ARCHITECTURE REDUCED TO IMAGERY Chui Lam Jasmine Chung Diploma HTS | Architectural Association
1|Page
Abstract In a modern society increasingly fetishizing and impregnated with visual stimuli, architecture ceases to exist as singular moments of cultural importance and functionality in a historical lineage, but rather a multiplicity of commodified symbolic images. The images are imbued with meanings that are collectively agreed, that which change exponentially temperamentally and are also dependent on the linguistic syntax within an exact culture and time. This essay explores some of the topics of temporality and simultaneity as an aftermath of the global synchronization of time, and the loss of linearity in present-day architecture. As architecture is stripped of its physical formal necessity, its historicity as well as its socio-political functionality, it is now reduced to constructing a cultural imagery of a reality separate from the real.
Table of contents
1. Detachment of Architecture from Physicality
P. 3
2. Complications of Temporal Linearity in Architecture
P. 3
3. Detachment of Architecture from Functionality
P. 5
4. Domination by Imagery
P. 6
5. Ambiguity of Imagery
P. 7
6. Conclusion: Architecture as an Empty Vector
P. 8
7. References
P. 9
2|Page
1. Detachment of Architecture from Physicality
“Freed from the technical constraints that previously required cornices, pediments, corners and fenestration, the articulation of the spherical envelope has become increasingly contingent and indeterminate.” - Zaera-Polo1 Since the 19th century, the architectural envelope that once carried the load of the building has been liberated from its fabrication, materiality and physicality, now only fulfilling representational roles. As much as Foster’s buildings exhibit a hi-tech expression rather the technology itself, or the Eiffel Tower as a symbol of industrial advancement of Paris, architecture is now heavily invested in the production of false identity with rhetoric, both aesthetically and linguistically. In spite of Jean Nouvel’s Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris being erected in the name of “celebrating” Arabic culture with its arabesque façade patterning2, the building in actuality perpetuates imperialism and cultural appropriation. It displays impulsive insertion of “exotic” “orientalism”, a deluded attempt to import culture to simulate an image of diversity and acceptance. Similarly, many of London’s new constructions are persistently brick-clad, despite being structurally supported by steel or concrete. The detachment of materiality from structure, façade from building, articulation from historical physical constraints, are further coupled with a disconnection between the external image and the internal space. The mechanisation of environmental control: the integration of mechanical ventilation, artificial lighting, space heating and cooling, all led to a revolutionary division between reality and enclosed space3. Perhaps this could be encapsulated in Olafur Eliasson’s “The Weather” exhibition in Tate Modern, London (2005). In the installation, the ceiling of the Turbine Hall appears to have disappeared – instead, it composes an illusion of infinite and reflected space with an array of mirrors, which complete the giant red dazzling semi-circular light into an image of a perfect circular sun. Mist dissipating across the space, symbolizing the fleeting flux of nature, further adds to the project’s metaphysical and ironic enclosure of external weather. Rendering a reality climatically separate from the real, architecture itself becomes a representation of reality without being the reality. The consumption of representative architecture and cityscape as commodity is apparent not only in films, with the city as a picturesque backdrop, but also on every form of social media as a means for constructing brand identity – be it a luxury hotel, five-star restaurant, or hipster retrofitted coffee shop. No longer closely tied to physicality, buildings are dictated by bourgeois capitalism to be free-formed into fetishized compositionality: of hi- or low-tech, of novelty, of democracy or of endless other signified meanings. 2. Complications of Temporal Linearity in Architecture The problem of time in architecture is an intriguing one. Unlike other arts such as paintings or musical compositions, which are capable of swiftly responding to social changes within shorter creation times, architecture as a cultural artefact not only takes substantially longer to construct – ranging from years to centuries as evident in Gaudi’s Familia Sagrada – it also physically exists for potentially centuries before deterioration or Spencer, D. (2019). Architectural Deleuzism: Neoliberal space, control and the ‘univer-city’. Radical Philosophy, (168 (July/August 2011). 2 Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. 3 Chai, S. (2019). Three Instances of Travel. 1
3|Page
demolition. From the time of its conception, having adhered to the dominant political or aesthetical paradigm of that time, to the time of its completion, the new build is already outmoded on its first day of operation. Architecture’s inability to keep up with the exponential temporality of cultural changes is simultaneously exacerbated by the increasingly extended lifespan of materials. The sole success of “unselfconscious”, vernacular architecture as opposed to the selfconscious which derives from academia, as Christopher Alexander put it, was that they could “achieve equilibrium before the next culture change upsets it”4, a process now unattainable with the speed of social and technological change since mid-19th century. Ringstrasse in Vienna is exemplary of this misalignment of temporality. With the Parliament building as Classical Greek architecture, the City Hall as Gothic, the University as Renaissance, Burgtheatre as Baroque5, the street becomes an eclectic culmination of glorifying antiquity, as architects are no longer capable of adapting artistic forms to changing necessities and