Critical Analysis of "Towards a Critical Regionalism" by Kenneth Frampton

1995 Scott Paterson

"Perhaps it's an over-reaction. But, at least in the North American situation, it became rather clear to me that there was this sort of very polarized discourse between high-tech on one side - although there is a very primitive school of high-tech in the United States compared to what is happening in England - and what I referred to, perhaps with somewhat unfair pejorative implications, as a kind of scenographic reduction of architecture to a scenography which makes a very gratuitous, or parodied, use of historicist motifs." K. Frampton 1 Instead of continuing the debate over this text as either reactionary or propositional, I would rather situate the architectural examples put forward in the text - Utzon, Botta, and Aalto - with those buildings that possibly generated this reaction - Venturi, Graves, and Rogers to come to some basis of evaluating the criticalness of regionalism and its priority in the resistance to the destructive forces of universal technology. Simply put, is critical regionalism simply veiling a more general unsentimental argument for thoughtful, sensitive architecture? 0. Ricoeur The text begins with a long quotation from Paul Ricouer describing the current state of destruction of traditional culture and its impetus by the universalization of civilization. The transition towards a mediocre civilization makes homogeneous the various cultures of the world problematizing the new growth of 'underdeveloped' cultures. The cultural past is put into question in the move towards modernization. Ricouer questions "how to become modern and to return to sources; how to revive an old, dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization." 2 This question asserts the necessity of a historical model of continuous evolution whereby lessons of the past inform future moves. However there often exists, as Ricoeur states, the requirement to abandon a whole cultural past in order to take part in modern civilization. If critical regionalism is a solution then one would want to know how a region is to be (re)defined under the circumstance of whole cultural abandonment and therefore its shifting boundaries. 1. Culture and Civilization Elaborating the Ricoeur quotation, Frampton discusses the state of building to be 'conditioned' by the building industry to the point of restriction. These restrictions extend to the urban scale such that any building proposal is either stripped bare to the elements of production or wrapped up in gratuitous facades hiding the bare reductive product. He categorizes these two approaches respectively as the high-tech and the facades of compensation to which we can assign some architects: Richard Rogers, high-tech and Robert Venturi and Michael Graves 3 , the facades. Coupled with this is the demise of the city fabric and thus its corresponding culture. With the onslaught of universal civilization stirred by increasing hunger for development, freestanding high-rises and freeways more concerned with utility, culture's expression of its being and collective reality are squandered. To this Frampton is reactionary. He is juxtaposing to his advantage the urban fabric of a typical European city with that of, say, Los Angeles or Houston, or for that matter, many larger metropolises in the Midwest. The underlying circumstances of each of these cities differs greatly and to say the solution, a critical regionalism, for one applies to all is romantic, and inaccurate according to Ricoeur. If a given culture must surrender to take part in modernization or if that culture were to be introduced to the universal project early in its infancy, i.e. Los Angeles, the impact of the transformation could actually be beneficial. It is presupposition that a European or even East Coast American solution applies to these areas. Here

regionalism truly surfaces-despite Frampton's attempts to retreat from it-as sentimental, thus explaining his attempts to attach the word 'critical', to position the work as resisting the described apocalyptic situation but also retaining the feeling that architecture is limited, at best, in its role to single-handedly solve the problem. 4 2. The Rise and Fall of the Avant-Garde This next section is used to demonstrate the role that the avantgarde, an inseparable aspect of society and architecture in modernization, has played in the past and its relation to universal civilization. From Neoclassicism to 1975, the avant-garde has held different roles. At times advancing the process of modernization, "thereby acting, in part, as a progressive, liberative form, at times being virulenty opposed to the positivism of bourgeois culture." 5 As times change the ability of the avant-garde to sustain a liberative drive diminishes to the point of removing itself from the project. Here for the first time Frampton uses the term world culture, a hybrid of world civilization and traditional culture. This is a subtle indication of the target at which critical regionalism is eventually aimed. The withdrawal of the avant-garde signals a 'holding pattern', similar to l'art pour l'art put forward by Clement Greenberg. 6 The avantgarde becomes a self-referential entity whose role in societal change is minimized. Despite this stance, however, Frampton states that "the arts have nonetheless continued to gravitate, if not towards entertainment, then certainly towards commodity and - in the case of that which Charles Jencks has since classified as Post-Modern Architecture - towards pure technique or pure scenography." 7 Critical regionalism is "also a sort of resignation, a sense of holding operation, a sense of resistance." 8 It is an attempt to preserve some ideal of what has been or what is today's culture. It is in a way attempting to put on the brakes of the avant-garde pendulum. Again we see the reactionary aspects attempting to reach stable ground but ineffectual politically. But is it really a region that is being lost to the media industry? So far there has been little said about actual regions. The discussion has focused around socio-political groups. What is a region? What is regional? 3. Critical Regionalism and World Culture The aforementioned holding position has a name, arriere-garde. It is situated equally between the 'Enlightenment myth of progress' and the reactionary return to vernacular forms. Frampton proposes that this arriere-garde position will generate a "resistant, identity-giving culture...having discreet recourse to universal technique." 9 Given a name the position is then strategized. Using Alex Tzonis and Liliane Lefaivre's "The Grid and the Pathway", we arrive at critical regionalism, a "bridge over which any humanistic architecture of the future must pass." 10 Critical regionalism will mediate the spectrum between universal civilization and the particularities of place. To maintain its critical edge one need be aware of the draw of Populism. This movement seeks to economically supplant reality with information, often in the form of imagery found in advertising. Critical regionalism, situated between and beholding, simply requests the recognition of both world culture and universal civilization. This recognition must mediate the world culture by 'deconstructing' the eclecticism of acquired alien forms and the universal civilization by limiting the economy of technological production. The example of Jorn Utzon's Bagsvaerd Church near Copenhagen built in 1976 is used to illustrate the different aspects of universal civilization and world culture. The exterior in general is constructed following the universal technique while the interior, in general, expresses the secular or world culture of the region, which is not specified beyond Copenhagen. The exterior built of concrete blocks and precast concrete wall panels is set up on the repetitive rationality of a grid. This is an economic building technique found throughout the world and largely 'conditioned' by the industry, therefore universal in nature. The interior, a billowing concrete vault is far from economic with its idiosyncrasies. Now this is where Frampton's essay breaks down. The idiosyncratic vault signifies sacred space, well maybe a particular space of importance but not necessarily sacred. Then he goes on about its

referring to the only precedent for such a form in a sacred context, the pagoda roof! He continues that Utzon cites this in an essay. But the next part is a stretch. The vault does not exclusively signify an Asian reading therefore it is secular(worldly, not of the church.)Why is this so? Precluding the 'usual set of semantic religious references' does not by default, secularize. Is an Asian reading so foreign as to throw the whole mix out of the sacred? This secularization of the vault therefore renders it in a way particular to the region, right? Well he says that this is a secular age. Where is he talking about? Copenhagen? If Copenhagen were particularly secular then this is a regional aspect, the vault referring to that, but also related to world culture in that it is desacralized. It is therefore not wholesale but critical regionalism the mediation of the sacred and the universal which is secular. In Copenhagen. This just isn't clearly stated in the text. 4. The Resistance of the Place-Form The last three sections develop a set of criteria, considering the mediation of the impact of universal technique and regional particularities, moving from the scale of the site, either urban or nonurban, to the body and its appendages. The Megalopolis is taking over the city. It replaces the place bound urban form with theoretical networks and distributive logistics. The universal technique generates placelessness, or an indistinguishable domain. Heidegger provides a metaphysical grounding in the which boundaries can be discerned. Boundaries defined as "that from which something begins its presencing." 11 Heidegger also shows that being can only take place in a clearly bounded domain. Only within such a bounded domain can architecture resist the pressure of the Megalopolis. Essential to Hannah Arendt is also the bounded domain. It is in this 'space of human appearance' that society exists and gains its power. Density of people living together creates the always potential interchange and action of a 'polis'. By contrast the urbanity suggested by Venturi paradoxically loses its reason for a collective. Families at home watching their televisions do not a city make. They don't care for urban form. They live in Megalopolis. The example of the perimeter block is given as testament to the defined space of density wherein lies potential political activity and a resistant place-form. Where is Megalopolis? This section seems to suggest an aregional approach to defining form based on a defined place. The two, form and place are inseparably linked by that hyphen between them. This can be applied anywhere. Frampton suggests that Venturi needs it as well as Melvin Webber. But the perimeter block? This seems again to be a European import. Diagnosing the condition in America as a problem to be solved with foreign agents. Which I would say is not always incorrect. 5. Culture vs. Nature: Topography, Context, Climate, Light and Tectonic Form As is evident in its title this section moves from the abstract general site condition to strategies of topography and so on. Modernization favors the tabula rasa approach to clear and flatten the site, thereby optimizing the economy of earth-moving equipment and also making way for the rational layout of building. This removal of topography is a gesture of the universal technique resulting in placelessness. Critical regionalism would instead embrace the topography as a manifestation of the regions geologic and agricultural history. This then would be transferred into the form of any building placed here, the building set into the terracing contours of the land. Consistent with the writing of Heidegger, is this revealing of form brought into being by the site. Mario Botta is cited as using the phrase, "building the site." This refers to not only how his buildings rest on or into the ground but how it reconstructs the site in its various forms, historical, vernacular, geologic, etc. "Through this layering into the site the idiosyncrasies of place find their expression without falling into sentimentality." 12 Not going into detail, Frampton applies the case of topography to the urban fabric and follows with a discussion of climatic response. By paying particular attention to the light conditions one must resist the influence of universal technique and its tireless repetition. The

window, a critical element in the expression of architecture, has the ability to inscribe the character of the region through its placement in the wall. The interest of institutions to have a controlled climate is antithetical to place-form strategies. The placeless character of museums and galleries in the even distribution of light is to be resisted by allowing an expression of the local light condition and climatic swings. The 'place-conscious poetic' can be guaranteed by the constant inflection of a region. The occurrence of the fixed window and climate control are sure signs of the domination by universal technique. However important these may be, the real issue for Frampton is the tectonic and not the scenographic. The autonomy of architecture, resides in the poetic resistance to gravity, the unmasked discourse between the beam and the column. This structure is not to be confused with the economies of skeletal frameworks for the tectonic, the relation between the material, craft, and gravity, is to be a structural poetic in contrast to the re-presentation or gratuitous coverings of the facade a la Graves, or scenography. Two problems arise here. First, why did he not explore these issues in the previous example of Utzon's church. Surely the lighting in the nave is magnificent. We are given little to go on. How do local lighting conditions determine a region? For Many places are likely to have similar exposure to the sun. Possibly he is considering this, too, in a poetic way rather than a technical way, i.e. not discussing the sun angles and its affect on the location, size, and shape of the window. Regardless, the strength here is the attention to thoughtful and sensitive architecture, i.e. where to bring light into a building, rather than a recourse with the region. The second is the male overtones to a poetic structure. The resistance to forces is akin to the power of man to fend of nature and all that garbage. Also, what is worse, the woman is resigned to surface treatment, scenography, and pure image covering up a demoralized skeleton. Anyway, the effect of this is to direct ones attention away from the critically regional and begin to consider this as a polemic on the tectonic. The kind of situation where one asks themselves what is he really saying. 6. The Visual vs. The Tactile Here he goes the extra mile to substantiate the priority of the tectonic over the scenographic. Through the example of Aalto's Synatsalo Town Hall of 1952 he describes the use a tactile surface's ability to make legible the architecture. The brick steps on the exterior leading to the council chambers affirm the foot as it meets each tread. Inside the chambers the floor is wood therefore giving another reading and so on throughout the building, I would assume. This argument follows a book I know titled Thermal Delight in Architecture by Lisa Heschong where she describes the constant reinvigoration of alternating hot and cool sensations experienced while walking down a tree lined street. But he never brings this transcendental tactile tectonic back into the discussion of a critical regionalism except to say that it resists the technical. 7. (Conclusion) By resisting the visual, and thus the perspective of Western tendency, Critical Regionalism brings to our senses all the range of human perceptions. Perspective as rationalized sight suppresses the senses causing a distancing similar to what Heidegger has called "the loss of nearness." 13 The tactile physically opposes this visual surfacing of reality, a medium conditioned predominately by the media industry and showing up in the architectural works of Graves, Venturi, etc. The return to touch will realize the poetics of construction, the tectonic. And the region? It has vanished. End Notes | top
1

Kenneth Frampton in responding to the question of why he is making the plea for regionalism, in "Regionalism, A Discussion with Kenneth Frampton and Trevor Boddy" The Fifth Column, 1983, Summer, p. 53. 2 Paul Ricoeur, History and Truth, (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1965), pp. 276-7 3 See note no. 2 in "Towards a Critical Regionalism" and page 53

from The Fifth Column article, an anecdote about Centre Pompidou. 4 Ibid., p. 54 Discussion of architecture as a marginal field in the project of the universal field. 5 Frampton, "Towards a Critical Regionalism...", p. 18. 6 Greenberg, "Avant-Garde and Kitsch", 1939 7 Frampton, p. 19 8 Frampton's description of critical regionalism in The Fifth Column article, p. 54. 9 Frampton, p. 20 10 Ibid., p. 21 11 Ibid., p. 24 12 Ibid., p. 26 13 Ibid., p. 29

Miscellaneous

critical regionalism's rhetorics Hello guys I need you guys help in defining some of critical regionalism rhetorics for my thesis or if you can link me to any site i can get info I would be grateful. 1) Homogenization 2) Myth for western technology 3) Paradox clash of values (culture vs civilization, modern vs tradition etc) 4) World culture 5) Architecture unauthenticity 6) Devoid humanity 7) World depleting resources 8) Ecological sustainability 9) Sustainable Development -- Ismaeel Audu, October 13, 2010 Contribute a response

Responses

critical regionalism's rhetorics Ismaeel, An interesting list. However, what does the word "Rhetorics" mean to you? I ask because my English Oxford Dictionary defines Rhetoric as "(Treatise on) art of persuasive or impressive speaking or writing; language designed to persuade or impress (often with impication of insincerity, exaggeration, etc.)" In other words, does this mean that someone who know the art rhetoric is more interested more in influencing an audience through the ability to speak well, rather than from conviction? -- Frank John Snelling, October 15, 2010

critical regionalism's rhetorics Thank you Frank for your response. I probably didnt use the word "rhetoric" properly. Its just the same way Keith Eggner used it in his paper "Place resistance: A critique of critical regionalism". He identified resistance as a rhetoric in Critical regionalism. I am sure he meant the word was defined implicitly by the proponents of this theory without over-emphasizing it. For my own case, I just wanted anyone who could help me define these words in the context of critical regionalism. A google search would not give you exactly what you need. Thank you

HARC 0730: Methods & Theories in Architecture

Week: 1 Intro
Readings for the day: Terry Eagleton, The Significance of Theory, from The Significance of Theory (New York: Wiley Blackwell, 1991) K. Michael Hays, Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form, Perspecta (1984)

