Bleeding Edge: "The Trade Center towers were religious too" (p. 338)

Tue Nov 19 05:55:39 CST 2013

If I can find the architect's speech, I'll post it; would love to hear
what you all think of the language therein. Turning one's
back....hmmm. In Brazil they say that one GIVES one's back to someone.
 I think there is something to this theme, a lot, actually, the motif
that is Turning includes turning up one's nose and turning on one's
friends and family, worker against worker, daisy chain turn. And
doesn't this novel give its back, if not the finger, to all those
actor authors writing their own scripts about, well, nothing. Everyone
wants to get into the act, as in VL, only here it's not the movies or
Tube, it's the game, not monopoly exactly, but something that gets the
backs up against the wall street.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:01 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
> My comment this morning (I had just woken up) was a silly one. I was
> thinking about the anthropomorphism of buildings, about how using such
> terms makes their "turning their backs" on us seems rude, when really
> there's other stuff at work. The interiority of the shopping mall
> isn't rude. It's a massively structured system of perceptive
> manipulation. Same with casinos, same with department stores, theme
> parks, cineplexes, dime arcades, charnel houses. The face and back
> terminology normalises what a building is supposed to be, do. Hence:
> if a building's back faces the street, that is its face.
>
> Imagine if Pynchon's novels were described as turning their backs on
> other novels. I'm still being silly.
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Fiona Shnapple <fionashnapple at gmail.com> wrote:
>> At the ribbon cutting for 4 wt, architect Fumihiko Maki used the terms face
>> and back.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 18, 2013, David Morris wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks.  But a comment:  buildings can turn their backs.  A perfect
>>> example is you commercial shopping mall.  Its outside is all "back"
>>> surrounded by parking lots, inherently ugly, even with billboard sized fake
>>> fronts marking the entrances and the anchor stores.  The real faces are all
>>> inside.  The mall exterior is a fake face.
>>>
>>> On Monday, November 18, 2013, John Bailey wrote:
>>>
>>> What Morris said!
>>>
>>> Baudrillard's post-Simulations obsession with turning everything into
>>> a rich and universal symbol would have made Jung wince and say 'ease
>>> up, feller.' A building can't turn its back, for pete's sake. Even if
>>> it did the back would then be the front.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > So many things in this brief analysis of WTC towers is incorrect and
>>> > exposing his ignorance of architecture:
>>> >
>>> > 1.  The towers didn't turn their backs on anything.  They had no backs.
>>> > All
>>> > their faces were identical.  And they were no more faceless than any
>>> > other
>>> > of their contemporaries.  Most modernist towers of that era and before
>>> > were
>>> > grids, by nature uniform and and faceless.
>>> >
>>> > 2. Neither did they face each other.  They were offset from each other
>>> > on a
>>> > diagonal.  Thus they maximized the number of faces sent outward, not at
>>> > each
>>> > other.  In other words they didn't block each other's views.
>>> >
>>> > 3.  He is correct to point out that they did all they could to stand out
>>> > and
>>> > dominate.  That is one of the central features of early and later
>>> > (pre-Pomo)
>>> > modernist architecture, which was notoriously anti-urban and ant-street.
>>> > Modernism hated facades lining streets or plazas or squares, all the
>>> > devices
>>> > of pre-modern architecture to define urban SPACE.  Pre modern urban
>>> > architecture worked in a collective manner to define public spaces.
>>> > Modern
>>> > architecture hated urbanism, seeking to demolish vast areas of urban
>>> > fabric
>>> > in order to provide an open limitless field in which to display mega
>>> > objects.  The WTC did its best to do just that in lower Manhattan.  This
>>> > is
>>> > just plain vanilla modern architecture at a scale that allowed it to
>>> > achieve
>>> > standard modernist goals.
>>> >
>>> > BTW, most architects thought they were crappy architecture.
>>> >
>>> > David Morris
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Monday, November 18, 2013, Heikki Raudaskoski wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I never appreciated Baudrillard much to begin with, and his writings on
>>> >> 9/11 made me appreciate him less, but some parts of his analysis may
>>> >> hold
>>> >> true, like the following points paraphrased by Margaret McNally:
>>> >>
>>> >> "The aesthetic twinness and symmetry of the Twin Towers, and their
>>> >> dominant height above other skyscrapers in the New York City skyline,
>>> >> signified that the WTC no longer represented competition of corporate
>>> >> capital among these modern symbols of capitalism in New York City or,
>>> >> indeed, the world. Rather, it represented western global capital
>>> >> dominance (Baudrillard, Spirit 38-39). The Towers' faceless facades
>>> >> stood
>>> >> isolated, turning their back on other skyscrapers, and facing one
>>> >> another
>>> >> in a playful, yet somewhat arrogant gesture that both defied modernism,
>>> >> and signified their self-contained supremacy of global power (40)."
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> http://tinyurl.com/p9hghuz (Please note that clicking this link will
>>> >> prompt a download of a Word document to your computer.)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Heikki
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Paul Mackin wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Also, it's the media--TV, radio, and print--that creates that
>>> >> > "instant
>>> >> > history," telling us what we now think even before we think it, or
>>> >> > might never have thought it. It sells newspapers, as the saying goes.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > In a similar case, there's a story-heading this morning in either the
>>> >> > Times or the Post that reads "America still haunted by JFK
>>> >> > assassination."  Well, speaking for myself, the things haunting me
>>> >> > have nothing to do with that 50 year ago sad event.  I suspect it's
>>> >> > the same for many of the rest of you as well.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > P
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> > > I agree with both of you. As a matter of prosaic fact, most of the
>>> >> > > corporate
>>> >> > > tenants of the WTC were insurance companies (the largest by square
>>> >> > > footage a
>>> >> > > Blue Cross HMO) and a slew of import/export firms and financial
>>> >> > > intermediaries few of us had ever heard of. They were landmarks and
>>> >> >
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l