Challenging Architecture As Object

C HA L L E N G I N G A R C H IT E CT U R E A S O B J E CT kory worl

I . I NT R O D U CT I O N

The contemporary conditions of architecture, both in discourse and construction, remain laden with remnants of the post-modern era. These affects are not necessarily good or bad, but because these ideas were proposed during a different era, they lack a specific relationship to our current time. In addition, the temporal distance of postmodernism has placed it in a strange position; where its effect is still emerging and not fully understood. In an attempt to better understand postmodern thought in contemporary architecture, I have chosen to research two of the most pronounced and polar practitioners of its later movements: Peter Zumthor and Bernard Tschumi. Because both are products of the postmodern era and continue to practice today; their ideological meeting point stands to display a portion of the postmodernism’s effect on now. This meeting point being that both men have come to understand architecture as object. This idea is shown through the writings and built projects of both Tschumi and Zumthor. In an attempt to conceptualize of architectural ideas more appropriate to our time, I will then depart from ‘architecture as object,’ and highlight the separate strengths of the two men. In addition, I will also reference my own scholastic project to display these expanded ideas and how they could potentially operate within architecture.

As to investigate the connection between postmodernism and today’s practice, I 4

chose to research Bernard Tschumi and Peter Zumthor. Both of these men have become leaders in different divisions of postmodern architectural theory, and continue to practice today. Bernard Tschumi is a Swiss architect most commonly associated with the Deconstructivist movement, one which sought to advance architecture by/with challenging form. He is a prime example of the movement, and I researched him due to his strong criticality of culture and interest in space.

Peter Zumthor is also Swiss; however he has come to lead a different development in postmodern theory: Phenomenology. Zumthor has been recognized with the Pritzker prize and his projects focus on light, material, time, and experience. I have chosen to research him because of his poetic conception of the profession and modesty towards site, program, and user.

When comparing Tschumi and Zumthor, the two have developed quite different understandings of architecture. Yet, I argue both are united on one basic and important idea; one that characterizes projects from both the postmodern era and the contemporary. Tschumi and Zumthor are interested in—and advocate for—the conception of architecture as object. Both strive to create architecture that merely exists as a strong and independent physical object, and nothing more, allowing users to understand and interpret it freely. Although their approaches and products are quite different, their goal is largely the same.

I I . T S C H U M I A N D PA R C D E LA V I L L ETT E

In Madness and the Combinative, Tschumi discusses his intentions in the Parc De la Villette project. He writes, “the aim is to free the built follie from its historical connotations and to place it on a broader and more abstract plane, as an autonomous object that, in the future, will receive new meanings” (Tschumi, 1994, p.174) His follies are designed to be distanced from the conventional understanding of architecture as to become objects of inquiry. The methodical and mathematic superimpositions, subtractions, and displacements in Tschumi’s follies are attempts to create architecture that is consciously lacking. “La Villette, then aims at an architecture that means nothing, architecture of the signifier rather than the signified—one that is pure trace or play of language” (Tschumi, 1994, p.203) In the project, the lyrical investigations that separated word and meaning is extended into architecture. A conscious babbling, the follies are words said without meaning, to provoke inquiry. However, the goal of this approach is also

Follie

Follie, Exploded

6

its cage. Tschumi’s Parc De la Villette is limited to being experienced purely as novel objects that actively expose and celebrate their meaninglessness. “The Parc de la Villette project thus can be seen to encourage conflict over synthesis, fragmentation over unity, madness and play over careful management” (Tschumi 1994, p.200) These encouragements; albeit novel and interesting; are just that.

They produce nothing. Meaninglessness is only the absence of meaning. It is cold. It is dark. Tschumi’s follie is one that, by design, doesn’t take a stance, and therefore lacks a real relation to the culture and people that surround it.

I I I . Z U MT H O R A N D T H E R MA L VA L S

Despite Zumthor’s phenomenological background and architectural sensitivity, the idea of ‘architecture as object’ is still prevalent within his practice. In his essay A Way of Looking at Things he, reveals his passion for objects. “The objects we perceive have no message for us, they are simply there. Our perceptive faculties grow quiet, unprejudiced and unacquisitive. They reach beyond signs and symbols, they are open, empty. It is as if we could see something on which we cannot focus our consciousness (Zumthor, 2006, p.17 ). These ideas frame an architecture focused purely on its articulation. He is interested in buildings that grow themselves: an architecture that emphasizes material, light, and site; and provides its users a quiet and rich existence. In the design he allows his own emotions and memories, along with volition of site and material to nurture the

Thermal Vals, Plan

Thermal Vals, Section

design. He emphasizes this in Thermal BathVals. “Right from the start, there was a feeling for the mystical nature of a world of stone inside the mountain, for darkness and light, for the reflection of light upon water, for the diffusion of light though steam-filled air, for the different sounds that water makes in stone surroundings, for warm stone and naked skin, for the ritual of bathing” (Zumthor,1997, p.11) These images and architectural realities, although poetic, are similar to Tschumi.

