RESISTANCE
through
HYBRIDIZATION
“FORM”
“CULTURE”
“PLACELESSNESS”
“PLACE”
“KITSCH”
“AVANT-GARDE”
“AUTONOMOUS”
“ENGAGED”
“PROJECT”
“ACTION”
“BUSTO”
“PELLEJO”
“POSTMODERN”
“AVANT-GARDE?”
“CIVILIZATION”
“CULTURE”
“SUPERMODERNITY”
“REGIONALISM”
Jacob M. Kummer
for Culture & Theory in Architecture VI at IE School of Architecture Professor David Goodman
In his 2012 essay, “Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals”, David Goodman is concerned about the “architectural project” being “eclipsed by direct architectural action”, and therefore questioning what power is left to the “project”?1 Goodman describes the “action” to be “small, process-driven happenings, actions, interventions, and installations that seize moments of disorder and opportunity to propose and execute micro-acts of architecture and urbanism”2. The “actions” are process-driven because they emerge from analysis of social patterns and community needs. Unlike the “project”, they lack the ambition of expression and they are just a momentary encounter3. The “project” is propositive. It serves to represent ideas4. They can be utopic, imaginary, realistic, unrealistic, futuristic or any other form in which they wish to embody. They can be realized or not, which separates them from the “action”, which instead, is responsive and realized in real-time. The “action’s” nature is to react to the real-world context. In Spain, as a result of the economic crisis beginning in 2008, architects were forced to work differently and various collectives formed, such as PKMN and Taller de Casqueria, and due to the lack of architectural work, or “projects”, they turned to other forms of intervention. This isn’t to say that these collectives originally desired to “project” architecture in the traditional sense, but either way, the work of collectives and architects like this has made the gap between the “autonomous discipline of architecture” and “active citizenship” smaller5. With this type of “project-less actions” becoming more popular, despite the economic situation improving, Goodman questions whether these “actions” could “write architecture out of the story altogether”6. The main variable which I believe to distinguish “project” from “action” is the time-frame in which it is conceived. As Goodman states in the text, an “action” is a “record of momentary circumstance”7 which implies that an “action” would be small-scale, quickly manufactured and easily manifested by the target audience. If an “action” was carried out at a larger-scale, it could take longer to be realized and the momentary context which it is aimed at could well have passed, making the “action” no longer relevant. The “project” does not have to be constrained by a specific moment in time, however, if realized, one could argue that it has to be able to resist changes in the real-world context. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2
Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals. David Goodman. (2012). 01. Happenings. Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals. David Goodman. (2012). pp. 1. Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals. David Goodman. (2012). 03. Project and Action. Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals. David Goodman. (2012). pp. 9. 01. Happenings. Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals. David Goodman. (2012). pp. 1. 01. Happenings. Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals. David Goodman. (2012). pp. 2. 03. Project and Action. Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals. David Goodman. (2012). pp. 9.
If the “project” is not tied to the location nor is it tied to the social, spatial or economic context, how can it resist through time? How could it be prepared for what future generations will demand of it and how could it adapt accordingly? Perhaps a hybridization of “project” and “action” could be the answer. British architect, Frank Duffy, claimed that a building is formed of different life-expectancy layers8. The first being the “Site” which is the geological location which lasts forever. The second being the “Structure” which is said to last a lifetime because of the unwillingness of people to change it because its expensive. The third and fourth are the “Skin” and “Services” which are low maintenance but eventually are replaced roughly every 15 years due to obsolescence. The fifth layer is the “Space Plan”, being the interior partitions, walls and ceiling, which depending on the use of the building, could be expected to change every 3 to 30 years. And finally, the sixth layer “Stuff”, being the furniture and other objects, which are subject to change frequently9. Through use of this model, Duffy claims that the building can be adaptive and therefore allowing the permanent layers of the building to resist for longer and the others with a shorter lifespan can be flexible and changed easily10.
Shearing Layers, Frank Duffy Syncronization idea inspired by Langarita-Navarro Arquitectos.
