persepecta 33 mining autonomy

•

• •

•

J .

THE YALE ARCH/ TEC TURAL JOURNAL

PERSPECTA 33

Mining Autonomy

EDI TORS MICHAEL OSMAN

ADAM RUEDIG

MATTHEW SEIDEL

LISA TILNEY

•

THE MIT PRESS CAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS LONDON. ENGLAND . ..,,

Acknowledgements

The eel.hors would like to thank Hana Baldauf '81. B.A., '88, M.Arch. Frtd Ko1t·

ter, Cesar Pelll, Robe" A.M. Stem '65, M.Arch and F. Anthony Zunino '70,

M.Arch. for their gtntrous alhs to l'wr~ro 33. We a,. 81"11teful 10 the Or1h1m

Fbundation for Advanced Studlts In the Ant Am ror Ill continued 1uppon of

l'W.tp«tCl. Special thanks to lennlftrOro.1 and lock Reynold a of the Yale Unl11tl'

shy Art G11luy for thtir support of Ann H1mlllon's contribut ion to thla 111110.

S~ial thanks to L.turen Kogod. our faculty advisor. Without hor sound

counsel and •ccuratt criticism, the Issue would not have re1chtd 111 fruition.

Thanks to Brendan Moran for his 11en1roua advice from the ts1110'11t1rt

to finish. ~ggy Deamer's insight at crucial points a Iona tho way provided valu·

able dirtetion and !'«us.

Thanks tognphlc deslgnel'li Lesley Tucker and Mark Zurolowho brouaht

theirexp!!nise. creativity and strong per.onal engagements to this proJec:t.

We would like to thank tho members of the Ooerd of Dl~I0'1 of PwrJijl«to.

Tit• Ya/• AldtitK'tltrol /ournat

Pem Deamer

Sheila Levrant de Bretteville

Michael HaYerland

Gavin MacRae-Gibson

Cesar~lli

Alan Plattus

Alexander Purves

Harold Roth

Rohen A.M. Stem

Thanks to Carol Krin•ky who provided generous and valuable htlp

with copyediting.

We would like to thank Anthony Vidler for arranaln11 tr•n•latlon and

providing editorial assistance oo Hubcn Oamisch's essay.

We are also grateful to Jennifer Castellon and Jean Sieloff of the Yale

School of Architecture. Monica Robinson, Dlro<tor ol Graduate and Profts·

sional Schools Annual Giving and Dcvelopmont at Yale. ond Sally 1"onialno.

Associatt Director of Grants and Contracu at Yale. Thanks to Nina Rappaport

for her indisp!!nsable oss1stance wi th publicity.

For help with images wt would like to thank Laurel Bll11 It Yale University

1.Jbrary. Teresa Johnson at UC LA Library and Kristin Murray at An Resource.

Very special thanks ro the many friends who have off1~ thtlr support,

advice and ~rtkipation throuahout tht duration of this proiect. Catherine

Amon. Daniel Arbalan. Annmarlt Brennan. Stobhao Burke. Jason Carlow,

Al~ Hathaway. Ed Mitchell. Todd Rtls~. Altxandl'I Sov1, Sttph1n1e Tuerk

ind Jorae Zapata.

J

• I ~

•

•

[ I

~ • •

• • ,

•

Editors' Statement

P•r.4p<H:ta 33: Minin9 Autonomy is a collection of tssays thar examonts tht

evolving legacy of •rchitt<:tural autonomy and its rtl1tionsh1p to archlltc·

ture·s potential to act as a cntical ;igent. As 1ts name implies. Min1n9 Auton·

omy both draws from the richness of tht inttlltctual proJK't of autonomy and

perhaps does some damage to its suppositions by forwarding the id ta that the

conttmporary position of critical pracrlct has shlhtd from the autonomous

ceoter to the ptriphery of the architectural disciphnt .

The argument for the aU1onomy or architteture - tht belltf that archltec·

tu re is a self-contained projtct with Its own legible, meaningful forms- ls gener·

ally seen as an outgrowth of a larger understanding of tht role of autonomy Jn

the arts. But while the autonomy of the art object was considered an assertion

against the perceived bankruptcy of mass-culture, •rchitrctural autonomy coin

c1ded not only with distinctions between external assamilaition and resistance.

bur also with ots own tradition of utility and functionalism. Ironically. the disc I

pline's very emphasis upon its utilitarian nature had led to a pcorcelved dissolu·

lion of irs own professional boundaries by the la" 1960s and eatly 1970s

In the 1970s. the reemergence and redtfinitlon ot the notion of archo·

tectural autonomy >t 1hc lnstotute for Arch11ectureand Urban S1ud1es •nd in

lhe pages of OppaAitloru. became a way for arch11ecu 10 dehne lh<or practice

against ttthnoeracy while ma1nta1n1ng for arrhatttturc 3 'cr1t1c.a1· social rolt

Specohcally. archittets and archi1<c1ural hosronans viewed aurononoy as the

only remaining pos111on for ardutecturt 10 ga.n sufflcotnt d1s1anct ftom cul

ture to rrsisr the cap11ahs1 cycl• of production and consul"lptoon and present

new alttmativf's to the star us 'lUO In contr•s• to this ·post tunctiona11st• pot:1·

tion.. othtr arch11ccts at the 11mt reacted strongly 1ga1n111 tht per(tlftd 1°h1.s·

1orot1tyof modemarchitecrure and located theauto~omyof archotecruro on Its

own formal his1ory.

Although there can be no doubr tha11he s11ua11on of rho current dcc•d• is

radically different than that of the 1970s (economocally •• w•ll a> cuhurally),

many of the same condi11ons of dosciplonary uncerta1n1y remain, New me1hods

of architectural production (the reahll•• of digital design, om•gine and fab11·

cation). growing environmental concerns and changing 1dtas about domes11c·

iry and urban space continually pose new qucs11ons to arch11cc1s. How has rhe

conccp•ual framework of architccrural autonomy contlnucJ to Influence rhe

production of architccrure1 Have examples of contemporary cntlcal work s ur

passed the usefulness of the autonomy model/

far from abandoning the notion of autonomy, Mining At<to"omy main·

rains a critocal position that shif1s 11s atttnllon from the <enter of tht dostl·

plin• 10 irs borders. Loca1ed a1 the onterfaco b-Orwern autonomou• w11h~rawal

and cuhurnl derermma11on. cn11cal •rchlltcture O<<upies a i)O'otoon on the

~riphery whert II •<ts as• mediator - translallng knowledge from vnoed

pursuits Into the language and convcnoons of arthnecrure as well as pa .. ong

onrelltgcnce and specul>11on ftom tht d1sc1phno to tho wortd Archotecturt i.

therefore capable of ma or.ta on mg both Its croucal capac11ywhlle •l•o engaging

on its social and cuhural conttxt

0

0 rh'~ ~ • ,·-1 ~ ..

r- ~ I '-- ~

- ~ ',C .... - ...

'

! I I .

"'" ,...

: -

I ... · "" t-.. t: .... -

'-

0 0

• \ •

@@[f

' • ~

~ · ,

t ~ • J . ' s l i • '

j

PERSPECTA 33

Mining Autonomy

7 Editors' Statement

10 Ledoux with Kant HU8ER1 DAt.llSCH

16 The Ledoux Effect: Emil Kaufmann and the Claims or Kan1tan Autonomy ANTHONY VIDLER

30 Quasi-Autonomy in Architecture: The Search for an 'ln·berween' STANrORD ANDERSON

38 Manfredo Tafuri and Architecture Theory In the U.S., 1970-2000 OIAtlE Y GHIRARDO

48 Why Autonomyl CHRISTOPHER W000

54 TWenty Proiects a1 the Boundanos of the ArchlleCt\lral Discipline Examined 1n Rela11on 10 the H1norrcal and Contemporary DebatH OV<'r Autonomy

K MICHAEL HAYS

l AUREN t<OGOD

THE EDITORS

72 Notes around the Doppler Effw and other Moods of Modernism ROBERT SOMOL

SARA~ WHIToNC.

78 Nor es on the Thing EllZllBE TH GROSZ

80 Gottfried Semper: Stereotomy. BlolOflY. and Geometry BERNARD CACH(

88 Digital de !'Orme

90 ultrasucde

BERNARD CACHE

PATRIC• BCAVCf

C.EORCc WAGNlR

104 The Cool.I. t he Bad and the Ugly: The Urbanism of Cood and Bad Intention'

MICHA[ !> ANTON

114 Cnn1tanti in Mot ion: Le Corbusier's 'Rule of Movement' ar the Carpenter Centtr

HASH M ~ARK~

1215 Belonging: Towards a Th.ory of lden11hrat1on with Place NEAL l EACH

134 Contributors

..

.. -. .. •

.~ . ~·

. . •

.. -.. . ' . ... ---,tl4 • ~ - ... ... . .··. ' . . . . . . -------

HUBERT OAM ISCH Translation by £RI II Wl\.l. IAM S

. . . .

. .

~:·~

L _ _ Ledoux with ,

.., __ _

This essay was originally published as the preface

to Emil Kaufmann's De udoux et Le CorbUAier:

Ori9ine et developpen1ent de /'archi tecture autonome, i 981 '

Pubhsh1ng delays some11mts h;ave" J>.nefic1al effect in that they bring a stm·

blance of 1ust1hca11on to the exercise of wn11ng a preface - by definition a

risky undenak1ng For 11 the pubhcauon. as well as the purchase of a book.

always entail> an element of risk (which cannot be measured in financial

terms alone). a preface - whether ti 1s the work of the author or of a third

par1y - 1s suppo>f ;also true· to say that a text calls foT a preface is

1mpl1otly to admit that t1 1s not enough 1n itself. that it will only havt its

effect wnh appropriate clanhcat1on: that the reader will have no chance of

recognizing us 1mponance unless alerted to it in advance. not knowing how

to read 1t w11hout appropriate eyegla>>es. This presents the dist inct possibll·

lly of abuse, when the preface begins to take on the role of an advertisement

or 1ns1ruc11on manual

It •> d1frerent 1n the case of an historical text. and when dealing with a

repubhcauon or a new 1ranslauon. The french reader has d iscovered the work

of tm1I Kaufmann in reverse. so to speak: beginning with what appeared his

rrowning ach1~emen1. the great book L:4n:hitecture au .Aitcle du Lumliru

It 9551 IArc-h1tKtul'P 1n the A9# of Rt4Uon), and only then becoming familiar

w11h Trou arch11ecu revolu11011no1re..: Boullh. LAidoux. Lequeu h95 2H11irH

Rwolu11onary Archuecu. Bou/lie. udoux. Lrqueu. finally arriving at the book

pubhshed 1n Vienna in 1933. whose t t1le alone signals Kautmann's end.rt

inrellec1ual progroim. De IAdoux o LAI Corbwier: Ori9i11t er dlwlop,,.mntl dt

l'orch1tectul'f autanome. This is a book that has neither the fu\lnessof the!WO h "d~

ot er~. nor their weigh1 of scholarship, but that contains the seed of an 1

that Kaufmann was ta take up 11relessly throughout his li fe as ht deeptned . of .. ..

and developed all of 115 ram1hcatlons. 11 1s a book with the appearance .

broadside or pamphlet . and one can ~ee from both us title and date oft>'f i<>

lion that 11 was topical enough At the moment when Nazism was t riulllpttant

in Munich dnd Uerhn . s1ron~ly supported by a mass of academic rubbl~ ii was f f t to dt!ll

0" proo o great tn1'11ectual courage for a Viennese attemll $11·

s1rate the existence of a fundament;il continuity be tween so-called oeacla

.::

••

. ,

:ti .' 't{

. '·'

t } ) 11! I

'• r I ,

•• I

• ••

•

•

I •

' . t

, ' •

'

·' • •

• ,, • . . .. ,

• •

.. •

• . •'

I

• ~ ; • • f

l . • •

• i I

• • I

~ . l

' ,

I ~ •

• •

•• • • t

cal architecture and •rduwc1ure already denounced by the totahtaroan ideol

ogy a; "1ntcrna11011HI ·All the more so 111 thJt Kaufmann pressed hi. insolence

10 the point of including under lhe banner or IWD French dtthlle<ts a <•naon

number of German arch11ccts - begonnong wnh Schinkel 1ha11he new 0<der

d"omed a' an 1n1cgral pan of 1i. heritage (Not 10 menuon the ;ang froid with

whrch Kaufmann dcmon>tr,ned, "'the lace of tht> blackmail and even more

in the f•<c of the pohtoc•I hy,tcna of the avant ·gardts, as he celebrated the

a\p1rat1on 10 au1onomy of" poarttct- that was nonetheless poten11ally a\ pro

foundly \OCoalozed as th•t or archotecture.

Thi\ book wa~ then born ol ots tome. I> thos 10 say that 11 1s only of retro·

'P''' uvt• ontcre>t, .is a hl\torocal document' When everyone os proclaomong the

failure• of the Modern Movement .ind dt>nouncang ots "obicctove· conntttoons

woth a tcchnocrauc order that ended up by adop11ng 11as11s own. what reso

nanrt• can rhos thin volume and the thcs1> 11 articulates expect 10 hnd wnh

out being shored up by A large documentary appara1us1 Nevertheless. of. as

forg<' Luo\ Oorges would have 11. a pref~ce os no rnore th.on a form or lattral

cro111 "m then• 1\ nn reason to nece\sartly expttt 1hdt the reader should be

w.trnl'd ag.11ns1 1h1• book that JI ontroduc•S To alert the rrader to 1he re•ts

1 .. ncc\ that this reading might ehcor ,,, on the other hand. one of the rights

gcnN~lly granted t o one who wnre•" prtface. And since. 1n this ca>e.1herr os

a prtfac• why would tho\ one not ta kt .idv.ontage of thl' g~p 1n tome to 1nv11e

the r1·.1Jt•r 10 hnd on 11 a way of seeing .i little more clearly. >once res1s1anc~

always tndocares conOoct and 11 doe, no good to ignore !1 1 It 1s then up 10 u; to

en>urc.- 1hat th as translatoon 100 is born ol lu tome.our own. ca ugh I as wt> are •n

the meandering ways of a d"cour>c thdf hJ> not yet broken w11h modernary

for rrJ>On\ that the reading of tho:. book ,hould help u> to unravel for des pore

ot<, brcvny. 11 has Jo\t none of us Pd9r

One <ould say 1ha1 this 1s certainly the least 10 be expected of >uch"

book doe\ not 11• C•ntral thesis sugge" that a radital breJk 1nterrup1td th~

couroe of archote<tural production an the era of the french Revolution. a break

which would form the d1>tant ongtn or the Modern Movem<nl' That the worl<

. . " ..

•

-

of Ledoux could be presented as the paradigm ot this break assumes that

1he old and the new arc brought together wothin it on such a way that the

ruptur<' "only more evod•nt Yet 11 is to this that the mo~t rl!Cent d1sco~rse

on modernory 1s opposed a discourse 1ha1. far from being one of a "brcu."

works on the contrary to reue the threads, to reonscrobe on the contanutty of a

history a practice from which for too long it had the pretcntoon of f~e 1ng

nself The paradox that engages us 1n reading Kau fmann hes 1n the fact that

he hlm••lf attempttd to g.-e 1h1s phenomenon an hostorocal explana11on. and

that in >single stroke ht restored 10 the Modern Movement both a past and

a historical d1mens1on For 10 maon1a1n that the break from which m<><lern

arch11cc1ure on principal proceeds goes b•ck to the end of the eighteenth

century 1mphes that thrs archotttture doe' not begin woth Lt Corbusrcr. hut

rather that behind 11 loes.in entire history. including-as wewoll see- ns claim

to the tabula rasa

l • • • .... ~

Kaufman n's thes". 1hat saw Lt' Corbu•1cr a• th<.' tru~ hen or U>doux and

Schinkel was bound to -candahze the champion> of a ,howy nl'O cla<\lct\m. a

la Albert Speer, as well 4\ those on the other >ade who felt th~t. after all. the pro

let.onat al\O had a right to the ·column· (Question thtn dO<'s the prnlt'Uroat

have a right 10 the eniasr>' Can the proltt•nan column •ddpt llselt 10 1nlld

toon') lnd~cd. we often fo1ge1 that the crouque of func11onah\m did not ang1

n•te yes1erd.1y. Amon11 the Marxists, as well as on Frankfurt with Adorno, there

were a ftw good mind\ who denounced wh.1t they reaardtd. as Or!'< ht put

11. "the la.i word of bourgeois archnect ure.·• ThP last word but not the

hrst. one can imagine that those who appealed 10 the revolu11onary 1deJI

m1gh1 have 1udged "'unsuitable the propo>1t1on according to which the pra

gram of the Sachhchl<eot would have found 11s formul•t1on 1n the pe11od ol

the "Great Rtvoluuon· - French and hourgeoos - ot 1789 Out Kaufmann\

demon,1r~11on was no le;, shocking w11h respect 10th~ habnual a~sumpuuns

of art h1\tory. For this book. devoted as 11 seems to be 10 th• 1nve>11ga11on

of the sources of the Modern Movement. does not olK'y th~ I.aw of th~ gfnrr

If one agrtt~ woth h1i. thesis that Ledoux - as Kaufmann had d~d•rcd ln'm

... -

Emil IZaufmann

De Ledoux • •

aLe _or_ us1er . Origine et developpement de l'architecture autonome

. . ·-

-,;J ,

• •

- ·· ..... ,# ...

(

• '

1928 on1

- was a figure who signified a "personalizes break-point." in history,

one has also to admn that he 1s also an end point for any historical tracing

back in time of the Modern Movement. The question. then. would not be so

much to search for wl111rP he came from (even if it is always permissible to sup

port rather than oppos~ one's predecessors - as in the case of Ledoux in rela·

tion to Jacques-~'ranl;()is Blondel. it is still a form of owing them something),

but rather to know - in Kaufmann's terms - where he went. and 10 attempt to

understand Ledoux not on the basis of his own antecedents but on that of the

path that he opened up. It must be noted that Kaufmann only described the

beginning of this path: as If. once he had demonstrated the direction in which

Ledoux's work pointed, and how it became explicit In the teaching of Durand

and Du but. a route was would be traced that could no longer be mistaken.

Such language Is. however, not that of Kaufmann but of Kant. in the

preface to the second edition of Cr1riqu11 of Pure Rea..1on. In this preface Kant

makes reference to that other intellectual revoluuon traditionally associated

wnh the name of Thal~s. and concerning the beginnings of geometry. its

"orig1n:· the demonstration of the isosceles triangle in as much as it derives

from an a priori construction. the author of which was named Thal~s "or any

orher name."' This is the Kant to which Kaufmann's !ext refers from the

very first page. Docs this mean that from the moment that architecture

affirms Its "autonomy· 11 accedeb to a new and superior mode of historlciry

and that Its development can be seen as parallel. from the point of view

of logic. to that of science/ That this Fantasy (If 11 is one) constitutes

one of the impulses behind an architectural ideology that purports to be

"ra11onalis1," evinced by its constant return in Kaufmann's work? Certainly

KaufmHnn affirms 1ha1 if Lcdoux's work has value as a symptom and demands

10 be interpreted as such. he did not for all that create modern architecture

by himself: it would h<tvC been born anyway "even if he had never existQd."'

But such a proposition docs not 1n the least undercut the paradigmatic read·

1ng that Kaufman proposed of Ledoux's work in 1933. for it was less important

for him to write a "page of hi story" than to construct a model to show clearly,

beyond all deceptive surface effects, the profound continuity of development

that leads from Ledoux to Le Corbusier: a continuiry which in effect only has

meaning through assigning ii a revolution as origin. pinning itself to the name

of Ledoux "or any other name."

Indeed Ledoux. 1n his marked preferencr for the most simple and regular

geometric conngurauons - the cube, the pyramid. the cylinder. the sphere -

moves in this same direction: as 1f he had meant. in this moment of origin.

to reconnect w11h the premier acquis. as Husserl would say. from which geom·

etry was born. This premier acqu1s held that due to technical ability. the Greek

succeeded in detaching certain "pure" forms from their bodily anachments.

The Greeks pushed forms 10 their point of perfection. according to specifica·

tions suitable for the insrruction of 1he geometric mind: surfaces ever more

polished. whether flat or turned "in revolution:" edges ever more smooth. lines

ever more straight or even, angles ever more sharp, points ever more precise.

and so on.• The same process of autonomlz.ation of form is translated. with

respect to the elements of architecture. by the rejection of all anthropomor·

phism. organic metaphors. and, in general, of imitation. beginning with that of

the monuments of the past . In all things. one should return ro the principle: if a

column. considered according to its function (sachlichJ. is nothing more than a

post put up to support a load (Viollet ·le-Duc would say nothing less). there is no

sense in trying to calculate its proportions according to those of the human body.

'J 1t;• ..... J.' ., ...,1 ,..,. .,

any more than to protond to stretch it as o~ would• muscle: a s1mpll'cylinder

will do the job.

If architecture is no more than the expression of a constructive logic.

its reason for being should be sought in the act of building. In th~se terms,

architecture. from the moment It obeyed an external determination, would b4'

no longer autonomous but rather the object of empirical knowledge. techni·

cal and experimental. whatever the contributions of calculation. Nevertheless

architectonic thought. even if it aspires to autonomy. does not operate in the

registerof speculative reason: its aim Is not knowledge in itself; it has a task to

accomplish. a work to realiic. a world to construct. A matter of principles. it IS

only so inasmuch as pure practical reason is. In Kant's terms. immediately leg·

islative: It Is only autonomous 10 the extent that the will is conceived as Inde

pendent of empirical conditions and. consequently. as pure will. determined

by the sole form of the law called moral law. It is certain that Ledoux did not

read Kant. but we know how much he owed ro Rousseau. and how the reading

of Contra! ,iocial /7111 Social Contracr/ informed his doctrine of autonomy. If

the relationship between Ledoux and Kant 1s based on anything, it ls from

the point or view of this common denvation. "Rerum to the principle. consult

nature· everywhere man is isolated": the formula of L.:t.rchitecture echoes 1he

problem posed by Rousseau: to discover a form-that of the contract - through

which "each Is united to all. yet nevertheless obeying only himself and rem;un·

Ing as free as before."

For arch1tecturo then. the claim of autonomy has. in the first place. a

moral con not at ion. One has only to read Loos (where ornament is associated

with a form of crime) or Le Corbusicr !"t ruth" is opposed to lies. as the purity

of "whitewash" ls 10 the raise appearances of dEcor) to be persuaded of this:

the rigor and the purity aspired to by the Modem Movement were those of

the moral law. Indeed, the relationship of tho Ledoux creator of the Salines de

Chau ><. to Le Corbusier, the aposrle of the wall "lait de chaux" (whitewashl. 1s

salty enough - if l can say Ir - in the register of the signifier. especially if one

recalls thut Le Corbusier was himself born in La Chaux-dt-Fonds. But if it 1s

in fact nece•sary to think Ledoux with Rousseau, if nor with Kant. it is to the

extent that this other rela tionship allows one~ understand how the rejection

of rules handed down by tradition could for him be joined with the affirmation

of another imperative: uncond1rional. legality. Baroque architecture was het·

eronomous Inasmuch as It obeyed an external exterior determination - th11

of "su1lab1li1y" lcon1oYno11ctl that called for the elements which composed a

building to be combined, superimposed, and melded together in the unity of a

single ensemble, following the rules of an order entirely of the fai;:ade. which

was itsl'lf an Image of social hierarchy. According to Kaufmann's explanation,

the new princ1plc of autonomy would, on the contrary. mani~st itself 1n the

egalitarian sy"em of "pavilions• which assumes that the elements. for e:um·

pie the different "blocks" or "unitk" (of habitation or otherwiseJ retain their

independence, their freedom. their autonomy. The rationale determining the

pav11Jons' placement and distribution. would only thl'n appear in full clarity

on the level of the plan. In this sense the rejection of the fa~ade. which the

twentieth century would rccogni~e as one of the tnits of architectural moder·

nity, appea1ed from the beginning of the ninetttnth century as the corollary

of the affirmation of a universal and abstnict legality. This legality was to be

affirmed In rhe teachings of Durand. taking the form of a rrgular orthogonal

grid inscribed within a square. which both rrgulated the mechanics of the com·

position and was informed every ensemble, as it would continue 10 do 1n the

•

•

woi I. of M 1, ••n d, 1 Rohr lh• gnd •\ arc h1t.cton1<" .. ,n and reprcsentanon.

Th doubl .. lur c110 rr5~,..i lor the gnd both rrgu!Atory dnd g .. nn-a

t1vt tt•staty a po''" 1nr1to1hr un1~t'rsal pr<"trn."ri.1ons of iuronomou~ archirec

turr In tb< f st plac• th• gnd is P"'" nted tn Durand as th• mrchani'm for

i hang• tn sc.1lr Kaufmann i•" dtarly Hut wnh Ledoux arch11<<turr had

allJin,d ,1 '" w d nrns1on, rhu ot the ma.scs lgra11d nombrel. The idea of

autonom~ "111 IJ<t m• inonslt., 11 not brought bacll 10 the idea of rquahty,

mptymg 1h.11 .111 mrn 11 .. ,. tho 11gh1 to orchur<ror< ("Ta,t•. tn "' combin•

taons w11fa '''· 1tCogn1Zt~ no tl1Jl1 f(•ncf" bl·tv.!'("t"n lhi" poor or the r1ch1 In

I ('I U fO 11 t. 1111 t'l t U J t• llU gh 1 I U f JC' C nr1( t' r 0 t•J With tf1t• nt't•ds Of ! (•Js. t hel t' any·

thing 1l1n11he trtl'f ca1\d15tta1rl, Th<" hatl1.., ot ('luto. thr ''arthou ... E"of rht~ mer

ch 1nt, •h•· h ir11 ol •h• tantwr mus •II c.11ry Ms 1mpnm ")'Th.- pro1ett for an

1dt • rny "thus no longer 1m1trd to a pt'<>JX'Ct "'v1c-w meant to produce an

''"""ally p1ctu rsqu~ et!cct but rdthe1 nu ant to respond m detail to all th<

func11ons ot •It wn t tht manut•cturmg• a "In lmyro..-n I have placed r\Cf)

typ•· of build mg rrquirl.'d by the •0<.1al ordN Ont"'" MT t'f'"l"' lWIJil• I gl\cb111hto11<'0plr• •• tmbl1t> Atownw1ll11srup10Ml IT a: • .,...

of styl~ ( nth• plurall Tht archtteuure of the ntneteeruh entury, ma ~td •s

11 was on thr surl•ce by thr stamp of histonc1sm and eclec11ctsm, w.as ab ••n

rrs dttpnt '>tructurc> to pantc1patt rn th<' cont nu11y of a dl'vd opment "~e

effttts would no• br revratl'd unul th• masks under wh1th a r, htocture h•d

operattd un11l 1hat um< w•re remov•J horn this point of view the "regre,

, 10n· 10 nto cbssic1sm \\IS rn f ict no more• •han a symptom of •he drt•nor.i

uon of trt1d111on,1 tor m•. 1s K •!Jfm~nn h1m,ell noted In lt ngu"t'' lfrits ,.,.

could say th~t u y,ould 1,1kt• 1 century 10 ' hi lt from an crnate .ind "baroq,o·

mann< r of •P••lung, to a l,...e and n 11u1 .11 mo.le cl Cl p rt'S«>n The •ho" w~,

then from a mod" ol <xp1<'"1on 1h.11took 11~ models from tt.1d111on. w • modo

ol t•pr~•s1on 1h•t "'"'" ••• .11 .1nt1 h1s1011co1I, but which m l.1q 15 ord~reJ

around another notron of h151111 y th.in th .. 1 1m po,1'tl by a h1'to1 y of an und r

stood as htst~ry ol "s tylc ~· a no tr on th 11 , .irgu. bll' " II moy 1><', demands 10 be

takrn into account m and of 11sdt

them I r 111-c hn.t llmronrwill stt the magn ftccnc .. olth at*1~21lt<~~-~·-!~ tliio''f1,~~

of th• al .. house on 1 ht •am• lr\1.'l 01 1 ndet'd t....doux treat> th<' qut'•tton o! hous

mg 1n •• ms that ant1C1p•tr the solutions of the phabMtrry thr g;irdrn nt)

or th• r mudcr n cqu 'alrnt "apart mrnt block w11h communal l;itchtn ·• W11h

t g• ng as th IS far l\auf mann ms sts that onr can •Ct" lo Ltdoux s conttrns

thto beginning of• mrchlln1 •11>n ol •h• dwelling In l•ct 11 s.ttm> us though

l\aulmannfth c os•r to llrrcht1han to I.co Corbu 1t'f m thl' sens<' that the 1dta

r • ma 1n• for 1,.1 g" sttmcd to ront••d•Ct th• •1.'ry 1dra of autonomy As

Ado:-no would later,.,. "hou tng such as th1S ••a s!ap m thr fact'olth• nostal

& a for an mdrp• nden1 cx,.1rn<I' thdt anyway ri<tsts no more•

8u1 rht dop110n of tho• g11d h.1s >1111 othtr rcpcrrus"ons, which one

might c1t rp1st1·molog11 J \\hrrens th" rla sic al docrnncassoc1J1td the idea

ol unl\l r>al "'"''"rturc wllh that of a' h "''""'""' (lo thl' l "'' • that vtb

'lrtz r• rogf' zed •h l lh1 cl,1ul<o1I 01<krs "'' 11 "modrl of comb• a11on),of a rep

"rtone of ogns filgns 1hat b1 >uglot w11h 1h• in th,. 1ul1 s of tht1r <omhma11on

11nd conn1 cr11J11 rl1t fll 111( 1plt• llf .1t1111r10111y Jllalr~ tile ncc1·n1 les' upon thf'

• lemtn" ol 1111h111 c ''"" 1lm11 upon 1 "" r uli• 1ha1 dttrrmme) thru d1"rlhu11on

tn ·• £"' n •paC< ••uh• 10 whi< h .. 111111 nts •rr subJ<'Cl<d rv1·n in the11 layout

1'011h I IJurand 1111 a111 10 ltrrak w11h 1!11 p11nc1plr of comb1na11on tht P1f'cu.

d"/11 lutu ""' •upplws th• p11 "' non11•ncla1urc of the prcct• of th~ gamr

to whirh " h11rc1u11• ts rrdu t'd from this poi 1 on 11ut th" gamt' 11 l'll ti

no long• r 'o mu "a qut'Mlon of •yn1,1x as rt 1s of £<-Omt'try. a gromrtl) that

I• flar, ti< '.II< mary •nd abo.t •II Ju Ur The Ou :-id "•)'litem" rttro~pt'Ctn-.. ~ mantf•sts the paradro; of an arr" tctur<' that i.;uued n t f to be all tht' morr

• P••k1ng" l~rlan1J n n" 1• rtnounccd 1hcord1nuy rn<'ansof Llnguagt- As tf,

1nth1S .iscas .. tll,auton rnylud rob<opushtdtothepo ni h h " rrt arc lll't"ture

nn longor borro..td II dettrtntnataon from art1 ul<lttd lot guage Autonolll)

would be pu hod to tht' pc nt wht'rt II would impose upon the ymbol c ts

arll ulat ons '" >trucrure ns from worb-a d h h • n111onot tr th.an that cal

cu atrd cording to th< proc1 dures of discour e

It W2 Louis Ambro • Oubut "ho shOwt"d th , th c game 1s not affected

rn pnn rpl~ b\ •"r charJ •tr of the tkments at us disposal wh I h c / rn n 1skch1

r.cru1, av1 lu propo td1oco••rthe1>•ml'stru rurewuhenh • • "Ital • t d t'r a goth1c or

ran Cd e 1•roof 1' l< Corbu It r would~ f II drch .

0 °"'"& Viol!et le Due that Ill turc - morr th n 1 quo sllon of tyl< hn the s1ngul• J

.r - ts a question

concCl-.d wuh rare <"X<epuons !pn:n.irv amongst whtch ont mu.i c tr T0<

qut'Vllle) a> a t.ilt of ongzns •he dread of b<'g111n ng' in•r s•1ng n • ! prKl>t

1n rupturC' or thl' rM'Olu11onaf) "brC"ak "'• If the revcluu on of 1789 bt'c""'' the or1g1nary hgur• of soc1.l1"1 historiography, It Is b«am., 1 apptarrd •s

rhr foundrng C'vt'ol- thr t'lnugur;il moment of a history rt self rl'Wluuooary

rt k;ncd from thc drtC"rm1nin11 factors tl1at rtduced h1S:ory btforethe RtWlu

11on 10 a sort of "preh1\lory0

as Mar x termed u From the n:on:enl •~~· •IS

S<"t'n as thr orii:1n of a new cpo<.h, as ~n 1bsolu1c beg1nnmg a r.cw>t•rt lrom

zero, from pnnciplt thr r<!Volu11on htlomc• the r.rn t•ax of a truly human and

rational ht tor~ If It wcrcn't tor 1hr la<• that t, C~rbus11r h.ld hnlcsynop>

thy for fl'\'Olut1t>ns, Uolshe-.k or othc1.,. isc, ,ind 1h.11 h" w" mor" concerned

wuh htadrng them off by means of Jo l111<e 1111<' on•• could unJ,~t ind h""'

Kuufmann m1&hl hJvl' b<>en 1emp1<•d tn rc.lr srovt'f 111 thl' myth ol the "tJbula

rho~· •omrthrng ot 1h1• lOnsclousn<'" 11'.IUY lo'"·""' th• l~ntinu11y Col his

tory that 10, o1L1 ord1ng 10 WJll <·i llen1am1 n prop<• ru 1 <»otu11on.uy rlJSs••

in the moment ol thru ,,. llon ll1d not 1h1• "Pl.in Vo1s1n." which pr•P''""' 11"

drstrucuon of the greater I'•" t of "h1i1011c" l'o111 s t•> w 1kew •Y lor o low"auton

omous" row<'fS, dept nd upon 1lu s 1me lyrtr~l 1tlus1o:i t I at prompt<d th "''° lu11ona11es f 1789 to introduce 11 nrw calendar al'd the lnsurgrnt> of 1 ' uly

R~luuon 10 5hoot out l hc clocks'>

But L(-doux, I• therr not" paradox in rcgard1ni; htrn a• a rC\olu!I n

archirect <ind the paragon of thr "break· whel', by his own a "" h< onlv u 1

" co1prd the nJrtonal axe• befon welcoming 11'c ,1n1val of t'le E:n'P "'1

undtr t.andablt' rcllrP Ht rr the old deb3te over th t' con>equc crs cf po 1

d and oc ,JI r..volu11on for 1hr domain of t he arts rrappe•~ ll T 1 l<y c

• h" 1 not 1rprl'sS the td a that rht Ir nch language aw•>d 5 mr of •s I"'

the sharp tn trument named "su1llo11n., ... his con1tmporancs. rrad t

WC'rr 10 re<og'llie th<' tntlla!r o1nge of tht rcvolut on ry f1/'Cnt W• fl' eqUd

h and th ned on throthrr hilnd that a 1m11.Jr ruptUn' in thr ord r I 1 '"'

<I d rt I llnu1ty of ttml' had rc11Ulnrd for o long wnhou t e lf« ! on htera• .. '

f I

th h f R antic •"' <'point t Ill w;i n er nry 10 aw:i11 th!! c xplo 1on o om H 0 ,_ h 1 lor V •01

lo at ws1 havr ns own roun< nth of July (In the serse t a t

R I r rure"I A omant1C1\ln wa "the rrrnch Rl'Volu•1on turned 1n10 ''" Led '

th [loullCt-arch !('(tUrl' is concl'rnt'd for K 1ufmann to propoSt' that w•

and Lequeu it had us own "revoluuon" (the question remains as to the place

that Soufflot s hould be •~signed Jn this context), was simply yo make an

analogy be1wcen this revolution and the political revolution. Indeed, he later

recogniz(•d tha1 he was incapable of explaining t he change that architecture

underwent around 1800, insofar as explanations and reasons or this kind

can on lye sought in so·ca llcd "general" if not universal hi story." For it is surely

not an exp lanation to point to the process of the emancipation of th~ masses

as related to the principal of autonomy. On the contrary, we know only too

well that , as far as autonomy goes, the f'ronch Revolution worked to the

contrary, 1n the du-cctlon of an ever more accentuated centralization, whose

bcneHts Napoleon was to reap, to the gre~t satisfaction - must it be repeated/ - or Ledoux himself.

Why, then . speak of "revolutionary" architcc1ure/The question, if it occu

pies us today, 1n the final analysis, bears upon the Status that should be atrrib·

u1cd to the very notion of h1Arory Itself, In a rchitecture as well as the other ans.

and more genera lly 10 the work of thought - as with every practice through

which man a 11~mpt~ lo assure himself or the control of his destiny. The his·

rorian is free, according to his own polnr of view, to deny any and all dcscrip

uve and raxonomic relevance to the nouons of hereronomy and autonomy ...

In the present moment, when the h1s1ory of archuecrure hesitares between a

renewed form of 1he history of s tyles and a form of 1ns11tut1onal analysis that

ignores everything properly archnectural, the Idea of auronomy, in It s ph1lo·

>oph1cal sense. takes on the value of a regulauve concept . To think of Ledoux

wirh Kant •s to rccogn11e rhai 1n the man er of archnecture, knowledge is no1

solely derived from hl~tory; or bc11~r said , In Kant 's 1erms, a knowledge 1ha1

.tul11Pcrively prcsenl> 11self as h1>torlc~ I . according to the way It was acquired,

can partic ipate, ob1~r11vely, In one 101 m or ano1her of rationality." From 1h1>

>•ems rhe problem of theory - of rheory, no1 of doctrine - in 11s relarionshlp

to history: docs nor 1hcory have to s pecify the object of rhis history, and what

determlnntlons belong t o ii alone.

To th ink of U!doux unrh Kant leads one on rac1 to qucs11on what consri.

tutcs arch 1tectur~ as an objccr not only of h istory but also or thought - a

thought chat ls itself bound by co ndillons, one will not fear to call formal, if

nor a priori Archnecture is constif\Jtcd on th is principle insofar"' it is an

ob1ect o f desire, where the will - as Kant 5ays - finds its determination. But

arch11ecture places 1n this category only emp1nul principles, in the same way

that wha t ~onsrltut•s archllt>Cture - insofar as it is a rhing to consrruct - 1s

sub1ectcd 10 conMramts tha r atte•t . even tn the construcuve order, ro the force

of the symbo hc. Arch itec ture finds 1rs determ1na11on both in what consr11utes

n as an ob1ttt o f desh .. - or of will a5 Kam would say - which 1n th is cont<'llt

only conctrn• empirical prlnetplei, and 1n whatever cons11rut•• II as a con·

structed ob1ect, an ob1ect 11sell sub1Pcrtd, a• everything in the constructive

order, to constraints that artesl 10 tht power o f the symbolic ord<'r. Ledoux did

nol push the principal o f au1onomy to the point !hat Kanl would have wished,

to the point of v1ew1ng dependence on narural law as yet anot her form of hetet·

onomy. "Jn all things. return to the principle:" this phr.lse or Ledoux's re1urn1

tu support th<' Idea that there art1. 1n the held of architect ure, prindples that

are not the product of history, just as in the a rea of law there art norms that

derive from a law postulated as "natural: It takes no more rhan thls - we havt

repeated It often enough - to stir up a revolu11on . But will the fact th<lt revolu·

tions nece.sa rily tail , a lso be made a quest ion of principlel

NOTES

1 Of<Q•Oll f M•Votd as lhe r<tf&e• roErn I """'mann ~ Lodout d It CorwSJ .. Ot.g.,.. •I Ot~l--n• cw I Arrll1tt<tvrttAutono~ \p., ,, Ed.trQni• EQtJe't'e. 1Q111)

<ren(l1 ·~~ion ot VCVI L«J°"' b>> Lt'°'""'"*' l/ti(J'Uf19 und EntN1tAluno """'Aulon<>mit,., A,c,.•ft:JtVf (YIPnr"ca a"ld l~10.•.g

RC)I Pine<. !QJ!J

2 &ttol: Bttel>I .,. oue""" a<Ch lee'.,;.,.,._, .. , .,.._. LO$

Atlc fl'' '~""-llOll. frtnt.h """' 1P"'' t970). o 143

3 In'"" ortcle "l"°""•" ltc<•lfht r""""' ""1lk:cl« 0.CIO>¥)

' E""""""°' K""~ Ct·l•11Wdf:i.llt•soni'vt• l•a<» JJ19$

84r,. end Paul Atc•s·ooaut(Po1 • ~ Mct>l•Qr:,. l~i1l 'tOI I p 10

& E""' i<out1t•.,,,, Tto• MCll.1«1" rl,iO/t,r.o"""''tHPilt1> ~°' '"'" ll4I '1 >.A DC. IQ78J p 137

8 Edmt.f'ld Hu~'tr1. L '0'1t1·M de'•~''*· •"''o •nd tran, Jlcque• Owod• cPa11• Pul'. 1962J o ?IC

7 C1~utfft N1c.Ql•t lt<io'-1t t At<h1t«tu1t-cons~~ .socn: la 'ID pUll cJI/' •''·des fYIOfi,/fS ti CH 14 ltQ>Sltlon (P1r1~ ,~ ,. rilP.d 1n Kaul'T'df'I''· oo cit, p 1&2

e '"'d v lhd p•~

10 *Th• r...,w 1uh1.g clo~~ ~~ 1~ beQ1rt•t' C\tna.tiuctv ..orw11n l"t C«'l~lfUGt1on ()( '~'" t'l't1ll10t'l •nd11ttduat noti&ib ('(1f

.shutitlyrrw,re <.0tntorrabtt1 hOi..ISn'Q betr4(:ks. bu\ w1fh \•\It ot l••Ol• \tfll~ tt•\ideflt,al bu1\d1"1.)s: Btttn1. ~. (t1. p 1«

1 t Tt eodOt II Ad()tr)(L M i/'11/'M M1.>11/1• ~.'#t•1ot1$ Sul •~I'# trnJf1!N Frt<"th ''&nS fPt111• Payot. 1)83) µ&b

f2 Fr1tt1(()1' r ut(t\ Ptf>U I• ~-'OlullOll tc.i.n<i,& ~ tP~, 11 1911) ,,, st j)iltt

11 W9+ft!f ~ ... tT"!n '" T~•~ ~J'" \a oh1IO$.Op'• .. nt: I ttrsl.....,i" •

'""°"~'''""""""'IP .. .- t;1 q Q7~~ 2e6

14 ltw111 r tt.lt~y lA lt#"t011./1lJft Pl"fN."tt'ntc- ,,,_,. ,. R ~

•~·n.u1 e t 5 C1r..r t\autr,..,.. "'· L ' ' ' l\oft-1 lVt aJ.1.$1l'iC";,,. tJti t.1.1n•i1tn

or•·• ft ., ''

t6 '.lt<j'• $.I oW'o•O n .... tJt#~ $rhoVI. ,l.•l 8v'ltl•O J..' P(1 ~fl'tl ; (J;o-.8 h,.I.

11 r l •.• ,,Jc 1 ~ ••• , l.IJ\/"""' <Par•'\ '",g' i: o

11

I

• ~ • •

j

11

""' 1£1- --- £ ••• t..~ .... - •. 1. . -----· ' .

~::~.· • .

The Ledoux Effect:

Emil Kaufmann

I 1dr11tify ModernU.111 with the 111tenAijicat1on, a/1110.dt

thU. exacerbation, of thi,,., Ac>/f-cnt1ca/ tendency

that began with the philo.1iopher Kant. BecaU);e he

u11Ui tlie fir.6t to criticize tl1e 1nea11.<1 itL.elj of critici;,n1,

I conceive of Kant a;, thr fir.6t real ModerniAt.

CLEMENT GREEN BERG 1960'

• 6 •• . • . .... .- . . . . .

Th• idea of ·arrh1tectural ,1utonomy," the notion that architecture, t0gether

w11h th•' othrr art>. 1s bound to an intrrnal cxplo1 at ion and transformation

of 11' own >pec1hc language. ha5 periodically surfaced m the modern penod.

1<\lhl'ther '" J way ot class1ry111g th~ quahttcs of archittctural •form" a>

oppo,...i 10 ·s1yle." 01 a> J way of dehn1ng the role of the archi1cc1 tn an 1ncrea•

1ngl~· Sp<'<1ahzed professional world. thr a>oertton of autonomy hiiS been a

tl'ttmoul ol modernism. from the end of the nineteenth century. if not earlier.

Art h"1011ans. beginning w11h Wof01n and continuing wtth R1egl; architects

b~g1nnrng with Loos and co1111nu1ng w11h Le Corbus1er and Mies van dcr Rohe:

critt(> brginning w11h fry and Stokes, and con11nu1ng with Greenberg ~nd

Kr JUS>. all in different ways and with d1ffonng agendas have established their

ground~ of debate on the rclattv(• autonomy of modernist aestheti c practices.

Mme recently, in architecture, l\O'i'1, Venturi, and Eisenman have, among

many others. laid claim to the Jutonomy or the language.

Of all th" writers and atehttecrs who have contributed over a century or

more 10 the dcbdle over autonomy, the Viennese historian. Emil Kaufmann.

)land' our as a cons1s1en1 rl'fercncc point for all subsequent di scussions.' for

while, u1 retrospect, Wofnin·s development of a formal method for characttr·

1t1ng Jrch1tec1ural perio1h, <1nd R1cgl\ propo)ttton of a historical and cultural

'P.-llhtity to !he IOll'rplay of v1s1on ,1nd spJcc could be seen as set11ng up 1he

81 ounds lor a modernist idea of autonomy 1n a1 ch11ccture and the other arts. ii

WJs F:mil Kaufmann who was !he hrs1to101n rhc ana lysis of historical architec·

tu 11• 10 Kant's philosoph1cal position, denv~d from Kant, and who was the hrs! 10 coin the plu<1se "au1onomen a1 thi tcktur" drawing on Kant's own concept or

·auionomy· ol rhe will. And 1t wa~ Kaufmann who served 10 introduce 1hc twin

ided~ of dUfonomy and modernism to ~u~cessive generauons of arch1t~S

dnd 1 rtllC•. beginning with Philip Johnson 1n the 1940s. bur conunuing wilh

Cohn Rowe in the 1950s and Aldo RoS\1 1n the t95os and 6os More r~tnily his work Wd~ at the renter of a h1stoncal rl'·a•scssment of autonomy and the

~van• garde 1n the Unned Slate• 10 dn c••ay by the historian Oeltef Mertens

presented at a symposium 10 honor Ph1l1p Johnson.3

'

"

ANTHONY VIDLER

\'t•t En11I Kaulm •no·,, tht•,1\ ol tl1l' dt•tt·lc."pmvnt ot d modl·tnL~m f'mng

• g 1n the .-.or,.,, ot l'l.1otlt· N1tol.t' lc-dot1" 1r' ctlt' l//Q')Andlulm111at1ng 1r:. tht"

YI Of k of l.t (:c>r bu''''' 1n 1 t t• :.1rt tqln' ha~ h.ld 111an)· dt..·•• .tc 101 ~~•nee t~" pub

l1c.1r1on o. 111~ po t·111tl.,lly r1tlt·d Vo11 I f\Jc>11x biA L(" C.orb~lft 1n 19))' ~In<.

thrn tht• V1t.·nnt .. ,. h1,1nr1 ln·, "lr'A of .trtl11recturd! pro~r"'• h ..... t-ot"t-n t.bl•

gr1tt•d ·*' ~11npl1,t1c: by< 1111<' 1 ..... l du.11fto l'tr~llC> .. nd P-1ryer Sct-.1p1ro. ust-d

ti) ,1 p.11f1ol1>Gtc. .11,vm1.,tclm of 1t't' dt·t ... dt:n<l' ol mod'' n1\m b)' c Ol"ls.~rv.at;\\• 111\

1011.tr'l"i I kt• ti.in~ ~t·tlln•.1yc .. ,,d t.lt·t·int~cJ t ''"'Vt'""'>' ot h1,1or1c.•I \Ch[)lo.1,h~p

b) fl''•'•''' llt•Jt; frt1n\ M1c.)t<•I (i,1llc·1 ,,, R11tl1n M1ddll•tun' r,,.,,,,,1tPd .1~ h.l\i'•ng

·,ulll•11•tl f1<>1ti ,111t'"'''''11f J~c·r1t•14h11t11on ... hl.lme'd fot 111) '"f>b\r\(.IVt" \tdr<h

(ilr 11J1c.lt•1ly1ng i>tt11c pit·\ I I ~,U1\t1t•d tn ,1n l'Xf1tmc.• d1•g1t·c· ..... nd ·undc.•t

1nlrlt•(t'" 11, j)jlVlfJ W,1•k111', tV()fd\ by ,1 hO\l t)f ll'iiC•,11( ht't\ follOWlng t)\l' lt•,iJ

of Wc\lf~,1ng lf<'I 11u.11111·., tfl•l1,,nk111t,; c•f 1h1• 1r.1d1t11>nl1l I t•doux chronolog)' 1n

196<). K.1ut1TI111111 ., r1•1w f,11H•·ly fotJ,!'c>ttt•n• lntlt1t 1d hl' ., ~'Cthdr' the onl>

11npc11 ldOI h1~tur1.1n .1,,c> 1,1tl•d with 1ht• '" c..1llt.J V1c•nna Srt1ool at thl' 1q1t-J~

who ,,. wc>r k t .• , r101 l>t·l•n { om1>1 c•ht ''' 1vt•ly 1 c.· ·'''l'');t•d for ''' '' tic>1 .. 1 ly a1\d

m .. thod .. ln~it.tl q11•ll11t'\ 1n 1h1· IJ 1 dt·t 1d1· ll•n> S1•dlm.1y1 ,111d 0110 P•rht

t•vi·11 (~t;tdt> Kit'' tlnlt/ vo1\ Wt·1nl>t·rg ,.,,d I 1111 Nu\.lln}. f\,1\·t•ht·t·n tr.ln-.fJtt•d

·•rel tt•t.·11 wo1k .trt tly1t d 1rt II\ J11\lc1r 1u~rd11h1< JI .. nd 1htorc.·f1(•I conte>ll:t '°'"' 1n Chr1~t<\pt1t·r Wf1od \ r<.•trnr ;and 1mp<'tl tnt 1r1t1oductory ... 1ud)· 10 h1~ v,,., ''" c;, h111J/ Jl1•t1d1 r, K.1utmar1n t' rt•lt·gdtt·d ro .t fool nolt'

ll" wcf k h•' nol .1lw:1y> bt .. ·n d1·n1gr•tt'h•ng »gn1h

c,tnt contr1ht1t1nn'\ 10 tht• h1~tory 11f frt.·nch t"1gh.1ttn1h,~ntJriy 41Jthl'f'tturc•

tlu<lu.g.1ou1 thr 19.10~. ,,. c~•·hn111K 1r.1d1t on.11 •clt1-.S>1t1\m"' ""''h rht· 1n11odut

1100 of tht• 1J1 .1 cl ·nco cltt5>._,, '""m.· K.111fm.trn.10 tht· \t"tond \Olumtof Hd.n\

Stdlm.i}r .tnd l;rto r.tlht'~ l1.i¥,'t,.,, JCUfOt11I of V1t.nnt,,. .. ,,rukl;.tran.aiv\r,·

publ \hf'J the f1r~t mJJO'" d\'4.'~'m<.·nt ''' thl" .11,J11tt•t.turC" ot Claudt- N1lO'A""

l fdou'C - c>nt• 10 whit h Mt.•\t•r "\< h.1p1ro. dt•)p11r ht' rn~..,,urtd ~C'C11t\ t 1 tttqu<

Of 114> t()I m.1l .lpprcl.-, h (trtf1r.~tt·d ;l l.Jl"l' pOfCIOn o( t':I!\ 19Jb lt\o ltW 0( tht'

Vu•nf"J 5thool', 1r1t1l1t1J, f1l h1" nc.1tc:s ror th~ unhn1\h..,d Ptu.4,oyt'n ~·prlc

W•lll'I B<'nJ.1m1n cou'<l l1b<:r.11ly from KaulmJnn\ brrl'I. but ucn<h•nt tr•••

mfnt o• l irdou\ ·, l1ff' and worL. V11n l t't10llt l>u Lr Corbu..Jt#t thr ht..,.. com pr"

hf'""'''f' monograpt:ical rr,..1tmrntof 1h<"frrnth.;ttch1trtt b.- itn' arch1te<tural

h1\tor1dn' Substquc-ntly l\.)ufm.,nn" d1iccnn1t"\ hA\P 1n,p1red gentr.at1ons

o, ... c-ho':.r ... 10 WOI~ "' 1 tw ~rch1trcturr 0: thf' rrvolut1onary petaoct, .. hf·her

or noc: thr\ Jgrtt w11h K1utm.1nn th.tr ~0111nh1ng •rt1ovolu11onJ1)'"' ""'ii~ to~

dt'trt tt"d 1n tht..· p:r rf'V<'lu11ont1) .ind morurchtc. .11 lc..-dou• Ht\ work hdc;. po ... ed

o ,t•,1101'> to lhl" h1'\for1ogr.-ph1c.al t1t"atmrnt of 1hr ... ort~n\ ... ot mod~1n1 .. m

:.nd ht 1n,plic ~•ion 10 tht t"n' 1rt ton\1ru, 11on of h1 .. 1or tc ''' h1s1or v from Niko

tau' f)t\'Sn .. r 1l '\1sC11rJ c.1..J.on !t 1nt,·1ros-11N •h• n.1turc..• ot .lb\tr .. rr1or. 1n

rt l•11on 10 •h··~..om .. 1r1<ol fotn»•mploy. d by th~ rnl1ght<nm1•n1 Jnd th.• mnl1

c 1 l ~. _., c. h,tc.·c.. ru r ,. J 11J ~o' 1r1 y 1n .e w .. y 1 h.11 d 1r t"' t l ~ '"h .-1 ltuil'd rhe c. ul 1 u r .1r 1dt•

olo~y ..,f Na11uf'l .. 1 'lnt1 •lt~01 an t)u: tC)}O' H:s ~Qhr1quct "ct\·olu1101ldl)' .irc.·h1

11.·c..1"' 1n h1 ... llook l l1r. •· R• i1i•l11twnuryJ\rcli1t• ( r..t. puh11,ht·d ''' 195J J' ..1rrl1~d

tn rh1• ""' ul Jll l11••CI\ r .. Jou• lloull1·<. •nd L.-queu •trio ho h'd l.irgdy J1>

r o\'l"tt.-d .ind, <i.t• to ""P..-ilk • ,,. .. ,.nr,•J.· "Whllt" n1u< h m1,,1nt!tc \tood nt.'\'t·rthc•lf'''

)UC. ct·rde"d 1n g.11n1ng tt1rm t ht •1 tt"r.11''" c1f ~· 1 tou' '\. hol~r)' I It' P''''h\lml'U'

lJiOok Ar 1111.' r11r, ,,. rl1, A9"0/ Hta.wtt Wtl\.OO ''"' p1,;t1l1c;4tll1n. con~1dtrt·d tht·

1 .. ,, ""'1)1 don C'1ghtt't'r.th • t'Of u1., • u opr.-n .tr• hit rt turr • f-zn41llv. K-iaf m ... nn·..,

'""'~,.,;II th1»t quc,•1ons w11hm d ph1lo-.>ph11~I fr•tne,.ork 1ha1 ha> !>Ot

'r.t .. t"d ro 1ntorm c.r 111c .1l 1twro1 \ th.tT prov1Ut'1! by KJnt tn ht!t tn'l1..,.tt!:'1l t' on 1 hci

·,,_,.tunc•my· ot •t.f' w 11 .. , ~ lund.1mt'n''' Jll*"ml\t' tlf bnur~t"<'•.., frct"dont Tht'

:1nlo. f')td1il1,,ht'd b .. Kat..f m...nn b.-1"""'"' n l rdm..-. •OJ Mn1 J~ ituben Ooiml"( h

h.1 ... nottd 1n 11\t' n .. .a} tr i'm.l tlrd 1n 1h1"'' olumt" di on• th3t. ¥.h~thPr or nof 1t 1 \

h '' t orrc..il I) ·, ,•r1 tia!llc ·km .. an'> hJl!c-ngmg r ,\~II 1n1t'fr•11·•t1un' uf 1l1c na.1u1 c.·

eot •1<h11.-. 1u1al l•ngU1$• and ol thrpla ~ ot •h~ J1s.1phn~ tn mO<!<"t n •«:.·1y

Bn"Ond 1h1 ... );.\ul"'"'""' "-nrk unl1Ar 1h41 of m.tnv h1..,tor1.:tn~ ha' h..;J

4 J1rt'<I 1r•tl1Jtl\Ct"OP t11tta lt\tur~I ptOH.tt<r. •nd .,p.-c1.1lly 1n thr w.\) th.1•

tht" moJl"fnt~m o! fh(" 1q10 .. <i1nd lqJ'~ "l!t '''"''""fJ 1n '~" hr't 1n~1.anc,·. 1n

the· Un11t-d ~l.ltl't'~ 1mmr1t1 •'6:1\• ilf1M th.co 'n.1r lm1gr.1t.ng to tht" \,!(, 'n 1<l4l

I

,Jl __ 1

.. ...... I

I

~-~ii ,~J~~-~-g~-~c=-=-:

h Glass House of 1949 was. ~ufmann was taken up by Phthp lohnson. w ose

d of Von 1Ado11x blA IA according to rho arch11<"<I. d""ply mdebted to a rca 1ng 11 h ArthitecnJr• m th• Corbt<AI<''·" Later. Kaufmann's wr1t1ngs. and cspccra Y 1• • hen translated. •trong Aqe of llPOMm. poschumou<IY published m 1955. wer. . w

l • ·characteristic of th• Nco· intlucnct< on the th .. ones of •rchltoctura autonomy Ra11onah>t S<: hool m Italy after 1<)71. and ..spt'C1ally on the theory and de!ign

of Aldo Ro<~1. who rt'V1ewed h" boo"- en de1a1I " More rl'Ccntly. Kaufmann has

h 1 • 1 omy· based on hn bttn re-111trrpreted as a tti .. or1~t or an arc itectura au on . db p E'sc•nman and others" gu1>t1c and d1 sciphnarycodcs. A~ propose y etcr '

Redd today on the context of rhc detailed monogr.1ph1c research th.II

was to have mod1hed his one• scemmglyover s1ropllhcd conclusions. de,p•tc

the un•anh1ng of other architects to the foie to councerbalaoce the image

of the "thre-e revolutionaries: and tht• concextuahzauon of their work in tho

hgh1 of new historical in1crpn'ta11on> of "enhghtcnment" and ·r~volution," Kaufmann·; analyses can be ;ccm to rcga111 much of th~ir original force, as

seeking to nsr above styJ1st1< differences and biographical details. IO grasp

th• phonomonon of an ·arch11tt1ural enlightenment" en all cts d1mens1ons.

intelltttual and formal At ih• >cry lea;t. hes thrsc> btar re examcnatcon as

representing a cr1t1ral stag• m 1h• de,·elopment of th• d1sccphne of archllCC

tural hi story - as 1mponant 111 1he1r own way as thooe of R1cgl. Frankl. and

Gicclion - a1 the s.1mc time a> 1hcy challenge qucs1ions to ou r contemporary

conccp11on> of arch11ec1ural form and our preconcep11111Hi of 11s pohtccal and

social s111n1 hcancr. In rell ospt>ct. as I shall argue. hi> an~lyt •cal and h1s1oncal

approach, more subtle and reMhen11han er 1tccs have understood. acts as a fun·

damental cr111quc of the very "•chool" with which he has been assoc1att'd, the

V1tnnil School , wh1le 11 resonates with contemporary .i111·mp1> to sec ·modern

csm" no longer as a brief (and fJ1lcd) ava nt·garde cxpenmcnt in the 1<J>O>, but

••a long proce.s of poli11cal and aesthetic struggle. w11h in1dlectual rool> in

Enhghtcnmcn1 and Kanuan philosophy

FROM NEOCLASSICISM TO AUTONOMY

Emil Kaufmann was born on Mairh 28, 1891 in Vienna: he studied first ar

Innsbruck ~nd then Vienna with the Renaissance specialist Hans Semper.

wuh the Bpant1nrsr architee1ural h1s1orcan Joseph Strzygowski. the cla~s1

c~I Jrcheolog1st Emanuel Loewy (1847-1936). and the historian Ludwig von

Pastor (165~· 1928). He was espPc1ally drdwn to the teachi ng of Max Dvorak,

however, wnh whom he formed a close friendship. He was awarded his doctor·

ate m Vienna 1n 1920 and went on to forge an entire held by his ·rediscovery"

of 1hre1• gentrJt1ons of French archucctural theorists and designers from the

1750s to the •820>. d field that he 1hen expanded into the generalexam1na11on of

·architecture 1n tht~geof reason" en Europe.As Schapiro noted m hts brief obnu·

•ry1n 1953. Kaufmann wasunablr to obtain a regular academic post(nodoubt a

result ol rarnpanr anti·sem11ism) and was obliged 10 work in a bank for much of his early carc~r

His hn>1 ma1or an1cle. wri tten 1n 1920 and published m the Repeno·

num fur K11rurwwe1u.chaft m t924. (intercs1111gly enough, side by side wtth

another ground breaking architectural study by Paul Zucker. " Der Begrilt der zen 1n dcr arch11ek1ur") outlcned the hases for his s tudy of l•te · h h

" e1g tcent ·ten· tury archnecturc, by dividing a J>crlod generically known •s "Cl , • lb .

• ass1c, a e1t in a la~e moment. into two. Ai. cxplteated by G•orgcs Tcyssot, Kaufmann's

essay. The Architectural Theory of French Class1c1sm and N I . eoc ass1c1sm:

l"Oic Architcetktunheorie der f'ranzosischen Klass1k und der Kalssizismus)

established klassizismus as a period with a formal cxpre•sion. or rather strut.

r. . n" Mere Kaufmann w•s underlining what he saw as thedisti'nci ture-, o 1ts ow . · difference between French developments and those in other "Baroque· coun.

tries. Between Classicism in the m1d·scvcnteenth century and Neoclassicism

after 1750• there were. for K~ufmann. cenain continuit ies of "clarity and truth"

bur sharp differences 1n compos111on. which seemed to him to move from a principle of ·meaningful harmony· inherent in the work itself toward a princl

pie of expression or communication provoking scnsat ions beyond the work.'1

In an "htsiorical" confirmation of Nietzches 1878 assertion that "Stone Is

more stone than before: Kaufmann articulated tis shift. as one that finally

relinquished the natural values of physical materials ("the demand that the

material be? granted its own physical properties and life") in order to privilege

ideas alone.1•

For it /NeoclaMicV.m/ rhe material i.i dead. Fonn ha;. 110 othl'r funcrion than

to be the bearer of ide12A the mediator of mood.A. to arotue emotio~ which 011

dutinct from the .Aen.4uOt<A matvrial ond which the matenal iu.elf do.,. not con·

tam. The ;.ymbol of Neoc/OAA1ru.m iA the non·Aen.t.Ua/ .Atone, the .Atone inl:ab·

crvd by 9ei11cu."

Kaufmann here established two clear points of reference for his analysis

of the period 175<> to 1800: what he would call later "the universal animism of

the baroque: where inanimate material took on organic forms, and its antith·

esis. post·Revoluuonary form, where the material itself has its own laws: ·ror architecture after the Revolution," he wrote, "the stone 1s again stone." !"Bau.

kunst •~t d«r Stein we1der Stein"l11

In setting up in this way Classicism. on the one hand, and Neoclassi·

c1sm. on the other, as the conceptual beginning and end points of his research,

Kaufman n has 1dentihed the period 1750 to 1800 as a site of transition from

one to 1he other; but more importantly as a site of struggle where the IWO

rendenc1e• and their compositional and philosophical corollaries are inter·

nally and often inconsistently manifested as architects press the cla£sical Ian·

11uage of architecture to its limits 1n the search for a means to express Enlight·

enment and Revoluuonary ideas. The paradigmatic figure in this srrugg\e,

for Kaufmann , was Claude· Nicolas Ledoux whose architecture registered the

shift from Classicism to Neoclassicism in an especially dramatic, and ulti·

mately productive way. For Ledoux, argued Kaufmann, architecwrc was the

very <.'Xpres~ion of the social ideals of the new bourgeoisie and the political

ideas of the Enlightenment as developed in Rousseau's ideal of individual free

dom and its Kantian counterpan. ·autonomy.""

Kaufmann's first direct reference to "autonomcn baukunst" was to occur

in a short study of Ledoux's church architecture, centered on the project for

lhe Church of Chaux, (probably designed in 1785, and published in Udoux's

l'.4rcllitecture cot1.1iderll' ..iou.i le ropporr de /'orr, du moeur.A et de lo ll~i.tilO· I · a I to • d ·an for Salnte-10111 n t 04. Contrasting Lcdoux's scheme with Souffl<>t s es1D .. G ·• . . 'd tifies it with enev1~ve, to which tt obviously was a response, Kaufmann 1 en

the qualities ol the new "neoclasslclsm· he saw emerging with Lcdoux's 8'en· . anludas

eration. The Neoclassical, as opposed to the Baroque, church was org

l .d . i t separation a so 1 geometrical block, with reduced decoration and a dist nc d ·d I on different an 1 en11ty of it s functional pans - separate altars. for examp e,

I I f r v • fmann \l(l'Ofll. eves. or es11vals and marriages, as opposed to funerals. As ""u

r ••

@q

"In place of the conception of architectural form as living, organic nature, there

enters the feeling for s trict geometry."21

This theme•~ taken up again in the same year on the book-length anocle

on "The City of the Archnect LI>doux," l"Dte Stadt des Archnekten Ledoux"!

contributed to the second volume of the Vienna art h1stor1cal school's flag·

shop journal, the Kun,i,rt111AJ>e1u.chaft/iche For.6cl1u119<>11.tt In this first sketch

of what was to become, three years later. his first book, Kaufmann gives the

idea of autonomy a fundamental place, with the subtotie· ·on the Realization

of Autonomous Arch11ecture· 1·zur Erkenntn1s dcr autonomen Archotektur·t.

In thos detailed study, Kaufmann, hos critics notwothstandong. develops the

argument too autonomy historically and with deliberate recognition of the

complexity inherent in architectural practice. LA-doux , for him, os after all a

1ransi11onal and pivotal figure in the shift from what he calls ·saroque· to

what he has characterized as ·Neoclassicism," and 11 os precisely the mixed

nature of the work that allows him to comprehend the shift as an orgdntc

and slow process of 1n1ernah:ta11on and cognition on the pan of the archotect

as to the overall problem of arch1tectu1e and tts proper means of expression

on an epoch itself undergoing 1 adical shifts on 11> ontellertual, social, and

polttteal forms Thus Kaufmann's argument moves slowly towards the ·erken

ntn1s- or "d1\COvery· or autonomy, through a number ol stages. represented

by dctaoll.'d analyses of Ledoux's designs on roughly chronolog1cal order

culm1na11ng 1n a long sectoon devoted to ·The Autonomous Solution· 1"D1e

autonomr IA>sun1(I.

l'1rst Kaurmann analyle.<. the dramat 1c change on plan~ for the Saltworks

of Chaux betwl.'l.'n the in111al pro1cct of 1771 and thl.' hnal pro1ect of 1774

from a un1r1ed, square. counyard plan, to a number of separate pavo hons

grouped around a semi-circle, as a sign of the mO•I.' from · naroquc un11y•

IBarockcn Vcrbandl to the Pavohon syMcm of the nineteenth century IPav1l

ltonsystem1.t• The break up of th1• project into functionally defined and foo

mally exprci.sed units was, for Kaufmann, an 1nd1ca11on of the ·proncople of

1sola11on," the emergence of an ·archttccture of 1solat1on· hsoherneden Arc ho

ttkturl that paralleled the emergence of the modern ·1nd1v1dua1· conscious

ncss llnd1v1dualbcwusstsetnsl."

The 1•xamplc o f thl' Church of Chaux affords Kaufmann an example

of the transltoon from Baroqul.' dynamic composlc1on to Neoclassical •static·

compos111on· the flattened. low dome and the horizontal Jones of the block reon

forcing a sense of calm medotatoon, as opposed to the upward movement of

Baroque churches. f'unher. the artocu latoon of the different altars - one for

fest ivab and mJrroages on the upper level, wnh a second for bun a ls and memo

rial servi ce~ brlow 1n the crypt, whh ot> own entranc~s and cxns towards the

cemeteries. enunciates for Kaufm;inn a "principle of 1solatton· IPnnzip der

lsoloerungl. one that corres ponds to the sense of ·distance· ID1stant1erungl

necessary for th11 commun1cauon ol subhme effects."

K.auf mann then advances his argument with the analysis of the two sym·

boloc monuments, the "Panar.hcon· and the "Paci f~re," cuing Ledoux's state

ments that •the torm of a cube 1s the symbol of immutab1l11y· and •the form

of a cube os the symbol of Justice· as a way of introducing the concept of ·arch1

lecture parlante." or ·speaking architecture."'" Kaufmann had discovered this

term, not ot~elf of eighteenth century orogin, in a mid nineteenth cent ury artl

cle saunz1ng Ledoux's anempts to communicate ideas through buildings and

itnmediately saw 11 as both pos111v!' and apt in its characterizat ion of tht

I

Left lo right H 111 ·rt' rJt: c....nd1ll ;t

(.1,-,,uJ1_ N•~' 01a5 Lr'tl"\J '

6.1•rr~''·(J('ll't('1 :>l"t't.., ( 4,,)1! ',.ch( d It h' 1•

B.!,r.,l;rt '1E' PC"u I,

CJ1.Jc.:-tJe!"'.-"lt1<tl1< J'

H:lu~ ~- l,.OJTI A,(ft,/1•1·/tJ11>

(. .-•ft:, l'x11s Ambr 1 f•

Ovt, .. : i!:((

aspirations of late eighteenth century architects to develop a truly socia l Ian·

guage of forms." The ·symbolic system· that Ledoux wished to deploy was, of

course. nself dependent on the separation of ind1v1dual buildings onto odcnti

hable masses. and their shaping as readable signs. Herc, for Kaufmann. the

pavilion system, the isolauon of pans. and the articula11on of the appropriate

·character• of each structure, led naturally to what, 1n reference to Ledoux's

design for the · Maison d'Educat1on," he finally named •the new concept of the

autonomoiu trearment of the matenaJs_-a

In thos way. Kaufmann established the complex development of Ledoux's

design practice as leading to the ·autonomous soluuon· evinced 1n the series

of none square plan houses deployed tn the landscape of the Ideal City of Chaux,

·an varied. all 1solated," as Ledoux stated.20 Such 1solatiun, Kaufmann averred,

marked the end of Baroque compositional practice, that of "concatenauon"

l\lerbandland the beginning of the newbuiJdjng form ldoe neue Bau form I.a form

charaetented by the Enhghtenment pressure for ·c1ar1ftcation· (Abklarungl ...

Kaufmann thus prepared the analyucal ground for the systc·matic comparison

of with th<! general method of the Enhghtenment - that developed by Kant:

At the ttme whe11 Ka111 reje<IA all tl1e moral ph1lo.6opltil'.6 of rite pOAt and decreu

the ·outor1omyof the will OA the .6Upr<'»le pri11cipleof ethoo,. ·an analo9ow. 1Ta•u.

fonna11on ralcu place m arch1ttttur# In the .6k'1tche,a of l.Adoux thu.e new ob1ec

llve.4 oppttlr for the fir.bl time on oll theor clanty. Hu. 1vork mork.6 rite blrr/1 of

autor1omoiu arcl11tecn1re."

The theory of autonomy was given its fullest development in Kauf mann's

second book, a shm treatise ent11led. polemically enough. Von Ledoux bi.6

le Corbiulfr_ pubhshed tn 1933. and summaro2111g and developing the argu

ments put forward on ·oie Stad1 • In the Preface, dated ·v1cnna, May 1933,

Kaufmann outlined hi s methodological premise This was to be. he wrote,

·something more than a mono11raph. and different to a mosaic of an anlstic

hfe" Rather 11 was to be seen as ·a pan of the his tory of arch11ccture which,

through thl' 1nttrp1etat1on of the work of Ledoux. appears 1n a new hght•

at thl' s.ime tome as demonMratong •the importance of the great movement

of idea• around 1800 for the domain of an:» Thi• theorettcal aom was

expre~sed on the i.ubt11lc to the book, no longcr·zur t.:rkennt nis dcr Au tonumcn

Arch11ektu1 • but now the more dynamic ·ursprung und Entw1cklung dcr

Autonomen Archotektur." The sub\totut1on of ·orogon and Development• for

·01scovery· represented both a firmer convtctoon 1n his own "discovery· and a

sensl' of 11> hostoncal 1mphcat ions for later developments.

