-
Jameson | Architecture and the Critique of Ideology
Well, as usual, the title seems to sum it up quite well “architecture and the critique of ideology.” From the text, we can see that Jameson is a Marxist. The work examines three attitudes of Tafuri’s writings within Architecture and Utopia which Jameson break down into the following:
1) Relation to the Marxist context in which production occurs - that many people will not recognize these references because they are not familiar with the Marxist ideas
2) The form that Tafuri works within, ”namely historiography itself, and most particularly narrative history” (Hays 444). Here linguistics becomes again critical —-any chance we can just remove language all together and just let things exist…or is their existence already speaking to us?3) Recognizing Tafuri’s organizing concepts in relation to wider topics such as “the critique of high modernism and postmodernism.
He does, throughout the reading seem, to have an issue with the notions presented by Tafuri, as well as others, on the idea of the dialectic. He says,
“one of the more annoying and scandelous habits of dialectical thought is indeed its identification of opposites, and its tendency to send off back to back seemingly opposed positions on the grounds that both share and are determined and limited by a common problematic, or, to use a more familiar language, represent the two intolerable options of a single double-bind” (Hays 460).
Jameson talks about a dialetical history and how it must involved a “vision of Necessity, or, if you prefer, must always tell the store of failure” (Hays 446). This struct me as interesting because it seems that everyone just keeps realizing the fact that we cannot do anything right no matter what we do - is it just me or do we need to keep proving it? Is that part of the human condition of knowing that no solution will ever exist - continuously telling people that you cannot escape the grasps of capitalism? …..I get it - its depressing.
One thing I did want to bring up, did anyone else notice that Jameson refers to architecture critics in the female form - continuously he uses the word “her” to describe the critic (example on the top of 444). Is this a stab at Tafuri and his ideas? Any thoughts? -
Cacciari | Eupalinos or Architecture
I found Cacciari’s piece to be an interesting read into another take on the Metropolis. For Cacciari, again we see the blase attitude of the Metropolis, society being trapped within the limits of our construction of a city. To him, the failure of reason in integral in to the total rationalization of the metropolis.
Cacciari states, “at stake are not the old criteria - the political, the sociological, the aesthetic, which from time to time are used in order to seize upon this “name”— but this “name itself.” (Hays 394). Cacciari is referencing the writings and criticims of Tafuri and Dal Co as not having addressed the real question of what is meant by “architecture.”
He calls the notion of building-dwelling into question and states that within the Metropolis a “house” does not exist. He goes on to say that, “the problem lies in the fact that spirit may no longer dwell - it has become estranged from dwelling. And this is why building cannot “make” the Home (Dimora) “appear” (Hays 395).
Cacciari calls into question the number of assumptions made by man, that too many aspects of the world are recognized without much basis. That to “pro-duce dwelling is conceivable only if dwelling is first connected to building.” (Hays 395). Here he beings to seperate the word production into pro-duction. I was curious what he means by this and upon searching the internet I only came across the idea of duction relating to movement of only one eye - is this relating to an attitude in looking at the world without seeing everything (50 percent of the function)? I was unsure about this segmentation of the words.
Clearly, we can see the issues Cacciari has with current linguistics as evidenced in his critique of Heidegger. He demonstrates that the result is always assumed by not evidenced. It acts as an “end in itself for itself.”Next, Cacciari delves into the absence of the “dweller” (Hays 396). That in order to be builders, we must first understand how to be dwellers. Must architects be dwellers? Heidegger “tells us of the total impotence of shelters disguised as homes, of cities disguised as places” (Hays 396). Again, much like Tafuri argues, we are not resolving the problems at hand but rather creating other constructs within which to hide the issues/mask them. Cacciari talks about the present day lacking a poetry (a topic we talked about within the last class) and that without poetry there is no dwelling —-again we come back to the ideas of language.
