America's Most Seductive City

Brenda Chen

Donnell/Stogdill
City of Angels
October 29, 2015

Round-up post for October 30

"In Los Angeles, the police didn't fight organized crime.  They managed it."

This line from L.A. Noir echoed what I thought after reading Double Indemnity: that nothing in Los Angeles seems to be real.  The police, for example, who are supposed to be protecting the city, are instead permitting and even contributing to the crime.  In Double Indemnity, many of the characters are weirdly averted to being genuine or honest.  Huff (and Phyllis especially) have ulterior motives for almost every action.  Bringing it back to Day of the Locust, Faye and her father are completely fake, and their relationship seems strange and unhealthy.  Does Los Angeles bring out this dark, twisted side in people?  If so, how and why?

I understand that these are completely fabricated events that are supposed to be more warped for effect.  But I feel that they are also making a commentary about Angelenos: that they are selfish, secretive, and completely calculated.  Also, I couldn't help but notice that in both Double Indemnity and Day of the Locust, there are many "fake" characters, whereas in other novels that are set in other cities, that quality is not prominent.  Is this just a coincidence?  Or has insincerity become L.A.'s culture?

We've been talking about why Noir is such a popular genre in Los Angeles.  Do Angelenos love it because secretly, they see themselves reflected in it?  Do you see yourself reflected in it?  Is this twisted mindset unique to Los Angeles?  Lastly, John Buntin calls Los Angeles "America's Most Seductive City," and Wright says there is something "unspoken" about the city that "uncannily grips the stranger."  Is Los Angeles seductive because it's dark and complicated, or does that have the opposite effect?  Do you even think Los Angeles is seductive?  And what is that unspoken thing about the city?

Expectations

On the Metro to Union Station this afternoon I did not find myself surrounded by two of the same people. No two people looked or dressed the same, and I made different judgments and stories up about who they were, where they were going and what they were doing. Living in Los Angeles, there is nothing surprising about this observation. However, what surprised me only later was how accustomed and almost numb I was in the moment to this incredible diversity. I continued to ask myself how we have yet to have an Urban Lab dedicated to some aspect of studying the people of Los Angeles (outside of our immediate community). When will we have a people-watching lab? Throughout the course so far we have asked many versions of the question “what characteristics or opportunities bring people to Los Angeles?” to ourselves, and I believe we will continue to do so over the entire course. We have asked what exactly about Los Angeles makes the city so successful in attracting the hugely diverse community we were among today on the Gold Line and in Union Station. To theses overarching questions I add: What came first, LA or it’s people? I mean this in the context of how the city’s authentic character has been created and what the origin of outsider’s perceptions of Los Angeles is.
Although I find characteristics of the city of Los Angeles and Angelinos themselves very much intertwined, as my people-watching idea for a lab would suggest, I also believe there is a huge division between the two as they are used as propaganda for LA outsiders. Boosters seem to use the physicality and nature in Los Angeles as propaganda for the city, while Detractors rely on  the people of LA to highlight the negative aspects of the city. In looking at Adamic’s description of LA we see this division. “From Mount Hollywood, [nature!!] Los Angeles looks rather nice….[but] in spite of all the healthful sunshine and ocean breezes [nature!!] it is a bad place-full of old, dying people [people!!]...victims [people!!] of Los Angeles. In today’s lab prompt even Mr. Donnell and Dr. Stogdill wrote that “‘Detractors’ on the other hand, offer a view of LA that emphasizes the violence, deception, greed and disappointment underlying the ‘brightness’ of the Booster propaganda.” Nature is not capable of violence, deception, greed and disappointment. Humans are. In creating “booster” and “detractor” photos today, I found that Union Station (which we could say is a sample-size location of LA) needed more human assistance in creating “detractor” images than “booster” images. The detractor photos needed human body language to make them successful in creating a more negative vibe. To sort of reiterate what I have already said, I believe that, in a way, LA physically propagates itself with two basic qualities: the weather and it’s diversity in landscape. All of its boostering features seem to be in the physicality of LA and the detracting features in the people that make it up.
I then wonder if the beauty of Los Angeles’s physicality in a sense sets a standard for the type of people that “should” be living in it and the lifestyle they “should” be living? It seems as if since the weather of LA is so perfect, its inhabitants are criticized for not being all “super-humanly” happy, lively and genuine people. Does the beauty in the city of Los Angeles itself set an unrealistic standard for all who live here? If so, what or who exactly is setting such a high standard for Los Angeles?

