Alain Badiou – ‘The Communist Hypothesis’ This crisis is the spectacle where is the real?

‘The earth is dying and we do not notice it’

Sounds like a climate change quote, but it was scrawled across the download of the ‘Communist Hypothesis’ extract I was reading.

To summarise it, this engaging text is about the financial crisis we are currently experiencing and the detachment that ‘the masses’ have with it. Alain Badiou (a writer born very much in a revolutionary time) puts forward to us a new approach and ideology on the matter, that perhaps we should not sit back and watch as the world crumbles around our ears, but instead do anything but nothing!

Badiou describes the ‘crisis’ like a film, where the politicians are the stars and we watch on, completely removed. In the same way that I couldn’t imagine what it would be like being chased by zombies in a horror movie, we are unable to fathom the debt figures: ‘just what does  400 billion euros look like?’

Usually we go to the movies as an escape from reality, there is a crisis in the movies and we often see a happy ending or know that we can get up and resume normality at the end. However, Badiou highlights that we may not want to, but we are heavily involved and despite the protests against the system, it is after all a system we are inadvertently operating within.

‘The collapse of capitalism? You must be joking. And who wants it to collapse anyway?’

Badiou somewhat hypocritically uses the same fear he protests against to sell us his ideals, but I don’t think this is something that I hold against him. After all, he is not threatening us, and whilst it can be easy to protest something, it is admirable to be able to voice a solution. I am certainly in agreement with his view that the problem can also be shelved with us as well for spending over our means. The real issue is that the ‘characters in the disaster movie’ that have been sent, are not directly affected by the crisis.

Zaha Hadid: 'The first great female Architect' by Jonathan Meades

So, the first blog.

My wife always tells me that I never stop ‘talking’ about architecture, but let’s see if I can give her a welcome break and write about it…

Zaha.

Very few architects have entered into a realm whereby the uttering of their first name arouses quite so much discussion. I’ll be frank from the start here, I like none of her work (and from public appearances my opinions of her aren’t that much higher). Still, I found Meades article an odd one to gauge.

On first reading I warmed to it. It’s satirical and almost comical style in places does not paint her in a very good light, particularly as a person. (Although for an interview piece there is little dialogue printed between the two of them). However, its satirical manner gave me cause to re-read.

Looking deeper into the piece I believe it highlights more than the title suggests, we learn about Zaha ‘the deity of the starchitectural revolution’ but more importantly I think there is an intriguing discussion raised about the 21^st century architectural process.

Describing a practice as a ‘factory’ is not an endearing start. Meades goes right to the heart here, this is where it all radiates from, her design ideas and in turn her success with it. It is a very direct, and almost unsettling attack. It sets the tone for the rest of the interview.

It becomes increasingly satirical, almost farcical in places (particularly mention of her ‘asking for more tea. She snuffles. She has cold.’) This is the first indication of Meades apparent issue with Zaha. It’s the idea that she has been questioned on ‘her aesthetic’,’ and this mention shows her disinterest when this topic is brought up to be discussed. It certainly shows an apparent disconnection between her (the Architect) and Meades (who I guess believes himself to represent ‘the rest of us’).

Leading on from this, Meades looks to question ‘architectural language,’ something that I, as a student of the subject, am very aware of. He really emphasises this disengagement between the public and describes architecture as a ‘hermetic’ word! In many ways I agree on this point in relation to Zaha as I am often left thinking that she considers herself to be the gatekeeper of ‘true’ architecture and only she knows where the key is kept.

It is apparent that Meades does not like Zaha Hadid’s work (although there are glimpses of appreciation of it) and I don’t think this was necessarily written for the architect or architectural students of the world to read, but I believe that there is a sub text to the article.

Jonathan Meades presents this as a seemingly critical piece of Zaha, but to me he has used her as a symbol to show how he believes architects have become disconnected with the users of the spaces that they create.

‘…the fire station she built nearby for the furniture manufacturer Vitra’s factory was considered inappropriate for that role and has been turned into a museum of chairs.’