In Which We Have A Strange Tour of Jerusalem

Yesterday was one of our "experiential learning" program days- we have those on some Thursdays, although apparently the next 3 or 4 weeks we have it in a row.  This week's program was a tour of Jerusalem with a guide who is an anarchist wedding photographer and artist.  His main points were how modern architecture is ruining Jerusalem's beauty, and how he and his friends are making their points through the use of graffiti.  Apparently you can't build a building that fits with Jerusalem without arched windows- and the mark of a good building is that it has exciting and varied windows.  I certainly don't disagree that in many ways older buildings can be more aesthetically pleasing than modern ones (heck, my apartment is in pretty darn ugly building).  However, I also understand that people need places to live and places in which to work, and aesthetics do cost. 

What really angered me (well, the first thing that angered me, besides how this gentleman made the same points with the same words, over and over again with nothing new interested) was that he kept putting his point in terms of "making love to the city", which while might have had a nice shock value once, became sort of obscene and disturbing over time.  Furthermore, taking it a bit farther, if you're talking about loving a city, then isn't talking only about its exteriors not really love?  He kept talking about buildings as being a bride's jewelry, and put it in terms of "what happens if you give a bride cheap jewelry", which frustrated me from a feminist perspective- as if women only care about jewelry, and they think that the point of getting married is to get fancy stuff.  I know it was only a metaphor- but the metaphor gives you a sense of the underlying assumptions someone has, sometimes. 

The whole thing just felt very superficial and all about appearances.  Our guide talked about how putting up pretty buildings would mean that everyone would get to enjoy them- even the people who weren't rich enough to live in them.  And I imagine that that has some validity.  However, it fails to think about the fact that money that goes to building snazzy buildings also can't go towards making the lives of people better.  It felt a little like he was advocating giving Jerusalem, the city he claims to love so much, lace curtains to hide the empty homes behind them (thanks go to my high school American Studies program for this metaphor- it's something we learned about what Irish immigrants to the USA would do when they came over, because they often couldn't afford to buy furniture).  

I'm not trying to claim that aesthetics have no value- I'd disagree with that also.  However, it can't be the only value, and this tour just felt so one-sided that nothing else about the realities of this city got any play time, and those are things that I'd really like to hear about and learn a little about.