In
Mike Davis’ opening anecdote in City of Quartz, he recounts a story
published in a popular fashion magazine describing the newest trend of
intellectualism in Los Angeles, and how Angelinos believed that becoming more
intellectual “would accompany the laying on of Culture”. Throughout the chapter
‘Sunshine or Noir?’ Davis consistently associates Brahmin intellectualism with
a heightened sense of culture. He characterizes any intellectual in Los Angeles
as being corrupted, pursuing wealth instead of the pure feeling of creativity.
I beg to disagree with this notion; after all, Los Angeles is clearly a very
cultured city. Maybe not cultured in the same way that Davis or eastern
intellectuals would use the word ‘culture’, but cultured nonetheless.
Los
Angeles, in the words of Reyner Banham, is “the uniquely mobile metropolis”.
Banham goes on to postulate that the only way to truly understand the city is
to view it through the same lens that helped shape it as it grew; the language
of mobility. This is a vernacular in which very few easterners or traditional
intellectuals are versed; L.A. is in fact one of the youngest major cities in
the U.S, so there is no surprise that it might contrast more with vertical,
history-rich eastern cities. Intellectuals in Los Angeles are of a very
different sort than Brahmin intellectuals; many work either in Hollywood or in
the aerospace industry, while Davis’ idea of an intellectual is one who is
wealthy and who frequents salons, contributing to the free flow and
dissemination of ideas. A typical Angeleno has a heightened sense of individual
freedom foreign to easterners who would emphasize the urban, tight-knit
communities of New York and Boston. Davis’ most glaring pitfall in criticizing
Los Angeles is that he sees it from a different perspective, one that in all
honesty cannot capture the essence of Los Angeles. The city is built on the
idea of being different; even the false myth spun by Otis Chandler to entice
midwesterners to come to the City of Angels is completely unique to the city.
Banham
criticizes observers like Davis who fail to see past what they deem chaos and
nightmarish without trying to interpret the city in its own light. Davis’ idea of
culture truly isn’t compatible with Los Angeles because Los Angeles has such a
dramatically different take on culture. Street performers and hamburger stands,
surfing and hiking in the mountains, movies and space shuttles; all of these
and more encapsulate what this city means, not just a small elite (living
mostly on inherited money) gathering in living rooms and quietly discussing
ideas and talking about their dissemination. Here in Los Angeles, we put our
minds to work.
I think the sentence describing the individual freedom Los Angeles intellectuals possess in contrast to easterners has a real truth to it. As opposed to Banham, Davis reads Los Angeles from a very Eastern perspective, and compares its intellectuals to intellectuals of the east, a comparison that has very little merit. Banham emphasizes the free-flowing nature of the city, which is reflected in the attitudes and livelihoods of intellectuals, who reject the classical idea of thinking about ideas just to think about ideas. Angelino intellectuals seem to be cut from a different mold, and are more amorphous in where they apply their thought in comparison to close minded and seemingly pretentious eastern intellectuals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jon, in that I think there is more to LA than just commercialism; however, I think that Davis is arguing less about Los Angeles having a lack of culture and more about Los Angeles having a lack of intellectualism.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, I think we would all rebel against Davis' assertion, but it is important to remember that we have a completely different point of view. I find Los Angeles to be an intellectual city; however, I say that as a 17-year-old student at an elite private school next to one of the top research universities in the world. I say that as a daughter of two highly educated parents who put effort into opening my eyes via museums, lectures, and books about our city. I say that as an avid listener of KPCC. With my experience, I consider Los Angeles intellectual, but I am only one of 3.858 million people in Los Angeles.
I think we bristle whenever we hear LA described as devoid of intellectualism because we experience one of the unique cultures of LA that is full of intellectuals. Many of our classmates are the students of professors, and conversations about the Space Shuttle Endeavor are commonplace. I do think it is important to realize, that while the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is well-known to us, so too are the Kardashians to many others. Whenever I introduce myself as from Los Angeles, the person's first question is: "Have you met any celebrities?"
We need intellectuals to power our vast motion-picture industry, but we still focus on the celebrities doing the least amount of work. Despite an attempt to bring culture "back" to Los Angeles, we still do it with "a surge of commodity." Our "Culture Industry" is full of intellectualism if you look a little deeper, but it is the superficial surface image that everyone looks at first. I think it takes time to find the intellectualism of LA, which is what all of the "imported intellectuals" described by Davis don't fully realize.