F"rom the outset, K.iufmann made 11 clear that he was seeing the f'rcnch

architecture of the Enlightenment and Revolutton .i s equal or greate1 Jn 1mpor

lance to the already well·est.ibloshcd trad111on of German Neodassocosm a~

represented by Schinkel. Ho s title. on fact, was a direct gfo,s on Paul Klopfer's

Von Palladio bu Sclunlce/, an argumt>nt for the primacy of German archotec·

ture as 11 received the Renaissance tradition from lt~ly.» Kaufmann, by con·

1ras1, 1s concerned to emphasize rhe role of the l'ocnch and Latin traditions

on the contonuauon of Palladio's legacy to t he present. His work 1n Paros had

convinced him that u was the Laton countries that counted in the develop

ment of modernism Whole philosophy. under the aeg1~ of Kant_ and poetry fol·

lowing Uolderltn, could be seen to have constructed the 1ntellec1ual dnd loter·

ary foundations of Romantic modernism. II was 1n f'ranct' and Italy that the

work of the f'nhghtenment en"red fundamentally into the visuJI drh. and

i I

! I I

I :

~ ~ . -.... ·------

a:=·--r·:; I . . .. - -I h · ' K ufmann argued. by the

espenally arch11ectul't'. Tlus was accomp is ""· a "h us" as he called

final break w11h Baroque modes of compos111on ( eteronomo

them) and rhc 1nrroduct1on on 1heor place of modern forms of disposiuon

("auronomous· or"free stand1ngl Once ra11fied by the Revolution.and despite

attempts to ve1l rhe radical nature of the shift by means of historical styles.

autonomy survived 10 l'Srabhsh rhe abstracuon of modernism as rhe apotheo·

sis of Enlightenment l't'ason. He wrotrc

If wt> o,... well-mforrnvd about tloe l1u roric role of Italy°"' rhe i11iriorory lo11d . ' by traAt of mod•n1 r""'" in rlie domo1t1A of art 011d .&oc1ery. '"" remain, con •

i9nom11r of th• rolP of F'ro11ce a..i pioneer of a new arr and crearor of a new

orrhirecruni. ro1vor<U 1800. °"' d11r1119 the Gothic period, rhe ded.&iVP innova·

11otu Nim<' from thP Fre11cl1 arch1tecl.6. Jn rhe following work. I om Jir.&t con·

1:.n1ed ro ,.nder JUAt ke ro rliP a rrur who ivcu 111• ftrAt, no r with a vogue i11tu·

1t1cm of durant 9001.1. bur wirl1 a cfpor and [1111 AP/f·co1t.1>cio1uneAA. ro troverA•

rhP long routv from rl1e Boroq11e "' modern architPcrure: Claude.Nicola..i

U>doux. Ploc~ or rhe /ro1111er of two epochA. before and after the Rt>vo/.

ut1on. h1A work u rl1e firJ>I 10 on11ou11ce the nPlv orriAttC oiln.6: it iA the ronqible

witnP.._. ro rhe oppeoro11r# of o lll'IV world. Bur ir iA a/Ao my concern to Allow

how l11A 1dP<lb arid rho..P of hu epoch ore rro1umirted to UA. and how, in

a woy. thP umry of tlrP la..it hundrPd and fifry yearA iA ref/P<'fed "' arch•·

tl'CT11rol ocr1v1ry. lvLLC. 5-61

Kaufmann wa; 1mml'd1ately concernc.'d to announce that 11 was the "revolu·

tionary" ptnod a> a whole - 1770 to 1790 - with which he was concerned:

preci se dates, which for Ledoux were on any c•se hard to come by, were less

important than a sen~c o f the >1gn1hcauon of the global shift in art and

philosophy. a s 1n the >ocoal and poh11cal n!alm. The years t hat saw the prepa

ration of the ·grea1 revolu11on that was completely to t ransform the social

sys tem of the west" wer• "the same years on wh ich the work of Kant matured."

tlr wr11~s. "Globally. rhere was a profou nd (we could say today. defini11ve)

denial of the past ; a clear and self<onscious rupture, a decisive step toward

a new autonomy." ror Kaufmann . the interconnection between these move·

men1s and the work of Ledoux was not accidental, but established by Kant and

Ledoux"s com mon respect for and indebtedness to Rousseau:

Ar rlie momonr wlion. wirlt rlre Derlarotton of tl1v Righu. of Man, the r i9llu of

tht individual are affinrtPd. at the moment wlie11, in place of the old hererono·

mouA mora/11y. Kant i11Atirut<'d rl1e auto11omoUA ethic. Ledoux laid tl1e foundo-

1io11A of on au1011omoUA arrl11recrurP. IV I.LC. 12)

The correspondence was direct 1f fo1 Kant the Crinque of Pure ReC1.11on had

accomphshe0 •wha1 numerous centunl!s had !>ten unable to realize," for Ledoux

"the moment 1n wluch we hve has brok~n the chains that shackle architecrure."

Jvu.c.12: l.edoux. l 'Arrl11tttture, 30) f)'om a study of Ledoux, Kaufmann averred,

would emerge the an swer 10 three cnucal questions: the reasons for the "aban ·

doning of the aes1ht-11csof Baroqueclass1c1sm," the"relations between the Revo·

luuon and architecture." and the · profound s rgnification of neoclassicism and

the architecture of the end of the nineteenth ceniury- IVLLC, 12J." The general concepr of arch1tectural autonomy, was, for Kaufmann, repre·

.sented by a wide range oflarge and small·scale formal mo•-s Th6 ft 51 d •< • < r . an most

fundamental, because the most radical shift from Baroque m d f · o es o compost· non was the separatton of buildings according 10 a q"as·1 fu · I ·d · • · ncuona 1 en11fica· t ion , rather than their unihed and h1erarch1cal massing 10 • I d II f inc u ea unctions. This step, taken by Ledoux at the beginning of his career ash · · d e 1et11sone the courtyard prehminary s~heme lor the Salt works in fa f . . vor o a grouping of pavil· ions. was dl'C1s1ve:

from the JitrAt ro th<> .&eco11d project reflecu no le.u thao one ,, Tile paM09P . o,

portonr PvtllU 111 the l1utory of architecture: the diAm<mberinq rhe moAt 1m

O"co tA/IOllOll (Zertrummeru119 dv. Boroclu?n Verbondu/ In 0 of Baroque c • . · ··· remorknblt> poralleli.l.m 1vrth the gen~/ h1Aroncevolut1on,concatenotion u ~

h t o'povd1o11nate compo.6it1011. tvhich, aftrr that moment. becomupre-by t PAYA em ~

d . th" ; • rlie F..e QAA0(1otio11 of autonomoiu e11titie..1.(Pavillo11.1•»•em_die ommo111: ~ ~ 1.. :r-

fr"• Verein1911t19 .&elb.bto11d19er exi..irenzen/ IVLLC, 16-171

In this rransformation o f compositional techniques. the instrumental force,

both for the produc11on of the buildings and their historical analysis, was the

rational plan. it is the plan which as Kaufmann noted "allows us to discover

the fundamental reasons for the determination of forms," no doubt a first

s tep that allowed for Kau fmann's historical connection of Ledoux with the

Le Corbusicr of the "plan as generator: And this plan, as with the three·

d imensiona l form of the pavilions. is constructed not by any reference to a

Baroque observer. but purely geometrically. Geometry operates as a calculated

control of form for use; not only does the "rat ionahty of the plan" (die Ratio

des Planes) exercise "absolute sovercjgnty." but it offers a neutral system of

order. en11rely abstracted from the personal experience of a perspectival

observer. Where ·an baroque architecture was conceived as a function of the

observer," now "the center of the new buildings is no longer the heart of the

whole ... It is no more than a geometrical point to which all the parts rela:~.

Thl' new buildings are assembled and not intimatelylinked IZusammen-gestt2.

nocht zusammcngewachsenl. IVLLC. 19) In accordance with the spirit of auion·

omy. the new pavilions are enurely self-sufficient: as opposed to the Classical

and Baroque system, rnhented from Renaissance aesthetics. where ·1odetach

a part is to destroy the whole." the pavilion re1ects parts and becomes ·anasso

coation of independent elements:"

If one wiAhe.4 to choracrerire theorchitectural.4y.&tem.6 by formulaellA reduced

a..i po .... 1blP 011e could define Baroque t111Aociotion in the.be term.A: one port dom·

i11ate.i Q/I the otl1er.4 011d nevertl1e/e..u all the part.& farm a whole: the detp

..ierue of rlrv po11iho11 ..iy..item co11 be rro11.Alot11d thUA: the port iA independent

w1rl11n tl1e frame of tl1e totality. /Der Tei/ Lit frei im Rohme11 de.A Gorizen/

BettWen the tlVO AyAtPmA lie.& a Rqvo/11tio11. 1v LLC. t9)

Kau tmann was far from claiming that Ledoux ever threw off the Baroque sen·

sibility entirely - in different ways, all of Ledoux 's work exhibited its transi·

tional character - indeed Kaufmann s rresses in his analysis of buildings from

rhe 1770s (the H6tel Montmorency, the pavilion at Louveciennes for the eom· •esse du Barry) a nd the 1780s (the H6tel Thelussonl that "the opposed prin·

' . I ds . • .AAU)t$ c1p es were hv1ng or rl1e .Aome time in the artist" - but he fin 1n""""

"fa · · • f . · · · f the arthi· na11c1sm or geometry and rigorous planning a n ant1c1pa11on o

reefs later. more abstract project s . (VLLC. :to)

Here Ka ufma nn sees the influence of the desire of the Enlightellment

for "clanhca11on,- or Abklarun9. which when applied to architecrure called tor

t he use of "massive blocks" superimposed in compositions that. rather than

relying on the effect of a cen tral. princip al, motif. gained effect through~ . I . II fref in htS

simp e strength of masses themselves. And while Ledoux is stt r cdurnsand

use 0 Baroque mo11fs to give hi s buildings character- the upturn

th rchittc~ grono in the Salt works, for e xample - h is preference was for e 3

• • . . i ns ror the to speak by means of 1ts own s tereometric forms, as 1n the des g th H f • W )<shOP (..-1

ouse o lhe Surveyors (a vast elliptical tube), or the Coopers or

its concentric rings and intersecting barrel·shaped form):

;,Jijng initia· f:xperimqnu. wir/1 fomv. thenuelve.& count amon9 the ma.1>t a..1ton · nJ , ~~IW

tivc,i of rlri..6 epoch. 11111 preference for t/ie .Aimple.At .6tereometriCC0 . nrrrj. . . . Ji dAmthtr-. 1..1 rndicat•ve of the qraviry of the ..ipirit of rlrP a9e· Th1L4 one 11

•

.)

'

I

N'f.A of I Nlo1. \ Af"'VI rr < ,&,:.ti laA Otl' \••'A far' \arr1pl1 ''' tl14' < 011r1try Hot1M t:1J

/an1a< or th II UAr for •1 Mll11 o} I rtt• rAl 1111 l/01ur of ti,. Woodc1111<"T.A "' rli<

f"rmof a pyrarr rd r/1 cyli•1d1 ra/ <:ou11try l/01ur {al.Ao tlw llarrir•• of thr £1011

kva.-d of La l1//c11. Ml~ ..1ta11d1119 arid tlu cyl111dr1cal llo1t<e of .\I lJ. Wirt}

andfmallySpl '"ca/ l/J11A 0/1111 Aqrrn1/twJ/Guar.t.l lv1 L<. 301

Du1ld1ng U? tt argu11lt'nt I r I c tou\ as 1n <Ji.1g1nator of modt1n1srn.

l\aufm 1n r~mar k on 11~fa<11h,11 "ou1 own l'pcxh lank1·d 10 rh.at of L~doux.

l'i open to 1 xprr1mnn1s of lh<• \,11111• t..1nd wh1< 11 l'Vt·n 1f th<•y ar<" without l\,ut•

from in 11ch1tt t tur.111•111111 c1f view, a11• n<l l<•ss \t'r) ~1gn1f1tf1nt of tht.· 1ndc.•fati

gahlc rt cc. 1rt.h tot 11c•w lttl m~ ln1•u1•r Cit'!'!. I 1f1J • 1v1 t <, \.Z)

IJ1111g1ng fcJgt 1l1c·1 .111t1tt''''t1>1npc1~1 t1l1n.1l 1nnnv.1t1011~. •'· .l~ Kaufmann

haJ 1nt1111.1trd 111lllS1 .. ~1111·1w11111lH,s. th1• (>t<>lt'l t lnr tht• C'hu1ch of Chau>c.. Com

hln1ns tl1(; cJ1·1:1.tnd t1•1 .1 s1118lt•, f 1 t·t· !lit.1ntt Lng n1.1''· t1or1l<>n1al .1n<l ~t<lt 1c. with

1h1 f..( ,, 1rnt1c•n tlt tt11\1 t1cln.1I 1·11•n11·nrs ~uch ,,., tht .1l1.1rs, on d1tfl'tl•nt lt\·<·ls1

11 also< on,11 u .. tt a f\t•W k1n1t cit u1ocl.1'''(tll suh!11n1• • J hts wa' 1.ubt1mc of

•c iln1 mtd1tdt1on In c1 511!1•11111 lll\IOtlbll11y; ,1 ~\Jbitmt• C)f 111J1v1dual '\elt ahCiOI p

lion and C'>ntrmpldt1c111 I) tl)lpt1!rlt d I<> tl11• Mc·d1t•v.1I •t;anctuary of unworld

Ian" ·or'' 1roqu1 ·spi ltu 1l 1 ltv111on It ~·as ,1J,o d bulilamt of da-..tanct.·,·

rt tlec t tns tht 1<l~.1 rt11r.mon to nt·t> Ktt nt 1 .. ns t ron1Woltt)an1 o \'\'arburg Adorno

to Kt1ircaucr ,,d lit n 1m1n, th ll o!J11 Cflvtty tnd 1n11onal11y rcqu1r<-s a •kerp

mg on<' d1s1anc<'" fd1 rnnzhalrrnl IV• 1 <, 131 hnally, lh<' ~nurc •fltet ot rhe

Church, II own 1 nl gh1< r.rd sp1r11u.11 ty IS i;arn•!CI not by the 1nrroduc11on ol

p mtrng. u:ulp1un 1m~ •' "' symbol> bur by "the autonomou> -ans of

archnrcturr" ld1l'au1 r.omrn Mllt<'I du Ar<hlh kturllvtLC )41

FROM KANT 10 LE CORBUSIER

Autor1omy o/ rl1 u11// I.A 1/1r .iolr p1111 1plr >J 11/l 11101ul /uw.A a11d of dulUA rn

J., e1>tn9 '' rl1 '''"'''· '·"'' 1n110111yvj c I 01cr,011 tl11 c1tl'"' J1a11rl. 11ot cnly dGe.A tlot

9tout11I a1 y ohlJgcJtl011 ''' t1l/ l.,,t L6 111.Arc Jc/ ''l'f'CtArd to tJ,4 11r111Cl/'I" of oblio]a

r1011 1111/ ro r/1111101 1/1ty oj 1J1, ,,,,11 Imm 1n 1t•I K 111t 1·11t1q11,1 1>/ 1~,,,, t1cc1I R•·u.A(ltJ, i788

I l1l (llfllll ( 11011 1h;.tt K.1l1f 1111r1n )OU~l\t ))l tY.'l l'fl .11 ( h1t4•<JUrt· dnd rt11lu:.oph)1,

dllll ult 111,1trly ht twt·t•n It dc>UX .,,u K.1n1 w.1, r111v1di·d and t11,1or1call)

g1fJUlllit ti h\ 1 r<!1•l1x's rc•.ttl111£ ol f(1JU\~(·,1u ltc>U\~t.~.tu \'w'a~ t•vokt•d (•xpl1c1tly

r1nd 11npl1< 1•ly 111 r11.1ny IJ,1 \.tgc;; 111 I J\~11111.•t ,,,,,. fl'{' ''l>v1ou~ 1ntt·rp11.•c.1t1on

ol l'h<,111mt· 11111111t1t• l'111l>c>d1t·<.I 1n tn1· ,,1,1t1• 1llu,11.111ng tht• :,hcltc.•1 of tht'

por1r th1 'ritllU~I 1 ... 111 IUI ttll dr~lr 1pt1on:. or tht•

City c)f <.h .. ux tht rt•fc-r(' ncr It> .. ,,. p.1t. ft at><jnl" and finally 1ht• ov1>r.1ll atlht'r

tr.<< to a '"111 1 ll (0(11 ig11 ... P>tl111.J1ft ti 10 r. tf1JlJX1S 1t1.~c1ryond Jr~1gn Tht· kty

po1 ~1gr t 1 Kaut1nar11\1

J<11llng tl1ts · 11 tt11n· to a1.to110111y· 1~ th.it In wli·ch

I Joux 1u~r1t11 tht Sl'pa1 i11on of 1ach func11on 1n p1vll1ons zn rhta scco1ltl

pro1• t for •he Saltworks II• m~orez ,1u 11ranc1pr t on~ul•• 1I1 noturr. p•r

1 ur 'homm , tr off v1 LC, 41 IA 9 >I K.iufrnann further dra~ p.trdllcl•

t>..1....,on Rou r u'< sou 1l 1hough1 nnd th• lh"11lullun dr 1gncd by Lcdou•

for~ .. ideal" tur> • Ot 1<IY 111< tr n • ph ·lhc plann<'CI brothrl or "01kma"

ma5<1urr dng1 1 lr•gm< •ofaGn kMonumcnr" c un1trdforl\aulm•nn

with rhe tn b1l ~of <;chi 11cl "l.uund~ • 1 wllness to the "autonomy of

th• pl<' uu oft~ •m t 1yp1 I of tlK t"fOCh llcyond 1hl•, ROUS><•U w•• b ~and IA!duu• • n1phau on hyg1 nr physical r•• rc1>c rducat·on commu

" I hv ng and h ' mor B• ncrol prt 0< upar ion with the Cll1Lcnry of hlS n• w

uo1v<r ,11 1t1Ztnry orWd1hu1gernchke1t lfl<doux

W byn mtdR Rtg 111rtan11 sthchnc oflJI r1CVolut1nnanc•SU<h<1

li1.1crhu~ II bc uf h• < namly brl evrd an a "11aur o.: 1o1l1· th 11 .. nuowro 1he

pror t01Ln1l)(rot uc141yw1tl\ rr.h11 rtt1rt a<hdr ltc: 1 tcthii1twoufdl1tt·1

apl"'altolhc oc: 111 m ol 11 anm s Mtryiu who. in "1~' l.1udPd IA'tloux for having

g1vrn the pyramid (pll'V1ously ''"''""for lh~ ehrr) 10 thr mas>cs"

nut w:- 11• rhf" cont'lt uon bc1wc<11 1-Nloux and Rou~scau m•Y I><- obv1

ous 1ha1bttw1•1n1..,doux 1nd Kanl 11·ma111s uncrrtarn tor. di hrs• glance the

question of• •ulononi1•" p<»ll<d hy I\ ant•• lht has" for mor•I prancaplc and

1akcn up 1hroughout the nant·11, nth and 1wrn11e1h cenru1 rt>s 1< lhl'warchword

of }lOurgeo1s l1bror$ll pot1t1c!i, <lc•t s 1\0t <«1~1ly 11 1 •tt• to arll11tcc1ure. <-1tht"r in

rh<•ory or flroi(fl(t• t 11!1.I .tdvancf.'<l In tht c:rrtlC/Ut of r11r1 Rl'CU.Olt as a •call ro

re;t,on· to gain •sr1f knt1WIPdgi • 11 prt st·nlt·d tht kind ot p.11.tdox b<•tw("t·n ldW

anJ -..c.•11w1ll1h.tt 1, '" h.1u1lled pol111cal 1 t· t"i.on1ng t Vt·r ~1nct• In Kant fh<" •cr1·

t1qu<- ot pure.• 11,; t\t>rl• pr1•-..up1><1,1·~ wh.1f l\e c.1ll.., .1 .. tr1bun.•I'" that wall rn~urc

1t\t•cl.11n1s of rt•.1 .. 01,, ,1 trthun.11 cf1.tt opt•r.1t11-.. 'not by d1"•,pot1c dc1..rt•t•lli" but ·1n

.1ccn1d.1nte w11h '''own 1•1 .. 111.11 .and un.1l11·1.1hlt' law'• A• p~r>QU by('do1no

'll111 &1 r .tngt• doutl1!f 1nlp~·1.ll 1v' 1 ht I 1 uu,lc)lll to g1vt~ oncsrlfla~ re>i'rci;e'\ts

~h1 "'i\*<m Cqn«·pt If. i:;:,i,· Jio.,r phltRsupify; \\iterrlSy ·.~trng'in accor

dan{~ "'' I 1w ·•r~ .ir ,,, • lurttfaon ftr t(Jldo'Oi l3r, colllie1scly, fn·cdom m~i,r~f'' 11 :11t ~ • hl~Ur~ 01 rfa, 1l'tl"' ~.I\ , airi~pM m1gljt sd!X:. d1St nr'!ll.dl!I

ff,~m ~Y 1'1'.Jir mff nr.li nri!ijptt\i '!Jf'c.tl,1rPau 1 ~th~p : f&r 11itgu~1na ogi. b• ~.en fr ilom~. rl/1110-n!Jr· rW. 6J.t'fa Ta-/ 1 i.-.;"

1•,__,,"'--

l!tni ~l"" ~ v K:lll;s-l't'fnn pie of 1utooomy

repr1 stn!C'd far mart 1l11n ,a simple app('ill to rrn\on or ii century old claim an

rhr philosophy of knowleJg• Ir wa• h1.ror1c ally •nd concrprually tht• found·

1ng pnnaplt of bourg•·ois so<1< ry, a proclucr. ,. Adorno had 11 of "the' nrhu·

saa~m of lh<' you1hful bouri;co1.s1e which had no1 Y"' st•rrttl its RC!Ytr end ng

complaints th•• rra on cannot •olw an~ thing. bu1 .... h1ch .,,u Itel• conhdrnt

o! 11s •b1 ry 10 •ch1ove rhtngs b) vurue of lhr powers ol 11s own rr,»on ·Thus

undrrstood. <ht anrrrrogauon of .iutonomy was toancd 10 1he an1erroga11on

ol bourgeois hbo•I dtmou.ac) und<r sev• c threat In rh~ 1n1er war period

lnsp111d hy 1h1> re e"ch ol lht M rhurg ><hool, u11drr rhr l<adrnh1p of Her

J11~nn C ot1 n n1.a11y ph1IO\OJ1l1rr!i. 1n zt1t"' early twt ntt<•th ct~n1ury. 1ntlud1nj;

t rn!rlt ta\s1rr:1 wl10,tyd1t d tt ~1 tr!Jurg.we1t rt•1urn1ng 10 Kint a-. tht.• 1n111a1or

ol m{>dt rr\ c111t 1l 11l11ll>1opl1y Co\ 11t 1stw<J1ituti1t•.s / r\ 1/11 rr t111d /o,-,,, (1910)

K<lt1(~ l 'bt11 11t11f / ,·l1'1 1l1t•11151 n1odt 1n c<1111p11 l1c•n-..1\'e ph1lo~ophttC11( b1ogra

pl1y, wJs p11bl1 .. l11d111 ''''" 1r1d ht l 1n1c.• tht• 11•l1·r,·11<t point lor .J Ol'W gcnt-ra·

t ion. 111c lucJ 111~ Krac Juc.•1. Ado1 no, n 11cJ l't'ltJ 111ll n wh'' s.1w K.111t for ht>1 l<'r 01

for wur\t', .ts tilt- ht•g11111111i; J)()lt1t 111 .1n l1lvt•..,tlg.tt1on 11t·tl'!t\,tty tor lhl~ dtvcl·

opmt·111 ol .t 11 uly .. , 1111c.1I" tltt·o1 y Ac.1111 ,,,,, 111 p.11 tll\ll.11 , IJ,tw K.,n11J11 .1u1on-

11n1y I) u dtJuhll' t·l1~tcl -..wo1 d nlul h 111 1hr w 1v tl\.,t tontt·1npor.1ry th11lkl'I s

Vtl'l l <ildf~ctt 1111r1g l~llU~s1•,,u'ti. s11t 1.11'01\t1 .1ct .ts 11npl1ctt1y 1ot<1l1tJ11.1n for

Adorr"!o qut.~5tl<>n1ng 1ht 11npl1t 1t1on\. ot a1,1u: 1ls ro "tt•,1'''" l'\d( h,1J undl·r

tf1c 11111•<'tt1 of !'lo< 11·1,c.:e a11J tt•c. hr111l11vy 111 t 11ly bt•gl1n to t•xh1l,1c tht·11 .. dark

s1cJ, • autonn111y I K till t!I. 1hr •k1 rnrl 1)t his 1•lt1l<l'Jt1phy." di 11cul 1tt•J •41 very

dark !,eCrt t 11f bourgt'Ol ~oc1i ty•

TJ1u1trc ,,, IA.,,, ,,allt) tl1at ,,,, /(JlllJOl /11,~/01t1 nf ''''''''' IJ' A11L11 CIA IA OCfll

n//y ,,., /o>1111d11tfo11 of tlr. diprru/., y O/ oll ~po11 .11/, /lrur u ro .ony 11 u tlir

Jo1111tlar1011 oj rlw rorrn• cl1a1uctrr c•f .ion. ry ''" co11/orm11y 1vul1 lau lliat

IA r•lw1 /t4'A b4'l11•1d ,, , V•ry AITO"t) tlu'Ory tliat 111 Kant" IUOrl IA a tr1b1ma/

ll'hlr/1 liaA IOA I Ill ""'9'"' , l OWi Pl'aAOlla.\ ti I' ucnurd.

II wa ol cour e II p rado-tc~I n 1urr of 1h" dach tom) 1ha1 l•d llldny

humani t in th< rnt~rwdr pt'rllld lo >Rl~llO •It thur o.,.,n oh1ect of <tud

from plulo ophy to arl I 1 iory. •I 1 mom 111 wlu n bourg1 ors .. uronomy and

lls •uri>o d hnk tu rra <'n •nd lib ral1Mn 1f nor ocial domocr icy w ~ hal

I ngrtt by tl1c- IJ\0\1m<111 rrt1m ,,,, ·11 cdom ol 1 \\-to tot 11 lttrl Ill <0<"((10~.

Knulnl inn 11' V1rn,B \\ •\ t:qti lfy ''Xl•OS1!d 10 111 neo Kanta 1n rf'\ val

l,1.1t 1nt k1ng111l>\a11f 1 •111f1111dl1\gl1t'1•·1 <•fn1otl11nbourl•101!!.soc1 ty nd

I I

-. . - , ..

'

T'~•P~ •'•• ', \ f.. ( t • • •

I ( •1,,,,

EMIL KA UFMANN

•• ..., -·

Snl'f"lhtally on 1933. hr wa~ making a ve1y different point to that ot •-r-- t,., 8l'f!in theonst~ Whrrt> tht' frar.kfur school sociologists wt're already look·

. . ing at Uie Paradoxe~ ilncl problcm•llC> of K•nttan 1deahsm, and Cassh'\'r h

1msolf was srruggling wuh the d1Hicuh1rs of rcconc1hng Rousseau and Kant .

•n essays Published 11• 1932 Kaufmann apparently blithely ignored such qu• "' . .. s . ,ons in favor of a i:cner~hzed appeal to Rousseau Kant as s1gnifving an Enr h

• 1g t•n· m<'nt umfied enough •o provide •n mtell.,ctua! base, both for Ledoux a d

1 1 r:. Or his inrttprctatJon Such apparent s1mphhcati.on, howevec, 15 explicabteont>,;o

grounds. firSll)". Kaufmann was concerned 10 sketch the intellectual fra,,..,.

.,.ork fnr an arch11ec1 who h1m!>elf was anything but a •ystematit thinker. one

who readily appeillrd 10 a wide range of authorities in his attempt to justify

new torms Kaulmann's seeming confusion. 1n these tcnns. was historically

accurate 1n delineating 1hr d1scurs1ve breadth uf Ledoux's sources, and tis

impact on d<'s1gn. Certainly Cassirer's study of The Philo~ophy of rile f:n/ighi

enmPnl published 1n 1932 had. together w11h his essay on Rousseau of the

same year. the aim or consrructingsuch a unny of thought.ll

Sf'Condly. and equ•lly important. Kaufmann's own mtelle.:tua\ agenda

1.,ached beyond a purely hi>toncal Interpretation. Emb~ded in 1he title of

Von Ledoux btA le Corb11A1er. and in its appeal to Kantian thought. was an

1mphcu challenge 10 the emerging cuhural poli11cs of Austria and Cormany,

and a covert appeal 10 a "unued" front based on the rule of law and reason •s

the basis for the res1a1ement of the 1dr.al of a liberal. soda\ democratic, stare.

Published in May 1933. two months after Huler's takeover of poweraher

the March 5 ell-c11ons, was seemingly deliberately c-akulated to assert the

social democratic values of Enhghtcnment. republicanism, and modernism,

values under se\·er·e anack not only from Nazi ideologues who had denounced

them. and 1he modernism 1ha1 represented !hem as degenerate and Bolshe·

~1k. but also from conservative ViennPse art h1Storlans !tke Strzygoi.sk1 and

Sedlm•yr The lattrr . ... ho had JOml'd the Nat1onal Sociali!>t party in 193.1, Ihm

10 b«ome a loyal suprorter throughout the occupation and War, was to w.ii1

un11l 11.•ufm•nn·~ 01gh1 to the U.S. before developing his own rhesis of th•

"los• of cen1er using Kauf mann's own marerial to set out a despainng thesis of

decline and fall where Kaufm .. nn had seen only progress and justice. In 1933,

howtver, d~ Dam1~ch h~~ poinu~d out. 11 w;is an act of 1 eal intellectual. if not

phy\1cal. <Ouragt 10 ~e1 out 1he con1inu111es between tht' French Revolution

and Modern1~m. 1n a moment when Speer and h\s cohorts were find mg monu·

mem•I soldle in the g1gan1c\que revhal of German neoclassicism.

Ledoux. 1n 1h1s conte><I. wa~. more 1han a historical sub1ec1. a cover.

or meraphor for 1he exphcat1on of liberal bourgeois society. If not a kind of

u1op1Jn soc1alism 1n historical guise. n,c real sub1ec1 ot the treatise would

1hen be the architecture of Loos, Walter Gropius. Richard Neutra. and Le Cor·

busier 1he arthllt>cture of Modernism developed be1ween l<)OO and •929-

Kaufmann wrote'

Tht C'011tt11uiry of thl' d1ve/opme11r of pOAl·rt>vo/urronary arcl1irercure ccin in

o woy bP rra(rd rhrou9h 10 rile beyn1n1119 of our 0W11 period. which OPfl"'

aro1111d 1900 w11h thP Dutch Ber/age a11d the V1e11neAe Adolf Loo,., a period w tht 01r. con u.ujully de.r.19nate by 1101111119 1u, moAt Aelf-<ort.AciOIJ.4 prota9on •

ll'OdProf tht' you119 Fre11ch Ac/100/ LP Corbiuu>r /den Fuhrer de.& 111n9vn Fronk·

Tt>tCh l.e Corbu.r.11'rf fVLI c. 611

The hrs1 mention of Le Corbusier 1n Kaufmann's wri11ngs ts in a fooinott to

the art1cle ·oie Sradt," which points to the s1milan11es between 1.hret Sl'lll'

b • nectton wJs menlS Y Ledoux. and the ttx1 or Ver..i u'lf' arch1recrur1>. The con d -1 of a p!in un ers1ood as obvious as Ledoux spoke or "the appreciable fe"'ing .

b '\ding or the as s iemm1ng from 1hc sub1ec1. the ~11e, and the needs of the u• ' . d "bed Wll~ a

estrucuve effect or details on surfaces," and or the "forms descn al • I habtt1C

single stroke or 1hr compass: the S(\uare and 1he circle as the a P

leuers used by au1hors 1n the 1ex1 of their bes1 work'5."" nal· T bo t.e the St a

wo years la1er. Vo11 ledo11x bu C.e Corbiuierwas to ela ra d 1n

gl frnann a11ut 0 es as sys1ema11cally and historically grounded. Ledoux. Kau

1

_4

' ' ! I

'

I I I

I

the last sKt1on of the book. was the progenitor of a modernism that was in no

way formalist ("he did not confine his attention only to formal detatls. as did

the Secession a hundred years later" IVLLC. 4211: rather "on his research heenv1s·

aged the totahtyof the reorgamtallon of the body of the building itself and of the

systems ol large complexes of buildings" IVLLC. 421 Considering Ledoux·s later

work~. and especially his group of town houses designed after the Revolut1on

for Hosten. Kaufmann to introduced hos hrst modernist comparison. not to Le

Corbusier. but to Walter Gropius: referring to Ledoux's late works. he notes;

The pnnc1pal arri.411c quality of thPAP projecu.

Ledoux lookPd fer abovP all. The formal principl

. • I '

I . , • ';I.

--hat "'9Ron;,

W<>re bQAed correApondA to the IP1tmo11f of our prMent architecture. aA Walter

Gropiu.o hQA exprPMed II in the fir;,t volumP of the Bauhatu boolu: ·a variety

1>tartinq with th1> ;,ame fu11daml!ntal type obta1nod by the alternau juxrapo1>i·

lion and ;,upenmpoAitioro of repetitive ;,pa11al cell.A. " IVLLC. 48)

lt 1s clear that in tracing the development of autonomous architecture after

Ledoux. and through the nineteenth century, Kaufmann is aware of the dete·

rioration in aesthetic content. and of the deleterious effects of the incessant

repetition of the "pavllion system: Thus he analY?-es the teaching method

and influence of Jean Nicolas Louts Durand. who systemauzed Woux's own

system for the £cole Polytechnique, repeating the fundamental elements of

architecture a> if they were so many geometrical points. lines. and planes on

graph paper. and sees this method's effects on architects likr Oubut. But it is

equ•lly obvious that Kaufmann 1s here only attempting to demonStrate that

despite the oven historicist "clothing" of 1he pavilions in question. varied

according to taste and styhst1c revival through the century, the survival of the

pavilion. and us fundamentally geometncal!functional founda11on. allowed

the prmciples of modernism to survive if not to prosper.

HIS assessment of the effects of autonomy on urbanism is, for example,

bleak enough, and parallel to that of Camillo S11te at the end of the nine<eenth

century: castigating the pavilion structures around the Place de f"Etoile, the

Place Roya le in Mu nich. or the R1ngstrasse in Vienna. whose buildmgs

ore ;,er up. /Ike uolor11d blodu. In thetr uolarton, eac/1 on" could, without

hindering tU. arrroc11veneAA, b11 duploced ro another .Aire. II iA of little impor·

ranee rhar the part.i have bePn r#a/iz41d 011d are of different appearance, 0.4 in

Munich. or are co11remporory and fit omongAt the111Aelve;, QA in Vienna. The

doublP D.4pPrr of the pQAt ccmtury w/11cl1, like /auu.o, look;, or once forward and

back111ard, appear.i even mora clearly i11 rhat portion of rhe RinlJl>rrOAAe wirh

the monumental b11ildintµ of the Par/lamPnl, the City Hall. the Un1verAity. and

the Theater. Conceived according to an ab,iolurely /1erero11omotu in.-ptrarion,

the buildinl}A are de1>tmed for Aho111. 111 rhi.A lntenrion, each of rltem corrie;, an

old ..1u11. p0Min9 for Greek. Gothic, or late Rertai.A.l>ance. But iro thi.A diver;,iry

there i.6 al.Ao a 1111w rra1t: the toral indifft>Tertce ro rhe effecr of rhe whole. &ach

b111ldm9 remain.A 1n a rota I i.6olat1on, none i.6 linked in an en..wmb/e. lvLLC, 611

Yet, despite the moribund. half heteronomous, half autonomous aspect of

the style·revival buildings of the R1ngstrasse. the principle of autonomy sur

vived to triumph 1n the younger gencrat1on of modernists following Berlage.

Kaufmann 1s not inclined 10 enter into a detailed analysis of twenticrh cen·

tury modcrni~m as a conclusion to his Ledoux monograph: for him, the simple

"evidence· of Le Corbusier and his contemporaries is enough to make the point.

Interestingly enough. 11 is Richard Neutra the Viennese exil<' in California.

whose Wie baut Ammka had been published in 19i7. who is selected as the

spokesman for modemlsm·s cont1nu1ty wnh the past. Roman, and Baroque:

Neutr>,quoted by Kaufmann. writes:

II U. o long way from rhe plQAl1c forrnalV.m of rhe Gretk world to rhe twi..lted

facadu. of rhe Daroque, but thu. ro11te ,.. roor 11/09ical, it alwayA CTO.&MA AO to

.1ipeak the ;,ame region: t/101 of a cirrra1nAp1rirual atrirude towarti,o architectural

creation. The 9enMTII prirrciplt the dw<>lopmant of wl1ich we hove wanted to dem

on..itrotr here in orc/1it•t:ture i.4 defined by N<>utra in the;,e tgnn;,: Di.Mociarion,

I/ I t, /.. I 'J f, 1/ • .. -,

jwctapo1>111on. thl' ..1tnct d,/tmrtollon of concepu.. of rhi> domain;, of rhauq/11 and

action. .auch .r.ttm 10 M rl1' fundamniral ttmdmci'A of rhu dewlopmertt."

It is. nonttbeless. wtth Le Corbus1er that Kaufmann concludtt his little book.

a Le Co.-bus1er represented not on ly by VPr.A unP archttecturr. but by the trans·

lated version of Urbanisme, Stadtebau. and more recently still by th~ first

YOlume of his OPUvr'.A complrtl'A. 1910 10 1979. published tn 1930. Kaufmann

was thu~ able to refer to the already commonplaces of the "fasc1na11on for the

straight hne: or the -return to the •fundamental realities of the sphere, the

cube and the cylinder 1n great architecture· but also ro extend his comparison

with Woux to the layout and pro1ec1ed monuments of the Cn~ Mondiale. with

its already contentious pyramidal scheme for a Mu ndaneum or world museum.

reminiscent of the pyramids of Ledoux and Boullee. Kaufmann, as opposed to

the trenchant cru1ques of the Marxist Karel Teige. lauds the "idealism· of rhis

utopia as directly rela11ng to, 1f not influenced by, that of Ledoux:

The ruemblonce beru1<1en tlie epoch of Ledoux and our own U. not limited (thU.

will be one of our concl1L111011.1.J ro fornral and thematic ai>pecu. 711iA rut>m·

b/ance doeA not only rue 111 rite focr r/1a11n hi.6 epoch QA our own one ;,ee;, r/1e

11ew ond 1mporrant problem of rhe mOAAeA l!l'l!erge 0.4 rhe powvrful motive of

;,olut101U. /ndependen1ly of the newdema11d.6 of rhe real. one di.6cemA now QA

ar rho! epoch a new idea/um. It opp#ar;, in L'Architecture of Ledoux 0.4 in rhe

wrirm9..1 of I.A CorbU.A•"· 1n rhe pro1ect for the Ideal City QA in rhe Cirl Modiale.

II L6 in thu 1dealwn..foundedun thenrw1dea1Aof ethiuand law, in which i.6,iro the

end. roored. ir .aeenu to U.A. /,,fo,.., 1800 ftiell (1.4 roday. rhe renewalofarchitPCfllr#.

Kaufmann concludes:

Becau.u L11 CorbU.A1er ha.. no JU.A faith in rh,,... rhan Llldoux, becau.oe in the

one and 1n rhe or her the m11mol1P Jmk /Htwttn arr and life u QA ;,rrong, one

mtur Ctte. Aide by ..11d1P, the mil.Aler who;,e work crownA rhe mumph of the new

prinetpfeA and he whou acr1v1ty /ta.. open#</ rhe way for the;,e pnnciple1>.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Kaufmann's methods of analysis, as well as those of the Vienna School with

whirh he was to be loosely associated.have often been criticized for their incip·

il!nt "formalism: and especially so from the left in the 1930s. Thus Meyer Scha·

piro. respond1ns to the confused and contrdd1ctory "formalism· of the Vien·

nese School. 1n an 1nc1slve review ol the publicat1ons of the "New Viennese

School" of an history, tried to redress the historical problem in terms of a less

reducuve poli11cal po~1t1on. Assessing Emil Kaulmann's anicle "The City of

the Archllect Ledoux: and the later Van Ledoux bu U! Corbtuier, Schapiro.

while recognizing the merll of Kaufmann's rescue of Ledoux, pointed to the

hmita11ons of the formal approach In relating architecture to its social context.

Kaufmann had allempted to 1oin what he called Ledoux's principle of architec·

tural ·autonomy· - the denvatton of an architectural aesthetic from internal

requirements of construction and use rather than from any external, imposed

art1st1c conception - to a s1m1lar charaeteristic of emerging bourgeois soci

ety. - "which thinks of nself as compo~ed of isolated, equally free individu

als." Schapiro argued that Kaufmann. in fact. h3d succeeded only in 1oining an

arch11ectural principle to a social prtnc1ple, one found indttd 1n Ledoux's writ·

ings. "The con-elation: Schapiro wrote, ·1s w11h bourgeois ideology. not with

t he actual class structure and condu1ons of bourgeois society, and depends

more on quotations than on a study of social and economic history.- In the

light of our analysts of Kaufmann's theses or 4Utonomy, we would have to con

clude that Kaufmann m1gh1 haw readily agreed with Schapiro's crittque: far

from trying to develop a matenahst history assummg the fundamental rela·

t1ons between base and supemructure. society and culture, Kaufmann·s aims

were surely more modest and conhned to demonsirat1ng the relations between

thought about social fonn, and thought about architectural form .

But Kaufmann·s method was nor only attacked from the left. Like many

social-democratic theses It was e4ually subject to criticism from the right.

I I h n•mies as rhe Berlin J ndced. Kaufmann did nor have ro look •O ar or is c d · 1 d srudent of WblfOm, of Hitlers putsch: Hans S•dlmayr. ahother 1<11ngu1> 1e

• 1 h K v.twtA.4PnA<l•aftlt· 3nd an edirorol the Vienna school s llagsh1111ourna · t e u>

bl h d h' breakthrough article. rho ForArhun9•11. m which Kaulmann had pu rs e rs h K I n's democratte •nd h3d, during rh..se years taken sh•rp 1S•ue wtt au man

1deahsr 1c reading ol rhc arch11ecture ol 1800. and pr..cisely from a conseJ'"\i• 11ve. soon ro become lasc1st.comm11men1 It as an comparison with ~lmayr's app1oach that Kaufmann seems lcs> and less the Vienna School historian.and

more and more the student of O•orak Jr was Hans Sedlmayr. ol all ihe Vienna School h1stonans. who tool< sen

ously the lessons of R1egl. in oppo>111on 10 has d1sse11at1on ad,~sor Julius Schlosser. in con(eptuahi1ng a method of art htsrory that completely mte·

grated architecture; developing R1egl's concepl ol Kunsrwollen, as reanrer·

pr~tod by has contemporary Panobky, 1111owhat hr termed a "Strukturanalys<'"

or analysis of structural p1 mcrplr' Thc•C were not. of course. the principles of structu1e, a• an arch11ec1ural h1sto11an mtgh1 understand them. Hrs well

known treatise on Borromrm'• church. San Carlo allr Quattro fontane. found

11s structural principle not an the archue<tural strucruro, nor even in the

"structural" organization of its mtorsecung s~ces and volum<'s. but rather in the decordllVe treatment of the wall As Chnsropher \l\'ood notes. "In other

words. structure may rt'Veal ttself an apparently marginal or meaningless fea

tures • !Wood, •sl Here Sedlmayr rrhes on Gestalt theory 10 introduce the

no11on of "shaped vision: that 1n ha> terms lormed an ob1cc11ve and ra11onal

way of looking beneath appearance;. of seeking out principles of form and

organ11a1 ion no1 apparent in nornial ch~racrrnzations ol funcuon. style, and

the hk•'. Wood and Meyer Schap110 bcforo ham. have poinred out the en11rely

"specaous" narure of this · ra11onala.m." cnt1<121ng Its in1u111onis1 and 1mphc

11 ly racist undertones. In Sedlmayrs terms. while K•ufmann had (the method after all was SCI·

en11hcally correct) analy•ed the formal shafts he had entirely m1sd1agnosed

rhe ~ymptoms Where Kaufmann saw renewal an revolu11onary and modern

Archllccture. Sedlmayr saw decay and decline. where Kaufmann saw 1ncreas·

1ng health rn soc1e1y and arch11Ktu1e. Sedlmayr saw decadence and death

Ar<h110C1ure was but a sign ol the "hugt• inner ca1asrrophe" se1 off by the

Rovolu11on. a "loss of center" and stab1l11 y imaged by what for Sedlmayr was

tho mo\! characteristic motif ot 1800, the sphc1c. wuh all 11s 1mphcauons

of rhe destabthza11on - the litcrdl derac1na11on of iradntonal arclntecture.

Kaufm;ann's heroes were Sedlmayr 's dev1b· as the Ian er observed of Goya:

"The more we .iudythe art of Goya. the anorc Lntcnse grows ourconv1c11on that.

like Kant an philosophy and Ledoux's arch11ttturc. hr as one ol the great pulver-

1z1ng forcrs 1ha1 bring a new age into being" JLC. 1171 Sedlmayr. sensing an

'"Yan his hght against the demon of modernism, cites Ernst Junger approv

rngly m rhararterrz1ng 1he mu.Aeal'n tneb. the "f;ice rumed towards the thang5

ol doarh: ol rhe contemporary epoch

More specihcally. expldmmg ht~ ~ocalled "Method of Cn11cal forms: a

method herla1ms as "capable of sep•ra11ng the true from the false: ol "conccn

trat1ng on that unconsuous sphere of ins11nc11vc recepllvtty" and of"posses·

st on· m which "the soul of the age ~rands naked before us· - a method that 15 common to the pathologist and the P•Ytholog1st - Sedlmayr finds in the image

of Cedoux's archnccture one such apparently bizarre bur fundamentally symp

toma11c form that descftbes the folly of the modern age: th~ Sphere Hou~e of

the Agricultural Guard~ 1hat Kaufmann had sren as a brave innovation. a harbinger or modernist abstract ion.

Such a rod1col ne1v form. for 11Ulon<P. u mhervnr in the de ,, · ' a o, u..un9 o ,6p/rere

iu th• ba.iic form of ott entire hoU6e. Mo;,1 /HOn/p liove rreoted rh ,. u na11on tu

• • .. 7

ii 1119 mo~ than a bod 1oke or a wry anl1nary p11tr11 of lunacy, While L rlO 1 trip n-.ore

I rlrable ho"" Jooktd upon 11 fond hvre )tp 1.1. r•f•rrm9 to lh• , 0,,,.1.,,, c 1a '"" of ;,14 ,t,OmPlim• Vienne.AI' f'O:IP09ut f;m1I Kaufmann/ a,.; on "Pxper111,_,,1 Wlrlr /o"". Tf1P 1h1119 "'l'Prtornly an..io•re eno119h. b11t •fir twre no'"°" rhun that. ave diout~ hardly b<> JUAllftl'd m U1QA1t119 much ltme over fl

11 no•1Aeiuiral idea, ho1wver. need by no 7n4'0n.. 1:., wlro/J!f ll/ifh.

our ,.,9n1/1C'artc• . .1.wch abnonr.ol1tirA rrwa/ wry Aprc:1fir <htlTan.,.u.tlQ

71uu rhr ,,,.r.,,.. 1vhE11 w...,J l2A rhr ,.hap# of a bu1ld1119 u 0 critical [om,

tuluclr ..., 0 A'J'"p1om of a profound'""''" both in arch11etture ond in 1~1 whole Ir/• of rhr human Apiri1. Hrnt Ille ore 1><'9rnn1t19 ro deo/ Wtt/r the.,,,,,

of rlar 1mconAC10llA ·.\LC. 41

Sl'dlmayr s•w this :1on·atch1recrural form as rhe fatal symptom of an

abstra<t1on that had. w11h Le Corbusrer. reached •I S most nonsensical and

anu·archaiectural end. Agreeing with Kaufmann that autonomy wo.s th• key

(It ·implies 1har arch1te<ture under Ledoux had as it W•re become conscious

of 115 own true nature - it was the same idea that ani mated Loos and u Corbusrer1. Sedlmayr casngates the M•1son Savoye at Po1ssy, rhe •pirome

of corb11s1an modernLSm for Sigfried G1ed1on and perhaps for !Uuftnann too,

as 11 rt'sled "upon its support~ upon the lawn: nothing more tha11 the rmage

of ·a spaceship that has JUSt landed." (LC,107) Le Corbusiers p'.ctures, wro:e

Sedlmayr 1n disgust." are full of Ooaung transparerU things." [Lc.1011

Srdlmayr is here opposed to the ·~utonomous· nature of this geometri·

cal archnecture - •ts apparent "'pulsaon for the <'arth, •n architecture wishing

to Oy. rransparent. noating in the air, and •hereby no longer holding tons tr<·

tonic foundauons, and dangerously open to the deleterious ef~cts of what he

calls "paper archi1ec1ure." It is no comcidenct that Stdlmayr uses Kaufmann

as the scholarly source of every one of his critical description of the dreams,

unhappy v1s1ons, and ·shadow values" of Booll~e's and t.edoux·s archittctur ..

Indeed, Kaufmann is acknowl~dged as the sourct of S<'dl mayrs whole study.

as. an hrs poSlface, he admits.

Thr •'<'ry °"91111111194 of 1hu work werl' tJUplfed by the ,..Mardi of £111/

Kaufmann on Lt'daux, which came to my notice m 1930. I .iaw or once rlr111

Kaufmann hod Auccreded rn makm9 o d1J1covery of the utll'la.al impor11l11Ct

rowardJ. thr undrrAtondm9 of 011r 09e. but that at the .ianui rime h~ had not

wliolly recoqmzed thl' true 11i9111fironce of /au ow11 diACovtry,ond that rheph,.

110111r11a AO clParly perceived by lirm were 1101 correctly evofuared. (Lc)

Of course. this does not prevent Sedlmayr from claiming almost equal credit.

as he rtcounts that he expounded the "thoug)lts •.. developed hert" m YtrlU.Ur

dvr Marte rn a lecrure given 1n 1934• and agd1n in 1937 1n a dis<ourse that was

not published," hnally to set them down rn t94'· and giving them "in wu•'tf'

slty lectures rn t94' and 1944 .....

11ns debate between Kaufmann and Sedlmayr has gl!nerally been sern.

in a" h1storrcal cirdes at least, as the sta"tng point for tht rtt'f31uation of

Revoluuonary ar~hitecrure, as ~II as the origin of many myths only r.ceotly

dispelled by less formalis11c and more hi~torrcally d1spas£ionate rosearc.b. But.

for 1he moment, I would want to hold such cnucism. tn order to follow up

the rundamenral d1s11nc11on drawn by Hubert Oamisch between what stmioll>'

gtst s and their hear~ over the last decades have spoken of as the ·meanil1i f h • catiOn. a11a o arc llecture, cons1derrng arch1te<ture as .. systl'm of communi

h • i a spteiflC t e quts11on, poSt!CI by Oam1:.ch of "what arc:hitecture mtans n

moment According to these d1s11ncr1ons. when Kaufmann ..-rote in 1'14 ol , to tht

classrcrsm as demanding a "harmony· that confined ·s1gruficauon ··· • f neoc1ass1cJSlll 1n1rrn~1c quah11es of the subiect and their txpress1on. and 0

rt forthoUP'· as ~etrng form as hav1ng ·noo1her funcuon 11\an robe the suppcl

Lott to rogN Ha • H<. 1l~lon

to tran,m11 ompre•>oon•. to provo~•- -.·nsa11on~;" hf' was p<·rhap• not <o mu1h

"'t-ong the•r t"" arch It<'< •urf'S ~' a«omphsh1ng th1~ goal w1th1n 1ht1r panicu

lar <0<1tllt'• and cultur"'· a , tlAp1rrn910 that goal 1n then thronl'• and ideal~

Thu >. \lm1larly, whl'n he >peak• of Ltdoux in 1h1· \dmt' breath as Kant ind

Rou••eau . hl' wa' ptt hap, not ~o mu<h 1 la1m1ng that there 1s an inner essence

on Lt'dou~·, i11<ht11'<tuu• 1hat t> K.1n11an, nor 1ena1nly that Ledoux had read

Kant or Wt'>h<'d 10 b1• a Kan11an ·"<hilt'! I , but moo e "mply tha1 1hert.• seemtd

to be a homology be1wt•en, in theu d1fh•1ent re.1lms. l.edoux's use of separate.

independent. gromtn11 formo,, ••nd '•'Y· Kam·~ desorf for principles of ondepcn

dent cntic;il 1udgement, and Hou.,,eau\ rel urn 10 1he pnnc1pleof ·natural man.•

I o,ay "morr •imply: bu1 in fat 1, '>uch rel;i11ono, introduce a complex11y 1n the

interpre1a11ve '>lruuure th.11 is belled by the crude 1uxtapos111on. and that goes

well beyond the <'qually ci udr "o,oc1al economic formal" pos1ula11ons of Marx

1s1 a1 t ho'>torian• of the perood llen•. Kaufmann 1& les\ a follower of 1he psycho

log1<al lot mJlo\m ol th<• V11'nna School than an adherent of the principles of his

men1or Max Dvorak\, toncept of "the h1s1ory of arr a' th<• ho>toryof ideas.""

lldmottl'tlly, Kaufmann ha• been 1a~t a• a reduc11ve ~ystemauzrr 1n hos

~ttempt to c on~trutt an 1n1<•rpret.111ve •<heme derived fr1>m Rlt'gl's kunscwol

len that <nlr<'sponded 10 archntcture on par11cular And yet his no111>n of

an °arc h1te<tur.1I 'Y>ll·m· a• devrlopt"d in wn11ng• after ho> t'm1gr.n1on lo

ch .. Unnrd ~toilf'' offered a far more prt'Cl'>f' 1001 of analysts A> he definrd 11.

·,11tent1on • focu., ... d not ~o much on problems of ~tyle. nor on de~cnpuons of

songll' fe.Jturt•, nor even on the 1nvest1ga11on 1n10 general form. bu1 r.lther

upon the onterrelauon of •hr >l'Veral parh of 1he compos111on. and e\pec1ally

lht n·li1IH>n,h1p IX'twei•n the ~rvt·r.11 component\ and lhf' wholt archllectural

compo•111on ll•t·lf ... Uut ht•11• "''' h.l\t' moved beyond a gene11c ·will to form."

and evtn bt·yond S1·dlmayr'> \lat11 "o,rruuur.11 analy>is: 10 a flrx1blr model

th•t appro>om~tt-> no1 1>nly ~1m1l.tr typ1·• on mu•1t and h1t·ra1ure, ai well•~

p~ornons hut a"o.1n thl\ ' '"'" the a1(h1trt1"• own dt,1gn proc<'llures

Thr urrl11tt•<111rr of tl1r lut•• r19l1trr111/1 and r1111nrt11th c,11turir4 /1cu much m

corm11011 11111/1 r/11..u11ul 011d IJ01oq111 art 811r tl1rJ.e common rro1u co1upr11

0 11/y tlor Aur/1:11 r Tlw 10111m111•c/ I/AP of rliuv.Kal frotrirt.t. rrrotr.4 a C'rrto111

.4ll/>rr/1rrol 11•.t.1•111 /1/11111<• bP11w1•11 tlirAr pr1111d.4 prrt edm9 and follow1119 tlir

ll1•vnlut1011 011/y by 1111 u11olyA1A bu1rrd 011 tloP conrrpt of on "orrh11rrrurol

Ay . .it('m •ran wr apprvcratr /tow f1111damriually th~ mode of urcl11tectura/ com

pOAltltlll WCJ.4 tro11Afor111Pd fl ~All , 131

Tht comp.1ri ~un dntl m.-1. h1ng of •UI h J ~rructurc once 1den11fted wuh similar

'rrucrures on 1hou11h1 .ind >011~1 Ith• w~• 1•n111l'ly flexible and always •h1f11ng'

In t/11· rrlutw111rh1p bvt tt't'n1 forrru 1111c/ .t.yAttm rarh ••pa< h t.4tobluhP.4 11.t. 011111

bcu1r 1dra..i of d1.t.poJ.1ttt1•1 u11d 11111·rt•la11011 of porl.t. (1tl1Pr o/dl'r fonn.4 arr

r•modo·l•d 1u111/ tli..y or<' rrrf• t tlyadJl•..irvd to ''" nf'w Ay•t1·111 of orron9tmtnt,

or '"w formA prt1ff..,,•c/ by lll'll' 101uitru< tto11ul mrthod.4 arr odoptPd t/ thty

or<ord wtth thl' 111·1.,.4y4tl'fll or 11otural form.t. or' r1•111tvrpr~t~d 111 l..t1•p1119 with

t/1r rhon9rd 11J•a/ of CJl'll.,af dt.4pt1AtlWll nw Mat1/1 for llM .. jornu. U. thrrrj<Jll',

a nrcr.uary co11.uqt1<11" '1 thr dt'.41ti'furo 11rw .4YAt•·m ronn.t. thn11Mlw.1o arr

.uco11tUiry Joaor.t.. thr Ay.t• mu tlir primary ro11.A1d1•rutton hsAH , 181

W~ might c hdra<tt'nt~ th ls mt1hod.• s oppo•rd 10 lh<' morr p•y<holog1cal and

trleologocal •,tructural andl ysis• of S<·dlm~yr , a> nor 50 much •tru<1ural ,..

".t.tnutun.1/1A1· parilll!"11ng 11m1lar cnn1l'mpo1 .try att~mP" to 1d~n11fy »"I'm>

of rrl•1tonsh1ps on hnguhllCi and ~ymhol• by, say. Cass1r<·r dnd Panofi;~y in

or her domain'

But .1ga1n Kaufmann'• 61ruourah~m ha• ij ho>tory thdt grounds 111n irm

por~hty. and <.'Vt·n th•1u11h ht> ht•lory fall\ 'horr of Schapiro·· dl's1red >ooal

and (.'~onom11 tnquu 1ei;.11 os ngor1>u>ly (.'nough ba,ed 1n 1ntell<-ctual devtlop

mt·nh. lndo"fll 11 " clear th•t t.aulmann tnr,.ndt us to U« his "archittetur•I

IY>ttm" a• on thr umf' rtan~ '"and commrnsuratr with 1ntell..ctual devrl

opmtn1'. •\the m•ntff'>t•11on, l 11 othrr words, of thf' 1rch1•tt 1 '1 thought ~

<..,.~f'• Thts Is what ht• mr•n• whtn hr 1p1•4ks of "pt!rnng ~hind the lacadrof

arch1tt<1u1~I dt·velnpmtnt" 10 "d'"°""' the mrt~phyuc 11 bac'ruound of build

1ng0 in a partot ula1 tra If 5A u t81 Th• nottnn ol tht• p:.r11cul1r rr• w;os funda

mtnral to Kauf mann"1 v1tw of rht tpe< 1hc 11yof hl\tory. As 1M! noted tn a r(!Vleow

of Nib'~ ~tudy of tht work ol l"u" J1·an Oe1p11·1. "rach tp<>< h requires sp«1bc

categorle> ol trratmrnt • Ntw ma1ertal 1hould not ht- 1nrtrprc-tMI wuh1n thP

cate11ortf'S "denvrd, orogonally. from tht produtt1on of •nother la11 rulr pnor1

penod: but rather .1((01d1ng 10 "\ome nrw approach .. dequ;ott' to thf'•r novt'I

way•· ll econdudrd "The rdea ol all embrac ins c.11ego11e1 is" chrm.ar~ S11ll

worsr. of tour>r. ·~the ~•erolr apphc.1toon of catrgonr• formrd on thl' accom

ph~hmen" of a dtlfrrent period.""

Kaufm .. nn t-ldboratrd 1>n th" 1n a rrvww .irtorlt' ol 194&

We /1w mo llm• 111 w/11ch thr901hvrm9 and r•rordm9 of Jortual tk.ta or" oftm

COn.41drrrd t/11 uniqur t11d of ol'I hutory No doubt""' h '" 1tv1ry u 1ndup#JU

obit. y,, on•.U.ould not owrlook th' /at 11/101 tt do•-' not r11qutrl' "'"'h or~inal 1ry to tro1v,fonn o <ord ftlr mto o book. oft" havm9 oddtd 1iu.t a/"" drtatu

to thr ft11d1'1tµ of many pn•dr<ru.or4111 a /"Id labor..J./Hrhup.A.. thruu9h t'mlu

nt• On• "11011/d rotf' h19lirr th• b109raph" who wntur•-' vut 11110 1111-pf"'d

trrrrtory. wloo durowr" o /orr prof/tr-' a nrw p1rturr of o IH'.40nobty and •n rro Sur/1 ti b109raph" u morv /1k•ly to'" m hu "11(1/uot1on.4 and ""'11ftft!U

thu11 thr ""''Pl• romp1l•r. t1ltho119h ti" lottrr u by no mvna.. 1nfollthlf' m hU

01111but10ll.l ~rt hutory "hould not rar• lr..M about tlil' rp1phf'nomr1t0n tlion

thr phr11omrt1011 Thr b1119ropl"r w/10 .Mru99/•-' to yrcup tM 11.,on1119 oJ or1u

lie produa1on 11111/ brromf'O -'O"rr' o/ ..r111111/u..i 011d pr"'lre..M for thrdi.oopli,,..

l'Wll whrn '" rrrA Nrrd/v.u to ""Y· th•-'• ,,,narlu. apply "111/ Mtt4'r to tho.Mo

rort hutor1a11..i 111ho. 91/trd w11/1 u "'"" v1..i1011. rrducu1"-ror rtmt.'Tpr. to 11.'holf'

rpo</1 0.4, r 9. d1tl th• .. u 1111/or" w/10 ubo11t 1900 muu9urorrd tl1r .t.tudy of tlw

Baroqur, or 1l10A• w/10 ..iom,111/1at latn b1ou9l1 Ma11n1rurn to /19ht /nt~pr~to

l•V• hutory a/o11p '" IOIUlrtlfllW 111.t.tory ..

In I h1~ qu.1~1 autob10111 ,1ph11 .11 JU\ll fu .11 ion, wr •rn•r no only chc P-'t hos

ol the lonely ~xpl1>r<•r, 1ht dr>tolulf' 'lholar \f'archtng for ht> ·cahfo1n1a: but

al>o the consc1ou:.n1·•• of the h1•ro1r roll• of ~< holar5h1p 1uelf <h . bu1ld1ng on

tts formatovf achtevtmenh, h,1\ the cour dgl' to onwn1 11> 01<.n futort Mere or

le>> fX'nnolr\\ dher ht> flight lrom f:uropt•, K.iufn••nn had rkt·d our a hVlng

on gr.;nt\ from th1• •ulbn11h1 Commutre and th" Amf'n<an Ph1loM>phical Socr

t'ly, hnd1n111n th~ Averyl obr~ry 11nd numrrou, otht-r <l>llt'Ct1nM mo~gentt~I

m•tendl for h•• rxp~ndtng ~•uJw~ ol <'nhghtt'nmrnl and ren1uswnc..archi1ec

turr lit dlf'd forlornly on hb •rcon.i 1oumt>y to l.os Angeh>s 1n 19531n Oley·

rnn•. Wyoming. It W-•• wtth dldrh1 ll"ftsll' humility 1lut luutmann adm1tt~

1n h11 potthumou•ly pubhsh1•d book "I do not ~hi!'"' th.11 I have'°"~ th•

mom1·ntou• ptoblrm ol how'"" a1chllt"Ctur~I tr•n•lonll411on ol about 1Soo

1 amt' to P••s "' '

VON KAUF MANN BIS JOH NSON U NO ROSSI

n1" ( 11/Jlt', 0

Cl/u.o/utP• /onrt tr/ "If g/u.U /u:tl.t41' ,1.tu/ tltl' MJ'OtCllWll of junniolu2I

""'"' mta '""' oh.\.">111tr .&11opo4 1otlllf rhan n mopr"' mt1.or -'•'"9 o/ poru.

ram .... d1ro~ t ly f 111111 w~".' ,,,,. r1i,>rtn ntli ' '"'"""II futltw OJ mod ..... , 01rduta: nor C... ~£rm/ Kauf ma1111'.t. t • • r//1.,1t ..i.n•dy VQ11 lldoo r /Ju /A' c.om.u.i..r1 Tht <UM ond

ti••' .41•lirrr , f/lf' I""' mutht'ltWtical Altuf"'A, u, ,,, d•v.r ID th(' h#uru. oJ ti~ rr.i..t /('('fuu/ u·1~/1111nnon1.t. f 1u1r1 tit• llutt"I"•'. orui u• orf' tlt"r th.A.n'f!dunt..i.

Ph1hp lohn\on. Arrh11w turol RPt'ri>w, 1950•

• ,,., , ..

dtnl nor 1ntally ironic. that ... p~ nol tnu~ly an acr1 ·

In l'f'tn»pttl. 11 was!'<''"' • htld to paralltl the • "•utonomy wa•

Kaufmann·, ~l1tf ih•• l\rth11trlul"('< ) d v•dual was lo •pptal so • I th<' boul'lJl'OIS (modern in '

t•m•rg•ng ·autonomy n h C1 Ph1hp lohnson Som ... f h h h bourgeois arr 11•

"ronaty101ha1parad1gmo t " •8 f in London on th• way. d 1h ""chaps• bric stay

llm<' ~1wt<'n "~J8 an 1940, w1 ,.. ked 10 prestnl his work _, S n •9~' lie wa> as Kaufmann fl~ to tht Unllov 1a1es.' . h Cambndgt>

I A ch 1tr1ural ll1s1onans al I e 10 the newly ron<11tutt'd Sor1<ty o r i R II H tchcock

G Y with Henry· ussc t housrofPh1hpJohnson.whosrv1•11~10 rrman I ..

h1een1h century neo-c ass1c1sm. had alrrled him lo ihc growing inlrft'>I in e1g bl' h d Th•"" o( 1h1S talk. K1ufmann's hrsl Engh>h languag• ar11cle. wa.s pu is e

'"ih• next rt•'"" 1he /oun1ol of,,,. Am•ncan Soriery of Art H1AtonanA. . h c. an his1ory and theory. 11

Basc-d on lohn~on·~ own l.'ncoul'\tt"r wit crm wa> Kaufmann who provided the convcmcnt hnk bctwern the neoclass1c1sm

of Schinkel, adn1H••d by both National Sodalis1s and 1he then sympathc11c

b · d M rs as he h3d described lohn~on. and 1h• modcrn1>m o! Le Cor us1rr an 1 · lhc tr•1•r1ory of modern arch11ec1ure beginning wnh the Enlightenment and

culmin•llng 10 tr coibu<icr Johnson had rrad Kaufm3nn's 1933 book Von

I •doiu< b1A u Corh""'"'· and wa~ ea\lly •ble 10 reconcile Kaufmann's forma l

hnkag• of L..doux and le Corbu>1tr w11h his own P"'d1lrc11on for Schinkel and Mies - l'Orl Srh111k•I btA Mtu ><'<'mrd a natural corollary to K•ufmann's Von

Woux bl.41 • Corbiu,.ras wn 1ho imphtd exttns1on, "Von Schinkel. ~oux. Lt Corbusitr, und Mte•. b" Johnson• Bui of course. th• enttr.. architectural

Cll"('tr of Johnson. raring 10 kttp up wllh the s1yhs11c ~•1tge1s1. seemed 10 eel·

rbult tht ~rs1hc11c autonomy of 1hr d1sc1phne Wn11ng on his Glass Hous• '" NeW Canaan. Connecttcut, in the A~hit~

rurol H•v••wof 1950. fohnson sptt1hcally cntd Kaufmann's book 1n order to

hnk 1he gtomtt11c1l lorm> of Lt'doux 10 h,. own cubic design ArchiteC1ural

·•u1onomy.· by which fohnson mean1 variously 1he free play of archi1ec1ural

langua~• as <tyle. the mdrprndenLe of arch11cc1ure lrom society, and the per·

>on al fr~om 10 changt- s1yle •1 whm1, thence be Lame a wa1chword of his prac·

Iler lndtf'd 1ht entire u11rle was a neat and en1irely unabashed collage of

K"ufn\ann, I.I' Corbus1er, and Mir~ van der Rohe, 1n eight ••sy stages. First,

John)oO 1llu;tra1cs I.A.' Corbus1er') 1933 plan for a village farm In order to

dcscnbe 1he approach ro his own hou>c: ·inc foo1pa1h paltern belween the 1wo

housts I copied from 1he spiderweb like form., of Le Corbus1er, who delicately

runs his commun1ca11on> w11hou11egard fo1 1he axis of his buildings or seem·

mgly any kind of paucrn: Secondly. Mi•>> 1>lan lor llT, •9l9 i~ adduced for

the formal layout of rlw 1wo pavi lion• in New Ca naan. Thi s precedent is fol

lowed qutckly by Theo van Oot»burg's paln1ing (the origin of Johnson's "asym·

me1nc ;tiding recl•ngle>J. August Cho1sy's plan and perspective of 1he A the·

nian Acropolis, one already commandeered by Le Corbusler 10 illustrate 1he

dynam1< force of nun 1ec11hnear plans in Ver.a utte Archirett11re, Sthiokel's

Cas100 1n C.heoecke. and as a prtlude to M1es's glass-house idea. Ledoux's

spherical lfou;e of the Agricultural Guards, so much loved by Kaufmann and

ha ltd by Srdlmayr Dut now, m 1949-50 Johnson has cast aside any residual

•ff~11on (or N;n1onal Soc1ahsi culture. •nd prefers 10 follow the progresswe

path of modernism. froin !Adoux to ~ Corbus1er; thence to Kasimtr Malcv.

nrh and the Suprcma11s1 P•in1mg 1ha1 afforded the plan of the Glass House

wnh ii circle in a rtc11nglt.and hnally 10 Mies. who concludes the eigh1 points of lohnson's new arch1tee1urt w11h the famswonh Ho

use. 1947· 1950. Such a n••1 r. wr111ng of history.• reversal in a sen;e of 1he progressive movement

• describtd by th~ hi~1orians of Kaufmann's scncrauon. will be a lcttmotif of po>1mod~rn1~m from lhe 1960s on

.The parado~. nl cour;e, is that lohnson. often cn1ic1zed for "bet

M1e1 in the obviously bo~ hkt and non.universal lOUnter·horizontalr:;~::

of the Glass House was 1hrrc following Kaufrnann's P . nndplog of

almost 10 th~ leucr. l\eveahng his deeper afhnhics Whh G • ut°"3tny errn•n

c1Sm and Sctunkel. but d1sgul~1ng them by a s1d•1np 10 fr ~l•l&i-•ll<eanc!hbt

ahsi cla\sicls1 modernism, lohnson in fatt produces• t '11, fdt ranspai.n1 "Lo

box that ·proves· Kaufman n's thesis even more powerful I h "do-,,· • YI ani..c

(loo wt'dded 10 1h• horizontally open Dom Imo d1agrall'J COUid h •rb'''"

""'"''~ phshed. Perhaps this wa• •he fa1e of "late modernisms; to . to111. aut11011ze al

writ1en history rather 1han making 11 !or themselves." ~dy

RATIONALISM TO NEORATIO NALISM

Thirty yea rs afler 1hc comple1ion of 1he Glass House, the arch 't t ettAldo Ro

also working out of concepts he derived from Kaufmann's anal . Ssl, ys1s of tnligh

enment architcc1urc, saw In the concept of "autonomy• am 1· eans of sa\'j

archi1ec1ure from an increasingly disseminated fleld of aesiheu . ng c, social Utd

pQlit ical authorizn1 ions,~ nd 11 ndcrslood the word to refer to the . ' . . •nte.,,ahtruc.

1ure of arch11cc1urn l typologies and forms, as they formed Pa" f ._ O lnr S!((j.

men led structure of 1hc historical city.

For Rossi, however, as evinct'd by his reviews and critical wrltingt from the late 1950s on. "auiunomy" also represented tho purest heritage of Enlight· enmen1, and thence the modern movement, for an age that had 1.51 •

iu Its Sfoasr of roots"' the ec1rc11c1sm. and more 10 the point, in the adjustmenu ~uln.d

by the pos1-fascis1 pohucal struggles of the immediate postwar perfod.JnllUs

con1ex1 . Rossi's fasctnar ion w11h the geometric.al forms of la1e tnlighten:nnt

arch11ecture was more 1han a simple •ttemp1 to recuperate t~ .. SOUIU$olin

and modernist monimahsm. but was grounded In his reading ol Kaulmuo's

wr111ngs. not only of Von Lvdoux bu Le CorblUier, but also of his pcst·ni

books. Three R,1JO/uuon11ry Arch11KU: Boulltt1, Lvdoux, ~""' hss3l a..i the more general, po>thumou•ly published, Arthtrecture 111 the~of P

BoroqtJe and POAt·Baroque in £n9/and. lraly. and lranct1. (195')l. It wu 1htle

books that Rossi reviewed for CaJiabe//o, taking note of tlte earlier 1930!

essays. and found 1n them ~programmatic source for his ·n~· ra11onalism,

Joining Ledoux, 3nd llou ll~e (whose E:.uat ~ur l'archltfe!Urt ht tnnslated lJld

introduced in llaha11l no1only10 Le Corbusier, but equally 10 hisownmodtm·

is1 hero. Adolf Loos. The early criti cal writings of Rossi includeampleevldmct

of hts s1udy of £n llghtc11mcn1 theory by way of Kaufmann, thencetoboinns•

lated into research into spccifi,ally Ila II an examples (Milizla to Mtcnelllland

modernis1 parallels (Loos).

