Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
The guy that started this back and forth wasn’t informed about Stuyvesant Town. I am very familiar with both and conflating the two is intellectually dishonest and ignorant.
Just as ignorant as the shoe gazing meanderings of a pot addled hippy’s musings about low grade hallucinogens and the Super Mario narrative, amusing maybe – informative no. On the other hand using master narratives to make a critique of the imagery is valid. I’ve spent a couple of years studying rhetorical criticism and there is a difference between someone concerned with novelty (‘shrooms man) and looking as that same text in terms of its cultural baggage, even when taking its author to task. One exception might be looking at how the coincidence of that imagery formed a perfect storm between the pothead and its ultimate pastime, video games.
For the record I think you’re on the right track which is why I thought I’d challenge you rather than the goofball that brought up McLuhan (really McLuhan is passe, even as a prop, no?). Challenging the author is fine, but do it based on the work not a theoretical perspective that chills the conversation without adding more to it. I would like to hear a better argument regarding why Stuy Town, a success, can possibly be seen as the same as P-Igoe.
I know a guy that was a cop on that beat. To answer a call there they would have four cops and two cruisers. One to watch the first cruiser and two to go into the project. If only one car went it would be fire bombed and the officers ambushed. It was one of the most dangerous places in the world at the time. Stuy Town is a middle class community where families enjoy a high quality of life, the original work said fuck all about Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village which makes the whole exclusion moot, but I digress. How is valid to champion the critic over the author in this situation? It’s not even an interpretation it is an in interpolation.