On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Phonopsia wrote: > On Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:06 PM, Lester Kenyatta Spence > > ..... and by creating a work of art that is based on the > > implicit premise that detroit is empty....of people, and of dynamic > > (rather than static) beauty, i think the creator of RUINS is really > > missing out on something.... > > I don't know. There doesn't seem to any denying Detroit has it's ruinous > aspect, and the entire site is devoted to ruins of several places with > ruins. See also Zimbabwe, Ephesus, El Tajin, Athens and Rome.
I understand what you are saying....but isn't it interesting that he's comparing Detroit to Zimbabwe....where the ruins are literally hundreds of years old? To Athens and Rome, with ruins over one THOUSAND years old? > I'm no expert on the history of Detroit and I am experiencing some > voyeuristic pangs of guilt as I look at it (it's majestic and sad at once, > but I don't *know* what it means b/c I wasn't there for it). But the site > is devoted to ruins in general. To crystalize the intent of this site as > Detroit in a state of ruin that it has never seen would amount to saying > the same thing about Athens as far as this site goes. And I don't think > that's what the author intends. I think he is focusing on instances of > decay, rather than denying the dynamism of the city. Fair enough. But to compare Detroit to cities with ruins older than the United States is to make the implicit argument that Detroit is a dead relic. Which doesn't say anything different than the story that most pundits tell about Detroit. peace lks
