Published as Waugh’s first book in 1928 this satirical story and takes on the ever present British class system at the time and covers themes of cultural confusion, moral disorientation and social bedlam.
We follow Paul Pennyfeather’s desperate struggle to succeed in life socially. Attempts which often end in failure. A Student at college in Oxford, Pennyfeather’s attempts to fit in are in vain and he is sent down for running through school with his trousers down after becoming immersed in the activities of the Bollinger club. Defaulting on his inheritance he is forced to become a teacher at a public school where he falls in love with the mother of a pupil there. Unaware that her desired social status and income comes from brothels, blinded by love he takes the blame and is sentenced to seven years imprisonment, rocketing him back down the social scale. By faking his own death and escaping he is forced to go back to where he started (at Scone) where he denies he is the Paul Pennyfeather and merely a distant cousin. The story ends where it begins with him on the periphery listening to the distant sounds of the Bollinger Club.
Whilst this story raises interesting and quite comical reflections on the historical and even modern day pursuit most have to be accepted and be ‘part of the club,’ what was more poignant in the book was the character of the architect – Professor Otto Silenus. Similar to architects such as Walter Gropius and Le Corbusier in both looks, personality and most importantly philosophy Waugh gives an intriguing insight into the character of the ‘architect’ at the time and the relationship they had with the world at a time when great change was occurring.
Silenus is portrayed as a very detached and dull character and takes no pride in the work he does, believing that,
‘The problem of architecture as I see it, is the problem of all art; the elimination of the human element from the consideration of form.’
This philosophy was shared by the likes of Le Corbusier who believed that his architecture was the true way in which buildings and spaces should be formed and the people that used them should change their wants and needs to fit. Despite my great respect for Corbusier and his work, I don’t agree with this view and am a strong believer that there should be a harmonious medium of understanding between the architect and the people. If you just give people what they want, often you end up with a horrendous re hash or pastiche of what once was (take a look at a standard Barrett’s home design circa 2011), but the opposite end of this often broadens what appears to be an ever widening gap between the architect and end user. This gap was shown by architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright, who never explained himself, displaying a sense of detached ignorance and establishing themselves as deities. Much in the same way Meades comments on Zaha in my earlier blog.
Another influential event was the end of WW1. Waugh portrays the character of the architect as the ‘re-builder.’ Much re-building needed to be done, and this heaped a lot of responsibility and celebrity on architects. At that time the pursuit and race for technological advancement was ever present, and this is reflected in Waugh’s character of Silenus who, like Corbusier had an enthusiasm for all things of the mechanical aesthetic.
I don’t believe there is a ‘Grand Design’ that should be forced on all, and architects that don’t coherently explain themselves and shroud themselves in mystery are often as bad as the architects they so openly criticise for bowing to the masses. To my mind it is all a case of individuality, and the importance of the relationship between the architect and the user.
Should we really have to sort architecture so categorically?
No comments:
Post a Comment