Thus for Rossi, the idea of an "autonomous architecture" was quitena1•·

rally joined to 1 hat of a "rauonal urchhec1ure." Thus, when in •97lAldoRoss•

as curator of the ln1erna11onal s~ction of the Milan 1'rie11nalc sought to ult•

ufy those architects who. in Manftcdo Tafuri's words espoused ao ·a~tonoinr

of language," he collec1ed them together under the bannerof•Rilianal Arthi·

•ecture." The premises of a "Neo· R.ationalism"that becamteYidentintbtBiin

nale represented the beliefs of many ltahan and French deiigners, from~ Rossi to Bernard Huet 3nd Leon Krier. that archilccrure was ill sor:t• 11tr.st

· ._ I nnrr ;ud4t•« a dtsc1pllnc of us own, that 11s "language" was derived uvlll 0 ·-' of Ill JISIW tures, and that 11s form and rule In the city was as much a ..,_uct . . h! ·~hert 1h1t1s.11>t

cal urban structure, as 11 was of socialorpollt ical concerns." • I. . 1· th• ... n•ratorollP"' po 111c1zed c 1mateof 1he 196os,soclety had been stenas • D " ·fl({UI'

and shelter. in rhe 1970s, perhaps 1n reauion to the eYident lossol•t<lli p,Js h · 1 • ··- fllt\ed bJ 1 ts imp 1ed, architecture asserted 111 own de1erm111i..... d ..... Jysis an . ,...

lsrch1cecture of the City, 2 kind or •s1ruc1ura\ism" 1n urbanana ' rfY!Vllal · a lent of tht ot1cs of architectural analys is thus emerged as the equ1• UIJ(li0$ iJ

Ru.s1an f'ormali~m. so-called "Car1oslan· linguistics, and decOnf setJI as · b ' ldinll wert hterary srudic~. "Autonomy" of the rext and of the ui

.....

CN

pa111lh I and comr h nwnuiry la<t·ls nt 1h1 ' i.·fu•dl ol )0( 10 p<>h11c<1I n<1rn11,e-.

th<' \"2 f\t'\ o r u1b<ln df'\<'lormrnr Jll;,nn1ng, and what N1kolau> l't''"nl'r h.td

alrrady 1df'n11 twd In 19ho •• 0 1h1• r~tllr n of hl\lo n cu>m •

Uubf'~1 (la mu.th. 1n h h p11lac1• to lh<' hrll h981I Frtnch tr<in~li11ton of

Von IM1>11• bu Ir ( ,,,,.., ... ,.,. ,.nttrlfd •1 rdou~ il•t't Mnt" with '" t'Chot'> C•f

lacAn·~ own a lt'ar u11• prrfar" t o th,. M~rqua. dt· Sild< \I a l'hi/(IJ.oph14 cloru 1,.

boudoir. " ll:ant au-c ~Dd<'." n .. tt·~ 1h1• pl'<ulr.ir fa,11n.111on of lhl' 1970s w11h

1 h~ 1J1 a of iunonnmh " ' d irt·• 1lv hn~t·d 10 !hf' t ont1nu11y of Kan11~n rhou3ht,

a•~ r n1 "hat It would I><' ro 1ourl•• Kant' an.11}''1\ of 1hf' origin\ of gl'Oml'try

In I hr ' hFl'll" ' ••/ '~"' ' Ri ., • .,,., With th.it .1u1nnnmou' srnmet I y nf Lt·doux. tn

otd<'t rn mo d1t•t1• on rht• ~pt« l~I "<iurnnomy· nf drch11t•uure, from I 1•dou1< to

I • tor""" '"' 10 Lnll• anJ lht·net• to thp .1utnnom11•' tlJtmt'd b\ rhe new Neo

rn 11on• l"m ol th1• la1t· "17'"'

Ar n•11 pr<Ji~•·t "'"'"' ttl r1 lwr1 rlti• l11.A10 1y of a•d•HI'< llJrl' l11•.i11otl'A hnu"'''"

o rt•11~.- d /orr11 c/ 1J,.. l1uro1y t>/ 4tylotA u11J 11 /<>m1 o/ 11Ytllutw11ol 0110/y.ALA

t• inch '"'""•:.I f'l o •11llil119 tl111r 1-om1•r1.<r:.1 tho ,.,.,,,, r 111ur1 nn/ o/ ul• "'"" "'""

tho roJ'°" 1•/ OllfilllOlffl/. lo) luA1 111•1 rhP pl11/t1A~f>lt1cu/ _.r11..i1, rakrA on lhl' l'Clll"'

11/ u '"q11/otft1q ro11n111 Tn rid• A I nlou:. u~r/1l\u•llu11> ••'Ct•yrrrr" tl1ot 111011h1

f<"< !111~ ' ' 11tJ•'"IAI011din9 dor~ not pr()(• .'ti ,.n/"ly J '''"' 111.rory or 1n othl"r U't>rd.t.

u1rh 1\11111. that 0111.rtd• r.Ara•1d1119 u4i1t Ir •""I" rlwly I'''"' 111~ 11..-. If 4A lrurory

u'lth """'""'lo rhr '"".I' 111 w/11d111 /104,.,..,11 acqult.d "'" part1ropat1 . obJK"

""'~11.111 ' " -' ' " "" c>r anot/1.., o/ ron1H1al1ry •

l o thrni.. ol I edot1• wilt. k:ant , ll•'""ch c nndud• 5, I• 1011•> "'""1 <On•lrtut~

au httN: 1u 11• a ' an objrr1, not onl) ol hnlor ). hur 111~0 ol rhnughr,and 1l1ought

t h.,I h con tr•1otld b) <"••nJ111ons •h~t ~'"a pnc•tl l or m~I. 1>1 in i.nn1ht1 <1 niv.

lru1·1 n • I tn th<l d1~nphnr ol Ort lute"< tur 1•

CONCI USION

I 111.A ,... 111•1 t 111 /11 Al 111111' r lw r r 111 1</1'11 o/ 1111 lrrAI 11r 11 o I /u 1111119091 · ••/ 11" 111 r. c "" •' .,. a Cl't1do111111"}11.i 111.r.1n11my l11u /11 • 11 tlr/J11t• ,J 11111rc ,,,,,,,run

1'1•11·1 ll 1 1,1•nm.1n, "Aulonomy llnd rlw A•·•nr t.ardr," 1q96 ''

In ., u1nh•1c•n1 ~ hono11n11 tht• , ,111•1•r ol Phthp Johnson, anti 1·n11tll'd "Auton

omy itlld ldt·nlollv· th<' thl'tnt' "'•" "''"" "ttrd, but now 1n a mor P d1.,rant, ht>

ton e al, '<'ns1, a' 0n1• rhJt ne.ttly 10111rJ tht• tr.IJ~tory of lohn•on'• W<•rk to a

n1·wly ,.,..,u.,rJ 1n1t·rf't 1n th••'·" tou> "mm.lt>rna.m> • ot tht 1940,, 50>. t1nd 60>.

.1nJ th1, on<t morr 10 a p1 ~otct1ll.lt 1on wtth rht• d1snpltr11• nl ar,h1tt'<lu1r11

A rr l"'l'ntt•d .It thc ll)<l8 Ctlnlt'(t•nt t'. !ht John~onian 5olll" Wi\S fundamrntlll)

r .. ltant on •,_111 onom) • J• 11 m.1d1• II> tr1 .. 1 .;ippt-drJnce tn 1he Glass Hou't' proJ

«1' and hu1lding ol 1948·9 Th•> dr\lnod "retum to d1snphnal) root'." one that

h n.oturally tolloi.1-J 'lmtlar 1all> 1n tht' humamur> and social ..c1ence~ tn 1hf.

"'~"'" ul th•• lnkr dr,uphnary •~pl'nfM'nt> 1nd cn11cal 1nnovat1ons of post·stru<

turah'm '•'<·m\ to Oln>M-r 1 numl>C'r of conct'm> 1n a gl'ntr.111on uncon\1nctd bv

thr pluralum of po't m<>J1•1n1'm A 1etum tO th~ fundamentals of archllet.1Ull'.

m th•· mod··m tr;oduion s•·nt·r .. uy t'fpr~'>tnttd by abs1n1u1on. m1n11naltsm, rhe

plw-ah'm <if post modt·rn1,m, i.'Ould count<'r ar<htrKtut'f's iii"'""' suspect

rl'l•111ons to rht ·~0< u·ty of the sf'l'Ctaclt•" and us consumerrst •ftl'rmath.

,.,., t'Vtdf'nttd by th~ 11o1pt"r> given at tht' ronfcrt>n( t', h1stonans, cn1tcs,

and ~rchtt<'<h ~srtt'd gPnt•rally that ·modt·rn1~m· 1n some form, whethrrclas

\rc "hreh· modt·rn1>m or thl' Ir\~ polt'm1Cal but morl' socially prest'nt modern

"'"of tht' 1mmed1~H· poMwar period (corpora II' modernr.m. domrsttc modern

10,m, >uburban modrrn1'rnl. or rven "1·ountr1 modrn11sm" of the k ind posed

by Kie' Irr. w•s drttdl"dly pr r fe r ~blP 10 poMmodNn1\m, and more rhan tht). to

the "deco11~tru1t 1 Vi\m· th.it, 1n the John .. on 111nerary, h ad suppl.lnted tt in the

1980s rhu> thr cunh•rt•ncc• propo~c·d to b.lt1sly ~ number of qu<"~tron s at one<"

U • ~ A T N ~y

J ohn~on w<i' cndo .... 1-d wtth an O\tr arching themf' that supernc1ally at least

madr h1\to11cdl dnd cnucal ,t·n\t of his othtrw"f' «lttttc "'ork: p<>)tmodern·

1\ m was dthnttl\·tly •bdndon ed . 1oaerher "'"h the relat1\lt1ng theone' that

•ttmtd 10 •urport 11 , <ind. 1n a n1<c turn of rntelltoetual agenda. a new po<t ·

tht ory, pragma11c era 1mphc11ly OJ>c'nrd up

llf'nt~th th1' oht'n df<ontr adrc tory trarKtoryof the idea of "auronomy"

tn arc h11~tu11•. "'e can rr;ac,. all tht' 1t·n>10n\ evoi..ed by the h1s1ory of the con·

c1·p1 of "t:nhtihtenml'nt." in tht twent it·th ctntury From thl' gt'neral assump·

11on of "progrt-s' ·and "rt ~•on" common to thf' Third Republic and 11s liberal

1nu·1prt·ta11on' ol 1hr Revolution, to tht- c.,nte•ted domain of social democracy

aftl'r rht ~"''Wm Id War, to the defcn\rve pro moder111s1 posturt' of thr rdeal ·

1\1 avant gardt and 1111'<1J!ul~r f1ont .ilht·s 1n 1he 1930>. tO the despairing and

n1·g•ti.r t rn1qu~ of I nh11hrrnmt·nt Jrveloped by Adorno dnd Hork he1ml'r 1n

e-tli•. to 1lw rf'.t5H'lllon of democrauc v.AIUt'> 1n th~ po~t War Frankfutr School

Jgain•t rht pe1~ln11sm ot a withdrawn and po>th1'tortcal con~erv<i1 1sm, and

tht·nc•• 10 thr r~n,.,.al of •torm· 1111d "itru<tu~· '' d rt'nrwal taclll for .i1rch1

ll'<rur .. 1n th• 19701. ~nd hn.-1lly 10th<' q11.1>l1lo~1alg1c rtv1val of rhe 1d~a of

autonomy tt•elf 1n rhf' 19<Jo1. all 11\11 lllt'St• ro rht' po"'tr of Kant'~ •dt'a that,

hoth formal and pol111cal, unpllt's ar on< f' lrt't-.iom and ordt'r. colle< llVt rrawn

.and rxprt"5sed 1nd1Y1d11<1hty

-· 2& I VIOL £R

NOTES

1 C-1 G•eenbefg •Mooefn·st Pa,n11ng.· Tiit Colloct.O

Essors fftd C11lte1sm e-d John O'Br'6n In• volume$. \lolume" !Cl'ucogo Ch.cOQO Un1versoty Press 19931. p.8S.

2 ~ fo'lowtng 01 t•cle 1.s en e"POl\SIOn ~ arQuments made

fo•t "'my Cl.'Ju~N1rl>ola• LtdO<J1 Atch•l(!Ctutt and

Soc•ll rt/Ofm al Ill<> tnd of th(>Anc.en Rt9•'"" (Cam IYodg<!, M.O Ml 1 Presa. 1989) ond del'f\IOped onto lwo art• cies, "Resea1e:n1ng RetfOlutionary Arcti1tecturo.· Journal Of Arch•l«lurat Educa/10n, 1w9,,., (1991), '.!0&-?11 and

•from l.edou• IO Le Corbus1er 10 Johnson. to ·Pro.

91H••ve Arc1>1/ttt11rt. Moy ( 1991) Since tnen. lhe con· nections between Jot\nson and Ka~lmann have been elabor111ed br Detlef Mortens 1n ·system and Freedom Soglried G ecllon Emil Ka utmam and the Cons101u1ion ol Archlle<t•rel Modormty." 1n R E Somol. ed Avian

omy and ldtolOgy Po$1f1on111g • n Av•l>I Gat~ m

~""' !NewYor~ Monl1Cel1t Pres$ 1997). pp ?12-23L My tf"ltetest 1f"I Emtt KavfmaM 'A'~ 1n•t1ated

by COion Rowt at CatnbtodQe 1n l1'e Fall of 1959, •• in

my nr~t woek o1 dtct11ttet¥Jrll stud) at m·, f'ir$t alkl ter

''ffl"O lut0f1al et h•~ quasi moottl"llst apertment °"'fen

Cau-•v ono trorn t"- depthS oi ti<> Eomes °"9c:tor • C.,.,d. allrulllly s""ngong rouno to tace me "- Mndeo

me a c<io; ol the te<en:ly pub< """'° Arch1ttclur~ tn I~

A~ o.'Rt-,son w·th tht QUHI""' "Well and"'"'' <lriYo» mellr oi concatonotoonr Supported by this""'"'''°" f was able to ma•e the relal.ons bet- Kaufmann·s rnc:>ck"ft'\lsm a"'CI h.s own tne ~t m.a1te-r of my 'its1

d1SCll!'So0!\ Wtth Ph/fop Jonnson n 196' The longe< teom con58QUeOCes of Ro-.. •·s fir51 QUMl>on are mar~ed .n

my lrle-looiQ 1nl«esl 1n ledou• and le Corbus4t Th s par IJC\Jla' ei.say gre-N out ot th•t"t 1nv1ta t.ons to ptesen;

a paper at the conference ·1 he last Thinos Before the

Last: "'"""''ed by the PhD s tudents '"the Scnoot ot

Archllecture" Columb11 Umvercity; to •••pood toa paper by Barbara Jolmsor• at a conference oroamiecf <:If

T JCfar k at Berkeley llOd the Sen Franc.sco ~O"" under the t1lle 'What was ~nism and Why Won't •I Go Away: and to p1e6'lnl a paper al t lleconferance 1n Paris organmld by ANY Maga11ne 1n 1999. A more develaped

""rsion ol !his papor was read at a ~tty conference on arcmtectural h<etory and art history 1n !he SP'•no ot 2CXX>. and at a symposium on the 'Cuflu<e o! OtSonchantrnent" hOosted by the Canter lor MOdern and Corltemporary Stud ies uo.". 2001 f ha.e b@nefilted from the resp00se-. con· ""'$Alion5 and debates at all !hose conferenc;es

3 The best con1&mpouwy summary ol KllufNIAm's controo.noon rs by Oetlef Mertens. ·System 4nd FreedOm S9lrred ~. Em.I K9<1frmnn and !he Cono1rtut•on

ol A1ch1lectural MOCll<n•tr: 1n RE Somo!. td Mon omy • t>d /dfo/O(/y F'o&J/IOfl1nQ -.,Avant·G11dr r11 ~..:a

(New York Monl~lr Pre$$. 19117). pp 212 231. F« a brief summary ot Kau1mtM's I ft - "'~ Scnai>o<o.

-Obituary ol Emil KaufmeM • ~ol Art ~NI

Winter (1116o1). 14' For the contenic>orary &56K$lll0nl of Kauftn11nn, MM ~oes Teyuot ·Neoclassic al>CI 'AulonomouJ' Arch1leciure: lhe Fortn11~smol EmJ Kaufmam

1eQ1. 11153; 1n D"'"'" ~phy11os, ed .• 'On lhe Meth odolOgy oi Arcnrtecturat H•slOl"y. • Arct11tectur11 D10est

51 (1!181), pp.2.t-29, Gilbert Erouart. "S1tuat1on cf Em.I Kaulma1>: '"Emil t<euftTWV\. T10ts arch1tec11 rNl)lu

l 1011tHtS: Bou/M, L«Jou•, ~. ed Gilbert Erouarl and Gtorge& TeyYOt tPM1$, 1978). l)p.$-11. See aloo, Monoque Moiser. ·s1111att0n d'Em1f K : ~ Ledo<Jx •Le Coroos1« OrogtnH ~ /'1tch1tectute mo<J.rnt , l1>t r0d.1C· 1i0n. J.l Avrtf, Arc .. t·Str1Llns: Edition Foundation C.N t..odou" 1967. 84--89: Daniel Rabteau, "Crotique d'Emrt

Ka.rtmann. Trois art/> IKtes r...,iut ono•res.. Bull!t1n

Monumenttl. •979 ~I

' EmilKaulmaM.VcnledourbrSLeCortusltr Ursp<cng lln4 Enlwtekl~ der Av-" Arcl>d~lur (Vienna and

Le1pzo0 Rolf Pa$$e<. •933)

s For responses 10 Kaufmann on the 1930s. -Me~ Sctlal>iro. "The New Viennese School." TrwArt 8111/eln

xvn. t936 258-256: Ectuarco PeflSCO. Scr1tt' c11t ·c1 e polemic•. ed. Rossa and Ballo (Milan), p 210. Hans Sedl· moyr. Ver/us! der Mille- D<e brldtnde AuMI rJts 19 UIKI 20. Jahthunderls aid Symptom uMI St mbol tk< l 1al (Ollo

Mueller Verlag Salzburg. 19'8). TransJated b1Bt1an Bal tershaw in Ari as C1,.,s Int LO>I C•nlrt (loncb'i Hollis

and Caner. 1961)

6 Allan Braham. Trw Arc,.ltclut• of It~ French Enlighltn men/ (Berkeley· l)n.-si•y ol Cal1forr'la Pre>$. •9111). p.7. Oa•od Wal~"'- TrwR,seof .Arcluttr:l1111t H.story tChiuo:> u ......... 11 of O>ougo Press 19al) P 1ao

7 C"'1st0pher S Wooded Tf'W~,,.,,,,.$:hoo/~a*1 Pol /Jr:siMAtl H4!oncal/Ul/IO<Jlll t~ 1930s (New York

ZO~E Bool'.s. 20XI! P~

8 Me/e' Scha;>,a. C4> c:.t.. ilt'od Y/a_1er ~ ... Ots PI S·

S411"" Wer«. ed Ro.!loedena""' Gesam-nene Schr1ften. Vt>' S (191!2) 7rarsaled '-8'd E land. Ka...n t.lclaugll·

lot> as TMArcaoesProier:I 1~•· .,. 'iat•ard Uni

'9fS.ly Press. 1999)

9 Kaufnvm T1Vtt-Jl.onar1 Arc/l<ftr:IS. Boultt. Udoux •nd Ltq.Jtu 111 Tt1"5«1~ of l~Amet.can

pr,,,,,.,oph1Cal Soot:1'Vo".ft>e li2 Pa.13 (Cktooer. 1962)

pp431-W

10 IU!ufmann kr:Jo,/tr:tllfe 111 tM Agou( Rascn &toqut

•nd Posr·&roquein ft>gl•nd. ll•ly •nd fr1nc. (Com bridge MA Har. ard Ur\l..ers.ty Prtss 1951>)

11 See Franz Schulze, Ph•l'P JoMson Lil• 1nd Wor~ (New Yor• Knopl.1990Jpp.157~ 1~216

12 Aldo Rosoi. Sc11tr1 S£elt1 sul'•rcrttlluri * l.'J c11t1.

195&·1972, ed Rosaftlo Bon-=alz• (Moun <:Lu•. 1975). pp62-71 ("Em•! Kaufmann e rarchltenura detrlflumomsmo; C1ssabe~1 contmu•I" 221 (1968))

Kaufmann's influence is S@<'fl also on Rossi's • .11tro

duzione a Boo!~· (l!l67)T~ ontroducbon to Roossi s

trans1.alJOn ol Bot.ol ee'sAtt'hJtr:turt E~i 5"'/'111

(SClotti scelt1. pp.346-J&SJ and the art!Cle 'l·ara..ten~ra de rn1urruno5"'Q.' (1973)(Sct1111 Kell• p;>.450-418)

13 R E. Somol. ed . Autonomy Ind kJ«Nov1

14 Emil Kaufmar.n. ~ Atmtectl turtlleone Oef FranlO

Sliehen Ktass.i< utd der ~S'11$mUs; ~lor•um fut

!Ci.Jnsh<,-ssensd' ... 1. tl.\ (1!!24J. "fl 197-237 Thi$ acc~t ol 'neocl• Ute•sm" W1Se;abora1ac1 in lhere-.-1111ictt

'Ktassiz<S""" ai.1~ unc1 a ls tpoChe. • Knt1un. &ttC11tt 11J1Ku>si(lnClJIClitl.U-IJ1er1lV'1'9331. PP. ~1-214• which conslde-1d re • .,,...., concepts ol 'llla.s· Sil~- from Rieg• Sctwnarso ... Paul Zucker. Fran!<~ BronQ.mary,. G'9dlon l5""lborol<Y I.ltd lom.n/ISCltef

Klas.st11sm1;s , 1922~ W~he"' ""1de<, encl Wcllfgo1ng Her·

rmann l~setion Baul<...-.sl des 19 und 20 JllVtlun. derts. 1932-:DJJ See George T!y$$0l ~ assic and Autonomous A!chdecture: ~26.

15 Gecroe lerssot. 'Neocl&$$ic arct Autonomous

Arc:llltectu•e:ll!l-2!>-26 Tey5$0I hu el!ect W!'r analyzed tne.debates O\'ef It.is sly11s1., and i>erlOdic a1t:n1>to00. noting S'llfrieo G1ed!on·s 19'/2 thesis C!1111Utd Spat. baroc~ und iomant•"Cner Klau rr•sm"' "lete Berociue

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

77

Neoclas .. crsm• and ·R.,.,.,..,nt« ~=icisll\• "illcti tool off directly from R1e~rs own alt~ to ra..se i,.. chare<:lonzat on of arotner neoiected period. tllei of111e Spatrom·sche.

ffledrlCh Nietzsche. H11tT1an. All TooHumonA.$oo4 fl Ot. Fte• Sp1"1s. T1ans. R J Hofflnl)dale. lntroducticm by R'icn. ard Scl>acht (Cambndije: Cambridge Uni,,.rslty Pr-1996). p 101 (Menschltc~. Aflzumenschlic.•es. 1e711i

Ka.Jmann. "01e Architeklurtha0t1e: pm, TrtR&lation Georges Teyssot. 'Neoctass1c an~ 'Aulonomo..s• A.rc/tt. tectJre: p 24. s lightly altered.

Em~ Kaufmann. Von Lerlcu• b,. Le Corbus,.1. P.45. s. also ·01e sladt des Arch1te~t•n Ledoux; p, 146: 'Stein .,1 wete'' S1P.1ri:

After 19'25. save for o slim book on the architecture at the city ol Baden (Die Kunsl det Stadt &rkn Menna: Osterreichisc:her Bundesve<lag. 1925)) K .. ,rmam con. centrated his re-rch on II\! arc:Med• of the lllte atgh.

tetr'Ch eentuf'(. especially l - He cocitributacl the anuvon Ledoux to th<!Thlome-Bedcer~ and an art1c~ on the German pa111ler. Fel<ltn>nd

Georg Wtlmtleller Ti. concept ol eu1ono:nws aretli.

tec:ture ~-.was ll'"""''"' none cl these early

stud es. ..,._.perhaps bf implicatic:n aswhEn, n i929. Kadmann characten ied Ledoux's arc:hi:ec

tuf'lt. wtl~ its geometneal pl1y of rrasses. as "111tf· Baroq~: (Emil Kaufmann. "Arcil~eldoosr:neEntwutft ous der l ert der franzoslChen R.....tution: ZeiUclwiU tw boldende Kunst. LXll 1~. p.45.J

Ern11 Ka.Jmaon. ·c N. Ledoux unc:erderkl<lsslztstisc:f>e Kircltenbeu." K11chenk11nst. Ill (1931 ~ p.62.

Ibid .. p 6?.

Emil Kaulmenn, "01e sladt de• Arch·teklen ltdouie Zur ~rkoontnis dor AJlonomen Archital<tur,' Kunslw/$$¥1·

srhafthcha F0tschur>van, 11, Bertin (19J:lt. p.131--Hll. ••

Ibid . p . 133

Ibid .. p 138.

Ibid., p. l.f.!.

ledcklx. L'ArchrltCIUll. p.185. p.110.

KauttnaM does not provide a note to-this sour~ unlll the pubf1Cation of his Three Revoiutlon11yArcllledis.

&..II~. Ledot.Jx. Leq.-

28 li)ld .. p 1'6.

29 ledoJ>, L 'Archtleclvre. p. 234.

30 !Old., pp. I 52-3.

31 Kaufmarn. ·oie Sledl." p.153 Transtalion I~ ... Tty&SOI. 'Neoclassic 8l1d AutonomousArch:~· ~ • ..

S2 KaulmaM, \'on ledocublsLtCoreusier•p..3.All

lulure relertnc:es to thra wor11 ¥rllf be ih !ht text itl t1>t

form {Vl,C ). .

3S Kaufmann vras di...ct 1n his errhcl&m t:J hlsl°*'5~ -:~ iool<ed only 1o ScNnket ll!ld Gennan.Nf!OGI~ · ·

....,sta· · ·The 'Pruiiien Slyte· 1s n0more tllan the~ .• . t on of French Revolu!ioo&rY arcfl.t~tua"' Klllff~' • f,' .: :., lobn Ledoux bis Le (OflxJ&/tr. p.SO. · ,If " .

34 Central 10 Kaufmann's 111'81ysis ol LOdoUl ..U (~ Ilse tt\31 le<lel l'116{/1$~/J~.T/is wtJdl. . { ' .

,

•

.

. .

'

•

,

•ts •16 foho paoes of te•t 1r.o 125 •nora..ed Platas o1

leGoux's bu•il •nd tdeel P"'iects. conshtuted tile moin

evidenc• '°' wnat wos. 1n the 1~ known of Ledoux,

indeed. de•1>1te subsequent d1~coYeries ol 0<1g1nel draw·

ongs '"' s1>ec1f1c Pl'01ect s. nnd archival veriflcat1on of the dates Of t'er111n comm1s.s1ons. l 'Arc;h1ttcture. w1\h

an •ts emph1bohc a•cesses •nd erchltecturat hubris shll remains central to any 1nlororet~l1on ot Ledooll. The

two central p0st ·Knufrnann studies o' ledou• remain. Michel Gallet. Ctoudlt Nicolas Ltdwt. 1736 1806 (Paris:

Picard. 1!lfl5) and Anthony Vidler. Cl1ude·N•colas Ledou;, Arch•1e<:ture and Social f/fform •I Ille End of the Ancien Rer;r.mc (C8mbrod(IQ, MA · 1.01 Press. f989)

35 Kaufmann•• liere Quohno F Gundoll on Schleoel's 0

luc:1nc1e" •an 1mJ)Ortance wot"8u to a hosl0<1C11l len· den<;y; the nrst t>l)fOSSIOO OI the protound demand tor an autonomy of Hl\Su&l pleesu,es· 1n '"tho series of ph1I· osophocel petotlonS •n laVO< ol the 1nd<)oendenco of the sttengllu and 1ns11ncts of human neturt, 1 stries wtuch "openod woth Kant's alflrmahori ol th4 ovtonomy of morals· {vuc 36)

:is Hannes Me-ier. "le realld<t<l So"61tc1 lot a1auotectos: Alou•IKIUt•. n.9 (1;.t?). 1n Enghsn 1n r.s>. Ml~ri~. n 3

119'2). Reo11n1o<1 "' Hennes Meyer. Scr1111 111'11 11Ml?

Arr h •lfllllfl O '"OlullOM. td Francesco Oet Co. Plldua. Mo1s1ho (IOOD). pp 21• 2tS

37 T-w A<lo<no. K1nt'1 "Crt\1<111e ol Pule Ree-: ed Rolf Ttedemann Trans Rodney loVlngstona (Stanlord

Stanford University Press. 2001). pp6'4-&>

38 Ernst Cass1rn1. ·oas Problem Jean JacQ\ll't Rousseau;

Arc/1" fut Gescluc/\le dt< Phrlosoplue. ~LI ( 193?).

177- 213.•79 S13 1he1n1et1w1ned "•stories of Koulmann

and Cas.11e1 WOft 1Q11n to ontttMC\ with the f)Ublt

cat•on much tat~r ot the Enollsh od1tion of Casslrora

Philosophy o/ tne tnl•Ohtfllmont, and Koufmonn'1 oost· homouely Published A1c1>1ttcl1ire 111111eAge o/ fl11son (1006)

30 Kaufmonn, "010 Stadt." f>. 41

40 Lodou•. L 'Archilocturt. pp.66. QI. 136• "Le aent1ment

appteti4 <l'un plen HI & 1'8bri de loute dom1netoon, II

6mane cw •UJCI. ol doll acUlpter A fa naluto des l1ov• at des beso1n1; (e6) ·rou1 d'111l est 111ut1le, tt di• plus.

nu1•1l>lt. ouand 11 deYIM los •urfaces pat dlll additions me1®1nes ou men10'l(lrtl • (Qt) "ToutN Jes l0tm1 Que

l'on dktrt dun,..,, trait de cornPAJ .eont avou .. s par'

gott la cercle le <arr&. VOtlA tea tettres alpl\ab4\t<1utS Que 111 avtevrs emplolent dens Ml te>ture dos me1lltout1

ouvraoe• • ( t36)

• 1 R!Chatd J Neut ta. W~ 1>1111 Amet1A11(19'.l1). pp.82, ell

42 Pltanooasums 101w1ve bHn the common d1-of both Sedlmayr end Kaufmann Sedlmayr coricludes his

study ol the loss of cent.,. on sullen resentrn111t that

hl6 formulation ol Kaulmom's Ledo\" ned nal bHtl rece<ved as auth0t1tatwe "Whoeve< upholds the doc· tune of "the loot center" can be e1<ta1n from the outAt

to perce<.e the consequence• ol Ooono so petsonallv.

He will h<tve against him not only th<a• people whO

reioct "'hal is new o.cause 1t 11 u""cc:ustOtnltd. l>vl llr.o thOsa .,hO only prOl)llgate what 11 new becaiae 11

is •contemporary; ·modem: and therefore 1nlerost1ng•

"worsh•PJ>e'• of the past and f uturist6 united ageinst him.• KoulmeM's footnotes 1n Architecture m lheAott

of RusM are no IGh bitter: "Hana Sedlmayr. Vef/u$I

tier Mille (Selzburg. 1948). p. 98 Havino mysell pointed

out the e•tre0tdinary 11g1111lcance ol tile r..-olut1onety

designs and 11'\te<Pl'tte<I them as svmJ)loms of theJ PMood (Von Ltdoux. p. t 1. 25. etc.). 1 corlalnly do net underrate what Sedlmoyr 1enns hntiscn. For men How ever. the large number o1 ong1nel an<1 yet ·normal" 1nventt0ns reveals th•t thft compla• perood with all Its OKC>lt men! was sound enough to bring obOUt a true ro0enere

ttOn of ar<:h1tectu1e In \he Epilogue to"''~ S.dl· meyr points out thot my roooscovery of ledou• beeome

the starting point of hos lnYGStigatlon Into the lormatlve forcesol our ere. Though he does not fuMy ag1~ with my onlerl)<etatoon. he nonetheless adopts mo•t of my cone~\• and observation•. esPG<;oally thosa of lhe new

dtcentrahzet!Of\ 1n compos1tlOl"I • .. the ebol•ttOn of tht

old aesthetiC canons ..• the increasong host1l1ly to decor a· hon .. . lhe new "mob1loty0 of furniture ... the oltere<l 1tta

toonsh1p betwe<l<l st1uctu•e and environment . the odtat of equably on architecture .. the triumph of efementery

geometry ... the parallel j)henomena"' the o••Qhoc 1111•. f)aft•cularty the fashton ot the sJhouettt the end of the &toque anlht000m0fl>h1smsand the new athtudl towards matler . the coming uP fl new erch•tottutel

la•ils . the new sense of cornmodtOUsnass tht J)l'tsenta\IOO of new f0tms tong belorw new rnattrtals f~ttng tllern -•found the conhnuoty of the dt"91op ment afte< 1800 the slruogte cl antagonislic: llrtden cles 1n the runeteen\h centU<y tht -•ranee of a new structural O'dtr behind tht masfls of the va11ous

•tytes .. end the tyoocahy nineteanth·eentury thouQh1 that perleci solutions of the past should be th4 atan derds tor all the tvturt • Archit«:lvt~ m IN A~o/ RHSOI), Nole >GI. p.2e6. A few.,...,. terher he WIS

no '8s5 narYOtJS 10 r•v1tw•"O lhe bOOk by Mertel Ravel and J -Ch. Moreu•. Ctau~·Nteolts Ltldou• (Pa11a 10ol5).

whntt h• "'"'mar1te& his ·se.~ chlirae of °'90•&,iem· 1n a long note Art 8ullttm •••.no •. 19'8, ~t. note 3. p.289 KaulmeM was no leM chlrllable to Htl8f'I RO$or>eu who had wrttten on lequeu and Boull611 follow

it10 up the leada l)t'l>llodad by the \1111nnO>t 1cholar

43 M3• O.olak. TIHI Hrstory of A't as flHI H1s,0ty o/ ldffs.

l ranJ. John Hardy (London' Routl\Klt,jt and Keoon Poul.

1984). o...,;.k'5l(unsll}*S1:.h1Chlf1/s G••lllHQeSCh•Chlt

hed been published posthumou11y by h1astu<kints

{Mun•ch: R. Piper and Co. 111'2•)

.. Kaufmann. "C.N ledou•; J04Jrn1/0f t,..A,,..,ic•n S«1 etyo/ A1ch.teclu,,1 Histor.ans. July ( 11143). p t3 Future

references .n the te.i (JS•H)

4S Kaulmam. "Nita G v.1:>11.n '0e5Pftt en Su~.reviewed by E Kaufmann. Art Bvtlttm XXVIM (19'6). P 283

46 Ibid .. p.263.

47 E111t1 Kallf mann. Atrhtttctur• m Ille l\ge al itffson

8Mt»Je A/Id Posl./W<>QW m England. Italy, and l"nc• (Carnbtdge: Harvard Uno>etslty Pru$. 11156~ I~

L~ to"'""' that Kll\lfmann on his fir it vrs1t to Lot AnQtles had the satistKtoi ol ft11a1ly -no \he work

ol Rw:tiard Neutra as •t had -gtd in the conct.nion

o1 Von L«Jtxu IM Le Corbu51#1 as tht ulhrnate dtltne

lion for rnodernl1tn: the Ulaj)la ol a modet'n•ll SOC:•al demOCfa1icC.1Uorru. I could tY9rl 1meone the meeting

of the two\/lennese 1n Sliver laf<•. Clft&1nt1 the coP)' o1 l'on trtdOUIC tn tne UClA lrbtary. bears Kallfrnann'a own

cotehll signature ., c:tonated by the •vi hor.

44 Phihp .klhnson. "House al Ntw Canean. Connecrfcut•

A1c/lll.CIU1V Rl'l!iew, C VIII, e.45. (Sept. t!le()), 1~ l!lll.

411 By contrast as Mertens has noted. Kaufmann s •auton

omy." atreadr In 1he t~ was odo!>led wnolriatle oY

M t NING AIJ10N0ltitt N

lht architect ludwlO Holbef .. 1rner. fellow,,.., w1\h Mies

van der Rohe on Ch4c1go. as he asMt1ed lhe\angulge ol the rnodernost avant-garde. In his book Cont~"¥>0'•'1 Arrhitectu,. ot t!IG<. H•I-"'* lO'ned together Rus· stan Construct.v1sm. Dutch Neoplast icisrn and Corll>sl91l ?urtsn1 undlt the heading •autonomous archiecture. • as 11 autonomy ,.presented a kond of hrQUISllC t.-n

50 ?eter 0 E•stnman. "Aulonomy and t"" Avant.Garde: the N11eau1ty ol an Architectural Avant-Gatde In Ameriee."

1n R.E Somol. td. Autonomy Ind ldfO/ogy. p.73.

51 RE. Somo! e<l . Autonomy•ndl~.p.73.

• •

•

fl I I . ,

' . ·- . ~.---------

uasi-Autonomy

in Architecture:

The Search

•• -

r L:

'

llttu11«nll> .on""'"' ari~c around >urh 1s,ue5 a• thue ran arch1to<1urr

bl' otlh'r th•n ,, mrrc >CIVJnt "' 1·omme1r1allcap1rnh~\/1deolog1cal lorceV.

f~< h '°" lt'I\ st·t ~ 1l1l' Jrr h 1tfC tu·•• 1\ dl')('I ""~1 ).) nn1 autononlOUS product1or

lh< onlv "'~Y 10 '"lid >u~nw1>ion in thr niatcn•I cond1110ns of oni~ 11ir1>

llo .. «•n .11 locrn•I:) Jr1•~n 1·nt<1pn"' hkr "rchttrcture •ddr••S S0<1a\1ssurs

r.->pon.1bly (<or"' 11!1'

In 1h1· l,1ll al 1991. I w.1' 1nv11cd ro 101n who1 wa\ domtn•nlly a b1ulry

colloqu1Jm .1111.11 v.1rd\ Gradu•lt' S• hool of Oesign. Th1••ven1 seemed robe an

i1trr1p1 ro •ut I •u•. Jnd ptrh:ip> 111 r•>Olve, com rcu "R pos111ons w11hin th• pod·

>gogy ol th<' \lhool (11d not .ln emuient 1n1ernat1onal school of • rthueaurr

n<'«I to •Oii< ~"• Jn1 rerres•nt .1se4f a, concernedw11h 1h< mos1 lund•m•nt•I

lt'\t'lsof 1hd1.c1plint' Should not 1he ~hool represent tu its l1udentsane1h1

cat dri.c 10 adJress the >0<'1al 1s,ues that confound rhc smJller and greatrr

~nv11onmtnl\ m which u finds 11\clfl

Al thllt point. 11 was ''"Y to assen 1ha1 social commitment in arrhi•ec·

tur• could no1 be found 1hrough .1 vu:gar Manusm 1hat rrtah arclu1rcturt"

a mer. epiphenomenon fully urcum!teribed by 11s 1nfra uructural bas• Mor

ould II ~ in .1ny <>ther form ot \Ott•I determ1nisn1 that dccoun1s for arch•

tectur• wholly by forces external 10 11. Still more implaus1 hlc was an archirrc

lural dEterm1n1>m 1n which the physical environment causes social bchaY•OI

. a""" How could On< •VOid de1erm1n1sm w11hou1 finding onc>elf suppornng

of <irct.11Kturt ~s autor.omou• - .. 11hou1, 1hat 1s, err bracing archn•tturt•~ h b . " " ·l Th• morn••S a gam~. o"""'' edu11ful or challt>ng1ng 1he game m1g,,t""

d d . b twetn soc iii •n e 1ncondu>1vcly, wtrh a general an xiety about choo>rng • d d rs of auto• an 1suplinary rcspons1b1h1y - rhe latter cxe01pl1hed by concep

omy 1n arch1te• ture · mort eongf'

The ..i11ors ol this 1ssu.- of Prr:•....na be02n from a posiuon d ....,,.... .. o- cUS ,,. naal '0 me. •~king to examine ·archnec1ure's location bt't,..e<n autonom

·' eprestfll tn ciplinf'and cultural produet" Th• poles of dutonomy and pruuuet ar • •

their forn1ul•t1on and rnvne rhe dnx,.11es already n.~Qi f .

•

STANFORD ANDERSON

Indeed, the edttors anticipated the v1ab1hry of an mrerrnNhare position when

they referenced my an1cle "Cr111cal Convcnllonahsm in Archttecture· that

opened the firs t issue of A.u.1mbla91 In t986 1 One word from that essay,

·quasi-autonomy." el1c11:. the pos111on to which I shall retum here.'

In a polemical world, the exploration of pos1uons away from the poles ts

oflen not welcome. Refu:.1ng to man the batrlements at either pole appears. I

suppose. wimpy. Out our ed11ors have ri•ked entering such a discourse In the

ponfoho section of tlH• iournal. K. Michael Hays recalls a time of polariullon,

around 1970, where he 1>ercelved a w1dospread concern with the instrumental·

1iation ot arch 1tcc1ure, a concern that In turn chcitcd a significant reaction in

tho search for an autonomous architecture. Jn an aside. Hays noted that the

editors, and even he, wnuld not remember that time With that prod. let me retu rn to an unpubhsh~d essay that I prc~cnted at the Archhectural Assoc1a

11on in London and og.1in nt the ACSA Cranbrook mee11ngs of 1966.

"Problem-Solving and Problem Worrying" 1s a period p•e<:• ro the extent

that the problem solvina d1 s1.usston 11Jusiraros 1he temper of the t1me and

the lnstrumentohzotlon to which ltays refers. That overt content of the essay

s its recognizably 1n a more gcncril s~nse of the malaise of archttecture in

the 1960s. The seeming triumph ol a1Ch11ec1ural Modernism 1n the pos1-war

years had by th•n degrnerated to the roorless. decorattve sryhsm of archt·

tects hke Ph1hp Johnson. Edward Durell Stone. and M1 noni Yamasaki. Those

archnttts and thcore11c1ans who proposed problem-solving methods m•y ur

m;oy llUt ha~ ltoubl~d with t.rluusm or tho$ degenerauve Modern ...... but

their search lor a reliable. cvrn ..,1en11hc. mNhod certainly aa1ned anentton

through their amb111on for an archtteC1ure that stemmed from a fundamental

process based on empirical 1nformatton.

My alterna11ve of "problem-worrying" sought an alternative path, one

that was in 'ymparhy with the rtcl proc1ttcs of form and design exemplified in

the only Amerir~n arch11ccturdl work of that moment that appeared to deserve

cn11cal ;iccJa1m - the work of Louis I. Kdhn. Kahn was as strong in rhetorical

persuasion a• in archltectur~. bu t he w•s not one to polari'te arguments or his

I\' f'J1N1~ l•\• 1QNC,•'AY I 1·

dtSctphne He r•~ms a model for the value of 1nquirybetwoen the poles.

So much for the sen1n11: of the 1966 essay' In Its crittque of problem·solv·

1ng, JI already engaged the early devtlopments 1n computation and design, at

least som• StrlltnS of which 'ltll seek to instrumentalit e our discipline. In any

case, the es:.ay d""'ls on the "between• rh•me that has been a con>tant in my

thought - and the reason lor my pan1ctpdt1on tn P1!rApecta33. Since tins h istori·

cal piece Is unpublished. and serves both as witntss 10 a moment and grounds

for a conttnumg position, we includ• the e1say here in abbrevrntcd form .

PROBLEM-SOLVING ANO PROBLEM· WORRY ING ( 1966)'

T~ not ion of problem solving. 11sriec1ally as architects have encoun

tered 11. is 1mbeddcd 1n a desire for 1ust1f1cat1on. In s tronger ins ta nces.

there may be a belief thal problem-solving routines will lead to 1ust1

liable results in weaker ins1ance!> thcro may he the belief that one's

act1v1ty can be 1..ist1f1ed mt:rely through using powerful. 1f m1sappropri · ated. techniques

It s 1mperat1ve that we do nol warp human well being 1ust for the

sake of explc1t1ng a technique e~pecially when the technique rs a pow

erful one. As I shall argue 1n m0<e detail, the concepts of pioblern solv·

rng t!lat 1n:erest architects involve ~lher proble11~ of dl.h .. v1ng deflnile

goa SOI problem~ o! :.ynlhe,,z,ng from a body of estobl·shed feels Due

to the~ cheractc11:.hcs of c1lhe definite oool or·entot1on or 1nduct1v

ism. tnese not ion of ptoblem solvtr'IQ arc neither dc~cflptive or the trad1

ltOnAI hf>hil1IOI' of the be~t architect< nor opphcable to lhe currC"lt prot>

lem s•tllatl()n ol arr.h1lr><:lure In contra~t to "solving the probll·rn." I will

present another atltt11clP toward problems "prob!em·worry1ng· Let me

attempt to c.!\aractf!1t1P t~ nct1on of "problem-worr ying· wit h words

o f a fl'lOC'e pos1ho1e connotation archit ecture is concerned will: struc tur·

1og our environment to lacil1fote t ht: 11ch.evement of human purpo.ses

Nhere the purposos arc 1ncompll!tely known at the outset and cannot bf>

extraoolatPd from known purposes. Indeed. human purpose 1s altered

•

t

• • I

I

y f

• • I !

•

t

I I

.Ji I

'

I t I

•t

•

I

I '

t

•

I

t

• , , •

BI p,""'' ----------. 44 •

•

-·

. • • •

•

Toa h v t """"·t ·~· ... ,..,.., '"Y'""lt r at1on and of the response of the best architects to these problem situa·

tions will be anything but easy. I shall attempt to do this through an exam·

pie and then deduce what appear to be some of its implications. What

1mmed1ately concerns me is that an important human activity should

not be ar\1fic1ally and detnmentally simplified in order to fit an extant

mechanical routine. The danger of such an over·simpliflcat1on stems

both from the enthusiasm for mechan1zat1on and from the impoverished

understanding of architecture fostered by modern architectural theory.

Architects see that any solut.on any ' orm. has 1mp11cat1ons beyond

tho~e that were ntended. 1nclud1ng 1mpllcat1ons for the reformulation of

the original problem or need. Consequently, architects are as interested

1n the form as 1n the problem. they see a dynamic relation of form and

pr<>blem as of the first importance. It is this reeiprocity o orm and pr .

lem the! is not sufflc1ently recognized by the problem·solving designer.

This idea may beclanfled by paraphrasing M.C. Beardsley'sdescrip·

t1on of creativity: • ... as the artist moves from stage to stage. it is not

that he is looking to see whether he Is saying what he already meant.

but that he is looking to see whether he wants to mean what he is

saying."• We can test the adequacy of architecture conceived as prob·

lem-solv1ng and the universality of such conceptions as the frictionless

flt off orm and contell:t by ell:amining Le Corbus1er's Carpenter Center for

the Visual Arts at Harvard University. The Carpenter Center has been

often crit icized for being anything but effortless in its relations with

people. with its ad101ning neo-GeOfglan buildings. and with the Cam· brtdge st reel pattern. However. 1t is important not to look for a well·04led

solution here. but rather for the way 1n which a problem was develOl)Qd

and left open to cont inuing development.

Harvard University had discovered that. in rt& own words. "col·

leges graduate visual illiterates."' Harvard then decided lo conceive a

teaching program that called for active participation H'I the visual arts.

Thrs Pf'Ogram required a building; s ince the involvement was with the

visual arts. the site chosen was near the Fogg Museum.

Teaching at the Visual Arts Center has the opportunity to be the

most important factor rn Harvard's program of education in the arts. As

a complement to that didactic program, however. le Corbus1er and hts

building br1lltantly reformulated the or1g1nal problem. Any teaching pro·

gram reaches only a small part of a university community. and very few

people outside that community. If un1vers1t1es are to be concerned with

general artistic illiteracy, they must instruct the entire community. The

building itself must reach out and engage every person in such a way

that even people who will never be formally enrolled at the Visual Arts

Center have the opportunity to achieve new reaftzat1ons about the pot en·

t1al of architectural form as a shaper of hie. J had the memorable C)(PB·

rlence of observing such a reahzallon. W1thoul Pf'10r in11truct1on. we

brought some MIT freshmen to visit the Carpenter Center. A young

woman completely untutored 1n architecture explored the Le Corbus1er

bu11d1ng. Alter she moved 1 hrough the bu1ld1no for some ltme, she tlmtdly

expl81ned that when she came to lhe top of the ramp, she felt herself

to be all over the bu1ld1ng at once. One could at least begin to analyze

the ob1ect1ve qualities of the building that contributed lo her reaction.

• - • • t ! ~ . ~; ·" ... 1.."' I~. t ....... , . ·'"' • l > •. • • .,-;;... .. , .... ,,,). , . ,_ J ,~ ..... . . ......... J ... - '

• . , ~- r •• • ~ ~-."T ,. , • , •

u >1fw1'•'1;.;..,~~, ..... • • • . "l.'I • · - .. . . ,._. .. - .... - '" :-,. -· _ .r .. 1 Ill':,.• «e".J'.~ _,_ · ~ ,·· , . "'1~ f.fl.; • . - .. ., ,rr,. ,.., •-.; -. .. "' · ~ t ~ f - t •c •

. .. .; . ......

.1 _, ,

' • > .- . . .... ,

' ... , ... ., , alize

a potential in architecture that she had not even suspected. That she

made her discovery by mean& of actual movement through the buildir'Q •

is one of many indications that Le Corbus1er reshaped the original prob·

lem 1n at least two ways. First. he made the building itself an act ive par·

hc1pant rn the problem s1tualtcn rather than a retiring. effortless frame·

work. Secondly, the v1s1tor and Harvard are forced to recognize that

tlhteracy about art ts not a matter of v1s1on alone. In this building art is not

a spectator spcrt. all of one's senses and the wnole of one's perception

are ergaged One feels tnat the Carpenter Center is a world, a context. a

1)1'obfem. and '"e have the happy opportunity to form ourselves 8{1ainst

11 That is. Le Corbus·or's building ma> be seen as a complete inve'sron of

the 1d II also stands in sharp contrast

to any simple no o prob em· v1ng. Harvard still has not defined the

original problem, nor solved it; but they have entered into the problem

situation more fruitfully than anyone with a hard definition.•

Of course it could be argued ttiat the buildings where we value such

assertion from architectural form are unusual. As a matter of degree,

this may be so; here I only want to demonstrate that we cannot accept

problem-solving and effortless fit as universal concepts 1n architectural

design. Elsewhere I suggest that a resistance to efficient design can be

important in something as prosaic as houS1ng fClf' married students.•

In contrast lo problem·solving design. I see the architect's approach

as a seqµence of act1vit1es encompessino at least the following stages:

gene<altzed understanding of the problem; various formal proposals:

study of the impl:cahons of the proposals; successive reformulat ions of the problem and prQP06als: and the final selection of a for'TI for itsappro.

• prrateness to the reformulated protllem. In this case. one must judge not

only the tit, but also how the problem h45 changed. And one must judge

the fit not in terms of lrictionlessnes5, but in terms of whether the Irie·

lion 1s suited to the new l)'oblem formul~toon. Does the whole - reformu·

lated problem and form - resist critlc1sifi?'"

But now it may be objected that I dm descnbing Q/Chitects as !he)

exist rather than a potential figure with new caoac1t1es. Furthermore.

in claiming that we have no clear stat~ents of architectural problems,

no axiomatic system tor design, no spek1flcaltcn of elements. no spec1·

fiable identrficahon ol a solution. and t\iat the problem shifts with the

form adopted. am I not forced lo tl'.e a'4ilward position thet everything

is relative. aod to the adrrussion that'8rchitec1s can 1ust1fy nothing

(and thus anything)? However. I think-I~ understanding of architecture

toward which my argument points not fnly confl1cts with the notion of

architecture as problem.solving, but alsf structures tr11d1t1onal architec·

tural eclt •1t1es somewhat differently ltle strongest and most flexible,

ratsooal system avB1lable should give t~ creat ive person free reign sub· •

ject only to responsible, reasonel:llc. ;:ns1t1ve self ·crit1c1$rll. and the

public tests of performance and crlt1cl .

We return toe generally recognlz situation that I mentioned e111 ·

lier Much ct recent architectur111s ~'.to senoos cr1tic1sm. and arch•·

tects have no way to 1ust1fy lhe1r actioGJ. Systems-0<1ented architects

adopt new techniques and seek to anal~: the problem into a rationally unassailable assembly of b.ts that cant , be synthesized into an unas

•

~ t .... '

·-, -· -~

.. •

• ..

t t

I •

... l

p p t ' I

y r t t

n th r I n ty but Iii

n c.ur n I:> y f 111 H h h,pott d

I f

I

t ' I ,,

lnthatp ~roftlurl) 1;1x~l.'~1~11go, lw1 cll'all~ tX<fi rdabolll

d r> I\ \II f Ill mo:ntah auon • l\ut re 1s1 n 10 11ts11umrnt1h 1t1ot\, n

) Ion 1 , I behl'V\' 1111 pc111nvnt In the p IK' I did n 1111

othtr pole of H~)" on ern • utonom~ • <'llhC'I a• n r I"'' 1 tht141chflr~ ~olvnia Po •ti or 1 11no1lwr ro 111on I oll£hl t con I ' N"'

aut n my was pre nt 1n th1 111ns

In 19C.4 Peot r f 1 cnm n thrn 11 )UUng j\t ll't!;or 81 Prl

n sroup ol ) u11 "' hn 1 lplu• rw.~ mod ti) eold r one'$. r Rol,..n \il'nturlJ to ~11< nd aw k nd 1111'11nr t n d1 ,u 1 tu1ur• and h " th") m1i;h1 co ll'< 11v ly 1n1 n,11 Out ol 1 1

..,. .-•• tr"" .. "' d of"" an org~n r 1rion n11ll!d Conlnl'n , nt Ar lut•<I• I 10"

d (~ 1\1 th t mcnt (r A I ) Anu ng 1ho•" who ~m< tn b • "" I•

th l"f a"' rt lion I Wl'H• I 1 nm an 11'1 1 n , t n 1 hrn Nt w' rl<). "rnn \ i"••llT I 1 1v1dnl l 1u1 l'rtn< t n). M1tha I (,1 ,,., (1)(111Lr1onl Cl• 11 11

11 ~till '"' \11t•gon} lt1ch;1td "lc1 1 (In 1u1 1 ltt'IH Now ' UI kl II< nn , I.A

1•11cll lnqu• hn Hoh111 11n nncl Hlo h,1nl W11n~t 111 I II tr'" 1 1 lllMIT 111d~"Y• l.ow11 t.I nh;ut 1ni•l•~1<111111Cllh,d ind m

Tl II\ )'l'llr ol lh

rd1 1m u n) ""'"~ ""' '" (r ol • .\st (th<ro wa' no formally

01nndfi! with lhr turhulrncr kno"n ""1968 •That

1u1h ·.,,~\\fl l\(O~\l,Z1hl1Ill1ht lt,ltl1s tl\ .1n<11ttt·1 fllt•IP<t 10111Jlt.'J hy

I 1 r1,n111r' 1 .. 1t1l~ tl1t• ttt•\t l•.,Jlrncllt c1t •<It• l' lor tht· ur t1 tr\ lr ''''f<>rmataon of

Ila km ulmmaung tn the Nt w l Ill<,· o xh1h1t1on at tht' Mustum or Modrrn

Art I th ht'g1nr; g or l•ll>7 four Unl\'1 Uy ba,ed t•am• W<r<' tn\"Olvrd t e

ar hn t I"'' td< n11fi.J from Columh1J Ro"~· Thom.1 Schumacher, lcrry

~l lli I 1d I rt•tl k..t>t ltt I t11111' ( ()fllt 11. G1 •vt•\ ollld E.1~t·nn1.tn fl ltrn Prlll(«.'101'1'

nod A11drl'On Millon, onJ l( .. lw11voodm111 from Ml 1 II

Thr work of norc of tho "N~w Cot)" ham• would 11lu trJtc ·in,1rumt'nt ,

I .it On 1h1 othrr hand al lca>t the c "'nl'll and P11nccton pro1eos could

bt lltar tC"r1 t'ti .i.t) t ::-.p\or.1tl111•' 1ow.trd an auto11omous ;i1ct11tt•c.turt~ I 1rgt

ptlrl1ons nl ,l.1rll•111 Wt t~ t•l11n1n .. 1tt•d int 1\'1lr nt .1b~trJ.t t. c1ltt·1i h.1nd..,omt.•, >Ct'I

lo • int rm and 01 hgurr ~ooun ''•S<'5 also

111vol\t <t 1\ltll hoU)IJlK 1ll It tnl.,fOJ m tht {'OVllClOMt·nt.t\ <,l1.i1 ll t('r of the CXIS1

l\\S I tigl- !1.11< 1.1l l1ou,111tc p1c111•l.ts.. Only ,1f1t·t vt•.,r~ of rht• dl \•efopm<"nt ot \Uth

n• w r •ource> "'"s th•• mer. m•ntnl upgr 1d1ng of thr Harlem flbrtc contem

pl •<.'Cl \\ 1hm th• mrmbcr5h1p of thr <ASL: group (not 'o l(lt nuhctl for tl:i<

M MA• •I: bnJ. a •{lht '1'1'<31<d a domin int po>1t1on moving toward auton

0111\ \i11 ti' t>nt· 1h.11 s tw .11t.l11tt.~<.1urt· .1s 1n 1·ntl'rpr1~t th.it did. 1ndc~·d, ha\t•

lb own dt c1plon~. but h.id .i1,o to >uh1•ct II •If to matt•rtal •oc oal dnd poli11

c •' cr111 m "In 19h9 1og~1hrr with M l't .iudtnt>. I orgamll'd an cxh1b111on

a1 Ml 1 > llaydcn C.Jlkry (tht prrdrccssor to the List Gallt-rvl tnlcd "form and

Ll•P I'!\ A1th11< hlH" I ho lltlt· 1~ ••Hmgh to s 1y tha1 tlw the"' of the "xhlbt

11c)11 t•r1s,1~t·J th1• ''~Ut c1I tl\c. problt·1n wo1 rytng es~a' rhe 'ttJ-,ang l'\'ent uf

thP oxh1b111on 111 rarly 1<Jbq wa< only tlH '' ontJ pubhc .-v< nt ot CA~E "It w.tS

also th• d<mt r al CA St "'mo" al 1hc mcmb"" saw tht MIT cxh1htl1on a•

uppm ttng \••th "in tr um ntuhz.11 oun" and (mr." hom the,.. MA rxper1cocrl

1111\< ~1•< 1al c .. u,c·s .,urh ns ·.1dvc1(..il y pl.1r11\1ng • Jn con1r:t\I onc-shou1J tl11nk

ol thr'P ~' '"' tlw \t 11 s 111 wh1< h l'l'h r I "~nman c·mb1 •" <d the dutonomy of

"cardbo•rd .irdt1t('(turr" ind d1 ,1gned h1• st rlt > ol numb •d hous<' prt>JCC'

I con td<"r th• Ml 1 ,onlnbutlOl' 11\ both th•>$e e•'i b uon~ 10 havc bl'e

t xc. rel''\ ln ptobl~m wo1 ry,ng • W1th11l this approath, tl•t:rt Wt1!. an c•tfon to

r1•c. OS"''' t t,,. 1111c.)111.1 I ct1·n\,1t1d~ of th\• t.J 1::.t11ll 1nc.• ol ar<. l1111·c. I 01 t• as wt•JI ., 1 lit

"prol•h "' lh• >1ch11< 1 tutJI ,.,,1mplt• w11l11n lhl' problt m worrying papor w.i•

altrr " of IA> lorbU>l•f5 Carpent~r l.cntrr The "form and u .. • exh1b1t1on

le~• ud .1 «loon 1.h'VOttd to de '>1111 uch1tccture and di •en mcludin& mat"

r11\\ t11\ to.to from T1 UIJ'i ~t hr oder ~cl11 :.cJ1•1 who~t· fdmou'J hou~1.: tn Utrrt hi

1••1141, l>y Mr Schro>1kr ind Gerrtt l\lt'lvo•hl, 1s olt<•n 1ak"n as the apotheosi

of ab It.IC! form tran l 01ed into archttcrturnl p.ice In th< lt-aflet that• com

pJn1td tht exh1b1uon f d u sctl th< hous~ •omc .. hat d,ffc cntly

I\ 11111 l • c ""'"'"" 11pokr aj '"" u and rlu 1>lay of prmwr y jorm.111P1 l19/11 tlit

flm1 Ii Dlll\IA u11d u1duto 1111of1/1<• d~ St11I "'""P 1111dPrtook the <'<plorat.011 of

form,,, a q"'lr d•f/1-rmt mnnr.-r Ratlo1 1 tlw11 Jop<'ak1119 oj ma.u a11d Platonic

forrnJ> 1/wy arrack"d 1/1" prob/1111 of d1'A191J am ed with u hat th1'1j con.ud,rrd

tho f•••ulumt-urul r/~1111 ""' oJ urtv.11< co1uitr1•Cll£m · ,.11a1gh1 /111u.. planr•. pr/

ll)litVt tJ/cJf..\, hfuc k u11J 1.11/11tt• /11 jur111tr,11 t.1111J all }11tt1ft111ti Aft( Ju cJj 11111! t10i6A

A• 1 t1un 01111 IJ/unar <01u.tr•1(t101u .A1n1ult1ta J tl1t' J1111d(lr11111tnJ e/cJt11MlLA "'"

formal •y~i.111 '"quln d tho pn>A•n>Ot1on "} rh• 111ugr1ty oj rh" I mmr - 4'1"'11

u hr11 u• d 111 la19<'rCOttArrucu; thL6 wo.1 on omplul•Nf by l1nvtn9 thrrlrnt•'"'

pt1.u. l1y <'''' u''''r 111 r u 1111 '''''" tur19 1·11t1111 t 0'' r11rtro11A .~111 11 of llnrto/l1j J. r11 'td I 1 •lt1t11111 11/ pu1 t to 1.,1, t 1,. lJJ, 11inUAly r J1,, tJr1t1 rl1r. \IA nj rJ1r c1r9c1r11r Ju r1ct1or1c1l

0111ul0<jy, •cmplijio d by th~ R1 /1ord R1'rnl'rA<l1m1d chair {111 ''" rxh1b111on or

0111 11/d tl1 rrk oj jurru1tir" by lltnry '"" dr V. /d4'/

h11h1 schroo•r lluu ... paual HOd 1.1t1htanan om•1ns arr 1mb1dded

1n tll• tllv1•l<1111ne-nt ••I t}\1• tl-.· St11l lorn1.1I &y~tem U11ec.t \.'Xp('r1<>r1~e of 1t1t'

Sdir0tlrr llnu•• rewal 1h .. 1n1t ll~c•u•l forll\31 pnnctpl~ th ll conccrnl'.!d thr

do suil group. 111s the emt.od1ment of a s•I of d ~ n ul»t nt al f r m.11

e••r. unhke build mg' 1ha1 rmbod)•a lormal 1dr~ 1n whof1 oh• t lok<'v lum•

tht• dt S111l foi m~ of lh•· s. hrOd\'f HoU\\ WI It s• nu•h-d d<ldltl\l'I) In th.

way tht• p1·11 ••ptual rxperi nr• of th< hou<eand thl'dt•mand 01 u•c contrtbut

to thl' c~n 11 uctron of th• whole that "con ''" nl wnh th• f rmal Int nt bu•

not "holly l'\'•'<"On(t11cd V1s111ns rh .. hou , onr becomes a" " of tht' foi mlll

'~''""' lwh1nd the design. and "multancou>ly aware uf •hr"" lmphr 11

of the f,11 m.1101 g.1n1z,tt1on

fvrn •hough th• de 'i!IJI group con ciou•ly >uppr<'i t'<l lhr natur of

matcndls, 1l:iry do ,und a• onr of thr kw "'•mplars ol a solutton 10 the• rm

U>< problt m I;,, S111I obJrrts and en' ronmrnts Ult st to thr po~'1b hi) ol t n

\•ent1on!rr. Ullc1mmodat11,g. ,·\1·11 c·ncourng1ng. I c1ttl rn' ol u~c 1hdt ''''' C<•Ovtnc

mg 1n both mt<•llrctu>I and u11h••11•n tom""

W1th1t1 the cone< pt ol "1• autonomy th•rt'" a wider.in•• of contr bu

tl\e work •Omt' apprn><h autonomy whtlt> othtn att d tply •nsagrd 1n th<

matrn.•I and social cond111on' or th< , llV'ranmrnt I s w ftsenm>n', rarh

work. not.1bl) the Toy Mu"'llm in Prrnc .. 1011. In th• ,am•· hl1hl th.11 I sought

to ca't on the Schrodrr llous• Th• d< 'ill nd 'ari\ Fhcnman work• arr of

tundamc tal 1mponame to th< d1,c1p 11\t' of archutcturt" Thf'Y protctt nn<

ways of roncrl'mg matrnal torm. splice hght. and. at lrast o ffi) mmd imp

ca11ons for U'<' and nt<•an ng s1gn1fic intly thrsr "n•w ""ys" are th pl<r, •"'In

~uc h ;t m.tnnt·r J.~ tog1'' ,,, much or mo1e•stt.:11taon to tht.11 grr•t:r.111trd potcn

ual• as to t~r >peetfic, they mt lly serv..d 11 "1n th• tha• the) approa•h

auronomy ande,tabh•b new rofer<"nces wnhln thcd1•c , hnc

Ont' rt ~son that WO<k> such as th• e by •h< dc"111l g1oup and [1,•nman

rc·maln w11hin the dom.:un of qua" autonomy" 1ht11 int m •It scal1 Aho, a p;t1 lllull\1 u!.c 1' not dt1f1.nclt Ont: 1,acutrly a\\ 1t' of onr S tlWn bod, 1n.itnd an

relation to, th• ,. en1·rronments - Dd with tlu• abo th<" anti •iutron of one

ot.cup:i11on tn \at&ous modn Pure gromttr c forms or f\ n c nwntaona

1rch11..:ctur.il form., 1nfl~tt-d to gr.:and10 r proportion... us ont• n1a} 'ff n

thr ,0 c.tllt•J Rt•volutoonary HChll<'Ch of 1h, lah• ~•ght•rntl "murr (I •S

anotl>t.'r thrr,hold in th<" qu; Slton ot the .iutonom' of arthllKturo \V< arrive

at an autonom that d..,.e s ts placr n o r conceptuah a•1on f ar h t

no be t c nvtronrnent

I say only "le s a urcdty," fo1 wt> might .idopt A~oll I oo '• p<>-ttt n

th 11 arc htt« ""'' rur~ly '"" r the r<" Im ol .ill rr1ha1" onl1 n confronnns

death• So 1hri•· moy be plat• for .i g1g•nllc cenotarh for NM11on. but

d plleil >1ze this" n nfi I< 1malpJrtofwl>~twew ntor "''-d1nou1• vt

ronment IX> S111I and I sr n work< •Ion als cannol comp• 1sc our en<

ronmt1lt l'.vtn \tr) tlt\t. or h1tect"do f\OI conrt 1\~ trdosto n1:t1tonal fo ma

syi.tems t'Vet)' llm• 1h1.y pick up a ~nc1I or mou\c Rather, 11 is al'o a hrgh call

cng to comp1<h1 nd the lorrn31 sysrtm• av31lablt within the d!'clpbnt of arch1

trtiure ~nd then 10 bl\ng the•~ to b.ar lru1rlully on our en\lronmental nttd'

and tht martnahty of bu \ding lndttd, 11 1s this broader ta<k that could yield

th,, largrr arch1t<0ur~I and urban tnVlronmtrit5 in wt11ch""' would choo<e to h~

\\'hen WI' broadtn our focu• In rt\is ,.ay less au,rete '"'enuon' aho

<'m.,rgt AS S1gmhtant COntnbu\IOns to the d1sc1phn• of anh1trtture In le

(orbu\1crs renowned Five PomlS, modtrn matrr1al and proct"•sof con<truc

uon are 1mbcdded Within the disciplinary prO!'OSl!lon Despne 1h" comphc

1ty '" ma1.11al and rim~ •he fl\~ l'omrs alsoop~ncd Stgn1hcanr general pro!"l

s111ons about Sf'•"•· hght, ~nd rn\1ronmen1al organ1u.11on The fne Po101'

••• •s much 01 more a con1r1bu1 ion to th,.d1sclphne of archn<-ctur., as ate the

conceplS of dt• Sr11I Uu1 111s.,\so rh1• case lh•l lhe f 1v... Point; could nor ha•e

l>r<·n conceived w11hout th<• h\•1lab1ltt) of ro1nlorced concrrte lhor• really I>

no trtl1nolo¥'' .tl 1nvt•n1 ion 1n tht ) I\,. f>oin15, tl1c·> ilrl' ra\ht: r a '!..tgn1hrant Arch1

lt"(ttar.\\ dr~covc. 1y w1tl111) 11t"tt'f1tly dV,.11.ahl'-'" trl)tnology 1• Stated thus, l<" Cot

hlt'S 11•1 ·~ ae. t\1t vt n1e.•11t 111v 1 t l"S t lit· t: t1rnn1rn1

!acts ,h0w, rhat rhe> too are J1s O\'Cflf' of span•. hghr and organiut1on

,.,, m the e~ampl<• of th• f l\t' Points, th~ no11ono' qua'' a~ronomy 1snot

hm11ed io fhghh ol high .irch11ec1urc and theory Indeed, I ha>'t' t\plo•ed the

concept 10 rela11on 1? cit) torm (~av;ann.1h)• and ""orker~· housing tlvupp at

[,sen and the Gurchotnunshilne ar l::1senhe1r.1) 11

,.,, may bl' '''en then. 1h<1e ls a s1i;n1ficant rang<' within th<> concept of

qua" autonomy Some instances Approach the austrre, thtry prov1de 1ho,espe

c1al. rare explor.irr•n• w~thm the dosnphne of arch IKture exemphh<-d by de

S111I Of course rh• lormauon of the de "UJI group ;rnd lb ''t of concerns

can b<-conv1nongly e~plor...! wtlh1n a particular hi-roncal •ettmg But II< ele

ml'lltal poJJ0s1t ons In mall•~ of v1sU3l lorm do •rdt'ftl ha\'e a high dl'gret

ol autonom~ Whtrhcr 1n Mo:idnan"• p;1 nt ng• R1ttv~d·~ furniture or th•

"•hr6dcr hou><\ we l<'COgtllZ<" 1 r>h)"Cal tour de force to exemplify tho'e ele

mcnral prtncipk• and )<I ou1 minds can rr1h'rtJ1n the qun~ d1tf<·rt•nt love"

•I wh1< h w<• art'3ddressed lh<' ta• 11le qualillt' ol l.1ond11 10\ parnung' do net

dt',trO)' thr1r 1d,•al1ty I thank ti IS for rhc a.amt- r~c1-,ons 1h,1t. when '"'tt 'l"e .a

51111 wo1i<_ we do 1hiek ot lloll•nd Cor<a 1q10 but C•n af,o grant the,e prin

Ir!\ iii gt•nrr.1l1t\. th.._tt l5 not '1"'° 10 •hat nlomt nt nlone

lvtn th~st• lil>~1.11 Cc\t.l'5 bt-comf' n~tan<\"~ iNtt}11n a uo1ver~al not1nn of

quasi ~11tooorny l'ventually they a t• •••led and, rf lcrrun"e. Cl\en gre,1ter

M IN1NG .& uTO!l.lOM f l1

effecl by their prrformance. In speaking of a "universal notion." I claim th;11

every environmental work (and ocher forms of human invention) participates

1n quasi-autonomous relat1onsh1ps. Nevertheless, this claim for generality

do.-s no1 g1ve a mean 1ngless wh1tew<1sh to all works. We can make critical dis·

11nc11ons. Unlike the de St11I example, Le Corbusier's Five Points participates

quite directly 1n the ma1enal world. In contrast to the de Stijl case. 1here can

be a relat ively se•mless rela11on be1ween the d isciplinary potential.s espoused

in the 1'1ve Points and a built work based on those principles. But for the same

reason. 1he 1'1ve Points reveal a (valued) potential within certa in material con

ditions: less general, more technically appropriate, than the De Stijl example;

more technica lly and histoncally conslralned than~ Corbusier acknowledged.

Finally, I wa nr to recognize that the notion of quasi-autonomy is in no

way limited to architecture or maners of thl' physical environment. Conven·

tions. whether touching on soci.ll or environmental issues (and.after all, thesl'

can newr be wholly separate), can be examined in terms of their quasi·auton·

omous relations. An illustrative example 1s the social category of ·reenagor."

The concept 1s so 1mbedded 1n our society that at first it seems the years from

thirteen to nineteen must have some unity that is 1n turn characterized by some

ineVJtable traits. There are always and everywhere people of these teer. years.

and they surl'ly bavetra1ts that are different from those who areeitheryounger

or oldl'r What we make of this population, however, is at least as much or more

a matter of th!' social construct we make for them, and t hey for themselvos. Even a banal work can be analyzed in term of quasi-autonomy but will

be revealed as just that: banal. My own efforts at using the argument of quasi

autonomy to reveal a powerful example - and allow this to serve as a gauge of

comparative works - Is perhaps best demonstrated in my studies of the town

plan of Savannah .I! It is not special that one can analyze Savannah from the

perspective of quasi-autonomy. It is the distinctive features and the historical

performance of Savannah. revealed through an analysis of its quasi-autonomy,

that make it special and indeed a comparative test for other city plans.

This is my simple advocacy: the fruitfulness of recognizing the strengths

and the clauns of. on on• side, our theories and conventions, that should not

be hl'ld dogmatically, and. on the other, the realities, that a re in some ways

obdurate but often remarkably and fascinatingly malleable. To seek to live

only a hfc of the mind at one pole, or of materiality at the other, or of coercive

power from either, 1s to impoverish one's self. one's discipline, and one's

smaller or greater community.