The design originates with glimpses of objecthood, and without intentions for meaning. In The Hard Core of Beauty he speaks of his wishes “to remain close to the thing itself, close to the essence of the thing I have to shape, confident that if the building is conceived accurately enough for its place and its function, it will develop its own strength, with no need for artistic additions” (Zumthor, 2006, p.27). Zumthor’s words dismiss architectural attempts at meaning as “artistic additions,” and he chooses instead to create architecture focused on the idea that the “hardcore of beauty (is) concentrated substance” (Zumthor, 2006, p.27). He attempts to distill architecture into a pure object, devoid of meaning, so that it can be inhabited pleasantly as a physical and mental constant. He concludes the essay saying “the reality of architecture is the concrete body in which forms, volumes and spaces come into being. There are no ideas except in things.”

The ideas expressed by these architects are important because they hold the key to unlocking a hidden discourse of the contemporary. By connecting two architects who bridge the gap between postmodernism and the current era we find an idea that reaches beyond the ‘sub-categories’ of post-modernism, and moves towards defining an aspect of the age itself. The lineage of ‘architecture as object’ is still certainly alive today.

8

IV . ST R E N GT H S

From this increased understanding of architecture today, architects can now begin to actively move forward. ‘Architecture as object’ is to no longer be an ideological shelter, but a platform, from which we can advance to become contributors in today’s culture. We can actively cannibalize the past, understanding its strengths, discarding its weaknesses and creating a new discourse more suitable for our time.

The writings of Bernard Tschumi have an immense strength via their analysis of architecture’s relationship to culture. Within the work Architecture and Limits III Tschumi points out that “implicitly or explicitly related to the needs of the period or the state, the program’s apparently objective requirements by and large reflect particular cultures and values” (1994, p.113) Perhaps infamous for his attacks on program, Tschumi understands that the stated function of a building is not without the cultural baggage of what actions merit architectural existence.

Program unstatedly reinforces current social ideas about how certain actions are done. A small, but important, example of this is a bathroom I recently went into.

In this restroom (men’s) there were two urinals and one toilet; and a lock on the door. This architectural situation immediately reveals and reinforces the cultural idea that it is acceptable to urinate amongst others, but not to defecate. Without judgment of the architecture or the attached cultural norm, this restroom stands as an example of architecture’s relation to culture, and how the two define and reinforce one another. “Even though it produces space, society is always its prisoner. Because space is the common framework for all activities” (Tschumi 1994, p.23). Buildings, frozen in space, but not in time, reaffirm the cultural standards of the past, of the moment it was constructed. Architecture, when it serves culture, is immensively resistive to social change. In Architecture and Limits II Tschumi proposes an inversion of the cause-effect relationship between architecture and culture, saying that because “it is evident that since architecture’s mode of production has reached an advanced stage of development; it no longer needs to adhere strictly to linguistic, material, or functional norms; but can distort them at will” (1994, p.112). Architecture that consciously distorts the linguistic, material, and functional norms—while skirting novelty—can contain new systems for how the actions that compose our culture are carried out.

In contrast to Tschumi, Zumthor’s writing has power in its poeticism. In his essay A Way of Looking at Things he outlines this. “Our times of transition do not permit

big gestures. There are only a few remaining common values left upon which we can build on and which we all share. I thus appeal for a kind of architecture of common-sense based on the fundamentals that we still know, understand, and feel. I carefully observe the concrete appearance of the world, and in my buildings I try to enhance what seems to be valuable, to correct what is disturbing, and to create anew what we feel is missing” (Zumthor, 2006, p.22). Here, Zumthor also expresses a dissatisfaction with culture. He understands that through architecture we can actively impact culture. In addition, Zumthor is a great example of material, formal, and experiential modesty. He asserts that architecture should not constantly talk at its users, but instead exist as “a sensitive container for the rhythm of footsteps on the floor, for the concentration of work, for the silence of sleep.” He is compelled by the dignity and individuality of architecture’s users, and his work is characterized by subtle accentuation, with a focus on the resonance of materials, the aura of spaces, and the disposition of the site. He does not wish to stir up emotions, “but to allow emotions to emerge, to be,” he writes in The Hard Core of Beauty (Zumthor, 2006, p.32). Zumthor understands that architecture is not only an agent of culture, it is a home or a work space. As to create pleasant atmospheres he focuses his architecture on silence and modesty; spaces where life can take place; and where people can live free and unobstructed. Architecture of light and shadow, of material resonance, of building and site, can contain spaces for people to feel welcome, to feel enlightened, or to feel inspired.

The ideas of Tschumi and Zumthor were at play in my own project:‘Anachronism,’ which is a proposal for a contemporary furniture showroom in the heart of Copenhagen. In this project I chose to approach the architecture through the actions that make up its use. However, I consciously departed from the typical actions that govern a showroom, attempting to implement new critical ideas concerning the sale and display of furniture; understanding that if it were built, the building would concretize actions contrasting the culture of purchasing at large.

