Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
uh---if you take that image as a way of transposing the present into the future (you know, take the way folk interact as you understand it now and shift it forward in time) i'm not sure that you'd want to like in the foreground. look at the fucking pipes.
this would be a pathological space. social relation would be mirror images of what you'd find in the city, but without the functionality.
the windmill would probably be an ornament.
folk in the city could walk to the edge and look out over the vast plain of their own waste and think "what happy peasants there are."
but these happy peasants would be living in a space defined entirely by the waste flows from a huge city.
the city is just a bunch of verticals. you don't know anything at all about it.
except that it was designed with the assumption that it's somehow ok to simply dump water and waste outside its immediate borders and just leave it there. i expect then that you'd find alot of television-viewers in the city--self-absorbed people living in some fantasy that the machine they move through is a "city on a hill."
i'd rather live outside the painting altogether.
|
I think you're interpreting the image too literally. I took it as a statement of contrasts , and not a literal representation of geographical space. The two ideals are depicted side by side as a way of showing two different potential forms of a utopian ideal, and the geographic relation between them is more a form of artistic license than anything else.
Of course, this then raises questions of how best to interpret art, and whether or not the artist's intention carries any greater inherent weight than the viewer's own bias, but that goes beyond the scope.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
You also, generally, speaking, don't ever want to be downstream from a mega-city like that.
|
The farming community is upstream of the city. The basin must empty somewhere not depicted. Of course, this is again interpreting the picture literally.