NOTES

1 The euay ~ed •IS '" hol form one loctute f0< 1he conference "C~ oons. Cenons. end Cffloc:1sm." °'""'' 1ed by the authOr for" 1 a'1Cf held et ' he Amencen Acaaemy of Arts end Sc<!flCes '" Cembtdge Apol •982

2 Actually I wrote ·se-n1-autonomy· 1 no"' pttl., ·qua., eu1on Ol'l) ·'°I vse tl\at l0<m throughout lh•• e• .. Y even whore I

•nwotve' Cf\e"'1trt0 an .. rlllftf teat

3 On• d•l'e<enl crototal front. th•I was also 1he ~arot Robel!

Ventur s Complenfy • nd Cont1M11et1on m Jlroh·l~tur• (Ntt.v

Yc>r~ MJ•eum of MQdefn Ari, 1966)

' As nolod. lh•• '' an unpUbhshed ••Uy Or st pteunted ii 11>e A1ch1tectvtal Assoc1ohot>, London, 1n March 1006 II was ·-•led ot> 5 June 1966 at the annual teachers' conler en..e of the Assoc1al 10t1 ol Collegoate SchOOls ot Arcrutec· lure. meeting et tho CranbrOOk Acodomy 1n Bloomtll!ld Hills M1ct>ogen As produced hero, the text •t cMnOQd '"minor

mailers of fohcily, the ~hm1natoon of such uHgo of tho'""" as "the arch•l•cl . he . ." and aob<evoatlOn 1n acco1d with the currenl Cld1l0t~

5 In tac1 I wes hopPY to pre-1udgo lhe P11nceton "'oiect ano won tho rM0<1rces 10 •tao• an "'" confOt'ence 'tn119nt1ng ll1t Futu<e Env11onmenl" (1060) lhel explored Other votwl

of tne 111ua1ion of arch1tochiro and ptaM•ng The reaullong bool. w1s S Ander~. td P/1nning for OtVfltS"Y tnd Cnorc1

Pou1ble Futures • n MIT PrOlS. IG68). In ~man .. o., Zu>.un!t di< rr.-nt1Cht1<~ UmM'f// (Frelburg 18 Ver141Q Rombtocl>. 11171 ) Tilt fonel rtl)Of't of I ht AIA/Prnictton ••"">' was Rabllt L G..idHanO S..nord P Spong. A S1u<1yo(£du cot1011/otEM•r_,,,,,0.11()n (Pr•nceton NJ Princeion Un.vttsotr Press. UJ67)

I MC 8fardStet "OntheCreatoonofArL" Joutf14/of.VSIMI

rct""'llrt Cf//-c1sm xx111 3(Spr1r>g '0051 PM

1 A D lrouon0erg. °'Col"'Oe Gr adult ts Vo•oal lil1hr<atu • S.tvr day~ l~b 1g 19156) Pl> 73ft

I A SOlnller aroumant for growlh llVOUQ4> 'ptol>lem WOHy1r>g'

CO<ikl be lnlldt for lhe way on wh·Ch le Corbus•er, a111ie VAC. eon1 inued to transform lhe arch11octut•t e>tobltm that Ill '*' .. , ovt '"the Mao.on Domino"' 191• S Anderson. ·Ar~••tec1uoal Rasearen Pro0rammes 1n tl>e Wor~ of Le Cor· t>usi.r. {)ff,gn StUCl••s (Lonoon). v (July t984). pp 151 158 Rftf)r1nted (w11hout 1llustrat1ons) 1n K Michael H•y1. ed . Archlfl/CtVf• ri..,,,y •mce 1066 (Cambt•dge. Thi MIT P1a1s. tOOS). DP ~

t "Sert s Cone~ ol L"""O • AJctutecloJf.i Ot"91' •u (A.Igus!

1965} p 376

10 F0< reams o: tome. the ne.1 '""' par~s _,not rtad "'lD'1don

11 Thi e>.h b t""1 WU uncle< the~· d Arthu< 0.td« O•ecto< of the Deoartrnent ot Architechxe ano 0....,. d Tilt~ ot Mode<1 Atl See ThtllitwClf1 A/Ch.ff/Cl'J/t •ndUrban~..,l(NewTM. MoMA. 1967)

12 ·An rnt1!1UllflQ out(lfowt~ of the e.r.tl<1>0n heS-lhe utool1lhmanl. on N,,., '!bro C•ly ot tile Inst.lute for A•cr.. tec:ture end Urban Slud>es. tlvo;,oh the pnt tflOtl• ol Thi MuS8Ym of Modorn Att and Cornell Ur.-..s~y The lnih tute will com~~ untve1s1ty, muse\l'T\ and QCMWNnertel

resources as l/ley mO)' oe brOUQht lo bear on whit IS now one of the moS1 press•"O questronsof Out,....., .. nat" to became ot Out c1t1es» Arthur Orv.let w•s a mot•••llllO lorce 1n th•S lounda11on Coln Rowe played 1 •Ole'" lhl atnl11t1on of Cornell Unovet'$1ly. bu! lhl Quoted pa1ogoeon gives no 1ndocatoon of the C8111'81 role. onc6 again. al "-t.,. Eisenman tlrst 1n thl toundahon uf •AUS a'1Cf tiler•• •Is leader (wrth Rowe as a s1deloc:A in the first yea<s) A map

pro1oct of the IMt•tute was one on strMts spo-tsoreo by

the u S Oepattmenl of Hous"'Q and Urba~ ~ ( 191!>-1972) II resulted on 1 ,.,.,..ng pto,tet "' BtOOltl)n.,,., a bool< s AndotSOfl, .0 On S/fHIS !Cen:bt• The Ml' Press. 1V18) Jn Spen.sh as Calfl Pr-IN•<#"'""""' 1 1J1sttlo (Barcelona Gusta'IO Go 11181). - IO ftaban es Stta<N (Bar Oedalo. 11182)

13 T"" MIT teem worked wolhoul 1111 .. NI conlloc:t but lhe•I

was 1 cltSl.itt"'" .. rttwl its nwrrblf s ~t Goodman. '""° '°''*' a1 rrry "'"1• 1ion. was• noted f!Q<#e ol lhl tme in

tr. poltlical •nd soc .. l .,,,toc:.sm ol thl atc/liltchif•I pro fess.on Millon and t -e moo• inti-nee! 10 ..,.!Ml dltc•oltt

uy onquo•y Miit. 5Nr.ng in Goodm.,,.s concerns. from I/II OIQoM'<IQ ol tlw P'oteel lhe<e was a bone! to ... 1norow «>'

laeto.,.•y if MoMA rMJatad lhe polotcu«.on ol Out f)loi-t

a poslbibty that was always at hand end perhaJ>o 1•tr•""" only by me intense gener•l Pol<toes d tilt,,,,,. end llOlably

10 111atte<l concerruno Her..,,, """-" ••of ..-.cdoe-1 Of1te<951 thal Mocl\ael Ou"4kos dreN uo the "'M port-ol• t> papers On lhe polrt 'Cl of lll'Clli'8CIU'I and plerlning of thet momenL - : Robert Goodman. All•• IN P11M«$ (Ne ...

York· Soman & Schustat. IQ7t).

14 CASE meollr>gs M<e pr ova te to lhl ~ anCI guea(S ••e<tP' tot • pullhc event at tt-e u,._ .,,, ol Oreoon af'd

1,_ this ..-llng at Mil

15 In t.s 1916 ed•:oroat tod)pp•wlions 6 Eisenman d>< ,,,. .. ..., autonom, al loast es he parce·- 11 to have

bffn reprrset'ted, u a corit,nuang turo.n.s! eoterp:~se.

,., t"' "Arcl><leltu<a RazlONlle" exlubl.on .i the Mlfan Tr_ of 1973 E_,,,,,,n anhapated..., ach.-.emenl "'arch·tech.•e. oe.a1eo11• of wn.1 the "mode<rust sens• brl.1y• n.d ;ttQPefly beef\ a new. non t11,11nof'Ms.I cu'lur~

allot- I bel•eve lhoro can be •mQOrt•nt d1Shnctions betWfft' vulgor z.,1oeist orguments and the invoc:afion (offered by E•se<\OT\an) of an 6p.steme as conc8tved by

fovcaull Whal those d1s1 '11Chons would be. and how

tl>ty rai.1110 £;_,,,en's conhn..,ng work cannot be allOmf)led 1-

18 S Anderson. •f orm and Use 10 Arcrnteclure, • phot~Qy leenet lor an exh1b.ton of the 511me ~me. organ1ted by

And .. >00at 1ne l'iay<Jen Gallery, "' " (Jan <!&-March 2. t!lliG). po. 8-10

17 Adolf Loos. 0Arch1tektur; Troudsm (tnn..,..uck B••n••r· Vor f<l;j), 1~t: rtf)l•nl (Vienna: Gooro Prachner. '98:2). Hert end elsewhere Loos ons1sts on d1flerentoat1ng !he euttutal role& of va11oos nrt1facts. hicktd1ng buildings

fl\loldITTgs tipicatly do not fall in the realm of art. whole ""ononV"'OUS mound, of chataclerishc st..po, m1y tnltr lhe reelm ot ar1 S.e Ande<son. "Arch1teclure 1n 1

Cult"'• ' Field· 1nTaia10 H Maktl• and 'Ml1t1s Mill..,, ed~ .• WMS 01 Ci.ssif)cf11ot1· .Archlftctvc 1"'1 Modt•fNly (N.,.. Yor~ Pr1ncttor Arch1t11Cturel Pres., t!l!l1l. pp lj-.JS,

11 Seeno11a

19 I was moM 10 ll•s commetllary bye buel er-1 cl Clw11t~ Rich but I do not .... sh to mai.e l!im reeponsillle for m1 •l>P'OClf .. tion. RIOks. 'T"" T,__

ot w.oat .. TO<if_, anci MoOOteton Syrnt>ol&. ln>aQl'y

and CAnvtnt.,,..; "'Roet.s. eo Efl{ltlS!I Dr•rr• to 11ro

(1.oncbn Sf)llt-. Bocl.._ 1971) p Xl7

tO S4t On StrHls ano "l)rban f0tm and Society rn tht

GtN I City An Arovntnl from the Ow" AulonQrny of

~""•'form:"' Lu9 ~zza. t<J . Wotld C•t••• • nd thf future of the ~/fopolfs (M11tn EIKte. 11188). pp 87 ~ 'S.vtnt\ltll •nd the tuve of Prec:edlnt Crty Plat\

·~ RHOutee,' •• Ra•Pll Bennetl, ect. Sef!/emtnls lo /lie A,,,.ricas CtOS$·Cv/lv11t P,np«twes (Nev.ark. Ot.. Un• ..,,11y ot Oeloware P.ess. 1993), pp 11e>-"'

21 "Crrhcal Corl..enllonahsm· The Hist°')' ol A1ch1te<:ture." MKJ()4rd I (Un,,.,o,ly ol M1n,,.sota).1, I (1!l8!1) pp. ~7

22 Sea the prevoous llOle but one.

,

I

II '·' " 1: ' , I

---------------~

Manfredo Tafuri

and Architectural Theory

jn the U_.S .. , DIANE Y. GHIRARDO

In the late 1960s, Italian architect and historian Manfredo Tafuri SUIVeytd

the s1tua11on of a1 d111ect\lre and •rd11tectural practice with gnmresignitioA.

The concluding p1ragraphs of Arch11Prl11rr> and Utopia. DeAi9n andCap1ro/UI

/J"1H'/opmP111 ~•f'rP'~ fairly w•ll rhe monumental despair which suffa5ed tills

and subseiluent texts by Tafuri·

Mudvn1 arc-lure< rure hflA rnarkt>d out tt.4 own fate by mokm91u.tlf.. thebtom'

of 1deul.o of rarwnalizat1011 . .. ii u tLle/<>u to 4truqqle for eACOJI" wltrn com·

p/e1ely •11cloi.<d and confined wuhout an PXtt ... Nn "1alva11011" u onyl•"9"

to b• found w11l1tn It neuher wandtr1119 ru.llUJ>ly m /abyt1111iu of'"'~•""

mul1111alt111theyPnd111 rnurenP.u. ~or tndo.1>2d in the Atubborn,ti/tr.ce•fqtom

•rry content w11h 114 oivn P<'rfecuun 11 IA UM!leAA to propoAt pure/1artlnrK·

rural alt~rnorrv~•.'

for TJfurr. architecture s1ntc the Enloghtenmcnl had become th• instru

ment par excellcn•~ ot capuahst development. with the utop1as proposed by

115 greate•t avani·gardes nothing but vt>htdes of wotlddo•11nat1onandadmi•· s . d. ~·

I trauon rn the hands or rampant r~pttaltst exp.inston But in his "'l

the history nf Wc,tern European <1rch11ecture. Tafuri conven1en1iy failed ro

mention thJt drch11er1ure had aho b~•n an instrument of ftudalexploita•••n.

dnmmaioon, and adm1nistrat1on, .in instrument of post·medieval colontll r xpan.. I rrum•fll of ~.on. exp ottatron, domrnaunn, and adm1n1str.11ton. in ins ~I ~~· ontlat 1on,cxplo11at:on. dom 1nat1on, and adm1n1strauon for Im!"' ' and so o Ar h • f 1s hard Ir ntlf n l ttcct ure s 1nstrum1•n1al use by reg1m•~ o po""r Wh T · Id his in~rr•·

•t afuri avcn~d. however, 1s that 111 the contemporarywrn · 1 •

nient~I · h f he 1oralt•111S ~ tzauon an bc<.ome tne>CJpabic. (\n!Sumably b~au~e O I

rea h r h h fottTI•l3t••" c 0 t e proc;cssc< or capuahst fdtrOnaltlat 1on Buned 111 t IS

I

•

• !

•

•

I I • • I

• • r

~ I

r ! . '

'

• I

•• .. ... ,

·~Che conv1c11on that thmgs had once been d1fforcn1, buc chat wich the Enhght· enmen1 came a fall from grace wuh consequences as devascatina for arch11ec·

1ure as those confronted by Adam and Eve when banrshtd from the Garden of

Eden. The veracuy. not to menuon the logic, of chis view Isac beSt dubious; bf

that as it m~y. Ta fun was widely underscood to be sounding the end of architec

cure, 1uS1 os Arnold Schoenberg had announc•d che end of tonality, Theodor Adorno 1hc end of art, and Francis f'llkuyama lacer sounded the end of history.

None of !hes• mil lenarian predictions turned oul 10 be true, as the Guggen·

heom in Biibao, u2'sJoAl11Ja 'l)'ee, and Vil• Cclmin's palnth1gs demonstrate.

Like other European and American elices, 1'dfuri cast his 5t•rn gaze over

consumeri1m. commercialism, the erosion of high cullure by a sea of senti·

mentahcy and com1nod1fication, and a hose or ocher ills associated with late

capuahsm, ~nd, hnding chem at once depressingly perva~1ve and tnumphant.

conceded defeat. Even worse, the possible fucur,s of arch11ec1ure were as res·

olutcly dreary as us unrem1111ngly bleak present. With a future as bleak as

Talun an11c1pa1ed. why would one build at all7 And If all actions ore Inevitably

compromised by capnahsm. how 1s 11possible10 do anything when every act

can only repeat the in111al capltula11on? Concnry 10 what one might expect, in

the Unued Srnccs che rurrency of Tafurl's theories (In some very particular for·

mula1lo11>) and chelr offshoocs survived chc Nixon. ford, Corter. Reagan, Bush,

and even Ch neon era8 to cncer che new nilllcnnlurn. In cho space·cime comprcs·

s1on of the late cap11al1S1 order, nearly three decades 1s a long life span indeed

for a theory.111vcn that deconstruct ion in archlcecture went on and out m less

than a decad• II doe• help that parts of the theories in Tlfuri'• various essays

•nd books became the rncellectual baubles of un1vcrs11y laculcy. graduate stu·

dent$, and 1oumal •dnors, even If they barely penecr.ued the realm of pracuce.

D -

While my aim here Is not to r«ap1tula1e or even cri11c1ze Tafun's theories, a few clarofocauons arc 1n order, not least because Tafuri's poSltion has

>O often been m1srepresento<1.• Unfortunately, m moSI cases the translations of his admlnedly complex and elushe prose are clunky •nd often wrong. But

even the poor transl•llons are clear enough about his key points, so thac mis· represencaclon cannoc be dismissed as misunckrscandlng.' In his 1976 review

of the French edit ion of Tafurl's Theoriiu. and Hl.itory of Architectur'll, Yves·

Alain Bois accused Tafuri of "losing" che architectu re! ob1ect, and of opposing archllecturc as criticism because It rendered hi s own work as critic inef·

fectual.' Although Bois complained about the f'rcnch translation, his critique

could only be a willful misinterpretation, because Tafuri explicitly dlstln· guish•d becween • crl11c1sm within archnectural languaae. end one external

10 It, a meca·language wuh the ao•I of exposing the undtrly1ng tdeologlcal

>yslem beyond the individual work 5 More later about themlsrcpresenta11ons; first, how did lllfuri posnlon arch11octure7

Whac Tafuil viewed as che tragic fate of arclutccture In 1hecapitalls1 eco·

nom1c •YStem and w11hln th• relations ot produc11oncertalnly drove him to the

limits of despair. for he v1~w~d capuoli sm as 11 rocahilng, all-encompassing

sysccm. Bu t ho began and pndcd his work from the perspective of the critic

and the hlscorlan, •~such undcrtaklns a poll11col crit ique of hlscory and prac·

Tice in which he ln•l•Ced th.c archltrccure as pure form could never rupture

cap1talism'1 Stranglehold. The esscntlnl 01hor half of this obsrrvaclon. rorely

quo1ed buc absolutely bound to the fh st, was 1ha1 for archhecture. rho: only

remaining choices were political ones Tafuri offered no blueprlnls for ac11on,

thac made 11 more d1fhcuh to tussle with him excopt o~ the levtl of thtory.

As he remarked In Arch111rrur1 and Utopin, ·or cnurse, onQt the work or 1Jeo-

·-

there remains the problem of deciding logical crt11cism has bttn completed. ful the polittcal

' d ht be immediately use to

wha• instruments of know e ge mtg . 1

t by d rse must end but certain y no

struggle. It is precisely here that my tscou . . the earl choice "'The political foun~ttons of his posttion arc clear enough tn h. ~

. f l s drawn from the architectural canon w tC 1970s from the litany o examp e . . h c he lined up in Archirecrure ond Utopia. Tafuri described architects tn eac su

. . h' h then one by one, revealed cessive phase as launching utopian proiccts w JC ' • •

· r · ltzatton At their inevitable imbrication in the system of capita tSt rattona . . T f · cifica lly remarked that several points in Arch11ecrure and Urop10, a uri spc

· ther capitalist development the challenge facmgarchitecturc was to bring toge and the reorganization and consoltdauon of the working class.' Thirty yea~s later, the references to the proletariat and the working class have a quaint air

about them. the musty smell of something long stored 1n a dusty attic, but had

anyone paid attention to the poht1cal charge and the stance of the historian.

upon which hfun's writings were predicated. we might have been spared a lot

of the nonsense that has passed for theory in the subsequent three decades.

What is remarkable i~ that the arch11ectural theory machine in the

un11ed States ecstatically embraced Tafun's despair, deploying it as a trigger

for a new architecture, while ignoring rhe political dimension fundamental

to his critique. References to the social or political in most pronouncements

remained little more than piously uncontroversial genuflections with about

as much basis in actual social or pohtocal conditions - much less actions

- as the decentered subjects featured during the 1980s and 1990s. How did

this happenl Misreadings of Tafuri, and the cues for a new attit ude toward

arch11ecture erroneously deduced from his critique, span the 1970s and 1980s

and 1rrad1ated writers in many publicat ions: m this essay. I refer only to a

few of the most prominent. so-called theoretical texts written during three

decades of iterations.

At the outset, it is worth noting that Tafuri insisted both on the separa·

rlon of history/thCQry and practice, end on the necessity for the critic to estab

lish a distance from the object of his inquiry. The single architectural object

was never the subject of the historian or critic's analysis. In fact, the examples

were interchangeable.because the task was to understand the broader intellec·

tlllll a.nd social environment into which buildings fit. He disnussed the theory

and history produced by architects as Interested and Instrumental; architects

should suck to practice, he believed, and historians/critics to critical history.•

Striking as 11 did at the very heart of most architectural writing in the United

States. this fundamental aspect of Tafurl's thought was simply igno~d by

architects who fancied themselves cri tics. historians, or theorists.

The Journal Oppo.1irioru, which first published Tafuri's essays in this

country and which led the charge to adopt bits of his thoories selectively, Is

as good a start'.ng point as any, bccouso it is the fountainhead of multiple mlsreprosentauons ofTufuri's thought. As has been the ca , h h' f se wit 1s pursuit

o numerous other theorists, Peter Eisenman's fascination with Tufuri was entirely self·inten!sted. £isenman has always sought• . • h b cr111cs w o would cele·

rate his own work and reinforce his own ideas abo t h £ u arc ttKture Amazingly

isenman continued to pursue Tafuri I f h' . • 1 . ong a fer ts death. In an arti 1 b i shed in l ooo. £1!enman twisted Tufu . c e pu . history and cr111cism from practice to rf1as argu~ents, about rhe autonomy of

• vor a view of arch ite mous from everything else• 0 . cture as autono·

· esp11e £1senman's assid f him into his phalanx of theorists ""- f I uous e forts to entice

• •u ur was one of the f h ew w o consistently

resisted-a fact reflected in his abrupt and total break from Eisenman in 1980_

Nonetheless, Oppo1>itioru. published Tafuri's essays. the work of his colleagues

and stud<'nts, and Eisenman's lnstnute for Architecture and Urban Studies

(IAUS) invited Tafuri'sco\leagu<'s to visit the Inst itute at various points. 11Talun

himself only visited the United Stat<'S three or four times during the 1970s.

Jn 1974. Tafuri pr<'s<'nted a lecture at Princeton University, later pub·

lished as "L'Architecture dans le Boudoir: The language of criticism and the

criticism of language." in Oppo.11itioru. 3·" He outlined the objectives of the

article on the first page, a passage syst<'matlcal\y misunderstood as a manl·

fosto for architects disenchanted with commodification to retreat to a neutral,

autonomous realm for design. He wrote:

Today, he 1vho U. willing to make architecture .4ptak iA forced to rely on mottri·

al.I empty of any ond all meaning: he i.4 forced to reduce ro de9ree zero a// archi·

tectonic ideology. all dream.i. of .1oc1al function and uropion rt.4idue.A. In hu

hand.II. the element.I of the modem architectural tradition come.1>uddenly to be

reduc€'d to enigmatic fragment.A. to mute .1>igna/A of a language whO.AecodehaA

been I0.41 ... (The/ puri.Am (of architecl.6 from rhe late fiftiu/ U. that of .11omeo11t

driven to a de.i.perate action that cannot be jU.Atijied txcept from within iu.elf.

Tire word.4 of their vocabulary ... lie periloU.A/y 011 that .1lopin9 plane which

.1>eparatu the world of reality from the magic circle of lan9ua9e ... (W}e wuh to

confront the lan9ua9e of criticum. •t

In this essay, and most of the subsequent ones, Tufuri's concern was the

role of criticism regarding four attitudes that he identified in contemporary

architecture:

1. one in which language was seen as a purely

technical neutrality

~. architecture as a manifestation of the dissolution

of language 3. architecture understood as criticism and irony. as well

as a posit ion which denied architectonic communication

in favor of "information"

d. 'b te the 4. an architecture which attempted to re 1stn u

capita list division of labor. St r . I ded designs by James I .

Within the first th~e categories, Tafuri inc u h . . . d Venturi and Rauc •

ling. Aldo Rossi. V1ttor10 De feo, the New York Five, an 1• brand of empty forma all of which he believed succumbed to ono or another ·

1 Stein

d Unwin C arence · Ism. In the fourth, he included the work of Raymon ' . May and

S humachcr. Ernst . Charles Harris Whitaker, Henry Wright, F'rlti c der Rohe.

I L dwig Mies van Hannes Meyer. 'a By comparison wit h Le Corbus er. u h on of the

k d In the pant e and Wah er Gropius, none of the latter group ran e t rs on 'l'afuri

. . I commenta o great modern movement architect s. Not surprtstnS y, k h advanced as

whosewor e then and later conveniently ignored the only group \though harlilY

. al practice, a offering an important contribution to archttectur

a blueprint for action. he survey of twen· h'tects/ Int ti

What did he find appealing about these arc 1 Ii hed in 1976. nfu . · ,., first pub s .... r

tieth century architecture, Mod11r11Arch1tectu • May, and t-f•,-. Schumacher. led·

spelled out the ways in which Unwin, Whitaker, the rrankfllrt S 1 nguege." In bt t)le

offered alternatives to sterile exercises on 3 1 featurt to

f · h Id the signa nstic lungen planned by May. for example. Ta uri e fees characte

• b ildins prac t political decision to reject the speculauve u

•

both or H~ussman's transformation uf Paris and the segregated citi es or the

United States 1n favor of low·cost housing situated conveniently near the work·

place but integrated with nature. '5 Pc>rhaps most important, these and the

other projects Tafuri advanced, healed, he claimed. the breach between avant·

garde aspirations for a new world and the "realistic possibilities of a demo

cratic administration."11 Tarun considered drawbacks to work by these archi

tects, such as those of Unwin at Letchworth, but he 1ns1sted that whatever

its limitations. Unwin's scheme provided low density, high-quality archi tec

ture integrated into the natural setting.'7 What made projects such as Hamp·

stead Carden Suburb praiseworthy was the architects' struggle to accomplish

real projects for the middle and working classes rather than high-end, elitist

designs for the wealthy, empty formal games, or aimless dreams of a better

world in some vague ruture to be accomplished without effort, conflict. or fail·

urcs along the way. At Frankfurt, for example, the Siedlungen expressed the

housing policies of soclal dPmocratic trade unions, even though ultimately

they were "neutralized by the autonomous development of finance and monop·

oly capltal." 11 The lesson to be lonrned was not the impossibility of doing

anything, Tafuri nrgucd, bul rather that reforms needed to be extended with a

coherent polltlca l strategy to the entire complex of institutions, and not only

those Involving archltcctur~ and building. Put another way. even though arch I·

----------

Pet"' Eisenman, tiouSe IV, 1971

tecture became instrument~! to late capitalism, this need not be its only result,

nor did this mean that the architect should retreat into contemplative games.

Tafuri repeated this point numerous times. In a 1976 interview by Fran

coise Very, l'afurl spoke of "architecture without a capital A" as the most

interesting because 11 does not wallow in its crises and problems; instead of

talking, it acts.11 Acting, or movement. Tafuri insisted. mattered more than

results, and the movement that "tends toward something" constitutes the "rec

titude or all political activity."10 It is therefore puzzling that an astute cr11ic

such as Michael Hays could describe Tafuri's position as expressing the "inef·

fectuality of any resistance Ito modernisml."f1 Even worse. f'l"edric Jameson

excoriated Tafuri for his pessimism and for setting up a scandalous political

impasse Ln his work.22

Given the choice between a responsible If not always entirely successful

architectural practice and the heady avant-11arde games of the New York Five

and their progeny, botween an architecture which Tafuri described as explod·

ing out towards reality and an architecture of language games, it is not hard to

figure out which has appealed more to theorists and designers since the 1970s.

Never mind that Tafuri upbraided adherents of the latter approach for follow·

Ing "false paths laid out by the enemy that lead into the desert." .. It is much

easier to play games with cardboard, titanium. or computer graphics than it

' --, •

I I I I I , I I I I l

l , ... , ' j • ' I 'i

' • ' ' '

:EJ

I I .. -' ···1 ,, , I I i I 1 I I ' I - /1.

I I

' I r I I I I

-

~

0 .~ s::i

" .

0

I I

------ -

- - .... __ - - - - - -- - - - - ··- - .,.J _ /

-

' ---

, , /

' ' \. '

' · ' \ '

I -~ I

..

-.......

• •

: , • /

f lb(d} ~ J3 ·-"

~\

+ I \'

-·1 I ''-'1 . I ','

:::d ·-?=

' ,.

' •

._ D

•

• • '

• ' ,

'

... L_ __ ~~

• • , ' , ,

• ,

p •

• • •

..

-----,

t.• .,,,.,, 1. l0NOM1 , c•

is ro str11gglewith nearly 1ntractabl~ prob~ms of affordable housing or urban

sprawl. energy cnses. or any one of a series of major problems which we con·

front today 1n the bu1h environment. Those games are also less likely to offend

the vaned interests wh1Ch comprise the purveyors of consumerism. commer·

ciah:r.allon. and cap11ahs1 rat1onala1a11on (who also end up patronizing arc hi·

tects •none way or another) than might more direct confrontations.,.

When Peter Eisenman announced rhe arrival of Post-f'unctionahsm in

1976. he wrote ol an arch11ee1ural form d1ff•renr from what he referred to as

form as a relic of old. human 1st rheory. a new form which exists in an atempo·

rat. decompos1t1onal mode, as •omething >amplified from some pre·existent

set of 11on·Sp<!c1ftc spatial en1111es Here. form Is understood as a series of Frag·

menu-signs wnhout meaning."

Togethtr. these rwo formal •ren<lenc .. s ... cons11ru1e the essence of this

new. modem d1alec1oc They begin to define the inherent nature of the obje<:t

Ul and of 1Cself and 115 capaCJty to be represented ..,. Th1s posn1on has aflir.i·

tres with T•fu11·s observations about th• "fragmentatoon of the 0<der of dis·

cours•." th• "silence of lorm.""trnptys11"\S...., Even at rhe tome, Tafun specifi·

cally rt>ferrrd to E1smn.an·s d~gns as emblematacof a tendency 10 "repossess

.. the unique chalacterof the ob1Kt by removing 1t from 11s economic and fun<:

:1onal cootexu •. placing n 1n parentheses with the flax of ob1ect~ generated

by the productoon S}">tem •in 1976, Tafun descn~ the ·exas!H'rated formal-

1sm· ot Eis~nman as producing ·~ctis11c· spa«s p1ec1sely bec•use "only by

ruhngout all reasons and demands h:.vong nothing directly to do w11h architec·

tur~ can E1"nman kttp his arch11Ktural bnguage inran."" Eisenman later

ecn~d T'afuri"s "'TU1ng whtn he proposed an architecture fO< rhe lat• twenll·

uh century ·as an independent discourse. frtt of e><ternal valuos-dassica! or

any other. that 1s. the 1nters..c11cn of rhe meaning.free, the arbitrary. and the

t imeless in thean1fi<1al." an arch1tec1Url' which con.1s1ed only of self·r~feren·

llal langu•&•·*' ThJS echo was 1us1 that - a displaced and disembodied version

of'Thturi's pos111on.

Although 11 would be convemonc tu nrguc rhat figures sucli as £ise11man

and later 1.Jbesk1nd fully behoved that tilt oct of building was so compromised

that autonomy was the only dl'lensible posi11on, and th•t the only way of

adva11cing a critical pos111on was to stand dloof from the world of pracuce,

it just wasn"t so. E1senman's 1nd1fferencc to politlcal, economic. and func

tk>nal con>u!erations 1s legendary ~nd lon11stnnding. and expresses nothing

more than an unw1lhngness to be troubled by such nasty inconveni•ncts. The

rcma1n1ng members oi the N"" York F\\~ did not adopt such drastically polem·

ical positions as Eisenman did, and chcerfvlly built for any multinational

whu:h issued invitation~ Th• ht any ol clients for whom the apostles of auton·

omy later bush (or wanted to build) alone ough1 to put to rest any notion

that autonomous arctolte<ture represented anything othe< than a convenient

pubhc retac1ons deviet at a t:me when client< were scarce. such as during the

late 1970s_ Even so. Ta/uri was 1ni11ally more tolerant of the r~treat into purity

and empry forrnahsm. for he d1sttmed It to be, at least in some cases. an

expression of ;anguish 1n tht fa<.e of the toulinng powtrof capitalism." Bur it

did not take long for thtS tolerancP toevapo.-ate with regard to Eisentrutn and

the so called American avant·gardt. ending up only a few years later in an an1·

rude of wry amusemEnt •Ah hough he penned critiques of purism and of post·

modtrnasr>. Tafuri ~bo r•nunded his readers that the struggle over post mod·

emi'm was but •a war of words In confront~tlon with other words, a strugg~

I

H - - ·-------

--~

-- ---- - -

~~-dj~ ~ - -··- .

:::: ra B ---

/ / ,_ ... -- ----- -·------!

·-----

l

8 -~ J ... -

.. 0

r . .. --- . --- -.. - . • - . 0 • \

\_ • -- . -- -

• • --.... i l

••• -- -r -- . ..:~-.:...:-·~==:...:-::._ -J.... ,__J - r.J F-1 ~ ..... - -- ·--·-· J

' .. -

' . .. • • ,, . ... "

Cl a ,

of n•,tn< ted langu.tge:. lor an 1mposs1ble rulr over that which"" . ""5~$'to111t

I in•u~S"''· ·» i::v1•n if both Aldo Ro:.s1 and Eisenman CO!lduct d 1

' " c •Utarch . aH hifl•cturill punty, tht' gulf bt'tWl'C11 them was enormous, ~furi held.II. •n .,drr"J ~;1 senmdn's "w1ll 10 abs traction" a:. only superficially simil tl>n

nr101h~·o1 Ho,si as a quick look at thl' product:. uf their respectiv, follow,- 'II " •• 1 U$11i11tlk Tafuri wrotl' that Ro''' "d1smi:.ses tht.' importance of form in favor f o a deco. rous re:.crve, almost a:. 1! to signify that only thus can communica1ion ht"'

e:.t~bhshed bNwc<'n th!! 'httlr world' where architecture rises and th, 'bi

world' whert.' 11 1s obliged to res1de."lt 1

or course. Ta fun considered the mournful dingnosis of the stat' of art ho

1eciure 1n an er<1 of late cap11ahst hegemony an indictment, ncithtrtauetor

l'clebra11on nor a blueprint for a new methodology, but this diJ not •PPt"'

10 trouble Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi. or Hal foster unduly.• They lnum

phantly announ.-ed the erosion (or end) of history, the appearance of thedtttn

ll'rl'd ~ub1ect, the end of representation, and the arrival of a thoroughlyiutono.

mous, independent architectur•. architecture a~ an end in itself.'1

Although 1'afun cena1nly spoke ot ends, for Eisenman. 1,chum1, ind

foster and other theorists floating aloft in ecstatic 1ndeterminaty, ~rchll!f·

ture now 101ned an extremely select group of entities which were tht1rown

and on\y-1ust1hca11on' but with which all of the~e theorists would hivtboem

loath to bt athhated: Cod and l'Vtl come readily to mind. So while archit•c1Ul'f

WJS an <'nd 1n 11~elf, paradoxically els,where thtrt could bt' no ends, orttltol·

ogy, and no history. Whatever else one can ~~y about Arrhitrct11N and U~poa,

11 did proposl' an interpretation of history roughly from the Enh1htrnimn1

to th<! Modern Movem<'nl, a history unders tood as a sequence ot events. con·

t radkt1ons, dialectics. 1dea~. and acnons in the eighteenth century ,,.h1ch fol

lowed one another and ll'd to Ideas and unde1 takings in the next twocen111rics

1

- 1n p3n1cular, the ab:.orptlon of architecture into the proccs.es ol capuah)t

ra11ona\1ia1oon with all of the consequences we hnv1• mcntiontd. Bttnus<'

l'.ifun used cr111osm to expose a view of that history .it vartnnt1' with 11~n· Jard ones. and because he a~scrtcd the pos~ibillty of inttrventlons only on thr

political level. he was not troubled by the prospl'Ct ot having srrv<'d up )Ollt

thing that could pa~~ for a meta-narrative. Subs\!QU'"' thtonsts, ho~vtr. io

the rhrall or dt•cenll•rcd. ah1btorical and nutonomous suh1cc1s. and ~rrhllKture for the sakt• ol •rchttPcture. t•hose 10 seizt• tht' results of 11\<1t anili•sis

untcthen•d fro111 thl' h1>1oncally g1oundeJ 1nterpretiv,,.1r~mewoik lrom"hteh

11 , • .1 J 1 •:111h1~ Into em<rg<'u To do othl'rwl!>e might tvcn mean havinll tn ~ m1111 •·

, h h II . tltr wnolf ' '' i•mc of thing~. which would of course l~ud to Jlsm~ni "ti . . r rom wluth

postmodemht M heme of dl'Ccnh•red ,ub1erts anJ tndrh•t min~cy .

rnds. origin>, or rou11dJt1ons wen~ 11bsl'nt. I I h r~l rht<irrt"•

A t ough hy tht· 198ob the 1111en11011 of the i11~·h1tet'lll h t·~•ahl I •Sfll'~1lll)'l, t r

15 •m~nt h;1d ~h1ht•t.l 10 nt'w sourrcb (Oon11h1 onJ 1.ura t1 1 ·

811 d k I rnt11l l'.u1.ir<""

iui1 wur lor 1unn<'< 11on:. w11h thu newr~t 1rc11Js In cont 11 311

tho I L I T hiti hln1$tlf ' ug 11 .. at.I .ilrl'ady b11cn 'hdpt•J by the 1·on111cb wot 1 '1 · u"r

UI ·h I .-~ .. r~ull. nni,oioub tt'Jder who wi" 1.1m11i~r woth 1h1• works ol M•• r •M"l

11d I J tJt•>/01<» llr" a. ·II dn, "nd nth er' by thr timt> ht• wrote Ard111rrr111 ~"11 n(h wrt•

on •>lhl' , d $t 1>t thC l'n' 1 1 ''·1Y~ ol th" v~rly 1'}70~. hr h.11l 1111rodurl' 1011

' 1 ~ wh•o 'ub".~ljucnt ly dnm1n.1trd t hrn1 y 1n th<' U1111rd !'tl\tt• -~1t..ct11r.1I

Wtl h d ur11un,3f\ 1 1 1 rd v,•nt ot po,t\11111 tun1il•m :inJ 1l•""~notr ff11'11"J1·10. th1•ur"t h nd ,,~ 111drl 'cm 1.in.•1l rh1• r1•w d0< t11nc-. ~bout lan~uJ8•' ~ 11 m111r lkl I wh~I l~»I> II"'·" \Ulh '"to uih, 11'o1l11y. ~nd \('fl.1lnty W(.'f\' r.-ru•t y

•

1111\1 and df'con>1ru llVI t llic h1tt"('IU1 ul 1lwo11i;h almt'tl I•> b.1111,h. That th• y

(tod so hy propo51ng 1h1 tr own dogm." ul rnJ• trr min•C}. d<'CtnH·rt•dn< ''·and

•h~ •M• h of dl\cour1r b an 1•mbllrr 1>•mr111 no onr ''"'' t•ag, r to AJmtt Ont•

ol thr thrill of '""dona rt.• ,.Tit lni;s of po••modrt nlst h.u 1><>•t~1ruc1urah>1, or

c!<"COn1truc11vi1t) a1chlltttu11I thro111 .. 1s 1h, hhth" 1nd11f..,..,nc., ,.ith "h1ch

TM "7l .,_.., of &Ix-I"~ .. not mf'rr/y J19 '"' rhr 1rr-rdu.1bl" n1ulttp!1rnv of

rongul'.£. 11 •>xh bl~ an ncomplrt1011. rhr 1nipoA.A1b1l1ty oJ Jit1u.lun9 of rotaln

"9 if ...arvrar,119. <>/ • mp/1 ti"(/"'°"" rhin9 on thl' onlrr o/ f'dij1corion ore/,,

rrrr1""' rorurruN 0•1,.ayAtcm and an'hltl'Cfo1ucA •

tollowon up on 1h1•. tn 1"88 l.1 ark W1aley "wo~ tlw not inn ol "&round

U\ UJ>JlOll 0 •nd lollowrd l>rrriJA. not l<•n I h ti thr '" UCI Ul .. IOI lU Chlh'C I UI c)

t~nd• not on thr £lo1tnd hut on ~n 1th)~•

/l.'r0ru11u. rion ;,.,.dJ, to a c"'"'''• '' '' r111 .. ~1119 ••/ th• .. ,,rrl• n.nirol irlurw1,

.AhCJ>C!lJOr,fz-1 ,J by thi (Ir, }11f• c t111,1( t,t1>tij 11/ tjlt>lllli/ All PIC (Jiit ., P11Jl11111( //1,

, ,,,, .. ~ IA . IV<""' Irv ("Olll. u/111y ,,,., ul•yA• "" " 1111 /1,, ""''""'• 1 ht• '""'"i.AllHI f'<PdUCt'.A t/11 Of'/li'lll•llll • 1>j 1111/1cf 1jf1ll/11tf•

~nd la1t•r 1n •pc11<lng ol 0111111111111 .1~ ,, "v1ol.111con 111 M1uc1u .. .,• ;,nd ard111, ...

1urt as 1111· ponll>1 l11y t•f h111Id11111. W1iih·~ , ~h·ht .1tt•d rh~ 1111k11 r mrnar)• whll h

<iiX"Onsrruc!lon m 1J, f'OS'lbl1• In Art h1t~•IU!t

'\.,rit a 9••1 " 'dot A 1101 cc>11.M11ur. CJ 1111·1hud a 111trq""· an onoty .. u. or"

M>llr , of I• 9ft1muatum It u not .111n111 91e It lw.; 110 p1t''Amb4'd aim. "'lu<:h u.

no110 .&a"J that It u. otmlt-M ft"'""'"" 1 i'I y l"<'«"•Atly but 111>1 r1• ·'"'"' ,..,d Ir u.

"Of " P'Oftt"

Or as letlr~ ~.1p111» put 1t, d1'l"onsrru< uon olft'red wh.ir he callt'd "mollf, ·for

'" hllt'Clural d"Slll"

~ •ltlt d~Atrt.ry mamtaln, rrnru~ 011J t«'rru.rnm /Jo ~.1tt/4' uoir/1 rb.• •"'}' ""'4"''~

of 11rrlrilf'C!u1ol mro111119 wi:lro"r pro/>(IAHtq u 111•w onltr . Jto/ d1'Atu!lrl1r•• mron·

rng TodrAttlb1J;zy '"""''il''J JOl'.A "'" rmplv procJ1rM1:i11 rou ... n:t utty nru•o11J Atablt

h .,

trltl.. tuul tJJa.u m n r1t1thrr mNtt ''' rt11I '''' 01111•9 rJOr r<>' r.Jn9t- "'' anit19.

M•ny ot th~ dl ... onstru111on teXh ol the lair• 1980• and ~arlr r99os wt't.:

•n,h1rn1'CI m 1om1s on irchotrnu1al 1htO•) Ab.1ndonf'd by practruoners ltke

L1b1 skind ~nil~ 1\1•nm"n one,. rh<"y \Ian rd 1oobta1n comm.-~oons. and by th<"·

mi-rs ht'<aU'l' 11 •oon l>rram~ thoroughly unl•,h1on.1hle, dl'COnMrucuon and

thP tfxls 111 .. 1 cl'lrl:>r~H·d 11 '"" g.llhrr Ju,r Al11•1 all. nont· ol rht-<<' 1heor1sr'

MN •

.. .... .,.,.__ ............. . glob.· 11othng llbW'lt r> ~II - w~nts rn 1r .. ,..,1 w11h a dt>ten1tred ~ub1ect who

" ~ JlllOt And for whom rr~lotV I> Ml)' a J1,COU"I' tnd J cra\h nothing but

an •1111y <>I hr<' f1~11n.: ui;nther' I) J many ol t he arrhuectural 1heor1,1s

lull) &rM•p 11,,. d1m"n•1on• of tM poi.1 true ru1ahs1 anJ J1 .. on,11uo1vl'11hl"O·

11es th(')' who It ht";art...Sly rmbrnced' Ut'mard Tsthum1 unw1111ngly '"''°aled d

ceruon hazt1>rs• al>ou1 5Qmr fundament .. ls old ons11uu1on 10 1<}88 when

•••mrbody 0\11kntly forgot to r..tl htm 1ha1 1n •hr dt"cons11uc11v1'1 <"ra. '>' r.ms "''''" 0111 "dts1unct1on bttor:io a systt11U11c and 1hror .. 11lal tool for tht

m.al<.lng ot archhKrurr"

Dt••p•I<" ll\t' •mbracc of thr .,nJ ol th" class1cnl, th<" end of n•t•an·

tng, tht t'nd ol history, thr d ssolutlon ol rrprtsrnt.11100. arJ 'IO forth. rhe

19110• n-a 1hrorlsu rtsoncd to d d.M:uc pronouncrmrnts '" ns•d ~nd 101ahz

lnfl il> 1 hr mtta nanauv.~ thn thry suppostdly ...... r hes1egin11. and they nhen

1rumJ>Cd1h1· Md\'t'~.&f) wh•n II c~mt to i;rand1osll) o/ 5COp<' Ont• good •1t~m

"" ol thl~ -what,. m1;h1 ca I a "ll I rnul lomuh5m0 -1i; that <>I D1n1~l l 11x'

.~ 111d lrom hll •Ull• of drawui;;. Cl:am/t ... \\oil. ..

Jlrr l111rru1r. u. 11rllhiY 011 /h' lnA J~ 111tr th• ®u1d1• It u 1101 a q11.,.n nor o phy4

wal Ju• t It hw no ll1..r11111 011d II •li>tA 1101 /11/J.,w Iulo' IVhat "'"''9•'A 111 d1f

/• trllft<lt• d • \l'f'lltn<?U. A•thllr< ''"'.,.. '"' 111111 ~of rl1r r, /ot1C111.6hr/I bNt<'<'<'tl

uihot ""' u11d lfhor u 11/ ""A•• l11 r.,. ,.,,.. '" """ •'\IMl'lll r~u/11y 1.1 a .&ymbol

M>/u("h 1111hr1•r<X• u o} <•"IA''"'' .. '"'"' /1'tll'•'" o tr<11/ 1tf h11·r·o9lyrlu 111.4poce

c1111/ rrmr tlwt to.11 /1 t~ll1<'1l/o nt d«'/•tliA ••/ U11ortq'"ul11y 41

\'\lla1 d\ n;un1c' 111i;su.cl thrrt d~1J~i ol 1h1·ore11cal delirium in wluch poell·

c1Zlntl rrllr< 1100 paS)td lot th\•ory, anti wh.11 dol'> II all hav•• rodo wuh Tafur 1>

l t>1ta1nl1with1ht•<'C'Onomkt•pans1on ul •h• 1q80' no11ons 1ha1 bu1ld1n11 was

1mpo~llblt- and that th~ only vpuon w.1~ poh11<al .1t11on bt'came progre .. >111.ty

1~,. aruactl\-. 10 arch11t-c1S Hf"'Ctally acadPmic nnP>. who eventually found

•omm1ulon5 rn the t'COnOm1c cl11n41• of th• 1q9oi; Du1 It wa> al~o pre< osely

thlS i;roup thdt han~ l'ltd to1 ln1tllt'CIUAI lllrtlh< a11on, •o a bracing dose of ~u 11 ·

ably tnij!m<ltll t urop~an tht"Ory was 111•1 the 11c~e1 Tht problem was, which

0n,.1 Addre,s1ng this query d rht• sMg•• fur th" ~J>«tacle of 1h1rty yvars or

trying on ~nd d15<ard1ng b<>r,.,WHI th~nes w11h the r•p1d11v of a commod1

fltd consumtr at an o~tle! ~ale Much ot Tafun\ body of theory ~nd"d up rn

•he pill" of J1seard...t g~rmo•n". •<rttrally "'h"' he cal!..d for archllt'cture to br

pohucally engagtJ. What "maint'd wrrl' Tatun·~ rtft'rencf' to "no sahaunn

pos\lbli•." an arch111•c1ure "tmpl) ol any ijnJ .111 meaning." and the claim

that Tafuri h.1d ,oundcd the d1•ath of .uchott<ture - but th .. ,e hung on a'

handy <'~cu"•s tor rngag1n11 only 1n work on lhf langu;ig• of archtte<lUr<'.

empty tormali\m. An 01h1«w11c ... ,u, .. J h"1011an, Joan Ocl<m3n •tumbl.-J

over Tafuri·, v11•ws on uch1t~c1ur.tl l.1bor b\ rt.1ding him throui;h the ro~v

spe1 taclC\ ol l:1<1•nman." Rclr,1t1<•d 1hr1111gh F'.os~oman's d"!tlrt~J lens, in

-•

•

_.,;;. ' ·

( . h purism ol the New York Ockman'• accoun1. Tatun ends by prt erring t e

6 Tai , d1sm1ssed architecture as Fi"" , 0 enpgtd wotk. Yet as early as 197 · un .

he professed much more inter· miserable when it preens with maJUmum pomp;

• • d m..t•s offertd th• cooperative est In archu.cturt with a small a, an as exa v~

·• I' ' t whtCh ""thertd work· 'bu1ld1ns programs of commun1st·go""m"" lta ian c1 its o- •

•~ toatthtr wtth builders but harbortd no illusions about •resolvtng the.

housing problem." Htr description of 'fafun's voew of "history as tragedy

is wonh counrrring with Massimo Cacc1an's observation 1n his eulogy that

Tafuri raught tht most difficuh lesson: the an of d<5enchontmcnt together

with ho~ and faith.* Tifurl was not outlining an agenda for a new architectural production

d1sengagtd from politiul reality. On the contnry, 11 was to the critic and the

h11tori1n t~t he addressed his rtmark• as an approach to the criticism and

hi.toc-y of architecture. Of the work of tht New York five, for exam pit, Tafuri

ttllinsly commtntl'd: "In th• face of such products, the task of crit1tism is to

btgrn fromW1thm theworkonlytoesca~ from II as soon as possible so as not

to be caught 1n the vk>OUs c1TCl•of a language t~.at speaks only or itself."

The task Of t\w Crill< and that or the h11toroan art different OntS:

771.u ..,. abandon •ht objttt iLUl/ o"d mow into th• •YAI"" which, in iuelf.

9iw• ,,..omn9. ll"d crlrkwm thrrrby rxpllc1tly molltA /U rnquut from o ;,pe·

clfic tOAk 10 th• Atructurr rhor co"dirion.1 rhr total mronin9 of tht object ...

771• '"Ir of cri1ici•m iA th• vlolot1on of the ob11et In quudorL 11

Out ii arch1tec1u1t dtmands •ngagement wlrh polh1Cal, social, and economic

sysrems ind inst11u11ons. critlci•m requires distanct, T•fur1 lnsl11ed, some·

rh1na 111 shon supply today. The closeness of theonsts and architects who

mutually celebrate one anothtr, cue on• anothe1, invite one •nother to con·

ferontn. writ< book$ and publish anodes •bout one •nother, and h1,.. one

anotli-r, IS aim••• lruoestuous. and cenunty luves no space for dtbate. let

alone the d1<1 anct lhat lllfuridecnied •»enrial for the pr ""let or both history •nd of c11llcl\m Indeed, an 1981>, Tafuri argued th t th 1

• trtlS no crrt1cl~m. only i111ory, • hJStory no1 of object~. bur ot men,'" which •hechallengc 1sto under-

stand how• workol a1chite<:ture hi> onto It sown rime. l he hl•torl , 1n c rk ~ on exam1n·

¥ urrentwo . hc hel~.musiertatl' anani ficlaldlsrnnle "lnsto·• h have rod· y 1 h' · · ""• w ot we

' n ., r itectural tllNiry is a more robust I very sy<rcm Tafuri rhall Y·>tructur.d version of the

enged, a sy>tem that govu• meaning to ond fc1l h' , arrhnf'Ctural ob1ecrs, dnd wh h d . ' 1'1tes

IC en ~II> P• •U1t1oncrs wirh h reWlrds ryp1cal ol a wen olled t • SU\tu s and have• >f'lfnl of lh«.>ty prod carnpontnl Of C4plt•lt>t 14l1Un•hty. In >hon, we

UClron and "'Chltectural prod pr•rtn1one1> that ,. co1qphc11 I h h ucuon by theonsl/

., t t t commod1hcahon f 111ony T•furt ••phculy ulut rted nd n capuahst hegt·

d - a aprn\t .,hoch mos t f h •n pra<111>on••• h•vt' ropeatedly 1 d o t H< rheorlsts •. ""1 • Although

in .. per.cJe111 or politics and Prt>ented as autonomous '""' ttonornics. th1i. work wa d' '

"'"' th>t WilS •hf: prohlrm. thed 1 f ~ iroctly insuumcntal enia u 1nstrt1me I •

ou1oll<omous as much as tho liil't or nto ity by veiling the work as rnsrrumental't Th

lCllurc rs •utonomou• and th I I y, ~• 1s, to assen that •rch' rl f ere ore nn1 instrumo I l·

ie •ct that a1d11tec1uro 1s deeply b , nia ro pohtlcol ends covor& much rm rocotcd to pot ·

lpl'ublemaupcCtf\ccue.of Illes and that Is iust a in' 8o •nsrrumenalny A s

9 , !hes. •xpenm•ni. . . s lalu11 astutely ob • in pnvare lan&u•ae served nmatn oo rl~ si.se cvrr mort s •••t•I above all th.e des'

ST•tt•qutly 111111110 ore to Mork W1gll')I ohs.rv,d that l!espueth g'" an effon to tnterta1n.·•

epo-..er •nd h >i¥n1 ranw of Tar ur1's

bombshells on his tory. theory and practice, there has be en ilnle iu

dialogue generated by hls work. In the United States his . sta1ae4 . . · Vltws wer

vided 'into httle tasteless pieces for consumpt ion by the An 'lllb(i. . • . Bio S1it~ Li

has been added to his masters voice beyond a series of useful f !tit Instead, Wigley claims that Tafuri's impact registers elsn.~ • OOt•Olt\..,,

re: . rest>-&. not dinctly influenced by Tafuri and which makes only occai.I 1 " """'

ona reJerfrl< his writing might nctually be the most disruptive legacy of his won..·n 11 '°

Even though Tafuri called for a sep3ratlon of history a d . n <ntlti1rn ~

practice, Wagley claims that ·new forms of research" have f one Oot on tach

side of the gap, "testing its hmits without ever simply brld"'n It . , 51

"' ll • scrutrnltW, its contours closely - " What Wigley calls a "non·prescrtpti\'\! Arthlt g

Theory" challenges "the discourse" in new ways. "Tafuri• h• , fCl~rtl ' < says, '<OA't p;o

away. His threat lives on in writing that he would no doubthaveh •-•· a._, W1it'!' is probably correct on that count, but not for the reasons ht l1ta,ln«. Tiii.i would have loat hed the slick repetition of the .,.(ebratory te•ts, thealsucr

of rigorou1 scholars hip. and the construction of a theoty<nticism establi.s>

ment; he would have d ismissed most of it as empty languaseaamttonJ par

with much of architectural practice.

Having replaced an older regime, this system of theory/practx-e l1Mlf

needst11 be dismantled, or, to reframean observation fromModmillrclitf(ftm,

what possibilities 3re opan to a discipline such asarchltecturethai uaayetln.a

pablc of posing to Itself the problem of its own place in the polltleal arena/9

Jll j ·-

•

__ j

" , ..

•• •. , ... .... ·~ •• • • • .... . ' >-• lJ •

{~ t .... / ••

• • •

~- NOTES •

Menf'9d<> Tatvn. Arcl>lttel.,,. • nd Ufop.1. 0.S1t1n and Cap,1.i. 111 t:lwolopmMr (Ca!>ot>tldge MA• IAI l Pross W76. trano141tion al P._ilo•VtOO<• (Safi: Laterza. 1073), P.181.

15 lb.O .. p.181 .

18 lbtd.

2 See. for ....,.,pi.. the ontroduc1"""' to Tat..,.t's H&ays PUb- 17 ,.,., • Cl.JI!.

llshed rn ~1""'5 3 (~ 191•1. CW.Os-t.ons 5 (Summe. 18 Ibid . P.183. •9'161. Qiposit.,,,. 11 (Wonle< 1971). ~'1IO<>S 17 ISurnmer 19

1919) Pii1Wr E- ''li..WICM<l Cr~ic:: ANr 2!>-26. (2000),

f6-10. 1nd tnCIHcl. """') ol 1"" er1oc ... "' '""t llutl4ic:etoon

F'lncooseVety. 0 E1•<1eh1n-1.1in1rac1o Tai""'. AMI: ken. ltclll'I, ~1 CMl.nurt~ 39 (Juno !9111). p-'

3 In tf\ls essay • use thi! h 1s·tlif"Q El'IQ41SI\ trans.latl()nS of TatUfl'S

W<W'll oec.aust th1.s 1:1 how moat Amertc:1ns were rntroduceo

10 it: I onlv off ti' my own tran.5lat.ons whete ,, is less stgn1fi·

eaf\l tor the h1st0ry of the m11repttsent1l lC)Os..

20 ftod .. Pm. Ir~ m.ne,

21 K Michotel liayS, "Talun" G/losl.' A/\lr lS--2'!{2000), p. 38.

22 Frednc Jameson. "Aret>"ecture and tne Critique ol ltleOfool<" .n J Oekman et al., Arch,lteturti/C r1t1trsm/ldtv/o1Jy (Pritt,. •Ion Pl1oceton Alc:t,.tecturotPr..., 1986), J-sor.. "Tho

l'l>l~uol Theory. ldoolQg.cal f>oo•lton$,.., lho l'ost<T>Qdom Dtblto; Nrw i;.,_,, Cr'1- 33(f1n 1981), P.5.3-«i

I YY9 Ala W\ Boos. re'"'" of T~i.s ont!Hisloryo( A>t:hlttclll'•. on l\:lpoa,1•11•• 11 !W•ntor 11/17). e>.118-123. Boos IJe<et.ed

l ' • •

Toh"' tor not haWOQ "PIJd .-.111en1oon 10 orch<tect.....i larm• (p.119) ond tor betr1Q .,,,.~-oil •enc»r{ong]

ICCOUrlt Ola 0..ld<'>Q.· a task T1lut1 accµtltd perlectly _ , "'I"°'\' different ll/1)1 ol book. "*"'*'•Arc/lrltclvr•. l)f.rt wn.eh w•s c:erta.n1y not celled tor an f'*>fr41s and Histor,.s.

S Mattf~ TafV1'1, toor,~ f 6l0t111rkl/'11ch1t•lt"'a (Bari: La! tflO. l!ICll). p.129-1~.

& f1t u11, _.rc:htl«lurf!1ncJUIOtJia, o. x.

7 H.d . ... ,_ 181. 182.

8 Rd>tlrd l•IQOlooll. •nt .. _ w•h MJnt•-Tah .. , "The<• "noc:t~iosm. Mr "41"'J.' De"'nllo<*R,,,_(Spnng 198G).p.8-lt

o P.te< €"""'"""- "Tho Wocl.oc:t Cntoc: AN• ~26 (2(XX)~ p.10. f l&enmen proftctecl h.1s own neod fOf surrogates ante TatUt"1, hOldlng lt\at Plrahe$1 beeamt a suttogate fOt' Tarur1. f i sen .,.n 1100 wrote· "The d11S01ut1on ol lorm anci ihe "°ieQafi"8 1n 11 .. 11. The consttucllon ol a IAoooa of d•!i$Ol'o00d f0<m bec4tnea tho rtcuperahon ol thf neoou..,_ In Plranea•s 'd•SC<M!y' of Talun. arthoteclu<e" nolhlrg men"""'• •IOI' Ind an ••bltr•y construe· I_" In 11¥1 E...-completaly IUMO'IO Tt1urrsown idus

ebolll "'• e<kocat ltll•P'•M. .nctudtno being an anat1$1 ol 111&-ol lllstory rather then 1-i.r of suttOQlles or llUPl'Ola •nl•- mouth• "'°'di COU4d bt ploced.

IO A"""1g the colltaguea •wrted lo and pub/•lhed by the IAUS wMe GIO•OtO Ciucci, Francttco Dal C.o. Franco Rella. ~Tays.sol. and Masl•mo Cacciarl.

~ ti ""9nl11do T1tuu. '1.'""""lactur• dint re Boudr:>tr: Tile I.an·

, OtMgaol cnt"'*" onr:t tne crdocwn ol 1--.' °"'°'1· "°""3("'8t 1971), i»w tn M. 11av&.e'lll "'- l flllel, p.291-316. Al1hcuQI> Ille number wu dote~ 1014, ~riOns w1&

f1mwt1y one lo two-· behind the l)Ublocahon dolt. In 111117. Ta1on maU•W!ly t•at1St0<med lht1 t1>ey for putlltcalioo "'an l<lllld "°'"""of h•s usoys, Tht SfJ/*t •nd tile Lll1t· rmtll: A1<111t·G•rde• a/Id A11:h1tec1vro from P11.,,.., 101ht

19/'0I. t~. Penegrono rf A<:1arno and Aobt<I Connolly {C.m· btodQI MA · Mil p,KI. 1987). 0 267- 211(), t qllO(e from Ille ""'1 11 n wuwhen n •nflUtflOldU--dur"1QtN 1970u11'd ._t of tho lllGOs-

tf lbod., p. :iw.

1a '~"' . o. 310.

14 M..,,,_ fefut1 and F'8noeeco Da l <A l#odfrn AICfritw:IJJrtl,

.,.,II. Robert Encl> Woll !New York• Horry N. Abram&, Inc., tOJg1. or '1.">lllly IJUb/J$hed by Elect• 1n Milan ro 1979 under Ille title Atch,totlu,. Conl•~-· Blc:OUM tn. 111tmrs ll11Qled OIA the d'8p!eis whoclt -h Wl'Ott l~ty. tt 11-blt IOSJtiQleOIA l11..-;•1 ..,._...,.. , rtf•onlY IO

<hoilltra Talur1 clufted 8$ hit...,.,

23 lbod. p 312.

:14 Fe< 1 fuller d•501S&oOl'l ol tr.s PC>lnt. - mv artoci.. "The A~llltectureof Dec:e;l• P1tS/>O(t12t (1961). p.110-115

2S PeterE ... rvnan. "Post·Func1.....,11cn\" ~Uons6(foll 11176), now m Oppos,tioosR..,,.,, p.12.

26 lbt1t«:l4H. p..G,

ao Peter e1...,,,..,. "TheEndol tlleC-.,..1. Tho End ol

lhe e.g,,,,.."0- lhe End of'"" EN!: "'111>«1121 (1964).

p.16'-I 7?. now rn M. Hoya. ed. At<~iltclurt Tllfo,y Sklct

lllr'i8(Cembnc1Qe I.IA. Mii PnlN. 19'18). ~-639: the text

e11..i '' on p. 530 .

41 Taf "" Atr:hileclU<•.,,,, Ufop/•. p '"-· - 1100 ·rne Aines of Jaflf!r&On,' p.302

3! "Entrot-· 9.86

» Ta tun, -Tho AshN ol .Jttf.,1(11\," o 301

31 lbod .. p.:oJ.

35 TaflJI• and Oal Ca. - n AIChnftfUlf, p.OIO

l!O Hal Focter. "(Alot)Modern Po'emtC$. • Jlfrspocra 21 (1984l o. t ~ 163: 8etnar<1 T SGl\<lm\ "The A<etlltte\urel p.,..do>c.. SllJdt0 lntomauorra1 ls..>tomber--Oc:t- 1975),,.,,,,, rn Hll)'s. Id. Arcl>ll<etin Thoory S111ce llXIJ. p.21&-2:26 Toclll.wN wrilt$

ol 1 lfl)yl1nlh ''°"' ""'ocn d ;a •m--10 -· ano ol M

"&'ct.14Cture fthatl can - "9.'

r7 In""' ten ·r11t Hlatoric91 PtOtOCL'" ~/Jons 11 (SLlllfnl(

1079). Ttfu" hid etrwcty int<Oduc:ed Ille tt..• ol .ia<Ql>5 De<rtdl. Jocque& tAcan. GKIH o.lourt and Ftkl Guallen to EOQlitl> reedr&. and IUSCrtbqut ol ttw ~games

ol tlte Ntw 'lb<J< Fl .. -• arl1culotld 4Qfln •n "Tho ASl\fl of JeffarSOll." 1n 1t.it111 tn LI sl•ra •II llbllltlt.o: ~,.

• lfC/lllfltjJ(• "'f>lrMIMl f(l~ "'"' '10(Turln: EtnaUOI 1Glll) and trlNlated Into EOQli611 In ri.. $,o/lett •flrltheLl/¥/nfh.

~-:m

• .Ille- O.r!clo. -O..T-1dellebol."11.,._ Jooll>'l f. G<INm. «I J. Gr.-.. D/lle<...ct itt TrftlflllitOn (ltNce: C:O.. no11~,;1,Pr-.1•1.p.186.elt4d byWtglly. om.

• Merl< WJQllr. ·ri. T......ie!;..nol Atol\itectura. 1i. Proctuetion ol 9ab1f.' In H.ye. Atchll«tw• ri-1 JH>C• 11#1. p.801-615: lho quot.11 fr()rJI p.4'10.

40 Ibid .. p.674 .

'1 ~'rt lllpnia. ·T-•rv 1'lt Sepwilrb ." MMm61tQI IA ~ 19111~ """'in~ /IJdtl#lclOJf n-,. ,,,,.. ,fl/II, p.7\0--1.C.

<le a..-dT.tehumi. ·-Tow•dSaT1"'cfyolAt-.:twa1 Ols1ur>ctoon.' Arctwlectu<e Mttl Urlltlmsm ~16 (Soperober 198!). p.1).15, now on Kai• ~t<I. "-<Ori#•~-- kw Nttvlr<wn At>~df-«Jllfo!T'-1 19$S-IQ95~'1btt. Pr>ce1,,,,_tc1.nlPr-. IQll6).

p l'IG-1~

<0 Ooritol L-""10..--~ Atdlfl«lllf-1 MoOlt""'"'"

on T1>tmes /rOl'f'HvkfJtus '"°"""" A,~., As.<0ela

t""' 191!3).

44 Joa•~ -v.rliee ond f>le,. York.· C••lll 619-.6/ll (Je"""'Y-fetwuery l!llllS~ p.51- lt.

•5 "En1r11 .... : o.lll As-ce•orr..i..,·1otetwonc:.lo<tho -k of the NewYOi"< F""" ~ c:-Tol..t's COMWnt tr..,, Ard>lf(l<.rt and !Xopo • ., OSAy ,.,lft., belore ht

"""""' cantect "'th or "'-ledQI about Ws gr....,.

«I Oelmon's "°"""""',. tn -· _., New Yon.. P.6A: Cac. .... , ..... """'tt.e<AoQr ·Ouodf\ITI' .,.._"''\lance"" 25 ~ 1996, ~od., Ca-Sit-«!!), p.1111!.

41 Tatw,, "l' A«:hrtectuni dens te Boudot•: p.:»1.

" tngorsoH. "?>,ore" no cnt•civn. ority h•$10l"f." p&-11

4G Tafuri, ta s/f'f"• 1 ti Jl!l)it1nto (Turm.: E.ineudt. t980), JieS..G. tran::rat'CW'I mint.

50 M&rllWcia..,. ~t-Ope..ai,.. H.story; ANt ~16 (l!IXQ. p.A1~· ~ Qo<Uhon .s i,,,.,, p.!U

51 Ibid

" ll>d.

5a Tetu" and O;ri Co. -..nAICllol«lvtf, p. «>.

.,

•

hgu~~. and llu 1ld1ng~ to cen.nte the mystwto of atatl

~1"11/t'ly httlt a utonomy.

In the Wtst owe- the last fiw hu nclr.cl y.ars. 111

ft~1 1ht autonomy ol .1n wasgnrantttd by loc;al PCliMillltll'l

pro1tc11ng an th.,- might ~mH$ It to t heir puachlal

ma,1ully. 1nu n1 10 c:omP 10 Iii•. Animation of the

tr•l.11 unrt'.ih)llc, go3\ol 111uch of ann•nt an·makl4 J 1,<1pft>Ol ll1t t•ngtnP<•r O .. rda\U$, dn amed offuh

would )!'Ult a!ld mollt' of 1r. own accord 1 T111a cordl-"1111

a ru.11\y su....,1w d dtt'p into Mod•rn European till\l9.

.. ;

..

with the meager technologies of anis11c realism at their disposal. resigned

themselves to a merely metaphorical votalism and automatism. the ideal of a

work of art dosed in upon itself. infinnelydense. 1rreduc1ble on much th9 .am9

way that a human soul is orreducohle, and signifying nothing. Some described

this new ideal of closure and independence as monadic, invoking a term cen·

tral to the metaphysical philosophy of Leibniz. The early twentieth ctntury

arsthcticoan Benedetto Croce. pointing to the d1stmctoon between artworks

and symbolic representations. said that the artwork had no dopp10 fondo, no

·double or "false bottom" like a mag1c1an's suitcase.' Represcntauons, when

explored. yield hidden meanings: arr works. by contrast, simply are what they

are. Artworks do not issue any onv11at1ons. Many modernist theo11sts have

held this view of the artwork. and yet at the same time felt it necessary 10 JUS·

t1fy the artwork ro modernity. Theodore W. Adorno, for Instance. in order to

resrue the monodir work from complete irrelevancy, argued that the very ex1s

tence of a self·suffic1ent. self.contained anifact is an impl1c11 critique or nega-

11011 of rhe practical world

W11h ~uch arguments, the modernist artist has been licen>ed tQ make

things that are no longer used m ordinary ways. These pointless but strangely

potent artifacts are cordoned off from the rest of the material world by van·

ous framing and labelling devites. Some makers of these privileged things win

great fame and material rewards, h\ot it is arguable that they do so only by

bPtraying their commitment to autonomy- by performing as glorified interior

decorators. tor instance, or by penetrating the spheres of glamour and celeb·

roty Most an·makers arc not at all famous. Negation 1s meant to be its own

rcwa1d Art·makmg. according tQ the logic of autonomy, successfully finds

ors •Mgcr 111 direct proportion to 1rs disengagement from the business of the

world . Auronoony is 1ust anothc1 word for nothing left to lose.

Arch11ecrurc, by contra st . is always answerable and never disengaged

from the business 0 r the world: and 11 would have plenty to loi.c if it were to dis

engage itself. Unhkc pJ1nting, arch11euure h1stortcally Mver gave up its close

rnnnecr oon ro aurhorory. Arthitec ts ~till represent society's understanding of

11self. ~1111 shelter and shape the cemrdl symbolic act1v1t1es of social hit. and

still mrd1dte between man and n3tU1e 1n way> that painters 01 sculptors can

•/ i ~; t , I T -

. .. .... . . . .,·..... . .

'---- --.. --- - ---------------'

only etwy. Arch1tec1ure does not need to <imulate vitality through a posture

of monadicity. And there i< clearly no need for society to compensate arch1tcc·

tur"~ with the gift or autonomy. It as: amazing that arc:hltccts: would try to cl:um

this ambiguous privilege, unless they were announcing their own withdrawal

from the world .

There are places of privacy, leisure, and luxury imbedded within the

architectural field where quasi autonomous experiments can be carried out:

villas. pavilions, gardens. caprices. Here. and in its virtual projects. architec·

lure doe> won for itself some of the freedom and eloquence enjoyed by paint·

ing or poetry Archlt~ture's suuatoon resembles that of fashion . The inescap

ahle tasks of clothing and sheltering prevent either fashion or architecture

from attaining autonorny. But clothes and buildings are symbolic machines

and those who operate these machines naturally crave discursive freedom .

Fashion and architecture are thus always striving towards autonomy, but only

achieving ll ephemerally and spectacularly in the experiment al modes of their

respective industries: on the one hand. haute couture. and on the other, the

architectural caprice and the utopian pro1ect.

Once beyond the caprice and the project. the Ideal of autonomy in archi ·

tecture is not rnuch more than a mystification. It 1s true that Individual

buildings can eventually, by the mysterious workings of rutept1on, achieve

something like autonomy. It is not completely meaningless ro say th~t the Par·

thenon or the cathedral of Rei ms are monads. Bur 111s hard to set out to build

an autonomous building. In the modern world, where people tend to disagree

wi ldly about the ultionate grounds of meaning and value, it is impossible to do

so. rhe vision or an autonomous architecture descends from the eatly Roman·

tic idea that life itself may be thought of as a work of art and shaped according

to aesthetic principles. This idea encouraged the 1nnarcd and heroic image of

an artost who would reach non ·artiSt!. how to live. Trying to r~shapc the world

by making poems or paintings 1s one th mg; trying to do ir by making bu1ld1ngs

is toke opera ring heavy machinery under the influ•nce of a potent drug. Arc hi

tectural self rul~ would be misrule.

Of couisc, MChatects do blunder into the Jivos of c1t1cs Jnd perpetrate

quas i cnm1nal affront~ 10 hun1an dignity and freedom. ~gain and again Soc1·

and no reason t;i be constra ned by II For Fiedler. tht world 1

tu re ol the mmd •The truly amsttcally gifted nature; hemainlainll.

forth m 11sclf so to speak that process, now amved ata MWfrttdo&

rl'al11y 1 gc nerated tor man· Art for Fiedler was rtal tnough wtlhalt

to look hl:.e rl'aht} s rhe Viennese a t h1~tJnan Alois R1egl folllwill argued at the tnd of the nml't<l'nth century that the h1sl0ricalia

ar11st form obe}ed an m1cmal logic th~t unfo ded mdepetdtldl'ol

cal runcuonor material condition~. R1egl demonstrat td rhiswsdl

m his 1893 history of rhc development of ornamental moots tN world More provocatl\t! was his latl'r attempt to see throuP tilt

m1me11c or symbolic coment of early medieval and rvenruatly

and Baroque sculpcures and pd anting~. and instead ptrrii\'ftMr If tural formal pnnc1ple~ -one might say their ornamental priJIClpllS

through con•ent R1egl prt';>ared these works for insert on inte

mde;iendent h1~toryof form 1 _.

