1 architectural theory text 2014

8/11/2019 1 Architectural Theory Text 2014

1/258

Architectural Theory

Ph.D. Arc. Asaf Friedman

Bezalel Academy for Art and Design Jerusalem

Architectural Faculty

2014

1


2/258

ist of Articles

!gnasi De "ola#$orales %u&io '1()*+ From ,ontrast to Analogy- Deelo/mentsin the ,once/t of Architectural !nterention From otus !nternational no.4 3#4*.

iulio ,arlo Argan '1(+ 56n the Ty/ology of Architecture7 Theorizing a 8e9Agenda for Architecture

Alan ,ol:uhoun '1(3+ 5Ty/ology and Design $ethod7 Theorizing a 8e9Agenda for Architecture

Daniel 8aegele '1(()+ 56&;ect- !mage- Aura< e ,or&usier and the Architectureof Photogra/hy7- =arard Design $agazine

%o&in >ans '1()+ 5!n Front of the ines that eae 8othing Behind7

$ario andelsonas 5inguistic in Architecture7

$arc Trei& '2011+ The image /rint and /i?el ar:. ol 1* . no 1 . 1

,hristo/h ueder '2011+ Thin@ing &et9een diagram and image the ergonomics

of a&straction and imitation ar:. ol 1* . no 1 *)

8icholas Adams '2011+ 6/ening technologys door /erils and /ossi&ilities ar:.ol 1* . no 1 2

eorey Broad&ent '1(33+ 5A Plain $anCs uide to the Theory of "igns inArchitecture7

,hristian 8or&erg#"chulz '1(3+ 5The Phenomenon of Place7

enneth Fram/ton '1(34+ 56n %eading =eidegger7

enneth Fram/ton '1()+ 5Pros/ects for a ,ritical %egionalism7

Ale?ander Tzonis and iane efaire '1((0+ 5Ehy ,ritical %egionalism Today7

Gittorio regotti '1()+ 5The >?ercise of Detailing7

$arco Frascari '1()4+ 5The Tell#the#Tale Detail7

$ary $cleod '1()(+ 5Architecture and Politics in the %egan >ra fromPostmodernism to Deconstructiism7

%o&ert $ugerauer'1())+ Derrida and Beyond

Paul Girilio 5The oere?/osed city7

%em oolhaas '2000+ HBigness I Gelocity in AK $ay

Beatriz ,olomina 5>s/rit 8oueau Architecture and Pu&licite7

Diana Agrest and $ario andelsonas '1(3+ 5"emiotics and Architecture!deological ,onsum/tion or Theoretical Eor@7

Diane hirardo The Architecture of Deceit '1()4+ Theorizing a 8e9 Agenda forArchitecture

%oger ,aillois $imicry and egendary Psychasthenia 6cto&er $agazine

$ichael "/ea@s- '2002+ 5Design !ntelligence and the 8e9 >conomy-7

Architectural Record-.

Peter Lellner =y&rid "/ace >mergent dimension- information technologies andeolutionary architecture

2


3/258

Anthony Gidler '1(3+ The Third Ty/ology

James ". %ussell 9ith $ichael allis '2002+ Eorld ,ity Ehy lo&alization$a@es ,ities $ore !m/ortant Than >er

3


4/258

!gnasi De "ola#$orales %u&io

From ,ontrast to Analogy- Deelo/ments in the ,once/tof Architectural !nterention

From Lotus International no. 46 (1985): 37-45.The relationship et!een a ne! ar"hite"tural inter#ention an$ alrea$%

e&istin' ar"hite"ture is a phenomenon that "han'es in relation to the"ultural #alues attriute$ oth to the meanin' o histori" ar"hite"turean$ to the intentions o the ne! inter#ention.en"e it is an enormous mista*e to thin* that one "an la% $o!n apermanent $o"trine or still less a s"ienti+" $e+nition o ar"hite"turalinter#ention. ,n the "ontrar% it is onl% % un$erstan$in' in ea"h "ase the"on"eptions on the asis o !hi"h a"tion has een ta*en that it is possileto ma*e out the $ierent "hara"teristi"s !hi"h this relationship hasassume$ o#er the "ourse o time. The $esi'n o a ne! !or* oar"hite"ture not onl% "omes ph%si"all% "lose to the e&istin' one enterin'into #isual an$ spatial rapport !ith it ut it also pro$u"es a 'enuineinterpretation o the histori"al material !ith !hi"h it has to "onten$ sothat this material is the o/e"t o a true interpretation !hi"h e&pli"itl% orimpli"itl% a""ompanies the ne! inter#ention in its o#erall si'ni+"an"e.0hen ies #an $er 2ohe presente$ his pro/e"t or s*%s"rapers onFrie$eri"hstrasse to the authorities in erlin in 1918 the orm o thene! uil$in's in le&an$erplat in 191 an$ the other ones % Lu$!i'ilersheimer o the "enter o erlin in 197 or % Le orusier or the"entral one o aris in 1936 /ust to mention the est-*no!n e&amplesha#e in "ommon not onl% the same te"hniue o representation ut alsothe same sensiti#it% in the $e+nition o a parti"ular t%pe o relationship

et!een e&istin' ar"hite"ture an$ !hat is pro/e"te$ as ne!.The te"hniue o photomonta'e or analo'ous perspe"ti#e $ra!in's isparti"ularl% suite$ to emphasiin' the "ontrast et!een ol$ an$ ne!ar"hite"ture. ut this "ontrast !hi"h re#eals $ieren"es in te&turematerials an$ 'eometr% as !ell as in the $ensit% o the uran 'ri$ma*es no preten"e o ein' a ne'ati#e /u$'ement a repu$iation ohistori" ar"hite"ture. ,n the "ontrar% as Le orusier "ommente$ on hispro/e"t the ne! mo$ern $imensions an$ the sho!in' to a$#anta'e ohistori" treasures pro$u"e a $eli'htul ee"t.;1It is oten "laime$ that the a#ant-'ar$e ar"hite"ture o the o$erno#ement "ompletel% i'nore$ the ar"hite"ture o the past an$ that this

la"* o interest !as the si'n o a purel% ne'ati#e e#aluation o it. It istrue that the ar"hite"ture o that time !as the pro$u"t o a ormal s%stem!hi"h "laime$ to e sel-sui"ient at least in its pro'rammati"e&pressions ase$ on the astra"t 'eometr% o orm an$ simple three-$imensional shapes. ut e#en this attitu$e "oul$ not help ut ma*e itso!n interpretation o the material presente$ to it % the "it% an$ %histor% $e+nin' in para$i'mati" ashion a t%pe o relationship that is"hara"terie$ % prepon$eran"e o the ee"t o "ontrast o#er an% othert%pe o ormal "ate'or%.

t the e'innin' o the "entur% lois 2ie'l ha$ anal%e$ the mo$ernattitu$e to the prolems o the monumental herita'e in a series openetratin' an$ illuminatin' arti"les. In one !ritten in 19


5/258


6/258

o *no!le$'e ut also the airmation o a "olle"ti#e an$ s%ntheti"sensiti#it% !hi"h "hara"teries metropolitan man en masse.2ie'lAs a""urate $es"ription ser#es to e&plain !hat t%pe o sensiti#it% it isthat is re#eale$ in the e&amples "ite$ at the start o this arti"le an$ in thespe"ial !a% in !hi"h the "ontrast et!een ol$ an$ ne! ar"hite"turalmaterials is estalishe$ as happens in those a#ant-'ar$e pro/e"ts thatha#e to "onten$ !ith the ar"hite"ture o the past.In or$er to a"* up the theor% o "ontrast at the le#el o per"eption as itis ormulate$ % 2ie'l it !oul$ not e $ii"ult to $ra! too on thetheoreti"al mo$els utilie$ % intelle"tuals o the $a% !hen the% !erepie"in' to'ether the histor% o ar"hite"ture or loo*in' or itsps%"holo'i"al oun$ations in the Gestalttheoriethat theoreti"ians an$prota'onists o the ne! art use$ as a asis or their o!n aestheti"e&perien"es.In the "ase o historio'raph% it is "lear that e'innin' !ith 2ie'l an$ atleast up until B?i'rie$C Die$ion ut si'ni+"antl% in the !or*s o BDusta#

$olC lat an$ Eurt ehren$t as !ell the histor% o the ar"hite"ture othe past is anal%e$ as a pro$u"t o the past rin'in' out its no#elties

an$ $ieren"es !ith respe"t to the ar"hite"ture o the present.3 ot onl%$i$ the% 'et o#er the relu"tan"e aout usin' the past in or$er toe&perien"e the more imme$iate an$ "ontemporar% present ut the%realie$ that this e&planation ser#e$ ao#e all to sho! up the ra$i"alopposition the "ontrast et!een the an"ient an$ the ne! et!eenhistor% an$ "urrent e#ents.In the treatises on the ps%"holo'% o orm % B0ol 'an'C Eoeller in 199an$ % BEurtC EoG*a in 1935 one +n$s a s%stemati" or'aniation o themore 'eneral prin"iples o a "on"eption in !hi"h the notions o 'roun$-orm an$ o "ontrast are un$amental to an e&planation o per"eption an$o its si'ni+"an"e.4

In a"t in the same %ears the tea"hin's o B0assil%C Ean$ins*% BHosephClers BLisIoC ohol%-a'% an$ e#en aul Elee $urin' the earl% phaseo the auhaus ma$e use o /ust the same ps%"holo'i"al "ate'ories orthe trainin' o $rau'htsmen an$ $esi'ners. ot onl% !as ar"hite"ture$es"rie$-% ohol%-a'%-as a phenomenon that is per"ei#e$ three-$imensionall% on the asis o a 'eometr% an$ te&ture there% ma*in' a"lean s!eep o an% *in$ o meanin' ut it !as e#en asserte$ that thephenomenon o meanin' in an% +el$ o the #isual arts is pro$u"e$throu'h /u&taposition interrelation an$ "ontrast o un$amentall%hetero'eneous shapes te&tures or materials.

Hust as "olla'e an$ photomonta'e $e#elop te"hniues o e&tra"tin' ne!an$ spe"i+" meanin's rom the "onrontation o autonomous ra'mentsar"hite"ture % "ontrastin' an"ient !ith ne! stru"tures +n$s the'roun$ an$ the orm in !hi"h the past an$ the present re"o'nie ea"hother.ut i there is a "lear relationship et!een 2ie'lAs $ia'nosis thepositions o historio'raph% an$ the ps%"holo'% o aestheti"s an$ the!or* o the ar"hite"ts o the o$ern o#ement !hen "onronte$ !ithhistori"al materials it is also !orth "allin' attention to the "onne"tions!ith a +el$ that !oul$ seem to ha#e little to $o !ith a#ant-'ar$e $eate.That is that o the "onser#ators an$ proessional restorers !ho !ere

$e#elopin' a "on"eption o the restoration o monuments in theirspe"ialie$ puli"ations an$ $eates that in its !a% ha$ somethin' in"ommon !ith the i$ea o "ontrast as a un$amental "ate'or% o therelationship et!een ol$ an$ ne! ar"hite"ture.

6


7/258

I e#er sin"e the en$ o the nineteenth "entur% the theoreti"al literaturepro$u"e$ % e&perts in restoration su"h as amillo oito $een$e$ a"riterion o "lear-"ut $ierentiation in those inter#entions o restorationthat in#ol#e$ an element o "onstru"tion it is this #er% i$ea that e"ameone o the un$amental prin"iples lai$ $o!n in the 1931 thens "hartero restorers. ore than on"e in the ten un$amental points into !hi"hthis "harter is $i#i$e$ the "lear "on"eption o the "ontrast that must epro$u"e$ et!een the prote"te$ histori"al uil$in's an$ ne!inter#entions is $een$e$. ot /ust % re"ommen$in' that mo$ernmaterials shoul$ e use$ on "ertain o""asions ut ao#e all % therepeate$l% e&presse$ "riterion a""or$in' to !hi"h $ieren"e is note$ inthe $ierent arran'ement o a$$e$ elements in the use o $ierentmaterials an$ in the asen"e o $e"orations in ne! "onstru"tions in their'eometri"al an$ te"hnolo'i"al simpli"it%. Thus it "an e sai$ that the

thens "harter a""epte$ in a 'eneralie$ an$ stan$ar$ie$ ashion the"riteria an$ approa"hes alrea$% elaorate$ in that perio$ % ar"hite"ts.

r"hite"ts !ho !hether the% elon'e$ to the !orl$ o a#ant-'ar$ee&perimentation or the a"a$emi" one o restoration !ere su/e"t to an

i$enti"al histori"al sensiilit%. 0hen the other thens "harter that o themen o the I in 1933 also insiste$ on the impossiilit% o a""eptin'the histori"al pasti"he an$ appeale$ to theZeitgeistto /usti% their$eman$ that ne! inter#entions in histori"al ones e ma$e in thelan'ua'e o present-$a% ar"hite"ture this !as not in realit% so ar rom!hat ha$ een asserte$ t!o %ears earlier % other proessionals !ith!hom the% appeare$ to ha#e #er% e! thin's in "ommon. In$ee$ the t!oo$ies !ere $istin'uishe$ % the militant an$ pro'ressi#e "hara"ter oone an$ the histori"ist an$ "onser#ati#e interests o the other.ut at a $istan"e o +t% %ears the $ieren"es et!een the t!oproessional "ate'ories !ere not o su"h an asolute nature as it !as in

the interest o the prota'onists to ha#e people elie#e at the time.eneath the o#ious $ieren"es there !as a "ommon attitu$e to!ar$shistori"al material an$ its interpretation. In oth "ases their 'ui$in'prin"iple !as orme$ % the late 2omanti" taste or rou'h te&tures an$or the patina let % time on ol$ uil$in's !ithout pre"ise ornamental orst%listi" $istin"tions in o#erall "ontrast !ith the limpi$ pre"ise an$astra"t 'eometr% o the ne! !or*s o ar"hite"ture. In this !a% the"ontrast et!een ol$ an$ ne! !as transorme$ not /ust in the out"ome ora$i"all% opposin' approa"hes ut also the per"eptual pro"e$urethrou'h !hi"h ea"h *in$ o ar"hite"ture estalishe$ re"ipro"all% its

