Excellence?

excellence (ˈeksələns)
   1. The quality of being outstanding or extremely good.
   2. An outstanding feature or quality.


"Excellence" is meaningless.  Case in point.  The word is slippery, vague, and uncontroversial.  It expresses an aimless desire, with no roadmap for achievement.  Saying you "value" it is like saying you value goodness or truth .  Saying you "measure yourself by" it is just stating the obvious.  Saying you "strive for" it just means you aren't lazy.  Saying you "have a passion for" it just comes off as egotistical.  Meaningless.

What a tragedy.  Where did we go wrong?  There's a clue, I think, in the word's origins.  The Latin root is "excellens", meaning elevating or rising.  But the source of the idea is earlier.  It's heavily entwined with two Greek ideas: Arete and Aristos.

Loosely defined, Arete meant living up to one's inner potential, a kind of strength in the face of adversity, and self-control.  It suggested a just life and energetic pursuit of right action.  In this context Arete is often translated as "Virtue", rather than "Excellence".  Arete was process-oriented, applied during a task (or a life) to focus effort.  It was measured in personal bests.

Aristos, on the other hand, meant both superior ability and superiority over others.  Aristos is the root word of "Aristocracy", which literally translated should mean "rule by the best".  Aristos implied a comparative social standard, where beating the competition defined success.  It suggested an unbroken continuum of success over multiple actions.  Aristos was recognized after the fact, for prior achievements.  It was expressed in rank and prestige.

Our mixed-up modern word contains these two sub-components: disciplined progression toward one's potential (arete) - and - superior achievement (aristos).  Depending on the context, one or another of these is subconsciously emphasized.  But not both at the same time.  When arete is mistaken for aristos, vice-versa, or when neither is clearly identified, that's when the concept gets murky and useless, or worse, dangerous.

In sports, arete is naturally emphasized.  Student athletes understand that self-improvement is the true objective, not winning.  Most of sports wisdom revolves around this idea.  The old saying, "it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game" is an almost pure expression of arete.  But when hockey moms or soccer dads start confusing arete with aristos, dangerous things can happen.

In business and politics, aristos is emphasized.  All the focus is on profit and superiority.  Process and improvement are just means to the end - being the best.  When MBAs substitute resultant aristos for process-oriented arete, confusion sets in.  I think this is the main source of dissatisfaction with business books, of which "Good to Great" by Jim Collins is the most famous example.  Like nearly all business writing, the book is long on summary and short on substance.  Mr. Collins research is exhaustive and perfectly relevant for determining corporate aristos - for finding out, after the fact, which companies are excellent (at making a profit), and why.  But the book is almost entirely silent on corporate arete - exactly what to do to make your company better right now - despite that being the stated purpose of the book.  Post hoc ≠ propter hoc.  If you read the book, ask yourself, "How do I encourage Level 5 leadership"? or "How do I determine my company's BHAG"?  Confusion.

Successful modern expressions of excellence avoid the use of the word entirely. Nike's famous slogan "There is no finish line" is a brilliant example.  It implies arete perfectly - process oriented, aspirational, and clear. Energizer's slogan, "Nothing outlasts the Energizer. It keeps going and going and going..." is equally brilliant - for Aristos.  It ties the product to superior performance.  But, although these slogans are clever, skirting the use of the word is flirting with cliche.  Say the slogan once, it's powerful.  Print it on a million T-shirts, and it fades to nothing.

My inspiration isn't there.  But I'm not giving up.  There's an idea out there worth aspiring to.  And I'll keep pushing toward it.

Further exploration:
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/apr/05/
http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html

Alternate Architecture 11 - the looking glass house

"'Now, if you'll only attend, Kitty, and not talk so much, I'll tell you all my ideas about Looking-glass House. First, there's the room you can see through the glass—that's just the same as our drawing room, only the things go the other way. I can see all of it when I get upon a chair—all but the bit behind the fireplace. Oh! I do so wish I could see THAT bit! I want so much to know whether they've a fire in the winter: you never CAN tell, you know, unless our fire smokes, and then smoke comes up in that room too—but that may be only pretence, just to make it look as if they had a fire. Well then, the books are something like our books, only the words go the wrong way; I know that, because I've held up one of our books to the glass, and then they hold up one in the other room."

- Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, Lewis Carroll, 1871. 

Welcome to 2012!  - Jacob

Time isn't holding us

"You may ask yourself, what is that beautiful house?
  You may ask yourself, where does that highway lead to?
  You may ask yourself, am I right, am I wrong?
  You may say to yourself, my god, what have I done?
  Letting the days go by...
  Time isn't holding us, time isn't after us
  Time isn't holding us, time doesn't hold you back
  Time isn't holding us, time isn't after us
  Time isn't holding us..."
- Once in a Lifetime, The Talking Heads

Alternate Architecture 10 - architect unknown

Books always have authors.  Even when they don't.  Books almost always include an author's byline, even to the point of including "Anonymous", if necessary.  Works published under a false name are attributed to the pseudonym naturally.  Even when the author's name is known.  References to books or articles always include the author's name.  When referencing a book, we are taught to scrupulously attribute the work to the author.  Books need authors.  It humanizes them.  Knowing the author (even when we don't) makes them accessible.

