John Margolies' photographs of roadside America(publicdomainreview.org) |
John Margolies' photographs of roadside America(publicdomainreview.org) |
It could be Australia or Canada. They have similar.
Suburbs: everything has to be standardized and made efficient for global supply chains. Private equity is just the mechanism to achieve that. Want better food and produce? Stop going to McDonald’s, Costco, and Starbucks in your Jeep Gladiator. Also need to stop wasting so much taxpayer dollars on these useless, endless highways that destroy local economies and entrepreneurship and spread us out so we are reliant on cars.
Communism: everything must be “modern”, bland, and sterile. Andy Warhol. Banksy. Tape a banana to the wall and stare at it in your all black jumpsuit. All bright, white fluorescent. Nothing out of the ordinary or quirky, no individuality, all chains, all the same style.
This kind of style comes out when there is high compeition and an economy that can support experimentation.
What we are seeing is Americanism which is reduction of everything into value extraction. And that means getting rid of art.
Have you ever seen the Moscow Metro?
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/oct/31...
> Nothing out of the ordinary or quirky, no individuality, all chains, all the same style.
One could say the same about capitalism/consumerism. In fact, many creatives have done so over the years. Bland and bleak life in the suburbs is a common theme. "Broad lawns and narrow minds" as Hemingway might have called it. So is the forlornness of a nondescript white-collar cubicle job. Even recently, the Backrooms taps into this.
Everything looks the same these days because everything has to comply with local implementations of state implementations of the same federal regulations because that's how we do things in the US.
Feds take all the money. Feds doll it back out to the state in the form of grants with strings (drinking age is probably the most famous). States implement said strings which really means tell the locals to do it for the most part. And the states and locals are happy to enforce whatever if it means that the feds pick up 50% of the tab of that new traffic light they need that's 49% more expensive because it's built to federal standards, or whatever. Maybe it's a school thing or a sewer upgrade or whatever.
So then you get this stupid paradigm where even stuff that isn't McDicks or some other national chain with a brand they want to be consistent still gets built to look the same because it's complying with the same guidelines about turn radiuses and stormwater planters and interior/exterior light levels, etc, etc, etc and at any given point in time there's only one or a few cheapest ways to do all that. Any deviation is purely surface level, a custom color on a tile or panel. Chili's gets a brass chili for the door pull. The weed dispensary across the street gets a blunt. But it's still the same goddamn vestibule entrance built to the same dimensions that the same calculation spits out.
Here's a good one from my hometown https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tommy-the-turtle
And then drive about 20 miles east and you hit this guy https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/w-eel-turtle
And then drive 30 miles north and you hit the original https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tommy-the-turtle-boissev...
https://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=mrg&sp=1&st=gallery
Low res: https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/albums/721...
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/e31fca375f7a471a9a2e2cd...
via https://guides.loc.gov/roadside-america-photographs?loclr=fl...
via submitted link.
I was certain the collection had to have Lucy the Elephant and indeed it does:
Full moon over Margate.
Been following this bot for a while. Didn't know it's all from this source. Neat!
Otis Gibbs - Great American Roadside
But it's in there!
I have no idea if it’s true, but growing up there was always the urban legend that someone flew their small plane through the handles and had their pilot’s license revoked.
Consumerism, in my view, is also bad, but it’s not bad in the way that it affects art but bad in the way that demand for cheap goods forces fragile supply chains. It’s sort of lumped in with the suburbs critique. This poor building pattern arose because of demand for efficiency and cheap goods at all costs results in bland construction patterns. It just so happens that the blandness is a hallmark of communist styles of art and ideology.
The artist critiques you’re mentioning are criticizing the right thing (suburbia) for the wrong reason (capitalism and markets). In my view.
Capitalism of course has worthy critiques, but I think at least some if not much of the negative effects we see today are the result of massive nation states which are un-democratic.
If you're going to use wrong words, then be prepared for people to be pissed off at your wrong usage.
You’ll find Flower Thrower at your local IKEA or hung in the bathroom of Chipotle. They wouldn’t be caught dead hanging actual art from, say, Renoir though. The focus is to destroy originality, destroy individuality, destroy religion, and promote sterilization (not of people, though of course in some cases authoritarian ideologies like this do promote such insanity) and mass production.
It’s all the same communist ethos. Not everyone agrees, and you’re certainly free to disagree of course, it’s just my opinion.
I think we should talk about the Bauhaus and where they were coming from. Industrial mass production allowed for cheaply mass produced ornaments during Historicism. To me it is easily understandable why the Bauhaus wanted to find a different approach to how to deal with industrialization and how to incorporate it into architecture, going away from mere imitation and copying. I think it’s extremely fascinating that those ideas took root in the Soviet Union (creating utilitarian living spaces on a mass scale) and the USA (office buildings).
Many contemporary artists, however, have very little or nothing to do with Bauhaus and its ideas at all. There is just no link connecting them … and while the Soviet Union did employ industrialized mass production to build living spaces without ornaments its art was more often than not Socialist Realism, which is a different beast altogether.
But I do recommend you read Asylum for the Homeless by Adorno because I think you might like it: “Actually one can no longer dwell any longer. The traditional dwellings, in which we grew up, have taken on the aspect of something unbearable: every mark of comfort therein is paid for with the betrayal of cognition; every trace of security, with the stuffy community of interest of the family. The newly functionalized ones, constructed as a tabula rasa, are cases made by technical experts for philistines, or factory sites which have strayed into the sphere of consumption, without any relation to the dweller: they slap the longing for an independent existence, which anyway no longer exists, in the face.”
I've seen the difference between communist art and non-communist (or at least post-communist) art, at a Russian Impressionism art gallery in Park City, Utah. There were all these paintings of the steppes - brown and green grass blowing in the wind. But the difference was, in the paintings from after 1990, you'd see these tiny bright bits of red. They were painting the same steppes, but after the fall of communism, they also painted the flowers, not just the grass.
Apologies if that was your interpretation of my comment as that wasn't my intention, and certainly not my belief. It's a bit like trying to figure out if Bitcoin is money or a store of value or something else. The art styles, well lack of them, and the blandness of the buildings is less about corporatism (which is more appropriately captured in Suburbia - fragile supply chains, government grid planning) and more about how communism and similar ideologies suppress individuality.
The reason it's a bit hard to parse is because corporate America is the instrument in which some of these ideologies are expressed. It's not the source of them which is easy to confuse. To a large extent corporations just give the people what they want at a profit. In my view.
> They were painting the same steppes, but after the fall of communism, they also painted the flowers, not just the grass.
I think that's a really good way insight (I've never seen the paintings just going off of your comment). You can see how communism suppressed artistic vision and creativity because, as you are aware, with authoritarian ideologies you have to suppress expression since it's dangerous to the established regime.
Anyway...
Can you explain what capitalist central planning is?
Also, that essay is a real banger.