$iale"ti"al si'ni+"an"e in the metropolitan "it% !as "han'e$.The pre$ominan"e o the "ate'or% o "ontrast as a un$amental prin"ipleo aestheti"s in prolems o inter#ention alrea$% elon's to the past. tleast one "annot spea* to$a% o its pri#ile'e$ position. The ee"ts o"ontrast remain in !or* o re"ent inter#ention oth as #esti'es o thepoeti"s o the o$ern o#ement in a e! o to$a%As ar"hite"ts an$ inan% "ase as one o the man% rhetori"al +'ures that are use$ in the ne!an$ more "omple& relationship that "urrent sensiilit% has estalishe$!ith the ar"hite"ture o the past.Let us ta*e a numer o e&amples that !e +n$ e&pressi#e o the ne!situation. @&amples !hi"h e#en thou'h the% are not all re"ent seem to

t%pi% the ne! sensiti#it% !ith re'ar$ to this prolem.The pro/e"t that B@ri* DunnarC splun$ !or*e$ on o#er a lon' perio$rom 1913 to 1937 or the e&tension to the Doteor' to!n hall "annote e&plaine$ on the asis o a simple notion o "ontrast. ,n the "ontrar%

7


8/258

!hat seems to "hara"terie the line ta*en % the ?!e$ish ar"hite"t o#erthe "ourse o +#e su""essi#e pro/e"ts is his interpretation o $ominanteatures in the ol$ uil$in' in or$er that the% shoul$ +n$ an e"ho in thepart that !as to e a$$e$ on.

s mu"h in the or'aniation o the plan e&ten$in' the s%stem e ar"a$esas in the la%-out o the a"a$e prolon'in' the pattern o empt% spa"esan$ pillars in one "ase an$ in the other % e&ten$in' the horiontaltripartite $i#ision as a $ominant ormal stru"ture in all the su""essi#e

#ersions the approa"h to a satisa"tor% solution !as $e#elope$ throu'hsimilarit% et!een !hat !ere "onsi$ere$ to e outstan$in' elements inthe ol$ stru"ture an$ the orms that !ere propose$ or the ne!e&tension. >ieren"e an$ repetition !ere seen simultaneousl% throu'h a"ontrolle$ han$lin' o the relations et!een similarit% an$ $i#ersit% thatare proper to an% analo'i"al operation.0hen arlo ?"arpa turne$ astel#e""hio in erona into a museum o the"it% he too ha$ to $eal !ith the presti'e o the me$iae#al uil$in' an$the nee$ to a$apt it to reuirements o a mo$ern museum. ot so mu"hthrou'h a "omprehensi#e anal%sis o its "omposition as % means o a

narrati#e an$ ra'mentar% $e#elopment ?"arpaAs inter#ention intro$u"eshistori"ist +'ures into the histori"al authenti"it% o the e&istin' uil$in'.Throu'h a $ispla% o "inemato'raphi" *in$ he a""umulates re$esi'ne$ima'es o ar"hite"tural !or*s o the past oth rom the i$$le 'es an$rom other perio$s perhaps !ith ar-o me$iae#al ori'ins ut "on/urin'up more re"ent @uropean e&perien"es su"h as those o the turn o the"entur% in Dlas'o! or ienna.ere the analo'i"al pro"e$ure is not ase$ on the #isile s%n"hronism ointer$epen$ent or$ers o orm ut on the asso"iation ma$e % theoser#er o#er the "ourse o time. % this means situations o ainit% arepro$u"e$ an$ than*s to the "onnotati#e "apa"it% o the lan'ua'es

e#o*e$ in the inter#ention relations or lin*s are estalishe$ et!een thehistori" uil$in'-real an$Jor ima'inar%-an$ the elements o $esi'n thatser#e to ma*e the uil$in' ee"ti#el% $epen$ent.?ome o Dior'io DrassiAs +nest theoreti"al !ritin' sets out to e&plain hisapproa"h to the restoration o the "astle o iate'rasso in 197ra!in' rom t%polo'i"al anal%sis a +rst appro&imation to its internalla!s the pro/e"t turns out as a "ompromise et!een the mo$es proper tothe mo$ern tra$ition ase$ on the in$epen$en"e o ne! an$ ol$stru"ture an$ the $imensional t%polo'i"al an$ +'urati#e"orrespon$en"e et!een ol$ an$ ne! parts in an attempt to "reate amutual "orrelation that !oul$ uni% the totalit% o the "omple&. 'ain it isa $iale"ti"al !a% o e&pressin' the s%n"hronism o similarit% an$

$ieren"e.2aael oneoAs 198< pro/e"t or e&pansion o the an"o $e @spa+auil$in' in a$ri$ lies almost at the opposite e&treme. Li*e Drassioneo ollo!s in the narro! tra"* mar*e$ out % the la!s o the uil$in'

8


9/258

itsel % the lo'i" o its "omposition an$ % the e&istin' or'aniation ostru"ture an$ spa"e. Lea#in' almost no room or iron% an$ !ithout an%*in$ o separation to $elimit the "hara"teristi"s o ea"h aestheti"operation oneoAs pro/e"t "ompletes the e&istin' uil$in' !hile ea"in'itsel to the utmost an$ emphasiin' to /ust !hat e&tent the e&istin'uil$in' impose$ its o!n e&i'en"ies. ere analo'% e"omes tenuousalmost imper"eptile turnin' into mere tautolo'%.The our e&amples anal%e$ so ar ha#e a series o "hara"teristi" traits in"ommon. The "ultural "risis is a "risis o uni#ersal mo$els. The $ieren"eet!een the present situation an$ that o a"a$emi" "ulture or mo$ernortho$o&% lies in the a"t that it is not possile to$a% to ormulate anaestheti" s%stem !ith sui"ient #ali$it% to ma*e it appli"ale e%on$ thein$i#i$ual "ir"umstan"es.BFrie$ri"hC iets"heAs "ritiue o metaph%si"s an$ BLu$!i'C0itr'ensteinAs "ritiue o lan'ua'e ha#e strippe$ a!a% all preten"e o'eneralit% or permanen"e in the pro"esses o "ulture. It is the samera$i"all% histori"al situation that post-Fou"aultian *no!le$'ea"*no!le$'es in itsel 0hile a"a$emi" "ulture has een ale to "reate

uni#ersalit% appli"ale pro"e$ures o inter#ention throu'h the notion ost%le an$ mo$ern "ulture has een ale to "reate an inter!o#en s%stemo ra'ments % means o ps%"holo'i"al su/e"ti#ism it is $ii"ult in thepresent situation to re"o'nie an%thin' ut the a"tual nature on the onehan$ o the "on"rete !or* !ith !hi"h one has to $eal an$ on !hi"h onehas to operate an$ on the other the in+nite s%stem o reerents !ith!hi"h the "olle"ti#e ima'er% o ar"hite"ture is stu$$e$.The lieral optimism o olin 2o!e ma% still ha#e aith in theee"ti#eness o "olla'e !hen he thin*s that a ra'mentar%$ismemerment $oes not "onGi"t !ith a "ertain *in$ o "omprehensi#estrate'% that allo!s some measure o "ontrol o#er the "it% an$ its

ar"hite"ture.6 ut !hat happens to olin 2o!e !ith the "olla'e is thesame as happene$ to the terri+e$ an$ora @pimetheusAs !ie !hen shelet all the e#ils that aKi"t humanit% out o her 'ol$en o& an$ !as let!ith nothin' in her han$s ut the "ontainer in !hi"h she still "ounte$ on*eepin' hope.ut the hope o "olla'e rests solel% as a te"hniue on a Destalt"omposition o !hi"h to$a%As ararous artists o rotta'e an$ $rippin'ha#e 'i#en a 'oo$ a""ount. The "urrent realit% is in a sense morere$u"ti#e in that it is more "riti"al. ut or the #er% same reason it ismore pre"ise at the moment o a"tin' !ith an a"ute a!areness o !hat

the uil$in' is tellin' us an$ !hat the histor% o ar"hite"ture tea"hes us.In re"ent %ears *no!le$'e o the intimate stru"tures o uil$in's has le$to the $e#elopment o te"hniues an$ tools that are as sophisti"ate$ asthe% are a""urate.The t%po-morpholo'i"al anal%sis "hampione$ % l$o 2ossi in his!ritin's o the si&ties has resulte$ on the one han$ in a 'enuinel%en"%"lopae$i" "ulture o representation $imensional "omparison an$stru"tural a!areness o all the prolems o orm presente$ % e&istin'uil$in's. ?in"e the si&ties ar"hite"tural "ulture has een imue$ !ith anauthenti" osession !ith anal%sis ma*in' use o "arto'raphi"planimetri" an$ three-$imensional instruments o e&traor$inar%

ee"ti#eness.ut it is no less true that !e are to$a% in a position to *no! /ust ho!little this anal%ti"al me"hanism has to $o !ith "reatin' a sui"ient"on$ition or the pro/e"t. 0hile the anal%ti"al proto"ols o the pro/e"t

9


10/258


11/258

their lieration an$ pla% is also the one !hi"h in the +el$ o ar"hite"turalinter#ention $e+nes the situation o the present $a%.The meanin's su''este$ to us % the !or*s that !e $is"usse$ at thee'innin' o this arti"le are not e&pli"ale !ithout the 'reatest liert% inthe manipulation o the sense an$ at the same time the stru"tures omeanin' that the "on"rete uil$in' $ispla%s e&ist onl% as a support orthis manipulation. To this must e a$$e$ the a""umulation o histori"alreeren"es that repla"e the an"ient s%stemati" an$ ei"ient *no!le$'e ohistor% !ith a multiple sto"* o ima'er%.

an aestheti" operation the inter#ention is the ima'inati#e aritrar%an$ ree proposal % !hi"h one see*s not onl% to re"o'nie thesi'ni+"ant stru"tures o the e&istin' histori"al material ut also to usethem as analo'i"al mar*s o the ne! "onstru"tion.omparison as $ieren"e an$ similarit% rom !ithin the onl% possiles%stem that parti"ular s%stem $e+ne$ % the e&istin' o/e"t is theoun$ation o e#er% analo'%. ,n this analo'% is "onstru"te$ e#er%possile an$ unpre$i"tale meanin'.

1. Le orusier ,eu#re omplete I934-I939 (Muri"h: 1946).. . 2ie'l >er mo$erne >en*mal*ultus sein 0esen seine @ntstehun'(@nleitun' um >en*mals"hut'eset) (ienna: 19


12/258

iulio ,arlo Argan

6n the Ty/ology of Architecture

From r"hite"tural >esi'n no. 33 (>e"emer 1963): 564-565. Translate$% Hoseph 2%*!ert. ourtes% o the pulisher.

This arti"le appeare$ +rst in a #olume o essa%s (e$ite$ % Earl ,ettin'eran$ ohamme$ 2assem) oere$ to roessor ans ?e$lma%r on hissi&t%-+th irth$a% an$ pulishe$ in uni"h % . . e"* in 196. Itseeme$ to the translator to approa"h a su/e"t !hi"h is "entral tospe"ulation aout ar"hite"tural theor% oth in this "ountr% an$ in

meri"a-ut to $o so rom a rather unamiliar stan$point an$ so"ontriute a ne! element to "urrent $is"ussion.

Hoseph 2%*!ert

ost mo$ern "riti"s !ho $epen$ ultimatel% on some orm o i$ealisti"philosoph% !oul$ $en% that an ar"hite"tural t%polo'% "oul$ in an% !a% e

#ali$. The% are ri'ht in so ar as it !oul$ e asur$ to maintain that theormal #alue o a "ir"ular temple is in"rease$ as it approa"hes an i$ealOt%peO o "ir"ular temple. ?u"h an i$eal Ot%peO is onl% an astra"tion= so itis in"on"ei#ale that an ar"hite"tural Ot%peO "oul$ e propose$ as astan$ar$ % !hi"h the in$i#i$ual !or* o art "oul$ e #alue$. ,n theother han$ it "annot e $enie$ that ar"hite"tural t%polo'ies ha#e eenormulate$ an$ passe$ $o!n in theoreti"al treatises an$ the !or* oamous ar"hite"ts. It is thereore le'itimate to postulate the uestion ot%polo'% as a un"tion oth o the histori"al pro"ess o ar"hite"ture an$also o the thin*in' an$ !or*in' pro"esses o in$i#i$ual ar"hite"ts.

