Is it really a blight?
In the text “Learning from Pop” by Denise Scott-Brown, there was one sentence that really stuck with me: “When “blighted” neighborhoods are swept away together with billboards and gasoline stations in the name of the avoidance of “visual pollution,” the social harm can be irreparable (65).” I thought this was an interesting way of describing a neighborhood that is not aesthetically pleasing or “the norm”. Calling something a blight means that it causes damage or spoils another thing. I think looking at anything as a blight would cause irreparable social harm because while it may not be visually appealing to one person, it probably has a significant, positive impact on someone else's life. For example, an old playground in a neighborhood that is faded and rusted and far from pretty, is still an important part of the neighborhood. It provides a space for children’s imaginations to run free, and could even serve as a gathering space for the adults in the community. Just because something looks unappealing, does not make it a blight.
Kayla,
ReplyDeleteYour post makes me think of the interesting intersection of today's ideology of socially good architecture and the "ugly". From today's perspective the example you give is almost "better" architecture because of the impact made and the good that it does, meaning the visual of it falls second.
I think your observations bring up the phenomenon of care and maintenance. And that actually, the notion of “blight” is deemed so by capitalism but is also a by-product of it, lacking the resources and investment from the state required to realize aesthetic quality at the same level as functionality.
ReplyDelete