deploring contemporary American landscape, arguing that its corresponds to an inner ugliness of today's self-centered, consumption-obsessed, technology-hawking Americans.1 Published by University of Alabama Press, newest and perhaps most opinionated work in this genre is Egotopia: Narcissism and American Landscape, written by John Miller, a Silicon Valley public relations consultant and founder of Scenic America, based in Washington, D.C.2 Generously praised by likes of cultural critic Ashley Montagu, Egotopia, like other similar books on market, has garnered a fair amount of press attention. Moreover, it has resonated with many of my architecture and landscape architecture students, who believe that it articulates their concern for commercializing of American landscape and, perhaps more important, related concern for diminishing cultural authority of professional designers of built environment. Because of this apparent nerve touched, Egotopia is an ideal target for scholarly reflection on genre. Implicitly reminding his readers of historical precedent for his critique, Miller quotes William Blake, British romantic poet. In his poem Milton, Blake used term dark Satanic Mills (referring to coal-burning factories that increasingly blackened landscape of preindustrial England) as a metaphor for both negative human implications of industrialization and for site for potential redemption. In his extended misapplication of Blake, Miller observes that more than 150 years after Blake's death we continue to be infatuated by of... [the] agrarian epoch. To Miller, this longevity bespeaks a fundamental validity-a subconscious yearning for of paradise lost (pp. 1-2). Our current inability to acknowledge this longing-due to apparent uselessness of aesthetics in our utilitarian culture-is basic to contemporary problem, as Miller sees it. Dark satanic malls are harbingers of a New American (pp. 4-5). The problem that Miller presents arises, in his understanding, from nexus of capitalism and democratization-and specifically from emphasis of both on individual self-interest. The American Landscape, Miller explains, is designed to serve singular purpose of encouraging Americans to consume in a perpetual quest to fulfill their private individual desires. As such, American Landscape obliterates natural and historical experience, eclipsing local or regional distinctiveness and leading to dramatic disestablishment of and a total enshrinement of his private alter ego, New Man (pp. 16-17).3 Miller finds this in America's past, where he personified transcendence of self-interest and and practiced benign disinterestedness as most powerful alternative to private passion (p. 26). The Man, in contrast, marginalizes selftranscendence .... [He] no longer imitates God, nor even some generalized Platonic version of man (p. 28). The egotism of is evidenced by decline of sources of ormative behavior-such as church, school, and home- in favor of psychotherapy, which enables individuals to maximize their private objectives (pp. 30-31). Miller believes that because concerns come out of disinterestedness, these concerns die with increasing self-absorption of Man. In his choice of protagonist as past and antagonist as present, Miller allies himself with a long tradition of critics who deal in ahistorical: They consistently invoke an endangered refinement and enlightenment-in a European sense-in retreat from an advancing barbarism and ignorance. The poet Matthew Arnold, whose thought perhaps most shaped this discourse, was such a critic of mid-nineteenth-century British culture. His influential Culture and Anarchy reminds us that this type of cultural criticism stems from struggle between groups dominating society and their challengers in a given moment.4 As Miller perceives changes occurring in society today, Arnold perceived increasing political power of urban and industrial working classes of Victorian England as representing anarchy and confusion, a disruption of established social order. To stabilize this disruption, both critics call for reinforcing cultural standards of previous regime. Miller's Public Men replicate Arnold's great of culture, members of priestly caste that preserves culture in a society, who were to be apostles of equality (p. 38), bringing sweetness [beauty] and light [intelligence to] ... and unkindled masses (p. 37). The raw and unkindled masses, of course, were common people-those linked by shared experience among dark Satanic mills and who agitated for power in an industrializing Britain. Against this onslaught, great men would preserve the that had been thought and said in world, in Arnold's words. But this best necessarily reflects values of great men-of a class already in possession of power to articulate and canonize those aspects of culture that advanced their interests. Critics from Arnold to Miller cast these supposedly traditional standards as absolute-granted by nature or God-and therefore above historical moment. For those of us who believe that any given aesthetic standard is a set of artificial codes of valuation tied to relations of power in society, this should be point at which we step back from Miller's argument. Journal ofArchitectural Education, pp. 191-193 @ 1999 ACSA, Inc.
Read full abstract