Paintings usually have artists.  If they don't, it's considered a tragedy.  To many, the value of a specific painting lies mostly in the value of the artist.  That's true both for monetary value and cultural significance.  Without an artist, a painting is cut adrift in a sea of images.  Faced with an unknown painting, historians or collectors will often first try to establish the artist.  When talking about a painting, a historian will describe the painting as it relates to the artist's life.  Paintings need artists.  It places them.  Knowing the artist makes them accessible.

Buildings often don't have architects.  Even great buildings.  Even when they do.  Buildings don't have plaques proclaiming their architect's name.  Newspaper and magazine articles about buildings rarely mention the architect (excepting architecture critics, of course).  Articles regularly omit the name of the architect, even when the architect is well known.  Buildings need occupants; not architects.  Perhaps omitting the architect makes them more accessible?

If you believe

"If you believe in trying to make the best of the finite number of years we have on this planet (while not making it any worse for anyone else), think that pride and self-righteousness are the cause of most conflict and negativity, and are humbled by the vastness and mystery of the Universe, then I'm the same religion as you." - Sal Khan, khanacademy.org

Sketches from India

Some of my sketches from Tamil Nadu, India
Robert James Eidlitz Travelling Fellowship, 2004

 

Alternate Architecture 9 - India

a piece my wife and I wrote for our Robert James Eidlitz Fellowship application:


In India, a thousand tiers of culture overlap, written layer after layer upon each other, never erasing, never revising, sometimes obscuring, but never clarifying each other.  Modern kitsch coexists with traditional dance in big budget Indian movies.  Fast food mixes with traditional architecture.  And religion infuses everything.  Out of all this explodes one of the world’s fastest growing economies, largest populations, and most misunderstood cultures.  India’s emerging influence can be felt around the world, along with its deep history, exotic culture, and unique aesthetic.  Its history is full of dramatic clashes between Islam and Hindu, tourist and pilgrim, commercialism and tradition.  Its intellectual growth amazes, while its overcrowded poverty staggers.  Studying how these warring cultural influences coexist within the Indian mind might tell us (designers and artists) a lot about our own futures in a world of increasingly conflicted and dynamic forces.

Indian architecture is an enigma.  It's an explosion of colors, forms, and figures.  For many in the West, Indian architecture is a complete unknown.  It's forms and structures are far away and unfamiliar.  

In Sanskrit, the word vastu means architecture or surrounding; shastra means system or rules.  Thus Vastu Shastras are an architectural design system, or rules for creating surroundings.  These ancient Indian texts make up perhaps the oldest design philosophy in the world.  Amazingly, although the shastras are now thousands of years old, Indians still use their principles to design and construct buildings today (as the Chinese still use Feng Shui). 

It is the Vastu Shastras that enumerate the fundamental principles of Indian (Hindu) design familiar to architectural history students, including the mandala (sacred plan diagram), maana (proportional relationships), and aayaadi (rules for human wellness).  However, the Vastu Shastras do not distinguish between architectural design, sculpture, painting, and city planning.  To the ancient authors of the vastu shastras, sculptures, buildings, and cities were simply details of the greater cosmic order. 

Mamallapuram’s Pancha Pandava Rathas (“five chariots of Pandava”) are illustrated examples of the Vastu Shastras.  Carved from solid rock to resemble Indian temples in the Dravidian style, the rathas contain, in miniature, all the essential characteristics of Indian temple architecture.  Built as early as c.630-670, the Rathas seem to have predicted the development of Dravidian temple architecture in the following centuries.  Small “test models” of temple design, these detailed sculptures are a guide to the complex language of Indian architecture.

The spectacular temple-caves at Ellora abound with 600 years of artistic detail.  12 Buddhist, 17 Hindu, and 5 Jain caves share the west-facing wall of a cliff overlooking an ancient trade route.  Although devoted to three different religions, some of the temples are believed to have been built and occupied simultaneously.  Two of the most spectacular caves, the Buddhist Monastery Cave Tin Tala and the Hindu Kailasa Temple, are believed to have been under construction at the same time.  The Kailasa Temple, in particular, is one of the most amazing works of architecture and sculpture in India.  Hewn from solid bedrock, the 90m long by 53m wide by 30m tall temple is both a fully designed Indian temple and a single, massive sculpture! 

Madurai city is the embodiment of the Vastu Shastras’ Mandala plan.  The streets are arranged in concentric squares radiating outward from the amazing Sri Meenakshi temple.  Mass rituals reinforce the power of the Mandala design with huge processions through the streets in a clockwise direction around the temple.  The Mandala design of the city is a detail experienced at every turn in Madurai, whether walking down the city streets named for Tamil months, wandering through the thousand pillared hall of the Meenakshi temple, or observing the ancient art in the “Tank of the Golden Lotuses”. 

A “detail” in Indian architecture is more than just a piece or a part; it is a reflection and a guide to the whole.  Each stone embodies the spirit of the sculpture; each sculpture embodies the spirit of the structure; each structure embodies the culture; each culture embodies the order of the world; the order of the world embodies the order of the cosmos.  Each detail contains the logic of the whole. These details are not merely worth studying for their contribution to a greater whole; rather they are compelling in themselves for what they teach us about the deeper order of Indian design. The gods are in the details because the details are the architecture.