Page 51 - Studio International - September October 1975

ALIENATION It is not a problem of architecture HOLES IN THE
on one side and a problem of art
In both cases it is obviously a question unknown to it on the other. ARCHITECTURE
of a setting which under the pretext of Neither is it a question of art In so-called neutral architectural
illuminating the subject (the work) in submitting to architecture, nor of places, the non-neutral points axes
order to make it as autonomous as architecture wedding art. breaking the neutrality and generally
possible - so that nothing which is not the never used for this reason - are the
work manages to distract the eye - in fact windows, the doors, the narrow
alienates, in a detrimental way, the FUNDAMENTAL corridors, the air vents, the heating
aforementioned work in the context of DIFFERENCE pipes, the light sources etc.
the obligatory architectural frame, which It is a question of a conflict relationship, In fact, holes in the architecture.
is obviously never mentioned. Passing places. Disturbed places.
where both parties are on trial concerning
a difference. And first of all concerning a Unstable places. Windows disturbed by
A SPIDER'S WEB fundamental difference with art, as it what happens behind them. Doors
As for those who wish to ignore the attempts to establish itself. The point of disturbed by those who open them.
architectural context in which they intersection or point of rupture with Corridors disturbed by those who walk
exhibit, they are the ones who still modern art - between a work and its along them.
believe that a work is self-sufficient, no place (the place where it is seen), is
matter what surrounds it and no matter situated 'somewhere else', outside the THE TOWN
what the conditions in which it is work and no longer entirely in the place, When we say architecture, we include
perceived. a central point which is continually the social, political and economic context.
This is the case with practically all off-centre and a point on the edge, Architecture of any sort is in fact the
painting which consoles itself in a asserting its difference at the same time. inevitable background, support and
debilitated 'en-soi,' which attempts to frame of any work.
escape external difficulties by BOURGEOIS ART There no longer exists an
contemplating its navel and drawing the architecture peculiar to painting to the
viewer into the mesh of its woven threads, 'FREELY' work of art (there no longer exists a
like a spider's web catching flies. In normal artistic settings, which as we history peculiar to painting to the work
have seen in the majority of cases are of art), which could be conceived without
'CYNICAL, IGNORANT white cubes, the problems set by considering the architecture peculiar to
architecture attempt to conceal the place where it is exhibited.
A work is thus dramatized or themselves, in order to support
emphasized (against its will or by request) (artificially) the triumph of a bourgeois Whence the impossibility of
by a so-called neutral architecture, or conceiving a work outside the place
indeed the work turns up its nose at any art, which thus given value can assert where it will be exhibited.
itself 'freely,' within the soft shelter
external influence and attempts, despite which receives it. Whence the uselessness of the artist's
everything, to attract the eye regardless studio and the absurdity of its survival.
of the context. This second attitude SUBVERSION The architecture of a gallery, in which
seems presumptous to me, since the the work must take shape, is perhaps not
context (the architectural frame) always So the questioning work has an only the actual exhibition room (where
wins, rounding on those who ignore it. obligation to employ all possible means, the goods are shown), but also the
The first attitude is cynical (we know including subversion, to reveal the false director's office (where the goods are
what the work needs to triumph and we discretion of these depersonalized sold), the store-room (where the goods
eliminate a priori any conflict likely to architectures and to make them emerge are kept), the reception room (where
undermine this triumph). from their false neutrality. In the case of the goods are discussed).
The second attitude is idealistic or triumphant architecture (anti-neutral), an It is perhaps also the external
ignorant (and in both cases succumbs to excellent example being the Guggenheim architecture of the gallery, the staircase
attacks from outside). Museum in New York, subversion would up to it, or the lift, the street leading to it,
The two attitudes both stem from art consist of accentuating what is already in the area where it is situated, the town
as it is, in the majority of cases, up to the place and making any other situation
present day : reactionary, depending on inside the Museum untenable, except the ARCHITECTURE AS THE
and accepting the ruling ideology. one chosen by the subversive work in ACT OF MAN
question. Hence the exclusion of this When we say architecture, we mean an
work (cf. 'Gurgles around the
WITHOUT AN ESCAPE Guggenheim,' Studio International, urban place (inhabited or not), a cultural
ROUTE June 1971, pp.246-50). place. Certain artists, who will not accept
that architecture should be at the same
To imply in the work the place where time the inevitable background and the
it is situated (whether internal or frame of the work, are forced to exhibit in
external) is to give the limits materially THE OVERBEARING the country, in forests, mountains, seas or
and visually, without leaving an escape MOTHER deserts.
route. It is also to bind oneself to a The Guggenheim Museum is a perfect This is an attempt to escape from men,
certain given reality which the work if example of architecture which although from oneself. It is an attempt to deny
necessary will undertake to criticize, to enveloping and welcoming, in fact architecture as the act of man.
emphasize, to contradict, in a word to excludes what is exhibited there (Translated by Helen Meakins)
dispute dialectically. The sharpness of the (normally) for the benefit of its own
comment will depend on the precision of exhibition. Holding out its arms, yes,
the intervention. but in order to smother. Any work On this matter, see 'Function of the Studio',
venturing unconsciously into such an 1971, unpublished, appearing shortly.
THE ARCHITECTURE `envelopment' is irrevocably absorbed,
The architecture in which the work of swallowed up in the spirals and curves of
art is exhibited must be taken into this architecture. The role of protector,
account, under the threat of permanently acquired by the Museum, is here taken
reducing the work to nothing. It is to the point of paradox by the
therefore certainly not a matter of architect himself. The Guggenheim
carrying out a work of architecture. Nor Museum behaves like an overbearing
is it a matter of choosing an architecture mother to the art it houses.
to suit the point one wants to make. Such architecture is damaging to art
All architecture must be able to be used. as it is, and by the same token very
Few works can lend themselves to the clearly reveals the limits of the so-called
experiment. art. This architecture is heartening.
125