“Thinking about buildings in this time-laden way is very practical. As a designer you avoid such classic mistakes as solving a five-minute problem with a fiftyyear solution, or vice versa. It legitimises the existence of different design skills – architects, service engineers, space planners, interior designers – all with their different agendas defined by this time scale. It means you invent building forms which are very adaptive.” Frank Duffy. 8 Future Chapters. Architecture Fiction. http://rk-architecturefiction.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/future-chapters.html 9 The Patterns: Shearing Layers of Change. Layers of a structure change over time. http://www.kase.co.za/ patterns/content/pattern_48.htm
10 ters.html
Future Chapters. Architecture Fiction. http://rk-architecturefiction.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/future-chap-
3
I believe that the layers of Duffy’s diagram can set an example of how to build to resist. I think that it can be adapted and simplified to two distinct but cooperative layers: “project” and “action”. The “project” layer could combine the longer-lasting layers, “Site” and “Structure”, because the time-frame is longer, and it is not tied to the current need or use of the building. The layers with a shorter lifespan, “Skin”, “Services”, “Space Plan” and “Stuff” would be condensed into the “action” layer. This is because they defined by the current context and community need. The “project” and “action” layers could also be perceived as “the existing” and the “new tools” as well, as the “new tools” would help the “existing” to resist and adapt over time and cultural changes. When looking at the binary pairs studied over the course of the semester, it is clear to see that the authors are concerned with, searching for or examining a mediating point (not necessarily equidistant) between the two ends of the spectrum. How can we define this mediating point? I believe that the authors are concerned with an architecture that resists. And most importantly, one that resists over time. An architecture that resists does not only refer to surviving through time. It has also been referred to one that is not effected by the real-world context. Michael Hays believes that an architecture “that is resistant to the selfconforming, conciliatory operations of a dominant culture and yet irreducible to a purely formal structure disengaged from the contingencies of place and time”11 is the type of built form that architects should find. It implies that the answer lies somewhere between the two ends of a spectrum, this spectrum bounded at one end by “culture” and the other end by “form”12. Hays refers to this mediating point “Critical Architecture”. The question of criticality in architecture has been an ongoing debate for decades. Nowadays, others argue that this privileged “between” position cannot be found as all architecture possesses the ability to be “critical”, as a result of the exhausted of disciplinarity being exhausted by the “project of criticality”13. I find it useful to point out the distinct differences between what Hays explains as “culture” and “form” in order to establish whether a “Critical Architecture” (mediating point) could enforce a resistance through time. ENGAGEMENT [AUTONOMY] Hays explains the “culture” end of the spectrum as “Engagement”. According to Hays, this is when architecture acts as an instrument of culture. It is when 11 12 13
4
Hays. Ibid. pp. 15. Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form. K. Michael Hays. Perspecta, Vol. 21. (1984), pp. 14Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting. Ibid, pp. 192.
culture is the defining “cause and content of built form”14. Misunderstandings of a building often occur because as time passes, the culture changes. Therefore, Hays believes that when one criticises a work of architecture, it is imperative to see how the building was first conceived, meaning an exploration must take place into the current cultural context at that given time.15 This included the consideration of any “socioeconomic, political, and technological process” which may be the reason for his “various states and transformations”16. In the same 1984 issue of Perspecta that Hay’s “Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form” was published, his conception of the culturally-engaged work of architecture was supported by the editors, Carol Burns and Robert Taylor. They state that “Architecture is not an isolated or autonomous medium” and that instead “it is actively engaged by the social, intellectual, and visual culture which is outside the discipline which encompasses it.”17 By this definition, “Engagement” bares some of the same characteristics as “action”. The fact that they are both limited by the social, economic and spatial notions of the given cultural context at that time. They are also both tied to the location and to what was there before.
Hays states that “culture” feeds the work of architecture also works in a reciprocal sense. A work of architecture can be defined by the culture but the culture can also be defined by a work of architecture. It can act as a representative body of that said culture and also permit certain cultural activities to occur inside the building. As Hays believes “Architecture reconfirms the hegemony of culture and helps to assure its continuity.”18 It is a feedback cycle. An example, in which one can identify the building with the culture, is the Scottish Parliament Building by Enric Miralles-Benedetta Tagliabue. Miralles said that the parliament “should be able to reflect the land it represents. The building should arise from the sloping base of Arthur’s seat and arrive into the city almost surging out of the rock.”19 Even the flower-like plan of the building derived from the inspiration of the paintings by Charles Rennie Mackintosh, the Scottish architect and painter,20 and the use of national materials such as granite from Aberdeenshire.
14 15 16 17 18 19 ment/ 20
Hays. Ibid, pp. 16. Hays. Ibid, pp. 16. Hays. Ibid, pp. 16. Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting. Ibid. pp. 191. Hays. Ibid. pp. 16. Enric Miralles. http://www.arcspace.com/features/enric-miralles-benedetta-tagliabue-embt/scottish-parliaArcspace. Ibid.
5
Roseburn Primary School sketches of Scottish Parliament Building.
