Randall Jarrell

                              Author, poet, literary critic, Randall Jarrell was probably best known for his poetry depicting the non- glamorous side of warfare, specifically world war II. Contrary to hundreds of poets throughout history who have glamorized warfare and individual military heroes, Jarrell, in his poems, portrays the soldier as a nameless innocent child that is killed while performing a remedial task (Death of a Ball Turret Gunner). This poem is not inspiring, does not arouse patriotism, is very gloomy, and verges on depressing. The last line especially is bluntly dismal. Before the last line it seemed that the poem was being told by a live person, but the last line leaves no doubt that the story was being told from beyond the grave. I guess, in a way, you could call this poem inspiring if it inspires people to shun warfare. Jarrell had first hand experience with war fare in the air corps and army during w orld war II. Judging from his poems, I would say that his opinion of warfare was that it is pretty not to great ... To say the least.

 

                              Jarrell’s first poetry book, Blood for a Stranger  was published in 1942, the same year he enlisted in the air corps and his second one, Little Friend, Little Friend was published in 1945. These poems showed to the average citizen the intense fears and moral struggles that almost all the soldiers faced. In the recruiting ads and government propaganda people weren’t told about the how terrible war can be. Not only could you be physically injured, but you could just as easily be mentally scared for life, with hideous scenes of warfare seared into your memory. So perhaps Jarrell was trying to be inspiring after all… If we as average citizens were made aware of the atrocities of war, perhaps we would be a little less likely to “shoot first and ask questions later” so to speak.

Mies Van Der Rohe

“Less is More.” This short statement was Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s motto for architecture. Some people might look at his architecture and say that it is drab or plain. But put in the context of the time that he was creating, it becomes a magnificent and revolutionary work of art. Van der Rohe designed his buildings to fit the time period. While other architects were trying to copy techniques from the Victorian era, VDR started experimenting with an architecture that would define the industrial era. What he came up with is now referred to as International Style Architecture. The most common properties of VDR’s buildings are their rectangular form, their use of steel, glass, and concrete to from walls void of ornamentation, and their spacious interior.

In class recently we talked about the sculpture called “The City Square”. This reminds me of VDR’s brand of architecture. His “skin and bones” style shown in buildings like the “Friedrichstrasse Office Building” (1919) and the “Glass Skyscraper” (1921), were built in such a way that you can see the steel girders and other structural elements through the transparent building materials of the exterior. The very simplicity of these buildings, as well as his others, add a kind of elegance to them that not many other architects have or had. I think that VDR is comparable to Frank Lloyd Wright. Not because their buildings looked similar, but because of their ideals. Both designed buildings that would fit in to their surroundings and function. FLW built houses that would blend into nature and provide a residential dwelling. VDR designed buildings that would fit into the industrial and business settings of the mid 1900’s. Both provided revolutionary alternatives to “the old way” of architecture. On the other hand, FLW’s “form over function” is a total contrast to “less is more.” Which do you think is more appropriate?

Frank Lloyd Wright

Frank Lloyd Wright: revolutionary architect, innovator, furniture designer, and wanna-be philosopher. Far and away the most well-known architect of the 20^th century, the American Institute of Architecture calls him the greatest American architect of all time. Born two years after the end of the civil war, FLW lived long enough to see the first satellite launched into space (92 years). He advocated the use of materials native to the surroundings of the particular building, claiming that the building needed to grow from its surroundings. “A building is not just a place to be; it is a way to be.”

With one of my high school classes we visited a number of FLW houses/buildings and learned about his life. Aside from the fact that he ran his personal life into the ground, he seemed to escape from the mold of other famous innovative artists insomuch as he was able to capture the interest, approval and even the admiration of the public.

One FLW house that I was able to visit was Taliesin West. This was his own personal summer house built in the Arizona desert. As was his custom, he built it to blend with the surrounding environment and enhance it, instead of bringing a loud contrast to it. I think this is comparable to Hans Zimmer, who we discussed in class, whose music was meant to supplement the scene rather than steal the scene. Unlike other architects of the day, FLW designed more for aesthetics than he did for efficiency. He claimed “form over function.” He considered himself an artist and his work was art, not construction. He pioneered “organic architecture”, which is basically building while keeping in mind the environment.

A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines.