Case Study Homes

[imomus]

Watching Voyage Big City Life Tokyo, a French documentary looking at six Tokyo interiors, I couldn't help remembering Robert Venturi's maxim "less is a bore". With the honourable exception of Audrey Fondecave's Nakameguro house, the Tokyo living spaces shown are cold, anal, expensive and depressingly 80s-minimalist, devoid of colour, decoration, flashes of imagination, even signs of habitation. For the most part, they look like pricey, uninspired furniture outlets; upmarket, uptight and bourgeois. "Everything in a line, and simple, I think that's the style of our time," says furniture designer Fumio Takashima.



He's wrong. "Everything in a line, and simple" -- with excessive fear of clutter, decoration, and irregularity -- is not the style of our time. It's Modernism, and it began roughly a hundred years ago and ended about fifty years ago. Venturi, in fact, was one of the first to end the style, hailing the haphazard clutter and irrational cheerfulness of Californian strip signage. His motto about less being a bore became one of the key statements of Postmodernism. If we're now in a new era that dares to re-invent Modernism, we're attracted to its provincial quirks (see yesterday's entry on Vladimir Ossipoff) and a certain peely-queasy historical patina it's acquired.



So what would I champion as "the style of our time", if this French documentary got it so wrong? Well, I think the style of our time -- certainly the thing that catches my eye and inspires me -- is a different form of clutter. Not Venturi's postwar American commercial clutter of donut stalls and cheap motels, but the developing world clutter of shanty towns and street food. These are the new global grassroots of style, and advanced designers like Mike Meiré are right to be taking cues from them, and to be utterly bored with the kind of anal minimalism on display in the french documentary on Tokyo.



A case study? Well, how about Peter Bialobrzeski's series Case Study Homes? Bialobrzeski took the pictures illustrating this entry early last year in the Philippines, at the Baseco compound, a shanty camp located at a shipyard on the Pasig River, near Manila's port. The pictures, taken with a 4x5 format camera and currently on show in an exhibition at L.A. Galerie Lothar Albrecht in Frankfurt, have a double function. They show the conditions of life for approximately 45% of the population of Manila, who live in substandard squat conditions. But they also inspire aesthetically, displaying amazing inventiveness and endless formal variation.



Now, from a certain perspective, to declare a shanty town beautiful, inspiring or "the style of our time" seems amoral, even immoral -- an endorsement of poverty. It's a bit like defending child cotton picking in Uzbekistan or wondering why we can't all live in an "optimal breeding tunnel" designed for cattle. Surely, runs this argument, we ought to be lifting everyone out of poverty, not taking tips from it? At the weekend one disgruntled Anon commented: "Why does Momus refuse to make and spend money? ...I've never quite worked out how cheap = "more noble" or even "left wing". And it sure isn't "trendy". There are as many cliches in the flea market bars as there are in wine bars."



My answer is that "Ferraris for all" just doesn't work in a world where we're already consuming too many resources. At some point we need to take a leaf from the book of the poor. That doesn't mean live in shanty towns, but it does mean live more modestly, and be more resourcefully resource-sparing. Shanty towns are exemplary recyclers, and have extremely modest environmental footprints. Then there are the aesthetic arguments. To me, this stuff looks very interesting, and I'd like to see it become (as Mike Meiré and others are helping it become) the style of our times. I'd also like it to be improved so that it, you know, keeps the rain out. Perhaps some ingenious Japanese architects (Shigeru Ban has been on the case for decades, so have Lacaton and Vassal) have some ideas about how to make better dwellings out of paper, card, beercrates and bamboo? Perhaps -- should this style really be embraced globally -- some of those ideas will trickle down to Manila, and help shanty town dwellers there keep the rain out?

What won't help them, for sure, is the argument that they should all aim to drive Ferraris. If the style of the global poor (which, Bialobrzeski's photos show, is not an impoverished style, aesthetically speaking) becomes the style of our times, a wider embrace of improved versions of these forms and techniques will, I think, end up helping the poor -- and the world -- a lot more than telling them the style of the rich can somehow become their style. I'm as sick of that particular lie as I'm bored with minimalism.

