How old is slash now 2017

Hot Property. Times Events. Times Store. Facebook Twitter Show more sharing options Share Close extra sharing options. Myles Kennedy, left, and Slash. By Clay Marshall. Three years ago, Slash received an unexpected phone call that forced him to rethink everything. More From the Los Angeles Times. So what has the famed guitarist been up to since then? What kind of projects have he been working on as of late? What happened to Slash? Where is he now in ?

Hudson, an African American costume designer; he has a younger brother named Albion. When he was five years old, Slash was reunited with her in LA together with his father. Following their separation, Slash lived with his mother however was often sent to be with his maternal grandparents due to the constant traveling nature of her work.

When he was fourteen, he came up with the idea of forming a band with a friend; although the actual band never materialized, it prompted him to take up the guitar. Using a one-string guitar given to him by his grandparents, he soon enrolled in music classes at the Fairfax Music School with instructor, Robert Wolin.

Devoting himself entirely to the instrument, Slash practiced tirelessly every day, sometimes for a period of up to twelve hours. Eventually being scouted, they landed a recording deal with Geffen Records in the spring of Although the album initially debuted at a disappointing number on the US billboard Chart, it soon became a huge commercial hit, having spent four weeks at the top of the chart.

Not only did it see success in the American charts, but it also ranked amongst the top ten in six other countries including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland. Estimated to have sold 33,, copies across the world, it has since been given 18x Platinum status by the RIAA. Similar to Appetite for Destruction , it also charted in a handful of other countries.

In any case, what it has signified, until recently, is something between an interrelated field of study and a full-blown discipline. While it remains nominally present in school curricula and in architectural publications, theory no longer possesses the luster it once did, and, at least in North American institutions, history is fighting an uphill battle against a culture programmatically directed toward the future.

There can be no theory without history. History without theory is just one thing after the other. Theory without history is hubris. Rather than rehash the postcritical argument here, though, it is more useful to consider what has usurped the prestige of history, theory, and criticism in schools over the last decade and a half and to try to understand in what ways the managerial revolution has overtaken architectural academe. The logic behind this new set of slashed compounds is less than self-evident, and notably, history per se is not among any of the specified themes.

I am not against change. What are the implications of the shift away from history and theory and toward research, research, research? I hasten to mention that research is actually not a brand-new preoccupation in architecture. It was fundamental to the polytechnical educational model in its nineteenth-century origins, and, in the US adaptation, to the engineering experiment stations that cropped up in early land-grant universities, which investigated a range of topics from the acoustics of auditoriums to the use of the Dewey Decimal System in the classification of architectural knowledge.

By the s, the hands-on workshop model pioneered at the Bauhaus started to be widely disseminated, giving meaning to a modern concept of design as research, and displacing the dominant model of the Beaux-Arts atelier with its emphasis on individual artistic inspiration, historical precedent, and rituals of representation.

After World War II, with the ascendancy of the social sciences in the liberal arts university, methods based on statistics, behavioral science, systems theory, and fieldwork began creeping into programs in architecture education from Berkeley to Ulm.

Yet the recent fetishization of research in architecture schools has new ingredients. Obviously, the skillset most useful for research differs from that required for theoretical and critical inquiry. While, as just suggested, it can be carried out in any architectural domain—from technology and construction to design to history and theory—it relies on the activities of finding, collecting, organizing, documenting, categorizing, cataloging, analyzing, editing, and ultimately, in the curatorial stage arranging information.

Architects are especially adept at this last. In privileging hunting and gathering over more sedentary tasks like reflecting and questioning, research rewards enterprise and ingenuity. Today research projects in every field benefit spectacularly from the affordances of computerization and distributed networks of information.

Universities are being restructured to run on the for-profit model of the business corporation, and under the regime of cognitive capitalism, the production of research is integral to their lifeblood and their brands. As Andrew Ross has written:. In all likelihood, we are living through the formative stages of a mode of production marked by a quasi-convergence of the academy and the knowledge corporation.

Neither is what it used to be; both are mutating into new species that share and trade many characteristics. These changes are part and parcel of the economic environment in which they function; where, on the one side, a public commons unobtrusively segues into a marketplace of ideas, and a career secured by stable professional norms morphs into a contract-driven livelihood hedged by entrepreneurial risks; and, on the other side, where the busy hustle for a lucrative patent or a copyright gets dressed up as a protection for creative workers.

Here the restless hunt for emerging markets masquerades as a quest for further international exchange or democratization. If this characterization has until quite recently been more recognizable as a description of the academic-administrative environment in fields like medicine and the social sciences, today the bureaucratization, instrumentalization, and globalization of the knowledge economy have spread to every corner of the university.