Adrienne Ferris
aferris626 2009-09-09 05:17 pm (UTC)
These two articles, while interesting in their own right deal with opposite ends of the same theoretical spectrum. The Terry Eagleton article talks about the many different aspects of theory, the different forms it takes and the influences to it. There were two analogies he made that I thought were really clear and expressed very well what he was trying to prove. On page 27 he compares creating theory with thinking too hard about how to kiss someone and if you think too hard, you are bound to mess up, linking that to how theory can destabalize social life and thus supply us with new rationales for what we do. Stating that theory, while wanting to be new, isolated and even get rid of what came before (as he states is the case with socialists and feminists), is highly influenced by the past because that is what we know. I also found the connection he made between emancipatory theory and childhood really interesting and very true. The mindset is that of a child, to question everything as if it were knew, yet adapting to what has been learned. The Hays article, on the other hand, I had a bit of trouble with in that, I felt it was slightly hypocritical at times. The beginning is talking about Mies' work and the ideas of DADA where the idea was to destroy the past and find new unreasoned order and in terms of Mies to find a place in the culture yet with a form free of circumstance. Yet towards the end on page 27, Hays talks about repetition and how through repetition, architecture can resist an external cultural reality. Immediately after reading that sentence, a question popped into my head. But isn't repetition a reflection of cultural reality? In order to repeat something it has to be there in the first place to repeat which contradicts how it can resist reality. Maybe there's something else that I missed or the author's trying to hint at something else, but that was main part of that article that just struck a chord with me. (Reply) (Thread)

09.09.2009
rseavy 2009-09-09 05:32 pm (UTC)
I found Eagletons concept of theory or more specifically literary theory very interesting. He claims that theory is at five removes from real lifethat the object itself, what is being theorized on, is far from the actual thinking (or theory). I think this is true in a lot of contemporary architecture and architectural theory. In architecture today we have forgotten how the actual building is made, how it will weather, and it some cases how it will be used. We build complicated, sculptural forms, then place a box inside them (see Gehry, Hadid, BIG). Mainstream architecture has lost the tectonic qualities that exists in the dilapidated barns and silos that dot New England. These structures were built with a clear understanding of function and building techniques. Sometimes I wonder if we studied these structures and tried to capture there essence if we would be better off. (Reply) (Thread)

Ema Zubovic
emazubovic 2009-09-09 05:56 pm (UTC)
The Eagleton article was overly theoretical in some parts, but it made some interesting observations about the connections between theories and real life. I thought the idea that all social life is theoretical is not necessarily true, but I found the idea that theories exist "in order to stabilize our signs" very interesting (p. 25). From what i understood, it means that abstract theories are a way for us to intellectually connect the concrete things we do and say every day with language. I thought an important part of the article was the emphasis on history as an important foundation of theory. At the same time, i was intrigued by the idea that theory is like a return to childhood and thinking about concepts without assuming seemingly obvious solutions (p.35). In the Hays article, the viewpoint of "Architecture as an instrument of culture" and "Architecture as autonomous form" were presented as two opposing critical views of architecture, but I disagree with these "two prevalent perspectives" because neither can produce a complete picture of any architectural work. I'm also not sure what the author meant when he wrote that the architecture of Mies provides "examples of a critical architecture that claims for itself a place between the efficient representation of preexisting cultural values and the wholly detached autonomy of an abstract formal system" (p. 15), because I don't think that is consistent with Mies' belief that "Form is not the aim of our wok, but only the result" (p. 22). I think the question is not one of finding a happy medium between form and cultural representation. Taking Mies' idea, i think the problem, cultural purpose, and process of producing a

building, and the form it takes in the end are two things that inevitably go together, and not two different "perspectives". I don't know if I understood the author's point of view completely, but this is the impression I got. I would be interested to hear others' interpretations of this part of the article. (Reply) (Thread)

linds_paige 2009-09-09 06:37 pm (UTC)

Building on Ryan's comment about the disjunction between new architectural theories and design functionality (or lack thereof) that is obvious in many new, modern buildings, there was a passage in Hays' article that made me question the logic and appropriateness of designing buildings purely to satisfy and embody theoretical issues in society and art. When Hays begins the critique of Mies van der Rohe's architecture on p. 18, he begins with an introductory paragraph on the chaotic metropolitan experience (the cultural influence and lens of the age). After describing how the psychological conditions of the metropolis were creating a general atmosphere of personal worthlessness and abject despair amid the onrushing impressions and changing images of the world, Hays writes that artists of the time looked to their work as a means of not only resolving/overcoming this "debilitating dismay" but, REVEALING the problem to those in society who couldn't articulate the cultural problem. I can understand this would be a natural tendency for artists, as artists have been using art as a medium to comment and reflect on society for centuries, but is architecture really an appropriate form of art to do so? I tend to believe that architecture as a means of revealing societal problems (as Mies van der Rohe does in his 'formally illogical' skyscraper) is not such a wise idea. Architecture is too permanent and 'useful' a medium to simply use to create physical manifestations of societal problems. Who needs a dysfunctional building after the initial bang of the cultural statement is quickly passed? Can't there be more careful consideration of functionality and use within the architects ideas of theory and aesthetics, rather than simply creating a physical form of 'abject despair' and 'indifference,' which in my opinion would only have exasperated the cultural issues of the time? Personally, I feel that architecture should be a manifestation of more than (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-09-10 07:09 pm (UTC)

Reading Eagleton, I was struck by his notion that theory by itself does not have a merit, and that it only gains meaning when certain values are 'endangered' (theory used to conserve) or when values are up for review (theory used for reform, improvement). I think this can change the debate about theory in architecture. I think that a lot of theory finds a practical application in architecture (psychology, geography etc., and is directly based on and used to preserve or better human lifestyles. Critical theory, however, is further removed from daily life, and is shortlived in nature (the emancipatory theory becomes unnecessary once the goal is achieved). It is dangerous to built buildings that are 'ahead of their time' just as pieces of art can be, because people may not be ready to inhabit or use such spaces comfortably. When architecture is used as an expression of critical theory it becomes closer to a piece of art to look at than a building with purpose. These kinds of buildings become monuments of a historical sentiment within the landscape (the critical theory)more than objects that are celebrated for their purposive timelessness(build on certain theories reflecting on timeless? human nature). I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree with Lindsy(sorry if I misspelled your name) whether architecture should thus be or not be used for societal criticism, for although it may not be useful or effective in most cases, it does form a legacy of our development. Architecture is one of the only artforms that can make such a tangible monument in the landscape that reminds us of the steps we have been through (and give us identity and historical awareness, and gives excitement within the urban landscape) (Reply) (Thread)

jennifer_hock 2009-10-06 04:19 pm (UTC)

Week 1 readings [info]lmckenna September 9th, 13:20 In Michael Hay's article, I was very confused by Mies's "serial" building projects. On page 20, I followed and understand his opposition to the ideas of reasoned order and priori in a metropolis, but was confused to turn the page and read that towards the end of the twenties his projects were characterized as identical blocks built side by side and only manipulated to fit each particular plot of land. I guess I did not expect that in his search for a new type of order to fit the new city he would ultimately discover a monotonous and unimaginative system, with seemingly little regard for the surrounding environment. I'm very interested in his thought process. Also, I don't fully understand the "silence" he wanted to achieve between the buildings. Hay's wrote "It is the extreme depth of silence in this clearing-silence as

an architectural form all its own- that is the architectural meaning of this project." Is the silence derived because of the repetition and lack of variance between the building? (Reply) (Thread)

jennifer_hock 2009-10-06 04:20 pm (UTC)

Week 1 readings [info]lmckenna September 9th, 14:30 On page 25, Hays describes Mies van der Rohe's German Pavilion as "nothing less than a winning of reality." On the following page he describes Mies ability to "see his constructions as the place in which the motivated, the planned, and the rational are brought together with the contingent, the unpredictable, and the inexplicable." These different passages along with several others in the article as well as the pictures of paintings included, spurred a question that remained in the back of my head throughout the entire article: is architecture a form of art? I've heard this questions discussed in various history classes without answer. However, the depth of thought experienced by these designers, and the ways that critics and theorists analyze different projects (like the German Pavilion) it seems like they are describing art and sculpture more so than a functional space.

Week 02: Form and Formalism

Readings for the day: Forty, Words and Buildings, "The Language of Modernism" (especially pp. 23-27 on Rowe), "Form," and "Formal" Le Corbusier, "Towards a New Architecture: Guiding Principles," reprinted in Programs and Manfestoes on 20th-Century Architecture Colin Rowe, "The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa" from The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa and Other Essays

Week 03: Function, Program, Tectonics

Readings for Monday (function and program): Forty, Words and Buildings, "Function" Hillier, Chapter 10 from Space is the Machine Readings for Wednesday (tectonics): Frampton, Introduction from Studies in Tectonic Culture and "Rappel a l'Ordre: The Case for the Tectonic" Frascari, "The Tell-the-Tale Detail"

21.09.09
rseavy 2009-09-21 03:26 pm (UTC)
I think the question asked in both articles was very interestingwhat do we mean by function? I think most of the time today function is associated with a task or job something performs. Applied to architecture it implies that specific buildings are built to do specific things; a churchs function is to provide a place for religious ceremonies, a school a place to learn. I like Sullivans definition of function the best, that function is the essence of the thing. This includes simply what the purpose of the building is but also gets at deeper levels of meaning the building holds. A school in Middlebury, Vermont is going to be much different than a school in the south or another part of the world. A lot of what gives form to buildings is their contextwhere they are built, why they are built, and for whom they are built. If function includes the answers to these question than form must certainly follow function. If function is simply purpose there are many variables lacking to create a piece of architecture. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-09-21 03:40 pm (UTC)

This week, I think I made the mistake of trying to get the bigger article out of the way first and then reading the shorter. I read the Forty article second and wished I had read it first because I found it to be a slightly less confusing and more concise version (relating to the historical uses of function and the

differences throughout history)of the Hillier article. If I had read the Hillier second I feel like I would have understood it on a fuller and deeper level since the ideas would have been introduced in the Forty article. That being said, though the Hillier tended to treat generalizations as concrete fact, there were some statements and ideas that made you rethink the way you perceived space and environment and the interactions of architecture and society but also made some gross generalizations which I'm not so sure I agree with. I really liked the idea that 'space gives the form and is also the content of the building'. Also the idea that there can't be a functional failure if the relation between form and function wasn't a powerful enough source to begin with. Yet the idea that no one ever praises architecture for the excellence of its theories I feel, is a bit too general of a statement to really hold water. I understand the theory that good architecture blends into its surrounds and is not noticeable until it is done wrongly, yet sometimes that is the "function" of the building (meaning the intent of the architect). On the flip side, when I read the part about public attention and failure, St. Peter's Piazza came into my mind as an example of architectural theory that succeeded and is praised. The Piazza was designed with the physical and spatial forms in mind to correlate with the purpose of the piazza- allowing a large amount of people to congregate to hear the pope speak (of course there are others but this is an important one) showing that the form/function relation was a part of the design theory and has succeeded. In the end, I really like the final part about society and how architecture is about looking into the future because it reflects society and society is an ever-changing idea/entity/surviving process. It really gives us another way to view an abstract idea that, like 'function', is hard to put into words due to its everchanging definitions. (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-09-21 05:43 pm (UTC)

I was very struck by Hillier's refutation of environmental and architectural determinism through the comparison with darwinist and newtonian theories in the natural sciences. I have always agreed that the influence of the physical world on the individual is not a direct one (A quote I remember from a geography class I took that sums it up well(I think it was Christopher Alexander)is that you can build a sidewalk in the middle of a field, but this does not mean people are going to use it). I have never heard a good 'scientifically based' argument for the 'why' of the nonexistence of environmental determinism, such as Hillier provides. I loved seeing Hillier use the above to explain the failure of 'social engineering', too, and I had never thought about this failure in the abstract yet straightforward terms Hillier uses. It seems like 'social architects' tried to pin down the relationship between matter and behavior on as few material properties as possible, trying in many cases to get away with very sparce buildings (that had, in their eyes, 'the essential elements'). However, since the relationship is not build on one material element having a certain effect, but rather the combination of elements shaping a space, the experiments failed; the essential elements of architecture failed.

Personally, I am very afraid of having some sort of theory guide my design, because I feel that theories (at least the ones I have encountered so far) are inevitably very singleminded and blind the designer for the encompassing nature of architecture, so that the design can impossibly be an intuitively sound whole. I think theory can blind the designer to his own intuition, just as seeing too many examples of previously build structures can blind him to his own ability to build something novel, to create. Although I think it is important to study theory, I rather keep theory of architecture and architectural design separated. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-09-21 06:06 pm (UTC)

I was intrigued by the discussion in the Hillier article about the problems of viewing architecture as a social engineering problem. This pointed out an interesting idea that I hadn't thought about so precisely before - the fact that we have very deeply ingrained preconceived notions about the relationship between buildings and social institutions. I thought this was one of the clearest passages in the article: "At first sight, a social organisation - say a school - is set of roles and relations that can be fully described without invoking a building....An organisation can be described without reference to space, and therefore without reference to buildings, but the way in which the organisation works usually cannot" (289). I think this clearly indicates that there is a concrete relationship between architecture and its social purposes. Later, though, Hillier presents a point of view on architecture and social engineering that confused me a bit. He says that "architecture is a technique and an art with social consequences" (290) and that architecture "had become more preoccupied with social engineering through architecture than with architecture itself" (291). I agree with the fact that losing all focus on the symbolic meaning of architecture will result in a loss of quality or interest, but i felt that Hillier's comments were too dismissive of certain aspects of functional design. He calls cetain social engineering objectives "benign", namely "community, interaction, identity" (291), which to me do not seem so benign to design. If they were, the problem of social architecture would not really be an issue. The Hillier article was complicated, so I don't know how much I misread it, but I am wondering how negatively he intends the term "social engineering". In the Forty article, I found a good summary of what both articles may have been trying so say about the problems of functionalism. Forty quotes Henri Lefebvre, who said, "The science of space should...be viewed as a science of use" but, "It would be inexact and reductionist to define use solely in terms of function, as functionalism recommends". "Functionalism stresses function to the point where, because each function has a specially assigned place within dominate space, the very possibility of multifunctionality is eliminated" (193). I agree with Adrienne that it would have been better to read the Forty article before the Hillier because some of the lengthier theoretical explanations in the Hillier were hard to follow without a more concise preview of the main issues being discussed.

(Reply) (Thread)

Application of theory...and "overdoing it"

linds_paige 2009-09-21 06:33 pm (UTC)
Both of the last two comments struck a chord with my own thoughts that I have been having over the last two weeks. In regards to Lian's comment about her fear of limiting/constricting the intuition of her own designing process too much when applying theoretical rules, I was immediately reminded of a conversation I had with Professor Andres last week about how theory is exactly what all young designers shirk, but, how it is exactly what WE NEED in our young and inexperienced approach to designing architecture! Although I had to be convinced, I now understand where he was coming from, and can think of how theory might have helped me be even MORE intuitive with my designs when I was stuck with plan and flow problems. Professor Andres says that all too many young architects are unable to find the essence of their designs because they want to include EVERY good idea that they have, and the result is that they either get seriously stuck on problems organizing their plans, or, they end up with a design that is a confusing combination of too many ideas and too many contradictory design elements that essentially take away from the design's pure essence. I can think specifically of two circumstances in my own design projects where theory (if only just a theory of axis, like Le Corbusier's, or of a specific aesthetic style of architecture) would have greatly helped my design process and made me make decisions much more quickly. Instead, because I was too afraid to constrict myself with a few rules, I ended up trying to pursue every possible "great idea" without eliminating any of them, until ultimately, at the very end, I had to choose. So much extra wasted work, and a pretty lousy amalgamation was all I had to show for it.

