Page 64 - Studio International - September October 1975

the previous dissociation between the architecture. Just as Lissitzky and the human activity ? This quest for identity
`particular' (fragmented social space), Vesnin brothers sought to deny the revealed that the architect's freedom did
the 'general' (logico-mathematical or importance of realizing a work and not necessarily coincide with the freedom
mental spaces), and the 'singular' stressed an architectural attitude, so the of architecture.
(physical and delineated spaces). But by avant-garde feels reasonably free to act If architecture seemed to have gained
giving an overall priority to historical within the realm of concepts. Comparable freedom from the socio-economic
processes, it often reduced space to one of to the early conceptual artists' rejection of constraints of building processes, any
the numerous socio-economic products the art commodity market and its radical counter-designs and manifestos
that were perpetuating a political status alienating effects, the architects' position were inevitably reinstated in the
quo. seems justified by the very remote commercial circuits of galleries or
possibility they had of building anything magazines. Like conceptual art in the
6. Before proceeding to a detailed other than a 'mere reflection of the mid-sixties, architecture had seemed to
examination of the ambivalence of the prevalent mode of production.' gain autonomy by opposing the
definition of space, it is perhaps useful to Moreover, historical precedents are institutional framework. But in the
briefly consider this particular expression there to give enough credibility to what process it had become an institutional
of space in architecture. Its territory could be paradoxically described either opposition, thus growing into the very
extends from an all-embracing as a withdrawal from reality or as a take- thing it tried to oppose.
`everything is architecture' to Hegel's over of new and unknown territories. Although some architects, following a
minimal definition. This latter 'What is architecture ?' asked Boullée. political analysis we shall soon describe,
interpretation must be pointed out, for it `Will I define it with Vitruvius as the art were in favour of doing away with
describes a difficulty that is of building ? No. This definition architecture altogether, the search for
constitutive to architecture. When Hegel contains a crass error. Vitruvius takes the autonomy inevitably turned back towards
elaborated his Aesthetic Theory,4 he effect for the cause. One must conceive in architecture itself, as no other context
conventionally distinguished five order to make. Our forefathers only built would readily provide for it. The question
particular arts, and gave them an order: their hut after they had conceived its became: was there an architectural
architecture, sculpture, painting, music image. This production of the mind, essence, a being that would transcend all
and poetry. He started with architecture this creation is what constitutes social, political and economic
.because he thought that it preceded all architecture, that which we now can systems ?11, 12 This ontological bias
others in both conceptual and historical define as the art to produce any building injected some new blood into a concept
terms. Hegel's uneasiness in these first and bring it to perfection. The art of which had already been well aired by art
pages was striking. His embarrassment did building is thus only a secondary art that theorists. Investigations into Hegel's
not really proceed from his conservative it seems appropriate to call the `supplement' received the support of
classification, but was caused by a scientific part of architecture." At a time structural linguistic studies in France and
question that had haunted architects for when architectural memory rediscovers Italy. Analogies with language appeared
centuries : were the functional and its role, architectural history, with its en masse, some useful, some particularly
technical characteristics of a house or Treatises and Manifestos, has been naive and misleading. Among these
a temple the means to an end that conveniently confirming to architects that linguistic analogies, two figure
excluded these very characteristics ? spatial concepts were made by the prominently.
Where did the shed end and architecture writings and drawings of space as much
begin ? Was an architectural discourse as by their built translations. 9. The first theory claims that the
a discourse about whatever did not relate The questions 'is there any reason why Hegelian 'supplement', added to the
to the 'building' itself ? Hegel finally one cannot proceed from design that can simple building and constitutive of
concluded in the affirmative: be constructed to design that concerns architecture, is immediately struck by
architecture was whatever in a building itself only with the ideology and concept some semantic expansion which would
did not point to utility. Architecture was of architecture ?' and `if architectural work force this architectural supplement to be
a sort of 'artistic supplement' added to consists of questioning the nature of less a piece of architecture than the
the simple building. However, the architecture, what prevents us from representation of something else.
difficulty of such an argument appears making this questioning a work of Architecture is then nothing but the
when one tries to conceive of a building architecture ?" were already rhetorical space of representation. As soon as it is
that escapes the utility of space, a questions in 1972. The renewed distinguished from the simple building,
building which would have no other importance given to the value of it represents something else than itself:
purpose but 'architecture.' conceptual aims in architecture became the social structure, the power of the King,
Although such a question may be quickly established. The media used for the idea of God, etc.
irrelevant, it finds a surprising echo in the communication of concepts became The second theory questions such an
the present search for architectural architecture, information was understanding of architecture as a
autonomy. After more than half a century architecture, the attitude was language that refers to meanings outside
of scientific pretence, of system-theories architecture, the written programme or itself. It refuses the interpretation of a
that defined it as the intersection of brief was architecture, gossip was three-dimensional translation of social
industrialization, sociology, politics and architecture, production was values, for it would be nothing else but
ecology, architecture wonders if it can architecture, and inevitably, the the linguistic product of social
exist without having to find its meaning architect was architecture. Escaping the determinants. It thus claims that the
or its justification in some purposeful predictable ideological compromises of architectural object is pure language and
exterior need. building, the architect could finally architecture is an endless manipulation
achieve the sensual satisfaction that the of the grammar and the syntax of the
PART I : making of material objects no longer architectural sign. Rational
provided. Architecture, for example, becomes a
The Pyramid selected vocabulary of architectural
Stating the Nature of Space 8. The dematerialization of elements of the past, with their
(or The Dematerialization of architecture into the realm of concepts oppositions, contrasts and redistributions.
Not only does it refer to itself and to its
was more the characteristic of a period
Architecture) than of any particular 'avant-garde' own history, but function - the existential
group. Thus it developed in various justification of the work - becomes
7. Little concerned with Hegel's directions and struck movements as virtual rather than real. So the language
`artistic supplement,' architects have ideologically opposed as for example is closed in on itself and architecture
nevertheless not regarded the constructed `Radical Architecture'7, 8, 9 and becomes a truly autonomous organism.
building as the sole and inevitable aim of `Rational Architecture.'10 But the Forms do not follow functions, but refer
their activity. They have shown a question it asked was fundamental. If to other forms, and functions relate to
renewed interest in the idea of playing an everything was architecture, by virtue symbols. Ultimately architecture frees
active role in fulfilling ideological and of the architect's decision, what did itself from reality altogether. Form does
philosophical functions in respect to distinguish architecture from any other not need to call for external

138