Posting Due by January 15th
- This chapter interests me a great deal. Orr challenges us to look at language in a deep way (for those really interested in this idea - of 'how to be custodians of language' - look at Toni Morrison's Nobel Prize speech). Aside from the following questions please give your personal response to the chapter as clearly as possible.
- On page 56 (bottom) Orr states, "We are no longer held together, as we once were, by the reading of a common literature or by listening to great stories and so cannot draw on a common set of metaphors and images as we once did"
- what do you think about his statement?
- what might be some implications of this be?
- Is it possible to develop an "architecture" around this principle? ** (go for this) (if so- what might it look like)
10 comments:
This chapter really resonated with me. I feel that Orr's statement, "we cannot think clearly about what we cannot say clearly," describes at least an hour of my day everyday. I am constantly frustrated when trying to express my feelings and rarely feel that what I come to write something, I never have fully expressed my idea.
As for "We are no longer held together, as we once were, by the reading of a common literature or by listening to great stories and so cannot draw on a common set of metaphors and images as we once did" I completely agree. I definitely feel that I am under read and could discuss very few classics. I feel bad about not being well read, but I also don't think that not being on top of all of the classics is the worst thing in the world. I would feel bad if I just sat around all day and did nothing, but I am not. I think that there are just so many more options than just of things to do than when Orr must have grown up in. Not everything rots away people's brains; it is just the way that you use the technology.
I guess the implication that he is getting at is that because no one reads the classics, we will lose our languages. I am not particularly concerned by Orr's belief that the world 5,000 languages will only be 150 by 2100 because feel that as technology advances there will be so many different technical languages that arise. Like Orr said, there is "a specialized language of economics" and for every other profession. So in actuality those languages that will be lost by 2100 will be replaced by specialized languages. I for one can not understand an astronautical engineer when he is talking about spaceships or someone discussing musical theory. People are going to have to learn these new specialized languages just the same as they would learn have to learn a romance language. For me this chapter, felt like a save the endangered animals sort of argument.
I don't know if I would like a world in which this principle applied to architecture. I feel that it would be boring. If I knew of all the classics, I don't think that I would appreciate all the architecture around me because I would be constantly comparing it to the best. I think it is better to stumble across something that is the best instead of having know about it because everyone else does. There just such a magical feeling you get when you stumble upon something so beautiful that I would be miss feeling in a world based off this principle.
Orr's statement on page 56 is one I both agree and disagree with. I understand his point--that because many of the great pieces of literature are read by fewer and fewer people, humanity as a whole has less in common. However, I don't think he's being entirely accurate. I think that literature and "great stories" are still large parts of our common human culture. I actually think that modern technology and such has made it easier for more people to access these stories. In many cases, I've found that the "metaphors and images" that Orr refers to have transcended the world of literature. I can recognize images and themes from books I've never read but that are commonly discussed. They can be, and often are, applied to things outside of literature. I recognize that the world might not be held together by literature anymore (although I still wonder about the extent to which it was in the pre-technology era), but I still view literature as a significant part of our world. Maybe this is just because I've grown up reading books, both classic and modern, for pleasure and school work. I know there's a large number of people who don't like to read or who don't have the same opportunities to read. Orr's biggest implication by this statement is that we as a culture need to once again embrace literature and the idea of reading. I like this idea; I think reading can only help people. "Common literature" can help bring people together, especially people who live in different places and experience different cultures on a daily basis. I think that the idea of a common literature can't be applied directly to architecture because there are too many various things that influence architecture. It isn't something that can be transported easily from place to place; it is culturally distinct whereas literature can transcend a specific culture to become something more global. Honestly, I think if any effort was made to make an architecture around this principle, it would actually detract from the world, or more so than a common literature does. I don't want to see a world where architecture and buildings always have something in common aesthetically. I like the fact that architecture can be quite different depending on where you go. I know that there are common pieces of literature among culturally different pieces, but somehow I feel architecture would become too similar if this principle were applied.
Overall, I agree with Orr's assessment that language has declined with the advent and use of phrases such as "that sucks." My class has been discussing the uses of language in English class, and one of the theories we've come across describes common phrases, feelings and ideas as expressed through language as "worn-out metaphors." I think this can be applied to what Orr says. Humanity as a whole, and I think that some individuals might be exempt from this generalization, has lost the creative ability to use language to say what it really wants to say, so we turn to these "worn-out metaphors" and phrases to try to portray what we need said. Orr describes it as losing capacity for "articulate intelligence" (54). I also think Orr is being a little pessimistic in his opinions. Yes, language is important to humanity, and yes, we should restore direct contact between humans (though I see no need to "smash" every device that allows for electronic communication). But I don't think a decline in language is going to be the undoing of the entire nation. There seem to be several other issues to worry about. Overall, I think that Orr makes some good points about language and a decline in its quality, although I think he tends to generalize and be overly dramatic in his assessments. I don't think the decline of language will necessarily spell the end of this country or humanity. I do think that we should prevent it from declining, though, if only because humanity needs ways to express themselves truly, without using images and phrases that have lost their meaning, intensity, or significance.
