unreal's blog

It really is quite remarkable what our species has achieved. To develop the knowledge to transform base elements enherent to the planet into rockets, computers, plastics etc. is pretty mind blowing when you sit and ponder it. Burke's satire within "Towards Helhaven: Three Stages of a Vision" helps to illustrate the reality that we rarely see all of what we invent, when we are inventing it (Ulmer in EM, via Virilio pg. xii).

Pardon my double dipping here, but because our presentations are to be very brief, I want to call your attention to Gregory Clark's, Rhetorical Landscapes, in consideration of Burke's notion of representational anecdote. The book is extremely helpful in understanding much of Burke’s work, as it applies to shared attitudes and motives, I found it particularly useful in thinking through GOM and ROM. Clark explains,
                  “For him (Burke), a representative anecdote is an incident or interaction (or,

I really struggled through the section in GOM on Spinoza. It is a part that I felt particularly drawn to, as I have been working with Deleuze on Spinoza a lot in my work on Ubiquitous Urbanism this semester in studio. Unfortunately, this section seems really cumbersome for me in the way that I used to struggle with Algebra. Fortunatley, for my larger media project I have been reading “Counter Gridlock: An Interview with Kenneth Burke 1980-81” in On Human Nature: a Gathering While Everything Flows.

Third Clarification of Project_ And a Draft!

Reflecting on the prompt, “what's the significance of a "representative anecdote" and what might it have to do with Burke's notion of entelechy or ‘casuistic stretching,’” I felt drawn to KB’s considerations regarding the relationship between representation and reduction on page 60 (as well as in the appendix) of Grammar. Though obviously not the entire “whole” picture ;) these considerations seem very important to me. I feel that KB is making the case for a more mutually constructive understanding of reduction/ representation.

I plan on heeding Dr. Blakesley’s suggestion to use KB’s relationship with Duncan and Goff as a “way in” to the discussion of Burke and its usefulness in and on architectural and urban procedures. Though I am interested in and will explore the Goff/ Duncan and Burke/ Duncan correspondences directly, I will avoid constructing a historical narrative or timeline. I feel that a more productive exercise will be to mine Burke’s writing for instances that may help non-architects understand the bureaucratic process that is architecture.

My response today is derived primarily from the essay in PLF “The Nature of Art Under Capitalism.” In this piece, KB draws a distinction between work patterns and ethical patterns, suggesting that capitalism seeks to prevent an ”integration” between these two modes, (314-316). 

Reading Burke’s PLF has in some ways provided me with some therapeutic solace during a particularly dramatic few weeks. I will spare you all the details....

The built environment influences our state of mind, the decisions we make, and the quality of complex environmental issues--this cannot be argued. However, very few have much say about the design and development of our collective built reality. Why do so few, relatively, take an interest in the quality of public and private space, and particularly in the United States?

This weeks reading selection leaves me with a sense of inadequacy. I’m inspired by Burke’s willingness to deal at high stakes within his writing, and within his “community.” The following quote, from Burke’s response to the Discussion of Burke's Speech at the Congress, April 27, 1935, in particular capture the essence of what I feel he is after in general, advocating for the taking of risks in one’s creative work and writing.