I definitely agree that Davis is holding Los Angeles intellectualism to an unfit standard. Jon is right, LA is not a city where you can head to a street corner and find the "intellectuals". LA is a city where the intelligentsia are hidden and scattered throughout our society. This hidden intellectualism , I think, can be attributed to the newness of our city. Our intelligentsia are unable to follow the eastern model of using, as Jon pointed out, largely inherited money to finance their pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. LA does not have the old money class to support a widespread salon culture. Where Banham accepts LA's version of intellectualism as it is, Davis treats it as it appears on the surface, nonexistent.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most important distinctions between the Banham and Davis works is that Banham seems to attempt to learn about Los Angeles in its own light, whereas Davis appears to construct an argument for the one-sided view of Los Angeles as being nightmarish and chaotic. Despite having such differing tactics in approaching the study of Los Angeles, neither argument is blatantly superior. While Banham seems to do the city justice by studying it in its own context, he seems to overemphasize the glory of the city, frequently in awe of its uniqueness. He seems to say that the Midwesterners are forever bettered by having lived here, in his interpretation of Bradbury's work referencing the martians. As Angelenos, we may be inclined to support this overly positive perception of our city, however Banham seems to also have a bias in this regard. In line with Davis's opinion that Midwesterners are merely relocated in Los Angeles and maintain the same ideals, it is important to consider which is more influential--the city itself or the new arrivals living in it. Is the city changing the Midwesterners and new Angelenos, or are the new arrivals replicating their backgrounds in a new environment?
ReplyDeleteI think this intelligence vs. culture argument is very interesting. Because we have a different type of culture, we are perceived to be less intelligent. I disagree with this notion, and believe that different cultures have their own unique intelligence within themselves. Yes, Los Angeles doesn’t have the same culture as the Brahmin intellectuals, but in no way does that make us subpar. I agree with Jon when he says that Davis’ ideas about culture are not compatible with Los Angles. Davis describes culture as something almost the complete opposite of what Los Angeles is. Phenomena like “the mission myth” have shaped the way we live today, a way that is completely unmatched to the rest of the world. Our culture is extraordinary, and gives us our own intelligence.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that Davis seems to be ignoring a big part of Los Angeles' identity, which is that it's a younger, different place than the east, and holding it to the eastern standard is unfair. Davis is trying to compare a completely new and different kind of intellectualism with traditional Brahmin intellectualism, which just doesn't fit with Los Angeles. Los Angeles isn't a place for parlors, it's a place for eccentric, fast-paced minds that need to put themselves to work in a place that allows their intellect to move freely and quickly--which fits in perfectly with the idea that Los Angeles is a place defined by movement and freedom. Intellectualism is not a fad in Los Angeles, but another aspect of Los Angeles that (as Banham loves pointing out) is completely unique to the city.
ReplyDeleteI firmly disagree that the intelligentsia of Los Angeles are any more hidden here than they are anywhere else. Los Angeles may have a different geographical organization, but everywhere one looks the evidence of our city's role as a world leader in science, business, and the arts is clear. This town is home to U.S.C., which educates the largest number of international students in the country and receives nearly $600 million in research grants annually. U.C.L.A., its public rival, is the alma mater of no fewer than fifteen Nobel Laureates. L.A. is home to Tesla and SpaceX, to the offices of enormous financial institutions (and a dozen or more home-grown banks), the largest sea port in North America, Caltech, the Claremont Colleges, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The entire motion picture industry is firmly tied to Los Angeles, as is a large portion of national theatre. David Hockney and Shepard Fairey, two of the most widely recognized visual artists of the 20th and 21st centuries, are both L.A. residents, among dozens of other world-famous artists. Los Angeles is constantly compared to the cities of the eastern United States, when in reality such a comparison limits L.A.'s role as a city of the world. We are closer in Los Angeles to the eclectic chaos of Bangkok than the relative peace of the planned avenues of Washington, D.C., or Chicago. Intellectualism in Los Angeles isn't invisible; it's unstoppable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jon, Davis’ intellectual definition seemingly stems from a narrow-minded eastern slanted mindset. I may not be entirely unbiased when it comes to this city, but the picture Davis paints of Los Angeles hardly encompasses the city’s culture and intellectual attributes. Much like viewing the various neighborhoods from the trails of the San Gabriels, every culture of LA blends from afar into a meaningless jumble of clashing viewpoints. To remotely understand LA, one must travel within “the uniquely mobile metropolis” and explore the vast freedoms so stereotypically entwined in our everyday lives. Davis approaches his piece from specific districts and professions when, in reality, the intellectual culture of LA is all encompassing. I find it interesting that Davis discusses brilliant intellectuals in the film and aerospace industries, among others, and the culture they create, yet when LA is discussed as an entity, the intellectual culture is lost, as if the smaller parts do not make up the whole.