AUTONOMY [ENGAGEMENT] “Autonomy” in architecture defines the other end of the spectrum, “form”. That in which an autonomous work of architecture is defined purely by its “internalised” formal operations, making them resistant to the status quo and to everything happening outside its boundaries. Michael Hays says that “Interpretations made from this second position are characterized by the comparative absence of historical concerns in favour of attention to the autonomous architectural object and its formal operations.”21 Autonomous architecture in this sense attempts to avoid anything that could compromise its ability to reproduce the formal strategies which have been used.22 It is aimed at allowing the building to be placed in any context and to stand for reason of its own internal logic and nothing else. I find that Hays’ description of autonomous architecture and the “project” defined by Goodman to have similar properties. Both of them are not tied to historical concerns nor the current cultural context and therefore, they are not tied to a particular timeframe. Their formal operations are architecture for architectures sake and they do not depend on the location. Creating built form in this way eliminates the possibility to be scrutinized because of the “worldly circumstantial, or socially contaminated content of history”,23and it forbids the loss of the “intellectual liberty”24 of criticism. At the same time, however, it opens itself up to be criticized about the lack of engagement of said culture. So, why would do architects base their work merely on formal aspects? It is important to point out that architects whose work clings to the “form” end of the spectrum are fully conscious of their blatant disconnection from culture. For Hays, an autonomous architecture is one that can be criticized or admired purely for the architectural object and 21 22 23 24
6
Hays. Ibid. pp. 16. Hays. Ibid. pp. 16. Hays. Ibid. pp. 16. Hays. Ibid. pp. 16.
not for other kinds of objects25. The architect could therefore be attracted to this approach as their work can be based on pure approach rather than be held back by the socioeconomic of political aspects of culture26. An “autonomous” architecture is one that can be reused, its parts reconstituted and be understood without external references27. Examples of this “copy and pasting” of formal strategies can be seen in the work of many architects, such as Frank Gehry with his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao and the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. Whilst the failure of the buildings is not being suggested, the question of “authorship” can be raised. Frank Gehry is known for using similar, if not the same, formal approaches in a variety of his buildings. This was even mocked in an episode of The Simpsons in which the concert hall for the fictional town of “Springfield” was a failure and it was turned it into a jail. Architects can adopt a specific style or their works can have a common consciousness in which the formal strategies take on similar aesthetics. Mies van der Rohe is an architect who demonstrated the “applicability of his building themes” on a number of his works.28 Over time, however, Mies adapted and refined these strategies on the basis that with a repeated intent comes an accumulation of knowledge.29 Hays explains that “repetition thus demonstrates how architecture can resist, rather than reflect, an external reality. In this way authorship achieve a resistant authority – an ability to initiate or develop cultural knowledge whose absolute authority is quite persuasive, if transitory, alternative to the dominant culture.”30 In this sense, reiterated architecture can help support the culture and offer it something new, instead of a mere representation of what the culture stands for. For Hays, the architecture of Mies van der Rohe was “resistant” and “critical”31 and that its “interpretation has already commenced but is never complete.”32 Hays believes that the work of Mies van der Rohe occupies somewhere in the privileged “between” position between “culture” and “form”, therefore implying that the work is “Critical Architecture”. For example, in the two architectural propositions by Mies for the Friedrichstrasse project, the materiality reflects its specific temporal and spatial context and this at the same time forbids the building to be read only by internal logic. The glass skyscraper is the first one of its kind to be imagined without a structural frame or load bearing wall. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Hays. Ibid. pp. 17. Hays. Ibid. pp. 17. Hays. Ibid. pp. 16. Hays. Ibid. pp. 27. Hays. Ibid. pp. 27. Hays. Ibid. pp. 27. Hays. Ibid. pp. 17. Hays. Ibid. pp. 27
7
This allowed the building to be more translucent than solid, allowing the interior to be read from the exterior33. The reflection of the cultural context in which it is situated allows the building to integrate with its surroundings but the transparency of the material also allows the interior operations to fully expose to the exterior. In this sense, Hays believes that “Mies has rejected the meanings that such classical design methods tend to promote. Instead he has invested meaning in the sense of surface and volume that the building assumes in a particular time and place, in a contextually qualified moment.”34 The form of the building to Mies comes secondary, “We refuse to recognize problems of form, but only problems of building. Form is not the aim of our work, but only the result. Form by itself does not exist. Form as an aim is formalism; and that we reject.”35 Reinhold Martin, in his Perspecta article “Critical of What? Toward a Utopian Realism” states that Hays and other theorists such as Tafuri testify “not to the existence of a critical architecture, but to its impossibility, or at most, its irreducible negativity in the face of the insurmountable violence perpetrated by what the economist Ernest Mandel called, some time ago, “late capitalism”.”36 This implies that the distinct “between” position of critical architecture can be seen to be rather arbitrary and difficult to find. So, could “Engagement” and “Autonomy” be considered the same as “project” and “action? I think there is something missing in the previous diagram. I believe in order for “action” to be equivalated to “culture”, the layer has to be doubled-up. This would be to place an extra layer in the exterior to reflect the ever changing outside-world and the one in the interior would represent the need for an adaptable space. The “project” or “form” in this diagram can act as the shell or as a container but it must allow for the two surrounding to change and to interact with each other.
