Although the Donald article, “The Immaterial City: Representation, Imagination, and Media Technologies” was eliminated from the assigned reading schedule, I took it upon myself to pair it alongside Dicken’s Bleak House (which I’m still unfortunately struggling to get through) to get a fresh perspective on the narrative. If anyone in the class can say they haven’t felt the need to break from Esther and company, I don’t believe you. That being said, I thought the Donald piece was a relieving exhale and an interesting take on the epistemologies and representations of city life.
The author explains that the way we come to experience a particular city, and subsequently, the ways through which we know that city, is primarily based on the imagined representations of urban life via literature, television, and cinema. He says that these images suggest and inform our capacity to know a city, both physically and imaginatively, so that essentially, when we do visit, there really is no process of defamiliarization. We believe we are experiencing a city with which we’ve already been acquainted. Donald uses the example of Des Esseintes, a character from the JK Huysmans fictional study A Rebours, published in 1884. In the piece, Des Esseintes leaves Paris to experience London after reading Dickens and hopes to “turn a dream into reality, of traveling to England in the flesh as well as in the spirit, of checking accuracy of his [Dickens’s] visions” (Huysmans 132). And not surprisingly, Des Esseintes is relieved to feel comfortable in the presence of his preconceived notions of London. Because he was already familiar with the city’s representation in artistic media, the character sees London as, what Donald argues, “a collection of signs – smells, weather, citizens, food, and even cutlery, that connote an idea of a place.” Overall, Donald’s argument is that our knowledge of urban reality is shaped immensely by the “immaterial city of word, image, and myth.”
I completely agree. I’ve never been to London, and I’m undecided on whether I want to visit. My ambivalence is completely associated with my idea of what London is, from what I’ve read and what I’ve seen on television, pictures, and film. Dickens shows me a dark, fog-laden city that’s old, cold, and unsuitable to the working class masses. PBS documentaries show me images of historical monarchs, Buckingham palace, and excessive wealth. The pictures of well-to-do friends who visit London quite frequently show trips to the Tate, Harrods, and the expensive boutiques of Covent Garden. These images leave me confused. Yes, I enjoy the rich history, and I’d love to visit a museum, but I highly doubt I’d be able to afford these experiences on a shoe-string grad student budget. I have a feeling I would see a fraction of these sights, and I would be disappointed that my expectations couldn’t be met. I experienced the same let-down when I moved to New York City as a teenager. I had Romantic visions (if you want to call it that) of living in the East Village among artists, dancers, and club kids, meeting creative people and creating simultaneously. Quickly I learned that the city’s administration was partaking in a complete overhaul of underprivileged neighborhoods and booting out all the artists in favor of real estate gentrification. I couldn’t afford the East Village even if I tried. I was forced to take a desk job at an investment bank and keep early hours during week days. My initial experiences of New York City were not what I imagined in the least.
Therefore, Donald’s article should serve as a reminder of this contrast between perceived knowledge and reality. He says “the immaterial city is a disconcerting yet hopeful reminder of imagination beyond images,” and I believe that to be true. But more important, I think that we as observers and consumers of mediated images must be conscious of their effects upon our conceptions of physical reality. We must, at a certain point, adopt a critical perspective in order to really know.
Work Cited
Huysmans, JK. Against Nature (A Rebours). Trans. Robert Baldick. London: Penguin, 1959. Print.
Jane,
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything that you so eloquently express. I would only add that an underlying empirical base must accompany the critical perspective. What's more, personal experience, regardless of whether it's drawn from Knightsbridge or the East End, is limited. I spent a year in Vietnam during the 1960s, but what I could tell you about the war is microscopic compared to what I learned from good books and other vets. You're right on another point though, the picture provided by the popular media is usually a fiction.