R1egl was less mleresteJ than some of hts coniernporarll'

h 'lfl'lllflls.it-' no11on of the c OSl' autonomous &elf sufticient. 511 ...., ~byu,..

tenously vnal force For R1egl, thl· work of an gent tor111•l•I haJ been broken down by :he critical eye 1rto its wor!c's..,-

to be "onderfull> open to 1he world h pnr.tiplc. the _...ftlllt

be 111hical ci--its anngon pohtlrs~nd society, on fund:nnenta aJ1C1

m 1\.\ manipul<tuon~ of line and color n the picture plane , le. for a soph

Riegl s schcm11 provided th~ frdmcwor f h hornolojY tory ot a1t nut 11 <eem' that hts vis on o 1 r

d J nf' of rt oes not support a cnt1ral aesthrtrcs. a o<t• 1 I t~ fiction• underwritear-'s e,xcep11onal1smand 1ust V 1

C I tr empts t onsequently, rhm 1• h.1ve been n nu1nbcro a • lex rnoJrl

i>t "111toru1· to throret•<ally more comp

It has been t•mpung. for example. to compal'I' Rlegl's reduction of p1ctonal

mPan1ng 10 a mattrr of simple formal choices to the structuralist hnguisrics

of rud1nand de Saus.ure 'R1cgl was an exact contemporary of Saussure. The

n<Jrscavery and 1heore11cally 1nlormf'd rereading of R1egl in art history sincr

the 1970s followed closely upon tht' post ward1scoveryof Saussure. Since then

rhert' has bt'en a tendency to prOJKI the 1ns1ghts of language· based structural·

1sr rhought back onto lare nineteenth century German ustheucs and art htS

tory. rrancesl'O Dal Co. for mstance, cred 11 s F'ledler and Rieg! wuh recognmng

thar ano<Hc products, no less rhan ltnguls11c statements. must be understood as

repl'l'scn1a11ons. 1har •S. as neg;itoons of any ·srmple reflect ion betwttn subiect

and ob1ect. as 'anoncoal' constructions· cut off from any foundMion of meaning,

and as ·autonomous events• yielding up rruths only about themselves.•

Bur th•~ attempt to JUStlfy rhe aes1het1c1S1 proiect by linking or to modern·

isl 1ns1ghts onto the groundlessness of lingu1st1c tepresentarion, an attempt

launched by r1edler himself. is 1mpo~~ible to sus1ain. Painted pictures and

buildings can bear meaning, but it is seldom their principal function to do so.

And evrn when they do represent something, pa1n1in11s and buildings do so

in ways that ha\•e httlo 10 do w11h linguistic representation. Any later exten·

s1ons of Roegl's amb111ous tormalism that imagine they are underwritten by

lingu1s11c theory must be evaluated with care. Certa inly there are special cases

mean•nK Rut such qua st rodes are never really a l!"eed upon within a commu·

nuy. nor dons members agree which elements of pictorial or architecrural

form a"' coded and which are not . Arch itects may argue that the code 1s estab

lished by the lustory of architecture. But the history of architecture has to be

learned from travel and books, and every ind1v1dual learns 11 d1ff•rently. Every

studtnt of rhe history of archnecture has his o r her own constantly shift1n&

idea of the code. Real language cannot afford this pluralism. Languaee tune·

tions only because grammar is embedded 1n the brain at birth and because

thl' local l111gu1stlc code Is lea1 ned in early childhood and only incrementally

expanded later. Beholders of painting or architecture who are not at all fam1l·

oar with the allegl'd <Ode can derive pleasure and meaning, not to mention

use·value, from the picture or buildmg, whereas language is nearly useless to

someone unfamiliar with rhe code.

Language, finally. derives all Its flexibility and its economy from rwo

principles: lht Mbitr~rincss and the double articulation of its material signl·

flers. The form uf the s111n1fler is arbitrary in that it ls unconstrained by any

•xternal constdtratlons: any signifier will do as long as everyone agrees to rec·

ognrze it. Thesign1fie1 osdoubly articulated in the sense that words. which can

be multiplied infinitely, are built from combtnations of a tiny number of pho·

ncuc mod111,.s.• Pictorial or architectural s1anifiers are neither doubly artic·

ulated nor arb11r~ry Ornamental motif~ seem to be the closest to ai b1trary

formal sogmhers. and lt 1s in this domain that wrners on art have been most

tempted to turn 10 the model uf language. But here, too, the analogy is wea.k.

A truly arbitrary •1gn1ner gets attached 10 lu conc•pt not because any future

of the s1gn1her makes it especially appropriate t o that con~pt. bu t enurely

becaun of custnm In an and architect ure. there is always some rea.on why

onu1gn1her 1s formally pref era bl• to another forrepresenunga gtvencontent.

Honiontal element• an a buikhng cannot ~imply be used to s1g rufy anytlung

at all. u would be d1thcult to have t~m 11gn1f)' "verucalny: fur msuin°• ·

Structuralist system•1t c11y may appear at tint to hold out the hope ot

an an1culate. poss1b1ly cn11cal represemauonahty - a d1scurstve autonomy

- for bu1ld1ngs and picture~ dhke. Yet without true 11rb1tranness. co~nt1onahty, and doubl~an1cula11on. pictorial and archltectural representation can only am in

tha1 w~aker. mote g•n~r;il ~Ort of autonomy desert~ by late Romantic aesthe'lt·

ttsm: the hne. purev1 s1on of the turmal 1maginallon as a 1>4rpetuum molnle.

A stronger version ot the analogy between archltec lllre and language i>

rven h1rder ro su.ia1n. the idea that art or architecture's autonomy m1gh1 be

cuarantttd nor by rhe arb11ranne$s of 11s s1gn1fiers. but by thrirvery non·arbi·

1ranness If hon1ontal elements mean what they do tor deep and 1neluctabll'

reasons, the argument goes. then perhaps architecture has a kind o! grammar

which can be manipulated to generate meanings. R1egl himself tnrroduced

the analogy tn plan nine a ·h1stoncal gritmmar of the visual arts.• But this

analogy undernres the power of gramnur and unfairly borrows the presn~

of grammar to 1us11fy ultimately non grammaucal operations. Grammar is

innate and cannot be manipulated The system of pronominal desigJ'lauon of

the first and sttond persons, in particular. 1s indispensable to the con.in.oe·

lion of a sense of self - littrally. not hgura11v~y. tnd1spensable. Since gram

mar 1s inseparable from human sub1ert formation. 11 1s not easily manipu·

lated to poetic or representattonal ends. Wl'len arch1tectsgenera1e meaning by

deliberately confllsing our expectauons about inside and outside or wall and

support. they are opNaung wtth a ltHC!om that language-users do not enjoy.

The architects here are provmonally hberatlng arch11ectural elements from

their customary funct ions and meanings in order to introduce them into a sys·

temancity II\ which they will carry new muning. To argue that architecture

thus does what language does Is to mix rwo levels of langu~. and to Imagine

that the elements o f gramma11cal deep structure can be loosened and pushed

use of language, whereas an .orch1tect who l:u1lds a poem cannot be cttt.ain

that all the future users of the building will r«Ogt\Ue 11 as a poem. What archi

tecu are askone for when they asl< for autonomit and what SOCJeties will want

to think about twice beforegrant1ng.1s poetic h«'nu.

In assesSJng da1ms that architecture m111ht inaU to chSC1J$ive auton·

omy. one hu to ~alert to hidden and rutnctl\~ 1deahsms. Th• an h1Stomn

Rlegl undemood the supposedly fTtt g•nention of meaning as a ma.nipula ·

tion o f a fintte supply of markers w11tun a sewrrly regulated system. R1egl's

sense of the hmus of human freedom wu charactrnsuc of his epoch. By the

late nineteenth «'ntury. theaC'h1evemenu of 1nduct1w scientific research and

empmcal hisrorlcal sdiolll!Sh1p weighed ht>avtly on the un<aginatlon. Laws of

nature had been discovered and conhnncd by repeated experim<!nt.s. Th• mind

and the spirn, 100. it wu feared. would soon be submitted todelin1tlwexplana

non. If a Romantic philosopher around 1800 could s till cionceive of freedom

as the invenroon of entll'l'ly new laws - new soc1•t1es. new fonns of tl\e spint

- the disi11usloned rhlnker of 1900 could only conce ive of frttdom as. at best.

a capacity to operate wirhln a framework ol p~x1stmg laws. History itself

stemed a monumentll burden that threatened to stttle all crrativity and all

~flection. Oscar Wilde and W•her Pat•r atpttd that the human will would

never apin • njoy rhat •naive, rouJh sens• of freedom• that it had en10~ in

pre-historlnst times." In Prob/nu of Srylt, Rlegl ch ided tho cont•mpora.ry

Ms and Crafts rnoverNnt for encoura11n1 modem V1lStS to choos" their

motifs Crec-ly from the natural • 'Orld. c.on1nm1ng these m.arun11less options

with !he sell-seneratlng. ·.u1ntiall1 more amsuc: itnd litwful unfolding of

orMmtnt1I form m the clau1cal Mtdnerranean. • JU.,t cone~~ of frttdom

as a sutTtnder to the laws of hiltory

It aeems tbat Saussure's 1tructu111lwn ckr1ves frowi a sim1W- 1mprn·

slOn of the hm1ts o n the symbollllng faculty lbql and Slluuure. as noted.

were C'OntemporenH But ap1n th• anAIOJY be!Wffn a n and l&Jll'l&g• 1s

fli>tt<I and cannot be ustd to vtnd1Ut• th• 1duhst aHth111« entlllled by

Ri~l's schema UlnllJap's l1ws att ~•l. llnd they.,... thebuu for tanguage·s

efficacy. The limiting condnlons of la.npage d id not d~p h1stoncall1 and

cannot us1ly be dismantltd Saussurt wu descnbm& an ah1St«•cal system:

la~uacu may haw th•ir h1stones. but l•nauli'" d~• not. ""· by t"Ontnst.

hu f- laws, and ir cenamly h.as a lullory. WhAt Rltgl pnsttits as • P*nnl·

nent ·srammar• of art1S11c form Is in fact not mlKh more than a taxonomy

f formal morof western art. Laws o

of form derivecl from adescripuve history ficuonal ancl dangerously I d td 1n art h1s1ory are

-""logy of 1htsort Ritt! '"'" ti fret, but rather ,...¥ l's system is thus not at a easy to txaggtnl• Art in Rt•g ·11 converge with spirit

eetf',I future where art WI always hul'lh"g toW1rdS a proJ . R gl's notion that an ,s dis-

gh 1ra11ons ofhumanny. " ancl embody the hi est asp d ·nde""ndently of any

is own abstnict en s i r-enrg.d from matter and pursues' h rt is an autonomous act iv· pncnul or symboli'ting tasks irnpo~ on it - t '.'a ny- isan ide1hst and potentially an illiberal nouodn. l f utonomy and the

h'd · within the 1 ea 0 a · T1le rtStrlctlVC idealism I 1ng f Th~ ryd freedoms takes various orms.

consequent rhrut to prac1 !cal. eve ay ' Wmc:UI· her and art historian Johann loaclu m

eigll1ttnlh-«ntury Gem.an wr bod -• th l •• politlcal lretdom htually em ''"" '" e ·-n for rumple saw soc•• a"" m-· . . td m for Wmckelmann is

ideal G,....k nude. AS Alex Potts has explamtd. fre o . 1 i ativecrealion ohn ideal

·not jusnhtconditson rhat makes possib •the smag n f •• fl ured by that beauty. through

be•uty 1t 1s also th• sub1ec11vestatr o .,.1ng 8 • its •Pl>31'<nt embodiment of a stale of unconstrained nardss111c plemtude.

. h '-· If-absorbed free-standing, wluch hr ldennfies mOS1 1mmtd111ely wit ""'St . nabd male fisure."u ror the neo-classiciS1 WtnckelmilJ\n, freedom was not an

opening outward but an arrival at a fixed aesthetic resting poinr. f'or others.

freedom wu a m)lsucal aspira11on, perhaps the aspiration to escape from the

humihat 1118 condiuons of nrthly and temporal hft' the n!eal of Weltflucht, or

flight from the world. An echo of that yurn1na 1s heard In the arch1tectvral

theonst's dream of a ·1anguage of architecture. which in a sense a~isrs ou1side

of and thus autonomously of any style; an architecture no longer doomed to

r~ster 1tsown h1stonul ume" One further proof of th<e 1nappropnateneu of the hngulsllt mocfel of

meaning 10 architecture is an lmtoncal formahsm's 1nab1lit)l IO deal with

architecture. Early twen11eth·c~ntury art historians like Htsnrich Wolfflin

submmtd both painting and buildings to formalist analysis; the 1.-velling us•

of photOlfllph or shde comparison5 made this osier But 1n the long run for-

111<1hsm could not keep architecture In play Moll 1mpona111 form.list an his·

toryand cnt1c1Smof the twentieth century, from Uonello Venturi and Clement

Grrenbtrg to Michael f'tsed and Rosalind Krauss, simply loaves architecture

at1de This om1u1on 1s surely an acknowledaemtnt that architecture i• about

empathy, appeute mO\cment. absolute d1men11ons. and the pasna• of real

t1meand the occupation of rtal space. It ca nnot eu1lyreduce all these to ml't•·

phor u paint mg and s1.ul1>1ure manage to do If they want The vcc1ora of need

and desire and the calculu)of absolute d1men~1on• d1•turb the premise of sys

1tma11c autonomy upon which formahst anal)'$11 depends.

Architecture is so pattntly involved wnh the problem of somatic expen·

ence that • formalist treatment of arch11eeture, 1n order 10 make sense a1 all.

must subsersbc 10 a duahst, oven. idealist conception ol the mind-body rela·

11onsh1p - that is.a concep11on of mind'ssupenomyto body The Renaissance

arttst and •rt historian G1org10 Vasan, for instance. was able 1n bnna pamt

tng. S<ulpturt, and architecture under tho 1deohst common denominator of

d1seg110, or the menial 1de; underlying• work of ~rt. In his Lrvv.6 oft he MoAI

Cminmr Pornrtr~. Sculptor..t. and Archireru 11550), a biographical history of

Renaissance an that w.s at the same time a theory of dssegno, Vasan gave

pain11ng. KUlpture, il1ld arch11ec1ure equal 5titus and anenuon. Va sari had no

ruson to 1sol111t 1rch11ccture because for him all three ans lf d • • wPruc ev1 ently se.m1:au1onomous: cap•ble of generaung meaning through disegno. but only

wnhm the confines of their practical functioning in the world. Not un1il the

modern doctrine of the autonomy of paint mg and sculprure emerged in the

ntnttttnth century did arch11ec1ural history b,,g1n to be cut oH from the re$1

of an history. In thetwen11e1h century, architectural history and crluciu~ h followed m own paths, in many ways ind d f as h' epen ent o the development ofa" istoryand 3n crit icism Any formahst art hist .

ory is a contnvance but ously formahst arch1teetural hlltory would be . • a niior-

an outnght fantasy Much twen11eih-cen1 ury orchitect .

\Ire asstrted Its own freedom. even clatmrng that arch' reprcsenta1tonal

ll•cture could articulate crn1cal or op~1-

tional views by malltpulating the "languag • 1 e O ilrChlt

know about the political opportunism of the tclu,_ c· - ~IS of l't"I ,,._

mally eloquent bu1ld1ngs oft he century- Lud . ~Of,._ ..... , wig t.ties -......._

Johnson. for instance - it seems that form~l L. Yand~r l!o• --.i lo,

!St"~"""' ''""""·" more than the intellectual fre~om to chang 'd ~nt ~ e si •swti . e.t "1

Even more pernicious is the use of the doctr •n It ~s ro lltte 1ne of autot. lllt

a vulgar·Nietzschean concepuon of the ·stron h "1tlJ it 1 ' 8~< ~·s· ~ ...

superiority to constra1111. Only the strong ardut arb;.__ ~1.•h•theo - .... ~

the pressures of the world and deliver an aiuhenc . 'Y~c-1c cru1que 1 • ~-

that architec1ual theorists loyally rush to the defe · 1 "~•ltili. nse of this ' ""l

architect by invoking autonomy. il'1!"ing. for insu stlf.,91 • h' nc._ tlut a • ill! lure allows the arc sleet to rMlst the ·mass~-. ~ .......

~ntTiljlal! ~ 1unon of the postwar bu1ld1ng establ~hrnent ""Ho 00~sia .. ~

• w ST•tif)i0 . --t-architects to be compared to the aut~rs of tho cme . ill"""1~to

matlC nouvttl all this carping is perhaps unfair, given that political ·~~a.,

OflPG<tlS.1· the iobdescnptlon of the acchnect, who must treat c . »111 ,.,_,.,

011£Um.ty "'di and state poW« The mtfilectual comm1nuty setms t . ~

. 0 r.ahze tlli · L can one explain the cons1.S1ently charitable critical~ i:,..,.t\,

trr.en1 of ttlo~- . architects, sharply contrasted to the constant ideol""'c-al . . ~...,.

.... Vigslil\ce~...i ism that canonical modern poets and philosophers f~ct. ~

Some consffVative thinkers havestt:n <Msthetic aut °"0"'Y" Cllt d keys to 1he la11tr cata~phe of Modtmi5m. with no mo~~ t.,

of that catastrophe than t~ utopian ptoJects of high rllOd ~ .. trnLSt an:lli•tn

Hans Sedlmayr. for instanct. a rnctlonary Austnan a." h'ISI · '11. on~ ald OVlt.

cltrided the "cosmopolitan· and suppos.dly "pun· archstect"t'<of\.t""-

ier Sedlmayr, here drawing on theruearchoi Em1l Kaafmun. ln<tdtlit,..

lesmess and desplritualsiatlon of modeml$l •~hht<'lu.~ back to th.,11111

of the F'rench !Qvoiutionary archttocts UdoW<. Bou II~. and leque11. • "''""

mous architecture as envisioned by LtdotU and rtalited by Allojf Loo&_.

Le Corbus1er was a.rchitectutt that had "b«ome consc.11>1is of its - tni

nature• But architecture achlevtd tlus. acconhns ta Stdltnayr, ))' ~

Ing Its representattonal respons1b1hues and 1nStud pu,...alng absol11tc,.

metrical ideal•. Quoting a contempor.iry rtvlewer of Kaufman•'s bot\!. Se&

mayr dtclared chat ·autonomy was sl&~ry: anticipating.by awa'.fl'it.,

famous mantra from Gecrge Orwell's novel 1984- "F'rctd.n ss S'lrttr)' -~

the three slogans ln~cnbed on the fa(ade of the M1n1stryol l'ruth,abuW,..

111c1dentall)l. that m1aht have been bush by Ledoux, pyr•midal lntom.1nw!lllt

concrete, chooe hundred meters high "

Sedl~yr wu a follower of Rlegl and a r .dtcal for1111hsunJ:r1kun an h1stOI)' not only preserved Rleal's rno~I of an ntoacrroash .,.,.....

·11re offorms: but also devtloped a concept of the df'Osiiyillld imdu<ibJllJtl

the lnd1v1dual artwork more explicit than anythJngfound lnRicgl. Thisssp.!l

do•1cal. for Stdlmayr was at thuameume tdentify1nstheideaoh•~ red moderallY's--'' iVI as the source of all Modcrrusm's trOUbles. Hedtplo

11 "able and Ideal 1rnageof man and mod•m art's abandonmtntofthtpnll<I ....

fl d sobpsojjll•h-. represent ing that image. He deplored the self·•• ex1vsl)' aft

ptr1im In 'll!l~IC modern work of art. I find that this apparent contrad1cnon .--

• auvu i.mrotml on mod•m an to the present 11 is often the co~rv .-kindso' I,,._..,.

ty'i chaouc dynamism who most Rercely dritrd th•~ 1

cf111t nd th• ,rreducibi ,cy

both the independence of tho artt1l4kln1 process 3 __ .....,$Iii ~1\s of'°""-"'

anwork. The reason for t.lusscems 10 be that thesetw01 rid" · thrraft&'a;

imply humanism· an iruegral ima1e ol mar~ confidtnce"' if ~hd-5 rt. llOWf'l!I'· -llPs ol the will. hep<' fer bettermtnt. Auro11omous a . (DCIS1lt:Jtitl'"

-u1red by llS lustorical roots In that image of man. was never·~" giet!u"1 contribute to that ima11e as Sedlmayr would have pointed out re ~~ti-

' -~·1dt1lofauton .. .....! So the anti-modernist Sedlmayrsupported""' -.M (jllf _..,.-

-'-• yant .~ - I • ...;Ill what the avant-garde had done with 11, whit• u- a ...aY'n-·

. . rdt wis ii\ ~'7 .,,_ the critique of autonomy. lndHd.1he avant·P ..,,..511'(11,,...

· eel 1nrothe 1.,.-· .,,.'1"" a critique of autonomy. This paradox perstst the.,..etiC•l

bl draw on new the so-called neo-avant·garde was a e to

\.

and mount an apparently final, devastating challenge to the idu of aesthetic

autonomy. The neo·avant·garde espoused an outright anti-humanism, involv·

ing a critique of authorsh ip that followed from the hyperstructuralist and psy.

choanalytic critique of integrated subjecthood, and a critique of the aesthetic

that followed from the philos ophical deconstruction of the work and the frame.

W• are in a strange situation now. in the wake of that challenge. The critique

of artistic autonomy carried out in the t96os and 1970s has to be said to have

tailed. repeating the failure of the "historical," early twentieth-century avant·

garde. The s harp critiques of the ideology of artistic "freedom" levelled by the

neo-avant·garde have been instantly and eagerly absorbed by its own institu·

t ional targets, the museums, commercial galleries, and art history textbooks.

Those institutions wero des igned to protect the freedom of the visual ans and

are not easily rattled when painters and sculptors exercise that freedom. no

matter how unpredictably. Artistic autonomy in our society is as safe as it ever

was. The critique of a rchitectural autonomy, by contrast, carried out concur·

rently in these same years, was quite successful. Those who carry on defend·

ing architectural autonomy s eem to be animated by the same spirit of futility

as those who carry on critiquing artistic autonomy.

The two fields, art and architecture, are thus intellectual mirror images

of one another. Adornian neo· or post·avant-garde art criticism. exemplified

by the influential writings of Benjamin Buchloh, is intellectually paralyzed

because it feels itself bound to identify and endorse art that purports to dis·

mantle the ideal of autonomy. even as it must recognize that art is inseparable

from tho ideal of autonomy - that we wouldn't know how to recogniz.e an at all

if it were not autonomous. It is a thrillingly hopeless task to try to undo that

knot. The dilemma of the post·avant·garde is sometimes sentimentalized as

an aporetic stance, a proud refusal to compromise loading to a severe narrow.

ing of the concept ion of the artistically permissible. Architecture, meanwhile,

is clearly not an autonomous activity and the critic who persists in making

the case for architectural autonomy is equally, symme'lriully, obstinate. The

sheer s tubbornness and vanity of such arguments must be the source of their

appeal within the architectural field, an appeal that is otherwise perplexing

to an outsider.

Autonomy in architecture can never be more than one of the vectors of

its force, on e of the multiple frames of mind that make up the building pro·

cess. That seems s elf-evident. Architecture cannot afford the aporetic disen·

gagcment of the post ·avant·garde, which is essentially the fastidiousness of

the mandarin, ultimately a gentlemanly ideal of withdrawal from the world.

Architecture, in fact, has an appetite for the mel~e. All the theoretical talk of

autonomy is surely a blind! Sincerity and authenticity, the criteria of ideal per

sonhood that emerged in modern times alongside the doctrine of the pure and

independent work of art, are only confusingly, unhelpfully imposed on a practi·

cal architrct.11 Architecture. the discipline and the practice. will build the right

buildings not by presenting the world with the truth about buildings. but by con·

vmcing the world that the world itself knows whlch buildings are the right ones.

Successful architecture calls for a ctrtain political cunning and even duplicity.

The autonomous artwork. ultimately a religious ideal, is a beautiful modem

contrivance. Architem rre is perhap$ be$t thought of as a pre-modem art.

I am grateful to Romy Golan for her thoughu. on thu topic.

NOTES

1 Mert·n-e. Th<CourtAtl•sl:OntMAl>cn/rfol th#,.,,,,,,..,, A<tost (Camtl<odgo. Cambudgt UP. 1900) •so. p~

Sarai> P. Mo<ris. OMH/0< - ~ ()r,g•n o{ Grffo\ At/ (Pnt>c·

eton ""•noeton u ....... .iy Pr8ss. 19112). esp. chep.8

3 Horst~ ~Li;to/At>llQU•!'f-t/>#Culto/ll>e

Mo<h<nt. IM ll'cin.!Mmmor-lhf £W#Vt<Ofl Of Nolin, Art,

- TecMology (Princeton· Mart.usW-. 1995)

4 eer-tto Cn>ee. Esi.t-c• (1~~ e•ted on EdQetW•rd. Art -Anon:/ly(l.ondon. F-ano Fa-. 1963). p.!14, n.57.

t<orvaaF'-. ·--Nat"'lll"mus"""kunst~ ~toe•l' on-· Scl>n{tM ..w l<umJ !ColoQn9- o.Mant t977J. p. t25.

AIOosR>eQ!.ProOltmso( s~ Four>Otl~"". H<Storyol 0rno"1MI (1813). tr....._ E...iyn K10n (Pnnceton; Pr•nc:91on

Uru>et$11y"'9$$. llel).Lolt- Att /ncM;lry(l!IO•). trano. Roll V.\nke.s(Rcme. Bt.t"""-. 1!e>~ Th#GrO<,f>Porttait o/Holltn<1(1'1Jl). 1'*'5. Ewel) lnstotute. 1999~

MarQa<et t.wsen. ~•S R~: Arl H<Stoty- TMoly (C4mbndgo. " " ' MIT Pr9ss_ 1993). p.5f>.1i6.

a ff11nco=> 0.1 Co. lt1JU10$ o( .ArcMtettn ind Thought:

G.ltNnAICM«tltltCCJllln IMHAA>(NewYbtlc R1uol.. 1990~ p.108.

t Rolord Barthes. E-ts Of $"""°'00' (New l'otl<· HIU Ol>d ~1913).1>.39

10 AIOos Roogl. H•SIOt«hf G..,,..,.llA tJot - K"""te (Gtaz •rd coioo.,.. Bo1>•1u. t966~. poslhumcl(J$ pul>Cocat.on based on lecture 001 ... 11>a conclj)I of a •t.1stcw""'1 orammaf" was Rieol's own.

11 Jonah Soogal, o..itu1>d l <Ct$S: no. Nmolttlllh·CMt<WY C .,i. li;to/ A1t [Pr.nceton Pnncelon U••-Slli' P...s. 2000)_ p.231

t2 R..gl, Pt1)/Jlemoo/Sty1t. 1>201

13 A'tex Pot.ts. llblw>d U.. ltlNI. W<netttmtnn - /hf Or,gins o/ A•I History (New H.-.en. Yolo Un1Ye<s1ty Ptess. 1961'). p.a.

1f !'tier E IRMllll. 191orrlt'l IO Alllo Row Ind Reol<t 'JINI0'1.

•nAttronomy•ttdldoology: Poslt<Clt>"'flM~l·G.or<1>Amt<· ""' R. E Somol ed. (New York: Monace!ll Press. tllll7). p 13

t5 R £. Somol. ·s1at.,,..,.1 ot Editor•• ' W.thdte,..1: Aul""°"'l' lll<lldfolog)>. p.25-26.

tO H!l\S Sedlmayr, Alf 111 c ...... Tn.lost Cftll"' (11148)(0"·

caoo. R<1gnt< y. 1068). esp. p.~1 .116 tt Em11 Kau1menn.

~ i-.. b<s t• Cort>us~· u._ utld Ent-I.Juno t1et Autonomtn ArcM .. I"' CVoenn11. 11133).

17 Sedlmtyr, An., C1...s. p.100, Ult

18 L..,,,..Tri1bng.S.nctriryitwJAulhoOOc.r7 <Uttnbtldge Har· vwd u•. 1972)

•

K. MICHAEL HAYS

LAUREN KOGOO

THE EDITORS I

at the Boundaries of the

Architectural Discipline

Examined in Relation

to the Historical and

Contemporary Debates over Autonomy

l i i ' I

' 1 l • i

IN ,., ,. "' _, - _,

~ - u ...

<I. •

"' a: "' <I. :

The fundamental criteria for the Aelection of the

twenty projecU featured were that each would chal

lenge, in AOme way, the conventional foundationA

of the architecutural diAcipline and engage a diAci

pline outAide iU boundarieA. Further, the choiceA were

limited to contemporary, realized (or AOOn to be real

ized) buildin9,1, de,1,i9ned by architectA. A6 U, clear

from the Aelection, however, each of theAe Atipula-

tioru wa.A violated at lea.At once. Thu framework wa.A

valuable for refining and te,1,ting our idea.A and for

e.lltabluhing a coherent, vuible body of built work

functioning in a critical context ouuide the autono

moUA center of the diAcipline.

The text that accompanieA the Aelectioru i.IJ taken

from di!,c'UAAioru between the editor,1,, K. Michael

HayA, and Lauren Kogod which focUAed on the impli

catioru of the projecu to the ducourAe on auton

omy, in both hiAtorical and contemporary context.A.

The nine e"ayA Li.Med at the left .llerved a.A a textual

framework for the di.IJcU.A..&ion.

"' . 0 ; c .. " 0 ~

;; 'C i :. ~ 0

~ .. c >

L

> : z

-·.

••••

~

-

::::J ----L -.J

IC

"' < 0 ::; ~

"' ~ ::; ~ 1!! ,.. z p

!

x ~ ::; ?;

~~

~

i;:

-

--- ... ----- - --- ----·~

Ln j ._c.--

. t ~

(

::cl -:...>

~ -

..,-E:ii--A-~------·

... " Cl

~ .. . e : "' ?' Cl .. ~ > ... " .. > :r.

i --- --- -

w:1k d fRANCOIS + lfWIS

- - - .._.. __ ... - .. ,, ____ ···- ·· ...... _.._ y .. ~ ................... -··--· ... g

::

!:

"' ....

.. -W A

::: .. A

l kO £ Jf.SuP ES FRAh I t)t

'" .. •

"' ... .. > II:

"' ~ 'C

i "' ~ ,. > :r

..

. ~L·l . ~ . f ~, ti ---· -- •

"MH

:· ~LJ B r i ·

... ... "' "'

sPCC t2 SUBURPJ.N J.T H

' ' . I - .i ' . - -' f (

A 114 • HOU TOI'< rn" tDH 000

14 KLIP 81N0£A HOU$£ HOUSTON HXAS tttt

< ::t

... ::!: " 0 2: < ..

i

..

~ ' .. ;: 0

~ 0 z

~ .... "' ~ ·~ • I\ JI LEWIS. INTERLOOP MICHAEL EIE\.l, c.'ld FUSCO & ~EGLI c-1be;J t~~.r J:'":c<e ·~ ·: & & : :e 0 " " i

-: ... 0 "' .,, ;!; ., > z 0 ... ,. 0 :i "' "' ,. ~ ,._ 0 ~

... ~

"' 0 > c ~ .. " > 'Z ..

>1 ~

f ~

' ,,, i~,, f /

\.

' I~

'

I

<101.,g ;t-,e g"e", bu! ni)t dl?f'l\fy

I ,',cuq brc11ks '"t~10 are h10ge-

ly <lnd ~ Nicn1SO' ;

69

69

~

..,

... < -' :::

-"' ~ 0 u .., %

'::; ~

,: = x Q

:l ~ ~

"' Q.

....

-

I --·----MT, !JOOl.~l • E-..i Ft-& O.-t-11, ...._.,,,...., ,. 14 orOfK' ""' a~ ,_.., ~ chollengn tradlhonal f ~ & lot..,s holM"' .i.o11u addresses the,~

lntwloa!f Atdoloct .... Oeoign: ~ ---ton. 1• ~ hous"IQ ""'ts that een ._"'*'as ~.,.., labr.cat""' melhodS l.Jke ~her conlempo.

lionshtp boll_. 1rclt11ectin 111>c1 •ts notura! enwon· ondlY1dlsol componenu ''.,,attar- nou.mo -.ioon ,..., aq111 pt"OffCIS. IS !Qrmal larOJ8C1t •• dtn-..d from ment At llr$1 glar>ce. lhe donM gr-cl trees in"'""" lllat l•~ts ~ant_ al ......,,51._,,, ,..uel"'Q. lll'lltl< N .-al...,. - eur-. W\tt>.$ cas. traced from ~ ~ ol tl>O ..,._ ~ c...c Cc:orrciutet ,,.._,

the body cl thts nou.. $>!•-lo dclm tl'e 1 ... m O'Q. fabratoon and sh•~ I~ e.c-thl

.,,.., o.n.-Jt~t"' the~ ~true-al the P<o,ec1. ·~ • '*'"-'c:e of tho r.at- - PlttS ate..-by~ COfnl*\4'{w>d "'fact .. tt>ernenmedt fun!le<onspecJ01_.._,,_11>e1 branded. llU lhe H•ke Kiios In.I ettedl the ~s

t er rJ. !toe -"O a!lod for the direct lflr\Ofer !com Ille IOI._ ii bound Ind f"""<d by -"itectural • to lho bin<IO<) thoy con t>e cusr""' or.-..d, fabro:.teO dqtal moclelldesql IO bu•~ - hanstorm"'O the roles ments wen u windows end an orthogonol ....ad Ind &nd fh,pped tot .. client in I short,...., pef~. lntorioDI> ~ - , __ , _ ccrw;tn.dton (contractor)

-eframe. Tt-.srelahonship-\heta!lacy ol think has ello .ntroauced tho ION ol fltx1blt lea5"'11 ard ....

' ,_Olfice..__,"'_......,.....,r.,. "'II al tile natur.i as llllleudled by,,..,.. Ind -1.,,. ~oot--.nu~ua~yr.in. -.-J--coo.vuctlol\. The.-._s arch<tfdure s '*'*"or-> •-inti ton (!lo,. poiitcal .,..,, \ .... ,......-.., -..~, Qlnlr*lod """'1>118Cl<. .-oVll#t-- bet• ~ ... geornecry to dor<elc!> ano acient.rc -wonmen1a1 o.saw.oons ~into 0aqws Mart.'l'4mcllo.0.-F"or4ey ~Twn ,.,.,_

tt>t orQ"llll ~ .._i. bl.It'""" MCOUntered in funct.,,... S1•1leg11ttclf-.!htl<C t-?} M.l,atll• 8law-. B'°""""' Jomes s_....... l'llt9f ICoe rt•~r..:t.oni......~1-oeome1roes.ln 0nekdtltoctut9: Sb U..S.. AT-a Cowt. ~\Ill. Nor. °Nyl11 frantom.

~ collllbo<al..,,.. w.th 0.. Arup •lruelurel ~ U. """"'1andl, 1• A pllJmjnQ ptoooul lor Int - I~ fl-F-&Vl<IGr l(ovlt-11100.-~ C.C• Batmonll. f()A --tllat ~ is -..ble lo - Oulch housong nllllr-e - as "Ill "-Ei .. this PRll· _ ..,.lalltr>o•_ .. .......,,,.._ .. ~ Clntf\CI f0t<nally radcal ~ e....,.._ of"' t11e eel 1$ en ettamQC 10~ ~' N ( l 5 - end tdac>- llialL a pUllloc - 1r1 ceNJ-.1 S., .... f v«O ' f(,eglo .,,,_ t>r ooonno ard>ttl!dure to tha ...nuanc..ot log"'8l omlJlocallCM. In the ,.,.,.,..., the stardud SIAlur draw our altt<!lion to tM ·"'UNY-Irle nat11e al w:t> .,.., outStOt of n• 1redo\tor..i ~ ban stiff! oollerns end typocet Outcll l>ousirci er•arqt $119Cfl TM pglrtcal and '"llO"ICal -tac>l'<n a1a CIMr.

Iii' lloc:M, osv & Sie. ,.~ Hol>itat Funlf, Peria. 191111. ments aro d<sc:ardod"' 1-al Ille orga..-zlll- loQlc; tall ., -loon. Ille onS1ellel'°'1 ~s.,, otl&tota

So-Roi. E-S...U.-,M1. A pr..,., ol lt'!fWS c-1 s Ti. er "2IJle rrel\es e.plrcll tha -- auCllC and,., ...... --- ---n. '°'"' ol Roct.. • prac:ica erld theory".,..-~""' - clus boas ompbal lnYI H [ o.---... oro-L"od dostr1liuhon of_, mecno... ~. -

"'lf>t _al..,"' dtOotal n'lM\ .... end ... PO!enloel mttd ""'-'O ~ ~ plaong pubic IK*I• of""°"'* ty end_,., u!My IO-,,.... OllW

1o!Of91 ,_,..,...~bet_, atc:hittttlu<e Ind ~· ab<MI prwate- llle--publlCand ..... funct.o> as S"""11............,t.i

llhlslC.ll corc.,1 Habitat Furt~ is a mobtle "°'4•"11 ur>I pmate. es 1rncionen1 ., ..o.rt.an °'11#1! as they.,. on 11 .io.t St.ndoro, Vllale loll R-Uon, -'!bn. ltll. Sand.-

1"*! •t!lect• moduleled ..,_ ol •1 '""~ · l'- aoc>allst -oeltn. art --'Y tlo-9d WI dnclf'J <11*1'°"' lradd'°"'I -•lion ol puCl<C

.._.,,.,,,.~ .. oanarateotrom.,.,.~ IO AJIA; H•&.,__ ___ ._,_ Tha-.,., on .. 11.,U.-1c -. Thcs -1• .. -

~ c .....,...*'" Se...-ri.t,. a prOPQMI tor .. dllq>td u ___ .. ...,,_,_ .. ---""""""''"' t.ldWI and llal - (-..1 °""' bya

torm ~ ....,, conteon J,wig IOICt .. ...,. as~ Qllcally Ooa9*110 """""' ... ~~est,.. prt> tr...iuc:.ni PfllWl)l""I-~----tort""'.....,.., ard the .tor- ot wood and '-r The gr-. tn tneo< comblnaloon. lhl aoacol'oeity ol lht \ti.style arc! ''"''-' d.St•ncl>Onl. ~ ~ 1t1 1ruo.rllt0n t~ the ~noeullt Illy ol ttwo< ~lat>\ can be 1..-mally~lod A& 17 1&1_ l ...._Aldlltetlen· ~-Aloi«-,..olthe[-~ acn. the - can be bolh """"' C\DIOnllnCI Ind -~~ID01.ln __ h_...,_ _ ,.,_ ....,.....,.-.ro11,... tM. Kan "*'produced. Thol or"IKI-. noc •""""" 1" ICls Sl.ictl .. PbtonsC<ystal ~ --'-"v·s -" br"'OI tooettw erchilec1.-. eno """"°"' dll......, ... inct ~ol atdotldurt> rd.- ......, _ natut9 .,, . .......... glallto a.-. oa..gn. bu1 -1/Wftat lhe ..,.._,......, _ ---~ H1scant<• I projeet IS the Booc:to- u.tiorQtt - · allows,.,._,_.,.,,._. to l>eCom<O ;>• .. "'8Clc Sky~. a r-11)' eng1-structur• 11 f<aihol• + KorKhitdfM: _ 1',..._ CO.- more •rnboQUOuS. ""' --anCI _..,lec:tur• t• ~ ... ·: thll - ftr91 bandl al contWM>uS o•ee""'y to _.... 11'1 Kalholer + Konic:floklgan • aodol<OR to • .,,..., tta '"'"' Otliri.ng .._.......,.of - F.irther, wot'""

... ..i.. w ~y H4 buold.1o6 ...... mucn ot ,._term citmnel llOuM "'Ger"*'\' tunctoCN aaa -.stc""" lhe booo---. the c..-a.lallor>- P'Ogl'-llC --;,· "-the~""'al localdlmatcc:at'doliono IUCll U-...Al\tto.iohlor.....,_.,., .... _ _....i, .. , __ .,. _ ""°""' ....... ,_,.,..,_al

" - .,., ""Pit- oil~ end potdlod rool as IN "'V""'f port.., ol Iha •ha--··'""" color.,., --..-.i-• --n '"'-c..tto. Gatel-1\af\o. ,_ Tiit&

...,._ t ... addition ..... . .......-.~.........,_ II llti-hr1-.t.ao .. """"'_...°"'_,_.__ ""'8el was unoer1-. .......... .,,,.,. town of Gtbell•na

10 the .. •ll•"l) l)ltee - tho odtlo1""' II able to~""' - - "-ter Leu cort..,11<1 • -IC'I - - ....,

-~"'""_",,._ &l"IOQflthtWMt bet- ..... ,,,. ..... dClmllllC~J of,.,,..., anCI the....,,

• C>UbllC """ ~ ""'" 09~ llUDhC --fromtha~ IOwnand,...,. ~ b)'casltnG

PIA>lit- .... aut~~ ... .ePllN-1~-PlM~""'°""""

4 •• ~ llor't,...,"' ~ Tiit Ctel">'ol"* It ~T--~.....,_a,_-,_ lluold noc Oftl\oeleanl.,., -.Clflas"" "'...,_ llM.....,. - a urano o.iog... """' tha "'"°"' ot 1ha <1M1tCl19G

Incl l>oul..g""' loP al boO be» .......... . ,__, filOtlO" -.alnel>4a. l)Ul4abo--·---" '- dtw bten r.i.um .-i ~od ol allfofe Bum 11toon V.t •ll.-npl$ lo-Ille -ol-m .,._._.,ey·._..ttttg'-11tcto'yu_,_.,., .

--•t.e _,_,<billtral teconttructoon ati:.r Amaro:.n MU1*I ta11<te. lna lf\CfM&tCI .... , o1 Lall ti ltddtasfir(I Ina~ ol -1111-1 ~

............. forc.l"ully~ ... 1!111 n.otory - lhe prepoMI'"" ba ~ .. cHect Ct(~" - -· ... ,~ ,,, •ndutlliel """• . ..........,"'-• ..,,.,,,...,u. us.111et--t""~

" - R&Mtl_,_A_ 0.,. ..._,.. ~Doo ._.._ EGo-l'Wtlclo """'0..-. "--,_ al~MIUfben--lO--- -... a.,.., RW.t81\U.1" tilJ'GICtl'l& ....,._ lor an

~•daevt 101 an .-ban!*\"""' llOJlor(I ~ 1-. ~ Cfey-<-c.nttr IMts Illa .. lenat d 11\t ~

·~ pr-....iion -0Qil&tl'f-oor1ved 13 --,--er.-.... 1-- Pf"O -ell rn,m llUr9 f-lity lOlfQIO&--ol

tar..--._..,~ ur1ler>oem The""*'*' ~ ........ 9' lot_.._... "°"""G.,., Cllllllno ldantol't ""'---dteofnlll--~

~ .__...U.C!-.IDQlcof _..on•~- -.lhtlllrtiltfl9Kralt11a.--~~ llOIM. nctl lapoed with.~,., ..... ~ ----""""'° tllt ame.....,,... ~cl ..., ... ~tltau.drt---~al arc! ..-.. ~ - n... ,.,,,_.., ,.,...._.,,

, ' 116 ""1c!ilr> • buoldong OI ...... Sect~ Iha pl ..... ~ur• 5'tul...Sfta _ _.,~ INIUf'ICloor\11.-l'-'1<--.,.

; ,...,., .,, HcutCon. tna-11 ~ toconcernaol ~· ..._....,.._ ----... ...,.,,. """'CtMt- ., D-+ ._..,, 8tw ""°tod. _ E_ ... 0.llr •

... _ad.,.ar.aoon.........,n.nngr-ound. "'--~ .. ....-,1i..t "'*''°"Illa roll of Scolldto'l-of ~to~""--~ , ... oiact ......... ~ -IJl.-t ~""° wcMecture '" tna ~ ol ror-!Ml llCIUllf'G 1i-·--~~- ".._.._..., llt ltol ...._ o.a.q. « '""""' .. "'°""'*" .....,._

lw-al-"'9tc--t~-. .... '• -... ._...._,..,,,~-~ ... ·----OlllN ..... _...,_.....,...i-. •-ol--

.)

Notes around the

Doppler Effect

and other Moods

__ oLModernism

No matter how often I tell my;,e/f that chance happening;, of thu kind occur far

more often than we .Mu.pect, ;,ince we all move, one after the other, along the ;,ame

roadA mapped out of for u.t. by our originA and our hopu., my rational mind i.6

nonethele.M unable to lay th<! gho;,t.t. of r<!petition that haunt me with eV<?r greater

frequ<?ncy. Scarcely am I in company but it ..6eemt. a..6 if l had already heard the

.Mme opinion.;, expreAt.ed by the .t.ame people .t.omewhere or other, in the ;,ame way,

with the .t.ame wordA, turn..6 of phra.t.e and ge.uure;, . .. Perhap;,. there i;, in thu a.t.

yet unexplained phenomenon of apparent duplica.tion .1Jome kind of anticipation

of the end, a venture into the void, a .t.ort of duengagement, which, like a gramophone

repeatedly playing the ;,ame ;,equence of note;,, ha..6 [e.,v, to do with damage to the machine it;,el'f than w·th · b . . 1 an irrepara le defect m it;, programme.

W.G. SEBALD, THE RINGS OF SATURN

1

.. ,· ·

. ,~ :·· a~

I would like to .t.ho th h . . . t independent w at t e4 e un1t1e;, form a number of autonomo~. but no

domain.t. governed by 1 b . d without a . ' ru e;,, ut m perpetual tran.;,formation, anonymoUA an

.1;ub1ect but · b · ' , im umg a great many individual work.t,.

MICHEL FOUCAULT, THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE

:.

r

ROBERT SOMOL

S-'RAH WHITING

-----------=··"!

,.

·~.

FROM CRITICAL TO PROJECTIVE

In 194 the editors of Per.opecrc. Carol Bums and

R*n Taylor. ~t out an ambitious ag•nda for

1ss~ 21. 'Arclutecr~ 1s not an isolated or autono

mous n>od1um. I\ rs .ctively engaged by the soc ial.

1nt•ll«tual and visual culrure which 1s outside

dw disc1plmt and wtucb encompas~s 1t ••• It 1s

~on a premi~ that an:h11ecture LS 1nev1tably

nwolvtd with questions more difflcuh than tho.st

of form °' style: While this orientation bears a

curious connection to the "realbt" or •grey• tradi·

loon of an euherYale generation. it also serves an llJll of the na'ICent mixture ot a critical. neo-Marx·

1SJ11withac;,,kbrat1onofthevernacularoreveryday

wnh wluch Yale would soon bH:omt synonymous.'

Published tn rut same issue. K. M1chul Hays"s

ca.oruc esaay ·cn11cal Architecture: ~twffn Cul·

t11re and Fon:n" offered a wseful cortte11~ to the

ednom1I posuion of the issue by indirectly impl)"'

mg that the editors were insufficiently dialectlQJ

•• ~1r understanding of eng:i_gement and auton·

0111y. Hays"s sophistication ha$ always been 10 rec·

oinou that au10R0My is a precondlt10n for engae~

m.nt. Uslna Mies as a paradigm. Hays argued

for the poa.slbilny of a "c ritical arcl\ltect:urw" tJwt

weuld ope~ between the extnmH of conclUa·

tOl)' COO>mod.ity and negative commentary.

T~lve issues and 5n'efltttn ycan later. the

ed1ton of Issue 33 ~return~ to the theme of

ln1trd1.1eiphnarity. Tius time. however. IN topic ia

t11phcltly undenmnen by the temas ettablished

....

....... ,,. ;'f, ..

. ;~ •' .t' . . .

... ;,,~ · .. ,. .· ....

m Hays's 1984 essay: " l'n--'P«'fO 33 is bwlt around

the belief that architecrure s~nds 1n the critical

position beewttn being a cultural product and a

dtscrete autonomous dlsdphn~· Yet. whil• Hays

was su~ing that only cnt1c~ architecture oper·

ated LD his privileg~ "btt>tten" posmon. the edi·

tors of 33 imply tbt a ll architecture now <automati

cally occupies a de bt'to critical status. What for

Hays was then an excepuonal practice. ha.s now

been rendered an ""eryday fact of hfe. If nothing

eln. however, this Inflation of critical pr<actice by

the editors of 33 l\as perhaps un consciously iden·

tified a fact of the last twtnty yean;: namtly. that

disc1plinarity has betn absorbed and uhauSted

by the project of criticality. As Hays·s first articu

lation of critical arclutecture was a necessary ccr·

rective to the realist posit ion of P.Y,tptcm 21, it

m;ay bt ~arr tor. at lean. useful) to p:ovide

an alttmariw to the now dom111ant paradigm of

criticality, an alternative that will be character·

iud here as projective.

As mdenced by Hays 's inslahtful polemic.

critical architecture. under the rtgime of textu·

ality, requittd the condition of being "bet~n·

various dis>Curc1w °""""ii ions . Thus • cultu rt and

fonn" an altemat1wly be fisured as "lutsch and

avant-garde" (CleMnt G~nbcl"8). "httnl and

phenomenal" (Colin Rowe). "ob1ecthood and art"

(Michael f'riedl. or "capitalist dewlopmtnt and

design" (Man~ f3fun). W1tl\ln architecture,

Rowe's an<ll Tafuri's discourses most fully enable.

1 )'-..

. . : ., .

if ntVer completely realize, the critical project of

•betwttMss." whether within history/theory, as

with Hays. or 111 terms of design, a s with the work

of ~ter wenman.

It 1s from Rowe's and l'afun's conceptual

genetic mareriil that architecture's criu cal proj·

eel has betn formulattd. for both authors, th ere

1sar~uls1tt assumption of contradict ion or ambi

guity, regardless of whether 11 is subsumed or

sublatecf (dialectical materialism) or balanced 01b·

eral formalism). Even bofnre examining the vari ·

ous reconfigurations of Rowe and Tafuri, however,

it is importon1 to recognlie that the opposition

between them Is never as clear as would be imag

lned: Rowe's ostensibly formal project has deep

com«11ons to a particular hberal poli11cs, and

Tafun's apparentlyengagtd practice of dialectical

critique t ntai ls a precise series of formal a prioris

as well as a pessimistic prognosis with regard to

architectural production. Seen m this way, thtre Is

no more political writer than Rowe, and none more

formalist than Tafuri.

The criticality of Hays and Eisenman main ·

tains the opposition a I or di alectical framework in

the work of their mentors and predecessors, while

s ... ultaneoudy trying to short-circuit or blur their

terms. In theirvarlouuttempts to hybridize Rowe

and 'l'ilfun In order to fashion a critical posilion!

both Haya ind Eittnman rely on dialectics - as 1£

immediarelyevidenctd In the titles of the journals

each was responsible for founding: Oppo.1.lrio>U

Hight ""'d l'ttlu\lli 1toht t

.rnd A._.vmhlaqe l>esptt• the11 amphnt crttaques

of Mu h d lrMI' .1eathr11cs.'both l:rsenman and

II y ultlmardy tnar htrrah \I' as mu•h a Fntd

d<>t' h·11h w un a11a1n t th• t omorphrc remap

pm11 of hf< """ art ror borh, d15dphnarrry as

urnfi r 100.t a autonomy (Pnabhng cntrque, rep

nt 111•~11 11nJ 11iruh iillHm) hut not as mstru

mt•n! 1h1y 1r11o)Hl1on I" rlurma11v11~ and pra11

mdli I Oil< 1 oulrf av rhar Thr1r dehnnton of di 1rhn111tv1 <l11r t1dHgJrnltr•1h alion1alh•r

111111 towird thr po

llfl .tthlllt.OnltJn

t111n I qu1lll~t1v

t rnr1..;1 m 111 1m1 ~~thrlt t•ra 1l 1numuldl1t>nmay

11~' 111 t• ult m tlu 1uodtH W>11 of nc:w quahtath A

an 1111 ""'"" 10 rla 'rllar 11 p101crr hen link< d

lo tho 11ul1 ~· •f th1d11ltrll al•ndhot reprr en1a

ti >n till 11 xr d vi•l111 111 tllnn 111 • grn••lo11y

olthe1r 111tl\1 l111~11lrnll1t d••s•~mmrllt th••

, tnw ptu ru 11111l0111 p1 Jor111 rut

""Y 1tir ~rch1tectur .. 1 obiecr '""'Nia lyr

'l'<'Cthc tempor.11 and Spd•l•I Cortex•

tht• way it •ervc• >5 a Ir.ice of 11s p Od

~ terns. Hays describes rhe barcclona p

t. ~

FROM JN DEX TO DIAGRAM

In the s1gmhcant produc lion ol both II 1y~ and

Erstnman, ~s pariill•I rrahgnm1•ni. of Row~ and

Taftm, th• cnt1CJI p101•ll "mev11.1bly m<'dt.Jttd

m fact, tt rs pt rpetuall~ ob~1 SM d by. md 1nl'xt11ca

bly hnked to. rrproductaon •Tins ob\CSMon mani

fe 15 ruelf borh m 11.1y,\ .iccouut of Mic~ van dcr

Rohe• Barcelona 1'.1v1hon .ind Pth·r i l\c•r11Mn ..

rereading of Le ( orhu •N ti Uorn 1110, whn1· both

11 •·If "l111w1 ,, rh•

efhdenr rrprrben1.1111,,1 ol ptr<Xl\l1ng <uhur rl

value and th~ wholly ri< ta<lwd aur•m•1my <ii an

ab.rract form•I y lent .. r hr I 1h1S of l'l)•n In

thC' world y<t " t r "'' '" rt •s ll•rnecl hy rh1

"an event with t<'mporal dur~11on wtio,,,

exi~tence 1Honrinu~lly being prod <ed • ,

meaning 1s continually being dP 1d~d 1

deC1\1on is both rn fart and erymologic ... y f

real gesrure par excellence.

In t:rsenman·~ discuss on fJI tht o m

1s the dc.,rgn proce's melf 1h •• 11s ~ ngr

in architecture. "Arct11tecture is both s

and act The srgn rs a record of an intcrve

an event and an •"' whirh goes bey nd l~e pr

ence of clements wh1th are mertly ne e

rnntinual tran•form311on In both ca t

cal form~ of self rcfPrentrahty nrP demo

via senJI reproductions be they f1 tnm•q

drawn dxonomC'trrcs of the 11on ex JttOI D

pcr~pcu1ve, or thl' l11"orrcai photogr·~

u'es to extr.1ct the expt·ncncr d tho dtfun

anal Barcelona Pavrlron lust J5 thu ar I; tect

n·<entdt1on, .ind its simul•aneous c

that cond111on

As an ~•hrrnr1t1vt.t to f 1

on the high l.urop<.HI ft am•, whr

.. ~s'• apr1op11 Htrrn 111 ''"' m

lr~n1u at tlic

.1hov11 I 1H·run.•11 urultf

tno ,1s, chr tr:lct nt a tr

nh ~I

tion. Koolhaas's invocation of the ·cartoon·theo

rem" from Life magazine - as well as the section

cut from lhe Downtown Athletic Club - alterna

uvely enlists a vision of architecture as contrib

uting 10 the production and projection of new

forms of collec11v1ty. These New York frames exist

as instruments of metropolitan plasticity and are

not pnmarily architecture for paying attention to:

they are not for reading. but for seducing, becom

ing. instigating new events and behaviors. The

skyscraper-machine allows the proiection infi

nitely upward of virtual worlds within this world,

and in this way extends Michel Foucault's reAec·

t1ons on heterotopias and prisons. Gilles Oeleuze

argues that Foucault understands Jeremy Ben

tham's Panopticon not simply as a machine for

surveil lance, but more broadly and productively

as a diagram which •imposes a panicular form of

conduct on a particular multiplicity." Koolhaas's

investigation of the frame structure is diagram

matic in the same way.

notion of interdisciplinarity, which seeks to legiti

mi7.e archilecture through an external measuring

stick. thereby reducing architecture to the entirely

amorphous role of absorber of heterogeneous life.

A projective architecture does not shy away from

reinstating architectural definition, but that def·

init1on stems from design and its effects rather

than a language of means and materials. The Dop-

pler shifts the understanding of d1sciplinanty

as autonomy to disciplinarity as performance or

practice. In the former, knowledge and form are

based on shared norms, principles, and traditions.

In the latter, a more foucaultian notion of disci-

plinarity is advanced in which the discipline is

not a fixed datum or entity, but rather an active

organism or discursive practice, unplanned and

ungovernable, like Foucault's "unities form)ing)

a number of autonomous, but not independent

domains, governed by rules, but in perpetual

transformation."' Rather than looking backorcrit·

icizing the status quo, the Doppltr projects for-

ward alternative (not necessarily oppositional)

arrangements or scenarios.

A proiective architecture does not m ke a

claim for expertise outside the field of arch1t ·

F'rom these 1wo inventions of the frame struc

ture in mid-7os architectural discourse, one can

discern two orientations toward disciplinarity.

that is. d1sciplinarity as autonomy and process,

as in the case of Eisenman's reading of the Dom·

ino. and d1sciplinarity as force and effect, as in

Koolhaas's staging of the Downtown Athletic Club.

Moreover. these two examples begin to differen·

ttate the critical project in architecture. with its

connection to the indexical, from the projechve,

which procet>ds through the d)Sgram. T~e diagram

is a tool of the «ftual to the sarm.-d~ the

ture nor .d~ it limit Its field of expertise o n

absolutedefin~itecture. Design iswh ~

keeps architecture trom slippin~ cloud of )7 heterogeneity. It delineates the fluctuatin~

dtrS of ~I e's disclp:ira~i~and txpert1SP. r So:/;en arct\i~~ '}p1cJthat art Sffm· .

ingl outside o~re 's his1orically-<lefintd

index isthe e real.1

sc - questions of economics or civic pohucs,

fo; e~ample - they don'I engag~ those topics as

ex~• on economics or civic po)\t\.J bLtJa~e}. )

s Je~erts on desjgp ;nd how design may affect

c-.-,,.,.,.=-;;;-,.-;-;:,,..., Tr~,...HH"l'._>t1~-------;JC""- · 'l'.he)' ens:ii!• •bes•~

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~:-:~~-~~~-:::::~~~~:;~~~la~t~io~n~s~h;i~to~th;;~e~~~:[~_::'.:=:::::::=:::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ratherth re ymgupont eoppos1 1011

of Critical d1alemcs. the projective employs some· other disciplines. ratl'er than as cntics. Design --

thing similar to the Doppler Effecr - the perceived encompasses object qualities \form, proportion, ~ateriali"'. composit ion. etcJ but it also includes change in the frequency of a wave that occurs ,.. .,.

when the source and receiver of the wave have a qualities of sensibility, such as effect. ambiance.

relmve velocity. The Doppler Effecl explains the and atmosphere. An example of 3 projective architecture that change in pitch between the sound of a train as

en .. ~ges the strategy of the Doppler effect in lieu II approaches and then moves away from the lis· •v

Of that of the dialectic is ww's lnrraCenter, a tener.• If critical dialectics established arc:hitcc·

40•000 ft.'commuoitycenter located in Lexington. ture's autonomy as a means of definiog architec·

Kentucky. The lntraCenter's client provided ww ture's field or discipline, a Doppler archit&cturoe ·~i'th. program list of diizyingoperational hetero· acknowledges the adaptive synthesis of archltec- ~ 0

aneity: daycare.athletic facih1 ies, social services. ture's many contingencies. Rather than isolating a g~

Caf•. library. computer center, job training faclli· singular autonomy, the Doppler focuses upon the ~ tl··s. •hops, etc. Rather than fisuring these multi· effects and exchanges of architecture's inherent 0 •

Pie proarams so as to p•O"lde ucb with its own mullipliritles: material. program, writing, atmo· .,. h •o~m·l identification. or rather than establishing sp ere, fotm, t'l:hnolog1es, economics, etc. It is ' ' • 0

• nautral field so 8S to allow the programs to dehne irnponant to underscore that this multiplying of 0 '

the pro·1ect. the hitraCtnter elides the expected COnlln.gencies differs greatly from the more dilute

P•t1ect <feAWhtHt(.1"''• d~lf1' o~ (N(Hl4'JN A 1arr1"tf"(t!J'f) 'ffttn PlPf"t11rr'J [IK<ln<ll'lloU)aMT (l....,.r)

I

O'erlap between form and prog1 am fhen lack

of alignment lead• to a perpetual Doppler shift

between the t wo Th" strategy of no" concontnc

11y generates other Doppler i:rfetts. mcluding the

m4ny reverherat1on' among ovcrlJpping con•tll

uenc1es n we11 as matenol and structural cond1

t1ons The lntraCenkr ts p1 01ecttvl' rather than

crnlcal 1n that 11 very dehb<·rately :.•ts into mot ion

rhe posS1b1hty ol multiple engagements rathN

than a single an1cula11on of program. ti'( hnology

or form (contemrorary architectures commodlly,

firmness and dehghtl

The Doppler Effect shar. s •ome attnbu•••

with paralla1t, which, a• Yvl· Alain Bo" nor.-.

comn from the <irHk parallax ... tr "changP • "the

apparent chanae In the position ol an ob1« • re, ult

in1 !Tom the chanse In t he po•nton from which

It IS Viewed"" Cla1m1n1 thll Stm consnously

rnponded to tlw poa11b1ht1H cl panllax Rois

atnu an ex1m,i. SelTI 1 de1cr1ptlon of h,. •cul p

ture entitled Sillht Point "llt -m11t first I to tall

rlsM to leh mike .n X. and lllrlilhten It di 1H1t

to I trua ated pyremid. Tbat would 0<cur thr<••

tlmesnyou walked around·' In other wmds, p•r

allax" the theetn al effect of 1 penpa1e11c vu w

of b

l( 15 in

that 11 ,. not purely OP' al Pred ated on waws

that can bt aud tOI"( or vtsual the OopplN • u&

IHtl that the Opttc:al and cmceptual are only 1wo

of many aen11b1htles Add tlonally II ts not •read

"I ttrategy - that II II II no11u I an unfold1n read n1 of an artwork b g ut •natmo,.pheri lfllPr

act on It fore.,.ounda the behel that bo1h th~ sub)tct and tbe object arry llftd 1 PXC 1ang• mlor ma11on and eMr'IY In shon a user might he moH attuned 10 n& n a 1"<1' of a hu11dmg than olh«t He or sh. rniahi nd • r tand how lhe bu1loltnc rnpond IO a lon11AI htstory ot au h1

IPClurr or .&eploy. 1 P• lh< ltth "'-· nonrgy or h{ or she nupt 11.... parh ufa a so ti.Hon w11h

a building~ matcn.11 paleHe or Mte A~ the nov

eh~t WG Sebald explain>. each one of u' expen

ences moment> of rcpet1\1on.coinudcncc or du pit

cation. whc1 e cchoe~ ol othc1 exper 1en1 c>. convcr

'auons. mood~ and encount~r> .11f ec1 currt·nt one'

Such momPntary echoes aH· hke rncks out ol

ahgnment, hea1 ing ,ind .eeing out of pha\r th 11

generatt• momrnljry dc•J·' vus, •n 01;erlap ol ""11

and v111u.1l world,.

FROM HOl TO COOL

Som1•ot11 Ahould r111ab/r.1l1 cm dtJt/JH>J><>loqy 11}

hor and cool

/e.111ll.tudr11lard

Owr.1\1, ont• m1gh1 c haract~1 ue th1• >hrh ii om c111

1cal to prO)fl tiv• mod1•s ot d1suphn.1111y u a pl o

u•ss of rnohng down <>r 111 M ""h.tll Md uh3n·~

t<·1 rn~. of movang from a ·hot• to ;1 ·,not• vt·a 1on

ot Cllt'dl\c 1phn~ < 1111ral arc h111-ctu11• 1> hc>1111 thc•

•rnM that 1115 p11·occup1<J """ "p.11111ng 11s1·ll

frorn nor ma11vr, b.1ckg1ound "'anonymous rnnd1

11un1 "t pmduc11on, 111d w11h o1111rnla1111g d lh-1

c-n<~ l c11 M<I uhan hu1 muha h~•· him'"' "high

tl •h nit ion", rn1w1•y1ng wry p1 r< ISl' inturm t11on

on one ch.annt l or an om mudt• Uy contr st, coui

lllCdlit, f;Udt d~ 1t"lt•vt~1on .UH~ low 1lc-hnll10n .and,

a.U\tt; tlw111t111m.u10n1h,y1orw1y1s. comprunu~t d ,

tht Y 1t•qu11•· 1111• pJrllup 111011 of tlu usro In tht\

icgarJ, t lu lo11nalt t tnt1tit1 proJu t ls hot tn 115.

pr1or 111 u11011 ol dt·hn111on, dohn1 111011 11nJ d1

tanc-1lon (n1 m• ttlu n' SJh' ih nty) On~ ltt rn.JllVt\

rn1n11nalum, would bP. a c.oul ni t tmm ll • I iW

dehn111cin ancl ' ' qmu·~ thP t untexl nd \'II Wt I to

compl<t • it I 11 ~ ing b(llh >di utt1<1r11t y nd "H

CC111l10u m I M uum1li m lXphntly r•quu ' "

pa1111 tpa11c.n ~nd ·~ o.l~rcd to Smit h 'n'• 111omo

I ion of t'ntrop) Wlhlv c. uu,lng 5U t"lb ,a prm r ~ ~

mix111g I md •hu• tl11 111 J>ph r I I fret " old lK

uni!- 101 m ol t octl}, lht hot r • " IS throu I di 1 ' Ul\t

io11 mJ ronnu1t!.S t l1t ovr. ly d1fhluh l ~I th C"d wnrktd complu~tod co Ii I I 5 II' J > d I a y 'Thio t.:dh tll1<" h\•lwtr.n lhP o

.Jnd th" hat m,.1, l t"

.11nphhcu by h111•f1y 1 >..1min111g ,, me u1um Mc I u

hJn dot'' 11<11 <h'<U" 1wrto1111.111< •

In h" oh1111.11 y on 1h1• 11 rnr ll I\• Ill• \.1 y

Wllll') th,11 with Hoht1t M11d111111 VOU Stl l"''I r

m.,nu\ u .lncl ru11 tot m.'1ll. l' ht''•'' • n,,, t'prt• st'<!

(or11·r11 "'nt•·tll. hut drhvrn••I 1111• M 11< hum' ffr<t

H''"'' on know11111 'om1 1h1ni; 1' b~· k thrll' hut

1101 f11•1ng ''"'' 1•x 1<11) wh.11 11" 111• \.1' ~11> that

wh.11 M1td1uon tltln tlwn, " 1\"a) )Urp llli

imJ pl.1u"hlt• Ami ,, ·, t>. 11 ti) chl5 11 n11 • I su f'

111g plju,1h1ltl\ tlldt n1111ht h1• o.l~pted u a r•• llVl' 1•111•11. one• whu h 1 omhllll'' th<' ch•n r C'\

with 111 '''JI 1111!.•J 1,• 1lmn 1111 I< "" two k nds

ol '"'"''· 1111 hy .1rs111s I n•t a1<' om~ "ho

M1 uc I .1 1 h.11 111<•1 11ul ot 1lr1a1I ltnd makr \

hrltt "' tlwu d1.11 1t kl h\ nmstruc tin a n

,,,.11.1 g1011r

pl iu 1h1h1y h) th1•11 I C11l1r~. lit<~ '

IUI

111 \11 N1f\I\ M'llftl, en• wlttlt .... tht-. p- nN l'"' wnh1n th•~acwr.lllln~.a< t\>f and th•, hlrM19r, 111rh that~~ tf Ille

c;i!l'I 111I1011 <'I lhf <hill~ It ¥laillle. ,,... le

1111 v1h•J w•I ' " .-y th1e •llCflll that. When 'Wltl:h

lnJ I'< N•rl\ 11 loak• Ilk•~ lthlnll of the llf-11ol•11<' 1>111nm11 and ron•RtTltetl 1Mt11rh). The

"l''""'I ,,. •tt•• 1n both Wrlte111 of C., f"r are

"'""""".,, in 1h" .... rd. Tt\91991 remakto bt•gm~ ,. th 11, Nu\\ w<>1lt1na out 1n pri-. extrc"lng or

rrl11~"'"I'· wh•n' tM •WMt rolllq off his b<i~

", 1uhlt In '"" 6111Jln1I. Mnchum la ill no niU: r•~•~h lh• 1v1U11•. elljoy1na • c119r and checlillllt

0.11 '"" wnm,.11u1hey IHvt tht1 n111nhoUM, CDOI •• lhf' hrHI<' He makes II look n~y. So '1>e Ntna

11" hit"' 1u1 .. • h hot, d1fftcuh. •lid md<>o.rs thr pro.

l'nl"'' nl u, pnodun1oll. lt'1 clnrly labarf'd, nar1a

11w, 111 •"1'rftlt111tat101111l, or ••11'"'9S • r<lauon

•h•i>olthtt •prt~rm1t1011tothtrMICdlt~

<'I o Pf>Y' hll llllttHt fnltn I .... I """ tw & ftc. 11011011,.,ll Mttch11111 ph1y.1 C.lllffrelt q a ... 11w 1111h• 1tm•k•. and•• hellwatchilll~llltol

Ca.Iv''' 'P '•Mthed "-- 1111 lledr ...... wldl ithh,al prowrlla and COIMllllta with a ft1N1 tf """*h l•a m11oll fw "'9 MethM .. ctlftl Ot Niro

'""' rh111~t1 c.dJfl. "I cltll'tbvwwlwthlr to laol. al him "rte fWlll Nm." In eenaut IO thla nar-"""" llodt, "MltclluM .................. ... arul "-r look• lllw werll; 11'1 ... '*' at4M lllhnlieuon ol 1l'1l'Utlw ~l•. till

p1t1Vhh11¥ 111ain 1111 manr11v<'r, ~11J pro·mt-~11~·~

r ln tt y With \ UbJt•1 t"1 With Mlkhum. ~

•11•11.,1111• nuqh~1 hod 1 J111.1~ lh ~un-•n

•••Y 111 1h1• unhonwly h.i' lil'l't\ "'lll~n·d with

P•• tu11n.1111c, 111 •oh~ NP' 1~1n1 'UIP••• muv11111w.,ihiiitcrtllillll pr•• tn• - Ol\f which k~

•nd ll•fTllWt ~ to 1 proj«tlw

1ou1 1h11 pnij.rriw Protr•N

t llt•ll 'o:apllul1tian IO l1l&l'tlll" •·n1111._..... ..

4 M fdi.tt fld hefttde•,oo:ti !.O ~ft(Ule:~s t-"Kf u t ion af~•cnai.ik'Nf'

... ....., !hot J l•MMQ>gOll -.Ci!::t'"""'• Ol<AlitCt•O-Oe' -U\t,ttl ... 1Ulf' l9lt.r l.,.n ap.iw .. w.<...,111o11i1>er•' n1>.Aor<.l4a'1Qn bt'......,. •tt111R~--to. ""9•'-""'Mrl.._,'l o.-.1«~01_,.,., .. maumt<W1

IW't•~""1Ur

vt jemonltr•~• t-(;. ,.,..c-.t: t~U"'~\. '•1htflh&·1reflec.t .,, .. \t'nai

nr • K. Mlc.holl >< .. ,s. -e..• ... - Cl11.n aro ~crm.· ~.fl (Cam«~ l 21 AISo - l'tt.,.E""""""' ''""'*'' o!Modorrwn -°""'1no

... s.cri.·~ 15,16f ....... . ... ;sor.ng \9')gj ..

ELIZABETH GROSZ

..

This paper was first presented as part of the conference entitled

The Pragmatut Imagination: Thinking about Thing.t. m the

Making held at the Temple Hoyne Buell Center for the Study of

American Architecture at Columbia University, in Spring 2000 .

•

Th m t of ti r>le lee t 1r> a ense tn I mt of !tie le hrn al anrJ thn techool •cal

r he nt rct lunct ors to dis eel d ~de, a•om

rn contemporary b1n:mwt1on 11nd d 11 I za 1101 are mply the cut rent• rs ons t t'11s ter

dency to !'1e c ca cut tre .,namtJ g Lo~. lite

oppo ton or binar1 ,;npulse& of tie ntel eel

wf'i cl bourd b1 •h 111Jpc!1JS to (eventud• or

p

P~rhaps I ho quest on aheiid of us no ....

$this wh<1I are the cond1!1ons of d git wt1on

and binenza11on? Car• we prod,,ce techn

g•e ol olrcc kind ? I tee! nolr>gy nher nt )

s1mp1 f (at on and •uduct1or> of th(' r~al? Wh;;it

•. '•1

BERNARD CACHE

Gottfried Semper:

Stereotomy, Biology,

Our poont of deparNrc "what 1s known in math

ema11c$ as a doublr point. This partKular point

1s constuutt'<l by the two statue' - one of George

Cuv1c1 'and the other of Alexander von Humboldr.•

tho Ce1 man d1sc1ple of Etienne Geoffrey Saint

Hilaire>- Gottfried Semper p1acedat the top ofthe

N•tur~1s1orisch.s Museum (18n-1681), The fdct

that Semprrdod not pl•ceone.but twob1olog1s1sat

the sumn .. 1 ol his represfnrauon of science ~hould an •S a qutstion mark wnhan Sem~rs D.r Sil/.

Hrs m>tstenrc on placing .. s1a1ue d a disciple of

Geoffroy Sam1 H1la1r. berral"' l doub1 in Semper

thdl m 1urn re\cdb abhndspo11n D" S11/

The tour technical •rh of Otr St1f~ 1•ble

of contcnls, th< lour pillar>. arc trN1i>d tar f1om

equ•lly Semper, emp,as1son te•ules 1>01 course

very well known. but wha1 •~ rarely discuss•J

is lhe weakness of lhr chapter> on >tercotomy '

The numbtrs of pages deJ1cated 10 each of the

lechn1cdl arts in D~r ~11/ •re· Tu11le. 550 P•ges,

Ceramique, zoo: Tectoni~ur. 135: St•,..,l'Olll!'· u}

But at issue 1s not merely1h• nurnbefof ~-11 ~ i:.