Week 04: The Body and the Senses

Readings for Monday (space): Forty, "Space" from Words and Buildings Readings for Wednesday (phenomenology): Heidegger, "Building, Dwelling, Thinking" Heidegger, "Art and Space" Norberg-Schultz, "The Phenomenon of Place" Pallasmaa, "The Geometry of Feeling"

28.09.09
rseavy 2009-09-27 09:38 pm (UTC)
I found Heideggers concept of space most interesting in this article: Space is not in the subject, nor is the world in spaceSpace is not to be found in the subject, nor does the subject observe the world as if that world were in a space; but the subject *Daesin+, if well understood ontologically, is spatial (Being and Time). As in all of Heideggers philosophy, he is concern with things or thingness. Space cannot be perceived without the things around itto perceive the space of a room you need the walls. Without the walls, the space does not exist, even though in theory that space is still there. In Building, Dwelling, Thinking by Heidegger, he conceptualizes this notion of space with an example of a bridge spanning a river. The bridge, the thing, connects the space around iteach bank, the water, the sky. This is, in my opinion, what Heidegger believes to be the purpose of architecture (as seen in his concept of the FourFold): to bring together the phenomena of a given environment, or locale, through a concrete object or thing. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-09-28 02:49 pm (UTC)

I did not expect to be reading about the connection between architecture and capitalism in an article about space, but I found it very relevant and interesting. In the first part of the article, all of the different approaches to considering space that Forty presents contribute to his initial point about the difficulty of pinning down a meaning for the term "space". Its philosophical, psychological, physical, metaphysical, geometric meanings are useful to distinguish, but in the end it is difficult to say which is most precise for architecture. At the end of the article, however, Forty extensively quotes Lefebvre and brings the idea of capitalism into the discussion. What I understood from it was that essentially, no matter what abstract or concrete definition is given to space, it is, in architecture, invariably a tool for capitalistic projects. Lefebvre says, "This space has nothing innocent about it: it answers to particular tactics and strategies; it is, quite simply, the space of the dominant mode of production, and hence the space of capitalism" (274). Forty ends the article by returning to some of his original questions - Why has 'space' become so important in the modern architectural discourse? Does 'space' belong fundamentally to architecture? The last sentence of the article summarizes the point well: "If either of these arguments are correct, then we must regard the success of the discourse about space within architecture as less to do with architecture, and more with the needs of ruling power to present an acceptable and seemingly uncontradictory account of its dominion in the realm of space" (275). I think this is really important because although much can be said for architecture in itself - as an art, as a form, as an idea - in the real world it does not stand alone, but interacts with most other human activities, and as such should not necessarily be considered as a separate entity when theorizing about it. As Forty paraphrases Lefebvre, "architecture is just one social practice among many, and in its space-regulating operations it serves not its own ends, but those of power in general" (275). (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-09-28 02:56 pm (UTC)

In my opinion, if we take a little of every definition described in this article and put them together, we might come close to encompassing all the different aspects and connotations of the word 'space'. At least that is what I took from this article, I agreed with most of definitions but only to a certain point. I really liked the Semper and Behrens idea of enclosed space though Behrens said it better, '...architecture is the creation of volumes, and its task is not to clad but essentially to enclose space.' The key interpretation that I took from it (through Sitte's definition), is that it does not mean solely interior spaces, but exterior ones as well. Yet, the physical aspect can go only so far until the 'emotional' aspect is needed to better understand a space. Hildebrand's idea 'that space itself was the subject matter of art, and that it was animated from within', is extremely powerful and helps make architecture create a 'spatial feeling' instead of 'the idea of the possibility of movement in space.' But even this idea can go a little to far when taken to another level, such as Schindler's desire to think about architecture free from its materiality. If seen in this light, at what point does architecture become mere sculpture instead of a harmony between philosophical concepts and material enclosures?

I think a good response would be the theory of Tschumi's 'moment of architecture', a part that really struck me in the article, where 'the architecture of pleasure lies where concept and experience of space abruptly coincide.' (Reply) (Thread)

linds_paige 2009-09-28 06:33 pm (UTC)

I found this week's reading particularly compelling, in part because it was a concept that I found interesting to apply and understand within the context of various architectural movements, and in part because the article's delineation of the theories about Space and their historical development made me think about where my own conception of space has come from. Naively, I had not considered that my energetic and dimensional understanding of space depended so fundamentally on theoretical conceptions of the modernists and post-modernists. I had never recognized any discrepancy in what I assumed were the general aspects of the term Space, and I'm now guessing this was because most of the discourse I had heard and participated in on the subject seemed to derive from a contemporary understanding of the term. Therefore, to learn that the concept of 'space' was not even a part of the architectural vocabulary until the 1890's was a little shocking, but at the same time, it put early architecture into a new perspective for me, as I can understand how fundamentally different design is when such a concept does not even exist. This to me harkens back to what we have discussed in class about the role of language as a means of architectural articulation. I find it interesting that the Modernists rebuked language as a means of describing/capturing form and architecture, yet it was precisely the development of the word 'space' and its definition that allowed modernists to begin to articulate it in their architectural design. As the Germans had a means for languaging space, with their word for Raum, they were the only ones to probe the concept itself, which leads me to believe that language is crucial to thought and understanding. Furthermore, it intrigued me that Space remained a philosophical/ conceptual topic of discourse for so long before it was finally put into a means of architectural articulation, by Moholy Nagy, and later Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe. Is this not odd? And why so? (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-09-28 06:45 pm (UTC)

I found it interesting in Fortys article when he described how modernist architects adopted the ideologies of space to help legitimize their practices and purposes. He wrote how space, one of the

most immaterial of properties, allowed architects decisively to present their labour as mental rather than manual. Interjecting the notion of space into the architectural vocabulary, supposedly distinguished the practice of architecture as not just a trade or business, but as a thoughtful, philosophical, and conceptual process.

Continuing with the connection between space and modernism, Forty refers to Mies van der Rohes intention to make an architecture that would . . . bring to consciousness the modern spirit; in particular, this was to be achieved by the freedom of movement, and the opportunity . . . to seize life, unrestricted by mass and matter. His intentions seem to reject the idea of space as an enclosure, and focus more on the individuals experience in the space. While I find the different standpoints on space in Fortys article to be enthralling, I have difficulty completely rejecting the idea of an enclosure or some sort of membrane to define a space when it comes to architecture. I agree most with Heidegger that a concrete, tangible thing is necessary to manifest space. (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-09-28 06:55 pm (UTC)

I think as well that a lot of the distinctions Forty makes can be combined in a single, coherent idea of space. Where Forty breaks it up into 'enclosure' 'continuum' and 'extension of the body', these aspects may well be combined by thinking of space as a continuum that is experienced through perception and can be enclosed to have different effects (the continuum is not homogeneous, can thus be used for political ends, Lefebvre). The article, by stressing the distinction between mental 'raum' and an actual 'room', also raises the question whether it is not simply a practical step within architecture to equate the two, since it seems that architecture deals with the case in which both kinds of 'spaces' come together. I don't see the confusion as problematic as long as the architect is aware that space can be experienced in different ways. The article really made me clarify for myself what one of the essential differences is between form and space. Whereas form is at some moment 'finished', space never really acquires a true shape (although it can have different manifestations. Space is never finished, it is always changing. It is always there as a potential for what it can be, always receiving. Since it is not tangible, it should not be treated as a tangible entity. Lipps: the beauty of spatial form is my ability to live out an ideal sense of free movement in it. Opposed to this is the ugly form, where I am not able to do this This, together with Schmarsow: 'in perceiving things the mind projects into them its knowledge of bodily sensation' gets at what I mean. Architects can 'enclose' space, and can set very rigid guidelines that determine that way space 'flows' (social engineering). In this way, you can either hinder the experience, but I think if you are careful you could also enhance it. Space does not seem to be something that likes to be manipulated

because of its unstable nature. I think I agree with Kant, finally, that space should be approach with intuition. I would like to enhance these (now chaotic and idealist-sounding) ideas because I think thinking of space differently is fascinating and might be very important. I don't think, as Lefebvre suggests, that architects should be hindered by a perceived idea of how capitalism may control space. I think it is irrelevant, since what aspect of life is not controlled? and capitalism is clearly not the most limiting factor (think of the existing site of building). and although this assumption is obviously false, I think it is ideal if an architect can work under the assumption of his own freedom of creativity. (Reply) (Thread)

30.09.09
rseavy 2009-09-30 03:22 am (UTC)
Heideggers Building, Dwelling, Thinking is a very difficult essay to comprehend. Heidegger has two major points: 1) the four-fold 2) the concept of dwelling. The concept of the four-fold is that is that building makes the presence of the earth, sky, divinities, and mortals known. To dwell is to live on earth between the earth and sky. He goes on to add that to dwell is to stay with things. Heideggers philosophy as a whole, which is mainly laid out in Being and Time calls for a return to thingsthat in our modern culture/society we have moved past what actually is to abstract conceptions of our existence. One important idea from Being and Time which I think applies to the concepts in Building, Dwelling, Thinking, is the notion that to truly understand Being, or existence, one must feel their finitudetheir extremely role/importance and place on the earth. Pallasmaa voices this idea as related to architecture was beautifully in The Geometry of Feeling: The natural landscape can never express solitude in the same way as a building. Nature does not need man to explain itself, but a building represents its builder and proclaims his absence. The harrowing feeling of being left alone achieved by the metaphysical painters is based precisely on signs of man which are a reminder of the viewers solitude. The most comprehensive and perhaps most important architectural experience is the sense of being in a unique place. Part of this intense experience of place is an impression of something sacred: this place is for higher beings. A house may seem built for a practical purpose, but in fact it is a metaphysical instrument, a mythical tool with which we try to introduce a reflection of eternity into our momentary existence. This I think the overall Heidegger is after. Dwelling means to inhabit the earth. Building is the act of

dwelling through bringing the presence of the earth, sky, divinities, and mortals forwardthat is to feel your presence upon the earth, your unique, finite, momentary existence. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-09-30 02:54 pm (UTC)

I also found the Heidegger article, "Building, Dwelling, Thinking" difficult and could follow his reasoning up to a certain point, yet that which I understood, I found very interesting. The idea of 'to dwell' meaning to exist and that we express our tendency to dwell through building either as cultivation or construction was successful at taking the many different possible connotations of the words 'dwell' and 'build' and encompassing them in a few points. Yet after this point in the article he lost me. I understand the desire to show how dwelling and building relate not only to each other but to every aspect of our known world and that they all have interchangeable relationships allowing one to affect the other, some more totally than others, but I still felt that there was something else there that was slightly out of my grasp to understand. Maybe it was his language and metaphors but I also got the feeling that those parts were meant for a select type of people who could understand and follow his logic. Even though I finished the Heidegger a little confused, I did not feel that way at all with the Pallasmaa. In fact, I found it to be extremely clearly and beautifully written, expressing many of the point Heidegger had tried to make in his own convoluted way. The connection between architecture and basic feelings and most prominent memories is a powerful concept. Pallasmaa states, "The richness of a work of art lies in the vitality of the images it arouses." By taking this method that every art student takes to studying a work of art and applying it to architecture, or lack there of in terms of the word of PostModernists, Pallasmaa is able to sum up into words what the experience is, that Heidegger was constantly trying to find by combining the many different definitions of words but could never quite succeed at describing the experience itself, yet allows room for each individual to apply their own feelings or memories thus showing how individual and powerful art and architecture can be. (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-09-30 05:02 pm (UTC)

I really can't stand the way Heidegger writes. I have read him before, and think he makes thinks unnecessarily complicated in his preocupation to base everything in language or define things as parts and oppositions against each other(so that they may be more 'true' rather than subjective? This is

phenomenology, I guess). I had trouble especially applying Heidegger's article on sculpture on something practical as architecture. 'Building, Dwelling, Thinking' was better and a bit more easy to apply. I do think that it is important to look at building as dwelling (so concerned with the occupant and his 'peaceful' existence) and to link dwelling to the earth and the sky (and the divinities, or some sort of spirit, maybe simply the creation of a certain atmospehere). I also really liked the notion of loneliness and its importance. It makes me think of the effect it has to be alone in a space versus together, and how it changes the experience. Another thing from Pallasmaa that I wanted to point out was the idea that architecture should be created from the self, not from egoism, but firmly rooted in the self. I think it is good to realise that 'I' am the only person I truly can know, and in the hopes that many things I feel may be similar to the things other people feel, it is good to trust 'myself' above all in creation. It is a bit of a leep of faith though, because we rather trust knowledge that has been passed down to us. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-09-30 06:26 pm (UTC)

I agree with what Adrienne said about the two articles and I think that Heidegger went a little too far in extrapolating some of his larger ideas from the concept of dwelling. I liked the part where he analyzed the linguistic connections between old German and English words for 'dwelling' and 'being' because I think it emphasizes the idea of dwelling as simple existence, but I didn't really buy the whole divinities and "beckoning messengers of the godhead" (102). I thought it was a little much. That said, I thought his point at the end of the article was important, when he says, "Enough will have been gained if dwelling and building have become worthy of questioning and thus have remained worthy of though" (109). I think it's an important idea to delve into, even if some of his conclusions were not completely understandable. Another thing I did understand from the article, which relates in a way to Forty's article on space, is when Heidegger talks about the misconception about the division between a person and space. He writes, "When we speak of man and space, it sounds as though man stood on one side, space on the other. Yet space is not something that faces man. It is neither an external object nor an inner experience. It is not that there are men, and over and above them space" (106). I thought this was a really good definition to add to our concepts of space. In the Pallasmaa article I also really liked the point about loneliness and the strongest architecture being able to produce a sense of loneliness in a person no matter how many people are present around them. (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-09-30 06:32 pm (UTC)

I too had difficulty comprehending all of Heidegger's arguments. His obsession with legitimizing and defining each component and concept through language was confusing and repetitive at times; however, I found this method to be quite interesting as well. As has been a constant eye opener for me this semester, we often times seem to misinterpret the meanings of words in our vocabulary. For example, he discusses how the true meaning of the word building is often falls into silence becoming blurred and habitual when we associate it merely with constructed houses, stores, etc. By overlooking the roots of the word we fail to recognize its ulterior meaning as a vessel through which we dwell and go about our daily affairs and activities. Norberg-Shulz's article concretized Heidegger's concepts of building and dwelling. His article was refreshing to read because he strayed from analyzing architecture solely as abstract and scientific, and took a standpoint that emphasized the importance of understanding what you see and feel--the concrete elements. His argument that one must understand how to truly dwell, how to orientate and identify himself in a particular environment before building, was particularly compelling.

