Theodore Dalrymple deplores not so much the graft as the vulgarity of kleptocrats' use of public money:
Extreme wealth, whether honestly or dishonestly acquired, seems these days to bring forth little new except in the form and genre of vulgarity. Mr. Ambani’s skyscraper tower home in Bombay is a case in point: His aesthetic is that of the first-class executive lounge of an airport. Mr. Ambramovich’s ideal is that of a floating Dubai the size of an aircraft carrier. Only once have I been invited to a Russian oligarch’s home, and it struck me as a hybrid of luxurious modernist brothel and up-to-date operating theater. I saw some pictures recently of some huge Chinese state enterprise’s headquarters, and it appalled me how this nation, with one of the most exquisite, and certainly the oldest, aesthetic traditions on Earth, has gone over entirely to Las Vegas rococo (without the hint of irony or playfulness).
H/t (again) Maggie's Farm.
floating Dubai the size of an aircraft carrier
ReplyDelete" 'Elbow room!' laughed Daniel Boone."
I'm down with that.
Eric Hines
Yeah, but whose fault is this? Who is Dubai aping? Chinese grandees? Russian oligarchs?
ReplyDeleteIf they're aping Las Vegas, the origin of this cancer isn't in them. It's here at home.
Do you mean like "For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the passion of her immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed acts of immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich by the wealth of her sensuality."?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's pretty much what I mean.
ReplyDeleteI have to tell you that right now, there's really no discussion of aesthetics in architecture- either in the profession or in academia. The non-professionals go for other symbolic gestures- representations of wealth, or power in the current fashion for those expressions (the 'airport lounge' or 'bahrain aircraft carrier'). In many ways architecture right now is all about green building, with repurposed modernist aesthetics, or the other big thing is parametric modelling. In many ways, the use pf parametci modelling is in it's infancy, and it's not entirely clear what direction it will ultimately go, but I can think of several bad directions. Watch this video, and tell me you aren't thinking of the new complexified (read complicated) communist block buildings of Eastern Europe. There are some potential up-sides- drawing on nature and embedded beauty for form generation, but I think it still lacks connection to human habitation- it's like going on the 'Journey to Inner Space' ride at Disneyland (a few decades ago). Are we meant to inhabit cellular structures, like bees in a hive? The forms are mesmerizing, fascinating, complex- but perhaps it's just the latest version of architects playing God, this time with digital technology and the things it makes possible, as the modernists did with the new production technologies of their day.
ReplyDeleteI don't think simply following traditional modes of aesthetic representation is the answer either (just an intellectualized aping, if you will), but where else to go?
In a way, this has always been a complaint of the "old cultured money" about the nouveau riche. The form of wealth with none of the moderation of culture.
ReplyDeleteBut frankly, when I see those ghastly monstrosities they've chosen to live in, I think about P.T. Barnum's most famous quote and also of all the people paid to construct it. If they want to squander their wealth in hideous surroundings, it's at least good for the people who have work building it for them.
It does sound pretty much like the complaints I find in 18th and 19th century and 20th century literature about the vulgar nouveau riche, who never know how to spend their money properly.
ReplyDeleteI'm pleased to see some spec homes going up in a nearby waterfront development, with pleasant details and--above all--10-foot ceilings. They're not breaking any new ground aesthetically, but all the rooms feel good and there's no assault on the senses of people driving by. Good views, Martha Stewart palette, and the ubiquitous open-kitchen/great-room plan. These are being marketed to moderately wealthy people who are rich enough for quite a posh second home but far below the oligarch level. Though there's not the slightest hint of an architect who's up on any trends like green construction or parametrics, the designs are at least capable and functional in a non-fussy beach style.
And really, you know, I have to admit that although No. 2 is boring Carmela Soprano luxury, I rather like Nos. 1 and 3, even though they're hardly my cup of tea for my own consumption.
ReplyDelete[W]hen I see those ghastly monstrosities they've chosen to live in, I think about P.T. Barnum's most famous quote and also of all the people paid to construct it.
ReplyDeleteThere's another side of this, too, that I think no longer obtains. When my parents were newly retired and living in what used to be a logging community in northern California, there was nearby a very large, enormously ugly house just coated in gim-crackery in a vaguely Victorian style, and most of that...stuff...seemed to have been tacked on just because.
And it was. The house was built by a lumber magnate of the time (late 19th century), and during one of the logging busts, he had the house built, both as a place to live and as a way to keep his workmen employed until the bust was over.
Eric Hines