Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Beside the Sea Side


Brighton promenade
Originally uploaded by Tibi08.
An article in The Observer on 22 October by their architectural correspondent, Steven Bayley, perpetuates the myth that Brighton first came to prominence on the strength of Dr Russell's promotion of the Sea Cure.

The real story is more interesting. The development of a sea front at Brighton, based on sea bathing, begins with Londoners buying properties for the purpose over twenty years before Russell set up his establishment in the late 1750s.

This first generation of Brighton sea bathers take up the practice as a means of engaging with the unconstrained forces of the ocean in order to replicate the habits of enquiring thought developed by the pioneering members of the Royal Society in the second half of the seventeenth century.

Russell enters the picture later on, trading on pre-scientific beliefs about intellectual efforts being powered by the production of "animal spirits". The Russell Sea Cure was based on the notion that a shock to the system would restore the "balance of humours within the body".

The idea that Russell was the first to popularise Brighton is a nineteenth century myth created when sea bathing was reduced to the status of recreational pastime, coincident with swimming becoming a mere sport.

The myth continues to do much harm to the city because nothing can
improve on the sea front whilst its true origins remain unacknowledged. Brighton sea front is one of the handful of iconic places in the world, and the model for all seaside resorts everywhere.

The greatest service that architectural writers could do for Brighton
would be to acknowledge the international significance of the sea
front and press for it to be designated as a UNESCO World Heritage
Site.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...