--Samantha H.
1) I found this chapter to be a lot more captivating that the others. I do believe that the nature of language is changing, but it is ever changing and this is just another step along the road. It may be a turn for the worse, but I also do not want to go backward. I think that a lot of the changes in language come from the wish to separate ourselves from our pasts. When we read old books: Shakespeare, Melville, Hawthorn, etc we can feel the antiquity in it. If people started writing like that today no one would be able to relate to it or accept it. Yet looking back is fun because we get to see how much language has changed and appreciate the past styles, sort of like fashion or music in a way, except writing styles are not cyclical, as far as I can tell. And in terms of speaking, I have heard people use 50’s expressions and be made fun of for their usage. Yes, many metaphors and references are out of date, but rather than going to live a farm to understand their meaning, we should create our own style of writing, speaking, and making references that is both fresh and sophisticated.
2) This is an extremely important point to take into consideration when designing because it reminds us to focus on our audience. If you are making a building for the MoMA it should speak to the visitors about the museum and be sort of a museum of modern art (or architecture). If you are building an Amish grocery store (I don’t know if these exist) you must take into consideration the views of these people as different and unique from those people visiting the MoMA.
Nora K.
Before I respond to the writing prompt of this chapter, I would like to detail my response to the chapter as a whole. Frankly, contrary to what my peers have already put forth, I was offended by this chapter and equally disgruntled with Orr’s condescension towards those who do not listen to poetry readings and perform manual labor on weekends like the “good ol days” or whatever time period to which he continually alludes. I would like to draw attention to one statement: “Excise “uh…like…uh” from virtually any teenage conversation, and the effect is like sticking a pin into a balloon.” Before I delve into how deeply entrenched in ageism prejudice this statement is, I would like to point out that Orr uses a simile: “like sticking a pin into a balloon”. Ironically, this very image contradicts Orr’s subsequent argument. Yes, biblical allusions and metaphors that evoke images of farm work may be increasingly irrelevant in today’s society, but to state that we “cannot draw on a common set of metaphors and images” as a result is simply ludicrous. In 1800, Orr may have said “like removing ‘thou shalt not’ from the ten commandments’ instead of his balloon simile and gotten a better response; however, if he were to have kept his balloon simile, everyone would have been puzzled as the rubber balloon was not invented until 1824 by Michael Faraday. The “metaphor loss” phenomenon that Orr is describing as a symptom of “verbicide” is a misinterpretation of reality. The metaphors and similes that are currently drawn upon are not decreasing in any way shape or form, they are merely changing (as many things do) – Orr’s inability to accept change seems to be more of a pattern than any metaphor loss phenomenon. Maybe Orr could out biblical allusion me in a biblical allusion contest, but if I were to say to him “you should have seen my mom last night, she was angrier than DMX” would he have any idea what I was talking about? Orr’s main argument in this chapter – forgive my oversimplification for a moment – seems to be that people are getting stupider. There is more than an air of elitism in this basic premise. Knowledge is changing; there is no doubt about that. Whether Orr, likes how it is changing or not is a different question. I may not know how to milk a cow, but by the same token (hey! A metaphor that everyone still understands!), if I were to go back in time and ask the 17 year old David Orr to try and use my DVR remote, he would be completely lost. This may upset Orr, but it is no reason to panic. If he wants to say that we are increasingly manipulated by language as a result of the growth of the marketing industry, fine, I have no quarrel. But to implicitly state that people are getting stupider and insult a generation of young people while standing on his high mountain of old-world elitist brain power is simply unacceptable to me.
I challenge David Orr to walk around with me for a day and listen to every single conversation I have and realize that I am capable of expressing my opinion just as clearly as any 17 year old ever was. Did Orr not say “groovy” in the 60s? Does he forget what it’s like to use current lingo? I had more substantive conversations last week than both of my parents did, I can say that for a fact. So before Orr clumps me into his group of hypnotized, significantly less smart youth, I encourage him to think about what his parents were thinking when he brought home his first Elvis Presley record. Accept change Mr. Orr, or accept that you have turned into your parents like many of us eventually do…….