There is an o#ious analo'% et!een ar"hite"tural t%polo'% an$i"ono'raph%: t%polo'% ma% not e a $eterminin' a"tor o the "reati#epro"ess ut it is al!a%s in e#i$en"e mu"h as i"ono'raph% is in +'urati#earts thou'h its presen"e is not al!a%s o#ious. o! $oes anar"hite"tural Ot%peO appear Those "riti"s !ho !oul$ a$mit that Ot%pesOha#e a "ertain importan"e are those !ho e&plain ar"hite"tural orms inrelation to a s%molism or to a ritual pattern "onne"te$ !ith them. This*in$ o "riti"ism has not resol#e$ (an$ "annot resol#e) a "ru"ial prolem:$oes s%moli" "ontent e&ist eore the "reation o the Ot%peO an$$etermine it--or is it /ust a suseuent $e$u"tion This uestion opre"e$en"e is ho!e#er not $e"isi#e !here it is "onsi$ere$ in the "onte&t

o an histori"al pro"ess= !hen s%moli" "ontent pre"e$es the Ot%peO an$$etermines it this "ontent is onl% transmitte$ in "onne"tion !ith "ertainar"hite"tural orms= in the same !a% !hen the re#erse happens thesu""ession o orms transmits the s%moli" "ontent in a more or less"ons"ious manner. There are "ases in !hi"h s%moli" "ontent is sou'htor "ons"iousl% as a lin* to an an"ient ormal tra$ition= su"h a pro"e$urema% e"ome an important "onsi$eration % #irtue o its histori"al an$aestheti" un"tion. T!o test "ases o a "ons"ious lin*in' o ar"hite"turalorm !ith i$eolo'i"al "ontent are those o the s%molism o "entralie$reli'ious uil$in' o the 2enaissan"e stu$ie$ % B2u$olC 0itt*o!er= an$that o a aroue ar"hite"tural alle'or% stu$ie$ % BansC ?e$lma%r.Puatremere $e Puin"% 'i#es a pre"ise $e+nition o an ar"hite"turalOt%peO in his histori"al $i"tionar%. The !or$ Ot%peO he sa%s $oes notpresent so mu"h an ima'e o somethin' to e "opie$ or imitate$ e&a"tl%

12


13/258

as the i$ea o an element !hi"h shoul$ itsel ser#e as a rule or themo$el...the mo$el un$erstoo$ as part o the pra"ti"al e&e"ution o art is an o/e"t!hi"h shoul$ e imitate$ or !hat it is the Ot%peO on the other han$ issomethin' in relation to !hi"h $ierent people ma% "on"ei#e !or*s o artha#in' no o#ious resemlan"e to ea"h other. ll is e&a"t an$ $e+ne$ inthe mo$el: in the Ot%peO e#er%thin' is more or less #a'ue. The imitationo Ot%pesO thereore has nothin' aout it !hi"h $e+es the operation osentiment an$ intelli'en"e....The notion o the #a'ueness or 'eneralit% o the Ot%peO !hi"h "annotthereore $ire"tl% ae"t the $esi'n o uil$in's or their ormal ualit%also e&plains its 'eneration the !a% in !hi"h a Ot%peO is orme$. It isne#er ormulate$ a priori ut al!a%s $e$u"e$ rom a series o instan"es.?o the Ot%peO o a "ir"ular temple is ne#er i$enti+ale !ith this or that"ir"ular temple (e#en i one $e+nite uil$in' in this "ase the antheonma% ha#e ha$ an$ "ontinues to ha#e a parti"ular importan"e) ut isal!a%s the result o the "onrontation an$ usion o all "ir"ular temples.The irth o a Ot%peO is thereore $epen$ent on the e&isten"e o a series

o uil$in's ha#in' et!een them an o#ious ormal an$ un"tionalanalo'%. In other !or$s !hen a Ot%peO is $etermine$ in the pra"ti"e ortheor% o ar"hite"ture it alrea$% has an e&isten"e as an ans!er to a"omple& o i$eolo'i"al reli'ious or pra"ti"al $eman$s !hi"h arise in a'i#en histori"al "on$ition o !hate#er "ulrure.In the pro"ess o "omparin' an$ superimposin' in$i#i$ual orms so as to$etermine the Ot%peO parti"ular "hara"teristi"s o ea"h in$i#i$ualuil$in' are eliminate$ an$ onl% those remain !hi"h are "ommon toe#er% unit o the series. The Ot%peO thereore is orme$ throu'h apro"ess o re$u"in' a "omple& o ormal #ariants to a "ommon root orm.I the Ot%peO is pro$u"e$ throu'h su"h a pro"ess o re'ression the root

orm !hi"h is then oun$ "annot e ta*en as an analo'ue to somethin' asneutral as a stru"tural 'ri$. It has to e un$erstoo$ as the interiorstru"ture o a orm or as a prin"iple !hi"h "ontains the possiilit% oin+nite ormal #ariation an$ urther stru"tural mo$i+"ation o the Ot%peOitsel It is not in a"t ne"essar% to $emonstrate that i the +nal orm o auil$in' is a #ariant o a Ot%peO $e$u"e$ rom a pre"e$in' ormal seriesthe a$$ition o another #ariant to the series !ill ne"essaril% $etermine amore or less "onsi$erale "han'e o the !hole Ot%pe.OT!o salient a"ts sho! that the ormati#e pro"ess o a t%polo'% is not /usta "lassi%in' or statisti"al pro"ess ut one "arrie$ out or $e+nite ormal

en$s. Firstl%: t%polo'i"al series $o not arise onl% in relation to theph%si"al un"tions o uil$in's ut are tie$ to their "on+'uration. Theun$amental Ot%peO o the "ir"ular shrine or instan"e is in$epen$ent othe un"tions sometimes "omple& !hi"h su"h uil$in's must ul+ll. It!as onl% in the se"on$ hal o the nineteenth "entur% that an attempt !asma$e to set up a t%polo'% ase$ on the or$er o ph%si"al un"tions(t%pi"al plans or hospitals hotels s"hools an*s et".) !hi"h ho!e#erhas not pro$u"e$ an% important ormal results. istori"al Ot%pesO su"has "entrall% planne$ or lon'itu$inal temples or those resultin' rom a"omination o the t!o plans are not inten$e$ to satis% "ontin'entpra"ti"al reuirements= the% are meant to $eal !ith more prooun$

prolems !hi"h-at least !ithin the limits o an% 'i#en so"iet%-are thou'htun$amental an$ "onstant= it is thereore essential to la% "laim to all thee&perien"e mature$ in the past in or$er to e ale to "on"ei#e orms insu"h a !a% that the% !ill "ontinue to e thou'h #ali$ in the uture.

13


14/258

o!e#er mu"h a Ot%peO ma% allo! o #ariation the i$eolo'i"al "ontent oorms has a "onstant ase thou'h this ma%-in$ee$ shoul$-assume aparti"ular a""ent or "hara"ter at an% parti"ular time. ?e"on$l% althou'han in+nite numer o "lasses an$ su-"lasses o Ot%pesO ma% eormulate$ ormal ar"hite"tural t%polo'ies !ill al!a%s all into threemain "ate'ories= the +rst "on"erne$ !ith a "omplete "on+'uration ouil$in's the se"on$ !ith ma/or stru"tural elements an$ the thir$ !ith$e"orati#e elements. @&amples o the +rst "ate'or% are "entrall% orlon'itu$inall% planne$ uil$in's= o the se"on$ Gat or $ome$ roostra#iate$ or ar"uate$ s%stems= an$ o the thir$ or$ers o "olumnsornamental $etails et". o! it is "lear that a "lassi+"ation so"onstitute$ ollo!s the su""ession o the ar"hite"tAs !or*in' pro"ess(plan stru"tural s%stem sura"e treatment) an$ that it is inten$e$ topro#i$e a t%polo'i"al 'ui$e or the ar"hite"t to ollo! in the pro"ess o"on"ei#in' a uil$in'. ?o that the !or*in' out o e#er% ar"hite"turalpro/e"t has this t%polo'i"al aspe"t= !hether it is that the ar"hite"t"ons"iousl% ollo!s the Ot%peO or !ants to $epart rom it= or e#en in thesense that e#er% uil$in' is an attempt to pro$u"e another Ot%pe.O

ut i the Ot%peO is a s"hema or 'ri$ an$ the s"hema ine#ital% emo$iesa moment o ri'i$it% or inertia the presen"e o su"h a s"hema nee$s toe e&plaine$ in the "onte&t o an artistAs "reati#e pro"ess. This lea$s onea"* naturall% to the 'eneral prolem o the relation et!een artisti""reation an$ histori"al e&perien"e sin"e it is rom histori"al e&perien"ethat the Ot%peO is al!a%s $e$u"e$. 0hat reuires urther e&planationho!e#er is the proposition that at least a part o that histori"ale&perien"e presents itsel to an ar"hite"t !ho is $esi'nin' a uil$in' inthe orm o a t%polo'i"al 'ri$. The Ot%peO so Puatremere $e Puin"% hassai$ is an Oo/e"tO ut O#a'ue or in$istin"tO= it is not $e+nite orm ut as"hema or the outline o a orm= it also "arries a resi$ue o the

e&perien"e o orms alrea$% a""omplishe$ in pro/e"ts or uil$in's ut allthat ma*es or their spe"i+" ormal an$ artisti" #alue is $is"ar$e$. orepre"isel% in the Ot%peO the% are $epri#e$ o their "hara"ter an$ o theirtrue ualit% as orms= % sulimation into a Ot%peO the% assume thein$e+nite #alue o an ima'e or a si'n. Throu'h this re$u"tion opre"e$in' !or*s o art to a Ot%peO the artist rees himsel rom ein'"on$itione$ % a $e+nite histori"al orm an$ neutralies the past. eassumes that !hat is past is asolute an$ there ate no lon'er "apale o$e#elopin'. ""eptin' Puattemere $e Puin"%As $e+nition one mi'ht sa%that the Ot%peO arises at the moment at !hi"h the art o the past no

lon'er appears to a !or*in' artist as a "on$itionin' mo$el.The "hoi"e o a mo$el implies a #alue /u$'ment: a re"o'nition that a"ertain $e+nite !or* o art is pere"t an$ has to e imitate$. 0hen su"ha !or* o art re-assumes the s"hemati" an$ in$istin"t nature o a Ot%peOthe in$i#i$ual a"tion o the artist is no lon'er oun$ to a #alue /u$'ment=the Ot%peO is a""epte$ ut not Oimitate$O !hi"h means that the repetitiono the Ot%peO e&"lu$es the operation o that *in$ o "reati#e pro"ess!hi"h is *no!n as mimesis. In a"t the a""eptan"e o the Ot%peO impliesthe suspension o histori"al /u$'ment an$ is thereore ne'ati#e= althou'halso Ointentione$O $ire"te$ to the ormulation o a ne! *in$ o #alue inas mu"h as it $eman$s o the artist-in its #er% ne'ati#it%-a ne! ormal

$etermination.It is true that the assumption o a Ot%peO as a startin' point or thear"hite"tAs !or*in' pro"ess $oes not e&haust his in#ol#ement !ith

14


15/258

histori"al $ata: it $oes not stop him rom assumin' or re/e"tin' $e+niteuil$in's as mo$els.ramanteAs tempietto o ?an ietro in ontorio is a "lassi" instan"e osu"h a pro"ess= it o#iousl% $epen$s on a Ot%peO: the peripteral "ir"ulartemple $es"rie$ % itru#ius (oo* I hapter 8) !hi"h inte'rates theastra"tion o the Ot%peO throu'h histori"al Omo$elsO (or instan"e thetemple o ?%il at Ti#oli) an$ so appears to "laim or itsel the status ooth mo$el an$ Ot%pe.O In$ee$ it is "hara"teristi" o ramantesue"lassi"ism to aspire to a s%n"reti" union o i$eal antiuit% (!hi"h isessentiall% Ot%pi"alO) an$ o histori"al antiuit% !hi"h has a status o aormal mo$el. n instan"e o a $iametri"all% oppose$ attitu$e is that oneo"lassi"al ar"hite"ts !ho assume "lassi"al ar"hite"tural t%polo'% not"lassi"al ar"hite"tures as a mo$el so that the mo#ement pro$u"es !or*s!hi"h are merel% three-$imensional trans"riptions o Ot%pe.O I the"on"ept o t%polo'% "oul$ in some !a% e rou'ht a"* to that oOte"htoni"sO as re"entl% $e+ne$ % esare ran$i (@liante o $ella ar"ha1956) one mi'ht sa% that t%polo'% is a notional ase on !hi"h ormal$e#elopment o the artist must ine#ital% rest.