techniques, thereby resorting to reviving earlier styles. Other than suspending geographic, cultural location and weather through its interiority like that of galleries, shopping malls and arcades, Disneyland suspends temporality itself. Eliminating the need to visit the “real” castle (Neuschwanstein Castle in Bavaria, Germany), Disneyland simulates an active desire for falsification, a desire for the replica more than the original or the real6. Technology creates the illusion of producing more reality than reality itself, creating a fantastical, fetishized, hyperreal counterpart to it. Architects’ obsession to create immortality and “timelessness”, with either monumental edifices such as on Ringstrasse or illusive Disneylands, offer an insight into the convenient adoption of nostalgic aestheticism to project collective memory of the past into the future, to suspend and fashion that memory into a symbol of identity – in this case, an ageless universal symbol of fairy-tale and entertainment. Although the linearity of architectural history itself can be disputed, there is no denying of an objective loss of linearity in present-day architecture. In other words, no event can lead to another, but instead everything exists in multiplicity and simultaneity, because the transit of information has destroyed the temporal dimension 7. I would argue that Kenneth Frampton’s advocation that architecture return to its roots and regain a “critical regionalism” is all but a utopian dream, after an irreversible chain reaction of globalization. To exhibit “culture” or vernacular traditions is simply to illustrate another imagery of national individuality, of culture identity, not culture itself. Not unlike how postmodernism fails to address historicity but instead boasts an “image” of historical links to elements already de-politicized, already liberated and emptied of meaning, critical regionalism is yet another fantastical theory of regaining a pre-industrial innocence with post-industrial methods. “Innocence, once lost, cannot be regained”, commented Christopher Alexander8. The only result of reintroducing “culture”, once saturated with images of other cultural motifs around the world, is a glorification of a historicism that does not exist anymore. Simultaneity of the internet and the ease of universal cultural exportation has fractured architecture into a disjunct timeline no longer comprehensible: Time has transformed from linearity to reversal (in eliciting new constructed memory such as in neo-classical or Alexander, C. (1970). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, Mass. Kern, S. (1983). The Culture of Time and Space. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 6 Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. 7 Virilio, P. (1984 trans ’91). The Lost Dimension. New York. Semiotext(e). 8 Alexander, C. (1970). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, Mass. 4 5
4|Page
even critical regional designs), frozen state (deliberately astylistic, atemporal structures), projected futurism (when architects attempt to create utopian dreams of eternity such as Disneyland), all occurring in a simultaneity of time. 3. Detachment of Architecture from Functionality “New” and “exciting” architectural innovations of the 21st century circle around prefabrication methods, robotic fabrication, DIY IKEA home assembled furniture, modularity (especially that of Japan’s Metabolism movement), and a neoliberal, postcapitalist ideology of “de-hierarchization” of architectural parts9 – a freedom from totality of design, and a reinvention of the importance of individuality. An unprecedented level of “personalization”, “site-specificism”, and “critical regionalism” infiltrates the industry, seemingly freeing men and architecture from the homogenization of modernism, but also reciprocally freeing architecture from its functionality. As Baudrillard discussed in “The System of Objects”, no longer does interior furniture have a direct functional relationship with its user, but is rather a remnant of traditional family structures, of bourgeoisie and past hierarchical labelling of spaces and objects 10. Bound together only by its symbolic dignity in a given culture, these elusive furniture or rooms are continually transformed into multi-functional objects to adapt to sporadic changes in social structures as well as mobility. Whilst every object is liberated from its function, it equally ceases to exercise moral constraints on its users; now liberated from both domestic habits and the uniformity of traditional space, homeowners reorganize their space like architects. Individuality on a collective scale becomes a homogenization of heterogeneity that permeates the city. This “multifunctionality” and autonomy of functionality is problematic not only on the scale of the objects embellishing apartments – but also extends to the totality of architecture as a whole, precisely due to the aforementioned conflict between the age of buildings and the speed of societal changes. Architectural symbolism is strictly allegorical and fully dependent on semantic associations – historical memory and collective imagination - within a temporal framework that is intrinsically unstable. The reappropriation of the Berlin Olympic Stadium – an emblem in 1936 for Nazi Olympics – to daily football matches, the Victorian villa to an academic department, police stations to brothel, the dictator’s palace into a casino11, are mere examples of an inexhaustive list of buildings with drastically transformed ideological imperatives. Bucharest Nicolai Ceausescu’s palace, once a painful symbol of totalitarianism, is now a popular conference centre only as its reading became shifted to forge a new Romanian national identity, manifest in built form12. Thus, architecture has become as multi-functional and meaningless as its internal furniture, ready to be repurposed and re-indoctrinated with any cultural value, whether as a nostalgic retainment of some collective memory or an erasure of painful past.
