(Note: This text was to originally appear in the now-defunct "Arch_Enemy" publication. Images courtesy of Google Image Search)
In a post-war environment, the spectacle not only suppresses the cathartic admission of tragedy, it posits itself as a glittering monument of value and meaning that far outweigh the cost of the conflict; a justified sign of progress. Concurrent shifts in cultural origins and re-establishment of identity are then used to give historical reference to time as either pre- or post- conflict (see above). With all the spoils, however, the premises are lost, indeed consciously drawn into concealment. Archigram’s “Instant City” rests somewhere between; the full disappearance of value in fetishizing technology and war and the picturesque deployment of images as an architecture of public distraction.

Instant City | Original Image by Archigram
From without, the couple embraces post-industrial-coitus, in the glow of technological prowess, lucky to have such a marvelous city emerge so quickly, and so close to their home (advantageously missing both the highway and their driveway). The floating displays and spotlights speak to the perversion of surveillance, but are thinly guised in the Technicolor of the spectacle. The confectionary temporality of the Instant City obscures the voyeurism from the casual viewer. From within however, the crowd is disaffected, looking not at their prize but at each other, searching for reflected recognition of the mass of images, icons, and slogans. The craftsmanship is shoddy, the space empty, and the images provocative only in their divergence. Even in their execution the strict organizational logics of the grid (the Instant City needs the grid) is revealed in the spectacle, making the “instant” in fact, rather calculated and methodical.

Instant City | Original Image by Archigram
Considering the “Instant City”, created in 1967, is both remarkable and terrifying. The drawings themselves are far from instant. The joy of making, the complexity through labor, and the conscious construction of meaning are present in spite of the subject matter. They are remarkable in their understanding of color, composition, and (gasp) manual technical prowess. Perhaps this is a semantic problem, the association of the “instant” with the “spontaneous.” Or perhaps it is true to its name, using “instant” in relation to the span of time as a definition of the current, the now. They, then, are terrifying in the regression of 40 years into complicity, both personally and pedagogically, in the extraction of meaning and power from the literally constructed image to those that are catatonically mute, their absurdity already naturalized.
We watch war on television.