Which Way Avant-Garde?

Author(s): Michael Speaks

Source: Assemblage, No. 41 (Apr., 2000), p. 78
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171338
Accessed: 25/11/2010 00:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Assemblage.

http://www.jstor.org

Which

Way

Avant-garde?

I have alwaysfound charmingColin Rowe'sstoryabout modernarchitecture's

tripacrossthe AtlanticOcean; how its physiqueflesh and its moraleword,or its
formand ideology,became separated;how ideologyeither remainedin Europe
or droppedoff somewherein the cold watersof the Atlantic;how formarrivedon
Americanshoresto become the style of corporateAmerica;and how, as a result
of Americanpostwarmilitaryand culturalsupremacy,this formalistarchitecture
became the "international"
style sold to the restof the worldas trulymodern.
Rowe'slittle storyis equallyapplicableto "theory,"thatset of mostlyFrench,German, and Italianphilosophicaltractsthatarrivedin the United Statesin the late
1970sthroughdepartmentsof comparativeliteratureand weredisseminatedto the
restof Americanacademeas a wonderfulnew mode of contemporary
thought.
Theory,like modernarchitecture,wasdetachedfromits Continentaloriginsand
replantedin the States,whereit tookon a lighter,moreoccasionalexistence.
Theorycarriedall the punch of philosophywithoutthe windyGermanpreambles
and reconditeFrenchqualifications,without,that is, yearsof study,political
affiliation,or deep knowledge.Theorywasa weaponof the young,the post-'68
generationweariedby the moralityand slownessof theirelderswho seemedso
untheoretical,whetherthey embracedor rejectedtheory.Theorywasfastphilosophy and it made its waythroughvarioussectorsof the Americanacademyin the
1970sand 1980s,arrivingto architecturelate, as MarkWigleyhasso famouslyand
so frequentlypointedout. Andwhen it did, it was inevitablethattheoryand the
formalistmodernarchitecturedescribedby Rowewouldcrosspaths.
Driven by an attemptto reconnectformand ideology,Rowe'sstorygives us a
ambitionsto reway to understandmore clearlythe contemporaryavant-garde's
establishthe social missionof modernarchitecture,and to do so in a formalvocabularythat is recognizablymodern.Nowhere has this been more evidentthan
in journalssuch as Assemblageand ANY,both of which are drawingtheirlast
breaththis year.In these magazines,theorywasattachedto experimentalformin
an attemptto createa critical,resistant,avant-gardearchitecturewith Left-leaning sympathies.But sometime in the mid- to late 1990sthe avant-gardedesireto
reconnectformand ideologydiminishedas formbegan to melt into blobsand
fields of datawhile ideologyloosened up and became reconfiguredas identity
brandingand lifestyle.As pop science, new computertechnologies,and clustering became more pressingissues in architecture,the "critical"positionostensibly
enabled by theorybegan to loose its hold on the avant-garde.Resolutelycritical
and resistantto an emergentcommercialrealitydrivenby the forcesof globalization, weighed down by its historicalattachmentto philosophy,and unable to recognize itselfas a new mode of commodifiedthought,theoryhas not been free or
quick enough to deal with the blur of e-commerceand open systems.Ultimately,
theory,and the avant-gardeprojectit enabled, has proveninadequateto the vicissitudesof the contemporaryworld.And so todaywe standat the end of a historicalperiodof experimentationdominatedby Rowe'slittle story.
What is next?It is not clear, but if reportsfromthe frontierof the new economy
offerany indication,there is emergingan experimentaldispositionevidencedby
a new generationof thinkerswho are more favorableto PeterDruckerand Kevin
Kellythan to JacquesDerrida,FredricJameson,or Gilles Deleuze. Indeed,
aroundthe worldtoday,and especiallyin NorthAmericaand Europe,there is a
fascinationwith businessculture that has altogethersupersededthe old distinctions betweenavant-gardeand corporatepracticesso importantto Rowe'sstory.
What has emergedin its place is a distinctionbetween innovativeand corporate
practices,between, for example,OMA and SOM. In the United States,much of
this attentionhas been focused on a new breed of managersand entrepreneurs
who are now showcasedin businesslifestylemagazinessuch as Fast Company,
Red Herring,and Business2.0. Elsewhere,in the United Kingdomand on the
Continent, the focus has been on a freshgenerationof researchersworkingout