Spencer, D. (2019). Architectural Deleuzism: Neoliberal space, control and the ‘univer-city’. Radical Philosophy, (168 (July/August 2011). 10 Baudrillard, J. (1968 trans ‘96). The system of objects . London: Verso. 11 Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. 12 Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. 9
5|Page
4. Domination by Imagery What, then, defines architecture if neither for its function nor form? Because of the undeniable fact that all buildings will outlive its preconceived function (with the exponential increase of both social transformation speed and building longevity), the entirety of architectural discipline is undermined: having historically existed only to carry out the role of ordering, structuring society both physically and socially, architecture’s only role now is to design an empty vessel to be re-appropriated and custom-designed by each individual user. As Myhill puts it, “the optimal way to design pathways in accordance with natural human behaviour, is to not design them at all. Simply plant grass seed and let the erosion inform you about where the paths need to be.”13 Abandoning well-defined typologies, determinate ordering of territory and social patterns, architects are reduced to designing a framework, “the domain of possibility for final manipulation and articulation14” of its users, as Patrik Schumacher phrases it, but perhaps more importantly, its abstraction, identity, and semantic allegories of meaning. When fabricating preconceived order is shifted to fabricating imagery, when utilitarian values turn to symbolic values, architecture manufactures only visual stimuli and semiology to be consumed as cultural commodity, to become the next internet sensation. The only sensible architectural act now seems to be constructing virtual reality, psychological space, and is less concerned about constructing the city than constructing how we perceive the city. Architectural history and collective memory are flattened into a multiplicity that exists at simultaneous instants, just like how Ringstrasse or Shanghai Bund are neo-constructions of picked and chosen historical styles. This world of generalized imagery is reduced to two-dimensionality: “dynamic euphoria”15 becomes favored over the static artefact. The effortless mobility and flexibility, suspension of social symbols, absence of any functionality or form, fundamentally transformed architecture into an eternally empty vessel to be functionally and politically re-appropriated in any way at any time. While the present level of self-organization and self-automation has devalued the architect, it has empowered the “autonomy” of individuals in exercising the role of the architect, in appropriating these spaces according to their custom needs. However, even when the people – developers, restaurant owners, homeowners - instead of architects “design” their own investments, they are also equally concerned with imagery, with the cultural value placed upon stylistic trends, and the projection of their own identity onto architectural imagery. “The subject is himself the order he puts into things.”16 Like fashion, architecture becomes an expression of self-identity and is no longer about its utilitarian functions. Of course, the level of perceived autonomy is always bound by an everevolving cultural paradigm: despite the individual space no longer prescribed by a dominant designer, it is still perpetuated by cultural forces that influence the individual’s choice of fashion statement. Architecture’s entering the realm of abstraction and of signification ultimately detaches its ability to actually achieve any physical result. Charles Jenck’s and Maggie Valentine’s attempt to delineate a “democratic architecture” was as arbitrary as it was whimsical: That it must avoid excessive uniformity (“An architecture of democracy that is Myhill, C. (n.d.). Commercial Success by looking for Desire Lines. [online] Available at: http://www.litsl.com/personal/commercial_success_by_looking_for_desire_lines.pdf [Accessed 6 Dec. 2019]. 14 Schumacher, P. (2019). Autopoeisis of a Residential Community. 15 Baudrillard, J. (1968 trans ‘96). The system of objects . London: Verso. 16 Baudrillard, J. (1968 trans ‘96). The system of objects . London: Verso. 13
6|Page
