I'm about half way through Timeless Way of Building and mostly enjoying it. I always appreciate approachable philosophic writing that attempts to bring forward complete systems of thought to critique human existence.
So far, I've enjoyed most Alexander's ideas about rhythm and process being prime in understanding life in general and how to help generate it. A space is made up of all the different routines that take place in it, and it is life generating or destroying dependent on how it affects the routines in that space.
Alexander also drives at an important element in all design or in all "building" as he might say: unity within diversity and diversity within unity. He's hit on the right trail about good design being interwoven with this principle, it is a way to give a set of things a similar and cohesive quality without ever making them the same.
As much as I'm enjoying it, I have some critiques as well. His impressions of rural European and gypsy life are inundated with a deep mixture of idealism and rose-tinted nostalgia. I have nothing in particular against Europeans and gypsies, but I hardly fancy that life in Europe is or ever was so free of things like war, displeasure and ennui as he seems to think. I mean, Europe invented ennui as far as I understand. Perhaps I digress, but I think though the impressions he calls up certainly sound like wonderful places to see, tour or even live, I know that they are not all completely free of darkness.
As an artist, I very much appreciate hand-crafted things, and the personality inherent in artwork versus mass-produced products, but I hardly think modernization and modern architecture are wholly to blame for a thinning of the human spirit. These things themselves emerge from forces within the human consciousness and from the pursuit of human life. Economic efficiency and productivity as, say, within the housing market all begin with human motivations of wanting to advance humanity, even if it's just wanting to advance oneself.
Alexander claims that the timeless way is egoless, one must step out of the way of the creation. I think this is true in a sense, but not because of the way Alexander seems to be phrasing it. Michelangelo famously discussed freeing his statues from the stone that imprisoned them, and my favorite director Miyazaki writes of coming to a point in creating a film at which the film begins to make him. Yet, they are masters and true artists, and their work is deeply marked with their intention and focus. I do not think the timeless way must be an egoless way in the strictest of interpretations, but simply a natural and compelling way. It is the point at which the thought in the creator's mind passes from "I will make a great X," to "I must work with my utmost skill to make the greatest X that I can." This removes pressure from making a great piece of art to doing great work, which is a process, as Alexander discusses, that gives way to good things.
I look forward to finishing it soon and having much more in-depth points.
I almost forgot. I rather like his book structure. It feels very natural, almost "timeless." Mostly, though, as a reader I enjoy the ability to go back and forth between reading the broad strokes the italicized portions create to examining the detail in the explanatory paragraphs. I feel more like I'm exploring a landscape or a space with this approach than simply reading a book. Or, perhaps I should say, he's giving the conceptualization a kind of multi-dimensionality or a scalability that gives it a more approachable presentation.
3 comments:
Isn't the book structure interesting and ... I dunno, nice? I'm not sure what it is that makes it work for me, but I like it.
I agree, there does seem to be a lot of romanticizing of the rural and hand-made. But at the same time, I have to agree with him about mass-production: there is a difference between "one size fits all" and "tailored" anything. For a lot of things, like laptop computers, aggregation and mass-production are the only things that can produce something of sufficient complexity to get the job done. But for other things, the mass-produced is simply ill-fitting. And I think our minds and emotions are affected when things don't quite fit.
I think you are right that there is room for quite a bit more discussion about what degree of "egolessness" is necessary for the maker to be able to make. For example, I think the best creators create because they are fascinated by their creations, not because they hope the creations will somehow advance their personal comfort or fame. But one could definitely argue for a more or less egoless approach ... I wonder where the profit motive fits in, for example.
> Alexander also drives at an important element in all design or in all "building"
I think it may be useful to draw a distinction between things that are "designed" top-down and those that merely "built", and grow more organically, in a bottom-up fashion. This is an important distinction in software development, one that is still hotly debated, and one where Alexander comes down heavily on the side of "bottom-up". The requirement, though, is to have a (pattern) language that is both complete and full of wisdom. Otherwise the bottom-up design won't work nearly so well.
Yes, I do like the structure a lot. It's certainly a method that I'm considering attempting to use more of. It reminds me of the way Wittgenstein wrote the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It's put together in a similar, although much more strict and mathematical, order (he even uses numbers with suedo-decimals). This whole style makes you feel like you're unfolding something, or looking at Google Maps.
I can certainly understand issues with top-down or bottom up concerns. I've wondered about this even in the context of an individual creator making something. Is it better to continually follow whimsy, or to attempt to intentionally inlay a deep architectural structure in a work of art. A mix seems to be prudent, though. If you never make top-down decisions, then the massive amount of bottom up inspirations can pull apart a project and it never gains any direction. A good method seems to let them inform each other, creating a sort of dialogue between the perspectives.
Also, I'm still reading, though the copy is due back to the library soon. I'll try and finish it in the next couple of days.
On a close note, though, I found it interesting when one of the blogs I read mentioned A Pattern Language. It's not directly in conversation with what we've been discussing, but could be put in a similar framework. Form Tyler Cowen on Marginal Revolution:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/05/open-entry-schools-the-university-as-forum.html
The bit about higher education is interesting to me, although I wonder if they considered where research fits into the whole thing and how it gets funded.
Post a Comment