential it offers for post-war society. The designs and methods of the Archigram movement could supply a society in need of rapid regeneration following an extended period of conflict the means to rebuild itself, and make the provision of accommodation for a sudden and substantial influx of labour power. These designs could potentially have been implemented, for example, in the post-war years of the former German Democratic Republic, where whole cities lay in ruins, and the extensive construction of compact, practical, utilitarian housing was needed. However, it is important to note that very few of the Archigram designs were realised; prototypes of certain designs exist, but nothing was constructed on the grand scale which the architects themselves had envisaged. The spiralling cost of materials, and a lack of practical expertise, technology and physical resources in the post-war years meant that many designs were never likely to be realised. One could compare the situation of the early proponents of Archigram with that of the Soviet Constructivist architects during the Second World War - they, too, had neither the capital nor the resources to realise their designs. To compensate for this, the Soviet architects began to build scale models of their designs out of paper, which coined the term `Paper Architecture'. The Archigram architects may actually have been in a position to be able to build some of their designs, but no evidence exists to suggest that the physical means were at their disposal at the time to incorporate, for example, their ideas which utilised anti-gravity technology (Ron Herron, Anti-gravity Suit). Therefore, many of the Archigram designs remained as `architecture on paper', and never underwent construction and realisation. Perhaps the most powerful political and economical force in contemporary society is capitalism. The Oxford English Dictionary describes capitalism as an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. In other words, capitalism is an economic model that calls for control of the economy by individual households and privately owned businesses. Such economies include those of the United States and Great Britain. Capitalism is also known as free enterprise or modified free enterprise, because it permits people to engage in economic activities primarily free from government restraint. Despite its claims to exemplify a `democratic emancipated capitalism', it is not possible to argue that the Archigram movement is an entirely capitalist one. In fact, I have identified several instances in which Archigram embraces ideas that go against the capitalist ideology, and are more representative of communist or socialist ideals. However, there are definite indicators that many of the fundamental concepts of Archigram draw on entrepreneurial drives, and advocate a somewhat elitist link between knowledge, wealth, and power. Certain elements of Archigram designs would appear to provide benefits for a capitalist society. The walkways in Ron Herron's Walking City (1964), for example, serve the employer as well as the labour force. By enabling the workers to get to their place of employment more quickly, with no concern for traffic jams, businesses would save themselves money, and increase their productivity. More importantly, walkways give the illusion that they are created for the workers' convenience.

The idea of creating a society where people do not have to leave their homes to work also works to the capitalist advantage. Working from home and being self-employed are two concepts which have increased in importance in the modern labour market, but there is one fundamental difference between them. A self-employed worker is effectively in control of the means of production on a small scale, whereas the person who works at or from home opens their private domain of leisure and relaxation to exploitation on the labour market. Once again, the idea of working from home is portrayed as being convenient for the worker, making their working hours and conditions more flexible, but the real benefits are reaped by big businesses, as workers put in longer hours and reduce company overheads. As David Greene implies in his prologue to the guide Concerning Archigram, someone could be considered as being in their office when using a mobile phone for work-related purposes.

Another idea that could be said to correspond to capitalist ideology is the idea of renewable cities. Renewable cities, which could be founded in an instant, mushroom overnight, and be disbanded with ease, point to the importance of the mobility of workers in an increasingly global market. Here, architects could be employed to continually redesign buildings to satisfy the growing supply-and-demand philosophy so characteristic of 1960s London and New York - two of the most dominant capitalist cities in the world. Consumer culture is a prominent feature of capitalist societies, and encompasses everything from clothes to cars to buildings. Archigram saw the potential to profit from these fickle trends, and exploited them in their designs. For example, Dennis Crompton, Ron Herron and Peter Cook's Instant City consisted mainly of nightclubs, festivals and retail stores - but very little in the way of housing - the individual pleasure principle dominates, and the notions of community and the domestic sphere are secondary: Archigram [...] provides a new agenda where nomadism is the dominant social force; where time, exchange and metamorphosis replace stasis; where consumption, lifestyle and transience become the programme [...]