33 Matilda McQuaid .Envisioning Architecture: Drawings from The Museum of Modern Art, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, (2002), pp. 50 34 Hays. Ibid. pp. 20. 35 In Philip Johnson “Mies van der Rohe”. New York, Museum of Modern Art, 1947. 36 Critical of What? Toward a Utopian Realism. Reinhold Martin. Harvard Design Magazine 22 (Spring/Summer 2005). Pp. 349.
8
In “The Unfinished House” by Yamazaki Kentaro Design Workshop, Japan, the building is given to the occupants as a shell that responds to the interior: the needs of its users37. The way in which this is achieved is by not predefining the program. The house is distributed by four two-storey boxes around a central space which acts as the meeting point. The ground floor of each box acts as the basic functional spaces providing a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and office whereas the second floor os each box is left blank. The level of privacy is different and because there are no set rules to living in this space, it offers “a different way of social life”38.
littlebigfacades.com
“Supermodernity” is a name given to the new global culture of the excess of time and events, space and identity39. It defines the current situation of the world in which we have an abundance of new media which has consequently constructed spaces which are dealt to cope with this. Although these spaces are said by Rem Koolhaas to be a representation of our current need40, it often leads to the production of non-anthropological spaces where there is little social connection between the occupants and their surroundings and between the occupants themselves. Rather than these spaces being reused and therefore resisting over time, they are often demolished and replaced with something more “useful” and fitting with the current world needs. PLACELESSNESS [PLACE] Marc Auge is concerned about these spaces constructed out of the 37 THE ‘DOLLHOUSE-LIKE’ INTERIOR OF THE UNFINISHED HOUSE. http://littlebigfacades.com/the-dollhouse-like-interior-of-the-unfinished-house. (2014). 38 THE ‘DOLLHOUSE-LIKE’ INTERIOR OF THE UNFINISHED HOUSE. http://littlebigfacades.com/the-dollhouse-like-interior-of-the-unfinished-house. (2014). 39 Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity”. http://www.politicalmediareview.org/2009/08/non-places-an-introduction-to-supermodernity/
40
The Generic City. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. S,M,L,XL. (1995), pp. 1250.
9
Supermodern world in which we inhabit. He differentiates between “spaces”, “non-places” and “places” – but what is the difference? Firstly, they are not necessarily opposing each other. Auge believes that “place” is tied to context, identity and the history of space. Whereas a place is “relational, historical, and concerned with identity, and any spaces that do not fulfil all of these features is a non-place.”41 By this description, interestingly we can see that the “place” bares similar characteristics to the “action” in which it is tied to the location and the identity and history of the space. Auge continues to explain that nonplaces are a production of Supermodernity. This may seem that he is equilibrating the “space” and a “non-place” however this is not his intention. The “space” does not have an anthropological value. It has been stripped of its historical meaning, resulting in a lack of identity. The non-place however, is not a space that has been stripped of everything (relational, historical, identity).42 The non-place is not necessarily a container, and the occupant can at least have brief encounters with the identity and you still can identify with where you are. It depends on the individuals relation to that space, “ non-place “designates two complementary but distinct realities: spaces formed in relation to certain ends (transport, transit, commerce, leisure), and the relations that individuals have with these spaces”43. Some airports for example as Madrid Barajas T4 has not been stripped of its identity. The geometrical form of the roof is even shaped like a big “M” with structural columns painted in the Spanish national colours. Whilst some people may notice this and identify this airport with Spain, others may not recognize it at all. By this description, of the “non-place”, it is more complicated to relate it to the “project”. Some properties of the “project” relate to these nonanthropological spaces, for example the lack of representing the culture’s identity, and not being tied to the location. However, I would argue that “non-places” are not an example of an “autonomous” architecture, because they are a representation of the current need of the world and even though they operate through their own internal logic, they also serve the purpose of connecting people with the outside. Similarly to Auge, “identity” contributes to determining “place” or “placelessness” for Rem Koolhaas. He says that in order to have this identity, one must look to the “physical substance, from the historical, from context and from the real” aspects of the city.44 Agreeing with Auge, Koolhaas says that 41 From Places to Non-Places. Marc Auge. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. (1995), pp. 77-78. 42 Auge Ibid, pp. 77-78. 43 Auge Ibid, pp. 94. 44 The Generic City. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. S,M,L,XL. (1995), pp. 1248.
