Blog #6: Critical Vehicles

Once again, I understand hardly anything about this week's reading. Here's what I did understand:

• Progress is inevitably linked to a legacy of destruction. I don't always think the "destruction" is as bad as the word sounds but, like one of our speakers at the roundtable said, loss always accompanies progress.
• To heal one voiceless stranger (the vanquished of today [a prophet or messenger]) is to heal the entire city. I agree with this to the extent that when you give a displaced person a voice and let it be known to others, you're helping an entire area understand where the "voiceless stranger" is coming from.
• "It is up to these newcomers, then, to transform and unbuild the cities by inserting their presense, their performances, and their histories into the collective memories and democratic discourses of the city itself." I completely disagree with this statement. I think immigrants should be able to go to any country and bring their traditions and cultures with them, but I don't believe that immigrants should restructure a whole city in the new country to fit their liking. This concept is absurd to me, but I don't agree with total incorporation/assimilation by the country of choice of the immigrants either (and yes I realize that the inhabitants of the United States have done both of these, but it doesn't mean I supported that either).
• "Design must articulate and inspire communication of real, often difficult lived-through experience, rather than operate as a substitute for it." I like this concept of interrogative design, of having art be thought-provoking. I also agree that a proposed design should be developed with the survivor or the vanquished, not be a stand in or speak for them (which is a concept we should consider for our final project).