In 1960s Britain and America, those involved with sectors of commerce and those who owned the land on which industry was built wielded the most power - they owned the means of production. By offering the potential to build renewable cities, the architects of the Archigram movement cleverly created a niche for themselves in the market - they wanted to ensure that their creative impulses and their skills would be in demand for the foreseeable future. Like true capitalists, Archigram's ideas were largely based upon the necessity of making money and being competitive. In a complex discipline such as architecture, those with knowledge and experience in the field are able to choose to whom they make their specialist skills available (the highest bidder!), which again provides strong evidence that Archigram is in fact an architectural and artistic movement based largely on capitalist convictions.

Lachmayer's term `democratic emancipated capitalism' also posits a link with the idea of repressive tolerance, a rationale drawn from the objectives of Marx and Engels, and elaborated by the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School were a group of philosophers, theorists and critics - including Marcuse, Goldmann, Macherey, Adorno - who were determined to find an explanation as to why capitalist societies were failing to progress to socialism and communism, as Marx had predicted. The fundamental idea of repressive tolerance allows a person to believe they have a certain degree of freedom, but without the controlling powers actually relinquishing any of their authority. In his 1965 essay, entitled Repressive Tolerance, Herbert Marcuse states that: [...] within a repressive society, even progressive movements threaten to turn into their opposite to the degree to which they accept the rules of the game. To take a most controversial case: the exercise of political rights (such as voting) in a society of total administration serves to strengthen this administration by testifying to the existence of democratic liberties which, in reality, have changed their content and lost their effectiveness.

Here, Marcuse reveals the token gesture of voting under capitalist administration. We often talk about the importance of voting to exercise one's democratic rights, and in the same breath, condemn our `freedom of choice' as a choice between three different versions of the Conservative party! Repressive tolerance also works to a less overtly political agenda. To illustrate this, I will draw on Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World. Huxley depicts a sinister world where government agencies provide accommodation, full employment, entertainment, reproductive possibilities and even recreational drugs, for those who are conditioned to serve the system.

Those who `comply' are rewarded with illusions of pleasure and freedom as the government see fit to provide it. Many other cultural productions, some modern and some less so, advance a similar paranoiac world view: Fritz Lang's film Metropolis (1926), George Orwell's novel 1984 (1949), Alex Proyas' film Dark City (1998) and Andrew Niccol's Gattaca (1997).

So how does repressive tolerance relate to the politics of Archigram? The regeneration projects of the post-war years gave way to exciting innovations in all areas of cultural production. In 1960s Britain and America, car and home ownership were increasing, manufacturers found a new generation of consumers to appeal to in the realms of pop music and fashion, and the public and private spheres began to mingle to a greater extent than they had ever done before. The Archigram manifesto envisaged a society in which technology would create and allow integration of all facets of life. They sold an image to the populace, an image of work, consumerism, pleasure and happiness combining simultaneously to create a comfortable existence for the everyday family. It is easy to see how these ideas could be brought into the service of repressive tolerance - the proletariat is sold an illusion of ownership, of comfort and stability, of participation in democratic exchange, which conceals the fact that its members are not in control of the means of production. The aim of practising repressive tolerance is to prevent social revolution; to prevent the proletariat from (rightfully) claiming the means of production. Archigram could be regarded as being complicit in the perpetuation of this illusion - this, arguably, is the true nature of the `democratic emancipated capitalism' of which Lachmayer speaks.