Although most people may not have read common pieces of literature like the bible or well known stories, they probably know the plot well enough to understand references. Even if they had read the literature they may not remember it well enough to get very detailed references anyway. I also don't see a point in references, someone could say "oh this situation is exactly like Noah's in the Bible" or perhaps "He is acting just like Noah from the Bible." It is easy enough to simpley say what the person they are referring too is doing, as it is to think of a story that fits the example. Although people are less read nowadays, there is also less time to read. When I say "time" I don't mean that people are so busy they don't have time, because they could probably make time. But two hundred years ago, with out electricity and fast moving transportation, people had large amounts of time in which they had nothing to do. I think most people would still understand biblical references, even though many people are religious, and the fact that not everybody would understand them now just means that people are less religious, or from different religions, because they no longer have to worry about being killed if they are not part of a certain religion. Although these references are not known, I don't think our community is less held together, because we all understand references from tv shows, movies and the news.
I think Orr is being a little histrionic (oh look-vocabulary) The nation is not going to fall to pieces because people use simpler words and explain their thoughts a little more, rather than using a larger archaic word that is more specific. Everyone says "like" a bit, because it stands in for "said" ("and then I was like, I don't think that's fair, and then she was like, neither do I"), but we're not a bunch of Valley girls, and I know valley girls and they don't even use "like" that much. I had to talk to an adult once who over used the word "neat" after everything I said he just said "neat", so its not just teens and young people that really like over use really and like.
In Orr's writing, I think he tends to overstate his predictions of where the world is headed. While this makes for dramatic, bold, and interesting reading, realistic isn't the first word that comes to mind. Pessimistic seems to be more accurate.
For example, Orr's statement about being no longer held together isn't (to me, at least) so much a statement about the disparity of society today as it is about increasing diversity. There are so many more things to be well-versed in today that not everyone has the same intellectual database. Sure, that means that not everyone can talk about the same things, but it actually makes the world a more interesting place, not a more depressing or bland one.
The world is also getting more efficient -- sure, we're losing character as we lose our languages, but efficiency and productivity are increasing dramatically as a result of this and other streamlinings. There is something to be said for both individuality and efficiency, but with all the demands we place on ourselves, those around us, and the world today, we really have no choice but to be as efficient as we can -- we are already playing constant catch-up with feeding people, greenhouse gases, etc.
Sure, this can be applied to architecture. Buildings and cities all play to the increasingly diverse interests of the people around them -- but they are all very efficient. Profitable and successful buildings/bridges/whatever today are built as cheaply and functionally as they can be, with almost no frills. Sure, there's no more bridges with as much character as London Bridge, but just the fact that we're surviving with increasing demand and decreasing supply is saying that we're doing something right. We have to change our tactics as demographics and the world around us change. While some may not be happy with this, it's the way it has to be if we want to keep living our lifestyle. If we want to go back to horse and buggy, I'm sure bridges like London Bridge would be just fine.
Steve
Any of you who have read my blog posts will know that it is rare for me to truly agree with David Orr more then partially, but in this case it is the closest I have come to completely agreeing with him. I have a fundamental love of literature. I can read about 100 pages an hour and it is not uncommon for me to spend hours or even the better part of a day reading a long book. Due to the large volume of reading I do, my vocabulary is substantially larger then many people I know who instead of reading spend much of their time watching television or movies or playing video games. However, the one area that I disagree with Orr is in his statement that because of this decline in language, the ability of people to think has declined as well. Language in itself is a flawed mechanism for expression. It is subject to misinterpretation as much as any other medium for expressing our ideas and feelings. Words have different meanings and connotations to different people, and this disparity in language limits us as much, if not more then the number of words in a language. Perhaps the worst flaw with language is the lack of a correct term to fully express the thought or feeling that you have. Therefore, the apparent lack of critical thinking may be due to the lessening of the average vocabulary, but it may also be due to the flaws of language itself.
I feel that this statement is not as significant as Orr believes it to be. Because there are so many books in circulation, not everyone will read the same books, which would cause the lack of “togetherness” in literature that Orr refers to. What Orr is trying to fight during this book is the onset of technology, and new methods of expressing information. These new sources, such as movies, television and the Internet have created a new group of metaphors and expressions that hold us together culturally as literature once did. This may result in the decline of language, however, due to Orr’s inability to recognize this new group of phrases for what they are, all he sees are simple statements that he considers to be signs of idiocy but are actually fulfilling the role of what those literary metaphors and phrases once did. The new phrases may not be as good in Orr’s mind as the ones he knows, but his inability to see these phrases for what they are leaves him with a less then full picture. (I’m not talking about the silly phrases like cool or really that Orr speaks of, but rather quotes from popular movies or television shows that many people know of, and will be able understand the meaning and back story as people once did for literature.)