Comments

[dogsolitude-v2.livejournal.com]

As I think I mentioned on a previous post of yours, I would love to build my own home, to my own specifications and with my own unique 'look'.

However the main thing that appeals to me is the idea of a simpler life. Lately life's been remarkably stress free: aside from finding a job, I've not had that horrid white-noise voice of consumerism whispering in my ear that everyone will think I'm crap if I don't have a quad-band Nokirola MK-Ultra. Most folk seem to have calmed down about the Latest Must Have Gadgets and Handbags of late.

So a simple life where I own my own home and therefore have the security of not being subject to possible eviction every six months would definitely be the way forward!

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I think it's definitely a recessionary idea that the poor, rather than the rich, are the taste-makers. And that's the idea that this entry endorses. It's difficult to persuade people you're not horribly immoral making this point, though, because the ideology of opportunity, aspiration, and endless economic growth is so deeply embedded in our mentality and our rhetoric, and has been during the whole post-war period. It's almost treason to talk about controlled slowdown. But, like you, I'm finding a great deal of comfort in the current conditions, the de-aspiration (which is different from desperation). I wish people had embraced the new direction by choice, but they're embracing it by necessity, and -- being people -- they'll find the silver lining.

[(Anonymous)]

The mindset that births this view - that the poor would be better of adopting the western model of suburbian rich, that, surely, they must strive to live like us - is what I despise. It's a certain kind of ignorant arrogance (that's two words that often come as a pair). Sure, the poorer people of Manila do have a good amount of possibilities to improve their lives. Shacks that keep the rain outside are one important example. But to think there's a crucial disadvantage in life for them if they can't reach the Ferrari-driving lifestyle is of such mindless decadence.

The more interesting remark the anon made about your lifestyle was how ""socialist" is it to contribute as little as humanly possible in terms of tax, charity, keeping the wheels turning, keeping other people in jobs". Now there's nothing wrong cherrypicking parts of troll-ish comments, but I'd have liked to see you reply to this remark. I'm sure it would have involved explaining how you repay the city in a "cultural currency".

Oh, and let me thank you for blogging and making music. My life would be a bit poorer (the cultural kind of poor) if you didn't.

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

Oh, come on, Momus. I would agree with your argument if you were actually treating the strawman fairly (which is to say, if it weren't a strawman in the first place). Assisting those in poverty does not = promoting the idea that everybody should be driving a Ferrari. There is a pretty enormous middle ground that you just completely ignore.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with your premise that we can find interesting and useful things in the designs of shanty towns. After all, we can find useful and interesting things most anywhere. But I still can't help but get a sinking feeling when, in response to decades of stuffy, bourgeois modern design, we suddenly do a 180 and praise the "interesting," "inventive" design-by-necessity of the impoverished. There's something terribly patronizing and vulgar about it.

There is a sort of imperialism to stepping in and saying "Oh, what color? What materials? This is fantastic!" when those matters are likely tertiary--secondary, at best--to the people making these structures. It's vulgar because you're avoiding the 800lb gorilla in the room, which is the fact that these people are living hand to mouth.

So sure, find inspiration everywhere. I'm all for that. But I think there's room for sensitivity, and I think it's also important not to exoticize or romanticize abject poverty in the process. There is, after all, a pretty huge gap between abject poverty and rolling around in a Ferrari. Not in the slightest does refusing to do the former mean promoting the latter.

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

Abject poverty and "controlled slowdown" are not the same thing. People in abject poverty don't have the ability, by and large, to "control" anything, and the entire purpose of a "controlled slowdown" isn't to live in abject poverty anyway. The point is to live at a stable, sustainable rate of consumption. The people who live in those shanties need a "controlled speed-up," if anything.