Another historical and political movement that bears a striking resemblance to certain aspects of Archigram is the Fascist anti-artistic society of the Futurists. Arising in Italy in 1909, Futurism sought to replace traditional aesthetic values with the characteristics of the machine age. Like Archigram, Futurism was a short-lived movement, which appeared originally in the form of a written account of its aims and objectives, in this case by Fillippo Tommaso Marinetti, whose 1909 Futurist manifesto is mirrored by the 1961 Archigram manifesto, published by David Greene. There are yet more parallels between Futurism and Archigram. Neither movement can boast the talents of any female designers, reflecting again the masculinist dominance characteristic of capitalism. Whether this came about by accident or by design, one's attention is drawn to the exclusionary practices and the misogynistic arrogance of many of the Futurists. Could Heron, Crompton, Greene et al be guilty of the same exclusion, or is architecture, by its very nature, an (albeit decreasingly) male-dominated discipline?

By making a clean break from traditional architectural values, Archigram hoisted itself to the pinnacle of the truly avant-garde and truly modern. A part of this rejection of tradition and the architectural styles that had come before meant designing architecture that was disposable, that could be replaced the moment a better design could be implemented. The Futurists originally conceived of this principle, but took it one step further. They were interested only in the most immediate ideas of the world, and had little or no interest in anything - buildings, books, paintings - that had been created and canonised in the past, as is evidenced by this quotation:

A screaming automobile that seems to run on grapeshot, is more beautiful than the Winged Victory of Samothrace... we want to destroy museums, libraries, and academies... make war on moralism, feminism and [...] liberate this land from the fetid cancer of professors, archaeologists, guides and antiquarians.

As far as the Futurists were concerned, it was their duty to destroy anything that did not represent the spirit of the moment. However, erasure of the past can also be problematic, particularly in a Fascist context. Of course, the Archigram architects exhibit similar ideas regarding the preference of the modern over the antique, but they have not taken them to the extremes of the Futurists. One could argue that the Archigram architects removed the extreme right wing ideology and utilise the more admirable aspects of the Futurists attitude to cultural renewal. For example, the Futurists believed that war was the most effective way of creating a `clean slate', whereas Archigram advocates the use of existing and developing technologies to advance one step at a time. Perhaps the most productive similarity common to both Futurism and Archigram is their obsession with the future. As early as 1914, Antonio Sant'Elia began working on the first ever designs for Futurist architecture. Exhibiting under the title The New City, his designs might be regarded as a blueprint for the designs of Archigram, which has itself been described as a type of neo-Futurism. Archigram would take this fixation with the future much further. Its designers were creating in an exciting era of the world's long history. They were obsessed with creating something fresh and innovative, and with the rejection of accepted tradition, but unlike Futurism, this idea was based on profit, not on an anti-historical passion. When the Archigram group formed, architecture was still constrained by post-war administrative practices and dull functionalism, but the apprehensions of the immediate post-war period quickly gave way to a new era of hedonism with the end of rationing and the start of the economic boom. These positive developments were naturally reflected in the cultural output of the day, including its architecture. The 1960s were the years of the Space Race, and this only fuelled the desire to create something based entirely upon the great unknown of the universe, not to mention pitting the technologies of the capitalist West against the Soviets. Evidence of the influences of space-age technologies abound in Archigram designs: The use of antigravity technology and self-contained, mobile living environments for example, or Peter Cook's Plug-in City (1964), which could perhaps be plugged into David Greene's Logplugs and Rokplugs (1969) - a perfect balance between natural environment and technological advances. Capsules, robots, pods, skins and exoskeletons all feature. The very way in which the architects chose to illustrate their designs also combines imagination and technical ability - it is evocative of space-age cartoons (see, for example the cover to the 4th edition of the magazine Archigram) and accomplished technical drawings (eg. Peter Cook's Design for the Entertainments Tower, Montreal (1963)).

