On Tom Wolfe’s ‘Las Vegas (What?); Las Vegas (Cant hear you! Too Noisy); Las Vegas!!!’

Lights, casinos, naked girls, night, big limos, loads of booze and drugs, – these are the associative images popping up in my head, when I hear ‘Las Vegas’. So, schizophrenic ‘Hernias’ and ‘buttocks décolletage’ mixed up with handfuls of amphetamine and meprobamate drawn in the litters of alcohol in Wolfe’s piece didn’t surprise me, I have expected something like this. The place where everything is bright, loud and fairly straight forward not to complicate the process of ‘senses’ isolation’ undergone by some drug intoxicated individual experiencing ‘consciousness expansion’.

But ‘old babes’?!!! Old babes were a complete shock to the system! I rather conservatively visualise the granny (aka old babe :)): a) knitting, b)cosily watching some soap on TV, c) writing memoirs/novels/detectives, d) gardening, e)playing lotto/bingo, but not hanging out in Las Vegas maniacally pulling slot machines handles. Not LIVING in Las Vegas! This city, as I perceived it, could be a home, actually not even a home but a ‘temporary base’, only for some glamour girls, crazy musicians and casino stuff. I have never thought about Las Vegas’s residents (does such a term exist???). Well, clearly I was wrong: there IS life in Las Vegas! And ‘old babes playing the slot machines are part of its permanent landscape’.

There might be a zillion of reasons why Las Vegas is attracting ‘old babes’. Nostalgia, finally gained freedom from preconceptions, boredom or simple addiction, - I have no idea. However, the fact pictured by Wolfe in the 60s is still valid: majority of casino-goers and gamblers are in the ‘over-something’ age group. Well, at least some fun to look forward to :)

On Henri Lefebvre ‘The Production of Space. Chapter 2: Social Space’

I will start from saying this text, which I read and re-read number of times, made me think; made me think really, really hard. And I still don’t understand if I am thinking in the right direction, but at least I am thinking which is always a good sign for a blond girl ;).

Where are the limits of the ‘social space’ analysed by Lefebvre? How small is too small for ‘social space’? A city, as discussed, is a produced social space. What if the ‘macro-space’ level will be analysed not only in terms of social relationships which create an outline, a boundary for the space, but also in terms of ‘micro’ level elements such as ‘micro-spaces’? A tower block for instance. It certainly tick these boxes: ‘..any space implies, contains and dissimulates social relationships – and this despite the fact that a space is not a thing but rather a set of relations between things (objects and products)’. On the basis of this quote I would argue that the tower block IS a social space. This social space is undoubtedly produced as it ‘is the result of repetitive actions’. However, on the ‘macro-space’ level the tower block is ‘a thing’, relationships of which with other ‘things’ make up the social space of the city. Lefebvre argues that ‘social space is not a thing among other things, nor a product among other products: rather, it subsumes things produced and encompasses their interrelationships in their coexistence and simultaneity—their (relative) order and/or (relative) disorder’. My assumption of the duality of the tower block (being at once a social space and ‘a thing’) suggests that Lefebvre’s argument can be applied only when spaces on one level (‘macro-space’ or ‘micro-space’)are analysed. Perhaps not only ‘social reality is dual, multiple, plural’, but social relations are dual as well? Maybe space being a product of social relations of ‘things’, which according to Lefebvre ‘lie in order to conceal their origin’, lies as well, because relations of untruthful things must untruthful as well…

Ermmm, I think I got lost at this point. However, I liked the idea of duality of the space (being ‘a thing’ at one level and set of social relations on another). I am also interested in the question how far can I ‘unpack’ the space in order to find its true origins. Is my tiny room a social space and if it is, does it have any effect on the ‘macro-level’ space of the city? What are the smallest elements/social relations of the social space of the city? Are they the same as of space of the country??

Some quotes:

‘Itself the outcome of past actions, social space is what permits fresh actions to occur, while suggesting others and prohibiting yet others.’

