Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
G. Alford - Texas Tech University
Ariès, Philippe. The Hour of Our Death. New York: Knopf, 1981.
Harris, Mark. Grave Matters: A Journey Through the Modern Funeral Industry to a Natural Way of Burial. New York: Scribner, 2007.
Harrison, Robert Pogue. The Dominion of the Dead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Heathcote, Edwin. Monument Builders: Modern Architecture and Death. Chichester, West Sussex: Academy Editions, 1999.
Jackson, Kenneth T., and Camilo J. Vergara. Silent Cities: The Evolution of the American Cemetery. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1989.
Jupp, Peter C., and Glennys Howarth. The Changing Face of Death: Historical Accounts of Death and Disposal. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1997.
Mitford, Jessica. The American Way of Death Revisited. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998.
Taylor, Mark C., and Dietrich Christian Lammerts. Grave Matters. London: Reaktion Books, 2002.
Ragon, Michel. The Space of Death: A Study of Funerary Architecture, Decoration, and Urbanism. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983.
Yalom, Marilyn. The American Resting Place. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2008.
I did not wish to be the first to comment on the article but, to me it seemed a bit heavy. Not in the sense of density or mental capability but down right depressing. Our limited ability to "leave our mark" is completely dwarfed by the natural ability of decomposition. But I did like how Architecture outlasts the worlds they were built in; just as the sea outlasts the earth in a dismal apocalyptic view.
ReplyDelete-Alex
I agree with the authors views and his thoughts pertaining to the sea as it relates to the history and timelines of humans. In the passage of the sinking ship the author states that the sea "defies any and all humanizations" and for that reason makes it something of a mystery to us. The sea is "uninscribable" and traces left behind settle at the bottom of the sea to be forgotten. I think that humans need to feel close to those that have passed and a way to do that is to mark a grave, knowing they will be there. However, the sea does not allow for markers of any kind. In the reading the author also likens humans to the elements saying that we are formed from the earth and after time indistinguishable from it. I also agree with the author when he states that "If we can understand the covenant not so much as a contract between God and man as between man and earth- . . . then we can speak of something like humankind's obligations toward the earth, as well as it's failures to meet these obligations.
ReplyDeleteThis is my understanding or summary of the chapter.
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly a cyclical pattern concerning the return of dead matter to the earth, from which life emerges. But obviously is it mankind's critical awareness of the finitude of our lives that leads to the instinct for a 'living memory of the dead." I interpret Kant's differentiation between noumenon and phenomenon--as far as time and space are concerned--to mean that time is inside us and space is outside us, yet both exist without any action on our part. Our sense of powerlessness in this is what drives us to leave some sort of mark, however temporal, upon the earth.
It is only logical, then, that the sea should claim victory over the earth in eschatological fiction; as the sea allows for no such inscription, it is the sea's merciless nature to swallow anything dropped into it. It seems that Harrison believes that man and sea can never be at peace with one another, since man is 'a creature of form and perspective,' while the sea holds no constant form and causes man to lose all perspective. Conrad's notion, "The amazing wonder of the deep is its unfathomable cruelty," is so fitting. The sea erases all marking, causing such grief when it sucks in a life because of our own spiritual tie (perhaps it is human nature) to the act of marking the passage between life and death. Whether the living do this selfishly, or the dead leave veritable 'gifts for the future,' however, I can't say.
In the same way, though, the sight of ruins reveals not only destruction, but also the survival of the earth, demonstrating the cycle of dead matter returning to the earth so she might supply future generations. As Harrison concludes, this cycle ends only when humankind begins to kill the earth, rather than choosing to perpetuate the cycle.
I have to agree with Alex that I thought this reading was depressing. Not only was it depressing, but the info from the reading that stuck with me, I always seemed to want to argue. Like the first sentence of the reading, “One of the blessings of our planet, along with life itself, is that it allows for the disposal of its dead.” But I question if this “disposal” is a blessing, because when I think about death//funerals it’s always such a painful event. The placement of the body in the ground just makes everything so final. I just don’t think you can compare disposal of bodies on earth to a scientific story of a dog. Also, Harrison mentions that to “become truly dead they must first be made to disappear.” This statement makes me wonder what the difference between being dead and truly dead is…..
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in the idea of the earth as our datum. We rely so heavily on its solid ground to base any of our aspirations--be they architecture or simply our daily lives. More exciting is the concept of the sea as a creature which "devours the framework of scale", skewing our perspective on life and forcing us into a serious contemplation of the afterlife.
ReplyDeleteDo we really busy ourselves with everyday tasks in order to escape the reality of death? Or are we only halfway living because we anticipate death?