10
“places” are anthropological and that they “integrate with earlier places”.45 As we proceed with Supermodernity, the Generic City gets endlessly bigger, and the centre (history) becomes hermetic (packaged, smaller and less significant).46 The parts of the city, “the periphery”47, relies more on the centre than it did before. Without the authentic centre, these parts of the city lose their initial identity, and therefore become “placeless”. Koolhaas does not imply a negative connotation to this term, as the Generic City is a result of functionalism. Time periods are passing and changing more rapidly and therefore the capital builds purely based on the “present need and present ability” of the inhabitants, and when this changes, it will simply be demolished and rebuilt appropriately.48 Koolhaas says that “in the drive for prominence, large sections of it somehow disappeared” and that “without warning, relief turned into regret”. The authenticity of the place has been diminished.49 This comes as a result of the rejection of city planning. However, Koolhaas continues to explain that Generic Cities try to get back a part of their identities and even establish a brand. Perhaps as a result of losing some of its history, the Generic City begins to greatly appreciate the remaining history that they have and they start to preserve it and bring new life to the historic quarters of what he calls “Lipservice”.50 An example of this is the St. Lawrence Market neighbourhood in Toronto. The area district was based, as well as the main commercial area including the farmers market. In the second half of the 20th Century, the area went into decline and became a representation of the needs of a fast growing North American city. In the 1970s, Toronto Mayor David Crombie decided that the neighbourhood needed to be reintegrated into the city and be restored to being a mixed-use market and residential neighbourhood with no boundaries separating it from the rest of the city51. Planner Alan Littlewood, under the influence of Jane Jacobs, worked at converting the neighbourhood into a lowrise, more humanized district, which is one of the most successful residential areas in the city to date.
45 46 47 48 49 50 51 history
Auge. Ibid, pp. 78. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. Ibid, pp. 1249. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. Ibid, pp. 1249. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. Ibid, pp. 1250. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. Ibid, pp. 1256. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. Ibid, pp. 1256. History of St. Lawrence. http://www.torontoneighbourhoods.net/neighbourhoods/downtown/st-lawrence/
11
St. Lawrence - then.
St. Lawrence - now.
Koolhaas openly discusses globalization and capitalism which suggests that the Generic City is a result of the organic progression of our current world. Until this point, Koolhaas says that the reversal do this “loss of identity” has not happened yet.52 If we look at examples of Generic Cities from the world, we can see “identity” being once again regained, or at least they have established a new “identity”. Time is an active variable in this. For example, when the original Commissioner’s Plan of Manhattan in 1811 was brought in, maybe people thought that it was no longer New York City. It was a functionalist decision which is now one of the first iconic images we have when we think of the city. It is possible for cities can hold numerous identities. Koolhaas used the example of London and that its true identity stems from the agglomeration of numerous identities which makes it unique.53
Modern reproduction of the 1807 Grid Plan
PLACE [PLACELESSNESS] Kenneth Frampton’s truth of “place” argues for the predicament also quoted by Ricoeur which is “how to become modern and to return to sources”.54 He is concerned of finding a balance between the technological advances of Supermodernity and also relating the space back to its origins. Frampton, like Koolhaas, discusses the boundaries of the cities of the XX century in which he 52 53 54
12
Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. Ibid, pp. 1250. Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau. Ibid, pp. 1248. Universal Civilization and National Culture. Paul Ricoeur. History and Truth. (1965), pp. 276-7.
points out that they have been lost, therefore resulting in a lost of significant urban form. Because of this, Frampton calls for an architecture of resistance.55 He calls upon Critical Regionalism in order to counter this “placelessness” and lack of identity. By Regionalism, he quotes Alex Tzonis and Liliane Lefaivre who describe “Regionalism” as that it “upholds” the individual and local architectonic features against a more universal and abstract ones.”56 When Frampton adds “Critical” in front of “Regionalism”, he is implying that the answer and solution to “placelessness” indirectly mediates between the “regionalistic” or “reactionary, unrealistic impulse to return to the architectonic forms of the preindustrial past” (sympathetic to architecture, reconstructing the same, focusing on the past) position and the “Supermodernity” or the “enlightenment myth of progress” (architecture which has no future, abstract) position.57 Frampton is not necessarily for constructing an imitation of a fake past in order for achieve progress nor is he for creating an architecture that has no future. He lies in between. Martin Heidegger, like Frampton is also concerned with the boundaries of place and about the downfalls of progress. However, he believes that there can only be one essence of a place, “the power to let earth and heaven, divinities and mortals enter in simple oneness into things”.58 “Place” is defined by Heidegger through its etymological meaning, that being linguistics. He argues that dwelling (the way in which we fully occupy the space), building and being have common etymological origins in numerous languages59, implying that the conceptions that we have of these words/actions stem from the same meaning but have been moulded and differentiated over time, creating more than one essence of place. In the post-war period, Heidegger metaphysically argues that dwelling has become detached from building, which partly due to the functionalist housing quickly built afterward the war. Heidegger believes that we must learn how to repair and reconnect the relationship between dwelling and building, which must be done in accordance of what already exists (the fourfold). It can be achieved by tracing “building back into that domain to which everything that 55 Culture and Civilization. Kenneth Frampton. Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance. (1983), pp. 16-17. 56 Critical Regionalism: Architecture and Identity in a Globalized World. Liane Lefaivre and Alexander Tzonis. (2003). 57 Regionalism and World Culture. Kenneth Frampton. Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for an Architecture of Resistance. (1983), pp. 20. 58 Building Dwelling Thinking. Martin Heidegger. Poetry, Language, Thought. (1971), pp. 160. 59 Martin Heidegger. Ibid.
