Darden with one of his pieces from 100 Drawing Nights
Years ago, sometime between the late 1990s and the early 2000s there was talk that Ben Ledbetter was going to produce a book on Douglas Darden. Ledbetter never seems to have indicated such, but it just seemed to be the word around the sewing circle. Ledbetter had been Darden's closest friend at Harvard GSD and continued to be his best friend, but it appears Ledbetter would rather relish the memories he had with his friend than produce a book. I also came across rumors that Barbara Ambach was going to produce a book, but such was bogus. There was a legitimate talk that Peter Schneider was going to produce a book, seeing as he was Darden's closest colleague, having hired Darden at CU Denver, and even giving a few of Darden's lectures for him when he was too sick to deliver them himself. Indeed, Schneider was working on a book entitled Beginning from the Underbelly: A History of Douglas Darden's Condemned Building. But Schneider abandoned this project, probably for similar reasons as Ledbetter, but there is also a great deal of politics behind researching, and especially publishing on Darden. I believe there were rumors James Trewitt, Darden's closest student and assistant on Laughing Girls, was going to publish a book, but Trewitt does not corroborates this.
Darden is a relatively niche subject to research. In reality, two or three people would be a sufficient team to rummage through everything Darden produced and make a book that would more or less be the definitive text on Darden. I myself tried to work with others on producing something on Darden, yet everyone appears to think of it as a solo task, and it might as well be. Had Darden lived longer, it could have been a larger task, but I suppose one person is enough. Had he lived longer, he may have had more impact, but he is really only remembered for his intriguing drawings and unorthodox ideas. All this leads to academic territorialism. Academics who have worked or continue to work on Darden want to be the definitive Darden authority. But again, he's a niche topic. Darden research does not yield much or have many implications on other subjects. Darden is a means to an end. It is research on Darden for the sake of Darden research. It can inspire drawing techniques, design approaches, and ideas for narrative architecture, but that is about it: Darden is inspiration, not a means to further exploration of other things. As a result, publications on Darden are also relatively niche, and they tend to be found in obscure, hard to find publications, or worse, in the transactions of academic conferences. Thus Darden remains relatively obscure, while simultaneously being heavily fought over.
I myself encountered these politics, some which are delicate aspects of his biography that need to be navigated around (he has only been dead for twenty-five years, after all), but also because Darden is such a specific subject, and no one wants to share the credit. It is part of the reason I abandoned further research on Darden for a couple of years after I published the Wikipedia article on the man and his work. It was very disillusioning and, to be frank, absolutely annoying. There really are better things to do with one's time than fight with other academics. So for two years I did nothing. I set Darden aside and focused on other subjects. Then I began to revisit Darden. Slowly at first, but steadily built up extensive piles of notes, diagrams, interviews, and a great collection of sketches, drawings, and photographs. Only recently have I decided to start publishing these things here. Why? Two reasons: firstly, research on Darden needs to be more readily available; secondly, I am not totally sure a book on Darden is appropriate.
Marc Neveu has announced that he intends to publish a book that will "unpack" the ten works in Condemned Building. I am curious to see what Neveu produces. He appears to have access to all the same material I have. After Darden passed away in 1996, Schneider was tasked with gathering all his materials to archive, and they are currently in the Avery Archive at Columbia University, with the exception of a handful of his graduate material at Harvard, and a few pieces in private collections. Schneider did not simply pack everything into boxes, but rather photographed and scanned nearly everything as they were being packed away. In 2015, Schneider passed these digitized files on to me. Thus, following Neveu's work up until 2016 was fairly easy, but he has fallen silent on the matter since, apart from an announcement around two years ago of his intentions to produce the book.
Over the last three or four years I have let Darden's work and ideas marinate in my head. There are a few questions and concerns that are necessary to be asked when it comes to producing a book on Darden.
Firstly, will this book destroy that? Darden worked in narrative. He studied psychology and literature at CU Boulder before going into architecture. Literature was his patron, his client, and he produces literature when he designs. There are several layers of narrative in his works. There is also narrative in his life. As mentioned, there are delicate matters about Darden's life one must tip-toe around, or censor entirely, yet these play an integral part in his work and development. Shall these be ignored? Or shall they be worked into the narrative he built for himself?