‘Repetitious spaces are the outcome of repetitive gestures (those of the workers) associated with instruments which are both duplicable and designed to duplicate..’

‘Space used to be considered in emotional and religious manner’

‘It is in their nature as things and products co conceal that truth. Not they only don’t speak at all: they use their own language, the language of things and products, to tout the satisfaction they can supply and the needs they can meet; they use it too to lie, to dissimulate not only the amount of social labour that they can contain, not only the productive labour that they embody, but also the social relationships of exploitation and domination on which they are founded.’

‘Things lie, and when, having become commodities, they lie in order to conceal their origin, namely social labour, they tend to set themselves up as absolutes.’

‘So-called social reality is dual, multiple, plural.’

‘Knowledge emerged from a practice, and elaborated upon by means of formalization and the application of a logical order’

‘..any space implies, contains and dissimulates social relationships – and this despite the fact that a space is not a thing but rather a set of relations between things (objects and products). Might we say that it is or tends to become the absolute Thing? The answer must be affirmative to the extent that every thing which achieves autonomy through the process of exchange (i.e. attains the status of a commodity) tends to become absolute – a tendency, in fact, that Marx’s concept of fetishism (practical alienation under capitalism). The Thing, however, never quite becomes absolute, never quite emancipates itself from the activity, from use, from need, from ‘social being’. What are the implications of this for space?’

‘A further important aspect of spaces of this kind [produced] is their increasingly pounced visual character’.

‘…collectives still so close to nature that the concepts of production and product, and hence any idea of a ‘production of space’, are largely irrelevant to our understanding of them’

‘Thus space is undoubtedly produced even when the scale is not that of the major highways, airports or public works’.

“social space is not a thing among other things, nor a product among other products: rather, it subsumes things produced and encompasses their interrelationships in their coexistence and simultaneity—their (relative) order and/or (relative) disorder”

On Terry Eagleton ‘After Theory. Chapter 1: The Politics of Amnesia’

‘The golden age of cultural theory is long past’. It has been swallowed by the consumer strategy of mega-corporations targeting our Achilles spot: self-indulgence. Since the revolution in our world perception, which made us to realise that it is OK to be human with needs and these needs can be discussed and studied, we are constantly being reminded HOW to fulfil our needs and that they MUST be fulfilled.

The idea of ‘after theory’ theorists to study every day life was truly revolutionary. Yes, they would talk and write about sex; yes, they would study pornography for their PhD thesis. And.. they were cool, they were rebellious. So why shouldn’t we, generation NEXT, go with the flow and simply have fun discussing flavour of malt whiskies in the dissertation (surely doing daily research on the matter in the nearest pub)??
Well, it seems to me that there is a quite big chunk missing from the ‘generation NEXT’ equation: sex, drugs and rock-and-roll are not revolutionary matters any more. However, they are marketed as such. To be rebellious you have to rebel against something. Popular culture theorists threw historicisms away and pronounced common people and events of today the subjects of study. Though, the dismantled theoretical foundations were well known to them. They were studied, understood and only after torn down. That act made popular culture studies viable and its students cool.
Popular culture is still cool, but this ‘coolness’ is just an echo from the past amplified by capitalist structures to make us not only consume more and more, but ‘also identify our own fulfilment with the survival of the system’. And I and many others from my generation are accepting this baby- food-like processed and adapted theory still thinking that we are rebelling against something openly talking about sex and watching life TV for educational purposes. I think we are just being lazy. This laziness is being encouraged as we often hear that ‘our own opinion matters the most’ (obviously not supported by any facts, because life experience is way more important than texts by some Marx or Derrida). I feel I am missing on something and planning to read more, but will I? To be frank, I don’t know - it is comfortable and what is more important widely accepted to be lazy.

On ‘Fear and money in Dubai’ by Mike Davis

I will compare Dubai with Russian dolls: it is bright, it is shiny, it gets larger in geometrical progression and no one knows how many more semi-similar skyscrapers it will hatch.

