Architecture after Couture ?

Couture was once an expensive system in fashion that illustrated wealth and difference for the elite, which separated them from the masses. But as times progressed and changed, class distinctions were ‘blurred’ as Varnelis stated, and couture became overindulgent and uptight. Class distinctions became less visible and a bit less important, and as the Varnelis said, “difference is no longer a property of the elite”, meaning that it now became possible for the masses to remix and create accessible fashions that could make themselves different, though not in the amount of money the possessed, rather as a group of shared interests/identity (fashions of subcultures). This same change, he says, must happen in architecture. Similarly to couture, the grander the piece of architecture, the grander the person (or their wealth) must be, separating the wealthy elite from the rest. This will, as happened with couture, eventually become unimportant and not sensible. This is the reason that architecture must find a way to allow accessible difference to the masses, in order to maintain any importance. The architectural equivalence of couture can only be one sphere in the realm of architecture.

Reaction to "The Mechanics of World-Making"

Synthetic worlds...Moving through the future, are we now moving from sub-cultures to sub-worlds?! That is what this chapter of The Mechanics of World Making seems to demonstrate. I am well aware that there are thousands of people who spend hours each day engaged in video games and these synthetic worlds...but how far can this go? Castranova writes, "We don't know how many people might find the synthetic world to be better, but it might be quite a few..." What i find really scary here is the word 'BETTER'. Personally, it makes me a bit uncomfortable that people find the constructed world they live in through a monitor better than the real world, their real life. Though it is really fascinating how advanced technology is becoming, that so much interaction can take place between people through a synthetic illustrated world, I find it a bit scary. Children are already being raised with regular video games and TV distracting them from and blurring out the, apparently, hard real world, isn't that enough? Do we really need to create another persona, or a new, better 'reputation' as Castranova explains in a separate, artificial world? Similarly, we already see people creating new personas and reputations of themselves through online self-advertising sites such as Myspace, and that hasnt seemed to better life quality now has it.
In terms of the design of the 'worlds' and the 'technology of immersion', I do find it fascinating how succesful it has become (though I dont necessarily agree with the time spent engaged in it). What also is a bit strange is when the author excuses the lack of detail in these synthetic worlds by reasoning that,
"accurate detail is not the ultimate objective of any work of art (any good one, at least). Shakespeare's Veronese and danes and Celts are certainly not accurate depeictions of members of those historical culture groups, but it does not matter. We don't watch Shakespeare to learn about these folk, we do it to learn about ourselves."
I may be being ignorant, but I hardly think video games can easily be compared with Shakespeare. By venturing through a synthetic world, are people really engaged in a piece of art that is helping them learn about themselves? I guess this all goes back to what is considered art, and what real meaning is, which of course...I have no authority to say.

Response to Adorno's 'Mass Culture'

Mass mediated popular culture (such as television, the central focus of the article) for Adorno is no longer simply novels and popular music, but now encompasses basically "all media of artistic expression". New popular culture has grown to such an extent that it is impossible to ignore. It surrounds all of us in most aspects of our daily lives, even those living farthest from it. Popular culture follows a strict set of rules and structure (he explains that any form not following these rules will have trouble even reaching the masses). It is created to appease the masses as easy as possible (creating it so that little attention and intellect is needed on the audience's part). Adorno explains that the aura of autonomous art is now replaced with the almost-evil power of mass mediated popular culture, which allows it to integrate it's audience with the ideals of "conformity and conventionalism". Adorno describes the way in which it does this by illustrating it's "multilayered structure". Mass media, according to Adorno, is not just the actions that appear on the surface, but is comprised of numerous layers of messages all contributing to this conformitive effect. There is the messages sent to the audience by the surface or "overt" layer, which for example could be the basic plot of a movie or television show, and beyond that there is the hidden meanings which send messages (that are sometime subtly present in the overt meaning) to the audience without them being aware of it. Both, or all of the layers of meaning work together in promoting the "nefarious" ideals Adorno talks about.
In contrast with Benjamin's idea that aura is not lost, but transformed, I think Adorno's thoughts are a bit different (according to this essay). While art forms placed in different cultures/settings gain new aura (according to Benjamin), mass media seems to be created with a specific aura indoctrinating the ideals of the creator into the minds of the audience both on a conscious and subconcious level. This, inevitably leads to a homogenous mass culture, shifting the ideas and stereotypes represented in popular culture into the minds of the masses.