13
is belongs”.60 In order to do this, we must look at all things which are given to help the human to exist. The existing historical and social context should influence the way in which we dwell and consequently the way we build our future. If we can learn how to dwell, we can consequently learn how to build and to establish the one, true essence of that place. Heidegger believes that there are two types of people. Those who are tied to a place within its boundaries and those who come from beyond it.61 You can distinguish between the two because those from within the boundary will use the context as a tool and those from outside the boundary will have the toolset of another. In sense, each person described can only have one essence of place. Heidegger states that in order for there to be a place, a “space” or “Raum” has to be cleared first and in order to have a space, you have to have a location. He defines the “space” by describing the boundaries not as a limit but as the beginning of where its presence exists.62 So, could “place” and “placelessness” be considered the same as “project” and “action”? I believe that if we consider the “project” in this case to be the Supermodern architecture of the non-anthropological or “non-places”, then I do think that “actions” could be used as a tool to humanize the space and make it more relatable. The “project”, like the “non-place, is not tied to the historical or the identity of a place, but the “actions” are.
Even though we are used to these “non-places”, we still can feel lost inside them because they lack anthropological value. A recent example of humanizing an airport is Tokyo Narita Terminal by Party. A simple intervention creates guidance to the occupants of how to move around the space efficiently. The signage on the floor allows you to relate to how far your destination is and to which direction you should be walking in. This intervention also represents the local pride of being the next hosts of the Olympics. 60 61 62
14
Martin Heidegger. Ibid, pp. 145. Martin Heidegger. Ibid, pp. 154. Building Dwelling Thinking. Martin Heidegger. Poetry, Language, Thought. (1971).
Tokyo Narita Termian. Party. 2015.
In the past decade, we have seen a “proliferation”63 of these small-scale “actions” which seem to be seizing the “moments of disorder and opportunity”64 wherever they can. Does the rising popularity of these interventions mean that there is an excess and that they are becoming Kitsch? Or could it simply be a new wave of avant-garde architectural action that is a result of our expanding consciousness? AVANT-GARDE [KITSCH] By looking further into the relationship between excess and architecture, three different approaches can be identified. The first of these is that architecture is conditioned by the excessive tendencies of the outside world. For example, if a nation has an abundance of money and are striving to demonstrate progress, perhaps this money will be spent in the creation of the World’s tallest towers, even though it could not be vital for the society. The second approach is that architecture is the source of the excess. This could involve the excessive practicing of a specific technique, perhaps as a form of research, which results in an abundance of architecture which the outside world is subjected too. The third approach is when architecture separates itself from exterior conditions and focuses on architecture for architecture’s sake. Where do these “actions” lie in the three main approaches? In his 1939 essay, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch”, Clement Greenberg is concerned about how the creation of two separate artistic productions have emerged in the same historical moment. He questions whether this is a production of our culture or whether it has existed previously. Before the Great War, Culture was becoming a victim of “Alexandrianism” or “academicism” (highly structured education of the arts based on classical theory) which led society, whether those from the elite or not, to believe that 63 64