If we look from Orr’s view of these phrases, the only architecture we could create would be chaotic and would have no or little uniformity. However, if we look at this new language as a new group of metaphors and phrases, the new architecture could have commonalities and could really be anything that we want.
1. What Orr talks about in this chapter really resonated with me. His discussion about the general decline in the repertoire of words in people’s vocabulary and the general decline of people’s ability to hold a scholarly conversation is absolutely correct. While it is easy to blame these declines on the ever-increasing use of televisions and computers can be partly to blame, I was struck by Orr’s reason for this decline. He partly blamed it on the “number of things that an adolescent needs to know and to name in order to get by”. If you think about it, what our parents and older generations learned in their years in school and as adolescents was not greater in mass but simply, different. In their time, they had to memorize speeches, hymns, poems, limericks, quotes, and allusions to the bible, etc. They read far more books than our generation; for scholarly reasons and for fun. They were forced to absorb a lot more material because of the lack of technology like computers. On the other hand, our generation is not asked to memorize such text, exposing us to less vocabulary. Therefore, vocabulary that might have been a staple point in older generation’s language has been systematically lost and forgotten. Also, our generation may not have the vocabulary of that of older generations but we are asked to manage an increasing amount of responsibilities and embrace new challenges older generations did not have to grapple with.
2. Though Orr is correct with his statement I believe he is somewhat incorrect. I believe the reading of common literature or listening to great stories does not hold our generation together but rather the use of technology and television unify us. This may be a good or a bad thing, most likely more of a negative thing. But, because our generation can relate to each other through television and various forms of entertainment we do know common metaphors, language and speech patterns. If the question was regarding if it is more beneficial to be held together through literature then television than I think Orr’s general argument about the decline in our vocabulary would be very relevant and support the statement above. But it is just not 100% true to say today’s society does not have a feeling of unity because we are unified through the technology we use.
I’m not sure what an architectural embodiment of this principle would look like. Maybe, if we were to look at this through an architectural lens, maybe this principle would not relate to one specific building design but to many designs. These would vary but maintain a common design to them. This might help create a feel of togetherness.
Stay Fly,
D.Gibbles and Bits
Personally, this chapter struck a very unique chord within my psyche. First and foremost, Orr raised an interesting point alluding to “youngsters” loosing their voice. The truth is it doesn’t matter, what era Orr’s values came from, but he should take into consideration that today’s youth is capable of expressing ourselves threw superfluous medias (internet, spoken word, film, text, etc) Therefore, the notion that kids nowadays cannot fully express themselves, is a preposterous notion because today’s youth certainly has the ability to fully express themselves-almost too well. On the other hand, due to the abundance of medias I can understand why teenagers are finding it harder to express themselves. Ever since the 80’s parents have allowed their sons/daughters to watch TV to attain their daily dose of morals/social norms. Honestly, it’s pretty sad, but I would blame the parents, who allow their children to mindlessly watch TV for ridiculous amounts of time. In this aspect, I agree with Orr because we, as a growing nation, more media exposure to our developing youth will surely take away from quality mind-stimulating experiences that many American children should be spending with their sons/daughters.
In response to Orr’s statement-"We are no longer held together, as we once were, by the reading of a common literature or by listening to great stories and so cannot draw on a common set of metaphors and images as we once did" Personally, I agree with Orr’s statement 100% because the American family has certainly diverged from its past ideals. In my opinion, the average American teenagers should acquire a “common set of metaphors” from his/her parents because your parents should teach the morals and social norms that their parents taught them. In Orr’s youth, the passing of his parents knowledge onto him was significantly easier then it is today, due to the increasing number of distractions that kids are subjected to today.
enjoy, and I hope I expressed my opinion clear enuough. JDDilla
For the first time, I actually disagree with David Orr. Yes television is not very good for your brain sometimes, but it also proves extremely useful, both as a source of information and entertainment. Does he think that people are going to have the same vocabulary as 50 years ago? Of course language is going to adapt. Sure, a few “um…”s are going to slip in to a teenager’s vocabulary, but then again, I have heard plenty of 50+ people say um. So it is not directly related to television. Secondly, what proof does he have that “As a nation, we risk coming undone because our language is coming undone”(57)? What I have seen, our nation coming undone has almost nothing to do with our language. So far, this was my least favorite chapter. Keenan
Post a Comment