It !ill thereore e "lear that the position o the artist #is-Q-#is histor%has t!o aspe"ts the aspe"t o t%polo'% an$ that o ormal $e+nition. Thato t%polo'% is not prolemati": the artist assumes "ertain $ata ta*in' asa premise o all his !or* a 'roup o "ommon notions or a herita'e oima'es !ith all their more or less e&pli"it "ontent an$ their i$eolo'i"alo#ertones. This aspe"t ma% e "ompare$ to the i"ono'raphi" an$"ompositional treatment o themes in +'urati#e art. The aspe"t o ormal$e+nition on the other han$ implies a reeren"e to $e+nite ormal

#alues o the past on !hi"h the artist e&pli"itl% arri#es at a /u$'ment.This /u$'ment ho!e#er must itsel impl% a t%polo'% sin"e !hene#er a

#alue /u$'ment on 'i#en !or*s o art is passe$ a /u$'ment must also e

passe$ aout the !a% in !hi"h the artist in "reatin' them ha$ $ealt !iththe rele#ant t%polo'i"al s"heme.The uestion o the #alue o ar"hite"tural t%polo'% has re"entl% eene&amine$ % ?er'io ettini (Mo$ia" no. 5) an$ % D. E. Eoni' (Leioni $elorso $i lasti"a Floren"e: @$itri"e Rni#ersitaria 1961). In these!ritin's the opinion pre#ails that an ar"hite"tural Ot%peO must e treate$as a s"hema o spatial arti"ulation !hi"h has een orme$ in response toa totalit% o pra"ti"al an$ i$eolo'i"al $eman$s. From this one mi'ht$e$u"e that the ormal in#ention !hi"h o#er"omes the Ot%peO is aresponse to imme$iate $eman$s in reeren"e to !hi"h the Ot%peO ha$ lost

an% real #alue. re"ourse to the Ot%peO !oul$ thereore o""ur !hen theimme$iate $eman$ !hi"h the artist is "alle$ to ans!er has its roots inthe past. si'ni+"ant instan"e is pro#i$e$ % the "omparison et!eenmo$ern reli'ious an$ in$ustrial ar"hite"ture. In$ustrial ar"hite"ture!hi"h $eals !ith alto'ether ne! $eman$s has "reate$ ne! Ot%pesO !hi"hha#e in man% "ases 'reat importan"e or the later $e#elopment oar"hite"ture. 2eli'ious ar"hite"ture !hi"h ans!ers $eman$s roote$ inthe past has resulte$ in t%polo'i"al repetition (artisti"all% #alueless) or inattempts at reein' the artist o all t%polo'i"al pre"e$ent (as orinstan"e Le orusier at 2on"hamp). These ha#e le$ to the proposin' o"ounter-t%pes mostl% ephemeral or una""eptale--there are e!

instan"es o mo$ern $e#elopments o histori"al Ot%pes.OThe "on"lusion must e that the t%polo'i"al an$ the in#enti#e aspe"t othe "reati#e pro"ess are "ontinuous an$ interla"e$-the in#enti#e aspe"tein' merel% that o $ealin' !ith the $eman$s o the a"tual histori"al

15


16/258

situation % "riti"iin' an$ o#er"omin' past solutions $eposite$ an$s%nthesie$ s"hemati"all% in the Ot%pe.O

16


17/258

Alan ,ol:uhoun

Ty/ology An Design $ethod

From @ssa%s in r"hite"tural riti"ism: o$ern r"hite"ture an$istori"al han'e (amri$'e: ,ppositions oo*s an$ IT ress (1981)43-5urin' the last e! %ears a 'reat $eal o attention has een 'i#en to theprolem o $esi'n metho$olo'% an$ to the pro"ess o $esi'n as a ran"ho the !i$er pro"ess o prolem-sol#in'. an% people elie#e-not !ithoutreason-that the intuiti#e metho$s o $esi'n tra$itionall% use$ %ar"hite"ts are in"apale o $ealin' !ith the "omple&it% o the prolems toe sol#e$ an$ that !ithout sharper tools o anal%sis an$ "lassi+"ation the$esi'ner ten$s to all a"* on pre#ious e&amples or the solution o ne!prolems-on t%pe-solutions.

,ne o the $esi'ners an$ e$u"ators !ho has een "onsistentl%preo""upie$ !ith this matter is Tomas al$ona$o. t a seminar atrin"eton Rni#ersit% in the all o 1966 al$ona$o a$mitte$ that in"ases !here it !as not possile to "lassi% e#er% oser#ale a"ti#it% in anar"hite"tural pro'ram it mi'ht e ne"essar% to use a t%polo'% oar"hite"tural orms in or$er to arri#e at a solution. ut he a$$e$ thatthese orms !ere li*e a "an"er in the o$% o the solution an$ that as ourte"hniues o "lassi+"ation e"ome more s%stemati" it shoul$ epossile to eliminate them alto'ether.o! it is m% elie that eneath the apparentl% pra"ti"al an$ har$-

hea$e$ aspe"t o these i$eas lies an aestheti" $o"trine. It !ill e m%purpose to sho! this to e the "ase an$ urther to tr% to sho! that it isuntenale !ithout "onsi$erale mo$i+"ation.,ne o the most reuent ar'uments use$ a'ainst t%polo'i"al pro"e$uresin ar"hite"ture has een that the% are #esti'e o an a'e o "rat. It is hel$that the use o mo$els % "ratsmen e"ame less ne"essar% as the$e#elopment o s"ienti+" te"hniues enale$ man to $is"o#er the 'eneralla!s un$erl%in' the te"hni"al solutions o the pre-in$ustrial a'e.The #i"issitu$es o the !or$s OartO an$ Os"ien"eO "ertainl% in$i"ate thatthere is a #ali$ $istin"tion to e $ra!n et!een artia"ts that are theresult o the appli"ation o the la!s o ph%si"al s"ien"e an$ those that are

the result o mimesis an$ intuition. eore the rise o mo$ern s"ien"etra$ition hait an$ imitation !ere the metho$s % !hi"h all artia"ts!ere ma$e !hether these artia"ts !ere mainl% utilitarian or mainl%reli'ious. The !or$ OartO !as use$ to $es"rie the s*ill ne"essar% topro$u"e all su"h artia"ts. 0ith the $e#elopment o mo$ern s"ien"e the!or$ OartO !as pro'ressi#el% restri"te$ to the "ase o artia"ts !hi"h $i$not $epen$ on the 'eneral la!s o ph%si"al s"ien"e ut "ontinue$ to ease$ on tra$ition an$ the i$ea o the +nal orm o the !or* as a +&e$i$eal.ut this $istin"tion i'nores the e&tent to !hi"h artia"ts ha#e not onl% aOuseO #alue in the "ru$est sense ut also an Oe&"han'eO #alue. The"ratsman ha$ an ima'e o the o/e"t in his min$As e%e !hen startin' toma*e it. 0hether this o/e"t !as a "ult ima'e (sa% a s"ulpture) or a*it"hen utensil it !as an o/e"t o "ultural e&"han'e an$ it orme$ part

17


18/258


19/258

o!e#er no s%stem o representation no meta-lan'ua'e is totall%in$epen$ent o the a"ts !hi"h "onstitute the o/e"ti#e !orl$. Theo$ern o#ement in ar"hite"ture !as an attempt to mo$i% therepresentational s%stems !hi"h ha$ een inherite$ rom the pre-in$ustrial past an$ !hi"h no lon'er seeme$ meanin'ul !ithin the"onte&t o a rapi$l% "han'in' te"hnolo'%. ,ne o the main $o"trines atthe root o this transormation !as ase$ essentiall% on a return tonature $eri#in' rom the 2omanti" mo#ement ut ostensil% "han'e$rom a $esire to imitate the sura"e o natural orms or to operate at a"rat le#el to a elie in the ailit% o s"ien"e to re#eal the essen"e onatureAs mo$e o operation.Rn$erl%in' this $o"trine !as an implie$ elie in iote"hni"al$eterminism. n$ it is rom this theor% that the "urrent elie in thesupreme importan"e o s"ienti+" metho$s o anal%sis an$ "lassi+"ation$eri#es. The essen"e o the un"tional $o"trine o the o$ern o#ement!as not that eaut% or or$er or meanin' !as unne"essar% ut that it"oul$ no lon'er e oun$ in the $elierate sear"h or +nal orms. Thepath % !hi"h the artia"t ae"te$ the oser#er aestheti"all% !as seen as

short-"ir"uitin' the pro"ess o ormaliation. Form !as merel% the resulto a lo'i"al pro"ess % !hi"h the operational nee$s an$ the operationalte"hniues !ere rou'ht to'ether. Rltimatel% these !oul$ use in a *in$o iolo'i"al e&tension o lie an$ un"tion an$ te"hnolo'% !oul$ e"ometotall% transparent. The theor% o u"*minster Fuller is an e&tremee&ample o this $o"trine.The relation o this notion to ?pen"erian e#olutionar% theor% is #er%stri*in'. ""or$in' to this theor% the purpose o prolon'in' lie an$ thespe"ies must e attriute$ to the pro"ess as a !hole ut at no parti"ularmoment in the pro"ess is it possile to see this purpose as a "ons"iousone. The pro"ess is thereore un"ons"ious an$ teleolo'i"al. In the same

!a% the iote"hni"al $eterminism o the o$ern o#ement !asteleolo'i"al e"ause it sa! the aestheti" o ar"hite"tural orm assomethin' !hi"h !as a"hie#e$ !ithout the "ons"ious intereren"e o the$esi'ner ut as somethin' !hi"h nonetheless !as postulate$ as hisultimate purpose.It is "lear that this $o"trine "ontra$i"ts an% theor% !hi"h !oul$ 'i#epriorit% to an intentional i"oni" orm an$ it attempts to asor thepro"ess % !hi"h man tries to ma*e a representation o the !orl$ ophenomena a"* into a pro"ess o un"ons"ious e#olution. To !hat e&tenthas it een su""essul an$ to !hat e&tent "an it e sho!n to e possile

It seems e#i$ent in the +rst pla"e that the theor% e's the !holeuestion o the i"oni" si'ni+"an"e o orms. Those in the +el$ o $esi'n!ho !ere-an$ are-prea"hin' pure te"hnolo'% an$ so-"alle$ o/e"ti#e$esi'n metho$ as a ne"essar% an$ sui"ient means o pro$u"in'en#ironmental $e#i"es persistentl% attriute i"oni" po!er to the"reations o te"hnolo'% !hi"h the% !orship to a $e'ree in"on"ei#ale ina s"ientist. I sai$ earlier that it !as in the po!er o all artia"ts toe"ome i"ons no matter !hether or not the% !ere spe"i+"all% "reate$or this purpose. erhaps I mi'ht mention "ertain o/e"ts o thenineteenth-"entur% !orl$ o te"hnolo'% !hi"h ha$ po!er o this *in$-steamships an$ lo"omoti#es to 'i#e onl% t!o e&amples. @#en thou'h

these o/e"ts !ere ma$e ostensil% !ith utilitarian purposes in min$the% ui"*l% e"ame 'estalt entities !hi"h !ere $ii"ult to $isassemlein the min$As e%e into their "omponent parts. The same is true o laterte"hni"al $e#i"es su"h as "ars an$ airplanes. The a"t that these o/e"ts

19


20/258

ha#e een imue$ !ith aestheti" unit% an$ ha#e e"ome "arriers o somu"h meanin' in$i"ates that a pro"ess o sele"tion an$ isolation hasta*en pla"e !hi"h is uite re$un$ant rom the point o #ie! o theirparti"ular un"tions. 0e must thereore loo* upon the aestheti" an$i"oni" ualities o artia"ts as ein' $ue not so mu"h to an inherentpropert% ut to a sort o a#ailailit% or re$un$an"% in them in relation tohuman eelin'.The literature o mo$ern ar"hite"ture is ull o statements !hi"h in$i"atethat ater all the *no!n operational nee$s ha#e een satis+e$ there isstill a !i$e area o "hoi"e in the +nal "on+'uration. I shoul$ li*e to "itet!o $esi'ners !ho ha#e use$ mathemati"al metho$s to arri#e atar"hite"tural solutions. The +rst is Nona Frie$man !ho uses thesemetho$s to arri#e at a hierar"h% o or'aniation in the pro'ram.Frie$man in $es"riin' metho$s o "omputin' the relati#e positions oun"tions !ithin a three-$imensional "it% 'ri$ has a"*no!le$'e$ that the$esi'ner al!a%s a"e$ ater "omputation !ith a "hoi"e o alternati#esall o !hi"h are euall% 'oo$ rom an operational point o #ie!. The se"on$ is Nannis Sena*is !ho in $esi'nin' the hilips a#ilion !hile

he !as in the oi"e o Le orusier use$ mathemati"al pro"e$ures to$etermine the orm o the en"losin' stru"ture. In the oo* !hi"h hilipspulishe$ to $es"rie this uil$in' Sena*is sa%s that "al"ulationpro#i$e$ the "hara"teristi" orm o the stru"ture ut that ater this lo'i"no lon'er operate$ an$ the "ompositional arran'ement ha$ to e$e"i$e$ on the asis o intuition.From these statements it !oul$ appear that a purel% teleolo'i"al $o"trineo te"hni"o-aestheti" orms is not tenale. t !hate#er sta'e in the$esi'n pro"ess it ma% o""ur it seems that the $esi'ner is al!a%s a"e$!ith ma*in' #oluntar% $e"isions an$ that the "on+'urations !hi"h hearri#es at must e the result o an intention an$ not merel% the result o a

$eterministi" pro"ess. The ollo!in' statement o Le orusier ten$s toreinor"e this point o #ie!. O% intelle"tO he sa%s $oes not a""ept thea$option o the mo$ules o i'nola in the matter o uil$in'. I "laim thatharmon% e&ists et!een the o/e"ts one is $ealin' !ith. The "hapel at2on"hamp perhaps sho!s that ar"hite"ture is not an aair o "olumnsut an aair o plasti" e#ents. lasti" e#ents are not re'ulate$ %s"holasti" or a"a$emi" ormulae= the% are ree an$ innumerale.