The Palette of Architecture in LA (sheppy weppy)

Annie Winton and Audrey Wu

Donnell/ Stogdill

City of Angels

October 15th, 2015

Round-up post for October 16th

Throughout the week, our class has been discussing what characteristics entice people to want to come to Los Angeles as well as novelists/writers opinions of this environment. I’ve always felt that this Surfurbia, Foothills, Plains, Autopia ecology has accumulated over the years to become almost a paradise (Feel free to disagree; you can mention in your comments!!). Obviously, depending on what area, the type of ecology can change or can be a combination of more than one. As our class defined an ecology as a way people interact in certain environment, it is understandable that ecologies are consistently evolving. Mountain cropping (mostly in foothill ecologies) has literally reshaped physical features of nature for the benefit of human architecture being able to thrive. Examples like this exhibit how our society being formed does include imperfections that have altered and will continue to alter the development of our vicinity.

Two quotes from the end of one of this week’s articles portrayed a negative perspective of LA life:

“The unique thing about LA is that people had a new reason to be unhappy.”

“That promise of a perfect life isn’t what people really want.”

To me, both of these statements seemed justified in examples of The Day of the Locust.  I find it ironic that our urban lab routed us to one of the locations described in the book and we were supposed to promote that spot by producing a brochure aimed for 1920s midwesterners. This brochure is to promote the surrounding areas and to sell the architecture of the different houses. I believe that LA architecture is quite sporadic. Each neighborhood has its own uniqueness, its own character. While we were driving, I noticed how in Los Feliz there is a distinct change from big houses, to smaller houses, but all of the houses have their own style giving them individuality. This obviously shows the two different socioeconomic classes of people. Looking towards the more glamorous side of LA and relating it to our readings, I can recognize Hollywood as the centerpiece of what defined Tod Hackett and his acquaintances and how their paths unwounded. All of this connects to the much disputed concept of environment influencing who you become. Hollywood and all of its glories and flaws destroyed Tod Hackett’s sanity.

With the knowledge of the characters and their lifestyles (pertaining to the book), to what degree do you agree that there is superficiality in the neighborhoods of LA? Or, if you don’t, what traits exactly of LA make it so desirable? What affect does aesthetics/appearance of this city have in proving that a person has “a perfect life” and is happy? And does the fact that we live here force us to believe it’s an attractive domain? What affect does architecture play into who is living in a certain area or home? Does it affect it at all?  Looking at different neighborhoods to what extent does demolishing or expanding houses, do to the neighborhood's identity/reputation as a whole? I know there are a lot of questions. Answer any one or two to the best of your ability and try to be specific with examples!

Bound by Our Roots

Gabe Van de Sande
Donnell/Stogdill
City of Angels
October 8, 2015

Friday Roundup for October 9th

          The past week of class has been devoted to the direct study of our roots. Whether we are observing the macro-patterns of population growth over time in major cities, or focusing on the direct series of events that has brought an individual to where they stand today, we are recognizing the diverse history of societal patterns and correlations. I have always been uneasy with the emphasis and importance of history that is demonstrated in school. Logically, it seems impractical and regressive to focus energy and time relearning the past. The values of such studies, however, have been unveiling themselves gradually throughout this course. Why do we study the past? It seems odd to devote an entire field to a study that is limited. We only know what we know. However, it is not the raw facts that are important, but rather their effect on the world. These effects can be broken down to reveal recurrences that, without history, we would not be aware of until we experienced them. It seems that studying the past tells us more about the present, and more so the future, however counter intuitive that may be.

         All reminiscing aside, lets zoom in and analyze what this history means to us, as teenage individuals, each a product of our own past. I do not mean to urge a dialogue of Nature vs. Nurture, but I cannot control the outcome of eighteen minds working together to create purple. whatever purple may be. I mean more to pose a general question, that can be regarded as an umbrella to other smaller ideas: What effect does our unique past have upon our individual persona? Does it have an effect at all? Allow me to rephrase. Are we caught in the roots of our family history? In my personal case, I would argue that my upbringing  has been effected immensely by events that have taken place prior to my birth or consciousness. A specific example would involve the conflicting opinions of my parents when it comes to discipline. My father, being raised in a strict Catholic boarding school, has always resorted to conventional forms of social discipline: If a rule is broken, you are punished. Contrarily, my Mom was raised in an environment in which independence was crucial. Consequences would not entail direct punishment, but rather the coming to a mental realization by oneself that an action taken was wrong. These two conflicting viewpoints have formed the fusion of discipline that my parents enforce, a practice that has, in one way or another, formed the person I am today. 

          The example I have presented is minuscule in relation to the infinite influences upon one's upbringing and personality that occur, however it does reflect on a smaller scale the effect that personal history has upon my life. So I ask again: What effect does our unique past have upon our individual persona, if any? Are we bound by our roots, or can we break free?