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

And also, I think there is this misguided notion we have that those in poverty somehow exist in this free realm outside of capitalism, when in fact, capitalism exists, in part, because these people exist to receive less than their fair portion of the equally-divvied-up proceeds. It's foolish to position them outside the world of aspiration--of Ferrari daydreams--especially since this has, historically speaking, been the condition that keeps them content with their lot in life (content enough not to organize and force an alternative, anyway).

The Solar Eye

[(Anonymous)]

your opinions have merit and while i agree that "ferraris for all" is a repulsive idea, i would think that minimalism can gesture toward a less consumptive lifestyle, like the begging bowl of the monk. But what i really want to object to is your defaming of the Solar Eye by repeatedly using the 'anal' in a negative context! Why must this most humble of orifices suffer such slander?

[(Anonymous)]

But you seemed to be a big fan of "anal minimalism" when writing about the Photographer's Gallery not long ago: "A white-walled, evenly-lit space with a simple form factor puts me at ease;" etc.

Although it fits better with the standard Classicism-Romanticism-Modernism-Postmodernism narrative that minimalism died 50 years ago, it's patently untrue. In fact in the heyday of postmodernism in the 80s, sleek matt-black and white minimalism was clearly the aspirational style for the budding loft-dweller, before bleeding through to the design-conscious middle classes via Heals and Habitat, and then finally in the nineties infecting everyone via IKEA. And I'm guessing IKEA and its acolytes might even get a second wind in these recessionary times.

Bataille

[me.jdcasten.info (from livejournal.com)]

Does this bring up the issues of casual vs. formal and clutter vs. austerity?— I wonder if these tensions are related to poverty vs. power (think, “formal occasions” and military uniforms and church ceremonies, etc. vs. say, the later poetry of William Blake or the art of Hieronymus Bosch or the sketches of Hokusai). This is what seems so predictable about so many gallery and museum spaces (even on the internet)—trying to be an empty space for the art. Ditto for the office atmosphere of many (wealthy) homeowners.

Shanty towns, beyond utilizing recycling and lower ecological footprints, demonstrate a lot character—similar as many of these dwellings are, they don’t all look the same—like so many US suburbs that look like an old Flintstones episode where a car drives past the same house again and again. Maybe a compromise might be something like the Winchester House? (Just kidding):

http://bit.ly/80yxg

Will Momus catch the flu?

[(Anonymous)]

Swell post - thanks. You got the flu yet? I think you'll avoid it. I hear minimal living helps prevent the virus.....

Re: Will Momus catch the flu?

[me.jdcasten.info (from livejournal.com)]

Or a spring break in Cancun?

[(Anonymous)]

That doesn't mean live in shanty towns, but it does mean live more modestly, and be more resourcefully resource-sparing.

Says the man who just flew to Frankfurt and back! Does this mean you will be cutting back on the air miles, Momus? Or are your homilies only for others?

Re: Bataille

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

Isn't there also a contradiction in saying that we should live more simple, less materialistic lives, and then advocating "clutter," which requires that we have the possessions necessary to fulfill that role?

Re: Will Momus catch the flu?

[(Anonymous)]

I am surprised that Swiftcover (insurance company) went with Iggy Pop as their new face, they say they chose him for his wild lifestyle - I thought Momus would have made Iggy look like a quaker, note, not a shaker, in comparison....He eats flu for breakfast does our Momus. Although I'm expecting a post in relation to the outbreak soon and very soon

Re: Bataille

[me.jdcasten.info (from livejournal.com)]

“Clutter” can also be “ornament” on what we need– and it can also be virtual. I like the idea of Feng Shui, but Wabi-Sabi appeals more to my sensibility.

Re: Bataille

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

Sure, but it can also be an excess of material goods not set out in an organized or neat fashion.