01. Happenings. Project and Action: On Making Immodest Proposals. David Goodman. (2012). pp. 1. Goodman. Ibid, pp. 1.
15
if people from the high-bourgeois appreciated the art and said that it was good, then this confirmed to them that is must have been good. This motionless “Alexandrianism”, according to Greenberg, is the result of a fragmented society, formed of a body of different “religion, authority, tradition, style”65 which led artists to become fearful about how their work would be conceived by the public. The avant-garde set out to fight against this. In the post-Great War period, attitudes towards “order” and “structure” in architecture started to change, as did the political and economic spheres towards a free market66. The avant-garde criticised the corrupt social order, and allowed for separation from the elite, except from the economic encouragement it would receive, or as Greenberg calls it, the “umbilical cord of gold”67. Avant-garde artists were “seeking to go beyond Alexandrianism” and create something which was previously unheard of 68, and they desired to act like a “God”, in which they would create something original and in their personal perspective of the arts69. Kitsch takes the “debased and academicized”70 high-art and makes it available to the masses. It is an artistic production which “pretends to demand nothing of its customers except their money – not even their time”71. It came following the Industrial Revolution in which people were migrating to urban areas, which meant leaving behind their “folk culture”, so they were seeking new ways to be entertained72.Kitsch is easy to understand. Greenberg uses the example of the Russian peasant to describe that even though we are taught about avant-garde culture in our education systems, the understanding of it still requires time and effort, which are valuable items not many of us have73. Greenberg aims to express that Capitalism has led society to create the Kitsch and the avant-garde. He believes that it will be these very cultural productions that will corrode society which made them in the first place74. In order to maintain the avant-garde, Greenberg believes that we would have to look to Socialism “for the preservation of whatever living culture we have right now”, and for the upper-class to finance and encourage the production of high-art. Greenberg implies throughout the essay that the appreciation of art is also based the taste of the individual and that it is not possible to force people to 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
16
Avant-Garde and Kitsch. Clement Greenberg. Partisan Review. (1939), pp. 3. The Rietveld Schroder House. www.rietveldschroderhouse.blogspot.com.es. (May 2015). Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 4. Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 2. Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 2. Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 2. Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 5. Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 5. Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 8. Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 13.
like art which they dislike75. So, according to Greenberg’s definitions, could these “actions” be considered as Kitsch or avant-garde? Like the avant-garde movement that Greenberg discusses, these “actions” are “process-driven happenings”76, meaning that they are reaction to the social-economic and political context. The reason for their existence in the first place is because of exterior motives triggering a reaction. In the case of Spain for example, their popularity rose because of the economic crisis and they were a result of architects having to find different ways of working and also being critical to the socio-economic climate. “Trinkhalle” by Langarita-Navarro Arquitectos in 2013 is a low-cost, low-tech solution for Espacio Trapezio who needed a solution to not only regain the occupancy of their space in the Mercado San Anton in Madrid, but to also make money to keep the space running. With just 3000 euros, an adaptable structure was created which has the ability to adapt from a low-occupancy gallery apparatus to a high-occupancy snack bar and social space. It is a clear example of how much can be achieved with so little.
Trinkhalle. Langarita-Navarro Arquitectos.
In the era of “Supermodernity”, we have access to countless forms of media which are publishing and recording these “actions”. It is far easier to find out about the work of architects all over the world than it ever has been. I believe that this has caused the popularity of these small-scale interventions to rise because if we see somebody criticizing the corrupt social order in one part of the world, it can make us more conscious of what is happening in our part of the world and will make us want to follow suit and do something about it. After all, “actions” are usually aimed at making the public see something that wasn’t there before or that had failed to be noticed by most.
75 76
Greenberg. Ibid, pp. 13. Goodman. Ibid, pp. 1.
17
POSTMODERNISM Much of the built form that we see today, including that of the Supermodern “non-places”, has emerged out of the postmodern movement. In Frederic Jameson’s 1991 book, “Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism”, he is concerned evolution of art alongside economic trends and that art (art, architecture, literature and all) is inseparable from multinational capitalism, Late Capitalism, which was originally coined by Ernest Mandel77. The shift in economic trends in the post-World War II period had lead society to become more globalized, decentralized and threatened more and more by the victory of Capitalism. It is now more difficult than ever before to tell who is in charge, this even more so nowadays. To Jameson, Postmodernism or the “cultural dominant” emerges alongside this shift, but at the same time, it coexists with other forms of cultural production, suggesting that it is not tied to a particular historical moment. Like Kitsch, Postmodernism also stems from a culture that was there before. Whilst Kitsch reproduces the “used” high-art and mass produces it to make it accessible to all, the Postmodern, to Frederic Jameson, uses a parody of previous styles but without meaning through a technique, the “Pastiche”78. “Pastiche is, like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique, idiosyncratic style, the wearing of a linguistic mask, speech in a dead language. But it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without any of parody’s ulterior motives, amputated of the satiric impulse, devoid of laughter”79. In Modernist times, the subjectivity of a piece aided the artist to stand out and made the artists’ style “inimitable”80. Jameson says that Postmodern artists find that the productions of the “cultural dominant” are hard to relate their subject matter to, and therefore they are left with no choice but to imitate styles of the past but without intention81. This results in “the random cannibalization of all the styles of the past, the play of random stylistic allusion, and in general what Henri Lefebvre has called the increasing primacy of the ‘neo’”82
77 Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Frederic Jameson. (1991), pp. 55. 78 The Postmodern and the Past. Frederic Jameson. Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. (1991), pp. 64-65. 79 Jameson. Ibid, pp. 64-65. (https://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/ jamesonpostmodernity.html). 80 Jameson. Ibid, pp. 64-65. 81 Pastiche and Pop-History. The Cultural Reader. http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.com.es. 82 Jameson. Ibid, 65-66.