Week 05: Communication

Readings: Geoffrey Broadbent, "A Plain Man's Guide to the Theory of Signs in Architecture" Robert Venturi, excerpts from Architecture as Signs and Systems Roland Barthes, "Myth Today" Roland Barthes, "The Eiffel Tower"

aferris626 2009-10-05 03:41 pm (UTC)

My favorite two articles of the readings for today were by far the Venturi and Barthes article on the Eiffel Tower. Maybe the most prominent part that stuck with me was the analogy Venturi made of architecture/form and gloves; where form should accommodate function rather than follow it, like how a hand fits into a glove or a mitten. Form should be like a mitten "to allow wiggle room for the varying fingers inside." This ties into the article on the Eiffel Tower, where the Tower plays the part of the pure signifier on which 'men unceasingly put meaning.' The most important part of this to me is the question he poses: who can say what the Tower will be for humanity tomorrow? The idea behind it is that you can't say what it will be in the future, only that it will mean something, something different from today. Its history shows that throughout the years that it has taken on many different meanings. "The Tower is nothing, but it means everything." To me this is where form and significance are the most successful where something like the Eiffel Tower, that really was just an exhibition has taken on such powerful meanings through its form and role as a signifier. The ability to associate this object with pretty much anything over more than a century of its existence speaks to the power and genius of its form. To be able to 'feel oneself cut off from the world and yet the owner of a world', as Behrens says is really where the role of form and all of its signifying components are put together in the right amounts to influence and create the other yet stand apart to make an object adaptable yet memorable. (Reply) (Thread)

rseavy 2009-10-05 04:01 pm (UTC)

As much as I would like that think that architecture is not a symbol, it is. It can be a symbol, in what I consider a negative sense, when elements of the building are used with the intent to symbolize or mimic

something else. This is the case in some post-modern architecture and common in houses, where decorative elements are applied to bring up the notion of the home. Architecture can be a symbol without trying to be. Any building, no matter where or when it is built, is the symbol of that time, place, and architect. It is a concrete thing that gathers all the forces at work at the time it was conceived. Even the previous examples I gave before that I consider bad are symbols in this light. Even though I disagree with their architectural integrity, they still are buildings and they tell something about the time and place they were built. This idea of architecture symbolizing the time and place is particularly evident in Modern architecture, an ideology in which the use of symbols was basically forbidden. Today, Villa Savoy, the Barcelona Pavilion, and the other landmarks of the period are symbols of the ideology, time, and place these buildings where conceived in. (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-10-05 05:15 pm (UTC)

'Myth Today' was a rough reading. First of all I think Barthes was (just a tiny bit) paranoid in his idea of bourgeois control through myth. Secondly, he never said what he was trying to get at until pretty far along, and even then his argument wasn't very clear. However, I'm going to post some suggestions for how his article may be applied to architecture: -since everything has meaning, so does architecture. Architecture can thus be used in the building of myth. -Since it can be used in the building of myth, architecture can be hijacked for political purposes -Barthes states that the only way for language to resist its falling prey to myth is not by its 'purification' or 'essentialization' (poetry and math) but rather by its being so blatently political that its obvious meaning can not be changed by myth (and thus the bourgeoisy) -This can be applied to architecture. Thus we see that 'essentialist'or minimal architecture becomes an ideal prey for myth since it is so 'empty' by itself. Politics can asign meaning to it. -This suggests that Barthes would be a fan of postmodern architecture such as Venturi's, since it has its own meaning so deeply ingrained in it (his 'decorated shed' is an icon, Broadbent), that the alienation process of myth from the actual thing to its attached significance becomes hard. I think these suggestions may be debatable. What I got away from it is that it may be good to built in a certain degree of meaning into a building, so that its intention can not be confused. However, I still have to see a building be hijacked by politics for its own purposes. This happens with language and images, but somehow it is harder for architecture. As Ryan points out with modernist architecture, the meaning it acquired was very specific to the time and place it was constructed in. The buildings, although artificial meaning got attached to it, never got taken out of context. Maybe it is hard to do so with a medium that is so innately contextual as architecture. I also think that when a building is constructed by people of

power (like my building), its intent is generally so clearly political that it defies myth (people are also much less sensitive to myth nowadays). As I said, I think Barthes is a little paranoid and I don't think architects need be lead by a concern with trying to resist a theorethical bourgeoisy, or any political entity. (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-10-05 06:10 pm (UTC)

I too found persuasive Venturis analogy between architecture and the glove/mittenthat form should accommodate function. This analogy appears to contradict the ideologies of functionalism and of such architects like Eisenmann whose primary concerns (as discussed in Broadbents arcticle) were the reverseestablishing a form and perfect system first and then applying or manipulating the function to fit the form, sometimes altogether dismissing the semantic dimension and of trying to establish and exude meaning behind the form, and not just structure. I did not find Venturis style of writing particularly engagingto me it was as if his article was an advertisement to promote his ideas about architecture. However, I was compelled by his ideas about architecture as sign over space and of embracing good rather than original, and found his arguments to be extremely credible especially as he traced back to historical precedents to defend architecture as always being a symbol or mode of communication (artifact explaining a given culture and period in time). It seems that the buildings that he views have been the most successful are those that have withstood the test of time and the evolution of social and cultural habits. He also reminds us that there is nothing wrong with embracing what has proven to work--embracing and acknowledging the possibilities of glory in the everyday (40); there is no need to constantly be trying to innovate a new and original form, if the preexisting ones serve their purpose and accommodate their function. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-10-05 06:15 pm (UTC)

I really appreciated the Venturi & Scott Brown article, because it was so explicit and loud in what it was trying to say. A lot of the reading was about symbols, signs, and making statements and I thought the way that Venturi wrote was very clearly motivated. Their idea of "Architecture as Sign, rather than Architecture as Space...architecture for an Information Age, rather than architecture for an Industrial Age" was interesting, especially with all the examples they pulled from different time periods. I also

really loved the analogy of the glove and mitten - about leaving room for adaptation and not being stuck in a purist, ideological mindset. The conclusion was also very poignant, where Venturi advocates for evolution rather than revolution, and points out that sometimes "dumb can be good". I think the whole article just spoke to the importance of being cognitively aware of our time and place and building appropriately - not necessarily without innovation, but with innovation that makes sense. I agree with Lian's comment about the Myth Today article - it was far from clear, and I think it needs quite a bit of decoding, so I hope we can discuss that in class today. Bartes' article on the Eiffel tower was really interesting, though, and I found the first passage on page 179 especially important. He writes about the Tower's seemingly vertical, linear form is composed of many intricate details and suprprises when seen up close. Barthes says, "the tower-as-object" furnishes its observer, provided he insinuates himself into it, a whole series of paradoxes, the delectable contraction of an appearance and its contrary reality." This "delectable contraction" I think speaks to much of what he was talking about in the Tower's infinite meanings that do not reflect the functional excuses given to it by Gustav Eiffel. I never thought about the Eiffel Tower in this way and it was a very creative look at a seemingly obvious monument. (Reply) (Thread)

Frustrations with Semiotics

linds_paige 2009-10-05 06:32 pm (UTC)
I found the reading for today on semiotics very evocative, and could not help but feel a strong, responsive disgust for the way in which the topic was so defended and contorted in the articles by Broadbent and Venturi. It is arguable that most art DOES have an intrinsic meaning, even if it is unintentional, as the Broadbent article quotes every building creates associations in the mind of the beholder, whether the architect wanted it or not. However, I believe that the argument that Venturi extracts from this fact, namely that architecture should return to being an expression of symbolism and communication, is really treading on delicate ground. First of all, I think it is important to note the distinction between the types of architecture where meaning is specifically/intentionally APPLIED/designed into the building as a means of propaganda, and, the types of architecture where meaning is assimilated into the building, intentionally or unintentionally because it reflects ideas of society, the architectural purpose of the building, or the historical period. The first is a very forced means of expressing a buildings essence, and the latter is much more natural, and in my opinion, more beautiful. If it is Venturis purpose to promote the construction of more architecture that reflects obvious symbolism (like the Big Duck) based on the argument that historical architectural works like the Egyptian pyramids and Renaisance churches had purposeful messages then I think he does not recognize the importance of this distinction between the two employments of meaning.

Week 05: Regionalism and Context

Readings: Vincent Canizaro, introduction to Architectural Regionalism Alan Colquhoun, "The Concept of Regionalism" Kenneth Frampton, "Ten Points on an Architecture of Regionalism"
[Note: published elsewhere, in a slightly different format, as "Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance"]

Keith Eggener, "Placing Resistance: A Critique of Critical Regionalism"

When speaking of regionalism is architecture I think it is important to make a distinction between simply regionalism and critical regionalism. Regionalism, as stated in a few of the articles, is using local motifs and building techniques as motifs rather than to express a particular place. Critical regionalism is the process of taking into account all the aspects of given region and building upon these traditions. This is a process of innovation, to build on what has come before, but not trying to reinvent the wheel. I think its also interesting to note that regionalism, and especially critical regionalism cannot be separated from other discourses in architecture, tectonics, phenomenology, semiotics, form, space, etc. It encompasses all these things.

I agree with Ryan. I think a lot of the critique was based on regionalism, not so much on critical regionalism. I found Eggeners critique a little baseless, for critical regionalism, as far as I can see, is not holding up to be the way towards an egalitarian utopia where everyone is treated fairly. This is without the scope of architecture and not a fair critique. His critique that architecture of resistence may very well be something in the future to resist (because it will define culture just the way it portrays culture) is also somewhat groundless: all architecture will influence culture. I think we should rather have some nice architecture do so than bad architecture. Eggener seems to assume that culture should be preserved as it is, which is simply not an option and probably not even desirable. Colquhoun's critique I found did bring up a valid concern: With 'regions' and myth falling apart under modern and postmodern individualism and nationalism, what do we base regional architecture on? Is it still the region that people feel connected to? Are we trying to promote something that is already outdated? With the shift of myth to the individual level, it becomes harder to bring a sense of place back since you can't target larger groups of people or entangle the identity of all the individuals that make it up. (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-10-07 05:35 pm (UTC)

Canizaro ties regionalism to a conscious effort and vernacular to an unconcious effort, implying that vernacular architecture is only regional by accident (20). I associate unconcious thinking with intuition. Even though vernacular architecture may be dismissed as mundane, unoriginal, or static, it coevolves with its particular regon and is inherent to that place. While it may not provoke innovation or new social and political orders (as does regionalism) I think there is something to be said about its persistence and development through trial and error. The vernacular is arguably ingrained and characteristic to its particular region, fitting to the environmental, social, and political needs, and adapting when necessary. I could be way off, but, to me, it seems as though vernacular architecture represents a very functional form of architecture to a given time and place. (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-10-07 05:39 pm (UTC)

...While regionalism in turn, encourages one to absorb what is there, build upon that, and manipulate where you think necessary to better the environment. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-10-07 06:25 pm (UTC)

I found the argument in Colquhoun's article extremely interesting regarding the direction from which it approached this idea of regionalism. It not only talked about the definitions of 'regionalism' and 'critial regionalism', but it also talked about its influences, which I feel are crucial to understanding the subtle differences between the two. Through its evolution from Zivilization and Kultur through the romantic and Modernist movements, we come to question the validity of the choice of words. He says, 'perhaps we should stop using the word 'regionalism' and look for other ways of conceptualizing the problems...' because it seems that by using the same word to describe two similar but different ideas it distorts the term's original meaning and intention. In addition to that thought, the idea of media that Frampton brought up in one of his 10 points was

extremely interesting. The idea of how much media really plays into our experiences and how our interpretations of buildings are conditioned on a conscious or unconscious level brings up the question of validity of what we see and interpret as opposed to what is actually there. Meaning, is it things like the media that are,in fact, affecting our understanding, or is it really the architecture portraying either motifs of the culture or traditions of the region? (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-10-07 06:36 pm (UTC)

I thought all the articles together helped define very clearly what regionalism is, by contrasting it with concepts that it often gets confused with, and by articulating some of the concepts related to it. The distinction between regionalism and the vernacular, regionalism and critical regionalism (as Ryan pointed out), then between regionalism and provincialism, as well as bringing in definitions of historicism, authority, invention, imitation, modernism, style, etc; all of those helped dispel certain unfounded critiques of regionalism and brought out a more precise definition to discuss and critique accurately. I thought the cases made in favor of true regionalism were well-argued. Regarding Lian's comment about Colquhoun's critique, I think the question of "Are we trying to promote something that is already outdated?" is interesting, but I wonder what else could be proposed to counter the force of globalization and erasing of cultural distinctions.

Week 07: Regionalism and Context Redux

Regionalism: (several brief, recent critiques and extensions of the ideas discussed last week, all in the same PDF) Timothy Cassidy, "Becoming Regional Over Time" Barbara L. Allen, "On Performative Regionalism" Stephen A. Moore, "Technology, Place, and Non-Modern Regionalism" Urban contexts: (two foundational texts for thinking about buildings in cities today) Colin Rowe, "Crisis of the Object: Predicament of Texture" from Collage City Rem Koolhaas, excerpts from SMLXL ("Bigness" and "Whatever Happened to Urbanism")

rseavy 2009-10-19 01:05 am (UTC)

It is interesting to compare the ideas in Koolhaass essays, particularly Bigness, compared with the ideas of critical regionalism. If I didnt have any of the work done by OMA, I would think the article is a joke. On the first page, Bigness is ultimate architecture. In my opinion large skyscrapers and such are nowhere near as difficult to design architecturally as a small dwelling. They tend to be a set of parts repeated over and over. the expectation of honest is doomed: interior and exterior architectures become separate projects I like to believe that no matter the size of the building one concept can be carried throughout the entire project, however I know that in high-rise buildings that is rarely the case. Bigness is no longer part of any urban tissue. It exists: at most, it coexists. Its subtext is fuck context. This is most at odds with the regional/phenomenological theory and is in my opinion a major problem with our urban landscapein cities we lack character. The most interesting part of any city is the old town. It was built with the character of place. Contemporary urban architecture for the most part could exist in almost any city in the world. It is completely devoid of any connection to its place. (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-10-19 03:06 am (UTC)

what I can't get over when reading some of regional arcvhitectural theory is that the authors seem to think that regionalism is something stable, and should be preserved. In Cassidy I see a lack of acknowledgement that what is built will become part of the region and help change regional character. His analysis of regional architecture seems kind of without consequence, because what he says is that the whole manmade landscape makes up a region's character. If this is true, then whatever you decide to built will eventually become part of regional identity, and thus it does not matter what you built (although sure, some architecture will be more willingly integrated, but if you built just so it will be integrated (functionally, as Cassidy's barn), you cannot create much new and exciting). I think the notion of (critical) regionalism should not be applied in order to justify a conservative attitude. That's why I really liked Allen's notion of individual agency and the influence of people and architecture on the shaping of regions (performativity). I think regionalism would be helped by stopping to look only at inherently conservative rural regions (in which Cassidy's barn example, showing the importance of functional integration with the land, applies perfectly) and starting to look at cities. In cities, Cassidy's 'conservative' and 'natural' components of regionalism are not easily at hand or may invert the picture. Cities are often anti-conservative and anti-natural, which suggests that maybe, through regionalism, so should be its architecture. In cities issues of identity are much more complex, changeable and far more interactive (more direct influence of people through architecture on regional identity and vice versa(Gentrification, i.e.). Last thought: I am not sure whether to agree with Rowe on finding a balance between solid/void, public/private etc. I feel like if you don't pick and choose and emphasize, you end up satisfying the need for none of these elements. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-10-19 03:29 am (UTC)