lthou'h this statement is a $eense o un"tionalism a'ainst thea"a$emi" imitation o past orms an$ the $eterminism it $enies isa"a$emi" rather than s"ienti+" it nonetheless stresses the release that

ollo!s rom un"tional "onsi$erations rather than their po!er o$eterminin' the solution.,ne o the most uninhiite$ statements o this *in$ "omes rom Lasloohol%-a'%. In his $es"ription o the $esi'n "ourse at the Institute o>esi'n in hi"a'o he ma*es the ollo!in' $eense o the ree operationo intuition. OThe trainin'O he sa%sis $ire"te$ to!ar$ ima'ination antas% an$ in#enti#eness a asi""on$itionin' to the e#er-"han'in' in$ustrial s"ene to the te"hnolo'%-in-Gu&The last step in this te"hniue is the emphasis on inte'rationthrou'h a "ons"ious sear"h or relationships.... The intuiti#e !or*in'me"hani"s o the 'enius 'i#es a "lue to this pro"ess. The uniue ailit% o

the 'enius "an e appro&imate$ % e#er%one i onl% its essential eaturee apprehen$e$: the Gash li*e a"t o "onne"tin' elements not o#iousl%elon'in' to'etherI the same metho$olo'% !ere use$ 'enerall% in all

20


21/258

+el$s !e !oul$ ha#e the *e% to our a'e-seein' e#er%thin' inrelationship.30e "an no! e'in to uil$ up a pi"ture o the 'eneral o$% o $o"trineeme$$e$ in the o$ern o#ement. It "onsists o a tension et!een t!oapparentl% "ontra$i"tor% i$eas-iote"hni"al $eterminism on the one han$an$ ree e&pression on the other. 0hat seems to ha#e happene$ is thatin the a"t o 'i#in' a ne! #ali$it% to the $eman$s o un"tion as ane&tension o natureAs mo$e o operation a #a"uum has een let !herepre#iousl% there !as a o$% o tra$itional pra"ti"e. The !hole +el$ oaestheti"s !ith its i$eolo'i"al oun$ations an$ its elie in i$eal eaut%has een s!ept asi$e. ll that is let in its pla"e is permissi#e e&pressionthe total ree$om o the 'enius !hi"h i !e ut *ne! it resi$es in us all.0hat appears on the sura"e as a har$ rational $is"ipline o $esi'n turnsout rather para$o&i"all% to e a m%sti"al elie in the intuitional pro"ess.I !oul$ li*e no! to turn a"* to the statement % al$ona$o !hi"h Imentione$ earlier. e sai$ that so lon' as our "lassi+"ation te"hniues!ere unale to estalish all the parameters o a prolem it mi'ht ene"essar% to use a t%polo'% o orms to +ll the 'ap. From the e&amples o

the statements ma$e % mo$ern $esi'ners it !oul$ seem that it isin$ee$ ne#er possile to state all the parameters o a prolem. Trul%uanti+ale "riteria al!a%s lea#e a "hoi"e or the $esi'ner to ma*e. Inmo$ern ar"hite"tural theor% this "hoi"e has een 'enerall% "on"ei#e$ oas ase$ on intuition !or*in' in a "ultural #a"uum. In mentionin't%polo'% al$ona$o is su''estin' somethin' uite ne! an$ somethin'!hi"h has een re/e"te$ a'ain an$ a'ain % mo$ern theorists. e issu''estin' that the area o pure intuition must e ase$ on a *no!le$'eo past solutions applie$ to relate$ prolems an$ that "reation is apro"ess o a$aptin' orms $eri#e$ either rom past nee$s or rom pastaestheti" i$eolo'ies to the nee$s o the present. lthou'h he re'ar$s this

as a pro#isional solution-Oa "an"er in the o$% o the solutionO-henonetheless re"o'nies that this is the a"tual pro"e$ure !hi"h $esi'nersollo!.I su''est that this is true an$ moreo#er that it is true in all +el$s o$esi'n an$ not onl% that o ar"hite"ture. I ha#e reerre$ to the ar'umentthat the more ri'orousl% the 'eneral ph%si"al or mathemati"al la!s areapplie$ to the solution o $esi'n prolems the less it is ne"essar% to ha#ea mental pi"ture o the +nal orm. ut althou'h !e ma% postulate ani$eal state in !hi"h these la!s "orrespon$ e&a"tl% to the o/e"ti#e !orl$in a"t this is not the "ase. La!s are not oun$ in nature. The% are

"onstru"ts o the human min$= the% are mo$els !hi"h are #ali$ so lon' ase#ents $o not pro#e them to e !ron'. The% are mo$els as it !ere atone remo#e rom pi"torial mo$els. ot onl% this. Te"hnolo'% is reuentl%a"e$ !ith $ierent prolems !hi"h are not lo'i"all% "onsistent. ll theprolems o air"rat "on+'uration or e&ample "oul$ not e sol#e$unless there !as 'i#e-an$-ta*e in the appli"ation o ph%si"al la!s. Theposition o the po!er unit is a #ariale= so is the "on+'uration o the!in's an$ tail plane. The position o one ae"ts the shape o the other.The appli"ation o 'eneral la!s is a ne"essar% in're$ient o the orm. utit is not a sui"ient one or $eterminin' the a"tual "on+'uration. n$ in a!orl$ o pure te"hnolo'% this area o ree "hoi"e is in#arial% $ealt !ith

% a$aptin' pre#ious solutions.In the !orl$ o ar"hite"ture this prolem e"omes e#en more "ru"iale"ause 'eneral la!s o ph%si"s an$ the empiri"al a"ts are e#en less"apale o +&in' a +nal "on+'uration than in the "ase o an airplane or a

21


22/258

ri$'e. 2e"ourse to some *in$ o t%polo'i"al mo$el is e#en morene"essar%.It ma% e ar'ue$ that in spite o the a"t that there is an area o ree"hoi"e e%on$ that o operation this ree$om lies in the $etails (!hereor instan"e .personal OtasteO mi'ht le'itimatel% operate). This "oul$proal% e sho!n to e true o su"h te"hni"all% "omple& o/e"ts asairplanes !here the topolo'i"al relationships are lar'el% $etermine$ %the appli"ation o ph%si"al la!s. ut it $oes not seem to appl% toar"hite"ture. ,n the "ontrar% e"ause o the "omparati#el% simpleen#ironmental pressures that operate on uil$in's the topolo'i"alrelationships are har$l% at all $etermine$ % ph%si"al la!s. In the "ase othe hilips a#ilion or e&ample it !as not onl% the a"ousti"reuirements !hi"h estalishe$ the asi" "on+'uration ut also the nee$or a uil$in' !hi"h !oul$ "on#e% a "ertain impression o #erti'o an$antas%. It is in the $etails that these la!s e"ome strin'ent an$ not inthe 'eneral arran'ement. 0here the $esi'ner $e"i$es to e 'o#erne$ %operational a"tors he !or*s in terms o a thorou'hl% nineteenth-"entur%rationalism or e&ample in the "ase o the oi"e uil$in's o ies #an

$er 2ohe an$ ?*i$more ,!in's an$ errill !here purel% pra'mati"plannin' an$ "ost "onsi$erations "on#er'e on a re"ei#e$ neo"lassi"alaestheti" to "reate simple "ues re'ular rames an$ "ores. It isinterestin' that in most o the pro/e"ts !here orm $eterminants are hel$to e te"hni"al or operational in an a#ant-'ar$e sense rationalism an$"ost are $is"ar$e$ or orms o a antasti" or e&pressionist *in$.Freuentl% as in the "ase o r"hi'ram orms are orro!e$ rom other$is"iplines su"h as spa"e en'ineerin' or op rt. ali$ as thesei"ono'raphi" pro"e$ures ma% e-an$ eore $ismissin' them one !oul$ha#e to in#esti'ate them in relation to the !or* o Le orusier an$ the2ussian onstru"ti#ists !ho orro!e$ the orms o ships an$

en'ineerin' stru"tures-the% "an har$l% e "ompatile !ith a $o"trine o$eterminism i !e are to re'ar$ this as a mo$us operan$i rather than aremote an$ utopian i$eal.The e&"lusion % mo$ern ar"hite"tural theor% o t%polo'ies an$ its eliein the ree$om o intuition "an at an% rate e partiall% e&plaine$ % themore 'eneral theor% o e&pression !hi"h !as "urrent at the turn o the"entur%. This theor% "an e seen most "learl% in the !or* an$ theories o"ertain painters-notal% 0assil% Ean$ins*% oth in his paintin's an$ inhis oo*Point and Line to Plane !hi"h outlines the theor% on !hi"h hispaintin's are ase$. @&pressionist theor% re/e"te$ all histori"al

maniestations o art /ust as mo$ern ar"hite"tural theor% re/e"te$ allhistori"al orms o ar"hite"ture. To it these maniestations !ere anossi+"ation o te"hni"al an$ "ultural attitu$es !hose raison $Aetre ha$"ease$ to e&ist. The theor% !as ase$ on the elie that shapes ha#eph%sio'nomi" or e&pressi#e "ontent !hi"h "ommuni"ates itsel to us$ire"tl%. This #ie! has een su/e"te$ to a 'reat $eal o "riti"ism an$one o its most "on#in"in' reutations o""urs in @. . Domri"hAs oo*Meditations on a Hobby Horse. Domri"h $emonstrates that anarran'ement o orms su"h as is oun$ in a paintin' % Ean$ins*% is ina"t #er% lo! in "ontent unless !e attriute to these orms some s%stemo "on#entional meanin's not inherent in the orms themsel#es. is

thesis is that ph%sio'nomi" orms are ami'uous thou'h not !holl%!ithout e&pressi#e #alue an$ that the% "an onl% e interprete$ !ithin aparti"ular "ultural amien"e. ,ne o the !a%s he illustrates this is %reeren"e to the suppose$ ae"ti#e ualities o "olors. Domri"h points

22


23/258

out in the no! amous e&ample o trai" si'nals that !e are $ealin' !itha "on#entional an$ not a ph%sio'nomi" meanin' an$ he maintains that it!oul$ e euall% lo'i"al to re#erse the meanin' s%stem so that re$in$i"ate$ a"tion an$ or!ar$ mo#ement an$ 'reen ina"tion uietnessan$ "aution.4@&pressionist theor% proal% ha$ a #er% stron' inGuen"e on the o$erno#ement in ar"hite"ture. Its appli"ation to ar"hite"ture !oul$ e e#enmore o#ious than to paintin' e"ause o the asen"e in ar"hite"ture oan% orms !hi"h are o#ertl% representational. r"hite"ture has al!a%s!ith musi" een "onsi$ere$ an astra"t art so that the theor% oph%sio'nomi" orms "oul$ e applie$ to it !ithout ha#in' to o#er"omethe hur$le o ane"$otal representation as in paintin'. ut i theo/e"tions to e&pressionist theor% are #ali$ then the% appl% toar"hite"ture as mu"h as to paintin'.I as Domri"h su''ests orms % themsel#es are relati#el% empt% omeanin' it ollo!s that the orms !hi"h !e intuit !ill in the un"ons"iousmin$ ten$ to attra"t to themsel#es "ertain asso"iations o meanin'. This"oul$ mean not onl% that !e are not ree rom the orms o the past an$

rom the a#ailailit% o these orms as t%polo'i"al mo$els ut that i !eassume !e are ree !e ha#e lost "ontrol o#er a #er% a"ti#e se"tor o ourima'ination an$ o our po!er to "ommuni"ate !ith others. It !oul$ seemthat !e ou'ht to tr% to estalish a #alue s%stem !hi"h ta*es a""ount othe orms an$ solutions o the past i !e are to 'ain "ontrol o#er "on"epts!hi"h !ill otru$e themsel#es into the "reati#e pro"ess !hether !e li*eit or not.There is in a"t a "lose relationship et!een the pure un"tionalist orteleolo'i"al theor% that I ha#e $es"rie$ an$ e&pressionism as $e+ne$% roessor Domri"h. % insistin' on the use o anal%ti"al an$ in$u"ti#emetho$s o $esi'n un"tionalism lea#es a #a"uum in the orm-ma*in'

pro"ess. This it +lls !ith its o!n re$u"tionist aestheti" the aestheti" that"laims that OintuitionO !ith no histori"al $imension "an arri#espontaneousl% at orms !hi"h are the eui#alent o un$amentaloperations. This pro"e$ure postulates a *in$ o onomatopoei"relationship et!een orms an$ their "ontent. In the "ase o aiote"hni"o-$eterminist theor% the "ontent is the set o rele#antun"tions-un"tions !hi"h themsel#es are a re$u"tion o all the so"iall%meanin'ul operations !ithin a uil$in'-an$ it is assume$ that theun"tional "omple& is translate$ into orms !hose i"ono'raphi"si'ni+"an"e is nothin' more than the rational stru"ture o the un"tional

"omple& itsel. The e&istent a"ts o the o/e"ti#e un"tional situation arethe eui#alent o the e&istent a"ts o the su/e"ti#e emotional situationin the "ase o e&pressionist theor%. ut tra$itionall% in the !or* o artthe e&istent a"ts !hether su/e"ti#e or o/e"ti#e are less si'ni+"antthan the #alues !e attriute to these a"ts or to the s%stem orepresentation !hi"h emo$ies these #alues. The !or* o art in thisrespe"t resemles lan'ua'e. lan'ua'e !hi"h !as simpl% thee&pression o emotions !oul$ e a series o sin'le-!or$ e&"lamations= ina"t lan'ua'e is a "omple& s%stem o representation in !hi"h the asi"emotions are stru"ture$ into an intelle"tuall% "oherent s%stem.5 It !oul$e impossile to "on"ei#e o "onstru"tin' a lan'ua'e a priori. The ailit%

to "onstru"t su"h a lan'ua'e !oul$ ha#e to presuppose the lan'ua'eitsel. ?imilarl% a plasti" s%stem o representation su"h as ar"hite"turehas to presuppose the e&isten"e o a 'i#en s%stem o representation. Inneither "ase "an the prolem o ormal representation e re$u"e$ to