1511 that the majontyof whattsactua Y th« thD .. 1s dedicated to tectonics in s1one "' ti

I Dorr Snl de-« ' • stereotomypropor lnthepag••o th>< o far as t~asst" ·· to stereotomy, Semper goes 5 MI<

the whole history of a1<1\1tt<turt """' , ~ ihe 'lrtory of the >'auh (usu•llY coos~ .• ~''

yl ~I tbt rt<I°"" j pumary territory of ster«>tom .~ ;

·ol'S anv motf • .... frame. but then hardly menu · ~ f Sterf<!IClftV ..

n This dbsence of the corr 0 IJlt<I d g 1h••~ more surprising cons• enn o'J!

htr< arch•""""' and s1ud1ed in F'r•nce. w !d 1~h' om)' Ho" cou stronglv rooted in slettot · . a)O<I' !!,... 1tt.· ..

Se1np<'rwr1tt ..... f . W•ll informedsehotaras uch~ptoi ...

1.

• li~ur<'JS ....t otomy wnhout mcnuonong •·· • , 51..-·

rgues' ... en de L'01 me~ or Girard [)e<a l!Utkh"' ,,oli

II f F'rfn<h ""''<" acknov.ledgong th• ta 0 fr•"'§Olln• conclusions "'' uons' Was hedr .. w1ng . huf(ll. #' ·

contro-.rsial Sa1ntt Grnevi~-ec

d1t1on•I !rcnch geometnc methodology was sup

planttd by a phy.1c•I a pproach based on stil!ICS

•nd the •trengih of matenals1 Did Semper feel

th•s• tradit ions were unable 10 cope with the tech

nologitdl challenges of the t 1me'

The>e rca\ons cannot fully expla 111 why

Somper mode no menu on at .tll of what appears

•oh< the- most 'Scmpen•n' piece of architecture in

P•ri~. the wonderful s tone interlacing ol the rood

screen w11h1n 5 a1nt l:.llenne du Mont, only a hun

dr~ meters behind S<11 nte·Gencv1eve ' No other

piecr of arc hne<tu re so clearly embodies the arch•

tectural motif of the Semperi.1n knot and the the·

oret1cal concept of stercotomy, the transpo .. 11on

from text1le to stone. Could 11 be that what really

putiled St·mper was not only th•t Phi libert de l'01 me w• h ' t • presumed architect of th" rood ·

\<re•n.' as wt11 "~of so many other Sempenan

Pirce, of •rchnccture, but that an archllect could btthe 1n1t1at , oro1 pro1ect1ve geom<.'try.'the bianch

of mathematic> forming the conccp1ual back

ground of Geoffroy Saint H•lairc's work'

One could ob1ect that these question> wtre

of litt le relevant• to Sem!>('r's archuectural p101

cct. and that he could have very well ignored

pro1ect1ve geometry and its connections to Sauu

H11aire's biology But we should remember t

Semper actually studied mathematics with Carl

Friedrich Gau\>. the man who nrst accept•d pos1

11vely the con>equences of the negauonof £ud1d's

fifth postulate, and 1n so doing 1n1uated the held

of · non ·Euchdean geometry." Semper's 1ntereS1 m

mathemaucs was strong ef\ough for him to write

at the age of f\hy a technical essay on d1ffeie1111al

calculu!. applted to the shape of pro1ecttlrs." It

1s my hypothesis that Semper had the capacity

to fully understand pro1ect1ve geometry. but lie

repn:sot•d 1t m D~r St1I be~ause 1t implied a refor·

mulauon ol geometry that had yet to be achieved

by mathema11c1ans themselves." Until this rcfor

" ..

mulauon was achieved. the arrh1tectunl read mg

of geometry was bound to remain neo clas>1cal

1n a manner similar to Wmckelmann's reading of

Greek <1rt h11ecture a s pure. ideal, white form Gott

:~~;~~ ~ ""~~le .J ·~~--l~nform"

Such a hypothes" rehes upon two a:.sump

uons. The nr.t IS that pro1ect1'lie geometry was an

1mponant leatureof Geoffroy Sa int H1 laire'sbatk

ground - $0 prominent a feature 11 could not be

1g11ored by someone hke Semper with $trong inter·

ests m arch11ec1ure, biology, and geometry. The

>econd 1> that pro1ec11ve geometry could imply a

non-neoclassical read mg of geometry that would

have el\3bled S~mp~r to pursut h1> work begun on

color by applymg 1110 <hape. Such an acu>mph$h

ment would have enabled Semper to ad~uately

wnte h1> m1ss1ng text on •tereotomy

BIOLOGY . d ~-t becwrtn Cuvier Wltat w;is the cort of 1ht e .... '

and Sa1nt-H1la1re thal excattd contemporaries

such as Goethe and Beliacl The lwo b1olog1sts

Wfrt in11ially good friends who worked togtthtr

on vtrtebr•tt class1hcation in order to corrobo·

ratt Sain1·H1lairt's thtory of a single organiza

tional plan that would inform ihe whole of ihever·

tebratt lamlly. Since 1796, Gtolfroy Saml·Hilaire

had worked with the conctpt tha1 ihete existed a

single organizational plan for all animals." Saint·

Htlaire's research began w11h mammals and then

extendtd 1ht concept 10 to1rapods. An 1808 essay

by Saint·Htlalre on fish generalittd the single

plan to all vertebrates." Until that polnt Cuvier

"'II enthusoarncally supponcd Sain1·Hilaire. But on 1811, Cuvitr announced h1sown thes1~. classify·

1na animals onto several btanchu or "embranch

men1s· Vertebrata, Anoculata, Mollusca, Cni·

dutans. •nd Ech1nodorms rot Cuvier, these

embranchements were lundamenially dllfertnt

from u ch other and could not be connected by

any e'olutlonary translormatton Cuvier's "hx1s1·

voew of boolOC)' pos11td that every $Ingle pln of an

organism" so Wtll ht1td to llS surroundings that

1hert 1s only one w~y on which earl\ part can be

conntt1td 10 the whole orian1sm ror those who would 1hlnk that this is lar aw;iy from archntt·

lure, rtmtmbcr, 1111 Cuvier who wrote the famous

sentence 1aken ~s a principle of func11onahst arch l1oc1ure. "givt me anyslngl•p1cce of an animal

and l will draw you ohc whole body." According to

1h1s view, each cmbranchmcni has Its ow11 Organl·

za11on and •here can be no wayol conncc11ng par1s

in .1ny m.1nner o1her •han tha1 dc;crihcd in each of 1 he categories.

Un11I 1810, Cuvier and Sa1111·Hila1re lived ~nd worked peacefully'" •he same •nstitu11011 le

Mush d' lt1s101re Na1urcllc, '" Pans. During 1~1s 1•mf, lulcs C4esar Sav1gny who •ad b• r

• " .en '" '·8YPt Wllh Sarn1-H1la1rc on the Napolcono• E d

... Xpt 1taon, Studied lht compara11ve anatom I

Yo an 1nS1•ct's mouth Another of Saint·H1l•ire's ""e~ P

...... ·•• •ttre Andre La1re1lle. apphed the p 1 nnc1p • of unity

ol compo•111on lo all of tht An I os h 1ru ata Until

t a1 point, the work of Cuvier and S a1m·H1la1te remained compa11blt • --

....:ause neuhrr S Hilaire nor his followtrs br k a1n1. ben.e.n . 0 ' ary front,."

Cuvier s sacros•nc1 tmbranch on 1810, Saint H1la1re suooes1·• a rnent>. Bui • - ... '"' unny of p'-U<'IWeen Vencb1 ata a d I ... n began at lh n nsecis. Cuvier'Ht1t1qu•s

" P<ltnl and onl 1 Sa1n1 lhla1,. l•a . y ncrtased whon · ' ning on work& b L

Mcyrand y aurenctt and . ex1ended his unuy ol

Mollusca as wc11 ••s • cornposh1un to · a1nt·H1la1re had Ii

uni ed three

b nchmenw an accomphshmt>nl Cuvwr oftheem ra.. •

was unable to accepl.

But as one examines Saint H1lairc's unifi ·

cauon of Vertebrata and Insect>, the rel1111on

between the two embranchments seems rar from

obvious, since each has a thoroughly different

~lationship to the ground. All Venchratn have

their digestive organs facing the ground, located

underneath the ~rtcbral column. which in turn

houses the nervous system. In cootrost. Insects

have digestive systems in an inverted position

facing the sky. with the spinal cord located under·

neath the body. To address these difforoncos in orl·

eniation. Saint-Hilair(> makes use or a 1orsion opcr·

ation, a tool from prolective geometry, to explain

how insects have their belly upwnrd and their back

downward. Semper uses a similar vectorlal orga.

nitation in Der Stll, compbring the compositaon

of boological Vl'ttors in various species with the

vector of 11Tav11y in arch11ecturo.

ln terms of validating hos reuarch, however,

Samt·Hila1~ comm111ed an ~rror when he went so

far as 1opos11 that ·each animal lives either Inside

or outside 11s spine· - effec11vely assimllot ln& all

carapaces from Insects 10 Venebr .. ta. Eventually.

he would even compare the legs of shcllfishc~ to the ribs of Venebrata . It was no difficult task

for Cuvier to take advantage of this hypothesis

on order to inv;ihdate the whole of Sa•nt·Hllairo's

categorization. As a result, Cuvier appeared the

winner of a crucial Serles of lughly·public1ied

debates that took placebetw~n tho two biologists

in 1830, •t the very time that Semper wa~ study.

ing in Paris." Cuvier retainod the victory mantle

until very recently. when !ho scientific publication

Nature published an aniclc by E.M. de Robertls

•nd Y. Sossai which used contemporary biolo9i·

cal studies to assert •he validity of Satnt•Hilairc's

original lheory." Modern biology has found genes

that code the orientation of organs backward and

forward. as well as downward and upward, It As 8

result, •ht most plausible hypothesis now Is •hat indeed Ins d

ecti. an Venebrat• had a common ancutor from winch they b1furcat•d

~ some S40 million year~ ago.

GEOMETRY

To return •ott..111 . n•teen1h century and the geomet·

rte concepts in b . use Y S~1nt·Hila1re, 11 should b. Understood th 31 acrucoal concept for Sain1·Hila1re

was 1nvers1on Wht h . . ' c •$also a key translormai1on •n P<OJect.ive 800111 ,. 1 etry. Through invc~ion. the c osed quadra1181

'· as used •n pro1cct1ve geumttry can be taken as a ' . S conceptu~I equivalent of an ant 111 aint·Hilaire's

work, Insofar as an lnscc1 ;, a

'I 'I:, I •r,·.,V· "'·

·-

•,

Lt! I bl

·~

•.

.. :; .. "

Toei IO bonorn ... •I

.... /,I<

nos~ed (or JO\'t'ned) vertebrate Thi> conceptual

equahty estabhshes a common ground between

Geolh"y Saint H1la1re and Gaspard Monge." the

red1scovererof pro1ec11ve geometry

Monge. who taught at the Ecol• de Mrrwres

3nd wa• closely connetted. an t794 to the Ecole

Normale. whert• the young Geoffrey Saint Hilaire

had arrrved. believed 1n de~.r1p11ve geometry\

ab1hty to bernme a unl\·ersal language Monge

was also one of th• 01 gani2er• "'tho •Clenllht pot

!Ion ot Napokon·~ C:gypt e~prdmon. ,11,d would

latr1 berom~ the Chau <ll the ln•lllUI d'l::gyptt> It

1s hkdy thdt Mong<' and Sa1111 1111,111\' h.icl pl,•nty

ol opponuritty t<> di>CUH 1ht•1r >h.ired 1111,•r.••1>

wutun a year of 1h~1r overlap ,11 tlw t:rnle No1"

m,1le. Sa10t·H1la1re WdS 10 foi mubh' h1> 1>rrnclple

uf "unity of plan." Interestingly. Monge dev.•lo1>cd pro10<11vt•

geome1ry by \\•aching st<rt•otumy. lh• 1n11·rcst 1n

arch1tec1ure went •O I.Ir as t(\ lcdd to a prnpo>.il

for an elhpso1dJI vauh - th~ 101nh of which were

hn('> of curvatu1c that adm11 two hmtt pu1111\,

called ·umb1hc> • 17 lnvN\tOn Jnd umb1lll lll' only

two among many other hyb• ul ((1ncepi- ,h.Jrl'd

between l>1ology .-ind l!tomell)" Th"r" ., .1ho

grNt ovt'rlap to Sa1nt·ll1\J11 .-., u'e of thl' tl'rm>

•homology· and "pldnl' of compo"11nn.· both nf

which are s1gn1hcant • .ndW\·11 deh11e1I ttr m' w1th11\

proll't llW gtoml'l<Y ~Aini lhl~m· d1dn"1 USl' !ht'

wo1d "homologut" .1> "VJl!u.' \)nonym to ·,rna

loguc·. nor did h• U>l' "pl.li\ ••a V.IHUl' oynony111

ro ·orsan1za1ton .,. lie inuwlcd tht••• "''"'' to

1.11ry thetr full ma1hem.111CJI m1•Jnint1'· """ J'

tho>« u•cd by 1tw m~1twm.111n.1n Gir.1rd Ile'•"

gu<''· HI 1618. ro formu lJIC tlw 1he111<•m "11lWl•111

Jngles have J center of homology. th•n they have

also an ~x" of homoloHY ·This 1hco1em would

brcome a tornt•rstone of pro1ect1ve geometry

AbSlldct clements such a5 1he ·center' and

the ·a~" of homology' were c ... tatnly the kind of

m•3roollnt> Sa1nt·lltl31re Wd> looking fo1 1n thl'

con11nua11on ot the work of h" teach•• Rene

\u\I I tauy" lust Huay founded crystallogr.;phy

- another sc1rnt1hc domain not at all foreign "'

the h1>tor\ o! an especially "'hen one con>1der>

11\a1 t htlF)'tal '-"3> to become the paradigm of the

~b>tt.lltt "Kun,twollen • lu~t a:.. having dropped

.1 Cl)">IJI Rene tu.i H•uy tound that tne brok•n

pine' >howed plan•s n11er.ec11ng at a con>tant

dnlllC'. Sd1nt ·H1ldne wa, looking for the equ1va

\1•n1 pl3n~. the tnvart3nt •lement. on the basis of

wh1(h v.ir1ous dnimals could be •~id to belong to

the ,,,mo tormc pnm111vo." 1n the langu•gc ol

lu't Hu ,1y, or to the same "urmouv." using the Ian·

¥UJI!•' of Cu11frteJ Semper It ts on th• b;i>1s of

th•• un14uc plane tha1 01w woulcl be ~bit• to gen

er .i11• .iny •V<'Ct<>S by v,iryu1g the p1 oportions of

.in "utllcr • Wl11le Scm1>er h1n1> at 11011ons of vary

1ng proporrlon\ 1n h1:. ch.1ptu on :.tcrootomy. he

ll'm,1111' lar from con:.1det 1ng wch 11011ons •>the

ptupurt111n> which ,1ppt•d1 to bl' con.i.1nt m pro1ec

uw trM1'forma11011

PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY

Thi· htc •>I prowc11w gf11nie1ry "a~ 111 bo dr\el

<>p.;.I by n>•thl'lnJ11c1•11> dnd U>od bv tcchn1t1an,

wtnll.' simply 1g11orcd by mn>1 f>coplc rn Nh•1

h1·IJ, t'10WCllH ~comNry "tommonly thought

<If J' onh· .I \l"t Of dt JN1ng tool~. when 11 h,h

h1,1u11c illy 1m.11lved mud• wider prdrll<.ll 11od1s

- "' '., ...

. I gside srone<:ut· h<ln 11mply represtnrauon. A on

t • rspe<tivc wa5 only one ring and gnomonics, pe

1 held of development for projective geomerry. n l protect ive gt0metry mathematics for examp e. .

had a much deeper significance than as 1u1t '."e · 1 I d to the structuring codification of a pracuce. I t

ot geometry inrocategories - 1sometry, similitude,

. . • ••d ropolo"" Th• problem is thar tht pro1ecr10 ... ~· .,. . h1st01"!' ol projeoctive geomerry is rarher shpp.ery.

Ir d.wloped independenrly in the three pracucal

fi•lds menrion~ earher - stereoromy. perspcc·

uve and gnamonics - unril Desargues invented

general theorems 10 be used commonly by all of

the fields. Unfortunately Desargues's rheorems

were widely ignored wi lh the cxceprion of a tew

emmen1 readers." Although many reasons can be invoked to

••plain the rcjl!'Clion of Desargues's work, 1t is a\

least worthwhile to mention three of rhem and

rheir 1mphcarions in various fields. In m•rhemat·

1cs, Denrgues's 1hcory of proiccrive geometry

appeared at the same rime as Descartes' theory of

analytic geometry, which was to give way to differ

ential geomc1ry. At thP 11me, 1he parh was already

O!>•n for a progressive ecl ipse of geomerry as a

whol•. to the advanuge of algebra. By the end of

the n1ne1ecnrh <•ntury, £uclufs €/~m1nu.. which

for rwo thousand years had been rhe mo~I of alt

ra11onal discoune, ceased lo be a teaching refer·

ence. In strreotomy. Ocsargues had the same tY?e

of trouble that Phihbert de i'Orme had already

•• P<rttnced. and that Monge would face m his

h "--le-de Polyiechnique, and ~en · comet ry at r e"'"'

:ually. the consequences of pro1ective geometry

be drawn not .,, F'rance. but In German ~reW »

by on Staudt Plucker, and F'elix Klein. countrie5, v •

h ·me Semper wa• studying mathemat· S1ill, at t e ti •

. 1 e geomet ry was considered to be pn · ics pro1ect v ' .

1 r ch What was Semper's underatand ing mart y ren .

f I Y? And what could he have learned from o geo111e r Frederick Gauss? lt'i a difficult question beca use

Gacss was known for Jceeping secret most of his

work until he was sure of all its conclusions. In

fact, he rarely made public t he methods he used to

discover his theorems. His demonstration• were

so deprived of all traces of method that they dis

played only their final structure. Gauss would

explain: · when a beautiful building is achieved.

one musr not see what has been the scaflolding.•ll

Such a sentence is so close to Semper's conception

of arc.httecture that ii quite probably was inspired

by Gauss.

Ian Stewart presents Causs very well by stat·

mg that he was at rhe same time the first of

rbe modern mathematicians and the last of the

classical ones. "Hi s methods were modem, while

his choice oi problems was classic." Most proba·

bly, Semper inherited from Gauss this classical

approach ro geomeiry that read Euclid's €/emenu.

as a text oriented towards a Platonic theory of poly·

hedrons (as it 1s espoused in the Timid. Semper's

Prole9omimo begins w 1th images of the sphere and

lhe polyhedron as they appear in crystals. This

polygonal concepuon :shows up again in Semper's

text on stereotcmy. where blocks of stone are

conceived as polyhedrons. Chapter 166, "Gestalt

'Iles Unterbaues als Canzes betrachtet," reproduces this " kristallinisch~urhythmisch" concep

t ion: ·auf den Kre1S, das Polygon,das Rechteck.• 32

Geometrically speaking, Gottfried Semper is an

un~s~al case, his conception of textiles clearly

am'.c1pa1es topology and knot theory, and It

revives the main geometrical concept of Anax-1mandre » the -

' apeiron. But his conception of srereotomy 15 enfrel b 1 Y ased upon the transposi· hon of wood 'ect . . . • on1cs into stone, and as such 11 remains ancho ed · of . r in a neo-classical reading

Euclid. Semper mis d h . se t e intermediary level

between the I w· . po ygons of Euclid and che knots of

1lham Thomson 34 H 1 · ad Seinptr read Desargues " would have d'

cl 15covered a language of geometry ose to Philibert de l'O • .

guage nne s architectura l Ian· - not only in its k n

and no . ots and stone interlacing, t only in the . .

pro1ttt •ve cone of the Trompe

d'Anet. but in the vocabulary of · JIJ l'rltlcfi

a trunk, with knot.a, brand!., .~ "4ir. • .a .... tbfa11er

cation. fn1tead of rtstrlctlno hi ~ • 1 ~.,.tef

convex polygons, Stm per could have t . ""-

they are only a very particular q~dlti. wholevarletyofconcaveandcrosMdfi ~ ~ over, Semper would haverealllfd !hat:::::

polygon& cou Id have b11ernting nro· , • /ftthit "-

Hu . likt the alignment of the Inter~ ~: ·

opposed 1ldes evidenced in Patcal'i ..... of~ "'""'Clll!lf' the hexagon.11 Geometry taket on a new~

ance when one doesn't focus IO!ely OJI Ilse r. ·. chapten of Euclid's e1~u and inJttad ~.

it to combine with ~nelaus'1 tht0rtm. Thil 1111: .

metrician of the flnt century e1tablllhtd lhtfitil projective properties upon the baae of Tha!tti • ·

theorem.17 Moreover, it ls pouJ.ble r:o dedua a11 •• •

the fundamental theorems of projective~

Pappus, Ceva, Desarguu, Pascal. and Briancho.. .· on the basis of this single theorm of Mentlau. • :

Are we not toda.y in a 1ituation llmilar ro -: .

Semper'sl Piiing up topology on top ofc!IAicil ;;

. I

• I

geometry, are we not mls•lng IM intmnedi11{:

step? Are we not putting 1hing1 100 simply wtn ·. we oppose the cube to the blob? 11 there no oth«

solut ion than the modernist arid and tl'.t tonltl!- •

porary free forml Can't wt find •opplc rtpll6 .

ties I To be sure, mol'jlhing softwan enabl.- "'IO .

link anything with any othtr thlni- But lsn'tltO. ·: ·

path that matters/ By simply rejcctingpoly1onsto '. ,

promote NIJ Res. don't we missa seomettyforwt

projects, a projective geometry'/

NOTES ~ ... ...- ~geo; &ron - (176!H832) CuV1er's theones were based uPOn the r)Oloon thlst func.

t<l<' oeter"'snes btOlogteat form As SIJCh. lorm was deemed immutable w1lt\rn the restraints ol

•u .... l~.I' '"''" ttHs ~umptoon. Cu""'' Ol!.ieloped a system of class1f\catoon that ass'ljned au 5(Je(,.,.,i .,.ma1 to or>e of tour ost111ct cateoones and denied the exts1ence of evolulron

1 w """"' A~..a"""' Y<Yl Humbold. Friedrich - (1~1869) A Germal"l naturallsl Von Humbold

..asa ~"'tile f.,id of B1ogeograplly. His exhausl•Yl! account of the strlJCture of the then

L...,... ""'.erse. Ko<tnOS. was .. 1"'1ly translated and mftuential.

J Gec"•or Sa.nr Ha~a1te. Etieme - (177?- 1844) French naturalist who devetoped the pnnciple

01 ·..,rt1"' "'II*"" eamposillon.' This theory proposed that the analormcal structure ol all

_,...,.c.._, be trace<! t>ack to a single form from which all other organic form is de11ved.

• Sleeol<YT'I » oefi...d as the cutting of SOiids. m particular slOfll!

$ df lo.me Ptl1l1bert -(1512-1570! Court architect for Henry II, de L'Orme was considered one

ct t-e fathers of French Neo-Ctass1cal architecture. He 1s known for. among other things. lhe ~n1ot11V10Ve11t1\IC ~onecutt.,,,-., eM vaulting tt1ci'ln1ques. wh~h madQ 1..1:.e of uniQve

~'"''''""'"''$. O...rg...s. Girard - (1591-1661) French mathematician who de""loped lhe foundetoons of

""'""'"' geornelry. His work. "'hlCh depended hea .. ly on a Ur\!Qlle mathematical symbolism •nd clemed from bOtat>rcal notul1on. was not widely accepted by other rnethematlClellS unhl

~~ steOl"d half at 1t'e mneteenth century.

Pl>.•Jl!l" "olie has already hinted at the "Sempeflan·ness· ol Pt>ihl)er! de rO<me"s BTCIUtechJt"e

"'"" brJl<arn bOoli. ~I/lures de la Pensee Uit><trur:/JvP In a way. this text ts a rec!l)rocal essaf "' ,,.. "rm-di! rOrme·ness' of Der Sfl/.

Att .. bu1ed ~o i>hllillerl de !'Orme by Anthony Blunt

?r.,,.ct1,. Geometry is the brarch of mathematics that deals with the retahon$h1pg between

geonetnc fogureo and the 1magu, or m8j)pl!l(IS, ol tllem that result from projection. Common ecarnples al pr0jechons are the shadows cast by opaque objects, motion pictures, and mllj)S

"'the EB<1h s 5'1rface.

10 Gott1roea Semper. 'Uber die ble1&<nen Schleudergeschosse def Allen und zweckmlrUoO<>

Gntanung <!or Wllrfllorper im Allgeme1n', (Frankfurt 1859).

ll Ho: to be achoewd by methemat1c1aos until 187:1.

U COIOr '"" ""1ace (which es Arostolle remarked are two closely related wor<ls. chrora and

'''"''NII beat ... t ...... to. pre Euclo<lean polychrome geometry where sunaces could not been

t'1Gughi ol •rthout color.

MlN•NC AU TONOMY I 91

23 In mathematJcs. an umbilic rs a IJOUl\ on a cur""' surface wtier& ell norm<.l sections have tile

same curvature. In biology, &o umbil1c •S the CorYl8Ction between the embryo and the mot he< fllrough the umbllrcat cord.

t 4 The mathtunahcat defirotion of homology is. If betweon h•O figures. compOSect ol p01nls •na sfraig111 lines, one can ~tabl<sh such a <:Ol'respondenco thlll cOUples of assoc1"1ed points are localed on convergil"(l l•'IH, those figures hawe a center ol JlOmology v<he<• the Imes

converge. If the corresponOence ••such that CouP/eS of associated lines ir1tersect 1n points localed on the-h this line os I/le axis of the homology which transforms one flgure .. to another.

25 Rene Just Hauy taugtit p'lystCS at the Ea>te Normal at the same t ime Monge tOUQht geomQlry.

211 Gnomonocs pertains to the mea&urmg ol tim<! bit means olthe projection cl the sun - mosi commonly using a Stnliat

27 lhe first of whom was 81a1Se Pascal. Indeed. i>ascal $hCMJld be gi- the n~ht to share the pattUmtt of ~tive geometry

211 .llrgos Battrusaitts. "tes perspect...., depraves." Part t.

211 Alter Monge'scocllfocat10n of descrlj)live Q1101119try m 1196. in 1810 B" anchon anno<»ce<l h<s astor»s/llng pr111C1ple of duellty According to Brianchon's ptV>C1ple. an theorems of geometry

- a •$1\adcJw" theO<om. whoc:h earl i>& doductd by s""'*1 e•chatlgong •""word ·po1n1•

"'"h •stra>QM line' .and the word "1t1t8'secl" wolh "being aligned.• In 1822 f'Oncelet pubhshed 'lrart~ cles propn4tb prored._ des noi.m..: so 1t 1s no .wrpriSe that Saln;e.HHa•~ lhouQht of

bdogy in terms of pro)OCl1ve geometry. one of the hot topics amorq the """'nl!foc community

atthettrna

30 .on S1audt. Karl George Clvlstian-(1189-1!1S7). Plulw, JulKJS- (1801- 1868). Klien, Fehx -(1849-1925) - German mathemlhc1tJ.ns whe contributed signil"icantly lo tilt <1evelopm<0nt and

soliclif1C&\lon ol prOjtetl\-e gecrnetry amorQ othe< branches of mal"8mat1cs and physic•

!1 81ogf31)hy of Carl f'1edrch Gauss by ian Staw11~ 1n le• A.l•IMmo.licoMS (8e<l"1. 1996).

32 'from the Circle. the polYOQll. the rectangle'

33 A-.mar.ire - (610 OC~ BC> Gnil>k p>lilosophe! who do..eloped a systematic pn;loooQhicol .iow of the~ bftSedon lheconceptol tl\e apenon. w"1ch wo<the unified. and undif·

ferenliable state ., "'1llch all thol"(lt owsled before they were separated into discern1ble entit-

31 Will-. Thcmsorl. Loni l<el..., (\824-t!l07)prQPO>•' scient1sls to be tie'"'

that ttwy could undo<stend the chemical elements by sludyil"(I di1ferenl cypes of ~rots and thus t/liS led to a completely new f.eld of stuoy in math. A knot IS defined•• a closed ,.o.monslon6! .,..,.., tl\ol ~ nol ltrtersect itself t3 ThK chrOr"IO&ogy of tto,c ~nt and rclet•on of GeoHtoy Saint-Helaire and Cuvl-1" com~

from te G.rtllder. He<~. rhior1<s ., histOlfe en b/O{Ofl!O (Vrin. 1968). 115

1~ "lleocrll>IKI\ do drkJJ< s1roes d" Atnenque. sous l8S nomo d'ateles arachnc>od-0 el d"at.ies marginatus."

Pr.,.ecti.e geometry-er.; t'l)lltly connecttO ro bloloQv since lhe very begwirnno of its

1t.or1.tal..,,. At tile'""' Oesarguts,.as wnhng. boology we• •ncnl-11lly botany, hence Ille

-"1 net..,.. of tile wms projeci1ve geometry borlOW• from nalural sclfnce. At the !ime

of ds rediscove<Y by Morqe. f'l>ncelet and Bt1onchon. blo!ogy begon IOCt:sing on the animal re.go But this time. the direction of the bDrlOWlng seems to ha"' gone maltlly the ether we:y

round -!rem geomeuy towards biology.

15 l e G.ptlPr. Herve. rhtor1<s el b1storre en blOiogie (Vr<n, 19e8).

11 Ururer«t ilOd Meoyfand"• concept was that the layOut of the org""5 of a Cep1>a10j>Od was """'*'""to th&t of a Vertebra la. tnan~s to a fokllog (lp&fation alr..,dy auggested by the

., )!Tlologi al the " ord "'(Aphalo-pode."

11 '" 1""' -e<y tome Sempe< was mak">o v1&1t s at tile Jardins de.s Pllllt/es "'"''"studying archltec· hxt in Pan$.

11 'A°"""""" j)jan for clOrso-ventral patterll!OQ 1n B1l1tena•. Natur~. tllOO,

11 l•Gurade<. Hc•ve, Geo/fray Sa.nlH•lwe, Berlm, !!l98.

:ID Soeclfically. an .,_s1on of pQWe< "k" . relative to a Pol• O, ls U>e traMtormat'°" which """"•areo io •Point M the Point Mt sucn as OM' OMt '" k. One •mmed1attly - that 1 E..,.y ScnQle IJOlnl rJf the plar.e has an in11er.e. e.«;ept from the pole 0 wr.>6•

tr\wtf'5.f- t5o 'ef6Ct9d at rnfin1t~ 2 ~t.ll $ the 3

1 mverse of M. 1hen rec1prooafly, M is tl>e 1n-se of Ml Tti.e c.r-c"' #rth tef'lter O and radius Vk remains nwar•ant

• Ariy lwo P<>ltlls and lhe1r •nvorse constitute a quadrangle mlC(ibed"" a cw-cte. ~ Tll,. t1r~ 0

cut lhe 1rwar1ent e1tcle at roght angle 1'- Q!Jodr.la1er~ of the quad< angle has""" exte<nal ....,le•"" \tie center ol tile inwartent ttt'de

1 r,_. ""'"r """•rrial vertex gees on the cros1111g of the two other oppouO •odd

wt,.,, Mcorne. .,1o the 1nvtr""'t circle while N ~0"'6 rema•r11ng outside. 2t ...__

;-GullO'<I, Comte Do Peluoe - (17416-1811!) French matl\em811Claft who dewfCl>e<f tt>e ~ doter""'"" 4<1d analyt1co! oeometry. Soll> o1 wlllch OON form tiranclles ol proiectiwe geometry.

22 JoelSotiaf ""•tch, EJ>ure• <f'•rchrtocr1Xe (8.,khaUler. 111116~

35 E- rrtte SU1p<•sll"(ll1- those propert•oa are kept wt•ariant wnen the pol~s ~.appen to be crossed. or degene<afod. ~ralion ls onothor key concept ot pro1ect11'8 goomatry that

alsO Nippens to De central to Geoffroy Saint-Hilalfl"s wort<.

'SJ MenelauS ll$O iflltialed "*'"'I<: tri9<>n<Jmelry. which would provide one ofttie Euclidean

_..ot non·Euchdoan geometry.

BERNARD CACHE AND PATRICK BEAUCE

rran,lmonhrrn$pani>hbv IORCt Z ... l'Al"

The dt> /'Orme PaJJifwn 1;, tlie product of a deAign and fabrication Atudio

raught by Be ma rd Coche and Pat rick Beauce al the L'£Licola Superior

d'A1q111tecnoa oj thr Unrverl>itar Irt.ti!rnacional de Catalunya in Barcelona,

Spa111 J'!w uudio wM 011 ex1•rcue in ut1lizmg the b<u.ic opl'ratio11.1; of a

mm1mcafly controlled machme for full-.1><·0/p production of an architectural

oh1e1 I CJA WPll a.i. an attempt ro pUAh rlu.> lim1u. of rl1P new .t.uitP of M1ftware

a11d mm l111wry rhat l1a11i> bl'come increOAmgly available to architecu.

:.

GEORGE WAGNER

•,

·, ·~ .. -

:;r

""' 1.;· •. , ·

· ..

THE PRE,MSE

BETWEEN THE WAIST ANOlHE FLOOR

t 3

BVILDlllGS. TEXTILES, BODIES

I

.•. •.•

r t!" _. r>·ost !."'"h·st c • I I d,(•(j Y(''~ll\11 r,I It· S

I -:ii :.1:a1 a' v·ut a•1> de:"ll:'d b1 tt,.., car ·~sci>~.,, c ttw bu •cl1no·~ µ<>ice v<-<l ,~~I•' an:i .. ,s~n 'fl(' tl·~lolp S•Jrfart. ""'hllas '1~1{!() tr e p;;I~ C tlier re.;il1t1"''> a•e un~\!l:''l ll•ltl bJn"'J A1ft>1n, b<,I nd

d1rJ •·01 otfe1 a ~.ol1st1c mcriel fo1 II•< hit"~. one<> ""~I the ~'l(lin\ ot ~rct •!• ct or~ tfirout.h t€ •I le•, coniple •

0 · ec l"a· l" . .,orildtion L t d d If x "" d1scu1,.,,,e 111 the re>!· t i, u i o prr.ne t~1t was nt>ces~afllv

11 ,

1 il l!Jr1 01 the pJrt:, Wh11, 5 .

n nee iac.y of lnP >natiul 1111.,, bnf 1c c P1>1J)f'• s "'1 Ii• 'I "'1P1·c>tJ lh;, perc~., .. irtl

c <J11• "e: h dd.,c fact ()( t "' Advl1 I ()l)S ic ... ;ogn11cd of th~d If s, ~ •uctur,,. u1 Tticl'Mc1µ<·0/Cla<t<1ing(tif!8)

erP.nccs betweE<n 'h" 1 d · · c . . WO dS "'11119 thr· .irC"•IPI ll·• al procp;~ .dlP"IS df{' WdfltJ anrJ J.vablt> 8 I ' .

I' · I.I >Ou ~11nr1ol butl<J a hO(JSe 1 / .oor :in<lthe tape$/rion tnr> wall Ov o ca1P"I~. IJoth tll~ carp<!t 01' //le

ti ' rcqwrPd slruc /ura/ /1arr1elon 'a h

>1s ''"m< •s tnearctt1tf'cf.s 'e di • o. t r>mtnltir>cr.rrectplare To1nvu11 ~ Wll .JS•

'oos' reading of S1:-moe1 01d "Of dtl .. n-pt to imt;Jc n • .mo buold•ng structure ot s 1)()1. a eh ca •erat1or.1>t<•wet'n ""II co.,~s:no

il'l a•o-.menl for artocu at or 'h · He .-.a .. teci to t'lCO'lle 'hes 11 i, 1)1 an.._ oc:JI cvct es•ra!1on <>'pa•:!. del~11 ·For h11~ the d1>ta I u ice lst-11. the cove•1ng, wh ch h<> call')C :h" ') •J,.st .irc-'1"f.c..i1al

• . i is not a p1J1111 of cor1neclior 0' mOE:cll0n bu: a C•Jllt•1~< .,.., •e"""' rnc (6

il ma-;, than a JOll'\f ,, r

The ultimate stratecw for m.tnipvl itin th f de~cr ibed by Loo~· ' IJ is Sur ace and the spac•· to which it ~1ves life. is

~:.I the art ist, the arc h1/12cf, first senses the .:{feel that ht' 'fitonds lo real1~c HI! senses /l>t> rff•ct · .at ne wishes toexl!rl 11pon thf >pre tat 1 ff f

or '11!SP e eels arP producc-o by bo!l1 mdlL11.il ~nd 1~~ form 0 /he SPilCC •

Loos offers a way of cnnre1,,r.g arcti•k'Clu't.' unburde"E' J from rP~po· $1l.J1!1t1c~ of P.lh•{'.al l:•P"'~

~on. f1orn lh" be! el wat the rhcl<>'11.JI ,1r11c.i.alKJO of tl'e mate• al I acts ol tiu lc.l "11 GOmehow lie

within lt'le tero tor11>f hone\ty or t•u•h. The cdebrated carer of Srhonkel\ AltPs MusPurn p•oi ec I!> onto the sui face a desc1 pt1oro of •tw hu• lhng'!> 1nltrnal Pdrls and l\•,tdp<1$e~ them against

(he t1g<1re ot the monolith•<. w 11ole l.oos sug()i;>~ts •l ·~ ne1tht>r thi;> re~pnn".t' lit~ nor •ne duty nt

th•l MCh111;:ct to bn nu to the w1 f.i<.c trw C'ltlnff•n ts that 1es1de p11v.itely w1t11111 th., deep sodce

of wr.h1tccture. Schinkel's lur id re11~on1nll un<J tht- cl111 1ty W'lh wt11ch he hyb11d1z<'d owlrMo moiphOIOl)·CS

rn:•<.:1 1rnpeded but only 11e11Jhlenr•tl fl•~ skill~ in St<;llQUtaphy .snd crt-.1t .,,., r·f!P<.t I h(•~1; we• tl his

othN <1vocat1ons His 1c>•lll•fl roo1n at C:harto1tl:'nhof (1826 J:lJ us<-C1 strf't~'" d ancl h11n(j fahr.c to

rfi•viw J pllfel1 local SIJ8(•· r,.,sp..r•\l"d 1rcrn tt1rarch11ectur~I moto,e:-.ot tt.e bu ld1np 1h<\t .. n<:a•PO

,1

llsalM<•Sl"he• 1c ,,,.,.,.,, onv,k• < 11 rt;11lm uoyoi:tJ tl1e .olla. tu lt'le ~UIJQ" hor, ol a l~o111a'1 CO•"Pi!•:J'

!Ent It ~the ,.,o!a:Pd Horio"' mono •lh•C and o'l<J..i gen: d~cvration. 1in•1k1:1 lllt'l ar•J ylt<. .trod h~,:o11

c 111{) 1t.coryof ')ernp1:r

DOMESTIC SPACE ANO INTROSPEC1 ION· OETACH£0 ANO SUSPlNOEO

Ttip CJ<-ldlhf'd iev~fll:!> of ~tt>1nkC'I'< t"r1\ rv<''l' ~llO'W't mo .t <l•""'i th wit- lhr1• to;~t1h•~ Cdn u :o pllly

111 l ite ~pcond 11,1:f cif tho tw••/11 t•th c•~·~t.,,v p1ntlU<.1ng u fl'""'Y 11;1 •ll •w1lotv in ,1 SfldlP. wtth

111 cintini iuu~ surf ui:e>. crn1111>nllv ~po l •Ill ,1ncJ 111w,irdl; focusc·d • .i ~PM•· l1J1 11w1 tal 1!'f1l'C t 11)1'1 .ind

bodily w~pens•c.n ' " th1: 1'J70~. Vo1111P pulil 1~hPd o numbN ,,f i.~nled wnm' ''" uJit uf ots 111ontl1l y

((!Y le ... ot <J'anior0us dvnwr,t1c1!y Th~ I l;'JJU~ (If\" l1kr 1io .. tlo11 ~. Jlld c 1·1~111 .tll• I h• pu~>•ll1ht~· ,,1 "'

r.ndosed bod it ~v~pens o" !rum 1·m .. a11d 01 .. cc Tiit' <.lluuic•N of'"'''"' rC<'nl5 1~ riv!h111p l1•e

th~ ll"lil'lt<S 01

sensibiht "'~ rlfrv1a1" ') tlo10~!JI µopUlar cullu•e. •1.r, 1, qn u I!>, OI II'• l)tt:er pag1;~ .,. V0<11.e Tt.oy pres~t lhu r oc t ,panls 11• 1so1.1hon hon• tit<: v.ortd

l"'"' di.:c::>rator B• t, Ba r1.-.1n r>rod ,(ed CO'T'JM•ahl; (Jo::acl 1 •J 1r.te'IC•S • ..,, h·~ cl,er•s n llb\

,..,, • Thp t' l?IT e"I o! ~ep.~iat '°" frc.m 1h< ""''cl w.1., tl""•'l', .;01nn od t~ ti e~c- ~pJr~i.rt., u 1 The

10-n

THE SCIENCE OF ULTRASUEDE

HYmM' Mair &ltd Ullr•·MK~

....

.~' ~I

·' ........

' " ;

n 11 ._. '9'."'s a-d 10~ :tee oea oi the self as a1 1nd1v1dudted 1rcrerne•1f of tre1:>dom !<>Ok M N:n

fo rn~ ldent.:, ,,as re'"-e·1 and cullrvated 1\ernar1·1 ;rrough psyci·olog1c al ntP1 PH:tat1on, ~e,.,~, ;ioiit<c~. ;,l:e·ra• .e rf;'linions. crugs and se f hep regimes This rew ~<)ff ;ir,pf:ared riutwartil~ a•, a vis tiie ar11'acl .n :~e ::-~o c •a1c,cJpe. a1ailable to rep,esent affil a\·ons anrJ '>'fnipath1b Sa11c.

, al trPedJ'l• bee""'" a po;r.t 01 everat1e ·hat allow?tl an 1ndl' dual to P")Je<.t 1del't1ly as a <1~m0n.

~t• at1~n \.1' pc 1· ::ai a gn!""w .... PMfu•e "°" wc-s·a1 d a-d sit. fiour ngo,r bcc•es 1nteractoon aP{l re~ponsP to the nl1y"ca

~nd soc at "'r>r d ·~ anct'ler dercons:rat1on of r"d1v·dual alignment •'· Jus! as furniture d1rra1e<

posture ;.me S•' 'u~u·es propt1et1. 1nd1V1duals can deterrnine theu oosti..rt- as a reaction to tl•P a readv fiijved. ergot'O"" call1 fixed e~pectat1on of bt.1 d1°•Q and furn lure fhese a'e 1ne b~Hles of adolesce~l •Cent 1, a"<l ndeper.de~ce oetwee~ pare~t and ch• d and !tie battles move li<-el)

'mrn the IJl;bl;r :o tl e pu~a:e ream Po~ture is portable. figu1ed as much by the real forms tt>af

ar>t1C•PJ1e o.;r '"·e1ac• on as :;1 the aostract ones - the at11ludes and aur<Js we wish to pro1Kt

[vt>r as •nd . dLal ide~t ty was be1~g cc1lr valed n varrous strains of non.conform srn. arch1

1et •~.ua spaces ~.ere o'tcn be<:o'1'l1n9 ~10"? :;iel'erahzed ar.d neutral Read1made "snells: Eero

Saaronf;'n ca ed ti'>eM

Usuar1, tN~p·oc/emof mter 01 design rs /lmrted. It begms wdh1n the exrstmq frameworh of an of(tce.

ctN!tlment, or read, ·ffiil<Je nous£> The st:e//s of //Iese IMng and work mg units havf> lo anstter the

n~erJs of ~u~a,eos of t•iousanos of peopff! The; na;e become completely anonymous shells. And

lhitnf Goa Ins :s so11t 1s wt:en lhi'y s/1a1 from s/flCi •mpcrsonaftl/ - anrJ try lo anl1c1pate some p~r·

sorra1 .d,~rnnas» b, mas~voovcmg some krndo{fancy door mould•ng or man/elp1ece ·Iha/ lhese

;1nc; ana wo·l"fl!J sr.e.-is :or a mass ma1~el far/ both pract1c1Jlly and f.'sthe/1cally. Likewise. furniture

t·as mo1eo ·nto<1 mass producl1cn era. and so to a greater or lesser degree. have orhet items of

:ne Nenor Tilt rt>suJ: rs tna: the rrwor equipment or furn1sh1ngs o/ /he ,n/ertor have an impersonal

01ara< le'. .Os .. .iti tre archi/ec/i.;ra1 shells, 1/ rs essential. m fact. that a mass produced item must

'1a1c tl><s •n!pe<sOfliJ/ character.'

T1'e 1mpersonalrty tnal Saanncn espouses

wds often rendered by monolithrc and monochro

matrc S1Jrfaces Of course. the concrete of Ire sne\ was one Te~tiles were others Texh\es are a

provocat"e ageo\ of 1ntlust11al progress 1n <I co~

s ... n e1 culturt! Their presence nearly always ind··

cotes the tactile 1ntervenhon of the human uody Un Ke most corr'lm<.-rc1al products, they are not

discrete but necessarily contmuous. aMnymous

1n their ub1Qu1ty

A~ an element !I at could :>rov•de spati.i.1 conr1nu1ty and render \he inconsequential even al'ld

< ootmuou~ carpet ng wds 'ova ed only by paint Carpet could extend through the building. and like

tr.e "udzu »nP ,.., :he Swtne<r rorest neutral,ze and subsume everylh ng in 1ts path Carpet. con·

crete. gypsum bodrc a'l<l Pdint vvere all that were ~ceded to rel'lder physical the desired anonymity

ULT RASUEDE ANO DENIM

Si'1Ce the tecl-ino'OO]iCa: advances o' the mid nineteenth century, modern material& have been

seen as s gn1fic.ant representalrons of c1.o1tural prO{jress and have frequently been engaged to

ser,p nat.ona 1st er ds The h•sto,,an Je!lrey Schnapp. 1n his e~say "The Fabric of Modern Tir11es"

has chronre ed lhe way .n wh C'> lhe Futurists in Italy ce:ebrated rayon 1n songs and poems. 1nfus·

irg lhe fatlrrc w•th powe•s that allowed rt to become •a site for elaborating a comple~ physics and

" 1et;iphysrcs of so.ere gnty"'• Mar1nelt1 wrote poems entitled 'The Poem o f the Milk Dress"' ~nd "Th~ Poem of :he V <cose Towe•· Th F t " e asc1s s built a new town m Ft1ul1 around a rayon mill and named 1tTor1v1scose Spea~.ng 1ienerally. Schnapp stales tha1

modern m111t:r«1ls efl:erge .is 11 J/Onom ' I • ous rorces wr 111n an ovf.'tarchtnq modcrflts/ prosopoporra Be:yond evt•n their symbol·~ rmpert /h ...,,_ ·

• 11Y .,.,._omc proragonists and heroes endowed with po11crs of il(/MCy dnd mord· •illOJe caf)dblt>Of shar ng nth 1 1 e P<Jr/1cul1J1 ano un11111rsal a/tributes of humc1n sub· JI!<. ts dnd/or se,,rng as /JIOSthet ice; tensions of humanity .,

~~'lapp s Ob~r.atto"" aro: Pdnrcularly relevant when applied to North America 1n the decade~ o owing the Se1:ono Wor d War an e A k d h T · ' mar c by •Movat1ons '" manulactunno a<ld rapid soc•al

c ar19e •e•l•le;, ~am" the tannrble rnte f .. ., ' ace amono industrial progre~s. po11t1c1111d 1dC'a5 ubl'vt

!'11• I >•1\ • I . ,l( l lhl• p11!,l1· ,•t\t.•11 t . \ t..''l-''fhf• .incl c:

1•11 "h»111 h \I I•. '>lll.J\ v lie>e I ' i s 111•n I WI I l'oput· I .!d\1·1 ti""'ll \I'd , ' ' lll.lss Illa• ~t'\l·c' '

11 ·l!'lt> ilncl the t· I , 'nt.'1 t.111 t"t>r ll't>d111m d verll-' . ' d~ 11011 tndushy

th.ii,:, • "ll1•l' "' 1.w1 s 'l'h • I An <lt1111~ssrvpfy ., arLf•!ptJ iaor. teer t cv. OPC\c>d fo fhf: pr<Y.ie1l51on of I' ·•·•:.is,, 11 a t.111 ~· °'P\111111,.

11nthP''1G\-; · i,nJoPs\nocvn!' oniealormofwrapping

1r, ,, ,. .. "- • dl'Pllll \V •s 1 t in~·i h \\p11n1·d~ I, 1. . , , .1 ll!)hl~ "'"tit> le•\ I"' th

lh1• 11 •• '"'''.., "s~.ly o' \\17 • -· d rowhack th I ' 1\ 1 •1 d1'""" ti" 1

• 3. (X>n,01 and ll a cat,1fyzed sottal , · l ll > qurtnu I 1e New C .<> ll'P•1'sPn\ "''' 11 ch., s t>\I le v:h1ch, app1opr ated f MServat1·1es," art1i.;u:ates

' "'~JI:' m thf> 1960. ' rom t~ wO!ld T s. ano later. tl•e c :im of labor. came first

hl·J11-,.fs t>/ blv1· J!'dns m !Ill' s·xt <: ' mere a·1zdt1on of fashion •

If I\ ls contrds/C'd 11ilh Ilic sJmt>; $claimed /h,1/ one's 1nd1vmuality was m /ht' to11cli1nq ai/'f'tl' ess of denim. and Iha/ them II ade morf! apparent whc·n

, nces m hllman bOd•cs. a eabfe clay of blue ;eans brought out

By recogn1z1ng denim's m h •·~ onoc romallc emptiness as .. I' cn=s how its sameness can be used I rna .eable clay .. Fraser 1uc1d'y des· H 0 qua.ify and mal<e v1s1ble th d f

er perception is not unlike Saanren's dictum 'Iha e ' ferences between bodies sonal cha1acter" The sungeslio'l 1S f h I I a mass· produced item must have an imper·

• o a r i: oricat energ1 bet the dynamics of ind1v1dua •ly One Ira .. ween sar11encss/1mpersona1;ty and

· mes he other and rerv.! rs bl f den\ •I y. Freedom and personal exp. . e v1s1 e d1 ferences of form ard

• ess1on are relat -.e. F1aser goes fu1ther and drolly places oenim n ·wicker. chrom1un1 bare wood bric• nd I ... i a c:ategory of a1ch1teclural matenats like

of the era Whtie there d"fin1tely is somp taste ba h ne verierated oa1etteof surfaces "Perhaps lhos unth nll s ng going on t>ere. she parenthetically adds· Th:o c me ! . ' ' inn vene1at10f'I of sur•aces and stibstances is related to the vse of drugs·,,

· · "a ~uc• e that made up f

• Y a i\S de elegantly poses tile conundru'l1 of personal expression tn a l'lass cult

01uggeo or sober. free 01 conl0t'm1st. lhe workl of surfaces and re1l1ca\ on always fac1l1tates ~~:· 1dent1fk11tion of aliynmcnls 111 industna• society. P1oducts are

p1 oducts 1s~ucd without ideology Take" up Oy groups. tl>ey

acquire a cep1esentat1ona veneer Fr d!>el 's d•scvss1on de11tif.es lwo ·el !1<s' wea11ng blue

1eans. and n do1nQ so. po~1ts howonernatenal can beenip10·1ed

lo sci ve differing valves

Tltf' firs/ group consists broadly, of /he mrddle·a9ed, thr m1ddl~ class. and lllosf' who iJte st1tl m revoU a9amst /he old sartooal

rules but continue to be concerned with /he 111ay they dress

T/le second. <Jnd mo1e Pxqu1s11ely /ash1onable group is st19hlly yovng< r, though wt// out of 1/s teens (the very young ha·1e no impact on fashion any more). and tis

memt1ers long ago fumed /heir bacJ.s on /he 1uea of ·1ast11onabte• clothes The first group contmues to mo~<' vaguPIY towilrd self.expression: !he St'cond. and more evolved, group is in relrMI from the

(Jamboyance ii cou1ted some 1ears ago. The (t1st seet.s out denim un~r fhP 1flus1ot1 1J1at denim

br•ngs freedom. I/le second. more S!'lf consc1ovs. adopts denim prt!c1sely for the its ~mform1/y ana

asa puu;e. Coexrst•f\9 between \nese groups are mo11val1ons for oath freedom aod un1'orm1ty. encl the

sense \hat these needs ca" be e~pressed '"rough labroe Freedom. at a 5artor1al levc,I al least. S'J9·

gests a release flom tho con,·ert1onsof format dress.1rorr> 1ts physical constrdints and cias~ refer

ences emanr1pat1on for the bod; Uniform· :y of dress offers an era5ui e of an eler11eintdf discourse

of parts Paris are replaced with a rnonotony 01 fotm. one that rP.11>rs to social pretension and posi·

lion w1tn1n a standardized str~tU\e. and ther does no more. Speaking 1n Vogue. the designer Halston saw monotony cc.mono.

....

j l I

j avn ·: /i/<,t; (ll•' •\H?it, fJv: f 'f·.r:,. rPOple v.10 dfi!SS n.C'E.: Uti!J rtJC!O:: d if(e' bcca .. :SC tri£!re 1:1,IJ be Jess t:r:d

,'r-t...~ oppor r.i/>1', r01

.n J. l 'dtiJ!,/r And /h.1$ •S bee JLJ~l' thi?t~ .~11/ be '~r-·,er na~vra fc!.:rjcs f/'".cJ; or..::: ':<:n

,·ncose t1oni _.,

H\l!StOn \\.d ... tf , ... t..'hanit•!On of u1;rasvE>dC. 3 s. "':"'(!t c. t~\;'K t ... a. r.CQJ :t:d \arr:e bt?CJuse ti~ LSed lt to rn\llo.i: a -t·.r·: d*'c':~ 1ri 'i~f2 nlCtOf nt..mLer 10.! -.·~l"'Kh s d 18 OOC _;r t5 a~ pricp~ f• }m

$18~ to; $360 Haist• ' ::l'O~t' statl?C ~'.nu: O'' "a" :o c ean ~o '·'"~··or ".is rreq.ii-rtlJ Qu".ltt-<r as ~<tvt"\\J 1es;; ') fnl.rt". Ir) tht"' porv 3'" press ht:· .. ·.JS v~t~r ca i-;:C •.J!r.1ar- $ fu..,t m'l"'l

1

"nJ 1st·

Ul;ra"·•<l., "ii bia ~ r:irr«. pa:0r>lf:d ,., •97· l,, z .1a;)dr;>se cc"1p<r·1-O!d/1nrl1~tr:es It ,5

oo per(;en; pc yPster ar> \11,d \'\'rt~ "'riqinJ "...:~t.:d for' 1,;.phvl<;tery aN"J 1.a I cc.e<•""hl "~r-e 11?10~ u t<as ... ei1e 1 .. as :re fdO'IC of fll~ ~Hi ... "C a s:x: 0131·\ oe'"o'Y1 t \\·dS -r€' Clt:;

1ac; 1(' C.. ... ~ r.t?eJOU U,tras1...edt: S ~th

c.t:ol in wa1m ~· .. ea'l°'P1 .ind A'atr"'I o coo .... e-.at!"'ler i\s .-1rt .... esa1'? o·a~:·ca

11 ·s !t.c firs! producr too,'1~r 11~e> '1cfl Jestt'et1c$ ot s"'eae .\ i:,, Dt:nrf.ts f'Jaan·mal product couido/.(f!

u111a~~·rae ,.-:, sof!. ,upptf. Jna s~n~uovs to tf!t=- ;ooc"' "e' · s also "f:S.s!ant tf) 3'il•,..s drid drscolor

at•vr Jf •'i t-·lf'r m KIJtnt' ~-.asnaD1c. ana r>e.•e1 ne':ds ron1no. •

t>. corno'er.:ra'. a'1ure was s~pputec tJV th~ O:'Ol!'•Se 0' le<"'IO O<lY :o orodvce a mater a bot'1

tJri 1r-..:-11~1.,. p1achca• aPd 1:1vnef11alt-I; str·sual As a C"e::t g ous fabr c. ul:"'asu~ ·•• .. as .Jf'.IJSoa t~~ 1t,c_r)''~~~ '€.>Oi. red. s,;f"\<.t"'\he1abr c 1t~i;1' was tr€ ogo

Unhloe cen m, uarasurn., /'lao '0 a1fl>at1c'l "' '" :-e cCt.nle·ci.;~tu'e. bi.1 .: ... as :il>Ct easrl·1

aJor.•l'rl a~ a ,,n1f0r1n o:; Ha•:.!o~ s a~·,.>ent wslc:'l't'fS H;i:~;on s i.; ;r.iSt.!>1'; cesi:;n!> became t11e gar" e• ts trat con~1.,ned social c a~s a1'0 eco~0.,.,-c l)')S•! or 001 rt~a.l'ed casval aria ci,sc•eet :./1cOc> nvn,u;,r 704. ti1e <;h1r;.dre;.:>. 1> pvd, lfl)O og.ca· 1a .;h": c~g ,.,.,ough 10 be a dress). but

t~ 'n.,..r.t1c;n s oa~ed upon tne sett and neuira. c:Q!l: r~ •, c,' ii'~ ·a0< c Tre re•ati,e th1c<ness

vi 11 t' fatJ• 1c oem.inded s1cnol•c:•; o~ CJ\ to m ,..,_ ~e "t'a., si;ar>s. arc ::-recl;;ded \he u$>P. of

t-·ther h~ ny~ or r.terfar1ng vlt1<1~u~de 1s ;i1,,ays <T'aO<> •fl so\,o co ors ar.a so ;i • .a·a..,re~s a mor.:x:l'rU'ral.c appea•a'lce

lh~ J),,o, ,.as !1pca11\ concealed 111 Halstcr>:: des9r'- Seos.1a 1t, ,•,as coo•erred 110t n n'a' ng

11.e b!ldv ,,5101t• bu: l""''"J'' \ht: Qu~· i • .-s ut :~.e rat:r:: .\i1.c" oeca'l1c a <incl of sens.ia la1er.

rJr1.toe<! he:t~.e(·l th:· ., .. t-'a,er and !he •• .. vrld e'l.._.a • a .. <? Jo.-e !o botl" s oe~ St.Mede is. aftef ai\. a

._,l'C.0P(J ~f'H\

Ull!a~ut'de >'as ,1s;:d b)' Halston "3S a feti>h orodLc: ano thP 1Lxt.1ry of tre material was coJr

le• pnsed bl' tre s0n-p1•c !:; of the garmeN'!> \a1101 ·~9 •'was rionoch,omat1c. 1ecess.ve ar.d unde•·

sta!ea and its cla>;1c c.olo• w2< be1g& While Ire elegance o! his ces•gns was often <e1nforcecl I),

the auahty anu <>ensualrt, of !helab• cs re u::.ed. Ha'stor·sc otheswert>o'.ten neutral and app'CP"

ate Over the years <'e de~1gred nurierous oific.1a1 ur1forms .n ulfrasueele 'or Braniff A1rlrnes •0<

the Girl Scvuts. lor tile 19i6 Olympics ano •or A,1s Ca, Rental.··

Hals Ion lived in a '-.ot.se 1n New York on East 63rc S·•eet 01 ginally aesigned by Pau Rudo1Ph

and con5tructeo tor \he real esta\E< attorney Ale~arder H rsch m 1966 Tre ta'l central I ;:ng

>Paces 01 the "ouse w«re furr1shed in monocrromatic .>.hddes a' aark gray labr.c wh ch uo·r~ed cai PE-t!< and b•J11\ 11 seat1'1Q barqueottes 1n a continuous <11"'.d low •ardscape The subdUl!d and rn•r' mal continuity o• the room v.as broken by the rare !las~ o' color Halston·s brignl 1Pd soo\s. a .a>t> o• ore.hid~. !he wh le caf:ar of his barefoot ~a!E:I - -

Another prachtrorer whose work was des<:i •be<l as rr•t\inial·!>t in !ht> 1910s was the ,nte• o• desrgr>cr Joe D"Urso l ke Hal t h s or· e experimented with te:xliles. o·u,,o·s 1r>teno• s were ll0:3o·e inr the" •eslra1nt ne u;,e bo'h 1 • • o ' urniture and c:olor fTl nrrna !y He: confrQurea the soace lh'C•"g" ,IJe 1nstal!atroo <'.I! low p a•f · ' orm~ covered in dcrk gray 1ncf:Jsh 1al carpe1 '·The e!fect. 1uxtaP•';eJ against h1gh-glo;s white,, all ; s, was to produce a cont 1nuou; and at>Str act andscape whieh d•d ""1

tll• t.11(' '11 l!!Vl'dl t I "'"'·Kl !l it '"''I•'< I• Nt'll·'(•i\(>n \!Pc< rnrt1po\lv1C>r1l1>rl•ferrp , lw« , <n .mony•1 •Jt1~ d l11,1•1t1111nl<-1'1Ct < •

• t mr. :1u·1s p1on1pt«•d 111111 t •es1d,.nt1;il tJ\11\1!.r>q\ 1•1 11- ' •X• D Ur\cis res1d&nt1al 0 Q••t·\t1nn c "raw ~pac,,' f 1 f

Most ir,/<>1101 I 1insh111.\11insof •oc~ 1· I ' o t conve•~•ons r ''~ff1n t " , '

1 ·~1 Y ~rid t ·

I

. o.,<11

,, i:d~C'd .. 10 f'1aclion

''' • ip1d / 11s c Ii< nt . • on .1 k111d ol foAC' ind . cb . ~ JJ<1sonJl!ly I 11'\./ lh «1<lual1ty If/ w/;1ch •l<iil/lf/, sa;. W/)('r(' tf /OU /dY .11 wl1JI ~/kl[(• IS l('d//1 •// I.A //•e dl'S•qner -~<'eAs lo I f' a .~11'('( I .. dvvul 15 a ( ('!'llJflt. I I~ nol a fin(> I .. ' 0 pllpcr )'011 'r(• IPS""llS t I 1Promple/ton unlikl' d

' "' "" Nhatt ti ,,.. "t, in a ~eose ~ c.on Iv.ant my ,.,0

,;, 101

ii •_•not Iorio ,5 Slfllfll 1 · • ontscomplet1on Bui · oo~ spootan ' () rqi111lut all /ht ~

The, art'/ hen respons 11 ' eo1Js. Rathw I 111 tocu:ate (, e emenls ma space I ' '·",or giving /hPm ltfc •• ,rm, ctrnr l1<tckgrounds '01 I o· ,, myc 1en/s.

Urso p.Jrpo!>!'ly u1dulupcJ the h r1::loCtJtP lhe oueshon ()i the bod . a ii ty of carpel to Pra~1: speet'•c-1t fr motivated lo st1mul>t th y 5 app1op1 ia\e position and e Y om the space, and to

u e e will of th. I . ng.ir;ement ThE. Both D'Urso and H· 1 t ec ienb, loso ic1t rntcrdcl1on to~ . ~ a1>stractronsa1e a s on Wl'le a • · 1gure theor freedom l

sort of au1·a their work manufactured ~~~u~s ~"the ttdge of the lifestyle rt>volutoon An~choose m,11err,1ls enyay1ng bodies. They employed a~s~r~r~uct of excess, but instead the mule ari::;~

c ion to prompl cnuaoomenl.

CARP ET IS A VERB

Following the Second World Wai· th t act \ ' e cos ·efficoenc ens •cs of man-made fibers cont I t y. suppl) st11bd1ty and performance ' Th f1 ri >u ed lo a stead r d c.iar

e 11 st V'able replacement 1

' Y e uc1ion •n broadloom car t or wool was nylon. •ntroduc d pe onces

.., ...... .... _

e in carpet manufacture 1n 1947

Whereas wool was p11marily imPOrtecJ nylon

~ou\d be prodvced domestrca!ly. tnereb~ ensur·

ing a stable supp'y Ava1 ability. alcmg woth 'ow

cosl res11it~e dnd b 11 '~ " oant colors. con I rrbuted

lo the rapid acceptar.ce of ny on in the narket·

place Bv the ate 1950s. it had sec;1;red the pos•·

t•oo as ti-(' second most popular carpet m<1le

r1a n the ndus'.ry. excc-edcd o~11 bi wool ther

~ynttieloc fibe•s f u• ther accelerated lne erOSl()ll

of woo 's rr~rkel sh.lre. Acryl>e introduced '"

19'>'» sirr.u!aleCl wool's le•tu•e and appearanrt'

mth goeater econorr y and durability O'efie, or

ool)'propylenc-. offerPd durable. colorlast and eas·

1ly-cl1:aned fibers thal could be used both indoors

d!ld out olyeste1 ·s advantaQ(lS ncluded a Ju1<urt·

ou~. soft le•ture and sla111 resistance Nylon •S

now the dominant synlht>toc carpet fiber with a

ma• ket share of bO- 70 percent of p1te fil>lltS u~ed 1n I he us Syntheti\.s as d whole make w 97 per

cent ot all carpets produced 11'1 lhe Un>ted States The pro11ferel ion of carpeting 1011ow1nu tt•e wor wils s1g111focantly enabled by the rapid mech

<1nrzat1un of the industry <Jnd lhe development of 1nc1eas1nqly 1;!fk1enl production technique~ C.a1pet rr1lls turned Loa piocesi. developed on 191.6 lhat st<!mrried ft um the productii,nol candlew rk

bed cov1:rs In th1<; process (tuHtngl a need'e pits~e~ lot pl"\l f,t)l>rs Clufls) throvgh a backing fabnc

Its 1Y1a1n advantage ·~ that 1t cl.rn1nate~ thi> compl,cated techn1q11es rcqu,red for Ill~ production of

woverl cao J)f?hrtg No: only1s1t s1mp1c1 ar·d fa~tcr. but a''-.:> the o~rat111g personrl!I 1equ1•emuch less

tra1nin11 With thei< owcr orodt.c.toon costs. tv'•ed Cd•l)!'l111Q rapidly caml' lo don'>ll'laU: the 1noustry

1ntheuS 1tsona11<etsha1eg1e,.drom9r,crcenl•n t9&11o~2o('fCent n19:.61ol2Percentu 19bl s1

i9i1 t..rf:ccl ca(Jlets amo1.1r·ted toove• 90 pt'l'Cf:l'll of lhE: 11,1111 y~rdaye of a 1 type:.o' carpets Subsequent developments werP not nearly as re,o uuoMry and d•d nol go muc11 lart..,i.r than

accc erat1ngor e~pard,ng p1odJ<lion cap<JC•IY lhr '"r~I varoat.ons.,n lhe\.il\1og p1ocessw1oened

1111; rrach1ne$ ot adocd more ro.vsof needles Fol ow111<J !hest. soP"•stceate<l pa:tern•nQ and c)e;ng

allachrnents"cre 1ntrodueed that b•oa<Jcned !11'1 sccpnof de•llJO ~s1oiltlies.1r!t.lud1n<1 tre produc·

lion of landsc.clpi?d carpets or mJIU-levcl pill' carpets. which ll'e achieved thrO<>:lh se'<~ral methods On<> onrlhoO ,

1

<;e<; geor s of d1fferenl s1les Iha\ drtc1m1110 tl'>e ~11o~c o~ the nl'edle and tnecefore the

lrn9th of the p1\e Another chan9es ttie speed ol the yarn b1:1rxi fed uito th<' rr>nch Pe Wnen Hie yarn

is

1

nlroduced at a 1ower ~peed. II f' p1lnb w II be ~tv.ir\er h~cauM' somP of 1t1" yarn •S pulled or rl)IJced

..... , ' • J

OOMESilCATING RAW SPACC UNlf'l'ING OISPARllY

lMAGE~OTES

~

u < ~ l

• ~

N

41

u

a

~

'

• v ~

• • ~

NOTES

Eero Saar1nen. fft'O S..r,,,.., On His Work Un1vers1ty Press. 111(;8) P.!i6 "The (New fill-. Yale and tables ma lYDieal mtenor ltunden:arnage o f CheH'S

21 lb.ci, P-94

22 Ibid. UNMI'"' world " me. es en uoty. coolusing.

e Gollfr~ Sem1>9r, "The Four E'-·-Fovr Ei. .... .,.,ts of ArcMectura: fhe

me-nts of Arcfl1~1ure ana Ol.l>tt 111 Harry Francis 1.Autgre-e (Cambrlllge. Cam llllflOS. trens. Press, 1•1 brodge Unn'trs.ty

• P. lOI See also "The Texhle Art• p2 l&-263

3 Adolt loos. ·r11e Prmcip!e of C.......,-. S l'OO!t\C -~ .... "' ~n mtothe

ambrrdge MIT Press. 1982). o.ES Ibid.

S EM!y S.ldwin. 81/ty Bllldwin Rr~ (New Yark Ha Brace 197' ). p 13& n:OUtt

Ibid, p.225

8 1Uy S.ldwin. &rly 811/dwJn Dttotates (New Y0t1o; Chart well 8oolcs. 1972). p.200

8 Cl-t &eenberg. "Alter Abstract EJ<P<ess1orusm.· Al'I

"' "-'Y lli00-1911(). ed C. lillrr Ison and P. Wood (0.ford; 8tac~well Press), p 7e8.

9 Ibid • p. 7fl8

10 Donald Judd wrote eboul this spehal1ty 1n h<S nsay ·Sp. crfte Obt«ts· of I~ "Thll mo1n ttung wrong with POlnt1ng is that 1t tS e teetanoutar plene placed llat -inst the wan.

AJmost all painttnos are SPohat'" °"" wey or anothef' Any. thing on a surl11C1t hes space btlllnd 1t. Two colors on the

same surface almost always ht on different <leplhs. An even

c::olot. o$1)8C•Uy in Oii pu>l ccwet~ all or much of a l*nt·

"1Q as •"'-1 always both flat encl ontl111te!y apatllll. The

space •S shaflow•n all of thll ..,ork 1n wlll<:h the rectanout.,,.

plane 1& st,...nd. Rotllko's Sl>&Ce os shallow and tht IOlt rectangles are parallal 10 the plane. but the SPaca is almost

trad1hona lly ~h.Jsoonlshc:. In Re1nlla1d-. Po•nting, JUSl btcl< f!Qm the plftr>e of the canvas. thefe is a tlol plaoe and this Sfff1\S 1n tum inotfln1!ely ciMp. l'OAock's Po ont <S ol)\ll(lg$fy

an tht can.a.s. and the spact •• meonly that made by any

marks on a surface, so IP\tt 1t 15 not very dtllCl'lp\1.,."""

1Uust0n1SI. Nol4'nd'4 oone1tntric bands are not as specollcalty

pe1nt on • surf act" Pollocl•s peint, but ti. banks llatten the llleral Sl)ll(:t ITIOl'1t. As II.It end unollUs<>nlshc as Nolond"s

paintings•"'· the band• do ad'lanc:e and recede E•811 a a.ngle circle w.U wefl) the surface to 1~ w1U have a Mlle

$1>4C8 behind 1t

11 8amtlt Newman, •tntarvl<!w '*Ith Oorothy Gtes Seckt.r,•

Alt"' r,_,., 1900-1900. p. 76!i

t3 Ibid., p.91

M V091Jt, June l!8l, p.ZJ8

25 H41ston's ernbrota of tht madm leas M • rna-e., a tlritluted to ~>'!In der Rohe's. !'I the ea<ly l~lOs, and Ille '"deoiw•ad

ipllOn ol him aaa m1nun&1st. fo-ces Ille~"'"°' ..,...., -i of •nllUOllCe Ille v<Suet Ms hao on Md> -

Ill :his eta Thtl'i<St 8nd 5'mlnal. anthologyon mnmat att

was l>Ubl•shod by GtfQO<y Bal!C0.-11119!8. A •-of lht A~ ll'ldel to Arcllitachrel ""'iodicaJ• fllds no •elerencn to """""ahsm., llrctwlecture ., tht Sl'd.es "'-es and Oemonslrotn that ltle doscours.i on 1111, S<bie<'..., genot·

eled "'t"819QQs"' tht face of bou1oquu1ctriec:t,..•ani:t f .gura ... John Pawson.

2e v.ww uttno..-,com

21 This abthty 4nCI Q<ut w>Nlngness to f4 t.s - onto u ..

emerviro corpcnte ~that dist~ Halstan's successand ll'IC>lllleled his prolesslCNI downlaL H<s cxm

peny enlered inlo numerous [ice<ising ooteemMta fer a var•· et y of P'oducts et ddle•ant prloe pants. He SOkl h., cxm·

oeny to the ~t• Norton Soman t"'-"' :913. Norton Smon welcomed and IJlln<:,.ted Ille P<8'19' ol ~on Enterprises. but., o sanes of leveraged bu)o.Jts. te!oetMrs. and nwoers - fuly ;irnoent ol ti..,_..,.. 90's-Norton

SimM was_...a b) ES<Nt1<. whcl!"' 1118' *-•""' Slon ot Beotriu Foods. In 11'18 &'>d. Hlllstai loA hd c:omplW'f

and the riOfll lo uoe tus"4tnt. AftOI' ~ mool t/le mool successh.f llg'"5 in /Q bolslriess..,. _ ,._ to-1<

•'flderl:oSll""'namt.

29 For a discus>lon ol ti.. ldee ol :J>e piltform In arclfftecton

-l~ essa, by Jorn 1-"ZOI\ 'Ploll-aftd P!ateaus: lde~ o1 A Oanasll ArcWecl • l«I•«. 198:'. " IO. p.:1:i-:40.