I also really liked the Allen article, probably the most out of all the articles we read. When I started it and read her first sentence, "Good regionalist architecture is 90% cultural practices and 10% style," I didn't completely understand it but after reading the article, the phrase makes a lot of sense. I really liked the fact that Allen brought a human side to all of this theory. It grounds it and makes it applicable in ways that theories on 'Bigness' or 'poche'' can't really be. Architectural theory can become exactly that sometimes- theoretical, and to an extent that it becomes so removed from what is in reality and realistic that when architects try to use these theories when designing, they end up with a design but not architecture. Allen's approach to Regionalism shows the difference between, let's say, Villa Savoye and the town center she described in Silver Spring, Maryland. One factors in the daily and habitual activities and 'performativity' of the people who will inhabit the space when creating, and the other not so much. For that reason the town center is a thriving, welcoming place. I guess I really just enjoyed an article that

I agreed with and could follow from start to finish and that addressed the 'social blindness' of other theorists on a subject where social and cultural values, traditions and habits are its foundation. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-10-19 03:34 pm (UTC)

I also found the three articles on Regionalism very relatable. Cassidy's presentation of the idea that a building cannot necessarily be regional immediately upon being built was a good introduction to the ideas that were more articulated in the Allen article. Cassidy's idea of designers "creating the stage" and "helping to write the score", but lifestyles determining the character of places, is related to Allen's concept of performativity and the importance of what people do to the definition of region and regionalism. I found both of those articles to be well-written articulations that help to better grasp the idea of regionalism, but I thought the third article was more theoretically provocative (and of course more confusing). I was most intrigued by Moore's idea of the "nonmodern doctrine" and "regenerative architecture", as opposed to postmodernism and sustainable architecture. I have never heard the two former terms before, so I would be interested to hear a discussion of what the implications of Moore's suggestions would be. From what I gathered, it has a lot to do with participation and experience in architecture, and an elimination of the distinctions between culture and nature. Rowe's article on the city and urbanism pointed out some good contrasts between buildlings like the Uffizi and the Unite, and even though some of his dichotomies between solids and voids and the pros and cons of different city models seemed too simplified and clear-cut, I found them helpful as a way to characterize the essence of certain architectural types. Finally, I found Koolhaas' two articles too theoretical to be as effective as the rest of the readings. His disillusionment with the directions things are heading came across clearly, and there were even some parallels with the regionalist articles, despite the fact that those writers sometimes criticized Koolhaas. He writes in "Whatever happened to urbanism?" that "If there is to be a 'new urbanism' it will not be based on the twin fantasies of order and omnipotence; it will be the staging of uncertainty...the irrigation of territories with potential" (29). Even though Koolhaas' focus may not be precisely the same as that of the regionalists, they come to a similar conclusion about the importance of giving built potential to architecture, as opposed to preset ideological certainty. (Reply) (Thread)

Biggness and a 'Failed urbanism'

linds_paige

2009-10-19 03:36 pm (UTC)

Upon first reading Koolhaas' two articles, I seriously thought they were a sarcastic criticism of massive, disconnected architecture, for they seemed to imbue such outrageously insolent and fatalistic sentiments on architecture's humanity and its future potential, that I couldn't imagine it being for real. But Ryan's mention of OMA, who I was unfamiliar with, led me to realize that perhaps Koolhaas WAS being sincere when he wrote that architecture is the death of urbanism ("The death of urbanism--our refuge in the parasitic security of architecture--creates an immenent disaster: more and more substance is grasfted on starving roots." 29) If so, I can only guess that I'm missing some crucial examples of how architecture has so "decidedly" failed and what a "professional field of urbanism" would necessarily do to create a New Urbanism of 'uncertainty', 'indefinite form,' and 'underdevelopment.' In response to Koolhaas' statement that "Bigness is the last bastion of architecture--a contraction, a hyper-architecture. The containers of Bigness will be landmarks in a post-architectural landscape." (Koolhaas, 516) I can only incredulously respond that I agree, the containers of Bigness WILL be EMPTY containers in a landscape of soul-less structural mass, a landscape that "fucks" context (502) and humanity alike. If such is the general attitude toward urban architecture today and in the future, I would be surprised if design doesn't become completely disassociated with human thought and effort, and that any architect should 'resist the urban crisis' (as Koolhaas says, 29) and actually try to design. Koolhaas would make it seem that the architect's rightful place is as 'data-entry-man' at an auto-design-generating computer, ignoring and forgetting that any human notion of art and feeling were ever necessary for the art of architecture, lest he/she fail due to the recognition of a crisis. I think I'm missing something huge, here. Any help? (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-10-21 06:16 pm (UTC)

The contrasts between the regionalism articles and the Koolhaus's article on Bigness made me laugh while reading. Interesting how (almost) contemporaries can be studying and focused on two different extremes--regionalism dealing with society and how to create an architecture that fits the landscape, traditions, daily and contmeporary actions/functions/values and ideals of a given geographical place or "region" (depending on which theory you adhere to) vs. the idea of Bigness as a plastic and giant empty container, insensitive and unengaged with its occupants in its creation of "phony disorder" and activity "put in its place" (506). In big metropolitan cities, the idea of achieving a comprehensive sense of regionalism seems hopeless, as each building stands artificially and autonomously, unconnected from its neighbors. I enjoyed Cassidy's idea of stepping back from designing the glamourous icons and focusing

on designs that can be interwoven with the landscape/ecology/culture of a region. To me it will be unfortunate and incredibly cost-inefficient if archtitects continue to move in the direction of bigness and creating designs that lack any connection to its surroundings and potential occupants, soley for the purpose of sticking out and making a statement.

Week 08: The Production of Space Readings for today: Review Forty's chapter on space, particularly the past few pages on social space Margaret Kohn, excerpts from Radical Space: Building the House of the People Henri Lefebvre, excerpts from The Production of Space

lkasper 2009-10-26 04:38 am (UTC)

For Lefebvre's article, I am not sure what he wants to get at. I get most of the objections he makes to the definitions of space we have seen so far, and to its commodification. I am not sure if I understood any conclusion he draws from this, beyond his suggestion that 'the real knowledge that we hope to attain would have a retrospective as well as a prospective import' (91) which I think is very vague. Does he make propositions to the issue of space elsewhere? For Kohn's article, I think we need to think of the political regime in power when we try to decide how fixed or unfixed space is. A totalitarian or nationalistic regime will try to fix space as much as posible, imprinting a certain pattern of behavior as well as a message of identity upon the landscape. The landscape will become very one-sided, and won't allow as much change as a democratic, not so nationalistkc regime which is less interested in imposing itself. A democratic regime is more likely to allow space to be invested with multiple meanings, allowing for a polis to arise in which people are free to participate and change things. The level of fixity of space is not only what we perceive it to be and that we should change by conceiving of it differently, as Kohn argues, but space can actually, literally, be very fixed and be used because of that property. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-10-26 03:12 pm (UTC)

I also, didn't completely understand the Lefebvre article. I could follow him for a bit, yet once I started to understand he would change tactic and I'd be lost again. As for the Kohn article, maybe its just my personal opinion and thoughts, but despite some interesting remarks, I don't associated space in anywhere near such a political way. In my opinion, you either talk about the politics of a space- unrelated to architecture, or the space created by architecture- unrelated to politics, because otherwise it starts to sound like a lot of fluff. Or maybe I'm just not reading it the

right way. The Kohn article, started off with some good points. For example, the Rousseau idea that something like a theater creates an 'illusion' of community and communication because it concentrates people in one place yet in fact fosters isolation. The idea that architecture manipulates, creates and defines spaces and human behavior is extremely powerful yet beyond that, space was taken to such an abstract level in the article, that it was hard to relate it to something either studied or known before. Therefore it's a little hard for me to comment on this because of my lack of understanding and ability to really grasp the central themes and ideas surrounding these theories. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-10-26 04:15 pm (UTC)

I thought both the Lefebvre and Kohn articles were full of interesting ideas, but it seemed like they ventured a little too far away from the concept of space as an idea in architecture. As Forty wrote in his 'space' chapter, space has many different implications, and is not necessarily proprietary to architecture, even though architecture and architects like to claim it as their own. In this sense, the Lefebvre and Kohn articles are very relevant because they explore the more far-reaching consequences of our relationship with space. I especially liked Lefebvre's idea about 'produced' space and its relationship with the raw materials 'created' by nature. I was a little confused though, because at times I didn't understand how all-encompassing the term 'space' was meant to be. Is it intended to be architectural space or everything we come into contact with in the world? The whole discourse on production and markets and property was not entirely clear. The concept of space as a social substance was more comprehensible, and the Kohn article discussed this idea in detail, but I wonder how much her 'political' space' is related to 'architectural space' as described by Forty. Was the article more a commentary on social phenomena or on space? All together I think the articles were good for an inquiry into the various non-physical implications of space, but I found them to obscure the more concrete physical discussion of space as related to architecture. (Reply) (Thread)

26.10.2009
rseavy 2009-10-26 05:17 pm (UTC)

I like the idea in Lefebreves article about the production of space. If the environment we live in, meaning on earth, is space, then any architectural space must be produced. I think this article makes you question the idea associated with the word space. Today we tend to use the word in an architectural sense to describe buildings or drawings. Space as a word seems to mean something different than what we understand its meaning to be today. Space is nature, the environment, the space we live in. Architectural space is produced out of nature: These spaces are produced. The rawmaterial from which they are produced is nature. They are products of an activity which involves the economic and technical realms but which extends well beyond them, for these are also political products, and strategic spaces (84). I take this to mean that a design space, a strategic space, has a purpose; it answers the questions given on page 69: who, what, when, where, and why. (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-10-26 05:46 pm (UTC)

I had difficulty comprehending the sort of metaphysical qualities of space that Lefebvre projects, and only felt that I achieved some degree of satisfaction and understanding when I returned to Fortys article which summarized some of his main arguments. I struggled most with the particular excerpt we read from The Production of Space, because while Lefebvre discusses the general notion of social space as a mechanism or tool to carry out social and cultural actions, he never honed in on the role of actual people and their interactions in actual living situationsI found his ideas difficult to apply to architecture. For me, Kohn concretized her idea of space much more clearly, discussing how the physicality of space can perpetuate specific actions or ways of life (like how the factory, school, and hospital are designed with a particular agenda to be made conducive for certain behavior) or materialize power relations (as in the example of the home). I thought the examination of the home was particularly interestingis it true that the plan and structure of the traditional home really instilled and set a standard for familial and hierarchical relationsthe idea that the father is the head of the home and his office is regarded an authoritative and perhaps forbidden room. How would the traditional home transform to accommodate the modern day family? Is that idea even possible given that there really isnt any ideal or standard family anymore (like there arguably was following WWII)?

Week 08: Disciplinary and "Other" Spaces

Readings: Please review the Kohn, excerpts from Radical Space: Building the House of the People Henri Lefebvre, additional excerpts from The Production of Space Michel Foucault, "Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias" Michel Foucault, "Panopticism" Michel Foucault, "Interview: Space, Knowledge, and Power"

( 6 comments Leave a comment )

lkasper 2009-10-28 02:26 pm (UTC)

I loved the Lefebvre article on monuments. It summed up a few of the things I have been thinking about in relation to my building. What makes a monument different from building? In answer to this, I like Lefebvres levels affection: experience, perception (signification) and conception (consensus). This is, monumental architecture and space cant just offer a strong experience, but it has to have something to speak of that is capable of unifying society at large. I also like his point that monuments have a role in tying together the city-fabric, giving it a focal point, and that the power of monumental space is largely determined by what happens in it. These points all apply to the discussion of contemporary attempts to built monumental buildings, and can be used to explain why a lot of these attempts fail, or are at least frowned upon or ridiculed. I think now it is especially hard to built a monument that reaches a consensus in our divided society, and to tie the monument into the city-fabric in a satisfactory way so that it is accessible and forms an integral part, yet stands apart and forms an entity of imagination (like Foucaults heterotopia). It seems like monumental architecture is characterized by the need to simultaneously manifest in it very opposing extremes rather than to find the middle-ground between them: a strong collective as well as a strong individual experience, having a set location and being placeless or imaginary, carrying a strong (political) meaning yet making that meaning subjective to everyones experience. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic

2009-10-28 03:15 pm (UTC)

I really like the interview with Foucault, especially where he commented on spaces as forces of liberation or oppression. Foucault says, "I do not thing that there is anything that is functionally - by its very nature - absolutely liberating. Liberty is a practice." (371). He talks about how a the intention of a space can be liberating, for example, but it will not be so unless it is used in a liberating way. This relates to Lefebvre's point about lived vs. conceived space, and how the abstract, drawn space of the architects is not necessarily that of the people that occupy it. Lefebvre writes about the facade and how it reigns over space in Western architecture - we put too much emphasis on what is immediately visual that actual experienced space becomes secondary. All of this could also be tied into regionalism and the discussion about how a space is defined largely by what actually goes on in it, not just by what it looks like. The most concise conclusion that I pulled out of these readings was the distinction between architectural intention and actual spatial experience, which, if the intention is designed with enough consciousness of the importance of actual spatial experience, can come out to be similar. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-10-28 03:45 pm (UTC)

I also enjoyed this Lefebvre article more than the last because it defined 'monumentality' on a more personal level. Like for Lian, I can relate this more to my building in the question, what makes my building monumental? Lefebvre offers some answers by saying that it offers each member of society an image of that membership, which I took to mean that, in a sense, you get out of it what you put in. The way you view a building or a space depends highly on your on your outlook/views on society thus changing and influencing your perception as opposed to the person standing next to you. Another relevant part was he said that monumental space is the residual, the irreducible. It is that which cannot be classified or codified--it is more an emotion that you feel than a term you define thus rendering it more powerful and creating a distinction between the regular building and the monumental building. I also really liked the Foucault interview and one of the parts that stuck with me the most was the discussion on freedom and liberating effects of architecture. Citing Le Corbusier as an example, he says that despite good intentions true liberation can never really occur since 'the guarantee of freedom is freedom.' Therefore its an interesting notion that architecture that tries to create an endless liberation, can actually result in doing the opposite because it is the nature of it to not succeed. (Reply) (Thread)

linds_paige

2009-10-28 04:21 pm (UTC)

I admit that I had a difficult time with both Lefebvre and Foucault, but what content I feel comfortable extracting from their arguments I found evocative, if not a little abstract. I particularly liked the way Foucault classified the space of today's era as that of Arrangement, defined by "relationships of neighborhood between points and elements," and considering the arrangement of the earth's inhabitants in terms of relations of vicinity, kinds of storage, circulation, reference and classification of human elements etc.(350-351). The tension he describes as existing in this type of space in it's inherent opposites--public vs. private, family vs. social, pleasure vs. work--seemed to me an excellent condensation of the issues at hand in the 'space' of our modern world. The way he described space as 'saturated with qualities' of light, transparency, clutter, height, etc.--"space that flows, like spring water, or fixed space, like stone or crystal," is exactly how I feel many of today's best architects conceive of the notion. But of course, as Foucault reminds us, all this has to do with "Inner Space," which is not what he was primarily concerned with-- "outer" space. It was here that I was initially confused by the relevancy of his paper to any part of recognizable society, for the types of 'outer' space that he is concerned with seem very specific and convoluted. Since heterotopia's seem to be defined by 'illusory, non-real' spaces where juxtapositions, crises, deviance, and select/esoteric admittance are defining characteristics, it took me a while to recognize how these sort of places actually do have a major role in the landscape of our world. Thinking back on my experiences traveling abroad, however, helped me to understand the importance of the heterotopia; I remember being struck by the places I passed (or was 'stuck' temporarily in) that seemed either vacant (because they were used for festivals etc only at specific times of year) or somewhat creepy/unsettling, because they were habited by 'other' types of people, groups of people that I obviously did not fit into. As travelers, I am sure we are already much more conscious of and uncomfortable in these places because our self-consciousness is already at a heightened level. With this frame of reference I was able to relate more personally with the specific types of space that Foucault describes...even his Panopticon, and I'm curious as to whether any of you think that traveling abroad allows you to fully understand how fundamental spatial ideology IS to real experience. (Reply) (Thread)