[(Anonymous)]

I think minimalism is a great thing for creative people who are surrounded by their creative clutter to aspire to ( i am guilty as charged) because anyone who engages with the world as fully as possible is always going to be surrounded by clutter - they will simply never achieve minimalism, and they know it, so its easy to aspire to it. You would literally have to prioritise minamilism ahead of being open & experiencing the world & i suspect thats something only (imho) some germans & japanese can achieve... but at what cost?
'look at my nice empty space, it has nothing in it, just like me'

i aspire to also be an empty person, but i fail every day

x.binomial

Re: Bataille

[me.jdcasten.info (from livejournal.com)]

A possible, but not necessary contradiction. I’m constantly re-organizing what little clutter I have.

[dogsolitude-v2.livejournal.com]

Abject poverty and "controlled slowdown" are not the same thing.

I don't think they have to be. One thing providing inspiration for another doesn't mean that both things have to be identical.

The lives of the poor may be somewhat unpleasant compared to what you and I may be used to, but they serve as a reminder that it is possible to get by on less.

I do agree with you that the folks in the Shanties need to be able to 'keep the rain out' as Momus puts it (in all probability they will probably need decent healthcare and a few other things too), however there's a lot we can learn about leading a simpler life from those who have less than we do.

As an aside, I'm currently unemployed (again!) and have discovered that it's possible to live on very little indeed. I've discovered the joys of Zen cuisine in the process (Shojin Ryori FTW), and generally not buying anything. It's a great feeling liberating yourself from the self-imposed burden of consumption.

Oddly, I'm even managing to save money from my Jobseeker's Allowance...

[(Anonymous)]

I have too much stuff. I
recently moved home to my
parent’s house after being
at university for several years,
and well, lets just say packing
was tough. And now I am
thinking about finding somewhere
to live, but what to do
with all my possessions? What
to do with my new space?
One thing is for sure; if I
wanted to i would have no
problem filling it. I am only 22,
yet I have enough ‘stuff’ to last
me a lifetime.
So what kind of things are
we talking about here? Well
for a start clothes. Then there
is shoes - how much room
do shoes take up?! Its crazy.
Records, CD’s, DVD’s, Tv’s,
books, guitars, computers, artwork, chairs, desks,
skateboards, footballs, bikes.
Oh do you own a lot of that stuff too? I thought you
might. You see until you actually sit down and think
about it, or in my case try and pack it all, you forget
just how much stuff you have, and still use. I say I
gather things, but in all honesty I use everything I
have mentioned. Well are we alright then? Can we be
satisfied that it’s acceptable to have lots and lots of
stuff, it can’t be doing us any harm now can it?
One man who thinks little of ‘stuff’ is theorist Paul
Graham, who once wrote an essay on it, in which he
stated, “A house full of stuff can be very depressing.
A cluttered room saps one’s spirits. One reason,
obviously, is that there’s less room for people in a
room full of stuff. But there’s more going on than that.
I think humans constantly scan their environment to
build a mental model of what’s around them. And the
harder a scene is to parse, the less energy you have
left for conscious thoughts. A cluttered room is literally
exhausting.”
I don’t want to be exhausted, far from it. If Graham is
right then maybe we all need to rethink our possessions.
Disposable incomes and modern technology has allowed
us to both gather more and throw out more, it’s
just like population, as some are born, others die, the
only problem is we are clinging on to things that have
died a death. Take CD players for example. No need.
Do you own a CD player and a laptop? I know I do.
Pointless really. It’s time to take action.
Graham is right - when you spend your whole life
scanning areas crammed with clutter you are doing
just that, looking at the clutter - when you don’t have
to think about your surroundings you can get on with
living.
As artists we must realise the need to use our minds
in creative ways, not mulling over dusty books in a
corner. So I have an idea. Firstly eBay. I am going to
sell sell sell, and then buy buy buy. Not clutter - but
beautiful furniture, practical and ergonomic sideboards,
and perfectly rectangular coffee tables (The
ones which don’t have room for magazines to be
stacked.) I wish to be minimal, not because it looks
cool, but because it makes sense. When you live in a
minimal environment, as Graham says, you don’t get
exhausted, and why now would I want to lavish that
upon myself? What is the best use of space...well just
space.