29 1'9ter C.rlsen, "A Mln1m-4ist'£ Pa<lldQtn; lnftf/0($, Oc:tOber

tD7!i p. IZl.

30 Formcnonc:arpet~-RobertW K.B. TMC6r»lln6:Js· Uy: Pre..,,f StMus .tlld Fulur•Pro~ {Plllladl>lphra. ~

Cali' of 11rvistl•8D8 PIMS. 1910li Gfotgt-C.f'#B -Ottw /'..-tw f iocmM'l""'5 (Tnldt Boal< Ser-..co. 1912';

end W1U14171 A. Rqi>olds. /flt'O..Con Ml lltt Unil«I S!.its Cttpef lndl/Slry 19'7-t'J53(Van Nostr...S. t9fi8l.

31 SetGeageWIQrw, '\oob>g!!ad<TowwdsthefrMU.0-· 11ty. Bertir\" fJerfrn F-~ty. ~A."CN:ac:t1nl Astoc;ia1ron. J911Q~ p.1._23.

SI MoeNol f<.<1d. "Ali ond Objee!hOOd" ., /lldw:Jal M . Ballad. ed (Nfi< Yoril E. P. Outton. 19158l p.121 The Idea o! sitoat10111S iclormed Dy Micboel frre<fl "NI ...:I Objoetl>aod.. end :s here u...S to dlsu.W 1111 li<ltlO•nu'• pos•·

!IOI\ "' tl'l8 tandsall& ft nl.gN ai50 bo • loe)' IO.,...., wod

!1'18t au.npts to e>PIA aomeol tMI ""wntttn "'°'•hll> betwe811 mlnOmll •11 and arc/litect..,. ir: the ,wl ll>e

,,,,,......_be"10 ~·

• Er"""'1 ''"°used ... lwtO pletlonmll Snon ~Uniand lht ~olArd!tl~llthll ...... -Y _ .. ey . ~an1-

ol er11"" ColunDe. u do~~·-,..,1.,_ I.on; 1J1>rWJ •t Wiii QllleQo. ' Et.el See-

• I ~- ..., U. WrcNI&._, .,...lhe~o<1t!'18c:at-

~";'.u.to-lnll lledloboV..nerPanton. SN-~ fM Cqll«Jed'#otlrS ('t'ltr• ONlgll ~l'Ollt) •

..,_...,c; Olllfcll.' NI tt ,,_, 191»-l!lllll pMl. If Ooneld Judd, ...,_ ..

• ••

.- ..... ~ ............. ,,:.·

MICHAEL STANTON

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:

d IntentiQJil.--. . . day life Moreowr . .Amee architecture e,neril d1recrly mto (!llt'yY

'" . f . ) it creareJ. ~or 1>xampl<>. rhror,gh it.A extra-arti.Mic funcrwna ity · . h . . from wh1c a Perman pm bond thar provide.A a Jinn crmcal ba..u

ro P<U..& jud9m£>nr upon many ·good imentioru.'

GIORG IO GRASSI '

SIENA

T~oc111~s face each Ont rad other acro~s an Italian room.

ldltS !Jdinr.s d ~tl-.tr d ·or er. and abundance. The " isheveled a d h •tr~rg I L n c aot ic One ba;ks in the

1&111 of the r · 11,\wa• oom 5 north wall The other

" in shadow 1 !"ti painted n 1338-40 Ambrog10 Loren-. the fre~coe f Th </ff14

01 c ' 0 "AllP9ory of the ' OOd ond B d C •>.d Co·1111 a ovemment m the City

'Y rn lhe Sala d l\~~hco tn S \'t No•e in the Palazzo iena Oespue I h I Pr1111ari1y rb e 111 c, the image 1s

t:"J( u an The count d d1\1anc 1

ryst c falls away into " romthefor

Prtd,(t•ble rr eground of the cary. nus 15

< • om ancient t u t.,e, ,.d, imes. the crry stood for "• an intrrcate n tnore •ntr mctonym for something b;·k icat' The met . • ~n lt\elt anym1c relation twrsts ''cl a\ the llUZC Y '•Present n and coltecuvc ref\ex

and arc r In loren~ , epresemed by the urban.

Sitn th s work h . • 1t'W\f, ,

5 • t e city, more or less

11 rs narrative G ~1SU.ill~ 0 ' JVen that II IS painted. to,,,. paque. We

!\~or P~net cannot sc~ around its 'ran, rate its b d Parent, II c rooms lt is soc1ally

owever fo ' r we do S~e its political

message. Hovering above it are vinues and sins.

One can presume that Siena had the potent 1dl of

borh cities, that she was divided by the painter

for didactic purposes· certainly to oppose repub

lic to despotism. but also to oppose to all that

civrc virtue a nearly equal dose of c1vJC vrce. The

bad city tantalizes. As Giouo had demonstrated

at the Scrovegni Chapel in Padova, thirty years

before the Siena frescoes: presenung the contrast

between vices and virtues is a provocation Who

really studies rhe pious images of riShteous acuon

on rhe right wall in Padova when the left offers

such sublime and perverse actsl The postcards 1n

the museum s tore only show the deadly srns In

Siena. urban form represents value as much as

those who are depicted as being in it or the myriad

spirits rhat preside over it. In the sood c ity, c111·

zens mingle. teachers instrucr attenuvc student~. and a hanged malcontent dangles drscreerly from

the scaffold held by Sccuntas. The buildings are

painted gay colors. Workers construct a new edr

fice from a platform cantilevered from its facade.

• :•.1.

The holes of the next layer down are still evident.

All 1S equally sensible and detailed. The Tuscan

hill upon which 1he painted city rests rises to tM

striped cathedral. The landscapestretchesnch and

calm to the horrzon, Peasants bring in the riches

of the land. and the nobility go into the country to

hunt. but only where the fields have already been

harvested. In the bad city, the same buildings are

crumbling and stones fall into the street.An androg

ynous Trmor (fear) repla~s the f1tminine Securitas

over the cuy gate. The land 1s ravaged and smoking.

The city 1s cnml!-rtdden and in fear of the oppres

sion that hes across from th" repubhcan harmony

an the other wall. To the right on the paintrng sots

Tyranny himself. a snagg~toot:hed dl!'Vil attended

by fearsome and mutant lackeys. Al their feet ts a

bound and weeping Justice.

In the fourteenth century, when good and

bad could in fact be spoken of wnhout quahfica·

11on. when a c1tywas funhermore sttn as havmg a

direct equivalence to these terms. and these terms

as having absolute value. then comparison could

0 ••

1950 war was an excu e for mu h m

demolmon In Beirut the pr perry of a q rt

mill n owner wa ommM1decred a d r p td

w11h d!'Y.llL1ng h res in 'la 1dt c a c rpor

runbyth nM1on

1 n th ng in t

p 1 •n ti'. t en

Ur

I nh rah

'iMaJ mor re cnlly flunhtre1 ad1lf re

THE GOOo

In

"l ' ~

r

·1~• f .· ,_ ; . . I

I . . . < '·

i

-

.l ' f i • !

.J 1

.:}>JI.I. I

• . .,

p,.,,,.iox 1.onlnu11cl, 1hr < l.1r11y nt u1 h,11\ '1"

0 ,. , ... ,. Huqt·•~·'ffi t'mhnc.ht·'.-1 tJH• c. n1t 11 .1Un tHH\

rntt• r1·n' 111 th<· v.11 H'd .tnd of t1·n oppt),t1tl . t1 tt1mp1'

•11, c !.ifllc 1 1h1• tt·1H!c:nl 1\'\ o [ l•tpttalt'm ;t, thc.•y

phwr11 thl'm...,t·lvt•' ph y,,<.~lly h \ u1h,tm,1u lot nh

~ IA\t"r t•f n·.11 tHm unnpht 11 wuh 1ho'1 fl •~ 11'.1t t

'"lo: .1g.11n ... r Sot Ml in•xrng. v1•ry s11n1•h·t•hth t \'H

t.Jf)' 111 11 " ch.11.u_ i1·1. '' rc•l.llt•tl tn ;tn t•K;.t\ 1f,\r1an

rioh1u 'th.ir ll•lu·~ on 1<-t.tll .an1v1ty •111U t nmmt•r

c-• .;I dl·•:1·h,prn1•nt fo1 11' 1•n1·1 gy wh>h· on \tlll\t'

~ .,,, '.t·\1•J , ,.,,., 11 ng fho"'l' ·'' 1111nM1 y \.Ot 1.1l 1not t

'·''"'"' Al1t·r .111, u1•v1fofl"'' hn.1lly 1mplt•nwnt

.u th" ""l1"V1Jlc•n<1• I l11•y WOI k tlo't•ly Wtlh lh<·

otod,•11 ''''''· ·tC• 1·,u tlw ''''"" ' ;1pp10\•1·d .1r t. h11n 1,. •:h t.u1 1twu mmw1· ''pt oht. flw VN y pmnt ot

lh l1•h1-.1 g1,ud intt·nt1on\ h.Htt' h.u k 110 "'''II .v ..

1two1,wm11w11 IWte1mc•\ ,1 ,hnpplng_ ~•ntl t·nlt-rf.un

11wn1 nnptlrlllm lht\ h,1,1t ttlnt1.1<lu.1Jo1,, 1h.11

''•£ lith 'tl'n 1tl)J)\'•H' tu \'0< C)Ut ol\)t' llt.ih'l'I tlt'\ll\, 11),IY

M1r>1..n1 t•u Hw v1tttl1ty of·• tHy th.u 1' cwuht'r

tJt'.t\ll1lut. ·Ill• H'IH lt'W lr<•1uty. U1 tht• w.ty th.ti

fm1'h•rd.1tn 1~ 'l fw1 v '' ·• 1 L'UfH<>f..1ty b'' 'Wu.6Ml u,, .

.. 1'11, • • •• • • ... ~ 1•1111. •hM m:i'll4'< .1h,11\li1W\l~Y1n<~fMRi\1~

·-~~~itl1!t\lf~;·~~~M~ -·""'•"'-111111•u1~1i II' lll;Jlkl•I t'llltUll'.

lfJhf•HJtH.lmK. ·UH.I 1•t111dun~ tlw ~oud ltHl' llllOU'

ht H\ \OIU t•pl

THE8AO

N<iw '1u11 Ht thr• ,ou1h w.11l llw hutldlnK' •<1mi1111

ll'>r""1n,.1k1'd m toll.1p\.:d tro1n tht· .,hoot1n8 ctnd

hrimhing llw ' fk< 1.1wl.11 bnd,t:opt• lwyond

ht•iru1 I\ 1o.1v .. gl"d rnon• hy md1'c 11n11nt1fl• 'Pt'C. ul.t 1 1on,,ntl• ttwh1..·K1nn1n~ of host 1li1JC.•' 1111y7c; th,111

fiy Wd1 lhl· rnf t rt\lfUU u1 c• ,., ul "' ~t.1tc <>I c.h'lrt·,nt•

'1 '"' Tr.tf hl ..,n,1rl' 1tw \lrc.:c:h Win•!'\ cl.ut~(,. pro

llt1"><Uf')lhiy m .1d h<>t wartuUl' .1rs.ou\ijl'JOt•nh 11 1

" no1 "' 1f l..c·h..i nr•n h.1-. not 111ttJ.trt•<l urh.tt\ p10

gr,1 ~) or a11t!rUprNl tud1•hnt• tht• n1.tnMCtl i;iow1h

'Jt " ' r .tfntut '°'"l l' HJ<)t> A' 1n th.it 01hc.•1 c lt•Vl'I

lufl,. llrtru>n tl olt,1nd, t.Jl1•nl ''°' ~hund:tnt rn Ll•b.•

IHJn. 'l'ht· d1 ... t-(JUf\t' ''°th\• ( 1ty ,, (.0rHJf\UOl1', .:tilt.I

'Jl'flhth1>11\ f)U>pO'tith tJPfJl .. tl '('8Ul.u ly •• 1n1I I tide.· . to

l>t· 1t·µLHt-d by otht'f"i; th!! fdt<.· ol Pl.mn1n~ t•Vt•1y

W~u·rt• Jn Oc·irut 11wu· I\,, powc•rf ul h1,rory o[ 'm h 1"11J;iir1vt·' dnd ,1 l1·go.u y ot H';11ly ,llpt•nor Modt•rn

""1

<. h11f., tor(• fr,,m tlw c•r 4• ul tru1t\prrnf NH_t•: 194 i tn

''175 [ 'P•·• 1.olly <luo lttl! th1• Sh1h.1J11,t• r~riorl, 1'1o

l\,il,••n hro1tgh1 to ht•.u a 1>utcl1 tl<•Kr°\'t• oi ge•n1ut.,

ti) •111,,u,·m,>1t•>01d1·r tlw ()hy"icc .r1 p1u1:tf <""" ol cul

11H<- ~lfAh!¥,1?•1\C w.1<, ton"it.tnt Artivlf v rm ludnt

nn, l>ox1.1tlt•!'\ .Hltt tht• ·'l)j'hr.HHll\ nt t.•k1~l H' ' to

llw l'h~<'lh 111li."' \U<>wrh 111lllc•1w.1y m th,• Y''""S

hut wh<'H' tlw nu1 tuh•1,.I, P·"'o1.tl , 1mplu .ltinn' of

c.nun1ry .ut• .tlH'n.10 rtu\ itnntl Ulh"nth'1h '' rnlwt.t

""' tnUnll lfl.'1 h•\•r\ •'' tlwy Wc.'H' "' lhlll.UH.I. "' ·' tuhuu1 th.H l' t1ot ov1l'' 1n tht· 'OCl~I di•nrnu.t111

'"n'l'. tt 1..._. not Mii p11'\ms t h.u tht• 1ntc.•n,,• '('''t

u'-'''°" tll\ I)\\' .tpptu·.tfrnn nr llw Mtldt'll\ ·" ;\

publH Jlht•nom1•1\0I\ - p1c:t\ltH mi; t"WW tr\lr, l\Cl'lt'

tu1 "· nt·w 4u.1rtt•1 ~. ,11\4.1\V "'\ "''>' ... hu.ll'' 1 ,•,ult"d

"' 1•x1 <'Pl Hllhtlly lu~h q0Jlo1y hutltlong h11.1n,·,•J

l.11 gc.·ly t1011t tlw p11v.tt'' 'l't 101 Att,•1 t\ftt•'-•n )t•.tr'

o l h8hUn~ .ut<l, iuort• th• ... tHI\ t1vd, . hth•t•1\ y1•.1t...

ot un1t•ttuf.1wU c t>ll"-tl\lc l1tll\, ·'"~ '1~n' 111 .. i;ot'd

1nt1•muul"°I·' 11\ U1•11u1 tllt•l.unt. lt 1' h.uJ IOth'\.'''t\

tlu• tt•tll'H u''"m' ut .1111 lw 1u 1• w.11 pl.tl\'1H\~ ntl'A'

I ht• m .. •1•• 11tl11\Hcl1ft,·1 , •1u.t• lh11w,•1•tl 1h,.,,. twt'

l 1111'' ,.., ,, hv1uu,ly \ h1onulo~h .• 1l 1 tlty Y1'.t1' .1tt,•1,

Hot 1t•1 J.un ,, Uu1't ly d111w U1•vd1111nh•1111 \\IHH'l\h''

.llun~ tht• 11ty', 1 •tl~,.,, Ill H\\pl.H\h 11\ 1h1• \ t•l'lh'I

n1 tn pl.u t·~ wfwu• Jltt.,gi.uu "' h.ln~mt:t 1 .hht.1U)

lr<ttn mdu ... 111.1~ IO OIOIC' Ju11\t''"" 01 \'1lU\Uh.'l\l.1l

lunt titHh. 11k•· 1tu1 to1 nl1•1 d1wk' ti t K\1r V.m /uul

In l\t.•11ut , Jt•,1u1t• th\· ''"h•n,1v1· .trnt.\\11\l ol H•J'Mll ,

J 1·1noliuun , .md 1ww 1 fln...,11u t1011 thtt>u~houf tlw

t ·)lt.11uh•J nty, ll't 011,11 "'I hU\ oth•Jl ,,.c•n1 ... 1w1 hl

h.tvc· lwgun, 1lw,11y h." 1·•11:11\<lnl ··~l'"''''•llJ.tlh

, 1nu· 1q75 thank:o, h' 1tw 1nt1ux ol 1du~Wt'' hon\

oflwr 101w' ot hu,tihty .md .tl\o tu th,• n.11ui,\l

dNll08.1 ilphlt ,htlh h1 ll\l~h• t'I\ hy th1• \U h,1n111l

tum ot .t tl\Ulll1y ,,, ""''" 1h.lf the t.'nllH' IMIH'I'

c Ml llL' "'t' tl ·" tht· lt.'{tlOI\, ., nn• tht' 11\t'UOllilh\.U\

,1fto,~.of ll"I l.tfUl.11 1 h1• W,H th•' ti O)rt•tl uw.11\' tif I"''

dut tion,111tl 111h.111oy.1t1w' 1h.1t k1•p11wuph111mtt1J

10 vill.'1'''' .utcl xm.1fh•1 , lllt''· tn.mv 1>1 whu h ·""

l\t)W tt)l\..,.Ullll'd II\ lh-11ut',, 'P'·•wl A~ llWl\IUll\t•d,

IOOI\' C.tlll,fl Ut ltlll\ Ot"( utu·d th.er\ tlt·~tl Ut ttun, hul

thl\ w.1, uftt·n o 1i thl• JWl tflht•1y o1 ht' \'tll\tf. wh1h"

the ''"''''"8 • lly :.oltt•u•cf hunt llw uutunw1.,hl1•

h .. urlc·' ih .. c ,11upt1•1t IH'tWt.'4'n t'\'1·1y n11ht.11} .mil

par.• n\tht.-t1\'(•fltt'Y. M•"t ot wh.11 h.ht ht•1•ft U1•t1 •11

hclo11• lht• w.u .... tht• 'lh' 1lt HM\!l11111lll th•\.I''·'

t I till .1nd.1ll ( \\111 '\t'. rllJXtO\Ulll t'ttllltH\llt pntt•J\lt.11

AnJ HI tht• ~ ,•1H1·r ot 1 h" LU1(t', Ir .u.hu~"-d \1' l '-'H,,I.

UI h;u) . ,, ~·""'Ill ,, t tw 1'11~'' 1.ttl1t ,,, 'tUl\J u Hll\, 'ht•

.!

J

' • r~·

,.

·.

11 l ' S 1/4 ~1T0~

ab&eni downtown. As the Russian Ossip Zadkine

c;olled his 19~6 sculpture executed for Rotterdam.

Beirut is a "oty wilhout a heart." Only the most

extreme Stalinist urban programs - where state

ownership allowed total erasure - produc~ com·

parable voids at the center of cities. But in Beirut

extravagant specula1ion - developer and govern·

mem one and the same - are responsible. an

arrangement without precedent in the rest of the

capital11t world. As happens with extremes. polar

political/economic strategies come full circle to

produl~ similar formal results.

Too much has already been written abo1Jt

th1S •>maordinary void. As Saul Bellow said of

Henry Jaml's, we may have "chewed more than we

bit off." It• pankular interest Is how privare infer·

uts and what p~sses for govemment Interact to

produce the urban. It would be comforting to find

Rotterdam to be an t'Xample of "g()Od" relations

- e1alitarian. fair, socially responsible - between

capital and the collective as repre$~nted by the

social·democraric regiml!', and likewise to hnd

Beirut u iu opposite, a study m setf·interest,

.,xplo1!ation. tyranny, week governmen1 in com·

pllcity with woahh. But sucti <:>Uy readings do not

hold beyond a superficial ~•l'W ot the places or

a •Uptorficial understandln1 of the Sotielll'• that

these lwo cities represent . In B01rut. ~omehow,

de•plle the apparent eniama of such a do~e com

pllcity of development and thl' state, de&plte 1 pro

found Sociel·Oarwln1sm detnminins most den

1lons. dnpl!e the shadow ot Syria that falls ov~r

all ovents. things do gel done. lnfranructure 15

repaired or replaced and plans for renewing the

city spew out w11h an almost Dutch regularity.

n-ue. much of this re111tahi:ation has come from

the ~ame source. In a par.adigm of power rela11ons

in •oc1.olist and high-capitalist cultures. all the

anonymous public officials and private develop

en who collaborato to produc~ Rotterdam are con·

gcaled Into one astounclinely rich and powerful

ligurt In Beirut. but the •ff&et h not so different.

~suredly Ro1tordam is in a lot better shape

fh1n Bt-irut. And tl11s 1s not juu because the Dutch

have had a hall·c"1tury to !'<'pair the dama~•· A!I

the Dutch "good int~n11ons· did produce results.

many of them ~n~hc1al. But tht g•stur.s of Mr.

H~riri ha~• hkcwlte rctormed the clry, not lust by

cv1sctra11ns it but ~lso in the provision ot new

roeds. monumtntat new lacllines,and myriad less

evident pubhc smictures In both c •A · •-s nonethe-lni., the bn11c dhord!'f ot the pl

ace overpowers ai1y o1111nlu1\on. As Mlliiia wrote two centuries

•ti0: "Ht who doe5 not know how to V""' I • - 1 our pea·

SUtt Wiil never s•ve U3 pleuur~. I The cltyl •hould

in fact be a varied picture of infinite unexpected

episodes ... a gTea1 order in the details. confusion.

uproar and tumult in the whole . .. Order must

reign, but in a kind of confusion ... and from a

multitude or regular parts the whole must give a certain idea of irtegularif)' and chaos, which is so

fitting to great cities."" This statement emanates.

as Tafuri points out, from the Enlightenment

and particularly from l.augier. It stands against

the anempts at control and order that character·

ized the following 150 years of urban initiatives.•J

Viewing the city as a pleasure device. under·

standing Its basic 'tumult" and infinite, precise

details (as opposed to the inverse strategy of post·

tnhghtenment urbanism) did not in urban think·

ing unlit Post-Modernity and the emergence of

"the analogous city; "the culture of congestion."

and their kin.

The disarray is very different than the nearby

dues or Amsterdam on one hand or Oam;iscus on

the other: both ilncient and picturesque. one suf·

fering ITOm an effe~scent superfluity of open·

mindedness, the other from a overbearing ballast

of control. Rot1'erdam is a riot of conllicting idcolo

g1es embedded in disparate c11y fabnc; From the

global/corporate grandeur of the W~na corridor.

to the comic hipnus of Adriaan Ceu1e's refortna·

loon of the Schouwburg-plem, to the consumerism

or the Ou~pl"n 1ntegra11ng Marcel Breuer and

Bakema, to the new hyper-scale of the massive

Slructuresat the Kop Van Zu1d. Beirut is a turmoil

of diver~ urban milterial produced by pure specu·

latlon. ii powerful form of ideology itself. The devel·

opment of the Vttdun corndor in West Oeiru1

of the Dunu and Concorde comploes in pa.nicu:

I~. rtval, at lea.st in their exuberance, the shop.

ping ione5 of Rotterdam. But more vital even are

the traffic circuluion cores and attendartt ad hoc

workmg·class retail commotion of Cola Square or

Dora •n Bol') Kammoud or the social mixing of

Hamra, none of which ..,., panicularly planned

and Wh"e shopping is only an aspect at but. The

downtown hoits temporary events like a monster.

truck nlly next to tht most active of functioning

mosques. ruching a peilk during Rilmadan of rev

ving motors and tlectronu:ally enhanced calls·to· pr.iyer bmhng for audio-spa~.

The two c111es are Produ""" L •

1 ,,.., uy a S1m1 ar •frlctlo.n between capit;il and luthoriry even if 1nten11ons· ar. qutte d ff 1 er.ni. The apparent self· Interest of Hariri and his kind and t h l e apparent nte~sHn·the-common·good f h

Rl'rs h 0• t e Dutch plan.

~ Prod~d • sunllar Pilch of urban pan. deomon1um. On the other h<1nd th

. • e tvemu1g P•dts• tz1iln wtreots DI central R " d 0 n am have to bt

compared to the nearly empty streets of the metic.

ulously renovated center of Beirut. In this homog.

enous wonderland far from the vital Thitd·World

scruffiness of the rest of the metropolis, people are

eerily absent during the day and move like tourists

at night. Class can partially explain the problem

since the place is clearly meant for haute·bourgeo1s

use and they prefer to drive. The New Urbanist

rhetoric of pedestrianism and s treetscape falls

on deaf ears, as it seems to in most places. And

rents are prohibitive. The city of th~~l!\J<ls suit

vital in places like Rotterdam or. ~atter.

Milan or Barcelona and not so in Beirut despitt

the global illusion that Mediterranean culture lin·

gers in a twilight of social mixing: of piazias and

rheir kin. The different politics of the places has

direct effect on the physical fabric. But there also

may be a very simple, almost aesthetic. explana·

tion as well. The Lijnbaan is common in its mer·

cantilism and not refined in its architecture. It

reflects the teeming commercial centers of cities

that have not been reconstructed wholesale. Bei·

rut's downtown is. due to single ownership and a

supremely bourgeois notion of urban quality,evolv·

Ing to be uniformly precious. over·restored - Iii<•

ii rhinestone encrusted. beige poodle chpped too

perfectly: no vulgar s1gnage. no street vendors. The

fUneur Is not welcome, let alone the underclass.

THE UGLY

Beirut's subtext of monopoly and scate contr0I

dilutes the city's apparent free·market anarchy.

providing a crucial counterpoint to the inevitable

urban entropy that is the endgame of speculation.

Nevertheless. the frenetic expansion of the metror

ohs in the form of nt'w residential and mercanult

fabric essentially without civic s pace or adequate

infrastructure certainly maximizes revenue but

obviously wlll arrive at intolerable conditions. fhe

relief promised, the open space and facilit ies pro

jected for the new city center, may be as illusor)'as

h•ve been other proposed amenities. but they also

tend to emerge in random and spontaneous loct

tlons. The undeveloped landfill of the huge Joseplt

Khoury development in Obaiye. a few miles north

of the city-center, ls Filled on weekends with at1i"'

ity. The streets are edged with parked cars. Th• eor· niche is humming. Peoplestroll window·shoppin$·

YM there are no buildings. This 1cn·m1lllon·squ•~ foot landfill s t retche>1 more than~ mile atolli tht

offict coast. Begun by Ricardo Bofill with the local

f . ..ie1ed llY o Pierre K.houry, this project was com"" h ,,..,d of

t • even more bland Oar al H1ndas1h as a.,.

61Tffts and lots with 1 Bofill marinll at lts cenrer holt'S Strtets, eYl!n trees and lights, frame detp

dWJ1t1ng tons11urt1on. Th• yachts dnd Merc<dos

or 1ht• .n11opdtod uppor m1ddle-cla•s popula11on

thdt Y.1111 hll th1~ nt'I/\' r-1ty are yet 'o arrive. lhe

•'mt>tY 1·~«WalcJ lot' ar• sites for lootb.ill prac·

hl~ Of bn:)'dt> nd1ng Thr 1nfrastrueture 1s ht"aV·

1ly uwd by thr nrarby popula11on of ovtrcrowded

re-::,.1dl•r1' pac-krd into e>t1Sttnce mmunum to'A.er

blotk' l're>umJbly. once the nrw bu1ld1ngs are

"°"'ti uc «·d and occupoed. tho.c people will bed1s

rnura&•d from v1Mt1ng

rJ ~011\\' <!XU,:I\\ bo1h C'\Ut5' jf\' \\tUm\ of

ctu:u 1c.•'\''!"""c e.•rtat.. ah· 1nd1cat1vt· ot ~h,funs gloh.~l urb.,n l'nthu)ta!<,m~ to1nr1d<>nt wuh thtu

u 11.al\.,HUt 11on Ho1wrdam· .. gr1mm<"~t momtn1s

'""'''lo om 1110 hc.-Jvy·handrJ utop1o1n1Sfl\ or J l...llC

Mod(•111J\m 1hat wa• guiding lh•· dr•rlopmrnt pro

,.,.,, Jht•r wor Id War II It •llould •l>u b•· •••d th•t

tlw c11y'< f.ne" l•bt1r (1hr hou>1n~ <quuo and

pcdcsin..in .. ut"-ctsl :th.&> c.-amc from Jht~~ mren

11ons. but oftctl evolved dc,p11e rhrm in uorx

p••ctt'CI and twbnd<"onhgu1 o\\Of\S tar more ~ucct~s

fvl than ihe 'trrn pl•nn•rs tould hav• imAg1nod.

ue1ru< wa~ "m1\arly 3lfoctrd al 1h• sa1M umt. but without ihr rcJhz~t1on pO»ttilr m • •oC•al·

domocracy. and now I.a• 10 antmp• to rtbu1ld

'" ihe pastel shadow of Po>1-Mod•rn1sm and of

;,.. AbO ... t. mtddl• be>k>"" s 1 ... f'f\_,)\• .. O""'C'r-1 ,.

~ ·1 ,l Ct •. ..i pt.•~ dsll

t,;,f•, ;-,•. •!:i'J~'"'

f.'1.Jt:·C' j1n'll.r'W'\ .,,1,1

St-"·' r..._ 1 ... .q .. P· ~ "~' ~ f'.)'l- $•~1"f,...,

1fl• NL"'-> "' ~~,.,.v.• C"'

._,,.,,._!,<((, • lt' A-1-:.,. 1

t 1•;,l •f< 1 'Kl ·• r '"'.i

..,, 1·1~ p,,, '·'O'·'f"' b, ,.,. , ... ,. ... .),\1•!i;.f1,

lht ersatz nosu\g1~ of ·contt"xtuahs.t• approachrr.

1hat actompan1cd Post Modern rtv1vals of hi>tOrt·

c1s1 p.ast1cht and invented rrfereoce. ·New Urban·

•~f· rhetonc guides rt<On)truct1on \n fact. 1f

th• development of prt·war ~irut responded to

many 0-f tht ;amt plJnnmg tnthus1aims as that

of pO:>\·'fll'~r Rotttrdam, then posr war Sf"\rut I)

not so muchd•fferrnt 1n its desires 4l!nd con1rad1C·

uons a~ 1~ post on1flc.auon B~rhnand manyotbt:r

< n 1t>'S ""·otld ""''e

Unhkt •nuch u1ban1iac.0'1111 tht M1ddl• CCAt, /tht

8m'UI c.11rrol DLitYICt/ ntu .. v for mono91d '"

o'101d tht nuh to me>d~n1111and11"prtAA..: aud L6

lf'«HJ"'l'd o..; p1rhapA chi moAt rnrportom tmdfr

ruloJJq m urban rvqrnnot1on 1n tht HJOtld tt>day.

An"us (jav1nu

sohd«• " 1ry1ng 1n th• decade •fttr \hr ••nd of

rhe Co\J War''tort1roa(t1vttly m:.1.111 ~ mneteC1nth

Cf'f\tUJ'f a,ban1~m rhat prob~bly neverf'x,st.-d and

as cerra1n\y 4nachron1srir JJ\ tht" ...... enty·hr~t. Allu ·

... ions 10 ·uaduiou· pepper their wnungs as they

l"rasf almO~\ alt struClUflPS mo<C chan on~ hun·

drtd years o\d_ In his deoi;<npuons of che new

codrs for bu1tdll\S tn thf center. Angus (iav1r.'s ref

ertnts arr JlaussmaMot Regency England. 'Town·

>-- ., ~ . . . - ... ~ ,.

. , .

.. li'• .. , .. -'Sun 1 m okt'C'! I H'n mo11• inHmgrumt<.

•h • 1, \i'' Hl I'll ~ •• l e>httr.t'!<iol; JH mn11·l~ 1mt .1

""'' "h >.,th rt rm .... "'"' u~,·J in n·htt•nCt'

r 1h. J1" •~rm1-r1 ol 1~,. d .. ntQ"n ot "< "> ol

11 I fl 1h r t~n mJlfl fl ~ 1\an~ Ph IUh \QU(" JJm.

1 l' •• o ,,, ·,Ill\!!!· ind .. ,a mer r An&lo ~ .. ).on c.t u .. h

.,, ,f\r,tr'\t Jr.d culture to1'll1nu1h 1h.st ~d'\'lf.• d

Ill I .lf):'U1 r• M'r'" , .. 11, "''ti ~ P.t\t01 .11 rtut hh

""·• .1tt.1\Jdt.' 1tth1•tn1 :•'P"'l'~' l \l'n" t ll\ Orun

1,1 !\f rlir.~1·1.., Of 1ht· f,1,f u:nlUI\ c1fl1 I 1rt,~>1r.tl

fun :'1·1·i. in th1' R-. tmh,t h~ht rt11• rt'>to1,urnn

"' m\l .. fl\ ti• th.ht ohint.d .11, "•h•1 H111• with .111.tc;h

ttta•t)ft.:\'Tl'l'ln1,r.01 h .. 1dt'flf,1 ·11 ult11on ht•f\•

" n r~m\" "',. .. 'h.-tn ttw RotT1.tntll 1. ' ' M 1on c.if

h ''-'h , ... , I• ~. '"a' cunt•ri• 1 01111,·"' "n' .. tK h

• I Jn ~nl\ lo.· '''um.J I" bt· lor 'r•'< ul "'''

f"-.11~ ...,,,_ ,\,di"'-~'' rt-.-. ..... ,Jltr ''-.di :!lot•1\uJ h)'

... , rr ldu~uon n1 ldt"rlf11\ Tht fld'\Uri\(l. tu,lftJ)

1nr11v~h :tw ... r·uhll.u n~ oi ttt• url .ln '.tbrJC .n

< .. !'"

.. ' -.

.... t• ..,.

whldl 11 1~ t.·mb~thkd ntft'f' 3 c.h.uuc· 10 re~11H1

1hat h1.ro1)" .. mn<·.,• '" u1h.tn •lt<slt&Y In P>V

Cot hi< ~,·1.11J, nr hill 11mh•·1 10 1h<'11 •h-ulll•"•

.is 1~ h·•rpc 11mg 111 LA:·bAnnn w11h ·Ar~l> or-trr0t h

cho:h,·1,•pysh0<l-- "' .umc111 chl:tt rit•~ 11.iumJuc li•Ut he,, an· ,1Jop11ng an11qu tl.-J urb.ln 1.,rn\•1'

m~mory. atlo"lllS rh1 1c·rt• di ton ot p..·1~onal11y 111 in 1 par~Hel Mh mp110 p1oJucea ,,..n.,..nt h1,1oov

J mo1<· d•>!tl1· mot!, II> urban coun1Np~1 1 >Ub tor d cuhurr wtth" probll'm•ll< 1t'\rn1 Pl'1 llw'

dt11'!oci.'1ut;il tlux pt rm1111ns • •t'Ckhnot oonotcul planner' .. 1 mo1ll-rr. Or1lm or n. nut ~•r i~rut

t ur dh al Ul'lt ms :..n t•r ~"lll P• odm uon ot Ti111o.fl.l1 ·~ ,~~n·l::.111 f<c·g1on•h~m 0>11<1 n ti IOtMh>rn .tre dtll~11·t•t a &l•.hal 1onun11t1z,.rton ot •• ntnl'lt .. -t\lh <C'nlUIJ

< ut~ ol •ht•~""'" 1Jt·nlo111< nl w11 ••I v.h1< h td~r1 II) 111y 111 oh.1hly anl) h1s1omall\ "·•h7"'1 "' •h•

''•loo a V•• •·••tun 1 lw l>u•• h .1p111·" to h.;vt· l11tl« 1111,11!••• nl J .uf l,•ll()•h· or th•· onu,ing> ot d<' M-••

l<1nct•Jfl f<'r tht•lf "'''"'''of lht·m,dvt.·~ It 1~ 1ht·1t• p.l~'~lllf ,, '"'' nf , 11,,ufc.~ ~nJ bnukv.uJ1.u\ ,ul

I I I . ol 1Jl'f\l llP. -n1'Url•.opt·n10 ""w H·tior' unm1.:r.1nt cont11bu 1u1c• l lu:. •~ '·"~ 1 l\' tilli 1c.·•~• 1nUl:t ~ i(f ·..,.

11oh\ wJ gl .. to.1 "' d llllJjll'I) 101 ll"tanc~. The rt• ~~~J'N..'flff!•rWfi-~ "'~~ t;·~~,, 1 . -t~ 111\IC u l <.Lilll 1l's.. ;...,~ ~r:""'"" •«' "1nJm1lh •n•I woo.!< 11 'hot-,.,""' th•·y mo,rl)- '"d on~ ~:It l'T':\-1.:1'('1'~. ~:;.;;,,,."""""'

"Pi""" a' l'"'I" in f.t(~" Ch~n novn•\ or or. rouo 1ri~~~=.1:~~~~ 1 .. 1 hrochuri' Ir os II'>! a~ h~..ty thtt 1ht· nt°<' ... ...... ----

h I I' I II J. lu"' ,L l••u•I'""' .lf( lll"<fUft' (l •Oftt 1l am WI bt• flo-dfUH.·J <·'li.("0 rnz 11 maJ~,fl th .. I h _.mo~' \'\l ""'• '"

rn ,..,rs'" Jl(Jp\ll .. u H•rt1,;,,. Po~1 undu.atmn Gr1man

pl~n"'' ' '· on •ht· uth<·t hand wtul~ no1 .111.t< h1ni;

t H•\rl ;.t N~ wUrh.inl,m, .1nnlh<'t c Cl"c.-dna1a ll.ll '

I •"r"'r'' 1~ th•• Mo,h•rm""m n ~t:I\ up·•' •' tl\1 •

d>t saint utopian intentions, if for anti

-"'1' ~ 3 rnovt polit ically from left

~ ~basic and flawed notion that good ,rlt d ~~iaunl language makes goo commu-

·~ 1~ ~•lthycountries of the European

:.difst policits •~ mtrtly elitist. In Beirut,

;H•lll of pu~ business, that is racked with

,,.,,,_lilt)' CUIS!itut• discrimination.

1Wr is" third wall in the Sala dei Nove. On

t~~ttd the good commune - a parallel

.,.1011it ilrvil and his minions on the adjacent

.-.ai. A patrian:hal figure embodies repub

lir:llila- f>ith. Hope, and Charity float over his

i.aaumsurrou.nded by lounging virtues, one

;.i...m-slyholds a severed head in her lap.

lks~efficiatts ~tween the good and bad

ciiltt its sides and recalls that other modem

.-m.idut~s. ""'n in its corrupt present,

eaimgt al ideal virtue. Reciprocal influence

• 8-I Nii ICl'OSS the Atlantic, c:an;ed by

.. a.!tcon0my. Th•American city is a player

•Ila lll«Y· setting op a reson~nce between

'-'*" - This influence on modem urban

~is not a new story. The title of this

mi' aa-!tclges both the "spaghetti West

•-of American urbanism and its role a.s ;.w-.._ la""1tnlanamc1 Beirut, the dissimilarities

ti"~ lll01ivallons that underwrite the

....._ a( good, and bad. intentions become

"'~"""-- . . . • ...,. form 1s reahzed. Their develop-

._,.hlply11tpenc1m1 on th.e model of the Amercatwy ~obvio ly . " ' us lll the look of the places,

~and traffic arteries either bujlt or

::::-~•IM> In the vtry notion, endemic 10

·~~that a plan (either gn9hlc

-..,... ~)can 8">tme tM urba11 a!ld. by

.._. ia tWturt nstlf. 111 the United States that

flt~--..., the arid, bUt the concept that

"-t!iii fll>nc Of SOti.tty will ri.w like com

'~ luc\sqpe, controlling and lib

~. -saturatM, if not prod.uccd. Urban "&di illd the

'"'•~·"av we l'J\llke, or remake, '-.."'"1111 .. '~oes. pow~ sits, con·

~<llio.~at the same time. all that

• '-bq ~ ~trogetlehy that Is tbe city. It

~ ~ U:."""" Rotterdam and Beirut to be ~~ saiz..s1mu11;ineo11Sly. This incon·

""~~.the <l<titirc fact of tM modem, as

~with its contrary."''

NOTES

G10<g.0Gtass, 'Avent-GardeancsConi--.• ,.,___ 2 G --.. ,. ._..,.,11om21(S.-i~o.31111

"'"'°"Yon one C••und Syna 11'1 lhe other . . loriable cama<ao••ri• ol the £U QW>ts and ;;; '1glQnJ gi mo.-e ~IA~ lho -·

slento<•an dlxorc! al a Metar""1 ~ El 3 AsJ,.·roleelsewtiere. "llwa.sas1ftlltUMed It

l•ump. l>t ~~wt for a 1 Sl41es !IO'NMlln(-Manhatl.., to Oor-.eJd ..as1erthe1mp1ement l twm~senclll>tnwumaa.P1Wdtf>LU...motung

• ""'of develoc>ment sire~ aod in\eresl M«e lhM a thouoam IUJ•-dwl . Ol""'C new meanlllQ to conlkf...t.

- .,. 17PUrtd. Tllo WI/ CC>lll- ,. l/'e l>.>idlnQ process, bot!> in the demol•lton ot the t..ter--.s c1owntown .. I ha\ Is its r•bu1~. Rewrrtteri aft"' l>Jbluf of 'On R encl In Ille idaol<>gocal ISS.Wll Al!CHIS 9\$eptemt>e<ml) ICCI 1al1smand lhtO-w"'

Rel,g'°"' structureund O<Ol>OttY 3tl! ~·•y ~~~ .... __,., .....-• ~--·- .... -.ar~ts. boilmore

m'C>0<1anlly lr1 the endur"'IJ PQwe<ol rollgjotiuthefitsl l)ddical fact. met1imO ancJ class. In thiS l\Oloon W>tti Oruzo. Sumi.,., SIMe l.!usl•m. Gree«.,., Anneni~ Ma!on1te. Gfft~ ard Roman C..tnohc: (to,...,,... 1...i the meior ••llQl<>nS Iba! ,.,., modern Polit.es "'this pl~ -e tt>e<e is no _,,....., ol <h\Ki:ll end state), '""°ere.,.,,, SUCh proporties 1nc1\Jdl110. "'the downtown. a ~ano •Protestant dlutch. lor~ '<lonld( fragmenls m the -.cod of do<>.olillon

Paul G!oenel'ld1i1'0 and Ptol~~ G11Q/o-nAtt/llttelwo"' llott.rdMn (fl<ltt.,.,....: 010. 19915), p.tl.

e The tW>tooroecx>- byOue!encl U.. ~-byo..dok ~under 111eGemwio.

1 Both ' of the peooie/J><c!eta"ar (IJOIX)loro. PQllU!a.n! and "lilted by--• Fuod SM>&b was presde<11 !:cm 1!118 to 1!lll<. with -I~ ol rn• •nfluenco ...-..;- "1td

1910 H1Stenur• marl<edlhe hogl\ po.nt ol _.,._J ind~-!orso<tll rtlormend~ 9 il'hel> .. ctorat• Gene<al torlOWT1 f'lorwwloalongwdh a-. HIQ!lo< c...r.r..i1orr...,anc1C.....

tryOes.gnwere pr...ilc.Herthe<lown""cououY-'"tht'"ngb""""•ICan-.--~ caUy '"the Medi!~ A!tho<¢ A1al>C --e WOtd. bl~h. the! rr1r1 be in!efprel4d e• lown. tht tttm. omlllYono tCll JUS1 $Calo bu\ """'5 rd bllloo!\S. os WM\~ alien

10 E<1u4JIV Joi.,gn «&Sall the fi,... modlm arm.toc:l<ire INlt was ,..:I zed dur111Q the~ l>etor• \M CM1 .,,.,_ T,,., .._ .... o1estorre\lo' ... ISoSOCl '*-"Y"' .. llatl ....

11 1 owe 1h11 conceit to R-• Sal•bll ..in #I -sat.on, desc<ited Ubl...._.. t\:lturus ·not Clv~: S.,. tl•I he ,.,..,.1 - ne _.. ol lhl ..,.,,JC. of the doj)ondency ol c:ultutt °" "'8 collect•.,. eno tht raaniiefllbOn ol!h<l t*lionln beth S)OJl>llC space end soc*~

12 Francesco Ml111.., "'""'"" 6' Ot<Mtlf<JIH.m. (8- t81Jl. YO!. JI,~•• QuOl4d In Manlredo Tofl6l MCMectu« ""11 Ul- lc.nt>'ldOO' Mil • Jim). p.2G-ZI.

13 Fromthel>.meti<lf' gr'diron.101he_ol.........,.,.,, to the Sied~•ol-Nsm.to • cokln>a\ impose.,,,. b'e ,,,. Fr...ch ,..1ra:turt-.i of S.••l 10,... Ct!QIM ol -C"y PlotnnO:

1.,_ poot.£nlightenm«~~"' .,,.,._1;.ot c.,. boc.orre>O•od lowMtF_...il

dlaraclttiMd as ._...,,.; from __ .. Be•tVt: ,~ U.M.-.ttr Plan'°' \he A~ of,,,. c .mra1

14 l>.ngUS ~· I Bew!. Ro.-. erd Sarlo6 - (Mon!Cl>. london. NtwYorJi; p-~ 18), O.stnci. PIOJOC ""1 .• ~ ,_ u .,._..,._ • .,.,,.... 10 thoc""""""' o1 Solidl•'I.' p.217. GeVlll 11 de$CI'~

~ -~wat I/Id uw Le1>11nesc Ow 'Na• n1ei1 11t>llJitenoously. 15 """"'.~tN\lhe"""'

()It 5et00olAQtlf. 1111i; 11>\hatf'IJmhl~·:Q(c;artiGtl>t 16 Tfl*Go0tJ, ti..9ad"'4lhftJr/lr, ondbad'""M _l'le.._ E1tWa1lad>. ther.im'••-QUO."odd

Auttor"'O tuc1na1oonthal~astwood.,,d 1AOY>n CJ.,.t. ~IS \Md<oc1""1 ltiottlle ' uvJy° man out. lorrN e ltwd to Ct .,_oown that de..,..,,..,..,......,._.,.,..~.,......,, w.lltcll wilt sho»I "' tN! lesl

,.~h occntnry .. AU out....,,..,,..,.., DtOG'--17 'In oo< dlY ~IMll IS "'.egt-enl ·-•~-•••~to encJ tlull~l""ll - IM'""° mate-

--...c.-..ntt ma~l f:Jl'C$$ Wll?\ •"-...,~_, • lS to•tsU'l"'"'__ __ """"'"..rllt\'dThtl'oople•P_.: ,,,._,.f•I' .. al r.rce • ~ Mal'- •S90f>d1 at t l!Ndo' (Norton: Hew'«Jt1!.19'181- PS18-

,.

HASHJM S.ASKJS

· .. ·'

: ·"' .... ; .~~··:.···;. - .. ·· ·. --: ., ~ I ·-

...,.: c,' . i.' •I.

-·~ .. ' .....

:,, :(, I . • f: • '_', • ', • .-:• ·, :";~:~\:?. .. ~~ ;:,.~ •:. • . .. :_ -~,:-'=" :-~ .. · .·: _,_:_: ;.::-~·.·~·-':".,: .• ' . •. !._· . • ·- .-"~ /:'., .• ,.. ~ .. • • : ; • :.. • ;. t-··: • t • ·~ '.- ~. " ~:.. • _><; :.<"' ~.~ ... ~"- .;"'· ,; .... . .-1;~.~r~~ -.. ~.=·-· . .-:·:~;-.:;: .. 1 _,-.: ;,. ~ , 4 , , . (t•~·· r.. •· •· ~tf ... r r •. · .. ;t • "·: ~\··" .,,. ..... 4).

.. ~ .. ·- -~ . ·~

.,. If' ' .., ... .. •• -... , . •:-- .. . ... ~

. -

. • ;.:.; .;.o;;"·,;.1, 'IL~~- ~~ ··• ;,. ·. ~,, ., • ."··"- ."' ·~ .... . ; "Jr.L .-.,.·~ ;./. . - •. "<~ •• -.

>· ·.:~:-1+:;;·" :'}:f_·::.~_j}_:'.i._~_:·_"T~~--~ ~~:~: .. t~_·:f_;-_;: ~-~.~·~/ :/ n :-.-.t• ~ ·-::: ~-;~-~-::.. '~-~ ·~ ': . . ' • .. ' - ·- ~ • . .' .• • : i--< ':~~y~ .~ .> . .-: .

... · ... ,.- - "• - . '• . . .. :

~~·;i· . .. :. ; ~-:. r -~:i_J- ~,~:(~ :.: > -~~ ~ ~/ ~-::., «: ~:.: _:;~'.-~;~·;.~:~~.:f '.:~;~•~\ ... i; ,~i·~~1.~1.i:·~ .. ~ .~! .. J. ir~ · ..... ;~~a!.°"::-··· :_~~~~ 't:~) ~ ~ ~-r ;.~~,,.._._'. .. -::':,.: ~ ~' ·,~£! ~ ::··o;~:::· ;9;,:~· ~~~ i•; -:>~I ~ ~

'• .... : , ,.-.1 .... ~"' - -~ .. ~-:~:-:.·~.: ,',:;.·--· .• ";..!...-

. ": ~?~~~· :J~:~> :.:.': ... :, .:;.--/ ;--. .:;·:·::. . -.. ... . ,

Le CorblL6ier~ "Rule of Movement" at the Carpenter Ci!nter 1

GlEOION' S APOLOGIA

Writing in 1964 about the newt}' cooapiKecl C-·

penter Centtt fW' the Visual Arts lit Hiar-4 U.

wrsity, Sigfried Citdion critkiud dw desill' 'the "hollow SJ>a<'eS around the wori:sMp ,...as.• The critids111 was wrapped iJI tflro ~ # Le Corbusier must haw ·somehow felt dw __.

pl~f'SS of~ prosranuse" ~he was w«PIC

on its de.sign. ~n though. aactdiJlc bl ~ "the most 5trilung innoYation ol dw lloriWiC i& ilS

progninune," 111PNning 1he idea of edllatilig .

mlsts in the visual U1s, "Cof1Nr,si« ...... r:lll"

tainly haw ~n able to ~te • ~ -and sadly neeckd - lecture h»I iDUI tbt ~ building."' H<. also 1,._.,u dw ~ .,, ..

roite for the buildifti. Clffion Ud ~his ""'

in convincinc Le CorbuU..- te aa::ep1 * ~ sioo to clesicn dw ~ C-. ""'4 •-' also experienad the botiWias fUsdwld I,__.

hrr wh1lf' lunmng 11 ll•rv.ard bur hf' sn•me~ to

h we b..-n shi:hr ly dtsappamrcd by the end ~uh

Orher rlti s havt ddn·.-~ these sp<'{IS

of th(' building t vcn fess apofog, 11cally Tl.o )'Cars

.. 11cr c, won hutonan lfrnl) Ru~~eJ. ll11chcock

<xpn ~sed ;,1 strongt r drsagrc• mer~· w11h thl' s te

bt•!ec•1on and thf' .awlrn;nd rt'!auon hrp betw~n

rh, bu11dmg .md rts 1mmt1:!1arc surroundings. lie

compla•n<'<l that Le CorbU'>IN. tht urbanist had

shown too mu(h cldsllnty. and his c[rrnt too Int f.'

thcwh

wh..n 11 came to choosing .rn adrquate site to do•

wh1ch1hebu1ld1ngrnu d rclatt 1 w r

These comments abc>ut th<' Cnrp<. nter C.en

lrr's ~ring and programming art ~1gn1•1cant

hteause rhry acrurJtely detect 1hr om1ss1un of

"' <1ual111cs th.n h.1ve tradmonallv been c..,ns1d

~1ed essentJJl to any burldmg c nce1ved around

the promen"de arch1trc turale Le Corbu~1cr had

•ntend d Ina• t'ie Carprnrer Cerit~r be a lesson

l'f 'A t' I\ 1 '

r--- - - - ----, I •1 I I I t I I I I • I I I I ' ] ' I I , I I I 1,... _________ _ J

Toptobouom P'" ' ' ' d f,1 1x•11l t>rt 1•11lt;t1 \1111., 5.1 , ~, ! )f!

f.l•v'h '""-1' tJ)' l 11•,<,t Nrwman

Oppo1ltt ( • tu1rn•t1l till; ( lll fH: 'll1'1 (rn!m d' µJ II~ h 1 l~ h1•ytm1J

tcr Center's programming. dfguing that ·,uch an

institull'. unlike an institute uf rh~m1Mry or phys·

1"· rannot establish a routine plan. For this

r<•a,0 n, as a detailed pl•n was drawn up. Le Corhus·

icr was only a'kcd to crcaw as flexible a space as

possible. even at the ri'k that the interior might

look like a warehouse."' Indeed the interioo· of the

building docs look a bit like a warehouse. even

when 11 is made out of the ,amc components a<

oth1•r free plan buildings by Le Corbusocr· the

column gnd. the r<?ctangular shapes. ;111d the free

forms. However. when lOmparcd with oth<!r free

plan, such a~ the four canonical manifestations

that L<! Corbusicr had described in his famous

sketch in />rfci..li011.d, this building deploys them

on a very different mann<?r. The fre<!·Standing par

titions, which had ~lways be<!n set up against

the tree plan's grid of columns and within a rect·

angular boundary are here expelled from between

the columns and pushed out to the edge, to

replace the rectangular bound>ry. from the out·

side, however. the neighboring buildings. the

f'ogg Art Museum and the Harvard Facu lty Cl ub.

are sohcoted as the container of the Carpenter.

Suggestions. that were rejected by Le Corbusler,

of the building being too bog for the site,

confirm the importance of the tension achieved

between the building's forms and the abutting

buildings. Importantly. from the first tome he

d¥Cw the plan on the actual site, Le Corbusier

load llAkod that the existing trees be accurately

located on it. The columns, again>t which the main

entrance is locat<>d. ar~ aligned with a tree on the

Fiiculty Club lot, •uggc>ting continuity between

the Ile-Id ot column• and tht trees. Purthcr·

more, the column grid extends beyond the paved

a1eo1 ol the entrance and into the same terrac<?,

as of the Carpenter extends al l the way to the

r:oculty Club fatadc

Not only has the outside contai ner been

removed. the floors have as well. The dommo slabs

that usually frame and confine the free forms

In the interior between floors and ceilings am

also rr111ovcd. The rree formb arc exposed 10 the

outside and they acquire on urban sca le. Here

again the building er.ates a surrogate to what has

been removed. Tho slabs arc graphically inscribed

intu the concrete of the curved forms. On the

Prescott Street fo~ade lhc slab~ are also revealed

u the horizontal memberi of tne lirise-solcils 11et

chp~ed to allow for the passage of t he ramp. By

sett ing up •he column/tree field, by pushin11 the

free shapes against the abutting buildings. and

w;th the full •Cale exposure of the free forms,

Le Corbusier carries out the intention uf dem

onstrating his archhe<:tural principles. but in

th1b case turned inside out in order to display

them didactically on the rxtcrior. Contrary to the

asseHments of Gicdion :ind Hitchcock, the build·

ing seems very urban in its outlook.

However. a s a res ult of thi s investment '"

ttiP public dbpl~y of the promenade, the inside

does seem to be hollowed out , and 3> Gicdoun ,ays.

1urn<!d into a warehouse like space. When the par

mions have been pu5hed out, w~ are left with

nothing onside the p lans. Hitc hcock returned to

the drawings that Le Corbus1er had chos•n for

the OeuvrP Comp/i>rP to argue that Le Corbusoer's

intentions were not the same•• what was hnally

built .• But on the Oi>uvr1t Compl•te. the most obvi

ous aspect of the plans selected by Le Corbusocr

is how empty they real ly are. ~·unhcrmorc. Le Cor·

busier chose not to mclud<! the full basement plan.

He selected a sequence of Hve stark plans - the

only major in accuracy in them being not so much

the unfultill<!d relationship with the context. or

th<! emptiness of the interiors. but rhe inclusion of

a ramp that was never built and rhat connect' the

third floor gallery space to the fourth.

When looking from the inside out. the build·

ong docs seem 10 ignore its surroundings. There

arc many decisions in the interior layout 1nd1cat·

ong that Giedion's cnt1C1sms of the ina11ent1vc·

ness to th~ site and the emptone>S of the plans

arc rclat.:d. Howeveo-. the building is not so much

inattentive to the context as 11 1s blind towards ot.

For one, the shear wall that hold> up the ramp ol

the Carpenter Center blocks the view through the

large and open lobby window. And a t the moment

when the viewer is on axis with the window and

the lobby, this wall cuts off the visual connectoon

to the outside. The mullion-less window, through

its correspondence with this dircCI view, seems a•

once to demonstrate and deny everything that has

been snld ;ibout the free fa~adc and the window in

rcln tionshlp with the free plan On the one hand.

the view is there available, and the inside and the

outside ex tend into each other. But when one is

on a xi s, look mg ou t~ odc frontally. the wall co·awls

by and cut• off th<! view. The lobby does not get

closed off or conhncd, and Pven from thi~ window,

th e view tends to open up to the s ides of the shtar

wall when one a11proaches the window. The main

~talr facing Quincy Street provides anoiher exam·

pie ot willful blindness. This is a volume that could

afford excellent views of the campus and of Caro·

bridge, situated as 1t 1s on a diagonal with the

Lamont yard. 11ow<'ver. the fa~adc of the s1~1rtase

ia rilled on with glass blocks t hat only allow the hght

to come in but not rhe pr1111leged view. One mo"'

confirmation can be found in the waytlle tree> and

shrubs arc repeatedly drawn in plan tn order to

block the window walls from direct viewing to th<

outside ~en berween the two sides of the building.

These blindl'rs act locally to prevent the vifW

from penetr.atlng deep into the workshop and

studio spaces. But Le Corbusior deploys this blind·

nus at a 1nore aeneral level in tht w;iy that di•

diagonal bri..e-sole1l1 disallow a direct 111ew to the

exterior. pan icularly in the workshops and stu·

.,, } ··

"

sngs • lnqum('' into 1h1s subien have informed

mudt·rn arc!uttctur• at l('ast >tnCe lhP P101urtsque,

particularly in tht de~1gn thrones of Humphry

Rep1on, Augus1e Cho1sy, Augus1 Sch mar LOW, Adolf

Loo,, •nd Lt C:orbu,1cr and 1hrough an extmdcd

inter.inion bt'twcen .uchncu~. modrrn arfo1s,

.ind Ge-i~h p>ycholog1s1' 1n the 1920, d!ld 1910s

Each of tit~>• thl'ortc> has •dvanted •pec1hr com

pos111onal strJt•g1e>, surhds undulation, 'rnalny,

•nd JU•tapo"trnn l:ngagmg ihr moving ~ub1c-ri 1n the d1·fin111on of the form of a bu11Jrng gtner

ally 1mpl1~s th~t the Mth11en, or thl' buildmg, 1,

.iw:11r of the presenep ol the occupant ~nd ri•<ip

tOCdlly th,tt the VICW~r become-. awa11' Of thr Way

that h1~'her v1oewing hab1h .ire formed by th~ surrounding sp~cc

W11t11n each theory, when the suhiett moves,

~ hi' •cqu1re, c~n;un ~ou•l •trnhute~ f"or " •

pie, ambul~uon m the l11uure5que assen~ = v1du•I f1cedo1n For modern hfl' to•· 'P .,< " prellaf\·d to''~ lullt>1, tlw Futurists and Lt• Corhu"t·r had to ob\c1 ve tht· rny from~ fo\I tar or I

Pane Wuh

Kevin lynch in urban renewal America, daily com

muuni; on the highway 1mpltes social mob1hty.

MorP recently different kinds of formal ag11a11on

)UCh as formlessnes>. folding. and computational

ma1enah>m have been JU)llfied a~ enhanced cxpc· rlt'nce~ of the tnforma11on age

W1th1n each theory. rhe ktnc!lc r('la11onsh1p

between 1h,. viewer and the building could b!>

lotattd on a >pectrum be1ween two pole~ On 1he

one end, the bu1ld1ng 1s understood as a ~cquencc of ~tat•< image) thAt ..re- connected by a moving

viewer (<'.g., Loo) ond I c Corbus1crJ and on the

other. rne butld1ngs' ~urfaLc) are warped and

Slrt'tlh<'d m 01der ro simulate or rC'J>rcsent mor 1on

lord ,t.mt V1C'wer fog from Borromoni to Uen Vdn OcrkcU.

Left (.•,'

~ ... ~ r.~ r 'J ,• 1 J(l

8dlow. lefl lo right

, ·~ -'1 r 1 ''I

• , . ..,, ; •11 Li'1 '-r.ti.t I • tpr •r ,. .. ,

( ~tf1 I' h11 'l! ~ .i(llt.)~t 'x• ;t

~ .... , ~1h1r,v ~!(( (t•

01 trol\I · a pictorial ;ensf to ini.muate monon in of 1hr . t intcrpreta11ons

a static pos1tion. But mos l ser1oth• I have been c 0

promenade in the free P an

former, less rcpre!.enrational. pole. al corolM h pcrrcntl The promenade 1 ~ 1 e ex n of 11\f ·1 basic deftnit10

of the free plan The 0105 's ~ert•i•I the bu1ld1ng ,

free plan 1s the idea that . uttural •·• d from its sir

pdrtt11ons Me disengage d to iohabua I •d 10 respan

1 mrnt~ and freely emp oyc 0

ol rhe rt< d ~rT icuf.1t1o 11

tton . The 1nhabitilt!Ot\ an ovement. ~' \atton. by m nocr plan 1s guided by c1rcu en one If but betwc r.d

only tn!>rd<' the plan itsc theplan• f between ~

and other~. and importanr y, 0115~ 1p ha> hL"

l their rel~fl the exterior now 1 131 tacade

· tsol 1ht nr 1~ freed from 1hn.oni.ifain of movtmr . r1:1a11on -0111

The .1ccep1ed intcrp b s1er'~ow1'> b V Cot u rl a~ the freylan is guided Y • inspired in pa Jil<'~

. I . 0111(•nadc on1en mg• about the pr necuve pr

1111rb

O(C 1nlfOS, folk.' a no11on, by the 111

1 his bOO~ y1./o~

R sse~u. " nd of Jean lacqucs OU n the s~co dtnl" i durin., . siu Swdrm;,. wn11en 1n 194 x flrl> the 13pau

w~r and add1 C>~rtl 10

'I\ dt ' I 11 \.f -' 1 ... t•( 1l (,llllP

I t1b ( t·I l\-1 .-tl1M''IQ\ fl\'{

I"• . >-,\ .• il,t· •'•~.I hut• lht •tlfl;'l IOf

;nrl :hen puh\ished .igain w11h renew<>d commit·

rtrrilto 11> tOntfnt 1n 1957. Le Corbus1er describe~

·'lrp1om<·n~de in th!' following manner:

~·. urrmtr(turt• mu.At be walked through and tru·

'""'d It 1A by 110 111ea111> rliat rmirely 9rapl1ic illu·

"''' wro111 ,ic/100/.i of thought like u.i ta believe

"' Olj0•1,ud uro1111d 110111P ab.uract point thar pre·

r1ridA roh11 u mew. a chmwricul man witlt thP PY<'

'1 • Jly w1d 11,;10111>m111fta11P011J>ly circular. Such

"mui, •m1piy dor1> 11ot rx11>1, and in co11.ieqt1e11ce 01 rlru. mwo111 ep11011. rhe claA.Aicol rra haired 10' "•P for •lir total drAt n1crrou of archirPcture. liwrad o h · '"man <11> two ryeA .iet in tl1e fronr

of 1"' lirnd, and hr 1>1a11ci.A AtX f<'t>I abov" th<'

9'Nr.d <md lookA uhrad_ Tl1~M /110/09ica/ far:tA Utt-+.'1w119lr fo d I umn t 1e wlwlr barcl1 of pla11J> t/1at 1,.,,,tl"wh I

'" r.-volv1n9 arow1d a jlrrit1ouJ> p1vor. Ti,..._ '~'"PJ!'d I h ' wrt 1 1.1 ow11 two i>yv.i and lookrn9 M1ur9hr ol1e d

Q .our mun walk.1 abour a11d clrang<'.4 Pr1.61t1u11A a I I

· PP'"" 111111>1?/j to hi1> purA111t.11, movi119 r111i•mrll;r ,,

01 <lAIH«'AA/011 uf a•·chrtectural r<?a/1· 11,,.., H"re

•xrvrreiu VA tlw mtmJ>v fv,,Jin9 tliut h<lil <flni. fron; Owt ,, > •

fr11r ri A <~PH tire of 11Wl!Pntvnt.6. Thu, lit. AO tor 01r1urc .,

l>y h 'urecrmbej1td91>ddeadorltvin9 1 •d"9"'" lo 111 /

0,,, 1 UI"' tlrv ru/p uf m<>v<'lllPtll hU.11

dtMe9ard J •r 01 brr//1amly exploited.'

Th11 dc1rri 1 011., 1 P ion h~, been cen1 ra I to th<' 1 nt<>r·

• mn ol 1h. ~,~~•rr c prom<'nadl• arrh1t..:itturdlc among

' lrttH ... 1nll< llfH 4 r ,,,1 '> Morr rrcrnt rn1~rp1'ctl'rs of

llJ\lt't\ w •k t "•nd,n ur hive Ir w<l to loLU~ on under-

~ Plell\~Jy Wh '1 Ith • ~t !hrs "rule ot movcmc·nt"

<i} •tt.·t·o d "t(_nl,,Tl) '" ui,~<l hy llruno lk1chlin, ll<'~t-

1n.1. •nd y ''" • '•n vri·Al~m 1301., who h~v~ rd ied

~v 1•f th1·0 'Pc1~,. tun,. rtl'~. hom th ... l'u·tun·squ~. to it' tht1ln1l'\ I

11Yb;J.1 · 0 th" lnt('r pretation of v1w· 'cqlJt.·~l..tliH\

"''d to I h" ~dven1 ut (11\em~

and its impact on L<.>Corbusier's architcc1ure. Even

though they may differ on the cultural interpre

tat ions of th<' rule, they do concur that it entails

unraveling the hu1l<ling to the moving subject in

bits or as still frames that untold one after the

other. whether in smooth 1ransit1ons or in sur·

prising breaks. crea1e<l by the f rl'e-standing intc·

nor par·trtions and the intermingling of interior

space' with outside vwws. Recent ly. Beatriz Colo·

mina has provided the following int~rpretat1on.

Mod1'rn l!'jl!lJ move. Vi.61011 in l.i> Corbu.iicri. an-hi·

tvcrure U, a/way.i tied to movem('nt: "You follow <HI

irinemry." a pronlt'nade arch1tl'<r11ralP. Tlze ponlt

of vit>w of modern arc/1itect11rl! LI >1ewr fixed, a.i 111

baroque orrl11t1•ct11rt>, or a.A i11 the model of vi..lio11

ofthP can"'ru ob..icura, but alwuyJJ 111motion,aA111

ftlm or i11 tl11?c1ry. CrnwdA.AhopprlrA i110 department

More. rnilroocl truvell'r.i. und tlw i11,10b1tcwt.1> of Li•

Corb11.11i1,ri. lioUJ.t>.11 have Ill common iJ11th movi<'

v1Pwer1J t/iut they cannot Jix (orrr.61) thP i11109P.

Uk<' th<? movi<' vwwerrliut OP11iumi11 d1'.6aibPA they

inhabit a .!lpocP tlrut IA 11Pitlwra11 m..iide nor an out· . , that iJ nor modi'

Aidl',pul>/1c nor prrvat<•. It I}, a .ipan

out of wall.A burofimage.i.'

t L' CorlJusier's hou>cs ar1· less Th<• space> o c ·

rlbou1 enclosur<' than thl! cntangl~m<>nt ol insid<'

J · . I intl'rior than .rntl outsidl', il'SS about a 1r.1 tt1ona

( ttet how 11Mny ·1hout following ~n i11n<'1 .ry no ma • i•r how lrnt•ar) th<' endo 1 im<:~ rc<lr ,1wn. no mdtl

I . th<• roi1;1gc of tl"l'lilll! im~g<'s ~un• r<•sul11ng '°"' - h too much

"I d the rl'~dcr moves 1htnu11 d~.)l'O'" c as . . 10

"' too ro.1ny ,111nulr. m"1cri.11.100 many rmag .

' l111ll'S diffrrl'nt LOn-Thl~ inrerpn'ttltH>n lorn

un~si> ;i~ pho· . houl thl' view . .i~ tleetlltl! • •

teptton' ~ , . tur<' hut in .ill «.:d~c~. wgr.1ph. Jnd as mov1og pre · _ f

an ord1es11 at1<>n o th<:> building i~ ronn•ived "~

M 'N .... I . l·~~• ·t,(.

views. When one moves, thrse views, which are prr·

dominantly turned to the outside. are connel'ted

together in the mind of the viewer. In his own writ

ings. Le Corbus1cr dors refer 10 this unravclin11.

but not solely 10 that.

An even more basic assumption underhes

these interpretations of mcwemcnt in Le Corbus·

wr. It b 1hat visual perreption, as ,1 mental process.

<'nt ails the interpret<1t ion nf lwo·dimensiona 1 st1m·

uli as tht>y register <>n the retina. A~er undergo·

ing a pe1t•eptual proress 1hat t~kcs the 1wo·dirnen·

s1onal imnge from the r~tm~ to the brain, we can

finally infer the third dimension back out of th1•

visual rut•s. As the viewer changes position on rrla·

tion to the object bdng viewed, the brain <'onnects

th<' ~equl'ncc of two·dimens1onal image• as a roll

ing h im does and interprets them. Perceptual th<'

orists have employed the media of phntogr•phy

and cinema as metaphors to explicate the dillcr·

en1 levels of >ec111g. As our· mechanical ~nd rl('f·

tronic c4u1pment hecomcs more romphcah'd so.11

would SC<'lll. are our models for vhion.11

This digr1•ss1on into perl'rptual psy«hology

is signihcant tor tustoric~I rrasons. ln hi) c.inonir.il Sp(lrP, Tmw, mul Arrl11tt•ct111P, Giedrnn him·

selt h.1d proposed that rh.1ng<'S in moilcs ot pcrcrp·

tion .ire cffectc•J bych.mgcs '"technology and th•'

mtr utluct ion o( new niedi.1. Tcchno\og1cal rh,1ni;cs

thl'relon• .1ftcct both the pr0Jur11on .ind the irci•p·

non of architt«tur<'- 111• idc1mlies Futurism .ind

Cubism :is two altl'lll()h .11 rc•prr~l)ntulg t~w ~PJ(C·

I •I "'ollow1na along'"' wl'll known <•lu 11in<' us1on. • c

f I . I 11<lns1111r hl'twccn 1t•rhnrllo11Y l'tJrHIOl\S (l t lf.' I l' ct

d 'rll ·urhlH'(.l! turm·d to r.,•,1.111 P~Y thl~ tWP011t.1~ 11

d to shJ"'' or u111hrm thr11 l""l rho\ogy 111 uo <'r r· •-or 10111posiuon and fll'1wp11on ot fo1m.

1100~ auu ,

1 k d extensively R..ciproc•lly. Gestalt thtonsts oo e

d study hgure and at ~bstract visual •ft in or er to

ff d the whole/pan ground. their rclauonat e ects an h •m "Gestah theories have

interacuons between t • · d mens1onat illus·

primarily concentrated on two- 1

rrauons and borrowed visual theory in relauon to

I' Ould seem that the d1scuss1ons of pa1n11ng w mouon in architecture are indebted to this p1cto-

nal aspect of percepuonas well. Le Corbusierdoes

appear to rely on a s1m1lar interpretation ol per·

cepuon in motion Colin Rowe and Robert Slutzky

havHxhau•uvelyanalyzed this aspect of his work.

but it is not thP only way his work relates to the

idea ol movement." Le Corbus1cr'searlywritings on painting and

architecture with Amed~e 07.enfanl a11empted to

ground the purist theoric• of painting and ol arc hi· lecture in sc1en11hc evidence from such percep·

tual p>ycholog1sts as Hermann von Helmholtz and

Charles Henry " Their iournal. L'£t.pm Nouveau,

pubh•hcd •cvc1al papers by Charles Henry. direc

tor of the Laboratory ol Phy>1olog1cal Sensation•

at the Sorbonne Henry sought 10 1den11ly sc1en·

uhc 1us11hca11on• for ~c~theuc preferences He

de"•loped the ·aes1he11c protractor: an instru

ment 1ha1 produced ·rhythmic angle>· based on

umple number proportions that "er' supposed to

yitld mo~ >>11sfactory. thereforf al!!>theur. sensa-

11on• 1n the ob~•rver" Both llenry and h1> art1s1

ruder> hke Le Corbu>ier were aware of 1he cul

tural factor> inwlved 10 thedehn111on of aesthetic preference>, but they placed rheir cnqu1si11on> at

• level thac they believed preceded the establish

menc of cultural S1gmhca11on, di whac they under·

•tood to bt a ur11vcr~al ba>e. l.c Corbus1er and

Oztnf.tnt olt"n taucloned their readers that rhc

main QU~>t was not for an absolute (even if the rhetoric ofccn ~lipped 10 that dirernon)."

Thesc "ronsiants" emerge out of chaos in order lo

tst<ibllsh "clah1fica1ions founded on the appcar

ancu of naiurt . This underlies the dilflcuh pur·

su11 of constants (noc ab>olures) and the appa1en1 (not 1he actual).