28.10.2009
rseavy 2009-10-28 05:24 pm (UTC)
I found a couple sections of Lefebvres article interesting. First, the section on page 144 and 145 about represented space/conceived space versus lived space. Lefebvre makes the point that no space will be experienced as the architect imagines in his head. Each person is different and therefore will experience a space in their own way. The second section, on page 143, talks about monumental qualities, which Lefebvre states are not solely plasticsilence itself, in a place of worship, has its music. Both this

passage and the passage on 144-5, think of architecture more than simply walls and roof and material. And even more than simply space. Space is everywhere. These are spaces are special, have an extra quality not found in nature; this is my interpretation of Lefebvres idea of monumentality. (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-10-28 06:25 pm (UTC)

I too, felt myself able to relate to the spaces unveiled by Foucault. I think that as a traveller in a foreign place, you undeniably experience first hand the kind of heterotopia determined in Foucault's fifth principle: Heterotopias always pressupose a system of opening and closing that isolates them and makes them penetrable at one and the same time. . . . One can enter by special permission and after one has completed a certain number of gestures." 355. He further describes how one may be be able to physically enter into a certain location, but their experience there and actually presence is nothing more than an illusion. In this sense, the traveller (or tourist rather)is considered a deviant unable to fully understand and experience the true meaning of the place. (I think the beauty of studying abroad in one specific city for an extended period of time, is that you are given the opportunity to hopefully break these boundaries and break out of merely being a visitor/tourist.) I enjoyed his argument about architecture as a mechanism to manifest power, as in the case with the Panopticon. I went to boarding school for half of high school, and while clearly the school was not designed to assimilate to the actual Panopticon, the idea of a system conducive to a central higher power looking down upon its prisoners, workers, inferiors, deviants perhaps, or students, and having control of their behavior and actions provoked me to reflect on my own experience, in which there was always a sense of someone watching over you and the inability to ever grasp a moment of privacy.

Week 09: Constructing Gender

Readings: Jane Rendell, Introduction: Gender Joan Wallach Scott, excerpts, "Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis" Judith Butler, excerpts, Gender Trouble Jane Rendell, Introduction: Gender, Space Shirley Ardener, "The Partition of Space" Karen A. Franck, "A Feminist Approach to Architecture"

( 5 comments Leave a comment )

rseavy 2009-11-02 01:40 pm (UTC)

What I found lacking in all these articles, unless I completely missed something, was an actual description or analysis of how gender affects architecture. This seemed to be briefly touched on in Francks article A Feminist Approach to Architecture, in here description of the separation of spheres. Even in this discussion I didnt really see the connection in most architecture, expect for in some buildings, such as some religious structures, where there are different spaces for men and women. I obviously do not know the difference between life for a man and woman so maybe this is part of the problem of my comprehension of this subject. I would have liked for one of the articles to provide an architectural discussion of gender rather than simply a discussion of gender issues. I feel like I may have completely missed important aspect of all these articles, but after reading them I had more questions than before. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-11-02 03:48 pm (UTC)

I agree with Ryan in that out of these articles, the only one really relevant or applicable to our subject matter was the last, Franck article. As for the others, my main problem was with the Joan Wallach Scott article, which seemed to have a complete disregard for reality. As a woman, I am naturally a feminist. But I feel that sometimes the feminist tendencies go way too far making the arguments sound completely absurd. For example, stating that history needs to be rewritten to include women, that gender is disregarded in historians discussion of politics or power or even that reproduction is a 'bitter trap' for women. I agree to an extent with the arguments made from the other articles of the social aspects that create gender. Gender and male/female spaces are very much socially constructed, and made more concrete by centuries of repetition, but the reality of the matter is that men and women are biologically different therefore the search that Wallach writes about for a materialist explanation that excludes natural physical differences just does not exist. As for architecture, I feel that it is such a conservative form that by nature deals with a large number of people that it is too general to be broken down to understand it by gender; which works better in understanding more specific individual situations. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-11-02 04:15 pm (UTC)

I also thought the most of the articles were a little hard to relate to because they either threw out some seemingly baseless statements about the lives of women, or talked about gender in such an abstract way that it was hard to consider them relevant to architecture in any way. I did not like the Joan Wallach Scott article (#11) because a lot of what she said was based on generalizations that assumed women as an entire group 'suffered' from certain burdens, like reproduction, so the article was hard to take seriously when assumptions like that were presented. While a lot of the articles started with good discussions of gender as a social construct and gender roles being determined to a certain extent by social functions, I thought they lost sight in their analyses of the other side of the equation, which is biology and sex. I thought the dismissal of that part of the topic was not adequately supported. The articles that actually talked about space were interesting, and they had some good observations about gendered space. I found the Ardener article (#15) had a good analysis of the relationship between space and social behavior, and the idea that constructed spaces and the people that inhabit them are mutually dependent is relevant to talking about the role of gender in space. In the last article, the distinctions made between characteristics of feminist architecture and more idealist architecture, like that of Mies, were interesting to note, but besides pointing out certain tendencies, I didn't think they offered much in terms of arriving at a cohesive idea of positive architecture without gender-related problems. (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-11-02 05:30 pm (UTC)

I agree with above critiques. First, I think it is hard to relate gender to architecture for following reason. I think that, following the definition of gender as something socially constructed, gendered spaces are also socially constructed, rather than inherent in the space itself. So the liberating of women has to be done not through architecture, but through a mental reconceptualization of 'gendered' spaces (among reconceptualizations of many things regarding gender). So we need to change our idea of the kitchn as a feminine thing, rather than changing the actual architecture of the kitchen. Social roles are manifested in space, but not necessarily produced by it. Second, I think that the debate on gender in the city, and public vs private realm are debates within geography and of manifestations of cultural bias toward women in space, and do not, for above reasons, carry much of a consequence for building itself. I think the element of performativity is very important in thinking of gender and space. A place can be changed by the behavior of women (and men). I think feminism may focus too much on angry analyses of areas in which women are discriminated (like space). I think we are past that stage, and are liberated enough to start showing what we are worth. We can't keep casting ourselves in the role of victim. I think once emancipation is achieved (through other means), women can appropriate spaces and change the conception of them. I don't see this work the other way around, in any sort of scheme in which architecture is the instrument. If there is such a scheme, I would like to learn about it! (Reply) (Thread)

linds_paige 2009-11-02 07:35 pm (UTC)

I see that we all concur about the lack of specificity in these article's discussion of what IS a feminine or masculine architecture, exactly. Although I understand the arguments made by the authors of the earlier articles in this collection regarding the historical separation of feminine and masculine into specifically divided spheres of society, urban-city vs. domestic-home, which I believe probably DID have a much greater effect on social constructions of gender than our young and liberal minded generation can comprehend, I myself am not particularly interested in feminism's deconstruction of gender and its analysis of whether gender is a performative act or constructed role as these first few articles are concerned with. However, I DO believe that architecture has a huge role in 'placing gender in specific roles,' and this relates directly to the feminine 'responsibility' of reproduction, a biological role we cannot denounce completely unless by choice of not having children. I think that Jane Rendell does speak a kind of truth

when she says that "women's social status defines, and is defined by, the work spaces that they occupy,"(102) and if we consider this in conjunction with what Karen Franck says about the male tendency to "degrade everyday life and to value abstraction," rejecting the home and 'useful and demeanding, if concrete and necessary' aspects of domesticity, (296) then we see how women have been directly CONFINED by gender AND space. I do not mean to say that women's 'space of work' is in the home, but only to acknowledge that if we DO choose to have children, a necessary part of our lives will be spent there, whether or not we have day-care or child-support. Even if a woman is to work outside the home during the day, her choice of work, and the schedule of her day, (and even, the POTENTIAL for her to work outside the home) is often determined by the proximity of her job to the home, the school, or the day-care facility. Thus, Franck's discussion of the feminine-conceived utopian architecture makes soo much sense to me, for convenience of transportation, proximity of urban to suburban/housing, and connectedness of social spheres make child-rearing and professional work possible. I don't think that we need to regard what Franck calls feminine design tendencies as necessarily feminine, but it is probably true that women think of these types of things more readily than men because they are faced with the spatial tension between work and home more frequently. I know that in Scandinavia, where it is generally acknowledged that the differentiation between the male and female in the workplace is practically non-existent (since they are internationally recognized as having high gender equality), these countries HAVE a very social design concept that allows for women to participate in the workforce easily. Transportation is flawless, connectivity is smooth between home and work, and social support, via community or government is incredible, and all of these things have a very OBVIOUS, and TANGIBLE effect on Space there. You can almost SEE it visibly, I think. So, a merging of the spheres doesn't have to be a feminine agenda, but it will help to alleviate gender inequalities.

Week 09: Gendered Structures

Readings: Daphne Spain, excerpts from "The Contemporary Workplace" Dolores Hayden, "What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like?" Beatriz Colomina, "The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism" OPTIONAL: Denise Scott Brown, "Room at the Top? Sexism and the Star System in Architecture"

( 4 comments Leave a comment )

In a previous era, perhaps.

linds_paige 2009-11-09 03:40 pm (UTC)
I found that on a second reading of these texts in review of today's class I was more easily convinced about the designation of 'feminine' and 'masculine' spaces, particularly as the Colomina article discusses in the Loos house. Initially I was skeptical and somewhat annoyed by Colomina's description of the "theatre box" as being particularly feminine, as it seemed too stereotypically appointed and not a little sexist in its reasoning: "the theatre boxes...are spaces marked as 'female'...on the threshold of the private, the secret, the upper rooms where sexuality is hidden away. At the intersection of the visible and the invisible, women are placed as the guardians of the unspeakable....she is caught in the act of seeing, entrapped in the very moment of control" (Colomina, 81-82). However, it occurred to me that two arguments would support such a designation in the Loos house: firstly, that at the time of construction there presumably WAS a general sexist perspective that would have been either accepted or subconscious for the architect and his clients, and secondly, that perhaps it is true that men would not gravitate to habit small places and confining booth areas such as the Loos house theatre box and the living room raised sitting area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can hardly imagine a group of men slipping into the booth sitting area in the living room (image 3, 75) in the early 1930's. In regards to the Colomina article's greater argument that the Loos house is a theatre in itself, I am convinced by the design details that make it so, but question the suitability of such a creation for a home. Although Loos sees the house as "a theater for the family," it seems to me that many of the aspects of this theater, such as the constant re-direction of the view inward, the omnipresent sense of someone watching, and the hierarchical spaciality of power makes the house into a melodrama set always on the verge of becoming a horror film. Even Loos' description of the theatre of life has a very

dour tone: "try to describe how birth and death, the screams of pain for an aborted son, the death rattle of a dying mother, the last thoughts of a young woman who wishes to die...unfold and unravel in a room..."(85). Notably, all these scenes are possessed by the woman, and this furthers my sense that Loos' homes are confining spaces created to accommodate a sexist view of feminine power but ultimately keep there, too, driving a woman nuts in the process. Colomina's discussion of the desired/objectified female in Le Corbusier's architecture sounds a little contrived in the face of today's modern perspective, but I can imagine that such a sexist reading may have had some truth in the time it was conceived. As one last note, I enjoyed reading Denise Scott Brown's article, which made me think specifically of how sexist our world can actually be regarding one gendered term in specific--the 'wife.' Even though 'wife' today can have a very liberal and empowered interpretation, I believe that in the professional world, when both husband and wife work together in the same field, she is often overshadowed by the focus and credit given to the husband. I know that my parents struggle to fight this last sexist tendency in our generally nondiscriminatory world, and my mom continually feels like clients and builders alike unconsciously tend to grant credit and authority to my dad. just a random aside... (Reply) (Thread)

lmckenna 2009-11-09 07:07 pm (UTC)

I find it interesting how Corbusier and Loos had two entirely different approaches to designing a home, yet both architects managed to similarly diminish women to mere objects. Loos seemed to embrace domestic life and the designation of gender specific spaces in an extreme and dramatic manner, all the while praising feminism and female sexualitymaking a woman an object to be gazed upon. In Josephine Bakers house, the idea of controlling the visitor to focus inward toward a centrally fixed pool, reminds me of an exhibit at an aquarium; the female assumes the role of the main attraction and is viewed as nothing more than a specimen of some sort to be observed. By designating rooms as either social spaces, private and intimate spaces, public yet enclosed spaces, Loos created a hierarchy within the home making assumptions of the male and female roles and designing the home to manifest these sexual distinctions. In comparison, Corbusier excluded any traces of domesticity that characterized the traditional home and, unlike Loos, deemphasized the contrast of intimate and public spaces. He praises women for their ability to physically and fashionably adapt to modern times, but in a manner that categorizes women as an attachment to a wall (128), describing them as beautiful and seductive. He seemed to reinforce male dominance and, similarly to Loos, dismiss women as being human, but rather just objects of desire. I enjoyed reading about these two male architects next to the article by Denise Scott Brown. Even though these architects are from different eras, the sexism in their architecture provides physical evidence and a foundation for Browns later complaints about the discrimination and inequality between men and women in the professional world and society in general.

The articles by Hayden and Spain comment on the need for urban planners and architects to recognize contemporary social conditions and reassess how to accommodate and fit societal changes, in particular the rise of women in the labor force and the changing nature of the family. I like how Hayden acknowledged issues of discrimination that reach beyond gender and male dominance in the home and workplace. Our concern should not solely be with how to accommodate for women, but how to facilitate a lifestyle that allows everyone to coexistmen, women, families, the unmarried, the aged, the sick, etc. (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-11-09 07:49 pm (UTC)

These articles had more concrete examples of sexism and architecture, and made me see the link between the two more clearly. Especially seeing le Corbusier and Loos using sexism so much as a part of the design process made me realize that maybe it is more of a concern than I thought it was. However, I still think that architecture is more of a manifestation of sexism, so that the primary shift in consciousness needs to happen in society rather than in architecture itself as a driving force. In Spain's article, for example, I think it is more useful to examine the forces that make a secretary a female job, rather than to examine ways in which secretaries are spatially discriminated. I don't think a secretary is spatially discriminated because she is a woman, but that it is inherent in the job. The Scott Brown article was, for me, the most convincing article of all. I thought it was quite revealing to see exactly how women are discriminated in architecture, and that it is not a vague societal conception about women that does it, but very concrete powerstructures that are reluctant to include women (as a fraternity would) and a bias by monetary sponsors against female abilities. Women haven't proven themselves yet, so they are, apparently, harder to trust to succeed. I hope this has changed somewhat since Denise wrote her article. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-11-11 07:36 pm (UTC)

I also appreciated the Scott Brown article because it offered the most concrete examples of the problems of gender in architecture. Her accounts of various discriminations she experiences in her daily life were useful beside the largely theoretical and hypothesizing nature of the other readings. On the

theoretical side, I don't know how much I agree with the notion that the structure of space creates particular gender relations/conflicts/separations, especially because nowadays it is not entirely accurate to group men and women into diametrically opposed social roles, as much more crossing over occurs between their traditional places in society. Even so, I think the space-gender roles relationship is a sort of chicken-or-the-egg relationship. Yes, the way we organize our typical living spaces might enable a continuation of traditional (sometimes oppressive) gender roles, but the reason they came to be organized that way was precisely because of the existing social norms. Thus, creating a new type of(more liberating) space will not necessarily bring about a change of social norms, but if it is coupled with socially-driven change it can support such changes.