The proponents of Archigram would later claim that they intended to create a society in which people could shape their own lives and satisfy their own needs. To an extent, they were influenced by the growing sense of optimism in 1960s Britain - the designs of Archigram reflect the exciting possibilities which an era of great social change opened up, and are idealistic in that they naively represent a utopian balance between man, technology and the environment. The Archigram group's ardour does not even seem to have been dampened by the fact that they lacked the ability and/or the resources to realise their designs. The Archigram movement can be said to reflect the political and social climate of post-war consumer culture in the West in three main ways. Firstly, as I have shown, it represents the meeting-point of two conflicting ideologies or world systems - the capitalist, and the communist/socialist ideals - the so-called Cold War. Secondly, the `democratic emancipated capitalism' (as described by Lachmayer) to which Archigram lays claim could be a phrase which in fact describes repressive tolerance - which, contends Marcuse, explains why contemporary society has not been able to evolve to the `higher state' of communism. The designs of Archigram offer a curious amalgamation of the individual and the communal. They appear to provide all the conveniences and luxuries that one could wish for - they `give the people what they want', masking the fact that the freedom to travel to work is precious little freedom at all. It could be argued that designs such as Archigram architecture, which revolve around desire-based product, and supply and demand, induce political complacency, hindering further social advances. Finally, Archigram reflects many of the traits of current consumer culture, which identifies positive trends and attempts to fulfil demand by going `one step further', utilising all the available technologies, and constantly on the lookout for new potential markets. After riding on a tide of optimism in the 1960s, Archigram's greatest weakness has become its position as `architecture of the mind' - a great many of its designs are impractical, and cannot even be constructed by using modern technologies. Most of the Archigram designs - like teleportation and other space-age fantasies - are simply doomed never to be realised. However, they remain a source of inspiration, a testament to the power of the human imagination, and a time in history when it seemed as though anything were possible. In a new incarnation, and utilising all its creative potential, Archigram may even be able to carve a niche for itself in the new millennium.

NOTA IMPORTANTA: ARTICOLELE PUBLICATE IN PAGINA DE REFERATE AU SCOP DIDACTIC SI SUNT ELABORATE IN URMA UNEI DOCUMENTARI SUSTINUTE. ESTE STRICT INTERZISA PRELUAREA ARTICOLELOR DE PE SITE SI PREZENTAREA LOR LA ORELE DE CURS. Referatele din aceasta sectiune sunt trimise de diferiti colaboratori ai proiectului nostru. Referatele va sunt prezentate pentru COMPLETAREA STUDIULUI INDIVIDUAL, si va incurajam si sustinem sa faceti si voi altele noi bazate pe cercetari proprii.

Daca referatele nu sunt de ajuns, va recomandam pagina de download gratuit, unde veti gasi prezentari PowerPoint, programe executabile, programe pentru bacalaureat, teze nationale, etc.

JOB-Studenti.ro

Oportunitati si locuri de munca pentru studenti si tineri profesionisti - afla cele mai noi oferte de job!

OnlineStudent.ro

Viata in campus: stiri, burse, cazari, cluburi, baluri ale bobocilor - afla totul despre viata in studentie!

StudentCV.ro

Dezvoltare personala pentru tineri - investeste in tine si invata ponturi pentru succesul tau in cariera!

> Contribuie la proiect - Trimite un articol scris de tine

Gazduit de eXtrem computers | Project Manager: Bogdan Gavrila (C)

Toate Drepturile Rezervate - ScoalaOnline Romania

Home \| BAC/Teze \| Biblioteca \| Jobs \| Referate \| Horoscop \| Muzica \| Dex \| Games \| Barbie					Search!

Index \| Forum \| E-mail
NOTA pentru REFERATE si ESEURI: Articolele prezentate in aceasta sectiune de referate au scop strict didactic. Ele sunt elaborate de profesori, elevi sau studenti care s-au documentat atent pentru elaborarea lor. Prezenta sectiunii de REFERATE in cadrul site-ului are un rol enciclopedic. Pagina de referate interzice strict predarea acestor materiale pentru orele de curs in gimnaziu, liceu sau facultate!




+ Click: Grupuri \| Newsletter \| Portal \| Ziare,Radio/TV \| Forum discutii \| Premii de excelenta \| Europa