23


24/258

some pree&istent essen"e outsi$e the ormal s%stem itsel o !hi"h theorm is merel% a reGe"tion. In oth "ases it is ne"essar% to postulate a"on#entional s%stem emo$ie$ in t%polo'i"al prolem-solution"omple&es.% purpose in stressin' this a"t is nor to a$#o"ate a re#ersion to anar"hite"ture !hi"h a""epts tra$ition unthin*in'l%. This !oul$ impl% thatthere !as a +&e$ an$ immutale relation et!een orms an$ meanin'.The "hara"teristi" o our a'e is "han'e an$ it is pre"isel% e"ause this isso that it is ne"essar% to in#esti'ate the part !hi"h mo$i+"ations o t%pe-solutions pla% in relation to prolems an$ solutions !hi"h are !ithoutpre"e$ent in an% re"ei#e$ tra$ition.I ha#e trie$ to sho! that a re$u"tionist theor% a""or$in' to !hi"h theprolem solution pro"ess "an e re$u"e$ to some sort o essen"e isuntenale. ,ne mi'ht postulate that the pro"ess o "han'e is "arrie$ outnot % a pro"ess o re$u"tion ut rather % a pro"ess o e&"lusion an$ it!oul$ seem that the histor% o the o$ern o#ement in all the arts len$ssupport to this i$ea. I !e loo* at the allie$ +el$s o paintin' an$ musi"!e "an see that in the !or* o a Ean$ins*% or a Brnol$C ?"hoener'

tra$itional ormal $e#i"es !ere not "ompletel% aan$one$ ut !eretransorme$ an$ 'i#en a ne! emphasis % the e&"lusion o i$eolo'i"all%repulsi#e i"oni" elements. In the "ase o Ean$ins*% it is therepresentational element !hi"h is e&"lu$e$= in the "ase o ?"hoener' itis the $iatoni" s%stem o harmon%.The #alue o !hat I ha#e "alle$ the pro"ess o e&"lusion is to enale us tosee the potentialit% o orms as i or the +rst time an$ !ith nai#ete. Thisis the /usti+"ation or the ra$i"al "han'e in the i"oni" s%stem orepresentation an$ it is a pro"ess !hi"h !e ha#e to a$opt i !e are to*eep an$ rene! our a!areness o the meanin's !hi"h "an e "arrie$ %orms. The are ones o our "ulture-"ulture !ith its o!n "hara"teristi"

te"hnolo'%-must e"ome #isile to us. For this to happen a "ertains"ienti+" $eta"hment to!ar$ our prolems is essential an$ !ith it theappli"ation o the mathemati"al tools proper to our "ulture. ut thesetools are unale to 'i#e us a rea$%-ma$e solution to our prolems. The%onl% pro#i$e the rame!or* the "onte&t !ithin !hi"h !e operate.

1. ?tru"tural nthropolo'% laire Ha"oson an$ roo*e Drun$est?"hoep trans. (e! Nor*: asi" oo*s 1963) 5U.. Frie$man $is"usse$ this issue at a le"ture 'i#en at the r"hite"tural

sso"iation in 1966.

3. isions in otion (hi"a'o: aul Theoal$ 1947) 68.4. It is interestin' that sin"e his oo* "ame out ir has een reporte$ rhatthe hinese ha#e in a"t re#erse$ the meanin's o their trai" si'nals.5. For the stu$% o lan'ua'e as a s%stem o s%moli" representation see@rnst assirerThe hilosoph% o ?%moli" Forms 2alph anheim trans. (e! a#en:

Nale Rni#ersit% ress 1957). For a $is"ussion o lan'ua'e in relation toliterature (metalan'ua'e) see 2olan$ arthes @ssais ritiues (aris:@$itions $u ?euil 1964).

24


25/258

6&;ect- !mage- Aura< e ,or&usier and the Architectureof Photogra/hy

&y Daniel 8aegeleFall 1998 o. 6 ar#ar$ >esi'n a'aine%>TK%8!8 T6 =!" "TKD!6 one e#enin' at $us* 0assil% Ean$ins*%!as en"hante$ % an une&pe"te$ spe"ta"le.; e su$$enl% sa! anin$es"rial% eautiul pi"ture per#a$e$ % an inner 'lo!; he !rote inhis 2eminis"en"es; o 1913.(1) t +rst I stoppe$ short an$ then ui"*l%approa"he$ this m%sterious pi"ture on !hi"h I "oul$ $is"ern onl% ormsan$ "olors an$ !hose "ontent !as in"omprehensile. t on"e I$is"o#ere$ the *e% to the pule: it !as a pi"ture I ha$ painte$ stan$in'on its si$e a'ainst the !all.; Ean$ins*% !as $eepl% ae"te$ an$ the ne&t$a% attempte$ a re-"reation o his impression o the pi"ture= ut the li'ht!as not ri'ht an$ the o/e"ts in the paintin' ostru"te$ his re#erie.o! I "oul$ see that o/e"ts harme$ m% pi"tures; he "on"lu$e$ notin'that a terri%in' a%ss o all *in$s o uestions a !ealth o

responsiilities stret"he$ eore me. n$ most important o all: 0hat isto repla"e the missin' o/e"t;0hat is to repla"e the missin' o/e"t In man% !a%s the $e#elopment oart in the


26/258

!ithers in the a'e o me"hani"al repro$u"tion is the aura o the !or* oart.;ura; uite o#iousl% is not the o/e"t itsel ut an in$i#i$ualie$atmosphere that en#elopes the authenti" o/e"t a sutle ut $istin"tsensation re"ei#e$ in the presen"e o the ori'inal. n ima'e e#en iphoto'raphi" mi'ht pro#o*e su"h a sensation= ut this !oul$ e the aurao the ima'e not that o the o/e"t represente$. en/amin ties aura$ire"tl% to the "ult #alue; o the !or* as oppose$ to its e&hiition #alue.e e&plains that in an"ient times artists "reate$ "eremonial o/e"ts or"ult an$ ritual purposes. ,""asionall% e&pose$ ut oten *ept hi$$enthese "reationsXart; meant or the spirits an$ inten$e$ or spe"i+"pla"esX!ere mostl% instruments o ma'i" their aura ine&oral% tie$ totheir ritual un"tions. ,nl% later !hen art pra"ti"es !ere eman"ipate$rom ritual an$ art !as ma$e more an$ more +t or e&hiition $i$ su"h"reations "ome to e re"o'nie$ as !or*s o art.; en/amin elie#esthat photo'raph% lierate$ the !or* o art rom ritual. 0ith photo'raph%e&hiition #alue $ispla"e$ "ult #alueXut not !ithout resistan"e. ult

#alue retires en/amin !rites into an ultimate retren"hment: the

human "ountenan"e.; The aura emanates or the last time; in theGeetin' e&pression o the human a"e; "apture$ in earl% photo'raphi"portraits.en/amin "onten$s that % repro$u"in'; uniue o/e"ts photo'raph%e&tra"ts the aura lea#in' these o/e"ts the eui#alent o all others.e"ause the ne! per"eption has a sense o the uni#ersal eualit% othin's; it ultimatel% ser#es a politi"al un"tion. % ero$in' the authorit%o the o/e"t photo'raph% $eta"hes the repro$u"e$ o/e"t rom the$omain o tra$ition.; The result is nothin' less than the liui$ation othe tra$itional #alue o "ultural herita'e.;

n$ one mi'ht surmise that it is lar'el% or this reason that photo'raph%

pro#e$ an i$eal me$ium or o$ern ar"hite"ture lieratin' it rom thet%rann% o a"a$emi" #alues an$ aritrar% tastes. The ne! ar"hite"ture!as to e truthul $ire"t rational "onstru"tion. hoto'raph% a me$iumthat ne#er lie$ illustrate$ it as su"h. It !as to e serious an$un"ompromisin' an$ imue$ !ith the spirit o the a'e. Te"hnolo'i"all%sophisti"ate$ photo'raph%Vs la"*-an$-!hite "ompositions presente$ anoten ra'ile an$ un"ertain ar"hite"ture as "re$ile $i'ni+e$ e#enine#itale. hoto'raph% ree$ the ne! ar"hite"tureXno! international inst%le an$ li'ht!ei'ht an$ moile in appearan"eXrom its pla"e o ori'in.It eauti+e$ an$ prote"te$ it rom the a$#erse ee"ts o time !eather

an$ use.@#entuall% ho!e#er the ima'e o ar"hite"ture re$ an ar"hite"ture oima'e. ore an$ more as en/amin put it the !or* o art repro$u"e$e"omes the !or* o art $esi'ne$ or repro$u"iilit%.; I at +rstphoto'raph%Vs per"eption seeme$ to ali'n !ith o$ern mo#ementelies ultimatel% its ee"t pro#e$ as en/amin ha$ pre$i"te$ "orrosi#eto a sense o ori'in an$ authenti"it% ualities that e"ame in"reasin'l%important to an ar"hite"ture that re#ele$ in the truths o stru"ture an$material. Thus i initiall% photo'raph% permitte$ mo$ern ar"hite"ture toappear to ul+ll its o!n theoreti"al pre"epts e#entuall% it ostru"te$ itrom e"omin' !hat it trul% !ante$ to e.

This $ilemma e"ame more pressin' as me"hani"al repro$u"tion e"amemore pre#alent. There !ere t!o o#ious !a%s out: ar"hite"ture "oul$resistrepresentation an$ "ulti#ate instea$ the o/e"tVs authenti"it% an$atta"hment to its ori'in= or "on#ersel% ar"hite"ture "oul$ become

26


27/258

representation immersin' itsel in honest e&hiitionism % promotin' itssi'nli*e "hara"teristi" as oth an artisti" an$ un"tional response to"ultural "on$itions an$ mar*et pressures. The +rst path le$ initiall% romthe home'ro!n or'ani" Rsonians; o Fran* Llo%$ 0ri'ht to a ra!elephantine ar"hite"ture hea#% an$ inert an ar"hite"ture o o#iousmus"le a aison Haoul prou$l% !eathere$ an$ aun$antl% o#er'ro!n!ith nature. The se"on$ le$ to a "ar$oar$; ar"hite"ture o sura"e an$ornament an$ masuera$e its "ostume either unaashe$l% mo$ernX,s"ar it"h*eVs Immeule $e uli"itW perhapsXor $e"i$e$l% a-mo$ernXthe house 2oert enturi $esi'ne$ or his mother in the suurs ohila$elphia.?till there !as a thir$ !a% out a path in !hi"h photo'raph%Vs erosion othe o/e"t ser#e$ not as an osta"le ut as a steppin' stone to a ne!ar"hite"ture. This thir$ !a% pri#ile'e$ neither artia"t norrepresentation ut /oine$ the t!o to arri#e at a ne! ar"hite"ture oillusionist spa"e: a ps%"holo'i"al; an$ relati#e ar"hite"ture "ompatile!ith ne! s"ien"e %et at the same time "uriousl% se"reti#e an$atmospheri" a seemin'l% authenti"; ar"hite"ture that oun$ a""ess to

"ult #alue in the illusion o e&hiition me$ia. hoto'raph% !as essentialin the "on"eption an$ realiation o this ar"hite"ture. In$ee$ as !e shallsee in man% !a%s the ne! ar"hite"ture seeme$ a three-$imensionalhaitale maniestation o the ar"hite"ture o photo'raph%.;It !as Le orusier the "entur%Vs most inGuential ar"hite"t !ho tra#ele$oth paths onl% to arri#e at the thir$. This is har$l% surprisin' 'i#en hislielon' preo""upation !ith the spa"e o paintin'; an$ his earl% #ision oar"hite"ture not as o/e"t ut as the s*illul a""urate an$ ma'ni+"entpla% o #olumes seen in li'ht.;(5) ,ne nee$ onl% "ouple this $e+nition!ith LYslZ ohol%-a'%Vs euall% potent $e+nition o photo'raph% asthe manipulation o li'ht; to un$erstan$ as Le orusier "ertainl% $i$

the tremen$ous potential that lies in the marria'e o the t!o me$ia.In$ee$ Le orusier maniests an ar"hite"ture o photo'raph% as earl%as 193 in his ers une architecture a oo* that he "laims a#oi$sGo!er% lan'ua'e inee"tual $es"riptions; rel%in' instea$ on a"tse&plo$in' un$er the e%es o the rea$er % or"e o ima'es.;(6)Le orusier !as "ooun$er !ith mW$We ,enant o urism. urismli*e mu"h a#ant 'ar$e paintin' at the time !as a sel-reerential art that"onstantl% "alle$ attention to the a"t o seein'. It interro'ate$ thepi"ture plane an in#esti'ation that resulte$ in hi'hl% "ulti#ate$ami'uit%. ,enant ha$ $e+ne$ the !or* o art as a ma"hine or

e#o*in' emotions;(7) an$ urism $e#ise$ "ertain strate'ies loosel%ase$ on ne! +n$in's in opti"s an$ per"eptual ps%"holo'% orarrestin'; the #ie!er. In the urist paintin' the ph%siolo'i"al ee"ts o"olor an$ line "omine$ !ith a hi'hl% ami'uous +el$Xparaline spa"e"onstru"tion e&a''erate$ rontalit% a mariage des contours; +'ure-'roun$ re#ersalsXto transmit a resonan"e; that ha$ a #er% "al"ulate$emotional impa"t. ?u"h per"eption !as re"ei#e$ somati"all% theresonant spa"e o the paintin' e&pan$in' into real spa"e to tou"h; the

#ie!er. In this sense resonan"e; !hat Le orusier $es"rie$ as asoun$in' oar$ that #irates !ithin us; !as a palpale uasi-s"ienti+"parallel to the aura.