Literally, Dubai has ‘world-within-the-world’ (Island World) and consists of ‘cities-within-the-cities’. Technically, it operates as an independent economic entity with its own laws for one and lawlessness for the other. Dubai is ‘Russian doll world’, where the tiniest and hideously horrid figure, often missing an eye or a mouth, is hidden inside many layers of beautifully crafted shells. This multilayered world has its own creator (and co-owner), Sheikh Mohammed al-Mactoum and , naturally, it is own unprecedented religion… Religion of fear.

It, as a proper religion, drives all layers of society. Slave-like workers fear the absolute power of the employers; the employers fear to loose this absolute power, hence ignore labour regulations, substituting them with local Draconian laws.

‘Creator and Co’ being a trinity of oil producer, distributor and a middle man between West and Islamic militant groups, use fear as the most stable currency to fund the building site of the century.

On Jonathan Meades 'Zaha Hadid: the first great female architect'

Once my physics teacher told me one thing I would remember for all my life: ‘Never use the words meaning of which you don’t know to seem smarter, you will end up being a fool’. I will confess from the very beginning: I don’t know anything about Zaha. I know nothing except that she is a starchitect, she is the first woman to receive a Pritzker Prize, she was born in Iraq, studied maths in Beirut and architecture in AA, she designs not just buildings but furniture and amazing shoes.

I have neither read Derrida to fully comprehend the theory of deconstruction behind her early ‘paper’ works, nor do I know sufficiently enough about the concepts of her latest designs.

So, following advice of my teacher I would not argue about quality or aesthetics of Hadid designs. I am way more interested in pidgin of architectural society mentioned by Jonathan Meades (by the way, I suppose he doesn’t exclude himself from it, taking in account his striking expressions weaved in the essay*).

‘The gulf between clumsy, approximate jargon and precise, virtuoso design is chasmic’ [well, even for my non-British ear it sounds quite clumsy http://www.zahahadidblog.com/movies/2007/07/03/video-interview-with-zaha-hadid]. However, isn’t it Zaha’s strategy to avoid annoying questions aimed to ‘jeopardise’ her concepts? She skilfully looses the main focus of the conversation with ‘syntactical mishaps’ confusing the opponent. Like a rabbit, trying to escape cunning fox, she circles in the woods of architectural jargon, leading the interviewer nowhere. She knows she will get away with use of the language because: a) her mother tongue is not English and the most importantly b) she is ZAHA. She worked hard and long for her name and now it is working for her.

Hadid is not just a successful architect; she is an extremely smart business woman. She has carefully created architectural ‘Zaha Brand’: mysterious world of foggy architectural terms, digital design extravaganza and non-explained concepts. Seems very illogical… But is it?, - she is a mathematician after all.

*Some curious terms from Meades:

Chutzpah - (pronounced /ˈxʊtspə/) is the quality of audacity, for good or for bad. The word derives from the Hebrew word ḥuṣpâ (חֻצְפָּה), meaning "insolence", "audacity", and "impertinence." The modern English usage of the word has taken on a wider spectrum of meaning, however, having been popularized through vernacular use, film, literature, and television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chutzpah)

Esperanto - is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language.[2] Its name derives from Doktoro Esperanto, the pseudonym under which L. L. Zamenhof published the first book detailing Esperanto, the Unua Libro, in 1887. The word esperanto means "one who hopes" in the language itself. Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy and flexible language that would serve as a universal second language to foster peace and international understanding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto)

Pidgin - (pronounced /ˈpɪdʒən/) language is a simplified language that develops as a means of communication between two or more groups that do not have a language in common, in situations such as trade, or where both groups speak languages different to the language of the country in which they reside (but there is no common language between the groups) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin

Lingua franca - (from Latin, literally meaning Frankish language, see etymology under Sabir and Italian below) is a language systematically used to communicate between persons not sharing a mother tongue, in particular when it is a third language, distinct from both persons' mother tongues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca)