deconstruction of autonomy by Xiangyu Li

The Deconstruction of Autonomy Theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of autonomous architecture

Author: Xiangyu Li Student ID: 4305035 Contact: lixiangyutju@hotmail.com Supervisor: Gregory Bracken Date: 28-05-2014

Personal Motivation: The motivation of this study is due largely to the introspection of the architectural practice since the 1990s. Started architecture in 2008, the author witnessed the influence of a new generation of architects and their “brainwashing” speeches, promoting publications, and schematic images. Diagrams, fancy renderings, and political manifestos occupied both professional and mass media, peddling an architectural language which was easy to understand and operate, like a toy in hand. Architecture became less “autonomous” as a self-sufficient discourse. Thus, the author became curious about how architecture transformed from a result of its own logic, to a straightforward operation driven by external aspects. How should we define architecture? What is the core knowledge that architecture is based on? Is architecture a social practice or a discipline, or cult? These questions are all related to the issue of autonomy. In this study, the discussion of autonomy is framed since the 1960s, when architecture became more disciplined and institutionalized. It is a remote and fascinating period from the view point of today. It is interesting to see how the claim for autonomy actualized in architectural language, in the works of Rossi and Eisenman. Consciously or unconsciously, the “non-autonomous” architecture of a new generation is influence by the principles of autonomous architecture. For instance, the notion of type/prototype, the process of geometric operation, and the attitude to treat architecture as a distant object, are all heritage of the autonomous architecture, and developed in the following generations. This is one of the key points of the argument. With all the motivation and curiosity, the author started his study, outlining a grand narrative of the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy of architecture.

Content

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2 Typology: an autonomous formal structure .....................................................................................4 Formal Language: autonomy in geometric operation ......................................................................6 The deconstruction of autonomy .....................................................................................................8 Non-autonomous Architecture: a new language emerging ............................................................10 Causes: Alterations in the profession ..........................................................................................................12 Socio-economic evolutions ............................................................................................................15 Conclusion: The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy ..............................................18 Notes ..............................................................................................................................................20 Image credits ..................................................................................................................................22 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................23

The Deconstruction of Autonomy Theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of autonomous architecture

Author: Xiangyu Li

Keywords: Autonomy, diagram, type, geometry

Abstract: Whether architecture is an autonomous science has always been a debatable question. The research object of autonomous architecture is its form, the disciplines of its formal language. The concept of type, style, and geometry, for instance, stresses the issue of form from different perspectives. However, it is a remarkable fact that the autonomy of architecture is deconstructed in the works of a new generation of architects. The formal manipulation is more dependent on external reference, on programmatic or iconographic issues, while the meaning and discipline of form is flattened. A “prototype” under operation of “geometry”, concerning program and context rigidly as “reasons”, has become a kind of formal language today. The reason for the destruction of autonomy in architecture lies within and without the discourse. By researching the shifting in the notion of autonomy, the immediate environment of architectural practice, and the socioeconomic background, the author tried to discuss the cause of the deconstruction of autonomy, and the possibility of rebuilding the autonomy of architecture today.

Introduction The seeking for autonomy in architecture can be traced back to the 1960s. Like many other social sciences, architecture claimed to be an autonomous science with its own disciplines. Experiments and thought experiments were made by many architects, constructing autonomous formal principles. The works of Aldo Rossi and Peter Eisenman were among those, representing different approaches of autonomy. Both started their exploration of autonomy in the 1960s, Rossi and Eisenman faced a similar issue—the problem of Modernism, which was broadly discussed during the time. However, they took completely different positions in the critique of Modernism and the establishment of an autonomous architecture. For Rossi, the failure of modernism dealt to “naïve functionalism”, when “type is reduced to a simple scheme of organization, a diagram of circulation route, and architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous value”. 1 For Eisenman, the attitude towards the Modernism was to bring it to its fullness. 2

With the notion that objects are independent from man in Modernism 3, he developed

the formal principle of the Modern Architecture. While Rossi based his theory on the concept of type from the city and its history, Eisenman constructed a self-sufficient language without referring to any notion of history.

Musée National des Beaux Arts du Québec proposal / BIG + Fugère Architectes [1]

Since the 1990s, autonomy seemed to disappear from the works of the new generation architects. Architects like MVRDV, BIG, and Bow-Wow developed a design process based on straight-forward diagrammatic operation. Huge gestures in formal manipulation create a toy-like architecture, in which autonomy disappeared. However, the clarity of prototype, and the process of formal operation, which is the character of the 2

new architectural language, is obviously related to the methods in autonomous architecture since the 1960s.With a rigid notion of type-function relation, and a method of geometric operation of architecture as a distant object, the new method rapidly occupies both the academy and practice, and represents the image of architecture towards the public. The reason for the destruction of autonomy is various. On one hand, the notion of some basic concepts, for instance, form, type, context, and function have shifted in the discourse of architecture. On the other hand, the transformations in design practice, in the work flow, specialization, and power distribution in a project, altered the role and profession of architects. The autonomous formal language was simplified, flattened, and marginalized, generating an anxiety in the profession of architecture. It is important to review the transformation of autonomous architecture, since it represents the essence of architecture as a discourse. The study will contribute to the notion of the architectural phenomenon today, offering a critical observation of the position and design method in the architectural practice. Moreover, the study will also allow us to rethink the role of architecture as a profession, its core knowledge and method, and the possibility for a new autonomy in the discourse. In this essay, the author will first study the construction of autonomy, different approaches in Rossiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and Eisenmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schools. It is interesting to find out how the principles of autonomous architecture later influenced the emerging non-autonomous architecture. Consciously or unconsciously, the discourse of autonomous architecture contains deconstructing aspects, which is reflected in the later practice of Rossi or Eisenman, and the works of their followers. Second, the study will articulate the causes for the deconstruction of autonomy. It is a process of the inbursting external references and the exhausting inherent formal principles. Third, the author will discuss the situation today and the possibility to reconstruct autonomy based on a new knowledge hierarchy. However, a biography of autonomous architecture is a grand narrative, which is beyond the capacity of the essay. The transformation of autonomy runs through the architecture history since 1960s, and is related to the extensive and profound changes in society. To avoid generalities, the author has to be selective in figures and events that are brought to discussion.

Typology: an autonomous formal structure If we take autonomy as a systematic formal principle, “type” must be mentioned as source of its disciplines. The concept of type “describes a group of objects characterized by the same formal structure”.

The act of typify things is related the need of

categorizing, naming, and understandings things, in terms of their formal structure. In architecture, the concept of type deals with the paradox of singularity and repeatability, by defining a formal structure prior to certain forms. The first coherent definition of type in architecture theory was given by Quatremere de Quincy in the late eighteenth century. It was a period when the traditional discipline of architecture was challenged by the emerging social and technical revolutions. The concept of type explained the reason behind architecture. It is identified with “the logic of form connected with the reason and use”.

Beyond the formal structure, the

notion of type was deeply bound with history, nature, and use. However, the form-type concept was weakened in the Neo-Classicalism, and replaced by the concept of composition. In Durant’s theory, form was detached from use and reason. Form was fragmented. With a method of composition based on a generic geometry of axis superimposed on the grid, the connection between type and form disappeared.

In the late nineteenth century, the emerging functionism eliminated the

form-type notion from the discourse, by rejecting the past as a form of knowledge in architecture. In the 1960s, when the Modern Movement was considered as a failure, the issue of formal and structural continuity of traditional cities was discussed in a series of writings. Thereby, a new field of typological study appeared, that is, the form of city. In the second half of 1960s, the most complex and systematic theory was developed by Rossi and his circle. 7 In The Architecture of the City, the definition of type by Rossi was “something that is permanent and complex, a logical principle that is prior to form and that constitutes it”.8 For Rossi, typology was a tool to analyse city and to give forms to architecture.

The Market Trajan [2]

The Gallaratese/ Aldo Rossi [3]

In Rossiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban science, the concept of typology tries to include the city in all its dimensions.

Rossi looked at different urban artifacts, both primary elements and

residential districts, seeing how type was preserved and transformed in the city. From city observation to architecture design, Rossi based his design theory on typology, using types to define formal structure, and its relation to the city. Colonnade, school, courtyard housingâ&#x20AC;Ś different types were observed, studied and applied in his works.

Formal Language: autonomy in geometric operation Parallel to the typological approach, the seeking for autonomy was pushed from another direction—the formal language. The notion of formal language emerged in Modernism, when type and style were eliminated, and form gained its independence. In the 1960s, Eisenman attempted to develop the formal principles of Modernism into an autonomous formal language. While autonomy for Rossi refers to the history, for Eisenman, autonomy stands for the elaboration of a self-sufficient language. 10 Admittedly, the statement that autonomy of formal language emerged in the Modern Movement is problematic. The manifesto of Modern Movement was the rejection of formal principles from the past. For instance, Mies van der Rohe expressed his repulse against form, or formalism. In a text published by De Stijl in 1923 he declared: “We reject all aesthetic speculation, all doctrine and all formalism.” 11 On one hand, form as the object of design practice was rejected; on the other hand, it was liberated from style and form-type, giving an unprecedented freedom to formal manipulation. Form was detached from meaning and matter, becoming an independent domain in architecture. Despite functionism, Eisenman took formal principles as the essence of the Modernism. His goal was to “carry out the objectives of the modern movement and bring modern architecture to its fullness”.

The lesson he learned from Modernism was its

objective form, taking architecture as an abstract and distant object. However, “objectivity” was not fully achieved in the Modern Movement. In The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of End, Eisenman claimed, “In reality, however, the objective forms never left the classical tradition. They were simply stripped down classical forms, or forms referring to a new set of givens (function, technology).”

establish the theory of formal autonomy, Eisenman introduced linguistics. With a structuralist linguistic notion of architecture, he found that the formal elements in architecture should follow a deep structure, which was not perceived sensorially. Analogous to language, Eisenman advocated “an architecture that could be read, understood, and judged in the manner of a strictly mental operation.” 14 While the traditional notion of architectural elements was rejected, the concept of geometry was established as an alternative to figure and image. Geometry represents a complete abstraction of form. Thus, the neutrality of the abstract space cancelled any

reading of its content, meaning, and materiality, allowing an absolute geometric operation in architecture.

Diagrams of House IV/ Peter Eisenman [4]

As a design method, the concept of process was introduced, suggesting that his architecture was made through a transformational process, and must be read in terms of the sequence in time.

In this process, the subject, the presence of the architect, was

eliminated.

Ultimately, Eisenman's notion of design as a process of transformation aims at undermining the role that the architect plays in the conception of the design; a goal that conforms with the spirit of Structuralism. Eisenman assumes that his design process is really an objective and autonomous one; that the transformations from one stage to another actually happen as a result of intimal laws; and that the output of the process is an internal consequence of the process itself. 16

Eisenman thought of the systematic transformation process as â&#x20AC;&#x153;an objective procedure able to generate designs, without the intervention of the designerâ&#x20AC;?. absence of the author, however, suggested an absolute autonomy in architecture.

The

The deconstruction of autonomy Accordingly, Both Rossi and Eisenman attempted to establish an autonomous architecture. For Rossi, the autonomous architecture was as received from the history; while for Eisenman, it was as invented from a self-sufficient language.

In their design

practice, they tried to distance themselves from the object, which endowed their architecture with abstract, neutral, and self-sufficient forms. For them, the absence of the author indicates the autonomy of the work. Although they took different attitude towards the Modernism, while Rossi thought it a failure and Eisenman proposed to make it to its fullness, they both rejected functionism. Rossi’s critique on “naive functionism” was “architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous value”. For Eisenman, functionism belonged to the tradition of humanism rather than modernism. Thus, an autonomous castle was constructed without external reference, with a set of systematic operational methodology. However, the concept of type and formal language shifted, and somehow developed into the architectural language that we are familiar today, in which autonomy is replaced by external reference, while the notion of type and formal operation are merely kept in appearance.

As has been mentioned before, the form-type relation was weakened in the Neoclassicalism, and eliminated in the Modern Movement. The attempt of Rossi and his circle was to contribute to its recovery. 19 Conversely, his architecture communicates with one ideal city rather than the city in reality. The discontinuity with the surrounding built environment and the schematic illustration in the layout makes his architecture an overwhelming expression of its type. If a type is detached from the context, and transformed into another formal language, is it still recognised as the original type? A similar question could also be found in the representation of street in Modernism, for instance, in the Golden Lane by the Smithsons and the Unite d’Habitaion in Marseille by Le Corbusier. For Rossi, these are among the examples of a typological representation of the city in the form of urban themes.

However, it is a problematic method to “apply” the type abstracted from the

city and its history to the building. In this case, architecture is reduced into a formal or spatial representation of the type. With the dissemination of its image, Rossi’s architecture was received as icons of type. The formal-type notion was marginalized, and type was given representational power, as an icon rather than as an actual formal logic. The idea of type was taken literally as a naming of categories in terms of function and appearance. Actually, Rossi turned his approach from type to image around 1976. The role of a scientific notion of typology was replaced by image, memory, and imitation. His works became juxtaposition of formal fragments rather than a typological unity. According to Moneo, the form-type relation was broken since the period of neo-classicism, and Rossi failed to fix it. Once the typological unity was fragmented, the only link to the past was through image. 21

Similarly, the autonomous theory in Eisenman’s architecture shifted away from the former linguistic notion of architecture. The concept of diagram was introduced as an alternative to the structuralist linguistic principles in formal manipulation. The change of attitude took place at the start of 1980s, when he realized that “the discourse of abstract architecture had exhausted itself”. 22 He defined diagram as generator of form:

Generically, a diagram is a graphic shorthand. Though it is an ideogram, it is not necessarily an abstraction. It is a representation of something in that it is not the thing itself …it also acts as an intermediary in the process of generation of real space and time. 23

The design process relying on a purist formal strategy altered into diagram, which brought broader discussions into formal manipulations. With the growing size and complexity of his projects, the external pressures like scale and program made it necessary to use such a concept.

In his book Diagram Diaries, he explained the shift

from the first stage “diagrams of interiority”, using grids, cubes, L-shapes, and bars, to the second stage “diagrams of exteriority”, using concept like place, text, mathematics, and science.

He claimed that diagram separated “form from function, form from

meaning, and architects from the process of design”. But as Massimo Cacciari pointed out, “It is problematic to act as a negative agent in architecture”. 26 It is a transition from a complete self-sufficient formal language to an open system that dealt with its context and programs with its form processing. The diagram of Eisenman maintained the geometric principles from his earlier discourse, and avoided schematic graphics from exterior reference. However, the notion of diagram and process offered a tool to operate architecture forms like distant and abstract objects. Once the foundation of autonomy was weakened, diagram would be used as a tool of translating external requirements directly into the formal manipulation. As a result, the process was no longer neutral and autonomous, but a reflection of external and practical issues. Finally, the architecture of Rossi and Eisenman was received as a stylistic issue. Non-autonomous Architecture: a new language emerging Before we discuss the new architectural language, it is necessary to review the definition of autonomy in architecture. Autonomy suggests an inherent logic, a self-sufficient formal structure, which architecture is considered as a result of its own discourse. It does not necessarily mean a complete rejection of external aspects in practice, but those aspects would not play a dominate role. That way, the works of the new generation of architects are considered non-autonomous. To have an overview of the architects the author was referring to, we could see a recent architecture competition—the New Media Campus in Berlin.

OMA, BIG, and

Büro-OS were shortlisted, and OMA was selected finally. It is interesting to put the three together comparing their forms and concepts. OMA and Büro-OS gave similar proposals, with a void in the middle of a massive volume. The proposal by OMA was named “the digital valley”. They studied the workflow of the media industry, and arranged the “informal office” space in the valley—the terraces in the void. The two sides of the valley were not parallel, which represented the axis of the street and the previous Berlin Wall. BIG proposed a “three-dimensional neighbourhood”. The concept of “neighbourhood” was represented as a courtyard type. A series of public functions was lined in the stepping void. What they have in common is the schematic composition based on the arrangement

of program, the iconic representation of their type, and huge formal operations as respond to the context. Accordingly, their workflow can be described as “program—type— geometric operation”, and the original type as well as the operational process are clearly visible in the final product.

“A Three Dimensional Neighbourhood” / BIG [6]

“Digital Valley” / OMA [5]

It is assertive to say the shortlisted companies represent the entire range of architects at the time, because Barjak Ingels and Ole Scheeren used to work in OMA and influenced by their approach. But their success in competitions reflects the general picture of the architecture today. More and more architecture companies are influenced in the way of doing and presenting their works, rendering an overall tendency towards a new language. We can draw a long list of architects, among which are the most influential ones since the 1990s. The collective behaviour of this generation rendered a toy-like architecture, a gigantic object-scape. The notion of type, context, function, and formal language was simplified and flattened into image and diagram. It is a hybrid of type, geometric processing, and neo-functionism, in which the autonomy of architecture disappeared.

Causes: alterations in the profession The reason for the destruction of autonomy is relevant not only to architecture theory but also practice. The changes in the content of profession, the workflow, and the form of cooperation, and the urban and social environment of practice profoundly influenced the attitude towards autonomy.

The content of the profession changed with the rebalance of the force field in the entire industry. Faced with growing complexity of commissions, architects must now justify himself to many different parties, the client, building contractors and engineers, future residents and users, and the neighbouring areas. 29 Architects are sometimes required with more than a scheme for the building, but also a strategy of development, or suggestion for program. The content of the profession extended, while the authority and power of architects shrank. As the practice of the entire industry became systemized and institutionalized, architecture was received as a product of cooperation rather than a piece of work of any individual. The role of architects also shifted, from a heroic innovator to a part of a chain of the production and reproduction process. Thus, there is less space for autonomous disciplines.

…there was a strong belief in architecture’s autonomous tradition as a bulwark of high culture. This is problematic, however, in the present situation, in which the architect can no longer rely on that autonomous history because the authority and power which the traditional architect of cathedrals and palaces had to implement his ideas no longer exists. 28

Since 1990s, there were architects attempting to face the situation for architectural practice, by including the external forces into the discourse. Among them was the Super Dutch Movement, represented by OMA, MVRDV, and Ben van Berkel. As we see in the competition, OMA based their works on a profound argument on program, and came up with new programmatic proposals concerning the transforming society and the position of the building type. Likely, MVRDV used the concept “situation” of the design, which

was the physical place in terms of morphology. Nowadays, many more intangible factors have a bearing on situation, including planning envelop, regulations on natural lights allowance, and requirements for users and neighbouring areas, which they tried to include in a “datascape”. Van Berkel, however, tried to collect all possible information related and synthesize it to create a “diagram” with computer, forming the basis of the design. 30 The chain of program—diagram—form was established, which is considered as a logical process nowadays.

International competitions, on the other hand, boosted the expansion of the nonautonomous language. As a sample of the globalized architectural production, competitions require relatively neutral and universal language, which is judged under an equally neutral and universal evaluation system. The lack of common ground among architects and juries in international competitions indicates the necessity of a more direct, common, and understandable language, rather than a result of inherent formal logic. Personally, the author has to admit that the proposals by OMA or BIG are relatively comprehensive, attractive, and impressive in competitions. The success of those companies also influenced others. In a comment Kick the Architectural Competition Habit, Marshall Brown summarised that “the simple diagrams, surreal formal effects, and easy imageability of their work has forced some of their more established competitors to enter an arms race of gigantic object-scapes”. 31 However, the influence is not limited in the circle of architects. In some of the important competitions, the proposals of the completion are widely transmitted through media, which renders the competition a public event. To some extent, the competition proposals represent the image of contemporary architecture for the public. As a result, architectural competition achieved its communication value. The developers and institutions are aware of its communication, and gain “fantastic publicity from the mad traveling circus of design competitions”. Competitions are held in order to attract financing, donors, and public awareness, without contacts, necessary approvals, or even clear programs.

Once the competition was established

merely for transmission, the proposals are received with their concepts and images, their communication value.

In this sense, the non-autonomous language was expected, awarded, and transmitted in architectural competitions.

The new generation of architects since 1990s are faced with flattened and fragmented cities. When identity, place, and meaning are eliminated from the city, neither typological nor contextual approach could find valid access to the urban environment. The only connection to the city is its image, its iconic presents in the city. Since the Modern Movement, the continuity of structure, activity, and form which allows consistent use of type is broken. The cities are constructed without a form-type relation, which generates an embarrassing situation for Rossi, who attempted to relate architecture and city with the notion of type. In the article On Type, Moneo stated: “The object—first the city, then the building itself —once broken and fragmented, seems to maintain its ties with the tradition discipline only in images of an ever more distant memory.”

The inherent formal structure of the city was destructed, as well as that of

architecture. The shift of Rossi’s work reflects this tendency. A more radical allegory about contemporary city is given by Koolhaas, in The Generic City. It is a superficial city that breaks with the old city, which is considered as “destructive cycle of dependency”. In a generic city, the concept of identity is strongly rejected.

It is nothing but a reflection of present need and present ability. It is the city without history. It is big enough for everybody. It is easy. It does not need maintenance. If it gets too small it just expends. If it gets old it just self-destructs and renews. It is equally exciting—or unexciting—everywhere. It is “superficial”—like a Hollywood studio lot, it can produce a new identity every Monday morning. 34

Absurd as it seems from appearance, the generic city reflects the fact that the city is becoming an endless artificial space without any identity. It is no more than a temporary container of urban life. Being generic, the city can support no architecture of autonomy, but a super juxtaposition of its image.

Causes: socio-economic evolutions In a broad sense, the reasons found in the transformation of architectural industry represent an extensive and profound revolution in society. The concept of consumerism, mass media, and non-place can explain the phenomenon in architectural practice.

The change from autonomy to non-autonomy is related to the shift from producerism to consumerism in economy. The concept of consumerism refers to “economic policies placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the consideration that the free choice of consumers should strongly orient the choice of what is produced and how”. 35 Since the non-autonomous architecture emphasise program or function as the basis of design, it seems comparable to the functionalism positions in the Modern Movement. However, unlike the “social reform” movement in Modernism, which attempted to redefine a new lifestyle through design, the contemporary architecture takes a serving position. In other words, the position of modernism is to design and reform the user from the standpoint of the designer, a heroic idea that placed himself over the people, while the practice of consumerism is totally user oriented. The shift from modernism to consumerism happened in almost all industries, which redefined the relationship between production and consumption. In some ways, the architecture of autonomy resembles a producerism perception. The construction of its own discipline, a self-sufficient system reflects the priority of production. Although rejecting the principles of Modernism, Rossi and Eisenman were still in the consistence of producerism. Their manifestos were as constraint as those of Modern Movement. While in a consumerism society, the design activities are useroriented, which means to base every aspect of the industry on the needs or potential needs on the user. Of course, the design of the product, as a part of this process, is included. The values of the profession are not to reform the society from the ideology of a designer, but to allocate the standpoint of their works around the satisfaction of the users. Autonomy, which seems to be wordy monologue of the architect, is rejected.

The booming mass media since 1980s, on the other hand, was destructing the autonomy in architecture. The mass media brought the ideology of architects to the public. Through this channel, architects participate in public events in different ways. Rendered as public events in mass media, the presence of architecture is beyond the physical built environment, and has extended to the public realm. The revaluation of architecture considered its communication value. More than ever architects are presented in mass media, in publications, television, and internet. It is not merely self-promotion, but architectural production in another domain. Not only building schemes, but also images, concepts, and idols are produced by architecture companies along with the media. For instance, image production includes conceptual design and competitions; concept production covers publications, exhibitions, and public lectures; idol production represents the mechanism of promoting star architects and rendering them as public figures. The consumption of images, concepts, and idols are happening at the same time. Image consumption, for instance, rendered the visual representation of a project, if not more than, at least as important as the project itself. After fantastic renderings, diagrams become the next battlefield for representation, which evokes a satisfaction of â&#x20AC;&#x153;understandingâ&#x20AC;? the object. Concepts consumption creates a tagging perception of the ideas of the architects. Global of local, avant-garde or nostalgic, naturism or urbanismâ&#x20AC;Ś the ideas of architects are labelled with a series of words, which are still far from their theoretical approaches. The consumption of idols is a consumption of their public image, personality, and moral obligation. The presence of architects in public events, for instance, post-disaster reconstructions, philanthropic programs, and development forums, renders their public images. Mass media generates a secondary reality, where architects and their works are presented as images, as icons, or as labels, which in turn influenced the production. Architecture is supposed to be photogenic, labelled, and communicative. Gradually, a schematic architectural language took over mass media, becoming the image of contemporary architecture.

The concept of non-place describes the loss of identity and the sense of place in contemporary cities. In Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, Marc Auge claimed:

If a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with identity, then a space which can not be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with identity will be a non-place. The hypothesis advanced here is that supermodernity produces nonplace, meaning spaces which are not themselves anthropological places and which, unlike Baudelairean modernity, do not integrate the earlier places. 36

Place was created in a long term interrelation between community and space, where there was shared identity and collective memory. While the anthropological notion of place suggests identity, history, and memory, Auge found the mass produced new facilities in the city without such characters. He used the word non-place, or space, to describe such phenomenon. In a non-place, the historical relation between identity and place is cancelled, when human-being can acquire a temporary identity like a passer-by. In this way, the autonomous approaches though type, place, and collective memory are no valid in a city of supermodernity.

Conclusion: The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy The biography of autonomy is a grand narrative, including all aspects within and without the discourse. In the construction of autonomy, the attempt to conceptualize, abstract and distant the object was essential. The autonomous approach dealt with a simplified ideal reality, and focused on the objective formal structure, excluding other demotions in architecture. In this sense, for the emergence of a new non-autonomous language, the basis in aesthetics, theory, and methodology was founded in the discourse of autonomous architecture. The principles of non-autonomous architecture were rooted in the principles of autonomous architecture. With the profound transformation in architectural practice and the entire society, the discourse of purity, self-sufficiency and autonomy got exhausted. Within its skeleton, more functional and social aspects were introduced. When external power was projected in the operation of a distant and abstract object, the language of “object-scape” emerged. The systematic knowledge in formal structure was flattened and simplified as a diagram process.

If autonomy in architecture fades out, is it possible to generate a new autonomy? As the object of the autonomous architecture in the 1960s is the formal structure, what will be the object of the discipline today? And what knowledge can the discourse rely on? In Diagram Work, Ben van Berkel pointed out that the repetitive process of verifying knowledge deeply inhibits the architectural practice is a threat to its future. There for, he proposed an integration of the discourse:

In order to avoid total disillusionment and exhaustion, architecture must continue to evolve its internal discourse, to adapt in specific ways to new materials and technological innovations, and to engage in constant self-analysis… The end of the gran narrative does not mean that architects no longer dream their own dreams, different from anyone else’s.37

If we review the construction of autonomy in the 1960s, we will find it based on external reference. Rossi and his colleagues brought in urban geography, anthropology, and topology, while Eisenmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s narrative is largely based on a reflection of structural linguistics. Their works institutionalized the external reference, and transformed social and cultural aspects into architectural issues. Rather than deconstructing disciplines in architecture, they attempted to integrate the external aspects in the inherent formal principles. The reconstruction of autonomy in architecture relies on the redefinition of the discourse and the recognition of cultural conventions, within and without the profession. More than ever is architecture influence by external references. However, after decades of flooding in external principles, it is time to rethink of architecture as a discipline, and rebuild its inherent and conclusive system.

Notes: 1. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984), 46 2. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 146 3. Peter Eisenman. “Post-Functionalism” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998), 238 4. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 23 5. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 28 6. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 29 7. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 35 8. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984), 40 9. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007): 39 10. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 149 11. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 304 12. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 146 13. Peter Eisenman. “The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of End” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998), 525 14. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 150 15. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 151 16. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 333

17. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 333 18. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 152 19. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 37 20. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007): 51 21. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 40 22. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 193 23. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999), 28 24. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 195 25. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 195 26. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999), 214 27. BIG, OMA, Büro-OS To Compete for New Media Campus in Berlin http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-mediacampus-in-berlin/ 28. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton Architectural Press, 2000), 23 29. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton Architectural Press, 2000), 23 30. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton Architectural Press, 2000), 24 31. Marshall Brown, Comment: Kick the Architectural Competition Habit http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138 32. Marshall Brown, Comment: Kick the Architectural Competition Habit http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138 33. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 41 34. Rem Koolhaas, S,M,L,XL, (Monacelli Press, 1995), 1250

35. Consumerism, From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism 36. Marc Auge, Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, tans. John Howe (Verso, 2009), 77 37. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Preface to “Diagram Works,” ANY 23 (1998)

Image Credits: 1. Musée National des Beaux Arts du Québec proposal / BIG + Fugère Architectes. http://www.archdaily.com/57324/musee-national-des-beaux-arts-du-quebecproposal-big-fugere-architectes/ 2. The Market Trajan. Aldo Rossi, The architecture of the city 3. The Gallaratese. Nicolin, Pierluigi, Carlo Aymonino / Aldo Rossi, housing complex at the Gallaratese Quarter, Milan, Italy, 1969-1974 4. Peter Eisenman. Diagrams of House IV. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture:An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form” 5. “Digital Valley” / OMA. http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-mediacampus-in-berlin/ 6. “A Three Dimensional Neighbourhood” / BIG. http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-mediacampus-in-berlin/

Bibliographys: 1. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984) 2. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies— in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004) 3. Peter Eisenman. “Post-Functionalism” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998) 4. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978) 5. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007) 6. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, 1995) 7. Peter Eisenman. “The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of End” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998) 8. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999) 9. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton Architectural Press, 2000) 10. Rem Koolhaas, S,M,L,XL, (Monacelli Press, 1995) 11. Marc Auge, Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, tans. John Howe (Verso, 2009) 12. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Preface to “Diagram Works,” ANY 23