18
The Michael D. Eisner Building, Burbank, CA Michael Graves 1990
The Erechtheion, Athens, Greece Mnesicles (possibility) 406 BC
Jameson illustrates this with a comparison between Van Gogh’s 1885 painting “A Pair of Shoes” and Andy Warhol’s 1980 painting “Diamond Dust Shoes”, respectively being examples of Modernist and Postmodernist works of art. Van Gogh’s paints the pair of shoes to portray the background story of the worker who owned them, creating a contextual connection with the viewer. Jameson describes Warhol’s painting as a victim of “depthlessness” which does not have a story to tell83. Warhol’s art, among that of other Pop Artists, uses the “kitsch” as a raw material for their art which is a product of the “cultural dominant”84. The gap between avant-garde and Kitsch is becoming narrower and narrower as the postmodern emerges. Architecture has followed suit. Postmodernism has created spaces which are difficult for us to relate to. Jameson states that architecture is one of the arts which is most closely linked “to the economic” situation and that “new postmodern architecture is grounded in the patronage of multinational business”85. The globalized culture of the Postmodern results in the repetition and the recontextualization of art forms. Even the “flatness” that Jameson talks about can be seen in the façades of the buildings. It is possible to see examples of this globally, such as in multinational bank buildings like Citicorp whose architecture follows the same architectural aesthetic no matter on the location worldwide.
83 The Deconstruction of Expression. Frederic Jameson. Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. (1991), pp. 58-60. 84 “The Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” 1939 by Clement Greenberg”. Jeanne Wilette. www.arthistoryunstuffed.com/ the-avant-garde-and-kitsch-1939. 85 Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Frederic Jameson. (1991), pp. 56-57.
19
Citigroup Centre, NY KlingStubbins, Emery Roth & Sons 1977
Citigroup Centre, LA Albert C. Martin & Associates 1981
Citigroup Centre, Toronto John B. Parkin Associates 1983
However, Jameson does not necessarily imply a negative connotation of Postmodernism. In fact, one can sense that he is optimistic that Postmodernism as something new can be used as a tool of evolution “the newer architecture therefore […] stands as something like an imperative to grow new organs, to expand our sensorium and our body to some new, as yet unimaginable […] dimensions”86. From growing “new organs”, we can find new language or an “unimaginable new mode of representing”87, for creating and understanding (the architectural) world or “postmodern hyperspace”88, and therefore expanding our consciousness of multinational capitalism.
I think that in order to use Postmodernism as a tool to”grow new organs”, its necessary to understand the products Postmodernism itself. In this sense, I think that by intervening in these hard-to-relate-to spaces, we could make them more humanized and therefore understand further how to occupy them 86 Post-modernism and the City. Frederic Jameson. Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. (1991), pp. 80. 87 The Abolition of Critical Distance. Frederic Jameson. Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. (1991), pp. 92. 88 Post-modernism and the City. Frederic Jameson. Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. (1991), pp. 80.
20
fully. I relate this idea back to Heidegger in which to fully occupy a space is to dwell, and by doing this, it could be possible to repair and reconnect the relationship between building and dwelling89, and therefore be conscious of how to use the Postmodern is our favour. MYSELF I find that positioning myself in relation to the individual binary pairs that we have discussed is a difficult task because I believe that each piece of work is controlled by a different set of variables and therefore I do not think its valid to define a way of working by just using these diads. I think that they could be used as a way to give critique to a work of architecture after it is complete and once it is occupied. Therefore, I find it more relevant to express the way in which I would choose to work in a diagram.
In my diagram, I would give it three interacting layers. The “project” layer is the one that its aim is to resist. This is not restricted to a building only, it could relate to a plaza, a city, a service or even a system. This layer will be surrounded by two “action” layers: one representing the exterior culture and the other one the interior occupancy or the users. The “actions” are small-scale operations which help the “project” to adapt, evolve, be occupied, permit dwelling, expand consciousness and most importantly, that communicate with the other layers. I would like to point out that the “project” in my diagram does necessarily represent something new, moreover it represents the existing. I believe that through small-scale interventions the “project” can resist and there would be little need to demolish and rebuild based on what the current need it because it would be easily adaptable. 89
Heidegger. Ibid.
21