Le orusier elie#e$ that urist paintin' shoul$ lea$ to theo/e"ti+"ation o the entire [!orl$.V;(8) Li*e "ertain >e ?ti/l an$onstru"ti#ist artists he !ishe$ to a''ran$ie art into en#ironment. ersune architecturepro#i$e$ a theoreti"al rame!or* or this

27


28/258

o/e"ti+"ation; an$ in it Le orusier $es"ries an ar"hite"ture"on"ei#e$ on urist prin"iples. e presents the arthenonXor him theapo'ee; o all ar"hite"tureXas ar"hite"ture re"ei#e$ % the per"epti#e

#ie!er as a urist paintin' mi'ht e re"ei#e$ that is as or'anie$phenomena; harmonious an$ in a""or$ !ith the a&is !hi"h lies !ithinus.; t the arthenon Le orusier !rites !e are ri#ete$ % oursenses= !e are ra#ishe$ in our min$s= !e tou"h the a&is o harmon%.; llis a""omplishe$ !ith nothin' ut pure orms in pre"ise relationships;=reli'ion s%molism an$ naturalisti" representation; he sa%s pla% nopart in it.(9)Le orusier illustrates these a"ts !ith puri+e$; ima'es. e "areull%"rops photo'raphs rom FrW$Wri" oissonnasVs reno!ne$ alumLeParth!non into ami'uous "ompositions in !hi"h +'ure an$ 'roun$eortlessl% re#erse themsel#es. The instailit% o the ima'e$ematerialies the o/e"ti#it% o its "ontent. The photo'raph i onl%momentaril% is aout spa"e an$ orm not representational "ontent= an$the rea$er !ho re"o'nies this must also re"o'nie the illusion o allima'es. The photo'raph is $i$a"ti". It tea"hes the rea$er; to see.

s photo'raphi"all% illustrate$ the arthenon is easil% relate$ tomo$ernit% or Le orusier also puri+e$; ima'es o those o/e"ts thatepitomie$l"es#rit nouveau in"lu$in' his o!n ar"hite"ture. ,n theoo*Vs ori'inal "o#er or instan"e an ima'e o the promena$e o theo"ean linerA$uitaniais "onstrue$ in trun"ate$ p%rami$ ormanti"ipatin' illonVs aorementione$Abstraction. The ima'e os"illatesrom a rea$il% per"ei#e$ re"e$in' #ie! (a $eep "orri$or e&ten$in' intothe pi"ture plane) to a less pronoun"e$ pro/e"tin' #ie! ultimatel%"ollapsin' into a t!o-$imensional re"tan'le "omprise$ o our trian'les.Le orusier "omposes ima'es o his o!n ar"hite"ture in an i$enti"al!a%. The amous photo'raph o the ,enant stu$io interior or instan"e

thou'h ar sutler in e&e"ution "learl% assumes the trun"ate$ p%rami$#arti as $o numerous photo'raphs o Le orusierVs !or* e&e"ute$ !ellater the oo*Vs puli"ation. ore "urious ami'uities populate thepa'es o ers une architectureas !ell. In Farman; or e&ample "areul"omposition en"oura'es the steerin' !heels o an airplane to e"omee%es transormin' the plane to a sheet-metal hare. In [u'attiV@n'ine; an asseml%-line pro$u"t ta*es on the #isa'e o an automaton!ith "%lin$ri"al e%es a o&-li*e nose an$ a steel orehea$ $rille$ tosu''est e%ero!s.(1


29/258

illa ?a#o%e a rame$ openin' in a reestan$in' !all pro#i$es the rooterra"e !ith a pi"ture; o the natural lan$s"ape= !hile the lar'eun'lae$ openin' o the south a"a$e !hen #ie!e$ rom outsi$e thehouse pro#i$es a taut "an#asli*e ele#ation animate$ % e#er-"han'in'natural li'ht li'ht trappe$ !ithin the "omposition. In oth instan"esar"hite"ture "orrals nature re$u"in' it to sura"e treatment. s Gattene$representation it loses its pri#ile'e$ position as realit% an$ e"omes asi'n o itsel.I at the illa ?a#o%e the inter"ourse et!een real an$ represente$ isin"i$ental in Le orusierVs e&hiition pa#ilions representation isenlar'e$ to the s"ale o ar"hite"ture itsel= in$ee$ it becomesar"hite"ture. The a#illon $e lV@sprit ou#eau or e&ample !as a ull-s"ale mo$el a representation o a li#in' unit to e uilt as part o a mu"hlar'er "omple&. ,n its si$e a"a$e Le orusier painte$ the initials @; enlar'e$ to the sie o primar% ar"hite"tural elements. Thou'h Gatthe% are "onstrue$ to su''est a $imension o $epth an$ appear to re"e$einto the uil$in' itsel. This ar"hite"tural s"ale an$ $epth illusion is then"ountere$ % the mu"h smaller LV@?2IT ,R@R; on a !hite +el$

that seems to o#erlap ut in a"t o""upies the same plane as the @ .;Thus Le orusier transorms !or$ to ima'e % un$ers"orin' its spatialorm. e "on"ei#es ar"hite"ture as a *in$ o haitale "alli'ram. Li*e theami'uous photo'raph it is an o/e"t ut at the same time it is anima'e. $e"a$e later in the a#illon $es Temps ou#eau& tent Leorusier "reate$ an interior stru"ture in !hi"h the !alls !ere literall%!or$s an$ ima'es. To enter this la%rinth !as to !al* !ithin the pa'es oa oo*. 0hen the pa#ilion !as photo'raphi"all% $o"umente$ in his%es&anons' des munitions( merci) des logis * * * +P the ima'es o s"ripte$!alls ser#e$ as a"tual pa'es in the oo* thus returnin' the !or$ to theprinte$ pa'e.

0ith su"h $upli"ities Le orusier translates oth nature an$ !ritin'into the more imme$iate pi"torial lan'ua'e o the artist. This has thepe"uliar ee"t o un$erminin' not onl% the authorit% o nature an$!ritin' ut that o authenti"it% itsel. ,ne li#es !ithin a !orl$ o oneVso!n representations an$ these re#eal themsel#es as truthul throu'h apriori aith in ormal harmoni"s. ?u"h relian"e on sensation an$ remo#alrom realit% ta*es on a surreal ualit%. ppearan"e an$ realit% are thro!ninto uestion % an ami'uit% that en"oura'es multiple interpretations.Interpreti#e a"ulties are en'a'e$. ie!ers e"ome parti"ipantsa""ompli"es in the ser#i"e o the surreal.

The !or$Jima'e para$o& !as ut one strate'% or e#o*in' a sense o thespa"e o representation. se"on$ !as realie$ at the a#illon ?uisse inaris !hen Le orusier enlar'e$ the photo'raph to the sie oar"hite"ture. Le orusier !as a$amantl% oppose$ to $e"oration inar"hite"ture ut !hen this $ormitor% neare$ "ompletion the rutalit% othe "ur#e$ rule !all that $ominate$ its entran"e lo% an$ lirar% sooen$e$ Le orusierVs "lient that he $ire"te$ the ar"hite"t to "o#er it!ith a mural. Rn"omortale !ith tra$itional $e"orati#e arts Leorusier emplo%e$ the ne! means; to "reate a photomural "onsistin'o ort%-our photo'raphs an$ e&ten$in' the ull len'th an$ hei'ht o the!all. Its ima'es !ere o 'eometri" man-ma$e o/e"ts "omine$ !ith

astra"t mi"ros"opi" an$ aerial #ie!s o nature ne! #ision; #ie!suna#ailale to the unai$e$ e%e. In a le"ture in ra'ue t!o %ears later

n$rW reton $ismisse$ the a#illon ?uisse as "ol$ an$ rational sin"e itis the !or* o Le orusier; ut heartil% praise$ the photomural as an

29


30/258

e&ample o "on"rete irrationalit%.; e enthusiasti"all% $es"rie$ it asirrationall% !a#%; "ompare$ it a#oral% to the !or* o Dau$\ an$$e"lare$ it an in$i"ation that ar"hite"ture !as a'ain attemptin' torea* throu'h all the limits.; is le"ture !as title$ ?urrealist ?ituationo the ,/e"t.;(11)The "ur#e$ !all !as har$l% an irrational !a#e nor ha$ Le orusierinten$e$ or the mural to in#o*e the irrational. Net retonVs assessment!as insi'htul. e sa! the mural as an e&ample o the o/e"t in "risisan$ re"o'nie$ in it that !hi"h !as not e#i$ent to Le orusier. Themural !as representational o#erla%. lon'si$e the rational or$er oar"hite"ture it pla"e$ an irrational or$er "reatin' a $iale"ti" "on$ition!ith oth ps%"holo'i"al an$ spatial impli"ations. The illusor% spa"e orepresentation interro'ate$ the real; spa"e o ar"hite"ture. Thephotomural $ematerialie$ ar"hite"ture. n$ i or reton this pro#i$e$e#i$en"e o the o/e"t in "risis or Le orusier it ma$e maniest inar"hite"ture a "ontra$i"tor% spa"e similar to that presente$ in hisami'uous photo'raph%.(1)

In ea"h o Le orusierVs e&hiition pa#ilions that ollo!e$ photomurals

pla%e$ an in"reasin'l% important role. In the a#illon $es Tempsou#eau& enormous photo "olla'es +lle$ entire !alls. Rnli*e thea#illon ?uisseVs uilt o Gat ima'es these murals "omine$ ima'es operspe"ti#al ar"hite"tural spa"e !ith ima'es o a-perspe"ti#al unrealspa"e. These representations o antasti" spa"e !ere then pla"e$ !ithinthe real spa"e o the pa#ilion. The result one ima'ines !as"ontra$i"tor% spa"e; ar more e&a''erate$ an$ illusionisti" than that othe a#illon ?uisse.Le orusier pere"te$ this strate'% in the late V5


31/258

spe"ial po!ers o per"eption. Li*e "ertain ?urrealists he !rote oparanoia" #isions; o Rus that appeare$ in his paintin' !ithout his!illin' it onl% to e $is"o#ere$ %ears later= an$ or his eni'mati"LePo,me de l-Angle %roit he a$opte$ the ?urrealist theme ometamorphosis. 0here on"e he ha$ $es"rie$ the house as a ma"hineor li#in' in; he no! asserte$ that to ma*e ar"hite"ture is to ma*e a"reature.;(16) s !ith the antasti" anthropomorphi" ar"hite"tureima'ine$ % ?urrealists an 2a% an$ n$rW asson the human o$%e"ame or Le orusier a metaphor or uil$in'. t the "enter o hishan$i'arh "omple& he pla"e$ a "olossal han$ s*e!ere$ on a steel ro$an$ let to !a#e in the !in$. t russels he ima'ine$ his a#ilion astoma"h assimilatin' 5


32/258

representationXinto $ialo'ue !ith the spa"e o realit%. The resultin'$iale"ti" "on$ition thou'h ar"hite"tural mirrore$ the "on$ition ophoto'raph% itsel. The photo'raph is an o/e"ti#e ima'e; oth realit%an$ representation. Its essen"e is illusion an$ it !as Le orusierVsin"lination to re"o'nie illusion as truth an$ to ele#ate this truth to ani$eal. Illusion "an e elt= it "an e sense$ as the $istan"e et!eenappearan"e an$ realit% et!een !hat is per"ei#e$ an$ !hat is *no!n. Its"orporeal eui#alent is spirit. Its ar"hite"tural parallel is spa"e spa"ethat asserts itsel as a $istin"t an$ ps%"hi"all% in#i'oratin' atmosphere.This spa"e is li*e the aura o an ima'e. To oer it as en#ironment !asor Le orusier the premise o a ne! ar"hite"ture.otes1. 0assil% Ean$ins*% 2eminis"en"es; inKandinsky. &om#lete Writingson Art' olume /ne(19er ?turm; ,"toer 1913).. 5he %iaries o6 Paul Klee e$. Feli& Elee (Los n'eles: Rni#ersit% o

aliornia ress 1964) 67aniel ae'ele Le orusier an$ the ?pa"e ohoto'raph%: hoto-murals a#ilions an$ ulti-me$ia ?pe"ta"les; inHistory o6 Photogra#hy #ol. no. (?ummer 1998) 17-138.13. Hean etitLe Po,me


33/258

14. Fon$ation Le orusier o& 3- b658. % translation. This t%pe$announ"ement is $i#i$e$ into +#e se"tions an$ is "on+'ure$ as poetr%.15. etit Le o^me le"troniue Le orusier 44.16. Le orusierLe Po,me de l"Angle %roit (aris: @$itions er#e 1955)rom se"tion @.4 ara"tWres.; In Fren"h:=aire une architecture c"est6aire une cr!ature.17. Le orusier &reation is a Patient +earch(e! Nor*: Fre$eri"* .rae'er In". 196ourd"huispe"ial numer (Hanuar% 1946) 9-1