[grzeg.livejournal.com]

Just to point out the irony of the name: Case Study Houses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Study_Houses), the experimental homes designed to reinvent the typical middle-class American dwelling to be inexpensive and efficient, today on the Hollywood Hills fetch a market price of over 3 million dollars, the pinnacle of 'bling' culture.

You address the problem of aestheticizing poverty (http://imomus.livejournal.com/281748.html), and that we can Learn from Lagos, Manila, Rio, etc.; architecture can’t save the world, but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t try: Ban, Mockbee, and Lacaton & Vassal should be applauded.

To echo (http://krskrft.livejournal.com/profile)krskrft (http://krskrft.livejournal.com/), what’s not addressed is why the poor are poor. Slums weren’t always there. These are sites of instant shantytowns built at the fringes of major cities for an economic demand, factory towns built around industry to provide on-site, non-unionized, cheap labor. What you’re championing as the new cultural capital is a product forced and driven by capitalist industry.

Designing like you give a damn is only part of the solution. You don’t have to look at slums to create an awareness that we all have to be more sustainable and modest, just because the poorest of the poor are, because they have no other recourse; why you should look at them is to see that they are that way because of our culture of excess, consumerism, exclusion, exploitation, and imperialism.

[grzeg.livejournal.com]

(And this is not directed at you:) but to do this because one is utterly bored is the type of reaction one would expect from the gauche caviar.

Architecture, Authority and Exploitation

[me.jdcasten.info (from livejournal.com)]

“These are sites of instant shantytowns built at the fringes of major cities for an economic demand, factory towns built around industry to provide on-site, non-unionized, cheap labor. What you’re championing as the new cultural capital is a product forced and driven by capitalist industry.”

This is a good point… but poor sanitation, lack of water, and above all, exploitation, are issues that I don’t think one must “champion” to see that each of these shanty homes is a HOME to someone—that a certain amount of idiosyncratic care was put into their construction and planning. Could the austerity and retentive formalism of sparse “power-architecture” be a way of re-enforcing authority? Just a thought.

Re: Architecture, Authority and Exploitation

[grzeg.livejournal.com]

I don’t want to desecrate that fact that their home is their home. But aestheticizing the formal aspects of slums for the new "style of our time" gets us nowhere. All that I want to point out that, right: no formal sewer system, buckets or even plastic bags as portable toilets, but across town are malls and golf courses.

“Could the austerity and retentive formalism of sparse “power-architecture” be a way of re-enforcing authority?”

Totally.

To play on your earlier Bataille reference, any type of architecture is some sort of formal manifestation of power and restriction of freedom. Formalism/existenzminimum is just positivist ideology gone amok, all Cartesian, clean, white, hygienic space of total control and authoritarian moral imperative. Which Japanese architecture right now (i.e.: SANAA, et al.) has a monopoly over.

[krskrft.livejournal.com]

What I'm trying to say is this:

Sure, we can learn from the impoverished that it's possible to "get by" on very little, but when we see them, we also learn what it looks like to be exploited, to put in what is often an immense and taxing amount of labor, and to receive very little compensation for doing so.

The big mistake, however, would be to see only the "Ferrari aspiration" part of it as having to do with capitalism, and to romanticize the other part, impoverished people in shanty towns, as existing outside of capitalism ... to reason that because these people don't possess Ferraris, that means they somehow magically avoid being part of the system that feeds Ferraris to others. We need to remember that it is the undervaluation of these peoples' labor that makes living out the Ferrari aspiration possible for the top 1%.

And yes, I agree with you that it's actually quite easy to live a pretty nice lifestyle on relatively very little money, even in the United States. I can (and did) live like a king for less than $20,000/year. I'm making closer to the equivalent of $30,000 right now in Korea, which means I basically don't have to think before I spend, and I still end up with loads of cash rolling over each month.