First, the architecture creates and reinforces a strict dichotomy between viewing and sitting, in response to the uncomfortable ambiguity of typical furniture showrooms. On the ground floor, chairs are displayed in a series of enclosed cages formed by the architecture. This space is conceived of as a cafe setting, where customers sit on the permanent benches. There they can drink coffee or engage 10

in conversation. If one wishes to purchase a piece they must alert an employee.

They then begin a procession through the entire building to the top floor, passing near the meeting room and administrative offices. This ingrained separation of viewing and sitting allows for a processional and cinematic relationship, where the architecture brings consumers through itself; exposing him or her to all the employees whose monetary well-being is depending on the impending sale. On the top floor is the ‘bargaining chamber,’ an entirely closed volume where they are met by their piece and are finally allowed touch or sit on it obstructed and alone.

If they wish to purchase it, they can bargain with the sales representative. By separating viewing and sitting, and creating architectural spaces that emphasizes both, the furniture itself, and critical eye of the consumer, is enhanced.

In addition, the architecture seeks to question the pieces of furniture for sale.

The entire rear wall of the building is composed of cells and locked within these ‘catacombs’ are the pieces of the past. They are exposed to the elements and trapped permanently within the architecture. When a contemporary piece goes out of vogue, it is locked within the catacombs. There they rot. In order to emphasize this deterioration, a large atrium, with which all the building’s spaces relate, exists alongside it. The catacombs qualify the age of the showroom and display the lifespan of each piece.

Anachronism, Spaces

V . SY NT H E S I S

The developing dialogue between the ideas of Tschumi, Zumthor, and me begin to paint a picture of architecture more appropriate for our time. The ‘pure object’ destination of Tschumi and Zumthor is a fantastic starting point in the design of buildings, because it helps architects to understand that when the project is completed, all that will be left of the ideas, concepts, models, and drawings is a physical object. Architects can choose to strive for a building audaciously different and novel, as with Tschumi; or comfortingly familiar and well-placed, as with Zumthor. Yet, I believe that architecture can be more; not only an object, but something conceived to shape use in a specific way. This idea has immense potential for our time, because it stands to aid in quickly reconfiguring the harmful or non-sustainable aspects of culture. Each day the mistakes of the past become the problems of the present, and we can no longer merely cure the symptom. Hedonistic sustainability; architecture that justices its bold existence with energy efficient technologies or design; still only perpetuates cultural systems of hedonism! By working to correct the unsustainable cultural actions ingrained within society, architecture can rally towards a new, progressive, and truly sustainable future. Instead of confronting linguistic, material, or functional norms as Tschumi advocates, challenging use can begin to solidify new cultural actions, while discarding the unsound actions of the past. In addition, architecture can stand to work with the public as to create new cultural actions. These spaces of modest sentiment can advance architecture and culture simultaneously.

Buildings need not be strikingly novel or audacious to have effect. By internalizing critical systems of use; while focusing on subtlety, material, site, space and light; architecture can participate in the creation of the future.

Architecture is powerful because it can solidify action and culture into space.

Yet even seemingly neutral projects actively reinforce our accumulated cultural actions and ideas. I assert that precedent does not prove validity. I propose an architecture that simultaneously forms its cultural systems and actions, while creating spaces and relationships that enhance them. Architecture that does this can actively reconfigure cultural norms, creating stronger spaces that encourage what is important, and discard what is troubling. Buildings can exist to concretize thoughts, actions, and activities that progress a culture. As in ‘Anachronism’ the architecture not only catered to a new understanding of how furniture is displayed and bought, it solidified it in space.

12

I advocate for the departure of architecture as pure object, while maintaining the strong criticality of Tschumi and the poetic sensuality of Zumthor. I advocate for architecture that shapes use. By challenging use, and proposing new systems, we can challenge culture. I advocate for architecture consciously affected by the postmodern era, but not limited by its celebration of isolation. Although this detachment allowed for an unprecedented amount of expression, it only distanced architecture further from the actions that go on within it. As Zumthor states, “our times of transition do not permit big gestures,� which is appropriate to the articulation of space, material, and form. However architecture can be more than object. Building upon the past, we see that architecture should neither be servant, nor isolated individual. In our times of global responsibility, expanding knowledge, and immense question, architecture must rally itself. It is no longer enough to do nothing, to be neutral. Architecture can, and must, become an active part of shaping the future.

14

VI. REFERENCES Zumthor, Peter Thinking Architecture. Birkhauser Publishers; Berlin, Germany. 2006.

Zumthor, Peter Three Projects. Birkhauser Publishers; Berlin, Germany. 1997.

Tschumi, Bernard Architecture and Disjunction. The MIT Press; Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1994.

V I I . B I B L I O G R A P HY Bachelard, Gaston The Poetics of Space. Beacon Press; Boston, Massachusetts. 1994.

Nesbitt, Kate Theorizing a New Adgenda for Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press; Princeton,

New Jersey. 1996.

Pallasmaa, Juliana The Eyes of the Skin. John Wiley and Sons; New York, New York. 1996.

Tschumi, Bernard Architecture In/Of Motion. Distributed Art Publishers; New York, New York.

1997.

Zumthor, Peter Atmospheres. Birkhauser Publishers; Berlin, Germany. 2006