On Proving the Hypothesis

I am trying to link two landscapes. They are divided by: (1) time; (2) lack of common narrative: (3) lack of intentional linkage.

Thus, half a century divides the events, the landscapes produced by war and urban architecture seem not to overlap, and no one deliberately tried to reproduce one after the experience of the other.

These three objections – time, design, intention – to linkage must be overcome.

This is in the context of a consideration of what it means to say that the hypothesis has been ‘proven’. The hypothesis is not a relating of events, a historical account, but an attempt to link two events, the earlier of which caused the latter: the cause was war, the effect was Sixties architecture.

The method of proving cause and effect is inductive, leading from particular observations to general conclusions. The method can be sub-divided:
(1) Looking at images of buildings, and parts of buildings, that do not fulfil their function, or seem out of place. This initial method is suggestive.
(2) Pairing images of the war with images of buildings to show that one mirrors the other. This second layer of proof is more specific, and depends as well on the sheer number of observations.
(3) Pairing plans of battlefields with plans of large-scale architectural projects. This shifts the specific focus of proof in the previous section to the more instinctual behaviour of drawing while broadening the scale of how one landscape represents itself in a later one.
(4) Finally, all of these observations are placed within the context of a cultural narrative which both mirrors and further establishes the link.

None of these on their own prove cause and effect or is wholly reliable. The second, for example, can take as its 19th century antecedents either the myriad observations of Darwin in his successful accumulation of proof for evolution or the albums of the neurologist Charcot in which images of physical symptoms, such as enlarged digits and spinal deformity, were spuriously claimed as proof of mental illness. However, the combination of all four, in my view, goes a long way towards establishing the probability of a causal link.