Week 10: Multiple Natures

Readings: Dell Upton, "Nature," chapter from Architecture in the United States William Cronon, "The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature"

( 4 comments Leave a comment )

11.11.2009
rseavy 2009-11-11 06:15 pm (UTC)
The most interesting idea I took away from todays readings is our seemingly irrational concept of nature. We think of nature as a space where humans do not exist, or at least live. We seek out nature to escape society, other people, basically our day to day lives. The odd thing about this tendency is that by going to nature it becomes un-natural. As soon as a human enters what we consider nature it is no longer so primal. If youve ever been hiking alone and see a pop can you immediately no longer feel like you are alone, separated from the rest of civilization. It is also interesting how we separate ourselves from nature. In reality we are just as much natural as any animal or plant, but we have a much different view of ourselves than this. Every time we see a bird, we should also feel like we are no longer alone, but most of the time this is not the case. Architecture fits into this discussion by its ability to create places within nature. It creates human spaces within universal space. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-11-11 06:54 pm (UTC)

I found the Cronon article very ironically interesting given the current day 'fad' of environmental architecture. I feel that phrases such as 'going back to the land' and 'getting in touch with nature' are prominent in our contemporary approach to and discussions of design, therefore taking a moment to stop and understand what the 'Nature' is that we're trying to get back to is very important. Would we talk the same way if we really understood what we were talking about? For example, if we said, getting back to nature with the full acknowledgment that the 'nature' we were talking about was really this fabricated space with laws governing what can and can't be done in that space in order to make the

space 'virgin', would we still speak that way, or find new ways to express ourselves? Over time, our intentions have changed while our vocabulary hasn't, meaning that we have to find means to create the sublime feelings and connotations from the past and thus comes the need for a created nature best expressed through architecture. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-11-11 07:30 pm (UTC)

I also found the questions about what Nature acutally is very interesting. Of course our definitions of the term will influence the discussion about reconnecting with nature or building responsibly towards it. One idea in the readings that I had never thought about before was particularly striking: the fact that even though we think of Nature as a sort of primitivity, or origin, or simplicity as compared with the artificial complexities of industrialized/urbanized civilization, architecture that is meant to reconnect with nature or be more in harmony with nature seems to be out of reach to a large part of the population because certain economic means are necessary to arrive at the new ecologically sustainable architecture. While Nature is assumed as a sort of default condition if we do not interfere with it, it seems to be unavailable to people who live in civilized centers without a certain economic interference. Since we have industrially distanced ourselves so far from the original or the default, it will take an equal amount of effort, creativity, and money to get back to it. It would be nice if 'reset' were a simpler operation. (Reply) (Thread)

lkasper 2009-11-11 07:35 pm (UTC)

Cronon's argument reminded me of seeing the film 'into the wild'. When I saw it, i had a pretty strong reaction against the way this guy dreamt of getting back to the wild. As Cronon would say, this is an elitist attitude, and in my eyes one nurtured very much by the American college experience, reading Thoreau and other romantic texts while so removed from the experience of the wild in a more pragmatic way. I was very frustrated by the arrogance of the protagonist, thinking he knew everything better, and by thinking so, completely discrediting the lives of everyone around him. I think this is an attitude taken by many environmentalists, and a reason why environmentalism now often becomes viewed negatively. I think people tend to focus too much on things that are beyond the realm of their direct influence. This

is not so only in trying to preserve the wild beyond the domestic, but can also be seen in i.e. the current fad with 'going to Africa to teach English'. In this attitude as well as in into the wild, you see the view that you need to somehow go out of your way to do something truly meaningful. Doing so, People neglect taking care of people and the environment directly surrounding them. I think Cronon is right in urging that we should learn how to take care of ourselves first, before going out and trying to 'save the world' at large. It is fine if you don't go and teach English in Africa, if you manage to help holding your own community together.

Week 11: Politics and Capital: Marxist Approaches

Readings: Manfredo Tafuri, "Towards a Critique of Architectural Ideology" Tafuri, "Towards a Critique of Architectural Ideology," 1969 Tafuri "...traces the development of modern architecture in relation to capitalist modernization since the Enlightenment. His central thesis is that the course of modern architecture cannot be understood independently of the economic infrastructure of capitalism and that its entire development occurs within these parameters. The whole aim of the books, then, is to demonstrate that this (ideological) subservience is present, even in situations that on the surface seem like explicit rejection of the model of bourgeois and capitalist civilization." (Hilde Heynen, Architecture and Modernity: A Critique, p. 129) For Tafuri, modernization is an "ever-expanding rationalization and a more and more farreaching activity of planning. Within this process, he argues, the avant-garde movements perform a number of tasks that in fact further this modernization. For instance, the // program of the avant-garde includes the aim of trivializing the shock experience that is typical of the new, rapid tempo of urban life. The method adopted for this is the technique of montagestructural analogy between the laws of the money economy that regulate production and which govern the entire capitalist system on the one hand and the typical features of the avant-garde on the other..." (Hilde Heynen, Architecture and Modernity: A Critique, pp.129-130) Remember our definition of ideology from a few weeks ago: IDEOLOGY: the dominant beliefs, values, norms, and practices determined by structures of power; "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence"

No need to respond directly to these questions in your comments--you can write about whatever you'd like--but come to class on Monday prepared to discuss them. Everyone: Introduction - Take a note of this key passage in the introduction and return to it at the end of the article: "To dispel anxiety by understanding and internalizing its causes: This would seem to be one of the principle ethcial imperatives of bourgeois art...There exists, between the avant-gardes of capital and the intellectual avant-gardes , a kind of tacit understanding, so tacit indeed that any

attempt to bring it into the light elicits a chorus of indignant protest. Culture, in its intermediary role, has so defined its distinguishing features in ideological terms that...it has reached the point...of imposing forms of contestation and protest upon its own products." - What does Tafuri mean here? Can you rephrase this passage in simpler language? Ema and Adrienne: The Enlightenment and the American city pp. 6-13 - According to Enlightenment thought, what is the relationship between the architect and the city? - What critical change do we see occur in the American city? Lee and Lian: Modernism and the avant-garde pp. 13-25 - What is the objective or goal of the artistic avant-garde? - What are the "two poles" of artistic production among the various avant-gardes, and why does Tafuri emphasize the equivalency of the various avant-garde movements? - What critical role do architecture and urban planning play in the organization of modern capital? Ryan and Lindsay: Crisis and conclusion pp. 25-33 - Why and how are Le Corbusier's urban plans different from those of architects and planners of Weimar Germany? - What is the crisis of modern architecture? - What does Tafuri mean by the proletarianization of the architect? Everyone: Pay attention to the examples that Tafuri uses, particularly: 1. Piranesi's Campo Marzio [image 1] [image 2] 2. Hilberseimer's Grossstadtarchitecktur (architecture of the metropolis) [image 1] [image 2] 3. Le Corbusier's Obus Plan for Algiers [image 1] [image 2] [image 3] [image 4] [image 5] Think about: * what Tafuri has to say about the examples * the significance of the example--i.e., where it fits into the essay as a whole and why Tafuri includes it

aferris6262009-11-16 04:40 pm (UTC)

I honestly don't even know where to begin thinking about commenting on this article. An extremely basic and very much simplified version of one of the main themes that I understood was that the development of modern architecture, both in 'technical realization and objectification of social relations' took place as a result of the development of the economy- capitalism to be more specific. Past this point, though, I find myself extremely lost in trying to apply and understand the examples and theories given. Through my basic understanding, I can try to apply this thought, for example, to my building with some success owing to the fact that the main reasons behind commissioning the Bilbao were for enriching the economical and social statuses of the city. The same can be said for many other 'famous' and big name buildings, yet, I still feel I'm missing a big part of Tafuri's argument by simplifying it so much. Hopefully hearing everyone else's take on the article/different sections will help gain a better understanding because by myself, I will never get there.

rseavy2009-11-16 05:59 pm (UTC)

The crisis of Modern architecture is a crisis of the ideological function of architecture. The fall of modern art is the ultimate testimony of bourgeois ambiguity, poised as it is between positive goals the reconciliation of contradictionsand the merciless exploration of its own objective commodification. There is no more salvation' to be found within it: neither by wandering restlessly through labyrinths' of images so polyvalent that they remain mute, not by shutting oneself up in the sullen silence of geometries content with their own perfection (Tafuri, 32-33). I take this to mean that Modern architecture is a product of the intellectual upper classes and is disconnected from the work force (which ultimately builds these intellectual products). This relates to Tafuris connection between capitalism and architecture. Architecture is ultimately a product of an economic system. It takes money to build buildings and a working class to build buildings. If architecture is disconnected from either or both, it is not an authentic' architecture.

lmckenna2009-11-16 07:18 pm (UTC)

I like the metaphors of the city as a machine and of architects as organizers of the city. Industrialization at the end of the eighteenth century and its subsequent effects on expediting economic development and capitalism, transformed everyday life. Priorities, values, and means of survival changed for middle class citizens. No longer were citizens very existences solely dependent on fulfilling basic needs for survival, but rather they became free in the new progressive and technologically-based society. While there are infinite smaller details, I enjoyed taking a step back and looking at the city as simply a means of production, with the mass population programmed into its cyclical system of production, distribution, and consumption and acting as the fuel that allows the system to function and flourish. Tafuri describes how the public use the city while being unknowingly used by it(17). By viewing modernization as a process rather than a series individual objects, the architect has the task of organizing the city to accommodate the process (the production cycle). This is a most simplistic overview of on aspect of

Tafuris article, and merely one aspect of the ideology of the city. I too struggled to make sense of much of Tafuris article, but found interesting the objectification of the city into a single entity, a unity, an enormous social machine. (21)

lkasper2009-11-16 07:27 pm (UTC)

I thought the point Tafuri makes about U.S. cities forming a third path of modern art and architecture very interesting. Where he talks about European cities struggling with the intersection of architecture and planning, Tafuri argues that because of U.S. rigid grid-design the architectural element has 'absolute freedom' 'situated in a context that is not formally conditioned by it' (13). I am not sure wether I share Tafuri's enthusiasm about this, for maybe it gives freedom for the architect to express, but not so much so for the user of the city. This example makes me reflect on Tafuri's general approach to his paper, and I feel like it may be a little narrowly conceived from the perspective of art and architectural theory. I feel like he reads too much of his own argument into some of the issues he discusses, like when he tries to equivocate different avant-gardist tendencies. I think there are more obvious explanations for some of the things he proposes, explanations that may not aids his argument.

emazubovic2009-11-16 07:32 pm (UTC)

I was also a little overwhelmed by this article because I got lost on some of the far-reaching historical and theoretical references it made, but I definitely found parts of it understandable and interesting. As tentative answers to the questions for my assigned part of the article (p. 6-13) here is what I understood: As far as the Enlightenment thought on the relationship between the architect and the city, the architect was meant to be the "ideologue" of the city, in the sense that the architect should dissect the conventions of architecture and seek to make it part of the larger "bourgeois city", as opposed to an art for its own sake. There is an intimate relationship between the art of architecture and the capitalistic developments of cities. For the American city, the critical change is that "the American city gives maximum articulation to the secondary elements that shape it, while the laws governing the whole are strictly upheld" and that "urban planning and architecture are finally separated from each other" (13). Architecture is free to be creative and exploratory, while the urban planning provides a frame of reference for "exploiting" architectural invention. This is different from the idea that there should be order in the detail and chaos in the whole. ... I hope this is sort of on track for the first part of the article. As far as the introductory comment about culture imposing contest and protest on its own products, I'm not really sure how to rephrase it, but I think it suggests that culture should be less focused on ideology and more open to a fruitful relationship with capitalistic developments.

the architectural crisis

linds_paige 2009-11-16 07:45 pm (UTC)

The passage Ryan uses from the article about the "Modern Architectural Crisis" expresses Tafuri's opinion most clearly, but just to expand a little on what Ryan explained and try to extrapolate a little in my own words, I think Tafuri conceives of the "crisis" as inextricably linked to international reorganization of capital that was the result of the 1929 economic crisis, and sees it as caught up in the "contradictions of capitalism" that he discusses on page 28 and 29. He believes that capitalism refuses to transform the city into a totally organized machine, which is what he believes architecture should do in order to address/reflect the "shock" of the early 1900's society adjusting to the newly industrialized and over-populated urban city. Within this crisis, Tafuri sees architects as unable to find their ground: "Having arrived at an undeniable impasse due to the inherent contradictions of capitalist development, architectural ideology gives up its role as stimulus to the structures of production and hides behind ambiguous slogans contesting the 'technological civilization.'"(29) "Architects now work in a climate of anxiety, owing to the discovery of their decline as active ideologues."(31) This is why he commends Le Corbusier (I THINK!) for his approach to the crisis by making the public, and user, a CREATOR of his work, and thereby embraces the "shock" of modernization while at the same time gets the public to embrace and understand this "shock" too. "Architecture thus becomes both a pedagogical act and a tool of collective integration."