Cacciari explains that “what condemns architecture to the most despicable misery is the adornment of our deserts with traditional forms and archaic ruins, the disguising or artifice with nature and of Being with eternity, the branding of techical functions as “poetic,” and the “ennobling” of the harsh conventions of the diverse politics that comprise technique” (Hays 400). The Metropolis, according to Cacciari, is constructed of “arbitrary forms [that] are assumed to be laws and its conventions to be immutable rules of the game. And this position ends up by becoming profoundly intertwined in the false disenchantment of the urban planning game” (Hays 401). Therefore, “non-dwelling is the essential characteristic of life in the metropolis” (Hays 400).
He concludes the piece making some pretty harsh accusations onto the work of Mies van der Rohe, suggesting that his work with glass completely negates the dwelling ideals. The question is, can the “dwelling,” as proposed by Cacciari, exist in the Metropolis at all - or is it rather a home in the country? Does the notion of “dwelling”, as Cacciari sees it, actual call for the removal of architects to be replaced with everyday citizens who have to construct their own places of residence in order to have a true “dwelling”? -
Silvetti | The Beauty of Shadows
I was curious when reading Silvetti’s essay….when was I going to read anything that was about shadows - turns out it is not until the very last paragraph. Rooted in the writings of Barthes - in relation to myth - was the notion of ideas rooted within language and how they influence and are applied to architecture.
The first question I have is, why are we constantly striving to define architecture within language? It seems that we have become obsessed in an architecture rooted in language, is that because our criticisms of it are always in a published format? Why?
Regardless, Silvetti speaks about two opposing forms of criticism within the essay. The first, “criticism from within” and the second “mythification” (Hays 271). Criticism from within focuses on a topic (content) that is already rooted in a system, a previous foundation for the idea. Mythification, on the other hand, “institutes a new signifying system in which its form remains almost untransformed, but by subtly accents, a new content covers it” (Hays 271).
How does all of this apply to something that is built completely out of necessity, such as the primitive hut? Was this not considered influenced by language because there was no influences of Capitalism?
Yes we can understand all of this, but does it ever really help us get out of this struggle? Seems to me like no matter what you do, or how you do it, you cannot get out of the hole, therefore, what is the point of writing about it? The struggles that architecture has with language, is in essence, exactly what promotes success within Tafuri’s writings, etc. The fact that language complicates, confuses, and masks issues is exactly what Tafuri takes refuge in - his writings cannot be proven wrong solely because they are rooted in an already established mysticism of language.
I did, however, appreciate what Silvetti says about Tafuri on the top of page 277, in which he basically says Tafuri is confusing - just like what we have all agreed upon since Day 1 (a nice validation from another theorist). -
Scolari | The New Architecture and the Avant-Garde
Scolari’s essay presents 3 topics of discussion; 1) Tendenza, 2) Concept of the Monument, 3) Foregrounding of Typological Questions.
The Tendenza, defined concisely by encyclopedia.com as an “ Italian Neo-Rationalist architectural movement of the 1960s that rose to eminence in the 1970s, led by Aymonino, Botta, Grassi, Reichlin,Reinhart, and Aldo Rossi, and associated with the Canton of Ticino in Switzerland. It recognized the social and cultural significance of established urban fabric, the importance of historical forms and elements as a resource, and the need for architecture to be redefined in terms of rules and types. Opposed to the inflated pretensions of Functionalism, the vulgar popularism of High Tech, and increasing commercialization by those seen as having betrayed architecture, a return to academic theories propounded by Quatremère de Quincy and others was proposed. A good example of realized works is Grassi’s student residences, Chieti (1976), which drew on proposals by Weinbrenner(1808).”Scolari states that Rossi, takes the path in architecture under the Tendenza, that allows for the greatest exploration in possibilities. Rossi’s comprises architecture of parts and pieces of history without being influenced by time and that Gregotti assumes history by overlaying its various layers in a type of collage (Hays 133).
Scolari also presents several dialetics, similar to Tafuri, when speaking about paths to a “new architecture”. He says that new architecture “is found between simplicity and complication, between evocation and description, between the possibilities of the type of the repeatability of the model” (Hays 134). Simplicity and complication is comparable to Tafuri’s order and disorder.