uniform is as absurd as a democracy of identical citizens!”), but also avoid excessive variety (“An architecture where every building is in a different style is as privatised as a megalopolis of consumers!”); that it should be “at once shared, abstract, individualised, and disharmonious”17. The detachment from reality is clear. Democracy cannot be established by architecture itself. As Michel Foucault stated, things cannot “guarantee the exercise of freedom. The guarantee of freedom is freedom”18. Architecture may at best aesthetically facilitate its politics of use, but is ultimately incapable of liberation or repression. It purely creates the perceived image of that certain thing. The architecture world has come to revolve around commercially inflated rhetoric and imagery in representing political ideology. 5. Ambiguity of Imagery Now reduced from physicality (form) and functionality (social function) to symbolism (imagery), architecture faces a major challenge: the correct perception of that imagery. While architecture becomes a mediator and divider between the real and constructed interiority, the individual’s access to the signified meaning behind the architecture’s imagery is also never unmediated. The nature of architecture’s engagement with its audience is mediated by the very abstraction of its symbolic form, and a phenomenology of “experiencing” architecture cannot be prescribed to the subjective individual because it presupposes a universal, essentialised, ahistorical persona of a reader without any cultural or gender difference19. It cannot be denied that many of today’s iconic starchitecture would not have acclaimed international fame if not without curational websites such as ArchDaily and DeZeen, or a mediating cultural framework that favors one aesthetic paradigm over another. As the architect’s role is reduced day by day to a mere description of spatial constructs, these representational codes of architectural language also become chaotic and incoherent “floating signs” of fashion20, as Fredric Jameson puts it. With symbolic meaning “as volatile as the arbitrariness of the sign”21, comprehending the signifier and the signified in architecture is like trying to speak a sentence but with the meaning of each word changing every minute. Not only is architecture now reduced to an abstraction of reality, the media or the linguistic framework that also mediate in deciphering its abstraction further pose a threat to understanding if there can be any value or meaning behind architecture today at all.
“I have come to think that no work of art or culture can set out to be political once and for all, no matter how ostentatiously it labels itself as such, for there can never be any guarantee that it will be used the way it demands.” – Fredric Jameson22
Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. 19 Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. 20 Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. 21 Leach, N. (1999). The anaesthetics of architecture . Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press. 22 Leach, N. (2005). Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. 17 18
7|Page
6. Conclusion: Architecture as an Empty Vector Released from historical construction methods, the external reality, a linear historicity, the purposing and ordering of spaces, and disseminating into the public’s own self-made reality, architecture is left with the only task of creating imagery and imposing allegorical meaning on it. Existing only within, and mediated by, a semiotic and cultural context, the architectural imagery itself becomes intrinsically unstable and meaningless when received subjectively and differently by each spectator. This essay does not propose a solution but an understanding of constructed imagery as the only remaining architectural mechanism, whether it is creating a false nostalgia of a glorified past, or a style of democracy, or self-identity. The architectural discipline exists in limbo, without a meaning or point in linear temporality – It only exists in today’s world as imagery.
8|Page
References Alexander, C. (1970). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, Mass. Baudrillard, J. (1968 trans ‘96). The system of objects. London: Verso. Chai, S. (2019). Three Instances of Travel. Kern, S. (1983). The Culture of Time and Space. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and Revolution. Leach, N. (1999). The anaesthetics of architecture. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press. Leach, N. (2005). Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. Myhill, C. (n.d.). Commercial Success by looking for Desire Lines. [online] Available at: http://www.litsl.com/personal/commercial_success_by_looking_for_desire_lines.pdf [Accessed 6 Dec. 2019]. Schumacher, P. (2019). Autopoeisis of a Residential Community. Spencer, D. (2019). Architectural Deleuzism: Neoliberal space, control and the ‘univercity’. Radical Philosophy, (168 (July/August 2011). Virilio, P. (1984 trans ’91). The Lost Dimension. New York. Semiotext(e).
9|Page