The Artist and Society

            John Ruskin, in his book " Stones of Venice," proposes that no industry should cause men to labor in such a way that he feels like a slave, and he feels as though his labor has no value to the betterment of mankind.  In answering how he felt this could be accomplished he writes, "Never encourage the manufacture of any article not absolutely necessary, in the production of which Invention has no share."  (p. 428)

            This concept might well have been applied to the profession and undertaking of city planning when the concept of suburbs was first introduced to the American society.  As James Howard Kunstler wrote in his book, "The Geography of Nowhere," the suburbs, "arose from the idea, rather peculiar to America, that neither the city nor the country was really a suitable place to live."  (p. 39)  The hope of these innovative planners was to enable the suburb to offer the best of both worlds. 

In their new concept of city planning there was much potential for the artist/planner to use his or her artistic skills to create a living environment that was both utilitarian and pleasant.  Each geographic area offered a variety of topography to challenge the creative endeavor of any artist.  The artist/planner had the perfect opportunity, "Through the power of his imagination [to give] shape to new sensations and perceptions that enable the citizen to overcome conformity and rigidity." (Course Syllabus, p. 74, quoting Herbert Read) In the first years of planning for these suburbs it appeared as though the city planners did not fulfill this potential.

Unfortunately the first suburbs ended up being redundant environments where each street, and each house, all looked alike.  There was some utility, but very little in the way of aesthetic quality.  As time went on other forces, such as zoning requirements, and the social value of the welfare state, only added to this redundancy.  (Castells, p. 6) 

It very soon became apparent that suburbs would be nothing more than glorified motels where the family slept at night, and went to work or school during the day.  In the attempt at perfection the architect, in conjunction with the city planner, offered "so little to our regard…."  We see no imperfection that catch our eye.  Nothing to give us cause to give the arrangement a second look or "betray us into delight." (Ruskin, p. 433) 

The planner may have followed Ruskin's first rule of labor, as stated above, in that he did not create anything that was not absolutely necessary, but he did not offer the suburbanite any creativity, any incentive for invention.  The planner did not offer the resident of the suburbs any variety to stimulate the artistic mind.

It seemed that one of the first rules of the city planner, when planning the suburb, was to ensure that nothing should be done that is not absolutely necessary.  It should be argued, however, that some things in city planning need to be included for no other reason than its aesthetic value.  If there is no beauty in the design, and only utility, then there will be little pleasure in the life lived in that environment.  No doubt there would be very little pride in either the dwelling place or the work place.

Instead of being designed for the people who lived in these communities, the suburbs became, in a way, a child of the automobile.  "There was nothing like it in history: a machine that promised liberation from the daily bondage of place." (Kunstler, p. 86)  Cars meant more roads, and easier access to a larger area of the countryside.  As roads were built, more houses went up.  As these houses got farther and farther away from the city and all its amenities it was realized that the needs of the families, such as shopping, medical centers, and small business centers, needed to be met at this local level. 

City planning needed variety.  Our natural instincts call us to make everything appear symmetrical; "…that our house windows should pair like our carriage horses." (Ruskin, p. 430)  But enjoyment comes from beholding variety.  If you have ever gone into a subdivision where there are rows upon rows of houses built the same way, with the same design, and removed the same distance from the street curb, you know the experience of boredom.  You beheld no beauty even if each house was built from an award winning design.  If they are all built from the same design, the beauty loses its luster.

This is what Ruskin appreciated about Gothic design.  There was variety during the Gothic period.  No one design could be solely Gothic and nothing else.  Something might be considered Gothic in one building, but not Gothic in another.  "[E]very building of the Gothic period differs in some important respect from every other…." (Ruskin, p. 421)

Another truth, or at least opinion, that Ruskin gives about good art is, "that great art, whether expressing itself in words, colors, or stones, does not say the same thing over and over again…." (Ruskin, p. 431)  If we look at city planning as an art form then we can see how this view makes sense.  The rows and rows of houses looking the same was not good art form.  It is not pleasing to the eye.  It does not capture the imagination.  It is not "entertaining."

As the urban sprawl led away from the city it led the people away from the city as well.  This resulted in the loss of community.  The challenge to the city planners was to change the paradigm from which they had created this suburban environment.  As the suburbs grew, expanding over a greater physical area, it became the planners motivation to provide all those amenities to these communities.  To bring a sense of community to the suburbs such things as parks, civic centers, schools, and even workplaces needed to be designed into each section of the community.  And, just as with houses on the same block, to ensure variety each park, school, and so forth, needed to be different in some way, while still providing for the activities of the community.

In this atmosphere a new movement in city planning was born.  "New Urbanism is a movement in city planning that puts people and the environment back in to city design." (Kelly, p. 1)  The intent of this form of city planning is to bring together all those areas of daily life into one community section of a suburb.

Although there is no need for perfect symmetry these new planners saw a need for accessibility in all aspects of community life.  At the center would be a kind of town square.  This would be the center of activity from which all other aspects of the community would branch out.  "The town square…is usually at the most a quarter mile, five minute, walk from the outskirts of the city.  This distance is set to encourage walking and discourage unneeded automobile use."  (Kelly, p. 2)

If we are to take William Morris' stance on labor, and apply it to art and city planning we would say that nothing should be wasted, but at the same time it should be pleasant.  One of Morris' claims about labor is, "That [the laborers] work should be of itself pleasant to do."  When this is put with his other claim, "The work must be worth doing," we can begin to tie this into the city planners objective.  (Morris, p. 436 and p. 432)  All that he puts into the plan for the community must not only be worthwhile to the community, but it must also be pleasant for those in the community.  Therefore roads, for example, don't just go from one point to another.  They are lined with trees and shrubbery.  They have lights, sidewalks, and such things as curb access for the handicapped.  In this way the well planned city becomes a work of art.  It becomes a thing, "necessary to the life of man, as a token of his freedom and happiness…." (Morris, p. 437)

With this new paradigm comes the sense that livability  is of primary importance to the city planner.  Therefore, not only is accessibility a consideration, but so is ascetics.  "A city is built with ascetic gathering places and recreational facilities along with special attention paid to neighborhood beautification."  (Kelly, p. 3)  But the new urbanism does not stop at utility and livability.  These city planners also see a need to provide an avenue for the residents to interact with each other.

All of this requires a creative mind on the part of the planner.  Accessibility must be juxtaposed with beauty and variety.  Walking paths must be interspersed with residential areas and business areas alike.  Business areas must have aesthetic compatibility with residential and recreation areas.   The artist/city planner, through is able to meet the requirements of useful function while still giving beauty and variety.  By doing this he meets the requirement mentioned by both Ruskin and Morris, that art must not go beyond luxury ornamentation.   Those who live in these communities can be thankful to this "artist" who has, through his design and creativity, given them a living environment they can enjoy and be proud of.  The artist in this sense is inexorably connected to the community.

Works Cited

Auld, John.  "The Artist and Society."  Humanities 544, The Individual and Society (A course guide)  July 1996:  73-84.

Castells, Manuel.  "The Education of City Planners in the Information Age."  Berkeley Planning Journal  12  (1998): 4 pp. Online. Internet.  17 Dec. 1998.

Kelly, Kevin, and Heather Tansey.  New Urbanism. (1998) 3 pp. Online. Internet.  17 Dec. 1998.

Kunstler, James Howard.  The Geography of Nowhere. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.

Morris, William.  "Art and Socialism."  Essential Works. pp. 431-443. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,  (date unknown).

Ruskin, John.  Stones of Venice, Vol. II, "The Foundations."  Boston: 1853.