According to Scolari, “the Tendenza has by now achieved an unquestionable presence and authority thanks to the precision of its forms and to the clarity of its principles” (Hays 139). A number of elements link the concept of Tendenza; the strict relationship to history, the predominance of urban studies, the relation between building typology and urban morphology, monumentality, and the importance of form” (Hays 139).
Next, Scolari talks about the concept of the monument. He says that “monumentality is based above all on the need that emerges from a more than superficial examination of the urban phenomenon.” He says that importantly presented by Rossi, is the idea of “having individuated withint he city as product the dialectic between primary elements (monuments) and residential areas” (Hays 140). Again, the dialectic…. Rossi’s work presents the notion that planning is an “indication of simplicity and formal rarefication” (Hays 140).
Through monumentality, the hope is to imply a demand for unity and simplicity by setting up a minimal set of rules, a foundation for future architectural movement/works. What Scolari states is that, “what the city today is in danger of losing forever is its own consciousness, its individuality, its character of civilization.” That, according to Scolari, “the choice of monumentality opposes the consumerism of the private city” (Hays 140.)
So, by placing emphasis on monumentality, are we rejecting capitalist controls, or simply not remaining subject to their controls?
The third and final idea of Scolari’s essay, the foregrounding of typological questions, was interesting. He speaks about the notion of type, and how much of the works produced are based on relationships not creations. That architecture has placed its trust in “ordering images rather than creating them” (Hays 141). He explains the concept of planning and how, with this idea of the notion of type, the essential concern of planning is ” a theory of architecture in which the theoretical principles guide the formal choices through a geneology of reference spanning the typologies of history and materials project, written, and thought” (Hays 142). I found this interesting, that we develop construction only out of assemblies that we inherently know and understand, and it is rare to see exploration into undiscovered realms, new creations, etc.
Scolari explains that we may need to “reverse the terms of the noted axiom, the New Architecture may show that function follows form” (Hays 142). That form itself opens doors to functional uses or allows itself to be transformed into a usable entity - which I find to be really interesting. Basically, I think Scolari’s essay can be boiled down to a “demand for simplicity and compactness of form: what we might call the conciseness of beauty” (Hays 144).How comprehensive should this set of guidelines for creating a New Architecture of the like be? What exactly should be the few points that set up its structure?
-
The Plug-In City by Archigram the Scolari speaks about in his essay
-
Speaking of the “Big Kitty”
this is pretty funny when talking about the big kitty
http://min.us/mvtdYf -
WWTD
I’m surprised after the success of WWJD bracelets, that Tafuri didn’t try to get out a WWTD sale to all architecture schools? Then again, does anyone really know What Would Tafuri Do?
-
Tafuri | Ashes of Jefferson
Tafuri speaks about New York as being a “new Venice” (Tafuri 291). He seems to be exhibiting a type of warning about the troubles that can/will arise from the development of a city with such a powerful promotion of itself.
Dialectic seems to develop between the work of Robert Venturi and Louis Kahn. Tafuri states that, ”to the promise of Kahn -communication is possible by giving voice to institutions—Robert Venturi has responded with the following objection: the only institution is the real, and only the real speaks” (Tafuri 294). He goes on to say, ”if Kahn could have produced a school of mystics without religions to defend, Venturi has in fact created a school of the disenchanted without any values to transgress” (Tafuri 294). Both Kahn and Venturi thought that it was possible for their work to be produced without any external influences but in reality, the “uncontrollable forces” set up by society, the problems with language, history, etc have had a large impact on all of their decisions.
Tarfuri argues that one needs to inwardly focus, to reject external influences by understanding the essence of the origins of language itself. Both Khan and Venturi make attempts to overturn present attitudes, however, in doing so they actually create situations that are troubling. ”The order without center of Kahn and the ambiguous, ‘too ambiguous’ of Venturi find in this their fluctuating point of convergence” (Tafuri 295). Additionally, Tafuri goes on to say, “their turning architecture upside down renders legitimate the sinking into the bottomless well of the autonomy of form” (Tarfuri 295).