34/258

%o&in >ans

!n Front of ines That eae 8othing Behind1984

5he =rontal +ub>ect

The troule !ith most "riti"ism an$ parti"ularl% that ran$ o interpreti#e"riti"ism asso"iate$ !ith i"onolo'% is that meanin' is assume$ to e&ist ehin$eneath or !ithin the su/e"ts o "riti"ism. The tas* o the "riti" is to $el#e intoun"o#er $is"lose re#eal $i#ul'e $is"o#er unol$ an$ sho! to the rea$er !hatlies hi$$en or unseen to 'et to the ottom o thin's to plum the $epths to seeeneath the sura"e ehin$ the "urtain. ehin$ an$ eneath are metaphorssin"e there is no real spa"e surroun$in' e#ents or o/e"ts that is ma$e #isile% "riti"ism ut i !e allo! oursel#es to e $ra!n into the trope then !e mi'ht!ell as* !hat lies esi$e ao#e an$ in ront o the su/e"ts o "riti"ism too.0hat is it that e&"lu$es these other positions rom noti"eThe spatial metaphor pla"es the "riti" as !ell as the thin's he re'ar$s.0hate#er he tal*s aout he a"es an$ % a tri"* o anthropomorphiation the

su/e"t a"es him. ,r at least this is reuentl% ima'ine$ to e the relation. Themetaphor o loo*in' !oul$ alone e enou'h to ensure the positionin' o thesu/e"t in ront o the "riti" (an$ i !e $o not loo* into su/e"ts !e approa"hthemno less rontal an attitu$e). Net it is the a"e-to-a"e relationship et!eenthe "riti" an$ his su/e"t that has the 'reatest ee"t e"ause !ith it "omes thei$ea that the phenomena !hi"h are presente$ to us throu'h our senses arepresente$ as ronta'es a"a$es thin's that si'ni% !hat the% stan$ in ront o.?o it is that the "riti" ma% loo* at his su/e"t as i it !ere some *in$ opro/e"tion !hose meanin' is assure$ % the a"t that it is a$$resse$ to!ar$him. ll the !orl$ "an still e a sta'e an$ it is then our usiness to +n$ out!hat supports the illusion or !hat 'i#es rise to the representation. spe"ts orealit% that "annot e thou'ht o in terms o this pri#ile'e$ orientation e"omemore re"al"itrant to interpretation e"ause no "lue is 'i#en as to !here !eshoul$ stan$ or !hat !e shoul$ loo* to!ar$. s it is the spatial metaphorlea#es us in no $out= it lea$s un$er the s*in eneath the sura"e throu'h therame ehin$ the sta'e e%on$ the a"a$e.,ten the spatial metaphor is itsel alrea$% a metaphor o time ut in thisinstan"e spa"e an$ time are inter"han'eale. eneath an$ ehin$ translateeasil% into a "hronolo'i"al eore. Time passes= !e loo* a"*. ?e$imentsa""umulate= !e $i'. The a"e-to-a"e relationship no lon'er possile a"rosstime is repla"e$ % an eui#alent arran'ement in !hi"h the present is"onstrue$ as a pro/e"tion o the past an a""essile realit% oerin' e#i$en"e opre#ious e#ents that "an onl% e re"o#ere$ throu'h it. @&ten$in' rom the past

it e"lipses the present is turne$ into the a"a$e o histor%.The line o si'ht en'en$ere$ % the spatial metaphors o hi$$en meanin'!hether sin'le or $oule$ !hether e&presse$ in spa"e or spatialie$ time setsthe "riti" in sear"h o ori'ins essen"es intentions moti#es "auses or theseare the thin's that lie ehin$ appearan"es. e loo*s thereore to +n$ someanimatin' or authenti"atin' a'en"% that !ill a""ount or !hate#er he "onronts.The "riti"As tas* is al!a%s to "onront. The pressure o these harmlessmetaphors !hi"h ear on lan'ua'e at so man% points !ill ease him into positiona"e-to-a"e !ith realit% ut !ill also lea#e him in no $out that it is his $ut% notto ta*e thin's at a"e #alue.omplaint ma% e ma$e aout the "o#ert anthropomorphism importe$ %metaphors into the "riti"al #o"aular% an$ the rontaliin' o the su/e"t as

'eneral issues ut in the parti"ular "ase o ar"hite"tural "riti"ism or art"riti"ism there !oul$ seem rather less to "a#il at sin"e the a"e-to-a"erelationship is 'i#en ar 'reater plausiilit% % the presen"e o ar"hite"ts an$artists !ho present their !or* oten !ith "onsi$erale "are as to ho! it !ill e

34


35/258

sho!n an$ ho! seen. 0oul$ !e not e pere"tl% /usti+e$ in ta*in' the a"e-to-a"e relationship or 'rante$ !hen su"h is the situation an !e not ater allrel% on the ar"hite"tAs or artistAs intention to orient the !or* to!ar$s us It!oul$ seem so ut >aniel Lies*in$As re"ent $ra!in's ma% su''est other!ise.

Lines without @odies

ot that hamer 0or*s t!ent%-ei'ht $ra!in's e&hiite$ in ,"toer I983 atthe !ere an%thin' ut rontal in their mo$e o presentation. othin'

oliue or unpreme$itate$ here. "on#entionall% hun' neatl% mounte$uniorm series o astra"t line "ompositions in la"* in* on !hite paper. tsui"ient $istan"e the o#erall ee"t is one o stai$ politeness. It is onl% !henthe oser#er steps !ithin "lose ran'e o an%one o the $ra!in's "lose enou'hor the re'ulatin' propriet% o the re"tan'ular rame to e $iminishe$ that hee"omes a!are o the $emoni" ener'% o line !ithin. It is ener'% har$ to$es"rie or the lines themsel#es are e&pressi#e o neither #elo"it% or"e noranimation. $ra!n line !ill normall% ren$er somethin' #isile o the a"tionthat 'a#e rise to it !hi"h allo!s us to attriute human ualities-erilea'itate$ $eli"ate rapi$ or hesitant-to mere lines. e"ause these arear"hite"tural $ra!in's ma$e !ith ar"hite"tural instruments e"ause the linesare "onstru"te$ not thro!n it is impossile to $o this. n approa"h that !oul$

lea$ throu'h the $ra!in' a"* to the e#ent o its ein' ma$e is $enie$ us.?imilar $enials o""ur a'ain an$ a'ain !ithin the series. 0hene#er an attempt isma$e to pass throu'h an$ e%on$ the $ra!in's it pro#es aorti#e. The% areopaue to this line o "riti"al enuir%.Ti'ers thou'h perormin' the most elaorate e&"ursions !hen stal*in' theiruarr% in the /un'le !ill !hen presente$ !ith a sla o meat in ront o their"a'e poun"e apparentl% oli#ious to the iron ars that lie et!een. Theirs is aailure o reGe& not o intelli'en"e= li*e!ise it seems to me the "ommentators!ho poun"e on Lies*in$As !or* in an eort to "at"h an$ $e#our its meanin'the meanin' that is that mi'ht lie hi$$en !ithin it. To'ether !ith the oliorepro$u"tion o hamer 0or*s are our short intro$u"tor% essa%s % eter

@isenman Eurt Forster Hohn e/$u* an$ l$o 2ossi. 0hile a$mittin' thearriers to or$inar% "omprehension the essa%ists sa% that his $ra!in's arehiero'l%phi"s (2ossi) or that the% are illustrations o a pro"ess o thou'ht(e/$u*) or that the% are a *in$ o !ritin' (@isenman)= that the% are spatialie$s"ores musi"al translations (Forster) pi"tures o the soul (e/$u*)anamorphoses (Forster). It is not that the% la"* "ir"umspe"tion. @isenman isa!are that his re"ommen$in' that hamer 0or*s e rea$ li*e !ritin' Oinsistson their ha#in' a. si'ni+"an"e that as 'raphi"s the% "oul$ not ha#e.O e/$u*an$ 2ossi (!hose "ontriution is in"i$entall% #er% 'oo$) re"o'nie theine&pli"ale in them. Net the% "annot help ut treat hamer 0or*s as ha#in'hi$$en meanin'. The ma"hinations o appre"iati#e lan'ua'e or"e them toari"ate #irtual meanin's or the $ra!in's to represent in pla"e o !hat the%

*no! the% "annot +n$-an$ remar*al% in#enti#e aout it the% are-ut "an their"laims to ha#e $is"o#ere$ the mo$es o representation (i not the "ontent ma$eapparent % the representation) e sustaine$Ta*e the hiero'l%phi". For se#eral "enturies the $e"ipherin' o @'%ptianhiero'l%phi"s pose$ immense prolems in @urope ut at the same time hel$ thepromise o re#ealin' the se"rets o ar"ane *no!le$'e $ire"t rom the ount o"i#iliation. In the popular ima'ination !hi"h rememers !hen men an$$inosaurs share$ the earth the hiero'l%phi"s are still un$e"iphere$. 0e $o notso easil% allo! su"h e&uisite m%steries to e trample$ on % the a$#an"e opalaeo'raph% the uest or the se"ret ein' so mu"h more interestin' than itse#entual re"o#er%. It is in this state o latent re#elation that 2ossi emplo%s the!or$ hiero'l%phi"s to $es"rie Lies*in$As $ra!in's. ehin$ the in$e"ipheralemar*s there lies lo"*e$ somethin' aout !hi"h !e remain i'norant perhaps alost empire o meanin' !hi"h !e "oul$ $isinter i onl% !e ha$ the *e%. It is anen"hantin' thou'ht almost irresistile an$ nonetheless so or one o#ious

35


36/258

$ieren"e. The men !ho "ar#e$ the hiero'l%phs *ne! !hat the% meant. >anielLies*in$ "laims no su"h authorit% in re'ar$ to his o!n !or*.is pro"e$ure is thereore more li*e au'ur% than !ritin': +rst orm the si'ns*no!in' onl% ho! ne#er !hat an$ then loo* to see i the% si'ni% an%thin':sometimes the% $o sometimes the% $onAt sometimes 'oo$ ne!s sometimesa$ sometimes nothin'. ?u"h a pro"e$ure shits the !ei'ht o meanin' romehin$ to in ront rom eore to ater rom the #eri+ale to the un#eri+alean$ as !e ha#e alrea$% note$ t!entieth-"entur% interpretation +n$s these

positions $ii"ult to i$enti%-let alone $eal !ith.There "an e little $out that hamer 0or*s are in some !a% s%stemati" utthe% are "ertainl% not a s%stem o "on#entionalie$ notation or representation.or are the% !ritin' hiero'l%phi"s s"ores pi"tures o the soul or o an% otherpart sustantial or ineale. The% are more li*e the tea-lea#es in the "up thespilt entrails o the e#is"erate$ $o#e $istriutions ma$e in su"h a !a% that the%"annot e ull% un$erstoo$ e#en % their author.2eturnin' no! to the issue o opa"it% it ma% e useul to "ompare the &hamberWorks!ithMicromegas a series e&hiite$ % Lies*in$ in 1979 an$ similar tohamer 0or*s in te"hniue an$ ormat. @mplo%in' the ami'uities oar"hite"tural pro/e"tion as their startin'-point i"rome'as $isrupt thehomo'eneous "ontinuous spa"e o a&onometr% an$ isometr% into a multitu$e o

"onGi"tin' spa"es. The series is eas% to pla"e !ithin the "onte&t o mo$ern arti not mo$ern ar"hite"ture= it elon's to the "lass o !or*s that in#esti'ateGu"tuatin' representations o spa"e an$ sura"e. ?%ntheti" uist paintin's areo this "lass so are some o Lissit*%As roun "ompositions the $ra!in's olose lers an$ the "an#ases o l el$. ll are o""upants o that as"inatin'!orl$ o #isual ami'uit% e&tolle$ % @rnst Domri"h. TheMicromegasho!e#er unrelentin' their $estru"tion o uni+e$ pi"ture spa"e are masterl%"ompositions= astra"t ut eminentl% three-$imensional elon'in' to anestalishe$ "on#ention o pi"torial ra'mentation.

terMicromegas Lies*in$As $ra!in's turne$ a"* rom astra"tion. 5he+ecret Li6e o6 egetables(1 98 1) an$ +e guarderai le stelle sana rai(As isdone through a little hole) (1981) or instan"e are uilt up rom re"o'nialera'ments o ma"hines instruments ar"hite"ture urniture lims an$$ia'rams. ompose$ o +'urati#e elements emo$ie$ in spa"e the% arerelati#el% transparent to normal interpretation the i"ono'rapherAs $ream ina"t: piles o re"on$ite ima'es lashin's o $eri#e$ e&pression. Let loose onthese our essa%ists !oul$ not nee$ to ha#e ra"*e$ their o!n rains so har$ an$"oul$ more easil% ha#e ransa"*e$ Lies*in$As= the $oor o the sae !as !i$eopen.% "omplete "ontrast +'ure an$ spa"e are nearl% asent in &hamber Worksnot uite asent ut nearl% so. Goatin' nest o semi-re#es here "omi"al"rot"hets on rupture$ sta#es there= resolution into "ipher-li*e its is o""asionalan$ partial no more than enou'h to su''est a resemlan"e ne#er allo!in' the

si'n-li*e element !hether $e"apitate$ sti"* +'ure "ross "he"*eroar$ ormas"ot on$rian to rea* ree o the lines o !hi"h it is ma$e lines !hi"hreuse to s%nthesie into o$ies ut !hi"h or "ourtes%As sa*e lea#e "lues as tosour"es o inspiration. Li*e animal "ra"*ers in m% soup these little hints aremore $i#ertin' than nutritional. The ten$en"% in the !or* in an% "ase is a!a%rom re"o'niailit% to!ar$ !hat Lies*in$ himsel reers to as Oremoteness.O 10hat is so remar*ale is the near total $isen'a'ement rom si'ni+"ation o an%*in$. ?

1 architectural theory text 2014

Documents