I think this formless nature of the sea is intriguing because it causes us to contemplate some of life's most important issues. What, then, would do the same in architectural terms? How could we invoke similar contemplation in our work? Our project calls for something that reinforces the idea of presence and absence, solid and void. How can built form inspire contemplation in the same way the sea does, especially since the sea seems to raise this contemplation through its formlessness?
We have the capacity to bury and remember our people and that is separate us from other species. The “living memory” as the article mention is the meaning of what we are, our traditions, evolution, and our culture and in a sense it is not a true death because we as humans are still remember in the earth. The article also focus it theme in the relationship between space and death. And here is where we need to focus on; the death bodies occupied a space commonly on the earth (underground), but why underground? Because we are “keeping one’s dead closely” and the time is related to the memory the “correlation between time and earth”.
ReplyDeleteSome of the things that caught my attention from the reading was how the author tied architecture and the progression of time for humans together on page 3. From this I was able to see an underline symbolic meaning in that humans are born, they progres in age, eventually get old and then pass away. This is the same for buildings and architecture. Another interesting point was that about sea. According to Robert Harrison the sea swallows and covers up the ruins in it. Because of this there is no need for a gravestone.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that I noticed was that the author made a reference to the bible. I know the subject is over death but there are many who would stay clear of this reference. Robert Harrison uses John and the book of revelation to make his point. Overall, I felt that the chapter was very deep and dwelled in several different topics but that the author did a good job of bringing back all of the topics to that of death.
One thing about the article that left an impression on me is the relationship between matter and meaning. Both buildings and beings are similar in the way that we are more than the sum of our materials. I think something interesting to focus on would be how "dumb" matter is given meaning through structure. A stone has no inherent meaning to a human, but cut it to a certain shape, and fit it together with thousands of others like it in a certain pattern, and it becomes something meaningful.
ReplyDeleteIn this fashion, architecture becomes one of humanty's best ways of imposing meaning on a world that often seems at best uncaring, and at worst actively malevolent. This makes it the architect's job to find and formalize meaning in matter.
In The Earth and Its Dead the author delineates, by citation of several dichotomies, the inexorable finitude of the human experience and all that it constitutes. The futile desire and attempts of humankind geared at perpetuation in the face of “natural time,” the universe’s entropic and erasure-driven procession against the products of “human time,” forms the theme that pervades this chapter and models all other comparisons. While man seeks to eternalize and memorialize himself through various means, none will avail by reason of the cosmos’ highly destructive and degenerative impositions upon our species. This point forms the gist of almost everything the author has to say.
ReplyDeleteRobert Harrison’s most repetitive and poignant reminders of human mortality are his many citations of poems and stories reminding the reader of water’s representation of man’s delible existence. Of particular poignance is a poem by Swinburne elucidating the inundation of a garden by the sea. After the snuffing of all life is duly treated Swinburne concludes, “death lies dead.” Unequivocally painting a picture that after the deluge has consumed all life not even death can go on, and all that remains is an abiotic composite of elements without purpose.
Of particular interest to me, though, are the many allusions to architectural durability versus the dilapidation of structures, and the discomforting cognizance of the mortality of humankind that such ruin can invoke. All species seek to perpetuate themselves via procreation, but man is unique among the species due to the multiplicity of methods by which we attempt to preserve ourselves, our history, and memory. This helps one to internalize and appreciate that architecture is central to that natural struggle. When one observes history’s great architectural accomplishments, they gleam memories of a glorious past that didn’t die with the builders. The undying spirit and ingenuity of the builders is embodied in the time-resistant structure of an edifice neatly crafted. It’s lends the observer to, while perhaps a delusion, a comfortable conception that we can perpetuate ourselves forever in the face of natural time, and reside in the minds of those who will later peruse our accomplishments.
I liked the authors views about how architecture creates the spaces where human time takes place. That fact that he sets architecture in its own category aside from the other visual arts, simply because they are unable to represent the temporal flow of time. I like when he says architecture turns matter into meaning, which explains why ruins are so compelling to us. In thier ruinous they remind us of how weak our structures are against the force of nature. Nothing we build will ever completely stand the test of time
ReplyDeleteI find the article depressing also. One of the more interesting sections is the part about time and how we perceive it. When the author mentions “The sight of ruins is such a reflexive and in some cases unsettling experience,” I can see how it would seem unsettling because we look at the ruins and most likely can’t imagine hundreds of years ago how people were using the structures, and how they perceived time long ago.
ReplyDeleteAs a response to a discussion I had with kGresh, I did not formulate an opinion on this article off of the surface reading of it. Rather in an attempt to dive deeper, I noticed how this entire article revolves around relationships and the relativity of everything upon itself. We must not only define things by how they relate but formulate a direct opinion about the opposing sides so as to evoke the emotion of each separate identity to express they interconnectedness fully.
ReplyDelete