Following this, Tafuri explores the New York Five (Peter Eisenmann, Michael Graves, John Hejduk, Charles Gwathmey, and Richard Meier). A yearning for the past, a nostalgia, seems to be at the forefront to their success, as well as deep pockets on the part of their clients.
In both pieces, Tafuri keeps mentioning the notion of a “second language”. This concept is a bit confusing for me so I hope we can discuss it in class, or that one of the groups mentions it/explores it in more detail.
Tarfuri, within Ashes of Jefferson, seems to be exploring a dialectic between contruction and destruction and how the avant garde consistently attempt to breakdown and rebuild ideas rooted in history, seemingly with more basis in history unknowingly, to build it back up again. Tafuri states that Jefferson was searching for an architecture that both utilized modern technological production along with a classical aesthetic. He says that Jefferson was aiming for a “dialectic for enlightenment” (Tafuri 300). -
Tafuri | L’architecture dans le boudoir
After the read, I did realize that the document was missing pages 288-289.
Something interesting I came across was the other participants at the conference when this essay was first presented in the U.S. A blog post on Archinect by “aml” user explains,
1974 ‘l’architecture dans le boudoir’ is presented in the united states in the conference ‘practice, theory and politics in architecture’ organized in princeton university by diana agrest.other participants in this conference include:
‘on practice’: koolhaas, silvetti, gandelsonas, natalini
‘on theory’: eisenman, lionel march
‘on politics’: frampton, charney, raggiImportant again within this reading are the concepts of criticism and language.
“Today, he who wishes to make architecture speak is thus forced to resort to materials devoid of all meaning; he is forced to reduce to degree zero every ideology, every dream of social function, every utopian residue.” (Tafuri 267)
Tafuri speaks of “degraded materials”, fragments of the world that are placed within architecture in an attempt to give it meaning, as being useless to any further development because they already carry too much meaning. He then speaks about language, the wish architects have to make architecture speak, and how in order to do so one must use objects that carry no significance.
Much of this piece seems to speak about the impact of society/economy in defining the types of architecture that take place within it. However, I think Tafuri recognizes that their is no way to get out of this, for money makes the world go around. However, the fact of attempting to generate a language devoid of all meaning, somewhat defeats the purpose of language does it not. The fact is, communication is based on the understanding within a particular society of the meanings and associations given to language itself. Without it, doesn’t communication cease to exist. Language is cultural.
It seems to me that in Tarfuri’s writings, with his first example/exploration into the works of James Stirling is that Stirling’s architecture is a reenactment. That his buildings no longer make a direct reference to architecture of the past, but rather references itself.
“Neither attracted nor repelled by the autonomous articulation of Sitrling’s formal machines, the spectator is compelled, in spite of himself, to recognize that this architecture does indeed speak a language of its own, one that is, however, perversely closed within itself. It is impossible to participate in this language ‘by living it’, instead, one can only tread water or swim in it, forced into a vacillating course, itself just as vacillating as the sadomasochistic game the architect plays with his linguistic materials.” (Tafuri 270).
He then talks about commentary and criticism. He says, “commentary takes the form of repetition desperately in search of the origins of signs; criticism takes the form of an analysis of the functions of the signs themselves, once that search for the pristine meaning of the signs has been abandoned” (Tafuri 272). He explains that Stirling condemns the utopia in order to attempt to save “architecture as ‘discourse’” (272).
Does anyone else get the impression that Tarfuri actually uses the architects and architectural precedents as symbols in his language. I mean every time he references, is he not assuming a general language understanding of what the work means, that each is not devoid of meaning because he uses them within his writings? Isn’t Tafuri himself actually getting a bit stuck in the “system” he argues against? Additionally, is there any way to even communicate without having such a basis in the system? Personally I don’t think its possible, unless language transformed into an innate behavior rather than one that is learned. -
I see…that makes more sense