78 Michael Speaks

of thinktankssuch as Demos in Londonor the AdvancedManagementProgram

in Stockholm.CharlesLeadbeater,an associateof the formerand authorof Living on ThinAir (Viking,1999),and JonasRidderstrlleand KjelleNordstr6m,
professorsat the latterand authorsof FunkyBusiness(Pearson,2000), have become majorintellectualforcesin this movement.Whetherin the U.S., the U.K.,
or on the Continent,these new managersand consultantshave emergedas heroes in the struggleto tame and makesense of the complexworldthat has been
thrownup by the forcesof globalization.
Thoughwitnessedprimarilyin the fast-pacedworldof globalbusiness
(andsurelythis is not the proper
consultancies,these managerialavant-gardists
name fora classof doerswho havealtogetheroutstrippedthe ambitionsof any hisare showingup with greaterfrequencyin the worldof high detoricalavant-garde)
sign, architecture,and urbanplanning,especiallyin schoolsof architecture.One
whose mission
of the mostaggressiveis the AA'snew DesignResearchLaboratory,
can be gleanedfromthis statementby DRLco-headPatrickSchumacher:"The
businessof architectureis not exceptedfromthe challengeof competitiveinnovais affectingthe organizationof artion. The acceleratingeconomic restructuring
chitecturalproductionas much as everyothersphereof production. . . In a time
of momentousrestructuring,
questionsconcerningdesignproductand process
can only be addressedwithinan academicframeworkthatunderstandsarchitectureas a researchbasedbusinessratherthana mediumof artisticexpression"
(Daidalos69-70 [1998-99]). The assertionis verybald,veryclear.Architecture
shouldno longerrecoilfromthe degradedworldof businessand managerial
seekto transformitselfinto a rethinking.On the contrary,it shouldaggressively
business.This soberassessmentof the relationshipbetweenresearch
search-based
and designis now an importantfeatureof the currentworkbeing done at the
BerlageInstitutein Rotterdamand hasalso become one of the organizingfeatures
of MetropolitanResearchand Design,a new postgraduate
programstartedthis
pastyearat SCI-Arc.It is my contentionthatthis managerialapproachprovides
the intellectualinfrastructure
necessaryforthe developmentof a fleet-footedgenerationof architectsand urbanistsreadyto meet globalization'schallenge:
namely,the challengepresentedby quantityand commercializationto develop
softerdesignstrategiesflexibleenoughto deal with the demandsof the market.
Thoughthe managerialdispositiondescribedabovehas madea strongbreakwith
the avant-garde
practicesenabledin Rowe'slittle story,it has returnedus all to the
problematicrelationshipbetweenthinkingand doingraisedby Americanpragmatism,an issuethatstronglyinfluencedthe lastof the greattheoryfigures,philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze wantedto shiftourattentionawayfromthought
thattetheredus to fundamentaltruthsand towardthoughtthatenabledus to act.
But Deleuze wasperhapsstill too much a philosopherto acknowledgethe ineptitude of fastphilosophy,or theory,when comparedto the conceptproductionof
the youngexecutivesand consultantswhomhe scornsin the introductionto the
brilliantbookWhatIs Philosophy?(ColumbiaUniversityPress,1994).Justas
theoryconfrontsphilosophywith its with slownessand morality,so does managerialpragmatistthoughtconfronttheorywith its complicatedrelationshipto the
dreamsand utopianaspirationsof philosophy.Despitethe best effortsof his
"Frenchtheory"adherents,and indeeddespitehis own prejudicesagainstmanagementthinking,the mostimportantformof Americanpragmatism,the workof
Deleuze will be broughtto fruitionnot by "communistslike us,"as AntonioNegri
Guattaridreamedin theirpamphletof the same name,but by intellecand Fel61ix
and managersof changein the fierceworldof globalization.
tualentrepreneurs
There is indeed importantworkto be done in the realmof architecturalthinking
afterthe end of theory,ANY,Assemblage,and the like. But if it is to surviveand
and innovation,and give up
flourish,this workmustfocuson time, interactivity,
its obsessionwith space,originality,and the utopiansearchforthe new.