This pursu11 would guide Le Corb us1er in

many UJ>«f> of his work. whether through the dfvelopment of the 1racN-s regulato1res th od ul h • em .

or. in I e polychromlf or in dffend h ' ing purist

s af)t'S. In each ohheseaspcctsof design, whether II was the compo I siuonal organrza11on of the a~adt, the rnusuremfncs f

o spaces '"'ad of color, or th d , • o• ations e et•nn1na11on or free fo '

Corbuscrr ident1hed rul d ntl5, Le es erived fro h

~hev,d remained m w at he constant for al!

the rule or users. Neither movement nor the

ated with it were constants associ-evcr explicit!• 1 have to be d , ' spe led out. They

crived From pauln from buildJngs l'k 8 relerences and 1 • the Carpunt c he i temed to emnlo• tL . er enter, where ,, , 111s rule

Amongh· h · , iso1 erpursulcsof $1bt, connection to the constants, a pos.

rule or movem em can be

f color This may be a rather found in his theory o .

t ng the idea of movement. oblique way of 1nterpre 1

I h mic Architectural<' docs embody. but the Pc ye 10

I ell manner, his views ol perception 1n a less unp 1

talion of constants across sub· and the interpre 1ec1s. tnteresungly. II is also a place where Le Cor-

. d ay from the composi tional and busier move aw

. I n butes of color and focused on II~ pamter Ya ri

I . act m everyday encounters with psycholog1ca imp a moving sub1ec:t. According to Arthur Ruegg. Le

Corbus1er derived his approach from physiologi

cal as well as psychologrcal eff<'cts of colors whrch

could fully unfold in the white space. Vice versa,

he also took its legitimization from the laws of

percepnon and associauon that are presumed to

be constant, from the unchangeable "mc!canisme

de remotion."" His color concept in th is respect

dilfers from that of the Dutch de S1l1I movement

or from German post·exprrssionism.19

Helmholtz. Henry. and other psychologists

whom Le Corbus1er read argued chat color

exh1b11ed certain psychological and physiological

effects th3t were constant among different view·

er>. Blue for example, made forms recede whereas

brown stabilized them Smee Pcssac. Le Corbus·

1er had bttn expenmenung wuh this employment

or colors However. Ruegg reminds us that Le Cor

busier sk1~ped thesc1entlhcally determined color

schemes, •uch as the classified color circle of Ost·

wald. and conncc1ed directly to the daily expe.

nenres of people with colors deployed polychro·

ma11cally around them It was not the 1ntnnslc

qua lit 1es of materials 1ha1 he was after. Instead

he wanted to understdnd 1hc1reffcc1> and the con

Stonts that they d1splaytd 1n the chaos oF daily

life. Moreover. while he distussed color as a fJctor

that affected the tompoMtion of archlcccturc to

a stauc viewer !It recedes fro m onu position at

one point :n time), 11 15 the free rlan that removed

che boundaries between rooms and allowed for

the different color~ to interact independently of

the forms that they covered. The free plan makes such ideas as the "Rose Room. b I f • o so Cle. It there· ore encourages using colors polychromat lcally

against each oth~r. The Polych • I

rom1e Arch/tee· ruro e. Le Corbus1 •

ers Systematic approach 10 the :eployme01 of colors, was established in the 1930s ora paintcompa 1 ny. twas then loosened h

1950s s h up in I e o t at dec1s1ons could be b d

observing the effect of colors on ase more on •ng to Ruegg thl h viewers. Accord·

• 5 appened att h newcollect1on f I . er t ecreationofa

o co ors en 19 lime as th C 59. around the same '

3'1>entcr was b · w <'ing designed. e can also go back

to find a rule of to Ccstalt psychology movement th · ·

one Le Corb . at cs similar to the uscer may have b

ulate. A second ecn trying to artic· , generation of c

gists released th i estalt psycholo-fi e v ewer from th

xed laboratory ch . e confines of the th acr and from th I

at they would . e •mited results get in matun h

8 t e viewer look at

pictures simulating motion Uh' · •mately .~.,

posed that perception of molio d'd '-'<J Pt11-n 1 not

connecting different static •mag Occur by es and com

them, but rather by identifying h Piri"t W at Wis A ...

and what changed with movemem S ·-. ome thtt"'-

or such an alternative to the P•ct 1 ""' ona 111o4e1

movement could be traced back 1 of o early~Ui

theorists, but the development of aco . . mprt~nsc"'

theory of v1s1on based on chis model took plaq

after the Second World War. lames Gibson . . u

Arnerrcan perceptual psychologist who had Si>fllr

some time researching how pilots or th ttnt ein. selves in the scarce environment or the sk

Y·time to realize that neither the restricted environm,

111 of the lab nor the pictorial approach to percfptlo~

suffice to explain how we see in everyday life.•

He shifted the emphasis away from the rttinal

image as the effective s1imulus for vision, aw~

from the image, towards the totality of tht envi

ronment, what he called an "optic array.""~

ing to Gibson, when we move within thinrny,"'

make sense of the world by way of reta11ni ow

movement to what he called "mvariant p1nem1

en the environment," certain constant propenm.

as opposed 10 variant patterns, or thost1h111-

as we move. Invariants are properties or p3n~

that remain constant when the obserwr, thetmi

ronment, or both change their position. RKflll

elaborations on Gibson's idea disctm two rypes

oF invariants: transformational invariantUlfpil·

terns of change that can reveal what Is happe!UllS ,

to an object. for example, when an objecc mom ' away from the viewer at a regular spted. Its appM·

cnt area (the size of the angle apprehcndtd It

the eye) diminishes in a predictable manner. Tiit decrease of the area is proportional to che squut

of the distance. Whenever th is relationshiplsp1tl·

ent It must mean chat the distance betwetn thr . • 1 repl1r

viewer and the ob1ect is changing '"

manner. Gibson and his followers placed a strol$ of surl.it11

emphasis on the role that texturts

play in the orienta11on and guidance of !lltVI: in a space. Structural invariants. the second~

h t remain~,. are a higher order of pattems t a It.

fore~P stant despite changes in s1mula11on. dii

the horizon ratio, the relationship belll'ffn d1s11nctfr9I"

height of the object and its apparent vftt'd nowingtht

the horizon remains constant, a . fltf;. •t 011 as t~

to locate the object's real post 1

them moves. 11tl'OO' . ,,._,tilt I

Cibson's ideas qu1cldy cauis" oflP . . H ublished 50rnt

of artists and architects. e P fr~ud'rl!' . . . nals and was . .J research m visual ans 1our r1idtll"

·11 seri8Son• " featured in the George Bra11 er l ll"ot fre<jllf~I y .

by Gyorgy Kepes. He was also lect~rtd i' · (who

by the likes of Rudolf Arnheirn Good,,.... rl Nelso~ .. Ill

and about the Carpenter Cente · ,.·bSon. P" . I tor of vi ~

a philosopher and 111ter oeu . n"' llO" atte~llO ut11f

insist tha1 we should payclo~e . Of'(let io

ists construct their own worlds in

"' . .. ~

,, .... r:.- ... I•• ..

J J 1..-

l

f I stand better how the perceptual world works.22

In brief, this "direct" approach t o percep· tion, what is also referred to as th • 1 .

• . e eco ogical approach, shifts the emphasis awayf . rom pictures and towards invariants constants It 1 • · e evates the role of such attributes as ratios, textures, and

spaces between objects because of their ability to

guide the moving subject. Importantly, as Gibson

observed, the reliance on these invariant attri

butes increases in a rarefied, empty environment.

CONS TANTS IN AC T ION

In an empty building, pictorial compositional st rat·

egies would be impossible to employ. The Carpen·

ter Center's spaces rely on a series of invariants

in order to delineate the spaces. Accounts of the

building design agree on the importance Le Cor

busier gave in this project to materials, textures,

colors, and surface treatments. It was necessary

for him to capture a rough and continuous texture

for the ceiling and to maintain a regularity to the

floor patterns in the studio spaces, as if for the eye

to measure against them. Whenever he employs a

smooth surface, with the exception of the columns,

a gradated texture is used in order to introduce cer

tain references in this surrogate environment.

A strong emphasis is also placed on bringing

the horizon line into every space. be it in the form

of a retaining wall that runs behind the pilot is on

the street level entrance or in the form of a shelf

that is placed almost at eye level to tie the curva·

tu re of the room and its brise·soleils together. The

curvature of the studio walls is exaggerated by the

ondulatoires so that even in the absence of direct

light, they appear curved.

In all, however, it is not so much the specific

material qualities of things but their relational

qualities that seem to affect our perception in

motion. Textures are not understood as intrinsic

qualities but are to be experienced in relation to

each other. In keeping with the criticisms presented

against it, the Carpenter Center seems to sepa· • · · I" model of rate almost graphically, the p1ctona

the promenade from another, vdirect" one. This is

perhaps the aspect of the building that Le Corbus·

ier was most dissatisfied with, and it shows most

clearly in the way that he republished the plans

of the building by including the interior ramp

going from t he third to the fourth level. This ra~p would have acted as a continuation of the exterior

· ·ry between the ramp and established a conunu1

two models. However, the constants do not always oper-

. 1· h . the emptiness ate as cues, as guiding 1g ts m .

of the studios. Le Corbusier also uses these attn·

butes of his building to deliberately confuse move·

t r effects We are ment or to feign certain coun e · .

·th dularized paneling constantly presented w1 mo .

h rete against 1rregu· systems imprinted int e cone

lar patterns in the floor Sh. . · my surfaces are juxta-

posed against rough ones. Th d I . 1

e on u ato1res not on y emphasize the curvatu b . . re, ut given their irregular spacing, they also confuse its apparent

curvatu~e, p~rticular\y as one moves along the

wall. It 1s as 1f by playing out th 'b ese attr1 utes of the architecture against each other h _ . • e 1s remind· ing the occupants of the visual arts center not to

fully trust their eyes. Giedion insisted in his dis·

cussion of the Visual Ans programme that the psy·

chology of vision was much more important than

the opt ics, particularly in the electronic age that

he was heralding.

THE PURIFICATION

OF ARCHITECTURE BY THE VOID

Much is yet to be said about emptiness in archi·

tecture, a phenomenon once described by Le Cor·

busier as the ·purification of architecture by the

void."23 It would be impossible to elaborare 011 all

aspects of the rule of movement in Le Corbusier's

architecture by studying only one building. Even

if, as Stan Allen astutely observes, the Carpenter

Center is a place where Le Corbusier's concepts

are condensed, we would still need to follow the

way in which the rule was employed more dia

chronically." Still, this alternative proposes that

if the free plan had been initiated by releasing the

interior space from the constraints of structure,

this freedom could only be fully gained if those

aspects of architecture, formerly understood as

secondary and isolated qualities of form, are ele

vated into constants that operate according to the

rules of movement. The effect produced by the emptiness of the

Carpenter Center and the challenges presented to

its inhabitation recall some of the techniques of

eighteenth and nineteenth century Picturesque

composition, particularly in the work of Humphry

Repton. Repton's designs forced the viewer to

change position in the landscape in order to be able

to determine the actual measurement of objects.

Jf an object is viewed from one position, the

deliberate distortions of ground, reflections. and

ed I. zes of comparative objects all contribtamper s

. . g the viewer a false measurement of ute to g1v1n , Pie the object being contemplated. In Reptons .

. - the difference between the appar· turesque 1t 1s

d the real that prompts the viewer to move. ent an 1 r

. earches for true measurement. mpo . The viewers .

. . t'll moving from one static tantly. the viewer is s I . ed ic·

. . ther relying on one compos P pos1uon to ano ' . . f

fcer another but trusting none in itsel .

ture a · laces f 1 d the stroller triangu L'ke the surveyor 0 an · 1 1

• 1

fi the object of his contemp a· before bemg ab e to x . the

d true dimension and against tion in place an . 21

. of the landscape designer. deceptions . . the games of mea-

Le Corbusier maintains

from fixed points and com·

1 but departs suremen h we can detect a more funda· positions. perhaps ere

I t

·l \

·\ ...

mental cinematic inOuencc on his architecture but•

one that does not rely on •stills" orthe "freeze.frame

approach maintained by the abovemenuoned cin·

ematic interpretations of his work. In the "Amer·

ican Prologue" to Prku1onA, Le Corbus1er chal·

lenges any Hollywood director to capture what he

describes as a cinematic moment:

in an ordinary Amal! re.otaurant, two or three cu.4·

tomerA are havin9 coffee and talking. The table iA

Mill cowred with 9IOAAeA. with borrle,;, wnh platu.

with tht botTle of oil, thP ..aluhaker, pepper mill.

napkin.i. napkin rin9, etc. Look at the i11evitable

order that relate,; thue ob1ecu to each othPT; they

have all been U.Aed. they l1ave been 9rcuped in the

hand of one or the other of the diner A; the dutanceA

rho! .i.eparat<? between them are the mea,aure of life.

He goes on to criticize the Hollywood ctne·

matic approach by saying. "There isn't a false point.

a hiatus. a deceit .. . no false harmonics. fakes.

dodges.""' It is through these mechanisms of film·

making that we can think of the work of Le Corbus

ier as cinematic, not because of the guided view·

ing along the ramp that connects between different

static views nor for the ribbon windows which

frame the panning view as 11 11 were a hlm, but

because of,1':;ol"...!'liJ>~ion of cons~:!'J.i emp . uerthe sp~•MM!!l!U~l.

Commenungon cenain associations between

film and Le Corbusier's architecture. Arnaud Fran

~01s ~roposes that Le Corbus1er relied precisely

on this quality of emptmess to introduce a differ.

ent cmemat1c vision mto architecture. Beyond the

cinematic understanding of an architecture that

cannot be perceived fully from one point of view (a non·perspectival architecture) franr . th • h ' ,01s proposes

at t • more the elements are situated on I that d. Panes

are istant from one another th tension be • e more the

tween them increases Th tion or concordant and discorda~t o e orchestra. source of th ' . biccts is the 15 spacing. Cinemato tive 1s a medium 1 graphic perspec.

or expressing ten · beings and Object h sions between . s rat er than a unifi

toal a priori "tl r . ed and spa. . ran~o1s reminds us th .

gelo Antonioni had at M1chotelan. very slullfull

quality of emptines . h y exploited this Jtis , . sm is films.

•• 1f tl1e represent . ment takes place on th a'.1onal model of tnove· f eexter1or and

o engaging movement . another Form of th c 15 reserved I

e arpenter Center H or the inside with a . ere, we ar

n architecture that d e confronted the CC>nventional unde ~.s not even allo-w for

rstand1ng f o the cinematic

in architecture to take place. for when you enter . u experience it all at once. There

a studio space yo f 'cws Eventually. however, you

is no sequence o v1 . . . different way. The drawings that

start seeing tn a

d f P ·s to Boston drawn by Guillermo travele rom an Julhan de la Fuentes. an apprentice fascinated by

the films of Michaelangelo Antonioni and his rep·

rcsentation of spatial emptiness, render the tex

tures of the surfaces very expressionistically as if

they were the main attribute of the space and as if

they contamed a code to the archit ects on site as

imponant as the shapes and their dimensions.2&

This recalls the way the lonely figures move in

empty spaces of Antonioni's "Red Desert" and the

way the crisp outlines of their colored coats rub

against the rust of industry and the rough tex

tures of weathered walls.

Ultimately, the rule of movement does not

only govern circulation, figurative forms. and

ramps. It operates in the free pl an beyond the

guided path of the ramp and the confined frame

of the nbbon window. It extends to the articula·

t1on of the building's surfaces and planes. These

two approaches to vision in motion, even in the

Carpenter Center, need not be mutually exclusive.

Sttmingly opposed ideas about how we conceive

of architecture, whether as an image or as an array,

as full or as empty, could be reconciled or at \east

held in tension with each Other, even in the same

spaces.29Th1s possibility is heightened in the Car·

penterCentergiven theostensiblera mp. the peculiar

relationship with the context, and the emptiness.

It is the pursuit of the latter, less obvious approach that has d · '

nven this inquiry. Whether in the Carpent C

er enter or elsewhere in Le C busier's a d h Or-

n ot er architectures th. of describing and d , . · is approach betw h estgnmg the relationship

een t e building and h . diff . t e viewer emphasizes

erent attributes of archite v1ously bee d' cture than have pre·

n 1scussed whe . motion. Wh'I . n 11 came to vision in

I e re·1nvokin rials, formal . . g concerns about mate·

compos1t1on a d approach mak . ' n construction, this

. es tt possible t d Without hav· 0 a dress movement

. tng to agitate th f without beingfi e orms or the path

SUral. and with . ' In this approach . out being narrative.

·attention h' ft to the background h . s i s from the object

• t e field (Aft: may very Well be . . er all, the field th emptied of ob·

e lllaterials of Jects.) For example constructio '

PGsed in a relation I n a.re selected and com. heh a manner b

ave in moti , ased on how th f on, not as ey

sitional logic docs not merely aim t o tn\ial!Ct

movement, to heighten the sense of mor . . 1011. By

manipulating the constants, orthe illV;ln• •ntS,tfit architect is also able to feign different speeds and

different perceptions of depth and size than tht

actual ones. Architecture is not simply an objea

that fills the 11isual field. In its decepuve •rnpu.

ncss, it simultaneously plays the role of a SllJTo

gate visual field and its foil. The building provides

a sense of diminution in depth. a surrogate hon.

zon. and patterns and textures to measure ag;iinst,

but it also interrupts their function as invariants.

Even the delimitation of the space. the hrld of

vision, changes in motion. Spaces are enclosed

in a suggested, incomplete manner and the gradi

cnts of enclosure change with movement. Yet in

such a rarified environment, it is not the arch1·

tecture that is eventful. It does not captivate lhe

viewer's attention with its own forms and a~r·

ent transformations but pushes back and allows

the activities in the space, that are nt'lertbt

less guided by the architecture, to become tht

events. Through this approach, it is possible to

think of an architecture that anticipates ewnts

rather than creates them.

o observatio b propenies of the b' n ut a b o 1ects

s ackgrou.,,d. Th~colnllo. - - - -

)

t...

HO TES

1 •• ~· 1 • ll.I tl a lect~re lrom ·constructor>g V1st0n." a course that I teach at the

-r'?': ~·H.a:e Sctl()OI o1 Ot><ogn I am indebted to \he insights o! !he students 1n lh1s

~i-~• l • a sta5~IOl\S w1'.h Eduard Sekler, Francesco Passanh. Guillermo Julhan

"i'....-·t P·ts'on Scc11 Coll<>n a'ld Geocge ea.rd I am also very grateful to Lauren • ..:•~ ~· ca .. •u a"(! '>s Qhtful comments on this paper and for her crnema\1c v1s1on.

I ):-~;~t<!oO"I. ·~;Carpenter Center for Visual Arts der Harvard·Univers1lat 1n Cam·

~-.,. '" • &'Jffl • ~Ollntn VOi 18. 118. <Zurich, August 1964). p.331-334

I S. '111' , ~.,..~ Hottheock. 'Le Corbu~1er nna the United States." Zodiac 16, 1965.

4 ' .... ; S.• t< ana W·ll lm Curtis, L~ Corbus1er al Work, The Genesis of the Carpenter ·' •., ~•5va1A11s !Cambridge H&r.ard Un1vers1ty Press, 1978). p.57

5 '. •:G4<l•IY• "NewVcnlurcs m Un1vers1ly Building (Le Corbus1er. Sert)." Zodiac 16 ·>- > O'I

1 ""~ .... , ~-ssell H•tcticock, · Le Corws1er and the United States.· 1 ~· •· i•\C ;ss0ons occur 10 the question~ ot dist ribul ion of uses arour>d \he notion of

'" .>;,· t." <.J •dh4> " O•k of B•ll Hillier on how space rs used T™' defln1t1on of movement •ot

1''-"to oesogn tiere naqo do with the manrpulaloon of form that responds to the

·'•'Q."11 Pf<cep•ua· tramcworl. when one 1s 1n motion 1 "ht>i.is 1'

i;, "' ·•1s "'•fh Students Fr,,m fhe Schools of Architecture (New York: The OrlOft

14 1'(11 0 41-45

' Ei.-1··1~ ~.?. '\&. P~t>hc.11 a~ Puvacy, Modern Arch1tecture as Mass Media (Cambndge:

t1>.1!b4, ~

' ;., ~" 11 ~.c "*' ........ ~tt t-.i

· s book Vision •n 1979 in wt11ch he presents a compotational approach I~~ ~C'eotlOf\ A

·.,., ""'• ccord.ng to this apProach. 1n1trally. a primary sketch is formed I H41>eaa 1•

'"'':v ...__ .ro-cross1rio of an image Zero crossings are sudden changes"' i ..,,..,.a...,

1"' "'"a. are "'Osl!y related \o shape rather than to color or medium changes. ~ "'~"&ten tO<lsists ma1n1y of very faint 1mpressrons that remain very subject

!...,,.,"'.,.'. •sca•1ec1a2·d•metis1ona1sketch1s then 1ntens1fied from this Information. _,,.,II 11 Sl1ll •1ag 1 t'<~~~J<.<1a1 1 ueand also subiect based. the 2-0 sketch beg11'ls to suagest

's;age loth °'"'· which becomes better sculpted in a following stage. the 3·0 ~"(•'st)! Os"

1851 staQe. the visual process breaks the image down rnto simple

~lllt ~<(s ,0;e ano then recogn11es the ob1ect by rdent1Jy1ng the composition of theSe ~st 'Prelation ot lhe f "°~"O '°S'Ofl perceptual process !orms the culmination o years ~- ttie rei, •• ,asan

1nd1rec1 process which Is achieved more by inference from an

....... ·~ ''llftge Some !or '11>a1 tOl\tr~ th · , limes Phys1olog1c11I evidence 1s inferred: the number of

~"'"" ee~smove h that ~ . .,.1, lo the boo rn&nt from \he brain are more numerous than t ose ·~·•lat'l>1$are ,.,~ 81

" · A\ Other tunes. simple experrments and complex mathematical •• 'tllroaJ ......, In all the Oe f I"" it ~ it · 1 a 1s that when we move, we see by way of trans orm .,... °'""" ts a Shll 11T1ag .,., ""°"lodoe lOda e presented to us "'sequence but transformed Into

"frocl.,e.,"'O. Y !hrs lllOdel prevails over any other form of interpretation of ..._ "c0rri -. "ii DIAatlOl\ll a

'°"'lo detc,tbe lll>r~h. unlike a P5YChologocal or physiOlogrcat app<oach, the visual Pfotess d1rec:t1y but to model it. simulate it for olhe!

'. : ' .. ,

purposes, but inadvertently, it helps explain how ll'e YtSuat-menfat process actunny works. The pictorial (or freeze frame) 1nterprelatl0fl of movement"' the free plan

confirms Marr's modef See David Marr. Vis10t>, A Compc,t•lional lnveslipalJOn wo tht

Human RetxeSMfat1on Ind ProceS$mgofV.sual lnfounaticn (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1982).

12 SIQlrK!d GredlOO, Spece, Tmw and Archrte<:/Ufe, Tiit Gr(IWfJr of a New Tradl/IOt> (Cam· b<1dge: Harvard Univesr1ty Press, 1976), p.~

13 For a discussion of the retatiorl$h1p between psychology and art and architecture. -Mark Jarzombek, Tht Psrcho/ogllltlflO( Modt1nity (CambridQe: Catnbo'1doe Unrvtrarly Press. 2000).

14 Cohn Rowe and Robul Slutzky, 'Transparercr lrterat and Phenomenal," rn TM Math· ematrcs of the Ideal V1tla (CambridQe: The Ml1' Press. 1976). p, 159-183.

15 Ozenfant arid JeaMerct, La Pelnture Moderne (Paris:G. Cres. CoUectron de •L'£spril

nouveau." 1925). p.165.

18 Charles Henry, •Latuml~ro. La Couleur, La forme." Suite 4 fl), L'Espr1t Nowe1u, #9,

p.1068-1079.

17 See Arthur Ruegg. "le Corbvsier's Polych<omie Architeclurale," rn Polych1omleArclrll«·

tu1ale, (Basel: Blrkhauser. 1999).

18 Ibid.

19 It 1s important to note fhat Oevtd Marr. while try1rc1tomodel"'°""""enl1'111ially used 1

.

I ......... \hal \hey reqcired as oompleu process of\nterprt • G•bson's invariants bu cone ......... tion as that of his images and were nol afwayseasy to detect

I •-oat:h lo v-sual Pelceplion (Hitlsdatt. NJ· Lawrerce 21 James J. Gibson. An Ecolot}ica ,,,,,,..

Erfbaum Associates. Publishers. 1986).

ho was one of the maK> interlocutors of Gibson. See 22 Recrprocally. NetSOll Goodma;· w (lndJanapolrs· Had<etl Publishi"!I Company, 1978)

for rns\ence. Ways of WOtldma •"9

23 See Arthur Ruegg. op. ed. isl Mo.emenl. The Carpenter Center fat ~t 24 Stan Allefl. "le Corbu51er and Modem t Tecfl()jque 1>nd Repr1Mnt1IJM (Amstor·

C bridge lolA • Practice: Archrlee ure. Arb. em • • 21XXll 121• dam: G+S Arts 1ntemet1onat. • P. . nd New York: Ho<>QMOfl

T"• Art of Landscape Gardenmg \Boston a 25 Humphry Repton. •~

Mltfl111 Company. l907l· id e· MIT Press. 1999). p..9.

26 LAI Cortiuslar. Prkls1ons. (Cambr g . cle te Corbos1er." C1n4mll~ • c1nematograpNe de roeuvre

27 See Arnaud Francoos. La 1 tl0r1 from original Freri:h te•l ~ p.SO my trans a · ot

9 (Sp11ng 19911). P. • ' tor ·nhoO me in the direction

28 I am grateful to Guillermo Jvllian de '::,:~:v:ioft between the lheo<ie• of colOf Ant onion• but also for h.elplng rne ma

nc1 the theories of motion. mocieis could be~ to a ~~~- ~ I Saxandall h8S •lreadY itfustr•. 5ee t.1iehael SaJ<a,->dali. S/lldOWS

29 M1chte lghtenme"t pa1ot111ps. effeclll'$1Y d~cnbe E: .. ...,. Yale urwersltJ Pten. i9!18) . Enllphl~flment (Neo;r .

Cuitur•I d ' entl! rn11

Y. then·forc orna11c held of •emerges a; a complex

• il<it r oprrntions th ' >not d(·h at engages with ~la • ncd by ic,,ll•cture. - lultur~I ar11tact; such

h •s n P•·rhaps 1 it•nn a • >y following th d,l{ ' narr.,11on· e notion of the

our~ - of id. 8h<bi • • pur lorwdrd b 'nt11y as a kind of

•ith·1

ycultural th Stand •wee an or cori~r Homi

•ng lo o dsp the im d'l{o r111 "'bring. pr>rtance of under·

. ur,e. Th 1n5crihed . . 1Uhu

1

J e ndlron 1

Within a cultural • Plob · or l.lhabh· · ••y •n <>ra11011.'T a, ts cna~tcd as a "'"at 0

pcrcctw th '"r 'nd ivc '"rm . c nation in this 10

con1rs ; "to highlt h t n,

1 l\•d natu g t the discur·

l11n1h re of 'd "''«·I rough .

1 cnt it ics: "To d Ydr It> n~rr Stu y

,,1

aw •tt <111vc: add . "•I, •n11on t n•ss do!!s not

" o ""• o "' la n \\!II. II th mnis to alter guagt• and rheto· ~u•i ~ Prob the tone 110

0, lrmai; . . eptual object

1~~1 ihf• • t closur _. . d •n~P<l totaliz~110 . c of tcxtuallty

111,. ~•t tv~ 0 ol n · "'"1a1 vaJu<' II(" . at1onal culture

'"n h , in di I • I rough Wh' ~paying the wide

i1·h we con•truct the I L_

,_ field of meanings and symbols associated with

national life."' Of course, it would be wrong to reduce the

narion to mere narration.as though form were totally

unimportant. Rather we have torecogniserhe nation

a~ being defined within a dialec1ical tension. It is

a tension, tor 13habha. between the object and irs

accompanying narrative: ·~ignifying the people as

an a priori historical prescnc~. a pedagogical object;

and the people constructed in the performance of

narrative. its enunciatory present marked in rhe

r<>petition and pulsation of the nauonal sign.'3

Jf.

then. the nation is a kind of narration. it is never an

abstract narration, bur a contextualized narration

inscribed around certain objects. And it 1s within

this held of objects that have become the focus of

narrative atti>ntion that we must locate architecture.

as a language of form5 not only embedded within

various cultural discourses. but also given me3rung

by those discourses.

This brings us close to Pierre Bourdieu"s

concept of habirus. as a non-conscious system of

dispositions that derive fTom the subject's eco

nomic, cultural. and symbolic capital. Habttus. for

Bourd1eu is a dynamic field of behavior. of pos1·

tion·laking. when 1nd1viduals inherit the parame·

ters of a given sttuation and modify them into a

new situauon. As Derek Robbins explains: "The

habitus of every individual inscribes the inherited

parameters of modificauon. of adjustment fTom

situation to position which provides the legacy of

a new situation."'Th1s approach supposes an int~r· action berween social behavior and a given ob1ec·

tined condition. It JS here that we may locate che

posiuon of architecture in Bourd1eu·s discourse.

Architecture. in Bourdieu·s terms. can be

understood as a rype of "ob1ec11vate<l cultural cap-

11al." l!S value hes dormant and in permanent

potenual. It has to be reactivated by social prac·

tices that will. as it wer<'. revive 11. In this respe<t.

~ .. fJ-- : .. ..

.. ~ _, "

.-. ..

arl'h1tcr1 urc ht•long> 10 tht' samrt·atcgory a' 01lw1

cultur~I ohJN t'

A/1l1m19h on1PcrA - A11ch QA /wok.& <>r p1cllnP11 - can

be 11a1ei t1> lw tlw 1vpo,1irori<'" nj ohJPcri11ated cul·

r1m1/ rnp11a/. rliry /ww 110 11a/11p 1111/r.M rlwy arP

OCFll'Ot1•d Mmrrgirn//y ill t/1p pre Milt by thOM> .&Pl'k·

n19 to modify rliru 111cor,,orated rnlr11ral capitol.

All rlw.oP obiecr;, 011 •Phid1 c11/t11ral 1•ul11e /w.& evPr

l>r1•11 be.Mowed Ii<> prr11N11ally dormant waiting ro

ht' n•11w~1d. 1vartmgfor tlreirold 11nllu1 ro he uJ.Pd to

f".t.tabl1~1r uru1 pa/w' m Q new markl'r .Mtllat1on.5

In other words, what Bourd1cu highlights 1s the

need for pr.1x1> 10 unlot k the meaning of a11 object.

Th•s comes clo>c to 1h1· Wittgensteiman model

whereon hngut,t1c meaning is defined by use. Ju>t

as words can he understood by the manner in

which they an• used. so buildings c;rn be grasped

hytht• manncru\ which they are perceived - by thP

narratives of use on which they arc instribed.

This opens up a cr ucial problem within a n

Mchotectural d1>course that has trad 1t1onally been

p1 etnl><'d almost solely on qllest1ons of form. 11

1s a; though nMrilt!Ves of u>e stand largely out

~1dc a1ch1tcctural t.oncerns. As a 1csult. ther(' ts

no a(.(epted framework for examining how people

mak<· sen>e of place and identi fy with 1t . Without

th1>. the relation of ar,.hitecture to cu ltural iden

tity 'an hardly be addressed. In order for archi·

tN 1ure to hC" understood 1n 1erm~ of cultural

identity, some kind of 1dentihcat1on with arch 1·

tenure must have taken place. But how does this

1dent1hca11on occur'

rht> a11tcle attempts to address this ques

t 100 by ~ketch mg out J sc.;hen1atic. f ramcwork for

• tent•t1w t lwory ot 1dent ifirat 1on with plarc

hy ho mgmg toge1her three discrete theo1 etical

models Starting w11h a theory ot how we terri·

tortalt7.c and make sen>e of place through a pro

Ct>sS of narrativizdllon. it goes on to investigate

how a sen>c of belonging to that place 1s achieved

through pt•rforma1 ivot «·s. be tore h na lly •uggest .

1ng how cvt•ntual identification with .1 panicular

plate 1s forged through a wries ot m1rronng>.

N ARRAT IVI S ATIONS

In Th<• /'m((ICP "f f,"wryday Lif1•. Mochel dt• (,., ..

tt•,1u ha' dcwlopcd a tlwory al tt•n 11011Jlizat•on

1hwugh 'l>at1,1l tallrc~. Through h.1bJ1u~l pro

CC'.\\t'~ ol movl•rnem, hy covl'r1ng dnd 1clovt•r1ng

thl' o.,ame p.trh-. and 1ouh·-,, we LO mt.~ 10 lam1l1anLt'

our,clve' with ,1 t<•mto1 y. and tlwr<•by hnd nwan·

111g in lh•t tc:r ritory.•

Dr Cc·1 lt'<lll draws thl' <l1st1nction hetwt~t.·n

"pla< e" (11cu) and ">pan··· (t-spa<eJ. Somt·what con

fusingly. hr rnwrts their u5ua l rl'i•t t0nsh1p 'o

that sp•cc bt'tome' ·' tontexlu•ltz•t1on of- pla(.e.

SpacP occur;. a.& rl1r ••ff Pct prnd11cPd by rhP oppra·

r•1· '' I . I

uon.6 that r,ru-ut it. AittuJt11 If. tpmpnraliz1• 1t, and

rnak1> H fu11ct1011 m a polyva/Pnl unify oj '011Jl11 ·

t11al pro9ra11u or t'011tmc1ual pro1wnHIPA In thU.

VtPll'. in ri•/Qtion ro plucP . .1>pare LI /1kP I/Jr word

wlwn 11 Ill r,pok<?n, t/1at I.A. w/,.,,, rt i.A cou9/1t 111 "

l'roximrty of a11 oc111a/ri:ario11. rron1oj(m1wd i11ta a

term drpvndvnt upon many d1ff<?re111 conwntJon.o,

Aituured a.A an art of a prl?.Al?llt (or of a timP). and

modifwd by 1l1P rra11r,forr11atio1111 catJAPd by .&ucrr.o·

11i1J1> context11 .. . llpaa 1.11 a prarticed plan'- Tluu.

rhe Mrvvt 9eo1111>tncallydefi11ed by 11rba>1 p/u11ni11g

1.11 tran11fomwd mto a /Jpare by walker A'

The problem of space 1s. for de Cerreau.

ult1ma1cly a problem of representation. With

Maurice Merleau-Ponty he draws the d ist1nction

between geometrical spate and anthropological

space. famou,Jy observing the imposs1b1hty of

grasping the concept of space as a map, with his

description of New York as seen from the top of

the World Trade Center. De Certcau is close to

Fredric Jameson·s concern for cognitive mapping

in h b quest for various tactics that overcome

this problem.• Hence he formulates a "rhetoric

of space" that amounts to an individualzzed pro·

cc~s of spatial demarcation. based on a linguistic

model of narrat iv1ty. "Th e opacity of the body," de

Certeau notes, "in movement. gesticulating. walk·

rng. taking its pleasure. is what 1ndefin11ely orga

nizes a here in rcla11on t o an abroad. a 'famtl1ar

ity" in relation to a 'foreignness'. A spat ial story is

on its minimal degree a spoken language. that is.

a hngu1stic system that distributes places insotar

as it 1s art icu lated by an 'enunLiatory focahzat1on· .

by an act of practicing it."9 The city turns into a

theatre of actions, narratives of space, pedestrian

speech-acts: "It is a process of appropriation of

the topological system on the part of the pede,.

man C1us1 as the speake< appropriates and takes

on the language); it is a spatial acting out of a

place (just as the speech-act is an acoust ic auing

out of language)."'• It is about tours and not maps.

II any map is achieved, it is not some abstract

map, but an ondiv1duahzed "cogn1t1ve map" to use

]•meson's ll'rm. In oth ... rwords it i·s b f orn o a strate· g1c engag<'ment woth the c11y. and does not reside

on t he City •t>ell as a col ll'ction al building>

·ro walk." note, de• Ccrteau "•s to la ·k I · c apace.

It is the mdehnitr po occss of being absent dnd in

sP~1Th ol d prop~r.''" A\ !Jn Buch b anon o serw~ th» suggest> th<• r~ltancc otdc Cerreau on Lac ,,' l"or H i, h, dn.

t ' tr~umat oc morrar·>tdge - and the

"'cm1ngly paradoxical attempt to overcome that

alienation through •Cpe!1tion a•d . · ~ cmon~trated Jn

F1eud"s <'Xdmple of the <.h1ld playing the tor1·da

game - rhat establii.hei. Lacan's primordial place

on de Certeau» work. Sp;,cc mu;! h th e eonied by

mean' ot the mirror stage, and >pa!1al prdctite'

are none other than iepNnivc- geMure~ ctimc•d

at overcoming the alienation al all conc.,ptual.

ab~t rttrt s.pact•.AsdeCertt>aucomment ··1 . .!:.. n the 1n1·

, .. ~, .. , ...

~ pme. ~ as in th• 'joyful activity' of th•

cMld wt.o. -"liinc before a mirror. SttS itself as

°"" (il tS sbt or tw. -n as a who~) but another . h wtuch thr child 1drnuf1rs l1Nll. an imatr W1t

~• h"s 'spatial it-'11. wh~ countS IS the process U'I t I

c;ap1arion' that in~bes the passage toward the

olM as. the law of Ming and the law of place To

pracl>C"t~isdlus tottpHt thr1oyfuland s1ltnt

rxpen~of dnldhood. It u .. in a p~. to MOthrr

•"' tO - row;uil the o~r."" What dr Crneau

IU1IC\llatrs. then. 15 a model for how we mal<t sense

of ~ thrcKl1lh ...tking practices. and rep•m

those pncuces as a .ay of ~ming ahenauon.

&y b.sing his model of spaual appropnauon

on hngu11ittcS. ~ Cenuu emphasizes the narra·

t~ aspec1 to spaual stonts. Spatial tactics offer

"Ways of malung connecuons, and finding mun·

"'I tn otMTw!S4! abstract places. But dr Crneau

u~ hn~ about the actual 1dent1hcat1on with

those q>aCH. ~ing mott conceml'd as a theorist

wnh othemru th.an w11h ass1m1lat1on." If. then,

w wioh 10 exttnd de Cennu·s thtory for making

1erue of p\acr into one which establishes a modt

of td<>nuhcauon. we mu.i also consider howthtn

.paual tactlCs I.rip to forge a nnse of 1den11ry.

1!ELONGING

Here we should turn to tht work of Jud11h Butler,

who has elabonited a v1s1on of id .. nt11)1 that 1s

bu.cl on tlw notton of ·pertormat1Vlty." Butler

1s a lh"'nst of lesbian pol11ics. and her concerns

an to fonnul1te a nouon of tdent11y that is not

censtr1111.cl by trad111onal heteros"wal models

and to offer a Dd1cal cnu~ue of usenttalmng

l'IWMIH of thtnlung.. Accorchng to Butlu. our act ions

and lwNvlor const1rute our 1dMlity. and not our

btoloSJCal bodies. Gender. she arguu, is not an

ontolos•cal condmon. but 1t is perforrnauvely

pnlduc...S. It JS ·a construction that conceals 1li

aenn1s. the tKll collecuw agyttmen1 to pe:rfonn.

prod~ and SVStam discrete and polu genders

as culturalflnions is obilCU~ by the crl'dibiliry

of th~ producnons."" By extension - without

wuJ\tnc bl collap$e sexuahry. cla$S. race and eth·

n1aty into th• same catraory - all forms of 1den·

my ean ~ 1111erpret...S as dependent upon perfor·

ft\All~ COASIJ"\lctt ...

the present. it conceals and d1ss1mulates the con·

vent ions of which it is a repetition.""

to place can tht'refore be understood as an aspe~

of territoriahzation. and out of that belongtng

a sense of 1den111y might be forg@d. The attrac·

tion of forurr's apphcauon of performativity 10 place 1s that II resisu more static notions of dwell·

ing emanating from Heideggerian discourse that

seem so tit at ease with a society of movement

and travel Whal fomer proposes is not so~ dis

course of fixed 'roots'. but rather a more trans;.

tory and Au1d discourse of temtorializationin the

Oeleuz1an sense. whrch provides a complex and

ever renegotiable model of spatial •belongings.•

fon1er's model is essenual\y a rhrzomic one of

nomadic 1ern1orializat1ons and deterritoriahza·

tions. for territoriah:tallon belongs to the same

logic as de1erruorialiut1on. The very provisional·

ity of terntoriahzations colludes with the ephem

erahty of any sense of belonging. Just as terri10-

riahza11on'.'I are always shifting, identJf\c.ations

remain flttung and transitory. while leaving

behind traces of their passage. As Bell comments:

This has obvious ramiflcarions for a theory

of iden11hca11on with arch1ttcture. Butler's mci·

sive comments on g<'nder 1dent11y being dehned

not in biological terms. but in performallve terms

as an identity that is ·acted out· can be profitably

transposed to the realm of identification with

place. This makes poss1b1le. of a discourse of

performauvity and 'belonging' as Vikki Bell has

shown.11 ·rhe repe1111on." she notes. "sometimes

n1uahst1c repetition. of these normah'l.ed codes

makes material the belongings they purpon 10

simply descnbe."1• It suggests a way 111 which

commun111es might colonize vanous terntones

through the literal performances-the ac11ons.

ritualistic behavior and so on - that are acted

out within ag111en architectural stage.and through

those performances ach1rve a certain attachment

to place.

Cen1ral to this la11er no11on 1s the idea that

just as communities are 1mag111ed communities.

so the spaces of communities-the terntones that

they have claimed as their own - are also 1mag·

in...S ·imagining a community." as Ann~Mane

fon1er observes. ·1s both that which 1s created

as a common history, experience or culture of a

group - a group's belongings - and about how

the 1maginl'd communil)I 1s a11ached 10 plllcH -

the locauon of culture ..... fortier has eumm...S

how through rituahz.ed repe1111on of symbolic

acts, often conducted wuhin an ovenly rehgious

context, these imagined communities can "make

matt'rlal the belongings theypurpon todescnbe""

Crucially Lheu acts are performed w1thm s1>«1f\c

archuecrural spaces.

What then happens throu&h these i.rylized

spaual practic"s 1s that i;pacei are demarcattd

by cena1n croups by a lund of spatial aPJll'Opna

11on. Through the repe11uon ot thOS4! ntuals. tl\ese

spaces a.-. ~membered, wnh pan1c1pan1s rem·

scribing thems..lve• 1n10 lh• space, evokina corpo

r<'al memories of previous truoC\ments. The rituals

are naturaliz.ed throu&h these corpor..al memory

acts. and the spa~s tn which they ~ enactl'd

become spaces of belon11na:

B,/ongint}A refer to both ~ioP!.A' and opp

arunanrt. Thor i.6. pracncu of group idmtity

ore about monufiacrvnn9 04/turu/ o.nd h~tonC"o/

j),/0119irtl}A whidt morlt our trnu.iJU of commonol·

/ty rhar d'lin.at11h1 pol1tia ond-'Ocial dynomiu

of'Jft1ln9 iPl.0

•

The concept of 'belonging' as a product of

performatlvity enables us to go beyond the llmlla·

tions of simple narrative. It privileges the Idea not

of reading the envU"Onment, as though Its meaning

"The rhizome has been an rmponant analogy Ii.re,

con~1ng as 11 does an image of movement that

can come 10 temporary rest in new places whrle

maintaining ongoing connec1ions elsewhere.••

Butler's discourse extends Pierre Bourdieu's

debate about hab1tus. Sh<' adds the possibility of

pohtJCal agency.and of subvem11g received norms.

Through 11s repetitive c11a11onal nature. that ~"

lormat1v1ry has the powertoquestion and subven

that wluch 11 cues. for mimicry. as Homi Bhabha

has tllustrated, is 111ves1ed with the potential to

desU.b1hu and undermine. as in the case of polit·

1eal sa11re. ~rformauvny. tn this sense. 1s not

some uncrittcal and ulumately nihilistic accei>-

1:1~ of the gwen, but rather a mode of operauon

charged with a cenam political efficacy. Moreover,

whereas Bourdieu stresses the production of the

subject through culture. for Butler, social stnK•

tum have themselves been performed. Hence ~r·

formatlVltyoffers an obVlous mode of ch;alle1111n1

those structures. ln an age colonized by •fictional

worlds" (as Marc AugE has described our prestnt

en>. Butler locates perforrnativiry at the hean of

our cultural identity today."

Yet 1£ ,... are to understand belong\ng as • product of performatllliry. we must st\\\ constrUct

an argument to explain exactly how \his comes Into

operation. The argument above merely wulllltS

that a sense of belonging will emerge as a~ quence of propssive iemtoriahution. wltholll

fully accounting for this procHs of \den11Rcati011·

We may rean1C\ll11e our identities and rem·

Yent ounehH throu&h our performatlvlt\'5. Here

II 1s unpc>rant to note I.hat 1dt'nllty Is the effect

of periormanc ... and not vice versa. Performativ·

lty Kh.-s its aims not through a singular perfor·

mance - for perfonnativity can never be reduced

to perionnance - but through the aCC\Jmulative

ltentwn of certain pracucu . for perfonnat1vity

is srounded 1n a form of c1tationality - of mvo·

ca110n and rej>lacarion. A5 Judith Butler explains:

'Performativlty Is thus not' singular 'act', for it Is

alw.-ys a reiteration of a norm or set of nom1~ and

10 tM Qtmt that It acquires an ac1·llke status In

were simply there and wa.ltlng to be deciphered,

but rather of giving meaning to the environment

by collective or Individual behaviour. Belonging

.·

.tity. a~ticlty. and aU ltlM!s Qf COl\tent are

~ ~ 9uilclings. according ro ~-do not hav.e any \nhettnt meaning. rk latMSOn. _ ve5™I

l'My&n! usentlally intn. ~d •re merely m

wilt\ tM&ttlng.• Walttc' Benjamin. i---.addsa crucial gloss

'°~~SSH of rnnojection and projection:

.ii.till~ .,,. oppnlf'riai.d in o rwofo4d "'onMr.

by._ud by ~on_ orrutlltr. by roudi and

...,.,. Slocll ctppropriori01t conn or bt mtd,.-Atood.U.

- of rltt arr.111iw c»ft<'fHtrori<»t of o roumr

~ 0 fa.wtow. buildtll9' On tit• roctilt ;,1dt rhe,..

w no COM1ttwrporT ro conmnplorion on rltt> opr1co/

...,,,... TIM'filt oppropnotiO#t iA o«o1npJiAhtd nor .60

111..c1t by amiuio" o.i by ltobir. AA l?C)OrdA orrhi·

r«flO'f. habit dttrnttitotu to o /orve unnr ~·

OfHicol rtt'lpfion. nw lott•r. roo. ocrurA muclt I~

di~ rapr 01m11ion rlton by noridnq IM obj«f

i1t rn<idtftrol [o.Altion. TltiA "'od• of oppropriorion.

"-"OIHd l>'irll ~t:'f ro orcltrrKTurY. in CW·

rcu" cirnilllAtoll<'U otqtHIYA cononrcol volut. 71tl'

rcW:A ""uclt ~Ht. lt11n1on oppcironu of Pf"ttl"

llOfl or tltt "'"'"'9 pc»nU of hutory connor IN

40lwd by OflfK111 tMGIU. rhor iA. by contentp/o·

tielt. o/-. T1lty g,.. ltlOAIPrN CJfOdUa//y by habit,

tmdtr rht 9111donr. of rocrilt oppropnorion. •

In Benjamin's tenns. buildings are appropri·

ued. ~Y are intro~ed - absorbed within the

psyctr. not 1us1 throush vision, but also through

touch.~ may extend this to 1ndudethe full n!gts·

ter of s.nsH. Moreover, for ~njamin. these appro-

. h setf onto the external wh · 1e the projection of t e . l r reflection - the world leads IO a second type 0

. . f the self in the other. In either case. recogruuon ° · to a fusing

f 'rroring results leading a type o mt

0 ize a

between self and other. Here we can rec gn

second onler of mlrrorings. for m1rronngs occur her-en the self and not only in the engagement

I between that engagethe environrnfnt. but a so . gagements. An ment and memories of previous en

1 d m all similar originary ellperience ts repea e . . ·n-s And that process of repetttton rein· exper1. •• · . I

forces of the original moment of idcn11fica11on. n

. h b' t as a rituahs1ic rephcat1on of this sense a ' - f certain experiences - consolidates the process o

identification. The seemingly stalk model of tdentillcation

fo~ through a reflection-as though in a mirror

- appears at llrst sight to contrast markedly with

the more dynamic notton of tdentity based on per·

formativity. And yet. if we perceive the former

as being grounded in intentionality. we should

recognize the acttve dimension to the g;ize itself.

for perfonnallvity is not merely a quesuon of

physical performance. It extends also to modes of

perception. s uch as the gne. Butler has already

addressed how the gaze should be seen as the stte

of performativity 1n the conteXt of race:

1 do dunk rhor there I.Ao p11rfomtonvity to thegau

rho.I iA nor Ai"'ply the rron..1pcuirron of o rextuo/

modtl onto a vi.auo/ one; rhor when wt,.,. Rodney

King, wit"' wv Att rhor video we a,.. al.Ao rrodm9

pnadons are relnforttd by hab11. Ht're mt'mory iA 0

C'fTToin ronjuring ond o cmom C01UtTUct1on.

p~ys a crucial role~~*~ How do •~ducnbe thotl It Attm.6 tom• thot thot

ond ""'or. al.Ao con..1rlnmn9. and thot the rrodrn9

• ~ llnJ>uls<IS lu · •· ~ iA 0 ~ry of per{onrtorMry, rhor it I.A rodicol·

.. ,~--~~~~tion. rhor rhr kirid ofvuuol reodmg proctict

=·~-mifiar qou into tht viewing of thr video I.A port of ,. ---r · what I would underAtond QA tht pufrmnativiry of . .bi·--· impulses; they constl· whor it iA 'to rllc. ..t.0merhin9' or to be 'road' by If. run our baclqrround horizon of uperience. In tlus

~~ ldent11lution is as an ontologtul condition

consolidated through mt'mory. We could the~

fott ref1ec1 upon the model of the oneiric house

of'fHoed up by Caston Bachelanl in TM Poeria of ~ • 11 ts precisely the odor of drying raisins -

paral~lling l.efelwre's equally f'VOa.tiw d~rip

tion of IM 90Und of si"lllng echoing through the

clO\Sters - tha1 po1nh1 to the Proust:ian way in

which t~one1nchouse1sa type of intTOJectionof prt'Yious expenences.•

Identification with ii particular p~ce may

~be perceived u a mirroring betwttn the

subject and the environmcru - time. Here we

might undcrsurnd the subject, in Metz's terms.

can be both serttn and proj«tor, fw in moments

of kkntillcation we see OW'S4!lves in objects with

which - haw become familiar. Al the same time,

- ~ il'ltrojected them int o ourschrcs. 'That reg·

isttring of Im.pulses ~ads to one t:ype of t?flection

- tM l'fCO&nltion of die othtt in the self. Mean-

So I Aup~ thot I'm intnv.red m the modolitiu

of ,,.,-{onnariviry rhor rakt ir our of ii.. purely

This can be ~ended to the gue as the pot en·

tial site of an identificatton wi1h place, since any

act of viewing may be charged with a conscious

moment of politici:r.ed reading. Visual attachments

might therefore be rud as containing an active.

perfonnuive moment. What applies to the gau

may equally apply to the other senses. What we

find, then. is that ldentillcauon based on a pro-

cess of mirroring is but a variation on the active

identification with place embodied in ritualistic

patterns of behavior. Through the repetitive per·

fonnativities of these various modes of percq>

tioo. a mirroring can be enacted and a sense of

identification with place can be developed and reinfwced through habit.

CONCLUSION . ~ud once remarkrd. is like a rr-rtrd Identity. n c

I S and former identifications. AJ1'.tonc of lost ove ' d t -ficattons we could include architec-these ' en r •

Through a complex process of makins tural ones.

f lace developing a feeling of belonJing. sense o P •

t ally identifyingwith that place, ;in tdtti· andeven u

be forged againSt an architectural bac'fl. tity may . d' viduals idenufy with an environment, drop. Asm t

. .d t 'tty comes to be constituted through so their 1 en

ment This relates not only to individ-t hilt environ · ual identity, but also to group identities.

Architecture therefore offers a potential

h . for inscribing the self into lhe envi-mec amsm

ronment. It may facilitate a form of identification,

and help engender a sense of belonging. From

h. . t of view architecture plays a potentially t 1spom • . rt nt social role The significant factor, how-1mpo a · ever _ beyond the nature of our architectural

environment _ is our engagement with that envi

ronment. identification is a product of the con

sciousness by which we relate to our surround

mgs. and not a property of the s urroundings

themselves. Nor does matter - in Butler's tenns

_ exist outside of discourse. As Mariam Fraser

observes, following Butler: · Matter does not 'exiR'

m and of itself, outside or beyond discourse, but

is rather repeatedly produced through perfonna

l\Yity. which "brings into being Of' enacts that

which it names ..... This approach brings us close

to Bhabha's and 8 ourd ieu's observations on the

ways in which culture operates. It allows us to

understand architecture as a syStem of objects

situated within a cultural d iscouru, deriving ils

meaning from that discourse .

All this helps us to reassess the relationship

between architecture and cultural identity. The mft

sage is clear: we should focus not only on architec·

tural forms themselves - for - 'WOUid ht ~

to dismiss these forms as irrelevant - but also on

the narrative and perfonnativ.e discourses dw P them their meaning.• With time the specific fora.

tu res of architecrural forms tend to lose their promi

nence, and slip into becoming pan of an unnotkd

and marginal background landscape. If tdentity is

a perfonnativt construct - if it b acted out Wee

some kind of film script - then an:hitectUl'B afl

be understood as a kind of film set. But iris 85

a ti.Im set that it deriYeS meaning from tM actMties that have taken place ther-e. Memories°' asaodated activities haunt archmctme lib a gtwiet.

. .:.· ·. '

NOTES

r..,. ~,pi>ta!.on t'lat cr 11cal regionalism may contribute 1n some way to cultural identity is made. at ea>t. 1n one of the chapter htl~•. "Cr1t1ca1 Regionalism: Modern Architecture

a"I! CJi:ural Identity· used by Kenneth FramptO'l 1n his seminal study. Modern Architec·

:.·c A Clo/iea·St(J(/y (London: Thames arid Hudson, 199'2). But 1t appears that Frampton

1 ,,..St• !\osexpiorcd lh•s connection 1ust once, briefly. "Among the P<econdihons for the ~rg<-nce of a cnt1cal regional expression 1s not only sufficient prosperity but also a

str:ir<; de' re for rea·1s1ng an 1denl 1ty. Oneof the mainsprings of reg1onahst culture is an

o<'icfrtr st se<ihrr>enl - an asp!ral•on for some kind of cultural, economic and politocal •'ldllpt<'(ienc• ·· Frampton. ·Prospects tor a Crrt1cal R~1or111hsm." Perspecta 20. 1963.

>l<1'!' B'lallha. "lntroducuon" 1n Bhabha ed • Nation and Narration (London. Routledge,

·;p: o'

> >k 'lcOOiM. BOcJrdieu amJ Culture (London: Sage, 2CXXJ), p.30

'°"' p'.lS

fl '.ne de Cen~au The P1acl1ceof Everyday Life. trans. Stephen Rendell (Berkeley: Unive<· .11 'Ca !O'"•a P<ess. 1~)

ll>d p117

8 Jdr-<:>O<I aoa1i<es the t-iomogen1Z1ng p:acelessness of late capotahsm through the conlus· ~ sw1,.11afOU' of the vast atrium of the Bonaventure Hotel 1n Los Angeles. He goes on

I? s:uciv the process ol what he terms cognitive mapping as a means of inscribing oneself

"I"' er.,.ronment and overcom•ng this placelessness. In his vrew, capitalist society e1e<y1t\ir,o into signs. images and commod11tes. so that the world threatens to

~~ de!lth1ts> But aesthetics also promises a way out of this cond1l1on. While 1t <Olll••b<Jles lo the aeslhehc1zat1on of the world. 1\ promises to counter that tendency by

lff'lirga ~han·smof Identification. Jameson's a<guments suggest that we need today 4 •ial)I!, aesthetie P<actice that reinserts the ind1v1dual within societ y. Aesthetics may

se<"'asa '°'"' ot cognitive mapping. We therefore might recognize the primary social 1c.lt Illa! arcti,lecture may play

DeC"'ltau oP Cll p 13'.l.

tO 1bv.! P.97.ij

11 !lid ' P tm. "Proper- here appears to be referring not to ·propnety" but to a sense 't ·app,OJl'•at•on·

12 la.R.~ • . . -·ldllOn Michel de Cerleau (London. Sage. 2CXXJ). p.106-120. 13 0.Cl!<tea h •

· u, oP cit, p.1w.110. 'Caplation• might equally be translated ·appropria on. 14 See 10< e•a "'-· the

Ot m.,. •. h,, book on otherness: Mochel de Certeau. Helt!rolog1es: Discourse on lit1 trans B

rian Massum1. (Manchester Manchestl!f University Press, 1986). 15 Ju1n~ Butt

Peiform I ., GendP1 Trouble (London: Roulledge, t990). p. 140. as quoted in V1kk1 Bell ed ..

1' ~ a mty Md Betongmg (London: Sage, 1999). p 3.

Pe,:'K""s,e' tt>e l>OSS1b1lity of understanding Jewishness 1n this light 1n Vikki Bell ed .. ~tlt>n ~at1v1/y Md Belongmg. See also Sne1a Gunew. •Performing Australian Ethnicity:

emoden~o" W A I /'an w,,,trs •noc "' . Ommundsen and H. Rawley eds .. From11D1stanc~: <Iii ra I

11 4

ulturat Displt<'fment (Geelong Deakin Umversity Press. 1996). P l59-17l ,. t~ Butier, Bodies

11 "~" I.hat Matter (London: Routledge. 1993) p.12. 1 "~llerj Pe ' 11 ., • • rformati•1ly llfld Belonging

...,. D~

al ""'~ " · ·~~fortie< 'R · ( i· 1rrVtkk• ""11 eo . ~!ormai · e-memtienng Pieces and the Performance of BeJoriging s •

ti lbQ • P 3

"11

tanct Belonging (London· Sage, 1999). p.42.

22 Ibid., p.42.

Z! Ibid., p.9

24 Marc~. A War of Dreams. trans. Liz Heron (London: Plu1o, 191l9~

2S For Bu lier's engagement with psychoanalysis, see especially Butler. The Psychic Ufe '1(

Power: r,._~ of Sub1ection (Stanford: Stanford Uruversity Press. 1997).

26 Christia.n Metz. Psychoanalysis and the Cinema, traf\S. Cella Britton, Annwyl Williams. &o Brewster and Allred Guzzelt1 (London: Macmilla._ 1982), p..a

'n Ibid., p.51.

28 Ibid., p.52.

2i Ibid .. p.54.

30 Waite< Ben1am1" One·Way Street (London: Verse>. 1979), P-3'2~

31 Robert Vlscher. Empathy, Form and Space, p.104.

32 If we are lo look tor a model of the way In wllich content might be Ullderstood as a kind

of 'prO)GChon' we could consider the WO<k of IN! PoliSh·Canadian public. artiS~ Krzysztof Wod1clko. who literally projects pohtically loaded images onto buildings as a commentary on the politics ol use of that buildmg. In 1965. Wodiczko protected the image of• swasllMI onto the pediment ol South Air.ca House 1n TrafNgal' SQuara. London. This act was intended as a pohtical P<Otesl against the trade negotiations then underway ti.tween the apartheid government of South Africa and the British government under prime mfnlste<. Margaret Thatche<. The proj9Clion ol lhe swastika onto the building highl1ol\ls the condf. hon of bu1kl1ngs which have been blemished with the stain of evil His pmjection ol

content laden images on monuments and buildings echoes the procen by which human beinQS ptoject the>r own readings onto them. On the work of Krzyutot WodicVlo. see

'Publt<: Pro,ectoons' and 'A eon-salion with Krzysrtof Wodiczllo', October, 38, p.:H;Z.

33 ·1 h&ve come to lhink that no work of art or ctilturecan set out to be poll!ical once•nd

tor all, no matte< how ostentatiously 1t labels itself as such. for there can neve< be 8flY

guarantee th&\ it will be used the way It dem&ndi. A oteat polrtlC&l atl (El<echl) can be taken as a pure and apolitical art; art that seems to went le be ~eJy aesthel~ and (lecorative can be rewritten as political with energetic interpretation. The pohtleat

,..,..r1tino or awopr111tlon. then. the potilieal use, must be altegoriuli )'OU have to know

that th1& 15 what it is suwaseci to be or mean - In •\self 1t "wwt." Ja~on in Nell Leach

ed .. Rethinkmg Architecture. p.258-69.

34 Waite< Ben1airnn. 111um111atiollS. ed. HanoahArendt. trans. Harry~ (New'lbrlr.

Schoci<en Books. tlle9). p.233

The not on of oneinc space ,5 also central lo de Certeau'a concept ol space. As he

35 ' . •From this point of view. after ha\tloO compared pedestrian~ to II~ 00serves. brlf'G them baclc down "'the <kfeehon ot onell'ic llgu<ellOI\ or al tic formatlOrlS. we can~"~ Ide what tn spat18l practio.. 15 inseparab4& trorn Ille cJ<ean\lld ie~t discover on th&t ""'~ 5 · place." de Certeau. P. tQ3.

Poelks ol s~. trans. Maria Joi• (Boston: eeacon !?res&. ~), 31 Gaston Bactielard Tiit Thi! Pr°'uct1on of Space, trans. Donald NichOfoon-Sm<ll> (Oxford:

p.13; Henn Lefebvre. "" kwell Publlshet'S. Ltd., l9'11). p.225. .,.ac Race Aid~· IA 8ltl ed..

llltermwed by Vikki BellJ, ·QI\ Speech. :rJ Judith suttvr ( n., ·no (Lond<>n: 5801!. 1998). p. 1e11.

Per(ormllll'llY and"" Ofl(J' ·--o.-· ibod .. p.ltL

38 MarMllTI Fraser. "Cla-·.., ' ~ood in ,,.,.q.IM i.ms.as . pie, shOUld be rnc¥* praJ)9fty .. .

se Thus reoi0nail9(1], for •"'111 a discourse of reglon&liSm·

. . '' t .

Contributors

STANFORD ANDERSON d ted in architecture at the 13 in 1934 He was e uca

was born in Minneso . . . h ld PhD in history of art . t nd cahforn1a, and o s a

universities of M1nneso a a . d Architecture and fTom Columbia lln1versity. He is Professor or History an I nu1e of

. th Massachusetts ns 1 Head of the Department of Architecture at e . d Technology. He was a resident Fellow of the Institute for Architecture an

Urban Studies in New York.. 1970-72. He was director of MI T's PhD program . A 1 nd Urban Form from in Hjstory. Theory and Criucism of Architecture, r a .

. 6 H "s a registered architect. Its founding in 1914 to 1991 and in 1995-9 · c 1

. . h" t ral theorv early modem Anderson's research and wnting concern arc ttec u · , . d b · nd architecture in northern Europe. Amencan architecture an ur anism, a

~istemology and historiography. He has published in numerous journals; his

Peter Behreiu: A New Architecrure for rhe Twentieth Century was published

by The MIT Press in 2000.

BERNARD CACHE

began as a senior consultant in image telecommunications and digital televi·

sion where he conducted strategic studies for companies like Philips, Canal

Plus. France Telecom and Fl"anceTelevis1on. He has wrincn articles on communi·

cation. economics and policy in newspapers like liberation and M~diopouvoir;,

and taught social sciences at ESSEC and information economics at IFP .

His writing on architecture includes €arth MoveA (MIT 1995) and

Tl!Yre meuble (HYX, 1997). He has lectured in Rotterdam (1994), Oslo (1995),

Amsterdam. Pans, Geelong. Melbourne, Adelaide. New-York, Yale, Los Angeles, Columbus (1997).

As an architect, he developed the Objectile software with MISSLER. In

199f>. he founded the company Objectile. together with Patrick 8eauce and

Jean· Louis lammot. Since September 1998, Bernard Cache has been Associate Professor at the Faculty of Architecture Landscape d 0 .

. • an es1gn {AL&O) at Universiiy of Toronto

HUBERT DAMISCH

~: t:~ f:~ulty of the Ecole des Hautes Eludes en Sciences Sociales in Paris istonan and philosopher, he is the auth f . .

and Fmlrre JatmP Cadmium as well as Th . . or o Theor1e du Nuage The NorciAAiJ.ric City. e On9m of Per;,pecti11e and Skyline:

DIANE Y. GHIRARDO

15 Professor of the History and Theory of Architecture in Los Angeles, Calif.

. Site received her M .A. and PhD from Stanford University orn1a. • was a Fulbright Fellow in Rome in 1976 and 2001, and a fellow of the American

Academy in Rome in 1987-88. In 1994, she was president of the Association of

Collegiate Schools of Architecture. and was editor of Journal of Architecti;rll)

£ducation. She has published articles in numerous journals and magazines,

including Journal of the Society of Architectural HLltorian..i, Art Bulletin.

Journal of Contemporary HiAtory. lotw., Cite, Harvard DeAign Magorine.

Per;,pecta and Ccuabel/a. She has published four books: Building New

Communitie.a: Nirw Deal America and FcucU.t ltaly (1989); Out of Site: .4

Social CriticU.m of Architecture (1991); Mark Mack (1994); Architectur~ After

Modemi.;,m (1996), which received the Phi Kappa Phi award for excellence in

1997. Jn 1999, she was selected ACSA Distinguished Professor for outstand·

ing Creative Achievement. She is currently working on a book about women

and spaces in Renaissance Italy.

ELIZABETH GROSZ

teaches feminist theory in the Department of Women's Studies at Rutge~

University. She is the author most recently of Architecture from the OuUidr:

£.May;, on Virtual and Real Space (MIT Press, 2001) and has published

widely in the areas of contemporary French philosophy, feminist theory and

architectural theory.

ANN HAMILTON

was born in Lima, Ohio, in 1956. She received a BfA in textile design

from the University of Kansas in 1979 and an MFA In Sculpture from the

Yale University School of Art in 1985. Known for her large-scale ephemeral

installations. A.nn's work has been widely exhibited in America and abroad,

including The Museum of Modern Art in New York; The Art Institute of

Chicago; the Musee Art Cont emporain Lyon, in France; the Mus~e d'All

Contemporain De Montreal in Canada; and the Akira Ikeda Gallery in nura. Japan. Among her many awards and honors, she received a MacArthur

Fellowship in 1993 and was chosen to represent the United States at the 4Stll V · B · f Art facultY enice 1ennale in 1999. In 2001, she joined the Department 0

at The Ohio State University.

K. MICHAEL HAYS . h SchOolof ts t e Eliot Noyes Professor of Architectural Theory at the Graduate D . di Progrll111·

esign, 1-tarvard University, and Director of the Advanced Stll es ht In h ti ·tecture at t 2000 e was appointed the first Adjunct Curator of AIC

1 ditt• Whitney Museum for American Art. He founded and, until last year :el,,ed AJ..aemb/a · · · · ulture that 9e, a critical Journa l of a rchitecture and design c develop arch· _J

1tectural theory as a scholarly discourse. d' 5 a'"" ed Stu it

Hays received the Mas ter of Architecture ill Advanc . {TOii' the Doc f . d Critlc1sni f

tor o Philosophy degrees in History, Theory an )tflof o the M h . d the sac assac usetts Institute of Technology. He receive

Architecture from Georgia Institute of Technology.

"~

I I I ;

I ! l

. ;~

h wntten extensively on twentieth-century architecture, focus

HJI> as '.d 1 gacal issues in the history of the avant-garde and on current

<int ~n • eo o . . . . · - rchitecture and c nt1cal theory. His books include Modem J,~1e' in a . .

-arid the Po..1tl1uman1At Sub1ect (199i) and the recent Arcliitecture A'fh1trrrur, Throry.imn> 1968. both published by the MIT Press. He is currently working

h torv of architectural discourse from i968 to 1983. coa 1s .

LAUREN KOGOD Lauren Kogod teaches architectural history and theory at the School of

i.rchnecture at Yale University. She is a PhD candidate at Harvard University

and pramces architecture with David Smiley in New York.

NEIL LEACH teaches at the Architectural Association in London and the University of

Bath. where he is Professor of Architectural Theory. He has also taught

at the University of Nottingham and Columbia University, New York. He is

the author of ThPAnae..irhetic..i of Arcl1itecture (MIT, 1999) and Millennium

Cu/nm !Ellipsis. 1999): editor of Rethinkin9 Architecture (Routledge, 1997)

Archuecrure and Revolution (Routledge, 1999), The Hiero9lyphic..i of Space

(Routledge, 2001) and £-Future..i (Wiley, forthcoming); and co-translator (with

IOStph Rykwen and Robert Tavernor) of L.B. Alberti, On the Art of Building

in Tl'!IBookA(MIT, 1988).

HASHIM SARKIS 11 a pracucmg architect m Lebanon. His work includes a housing complex in

Tyre, schools in North Lebanon and designs for public spaces in Beirut and

Tnpch Sarkis 1s Associate Professor of Architecture at the Harvard Graduate

School of Design. In the past, Sarkis was a lecturer in MIT's Department of

Archnecrure and a research associate in MIT's Department of Urban Studies and Plann· H h · ing. e as also taught at RISO, Yale University and the American

Unrwrsuy of Betrut. Sarkis is the author of several articles on design theory. on llmenca h" . . · narc 1tecture and urban design, and on Berrut. He 1s executtve tdnor of . . . . · d

0.SE, a publication series of case studies m architecture an urbanism d d" ·1d· ·an e llor of Le Corbu..iier'.I. Venice Ho..ipital and the Mat Bui mg Rl\11va1 (Mun h· . 8 Lt ic · Prestel, 2002) in that series. He is author of Circa 195 •

bane,. in th Pl · · D e an.4 and PhotograpftA of Con..1tantino..1 DoxiadlA. (Beirut: ar an·Nahar, 20 . . . . . Pr 02l co.editor w11h Peter G. Rowe of Projectm9 Beirut (Munich.

estel, ,998) d . . . H . 'an occasional contributor to An-Nahar newspaper in Beirut. e recei~ed h

>-IArch is BArch and BFA from the Rhode Island School of Design, his from the G . , •

so. and his Pho in architecture from Harvard University.

ROBERT SOMOL leaches d

esign and th d U b n Dts1gn eory m the Department of Architecture an r a

at UCLA Hi . · d Studio in lo · s office, Pxs, just completed off.use, a residence an

5 Angeles.

... . 111'0} A.U f0NO~,y ' 116

MICHAEL STANTON

was educated at Antioch c II d o ege an Harvard University and received his

Masters in Architecture at Princeton University. He has worked in the offices of

Agrest and Gandelsonas in New York and Hartman/Cox in Washington, DC and

independently since i985. His design work has won an ACSA Design Award,

the Young Architect's Award from the Architectural League of New York,

the Biennial Steedman Prize and been selected for Progressive Architecture

awards plus several competitions. He was a fellow in Architecture at the

American Academy in Rome in 1990-91 and the first Aga Kahn Traveling

Fellow in 1980. He has published many articles in journals including Archi.A

and Modulu.& and has contributed chapters in the University of Minnesota

Press books Tl1e DU.cipline of Architecture on knowledge and Whitt> Popt'TJ.I

Black Mark..i on the African-American city. He has taught at The Institute for

Architecture and Urban Studies, RISO, Catholic University, The University of

Miami and, for much of the last decade, at Tulane University in New Orleans.

He was a Guestprofessor at the Royal Danish Academy in Copenhagen. He is

currently Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Architecture

and Design at the American University of Beirut.

ANTHONY VIDLER is Acting Dean of the Irwin S. Chanin School of Architecture at The Cooper

Union in New York City. He was the Chair of the Department of Art History

at UCLA and has taught at Princeton University where he chaired the Ph.D.

Program and directed the European Cultural Studies program. From 1996-1998

he served as Dean of the College of Architecture, Art and Planning at Cornell

University. Mr. Vidler is the author of C/aude·Nico/a..i Ledoux: Architecture

and social Reform at the end of the Ancient Rqgime, The Writing of the Wall.4,

Architectural Theory in the Late £nli9htenment. He is also the author of The

Architecture of the Uncanny and Warped Space.

GEORGE WAGNER . · the School of Architecture at the University of British 1s a Professor m . Columbia in Vancouver. His writing has been included in the booksArc"hrtecture

d "' . . m (Berlin free University), and Stan Douglas. He has edited

an ,-emmr...i .b. d I S 'towitz Thom Mayne, and Barkow Let mger, an

monographs on Stan ey a1 • . . . H d Oe.4ign Magazine Harvard Architecture Review.

published essays m an1ar ' journal of the Society of Architecture Hi.Atorioru, Center and Bauwe/t.

SARAH WHITING . f . r in the Department of Architecture at the Harvard Grad·

is an assistant pro esso . . · Cambrid e. MA.

S h I Of Des;'"' and is also a design pnnc1pal of WW m g

uate c oo .., ..

CHRISTOPHER WOOD d ' h ditorofTheViennaschootReader. . rt at Yale an 1st e c

teaches Renaissance a . (ZONE Books. 2000). Professor . · I Method m the 1930..1

PolitiC.6 and Art H1..1tor1ca . He has received Harvard's Jacob h. t Yale since 1992.

Wood has been teac u1g a h' Deutscher Akademischer . d Sheldon fellows ap, a

Wendell Scholarship an . f culty fellowship from Yale. . and a Morse Junior a .

Austauschdienst Fellowship, h l at the lnstitut fur Europ:i1sche b n a guest sc o ar rd

Professor Wood has ee l d a Junior Fellow of the Harva

h. hte in Augsburg (1994 • an Kunstgesc 1c

Society of fellows .

persepecta 33 mining autonomy

Documents