Should one expose these narratives? Or should one maintain the narratives he created? Shortly after Darden's death, Schneider gave a few lectures on some of Darden's work, and still maintained the narrative Darden created, then as the years go on, Schneider is more revealing about Darden's inspiration and ideas. To dig into Darden's narratives and expose them creates the dilemma: will this research destroy that narrative? Will the magic and majesty of Darden's narratives be dissolved in favor of exposing him? Obviously, the same goes for amateur academics on blog posts, because I am guilty of this as well.
I personally do not think there is anything wrong with uncovering Darden's ideas and inspirations that in-form his designs. The question concerns "unpacking" his narratives and exposing them, revealing the truth over the myths he carefully constructed. Darden's drawings are alluring and stunning, and that is usually what draws people to his work. But truly the most compelling part of his work is the narratives. It is important that the narratives do not dissolve, or else there is no magic in his work.
Personally, I believe that in order to maintain his narratives one must interpret the sources of his inspiration through his work, and not the other way around. When Antonin Artaud praises The Chimeras by Gerard de Nerval, he writes: "far from seeing Gerard de Nerval explained through Mythology and alchemy, I would like to see alchemy and its Myths explained through the poems of Gerard de Nerval." For Artaud, de Nerval was such an original, so inimitable, so novel and unique that one cannot rely on myth and mysticism to explain him and his work. Rather, one must understand de Nerval and interpret myth and mysticism through him. The same is applicable for Darden. He took literature, myths, scientific articles, philosophical ideas, et al and reenvisioned them through himself, through his own ideas and personal symbolism. When we look at Clinic for Sleep Disorders, we should not interpret it through Rimbaud's poem "Drunken Little Boat," but rather reinterpret Rimbaud through Clinic for Sleep Disorders. When we look at the plan for Oxygen House, we should not try to interpret it through Faulkner's map of Yoknapatawpha County, but rather reinterpret that map and the entire geography of Faulkner's stories through Oxygen House. When we look at Laughing Girls, we should interpret Greek myth and geography, as well as interpret Darden's life and history through Laughing Girls; not the other way around. In treating Darden's approach to his sources of inspiration, it is important to do as Darden did: let the inspiration in-form his designs, but interpret the inspiration through his work. Such is the only way to maintain Darden's narratives without destroying the magic of his work.
If one were to totally expose Darden's life and narratives, totally reveal every aspect of the man and his work, that work should be prepared for publication, sent to the publisher, and then let it sit on a shelf for 100 years — just as Mark Twain did with his autobiography. This will ensure that people who were close to Darden are dead and their children are dead. This will create a significant separation in chronology to allow others to wonder and admire, without being too invested in the exposure of Darden. It will become an impersonal intrigue. Frank Lloyd Wright wrote his own biography, as did Mark Twain, and this allowed both to maintain the narratives they built around their lives and work. Now, decades after their deaths, we can revisit the truth about their lives and work with impersonal intrigue.
We see this in Jean-Jacques LeQueu, whom Darden admired. For hundreds of years he was obscure. Only a handful of people were aware of his work, of which, according to Philippe Duboy, one artist was Marcel Duchamp. LeQueu was brilliant and talented, but due to personal adversities due to the French Revolution, his career never took off. He spiraled into madness and eccentricity, dying with no money and living in a brothel. He produced absolutely stunning drawings and ink wash renderings, but also intense studies on phrenology and facial character, as well as extensive amounts of pornography. Little was known about him personally or his life, save the little that survived in archives. It is next to impossible to uncover and expose the life, inspiration, and ideas of LeQueu, and so he remains an "architectural enigma." We can really only comprehend him through others, such as Duchamp. Had anyone taken a personal interest in unveiling LeQueu shortly after his death, the intrigue would have been personal and controversial in its time. Had such occurred, we would understand him better today, but the intrigue would be impersonal for us, but not in its time.
But we are not dealing within someone who died two and half centuries ago. We are dealing with artist who died twenty-five years ago. His widow is still alive. His best friend is still alive. His closest colleagues are still alive. Many of his students, both the ones who loved him and the ones who hated him, are all still alive. His projects are still a puzzle waiting to be explored and understood. Thus, we must either preserve his narratives for the time being and keep the revealing details hidden, or create an exposure and lock it in a vault for a long time.
This is antithetical to academia. But in order to be honest to academia is also antithetical to Darden. Such is the dilemma with researching and publishing on Darden.
No comments:
Post a Comment