ReplyDeleteI think we should acknowledge that neither Banham nor Davis is out of his element in understanding LA history, particularly as it relates to culture. Davis in particular demonstrates an acute understanding of this city's nuanced past; furthermore, I would urge everyone to remember that the thrust of his work relates to Los Angeles's self-perception among intellectuals, not a lack thereof. In fact, I think his argument is less that LA has a philistine image but more that it suffers from a dearth of honest portrayal from boosters, noir, writers, and frosty Germans alike. Instead of arguing over the merits or shortcomings of tinseltown as a cultural hub, we should ask ourselves what it is that elicits such wildly different responses among intellectuals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jon in that Mike Davis' description is a little too limited towards the broader scope of the full culture of Los Angeles. We cannot compare the city of Los Angeles to an eastern metropolis simply because of how vast and expansive L.A. is geographically. This expansion is mirrored in the type of "intellect" we see presently in our city for the great minds of L.A. are dispersed into the melting pot of cultures that such a city provides. We may not have the traditional eastern "Brahmin" intellectuals but that does not mean that intuition is not present. We are home to some of the greatest minds in the history of our nation, mostly stemming from our aerospace and movie industries. L.A.'s intellectuals are not caught up in the same bustling fast-pace clamor that eastern cities of New York and Boston provide, but rather the understated fluid movement that our culture is built around. I disagree with Davis when he says that our sense of culture is only a trend because our true culture runs through all things and all places in L.A. almost as a river of collaborative thought that splits off into streams of subcultures. In this regard, all thoughts are moving, not stagnant, as the abundance of subcultures coalesce into the hub of genuine intellect that makes up the encompassing culture of Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Davis seems to only view Los Angeles in one light, when really there are so many different things that make up Los Angeles and make it so unique. Davis seems to think of intellectuals as people who sit and think and do not have ulterior motives, but in reality there are many intellectuals who can work in many different creative areas. It seems to me like the Los Angeles intellectual can certainly be different than the Brahmin intellectuals Davis describes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with Banham when he describes how some people, like Davis, cannot see past LA’s flaws enough to see its culture, I also think that people like Banham need to be able to see LA’s flaws so that they can fix them.
I agree with Jon that Davis' view on LA is a little twisted- Davis needs to take Banham's idea of the "language of mobility" into account. This “language of mobility” goes beyond the idea that LA is a city that is discovered and understood through mobility/connecting with it by driving down the 101; Angelinos use and change the “language of mobility” on a daily basis simply by being part of the city and living in it. LA is made up of all different types of people from different backgrounds and stories; the “language of mobility” is therefore a combination of Spanish/French/Chinese/insert random city slang that the Angelinos speak and understand this language fluently.
ReplyDeleteLike Jon, I disagree with Mike Davis' depiction of LA intellectualism as corrupted and "pursing wealth instead of the pure feeling of creativity." I mean, LA is the entertainment capital of the world. Movies, television productions, and music are all created and produced in LA, which is home to hundreds of museums and art galleries. Forbes estimates that "one in every six of the city’s residents works in a creative industry." Furthermore, LA boasts the creative and innovative minds of millions of intellectuals within NASA, JPL, and the likes who have made space travel possible. And with all of this success comes wealth. Wealth in LA comes AS A RESULT of creativity and intellectualism. Although it's true many Angelinos do seek wealth, it is not fair to single out LA residents for wanting to make money. Investment bankers on Wall Street strive to make billions, but they're not corrupted. pfft.
ReplyDeleteDear Davis, sorry for not sitting around chit chatting in salons. We're a little busy making movies for you to watch and sending satellites into space to protect you from natural disasters. -the "fake" intellectuals of LA
I think that Jon has a very valid argument. The culture of LA does not nor will it ever fit the mold that the Eastern critics attempt to impose upon it. This city has a unique culture and pursuit of intellectualism that the Eastern states/cities will never have. A person has to live in LA to understand and appreciate its eccentricities. With this piece of Jon's argument, I am in total agreement. I have trouble when Jon talks about the work of Otis. Jon states that the false myth created by Otis is unique to the city, and that is a true statement. I do not think that this uniqueness is a positive in any way. I think that this uniqueness is what created the noir love to hate LA attitude. Otis essentially built the culture of LA upon manipulation and exploitation. He shaped the culture to suit the needs and desires of the Boosters. I think that what Otis did was unique, but it really put LA at a major disadvantage. People are unable to see something in a positive light when is it for lack of a better word a lie. Some of the culture that is so fundamental to LA was created by Otis. It is not the true culture, but merely an idealized and glorified prototype. LA survived the reign of Otis and created a metropolis bursting with life and originality. It is an amazing and unique place, but we cannot ignore the fact that some of Otis's exploitation still remains to this day. We still have some of this flawed culture present today that is unique but not at all in a positive way. In my opinion, LA is mixture of both Banham and Davis. It is an amazingly unique place, but it has some glaring flaws the need to be accepted as part of the history and culture.
ReplyDeleteI think that the diversity of reasons for traveling to LA is larger than that of other cities, and therefore the seemingly random mix of cultures should therefore be respected, not punished. While Eastern cities were mainly founded by groups of Europeans who came to the New World to escape religious persecution, people moved to LA for health rehabilitation, the promise of glamour and fame, work in the orange groves, gold, and space, among many other reasons. These distinct motivations were the building blocks of our culture and should be celebrated as such. Chastising LA culture for its lack of unification shows an ignorance toward the foundation of this city, and refusing to call LA cultured at all is downright disrespectful to the billions of people who brought themselves and their stories here. Though LA may not have as large a portion of its population sitting around fireplaces and chatting about philosophy, our intelligence is proven through our ability to cooperate in this city's system as one.
ReplyDelete