Week 11: Politics and Capital: Non-Marxist Approaches

Our last readings of the semester! Donald McNeill, "The Globalization of Architectural Practice" from The Global Architect Daniel Willis, "Seven Strategies for Making Architecture in the Twenty-First Century" from The Emerald City

( 5 comments Leave a comment )

lkasper 2009-11-18 04:43 pm (UTC)

I liked Daniel Willis' piece. Although some of the strategies seem very idealistic and unpractical in today's 'business' of architecture, they are relevant if you seek to maintain a certain level of creativity and innovation. I think that his idea of 'breathing space' and being less perfectionistic about the construction process might help a lot to relieve some of the tention and stress surrounding architecture. I also liked his idea of the 'building it yourself' not so much to indicate that people should do this, but more because it indicates that architects should keep an open mind, and learn, at some points, to 'forget' about all the things they have learned so that they can be inventive. Learning a lot is not necessarily good, if you can't let go of conventions when applying your knowledge in designs. Lastly, I was fascinated by the 'theoretical projects' strategy. Although this strategy may seem least economically practical, I think it is a great way to keep the mind imagining, and to create a database of inspiration. Real projects, for i.e. their economic constraints, may just not draw out the full creative potential of the architect. (Reply) (Thread)

the realities of architecture

linds_paige 2009-11-18 04:56 pm (UTC)

These two articles interested me, particularly because they delved into some of the aspects of the architectural profession that I think students don't really see until they get out of school--for example the large, corporate side of architecture firms, the effects of globalization on design and (now international) publicity efforts to achieve "name-recognition," and the social/personal aspect of the client-architect-contractor relationship. I was aware to a certain extent that these issues were important in architecture, but the articles delineated their specific importance with a degree of clarity. One thing I hadn't really thought much about was the difference in the design and build process between cultures, and I think the "Emerald City" article brings up some interesting aspects of Japanese design that made me think a lot about the American process. For example, the fact that the Japanese do so much of their "design development" after the construction bidding has taken place was a novel idea, especially since my parents are in the process of having a major project go out to bid right now, and seeing how comprehensively all the construction firms detail every single item of expense based on the full set of drawings my parents gave them. Of course the economy recently has made this process particularly stressful in the US right now (especially when contractors agree to work on a pre-arranged salary basis) and this definitely accentuates the wining and dinging process, along with the later relationship tensions. (Reply) (Thread)

aferris626 2009-11-18 05:03 pm (UTC)

These readings seemed fitting as the last readings of the semester. I felt as if they were the 'moral to the story' after a semester of intricate theoretical analysis. The McNeil, globalization article, helped put into perspective the world of architectural firms and the business and politics side of huge firms such as Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. The Willis article, on the other hand, seemed to be giving us new students encouragement as were on the brink of enter into this world. His seven strategies, as even he says, are all rooted in the same idea, and are essentially the same. The idea that an architect must continuously challenge himself, through the participation in design competitions, teaching in universities or theoretical projects, so he can keep the same inventive approach that he had as an inexperienced nave student is an extremely valuable concept that shouldnt be forgotten and can be applied, not only to architecture, but to many professional fields (Reply) (Thread)

rseavy

2009-11-18 06:03 pm (UTC)

I thought The Global Architect article made a few good points about the globilization of architecture. What McNeill calls the boutique firms, Frank Gehry, Renzo Piano, Zaha Hadid, Daniel Libeskind, and others, are dominating the architectural scene right now. These firms are set-up to be competition firms. They develop projects that have a strong image that catch the eye of the general public: the prevalence of design competitions means that the flashiest design usually wins, sometimes at the expense of functionality, durability, and the larger urban design issues. These firms create projects that are based around the money shot image. Another good point this article makes is about the mega-architecture firms, like SOM, OMA, and HOK. These firms lack one architect who oversees the projects, rather relying on multiple offices and multiple designers to handle all the projects. These firms to me see to be set up to make a profit rather than to make good architecture. I think this is a big problem with architecture today. These mega-architects, whether at a boutique firm or a huge firm, seem to design what sells rather than what they believe in. I understand the need to make a profit, but many smaller local architects produce amazing work and turn a profit by standing behind their principles. In the globalized world of architecture Im not sure if that is the case. (Reply) (Thread)

emazubovic 2009-11-18 06:52 pm (UTC)

I found these readings really appropriate for the end of the semester because we have spent most of our classes talking about different topics in architecture like form, space, function, regionalism, nature, time, etc etc. These articles give an idea of the situation of architecture today (especially "big" architecture) and trace some of the driving forces in the industry today, which clearly are not just those nice theoretical realms that we delved into before. The McNeill article on "The Global Architect" was interesting because it explained how the most noted architecture today is produced and focused on this "production" aspect. It is useful to take a look at architecture through this lens of economics, marketing, and profit. The part of this that interested me the most, though, was where good design fits into the scheme of highly globalized architecture, and it was not part of this chapter, but the author alludes to talking about this in the following chapters (p.31). The article on "Seven Strategies for Making Architecture" was a fun read because it actually offered some creative ideas for holding on to some sort of architectural essence in the middle of the fast-paced development of the architectural industry. While some of the strategies are not practical for most firms, they were a good reminder of the sorts of values that shouldn't be forgotten in architecture, like

maintaining creativity by taking inspiration from other art forms (literature, etc), keeping a more personal and less corporate connection to architecture, and nurturing creative possibilities by accepting the unfinished, and fantasizing about the purely hypothetical, like the basketball story the author offers at the beginning.

Theories on Architecture

Over the course of the semester I have been taking a course on Architecture Theory with one of Taubman College's foremost Theorists, Professor Amy Kulper (http://bit.ly/IeZlAl). It is safe to say that this course has blown my mind and has given me a lot to think about as I prepare for thesis next fall.

As part of our final project the students were asked to engage in independent research based around a critical text. My assigned text was "Atlas of Novel Tectonics" by Reiser and Umemoto. The idea was to develop an argument with respect to the text and use that argument to engage in a conceptual and theoretical exploration. My exploration centers around globalization and a move towards the universally conditioned landscape (as described by Kenneth Frampton). I propose that this could actually be a good thing for architecture and set the stage for tectonics as the new "architecture of resistance." Enjoy, also please comment because I would love to here feedback.

The Universal Kenneth Frampton in his seminal writings on the topic of Critical Regionalism, Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance, describes modern culture and buildings as moving towards a state of civilization that is both universally conditioned and exhaustively optimized by technology. He believes that urban form has become limited by universal building practices and methods which are driven to form by the iconic symbols of modern culture, the highway and the skyscraper. Framptons answer to this dilemma is Critical Regionalism, which he describes as, mediating the impact of universal civilization with elements derived indirectly from the peculiarities or a particular place. Frampton believes this move towards a critical regionalism can recapture a lost sense of place which has become an endangered species as globalization, mass commercialization and the internet moves the world towards homogeneity and the universal.

Manifesto I would argue here that the problem of globalization, or a move towards the universal, has provided architecture with a unique opportunity in that it threatens to wipe clean all preconditions and preconceived notions of place within the landscape. The opportunity arises not from fighting this problem, but by embracing it and empowering architecture to create a new built landscape through redefining place. This opportunity is predicated not only on the disillusion of place but by the ability of commercialization and globalization to bring together disparate materials and methods int o all manners of building. Thus, singularities and exaptions that arise from the novel use of these materials and methods will lead to a new built landscape defined through tectonic manipulations. To seek to fight placelessness by looking backwards is both counterproductive and countercultural; to seek to fight placelessness by looking forwards and empowering architecture is visionary.

Critical Tectonics Architecture of resistance for Kenneth Frampton involves highlighting regional site and env ironmental conditions such as light, topography, context and climate as ways to combat placelessness and the universal. In the same way Frampton describes these efforts as Critical Regionalism, I would introduce the counterargument of Critical Tectonics, which can be described as celebrating the impact of the universal with elements derived indirectly from the peculiarities of universal building materials and methods. In the same way that critical regionalism is not a return to the vernacular, critical tectonics is not a return to old regionalisms. It is an attempt to define new regionalisms through the novel adaptation, expression and inventiveness of the built environment. With the form of modern culture and civilization being driven by the automobile and the skyscraper, existing environments and landscapes are having less and less impact on defining place. Critical Tectonics capitalizes on the ability of globalization and mass commercialization to bring together wide ranges of building materials and methods. In doing so, Critical Tectonics seeks to foster a deviation from normal systems to produce novelties of both form and function. These singularities can be used to combat placelessness by generating new definitions of place. In this way, Critical Tectonics is its own architecture of resistance.

The Grid The grid can be seen as a representation of the universal. Italian architects of the 1960s and 1970s would argue that when placed over all things the grid replaces regionalisms with homogeneity. The work of Superstudio would suggest the grid empties out the possibilities for architecture, answers all its questions. I agree. However, I would further argue it opens the door to new questions, new possibilities. Here, new manipulations are free to emerge without paying homage to existing regionalisms. Architecture can now be used as a strategic tool for placemaking through the generation of entirely new forms predicated on the exploitation of Critical Tectonics.

PS: This post only constitutes my own explorations, after our final presentations and exhibitions tomorrow afternoon I am hoping to post more examples. Stay Tuned.

Proposition STUDIO: Apophenic Ecologies

This semester my studio is under the supervision and guidance of Taubman College's visiting professor, Matias del Campo of SPAN (http://www.span-arch.com/). Matias, along with Taubman College professor Adam Fure, are leading an exploration into what they call "Apophenic Ecologies" which alludes to the phenomenon of perceiving meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data, known as Apophenia. The most common example of this phenomenon is reading shapes or figures in a collection of clouds in the sky. In groups of 3-4 our studio is looking at how produce these types of multiple readings by creating seemingly meaningless patterns within very basic architectural elements. My group is looking at openings and apertures within a single surface condition. We are exploring various ways to produce patterns and openings which oscillate between meaning and meaningless, control and lack of control. This exploration with result in full-scale fabrications for the final review which will take full advantage of Taubman College's FabLab.

Through the use of scripting logics, systems thinking and generative design tools we are able to produce systems which can produce a wide range of variation with minimal input by the designer. In particular, the current research is exploring ways to create variable panel systems which can be combined in with endless variation. By having an embedded logic within a singular panel we can allow multiple iterations to aggregate with endless possibilities and combinations. Through these part-to-whole relationships we are able to use organizing logics which foster uncontrolled results. In this way, we are able to set up the conditions for an architecture that is free to engage its occupants on their own terms through their own reading of the system.

For me, this is an entirely new way of thinking about design and producing architectural conditions. Obviously not completely new territory for the profession, but for me a completely new and exciting direction and one that will challenge how I approach architecture throughout my final year at Taubman College. I will have much more to say and explain later on when I have a firmer grasp on the work, but for now enjoy some images from our current progress.

All work shown above was done in cooperation with my group members: Mark Wright Ning Zhou Bennett Scorcia

Learning from the Digital Technology Revolution

What can architecture learn from the Tech Revolution

Maybe nothing? Maybe everything?

I have been thinking about this post for a while and its original title was going to be, What can architects learn from Apple but with the recent release of Windows 8 I think my thoughts can apply to a much larger spectrum. The reason I originally focused on Apple was because I think (and I am sure I am not alone) they have the best design minds in the game. Full disclosure, I have owned multiple iPods in my day and currently have both an iPhone and iPad, so my opinion is clearly skewed in Apples favor. Anyways, what I love most about Apple as a company and brand is their complete dedication to the idea that their design aesthetic and approach is the best and everyone else must either accept it or be left behind. You can hate on the aesthetic, but you cant hate on their unwavering belief in their own design. I believe that architects would benefit from this undying belief in their own ideas and work. However lets bring it back to the larger issue of lessons to be learned from the Digital Technology Revolution, which for the purposes of this post is dating back to the early 80s. As far as advancements in technology goes, the computer and digital technology has had the fastest and most rapid pace of any technology in human history. It took only 30 or so years for computers go to from the size of a room to the size of a jacket pocket. That is the equivalent to going from the original Smith and Wesson revolver to laser beams in the time it takes to complete the AREs. Due to the rapid pace of evolution in digital technology, I believe it has been forced into a very condensed trajectory in terms of design and aesthetics. Art, Architecture and many other disciplines have had a very steady theoretical growth through the various Avant-gardes of the day. Digital Technology, on the other hand, has not had the luxury of this steady growth as theoretical ideas on aesthetics and style have had to keep rapid pace with technological advancements.

At present, it seems like digital technology is in its Modernism phase, the origins of which can be found in the clean and simple look of Apples first iPod. With the first iPhone came the introduction of the grid in digital technology. Not only are all the apps on the iPhone placed on a grid, but you cannot change it if you tried, the modernism take-over of computers and mobile devices has arrived. At this point Apple is assuming the role of radical architecture groups such as Superstudio and Archigram, with their devotion to the grid. We also see the grid used in the recent release of Windows 8. The random and unorganized look of the classic windows desktop, with icons thrown around everywhere (at least that is what my desktop looks like), is whitewashed and replaced with a tiled grid to solve all our problems, even if we didnt know we had any.

The point to all of this is that with the rapid evolution of digital technology, and the way in which design theory is forced to keep pace, we are able to see design theory redefine itself over and over again in a short time frame. What took art and architecture centuries now only takes until the next smart phone release date. As architects, the rapidity of this evolution in design thinking, predicated by advancements in digital technology, not only tells us where weve been but also can give us a glimpse into where we will be. Where will design theory in digital technology be in 5 years? 10 years? These are the questions that are most interesting to me as a would-be architect.

Back to Top

4 Comments

Thayer-D
Nov 12, 12 12:10 pm

Full disclosure, I was big into Atari back in the day and love reading random stories on the internet, but this is technonarcism on a grandious scale. There was a time when technology was thought of as the tools by which we solved problems and sometimes created beauty. Now it seems that technology or the fetishizing of it has become beauty itself. Much like the kids who mistake facebook friends for the type whole be there when the poop hits the fan and come to find out that without putting in the time for face to face interaction, they really don't care a fig, this delusion that the latest technology will make you a good designer will continue disengage us with the natural environment we depend on. "Anyways, what I love most about Apple as a company and brand is their complete dedication to the idea that their design aesthetic and approach is the best and everyone else must either accept it or be left behind." You realize that you're talking about a for profit corporation? And the idea that one ought to ape their approach that your piers ought to realize you're "the bomb" or be left behind? By all means there must be plenty to learn from the latest computer, but I'm sure lack of cooperation and cross fertalization is not what produced these amazing gizmos with-in the walls of Apple. I will agree with the paralells to modernism in that it was an all or nothing approach (not exclusive to modernists I know, just a central tenant in thier founding documents, a not so pleasant side-effect of many revolutionaries) "The point to all of this is that with the rapid evolution of digital technology, and the way in which design theory is forced to keep pace" What does design theory have to do with digital technology? And what ever happened to design practice? I thought the idea of education was to teach us how to do rather than philosophise. There's a reason that philosophers used to be the provenance of older people, becasue they actually could look back over their long lives to ponder (wisely) over what it all meant and therefore where we might be going. I hope you can imagine a tme in the future when the latest flickering of an electronic device will not elicit such a level of excitement, when you're a bit older and start to see larger patterns emerging than the ones some brilliant code writer wants to sell you. hsolie
Nov 12, 12 1:58 pm

Thayer: clearly you missed the entire point of my post.

spend more time reading and less time trolling around archinect looking for people/projects to hate on Thayer-D
Nov 12, 12 2:22 pm

hsolie, just becasue someone dosen't agree with something you posted dosen't mean they hate you or what you're saying or are a troll. I thought your piece was so strange, I didn't know if it was a parody or not. Clearly not, since you are taking your que from your favorite company, "Anyways, what I love most about Apple as a company and brand is their complete dedication to the idea that their design aesthetic and approach is the best and everyone else must either accept it or be left behind" Go for it! tiorted
Nov 13, 12 12:56 am

I'm not trolling, but seriously, the lessons I learned from this article are: 1. You like Apple and you have lots of their products and you might like guns 2. Apple makes modern digital products using a grid that reminds you of Superstudio 3. "(You) believe that architects would benefit from this undying belief in their own ideas and work." [you mean ego? bravado? self-centeredness? does this not already happen and does it not create a chaotic 'to-each-their-own' mentality?] 4. You think that swift product releases are equivalent to "evolution(s) in design thinking" and that they "(tell) us where weve been but also can give us a glimpse into where we will be" [what does this vague statement advance in your argument?] 5. The thesis of your title is what interests you 6. I just wasted a few minutes of my time, but hope that if anyone else in the world reads through and comprehends to this point - that they may laugh and sigh in solidarity.

Design MANIFESTO: responding to Design Intelligence