imomus: (Default)
[personal profile] imomus
When the Serpentine Gallery Pavillion opens on Sunday, it'll be Britain's first exposure to SANAA, the architectural team of Ryue Nishizawa and Kazuyo Sejima, responsible for New York's wildly successful New Museum.



Every July the Serpentine Gallery -- currently under the direction of the enlightened Hans Ulrich Obrist -- lets an architect erect a temporary pavilion in its Kensington Gardens enclosure. SANAA's, the ninth in the series, is certainly the least bombastic. As the Times' architecture critic Tom Dyckhoff explains in a video on the paper's site, the Japanese team has built a light plane of polished aluminium sloping modestly towards the ground across pillars and bendy plexiglass walls. The inside space, dotted with Nishizawa's white bunny chairs, merges inside and outside. From a distance, the mirrored structure seems to blend with the trees, like a calm sheet of reflective water.



Equally reproachful of bombast is the music of Otomo Yoshihide, the subject of a new documentary called KIKOE. Filmmaker Iwai Chikara (who also runs a club with Yoshihide) filmed the musician over ten years, building up 500 hours of footage of concerts, interviews and sessions, which he's edited down to 99 minutes. Chikara calls it "a document of a system observed from a fixed point" -- the fixed point being Yoshihide himself, and the "system" being collaborators like Sachiko M and Kahimi Karie. The film shows at Shibuya Eurospace later this month before heading out to European film festivals.

[Error: unknown template video]

Yoshihide is part of the No Input onkyo movement which shares a certain organic minimalism with SANAA's architecture. "I just wanna listen, no playing," as Sachiko M puts it, and I can imagine SANAA saying the same about Kensington Gardens -- their building really seems to want to listen to the park rather than dominate it.

[Error: unknown template video]

My final example of a Japanese dislike of bombast comes in the form of the documentary Jesus Camp, which we watched last night on the recommendation of Japanese friends. The Christian evangelicals depicted in Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing's 2006 film probably won't surprise anyone -- they're a well-explored, even over-familiar subject, and for the moment they've lost their mainstream political capital -- but what I found interesting here were the cut-aways to a Japanese studio discussion in which a short-skirted woman exclaims to an expert how sorry she is for American kids whose ideologically-motivated home-schooling doesn't allow them to study art or music -- let alone Darwinian evolution -- and whose parents are so out of love with the world that they can't wait to die.

"It's truly scary that 25% of Americans think this way!" these Japanese commentators agree. A religion, or a culture, with a little more love for its surroundings -- and a little less bombast -- suits them better.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-07-10 03:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Well, I think when you put the symbol "%" and the word "feel" in the same sentence, you hit absurdity pretty quickly. Because how do you quantify the way people subjectively feel, and lump them in with others who "feel the same way"?

Worse, if you try to get more fine-grained about "the way Christians feel", you get into absurdist pedantry fairly quickly. Check this Christine Wicker article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/obama-wins-big-with-born_b_120761.html), which defines born-agains as "those who say they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also say they believe they will go to Heaven because they have confessed their sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior are classified as born-agains" (note that changing "say they have made..." for "have made" would change the numbers) and then lays out this incredibly complicated set of qualifiers for "evangelicals", a subset within "born-agains":

1. their faith is very important in their life today
2. they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians;
3. they believe Satan exists
4. they believe eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works
5. they believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
6. they assert that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches.
7. they describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today.

Oh shit, I was all set to be counted with the evangelicals, except that I describe God as the all-knowing, all-power and pink deity who created the universe and still rules it today. The quality of mercy is not dkfkljjuoioiff!


(no subject)

Date: 2009-07-11 12:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] krskrft.livejournal.com
Well, not to mention the fact that some absurd number of people in the U.S. claim to attend church regularly, but while there are a good many churches in America, there aren't possibly enough to hold them all.

Evangelicals have had some of the best PR over the last several years, because they've somehow hoodwinked "serious" people into thinking that they're a game-changing vote in elections, when in actuality the people who call themselves "evangelicals" are always going to vote for republicans anyway. This PR is about getting them a seat at the table for policy discussions, but honestly, even the republicans play their asses. All they really ever get is lip service.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-07-11 04:55 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Amen.

Profile

imomus: (Default)
imomus

February 2010

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags