PUCUESTIEY 2nd Disjunction ‘The MIT Pres Cambridge, Masachnets Landon, Ealend1 1994 Massachuserts Insite of Technlogy ‘All ights reserved. No pt ofthis book may be reproduced in ‘257 form by any eletonic or mechanical means inlling ho twcopying. recording or sformation storage ad retieval) with ‘ut permission in writing fom the publishes, This book was set in Trump by DEKR Corporation and was pinced an bound in the United States of A bray of Congress Catalopingin Publiestion Dats “Techoml, Berard, 1944 Archiceerre and disiancuon / Bernard Teebumi Inches bibliographical references ISBN 0262-20004 1. Architecture and soceey—History—20th entry. 2 Jae uldings 3 Achitecrre—Technologicl innovations INA2S«9 $6778 1994 710309048820 saesees orSpaces and Events —_ (Can one attempt to make a contribution t9 architectural Aiscourse by relentlessly stating that there i.no space with- ‘ut event, no architeceure without program This seems to be our mandate ata time that has witnessed the revival of historicism or altematively, of formalism in almost every architectaal cucle. Ous social relevance and formal invention—cannot be disso ‘ated from the events that "happen" init. Recent projects ork argues thatinsist constantly on issues of progr and notation. They stress critical attitude that observes, analyzes, and inter prets some of the most controversial positions of part and present architectural ideologies, Yet this work often took place against the mainstream of the prevalent architectural discousse. For throughout the 1970s there was an exacerbation of styistic concems atthe expense of programmatic ones and a reduc: tion of architecture as a form of knowledge to architeccare os knowledge of form. From modemism to postmodernism, the history of architecture was surreptitiously tamed into a history of styles. This perverted form of history borrowed from semiotics the ability to “rea” layers of interpretation bu reduced architecture toa system of surface signs at the expense of che reciprocal, indferent, or even conslctive relationship of spaces and event. ‘Thisis mot the place foranextensive analysis of the situation that engulied the critical establishment. However, t should be stressed that it sno aceident dat this ‘emphasis on stylistic issues corresponded to a double and ‘wider phenomenon: on the one hand the increasing role of ‘the developer in planning large buildings, encouraging many architects to become mere decorators, and on the other, the tendeney of many architeceural critics to"concentrate on surface readings, signs, metaphors, and other modes of pres- entation, often to the exclusion of spatial or prograramatic concems. These ae twa faces of «single coin, sypeal of = increasing desertion by the architectural profession ofits responsibilities vis-8vis the events and activities that take lace in the spaces i designs [At the start ofthe 1980s, the notion of pro- ram was sil orbiddentesitory. Programaticeoncems were ‘ejected as leftovers from obsolete functionalist doctrines by ‘hose polemicists who saw programs as mere pretext for ic experimentation, Few dazed to explore the relation ‘between the formal elaboration of spaces and the invention of programs, between the abstraction of architectural ‘thought and the representation of events. The popular dis: ‘emination of architectural images though eye catching e- ‘productions in magazines often tured architecture into & passive object of contemplation instead of the place that confronts spaces and actions. Most exhibitions of architec ‘ure mart galleries and museums encouraged “surface” prac ticeandpresented the architect's works form of decorative ‘sinting, Walls and bodies, abstract planes and figures were rarely seem as part of single signifying system. History may ‘one day look upon tis period as the moment ofthe los of innocence in tweatieth-eentury architecture; the moment ‘when it became clear that neither supertechnology, expres: ‘onist funtionalism, nor neo-Corbusianism could solve so- Giety’s ills and that architeceure was not ideologically neutral. A strong political upheaval, «rebirth of critical thought in architecture, and new developments in history and theory all eiggered « phenomenon whose consequences sre sll unmeasured. This general os of innocence resulted Ina variety of moves by architects according otheit political‘or ideological leanings. In che easly 1970s, some denounced stchitecture altogether, arguing that is practice in the cur rent socioeconomic context, could only be reactionary and reinforce the status quo. Others, influenced by structural linguistics, alked of “constant and the rational utonomy ‘of an architecture that transcended all social forms, Others reintroduced political discourse and advocsted a rerum to ‘reindustrial formas of society. And stil others cynically took ‘the analyses of style and ideology by Barthes, Eco, oc Batil- lard end diverted chem from thei crteal aims, taming them lover like a glove. Instead of using them to question the Aistorted, mediated nature of architectural practice, these architects injected meaning into their buildings artificially, through « collage of histori or metaphorical elements “The resticted notion of portmoderism that ensued—a no ton diminished by comparison with literature or art—com: pletely and uncritically reinserted architeceue into the cycle of consumption. ‘At the Architetural Association (AA) io London, I devised a program entitled "Theory, Language, ‘Atioudes.” Exploiting the structure of the AA, which en: couraged autonomous research and independent lecture courses, it played on an opposition between polities) and theoretical concems about the ety (those of Baudrillard Le: {abere, Adomo, Lukses, and Benjamin, for example] and an axe sensibility informed by photography, conceptual art, and performance. This opposition between a verbal critical dis- course and visual one suggested thatthe ewo were comple- ‘mentary, Students’ projects explored that overlapping sensibility, often in amanner sufficiently obscure to generate ‘nal hostility trough the school Of coure the codes used Sn the students’ work differed sharply rom those seen in schools and architectural offices atthe time, At che end of ‘yearexhibition teats, tapes, lms, manifestos, rows of stry- ‘boards, and photographs of ghostike figures, each with their ‘own specific conventions, intruded ina space arranged ac- cording to codes disparate from those ofthe profession Photography was used obsessively: as"ive” Inger, as artificial documentation, as a hint of reality inter posed in architectural drzwing—a realty nevertheless dis- tanced and often manipulated, filled with skillfal saging, ‘with characters and sets in their complementary relations Seadents enseted fettious programs inside carefully se lected “real” spaces and then shot entire photographic se quences as evidence of thei architectural endeavors. Any ‘new ativade to architecture had to question its mode of representation, ‘Other works dealing with a erica analysis of urban fe were genevally in written form, They were ‘uimed into book, edited, designed, printed, and published by the unit, hence, “che words of architeceure became the ‘work of architecture,” as we said. Enitle? A Chronicle of Urban Politics, the book attempted to analyze what data szulshed our peri from the preceding one, Texts on eg ‘entation, cultural dequaiication, and the “intermediate city" analyzed consumerism, totems, and representational ism. Some of the texts announced, several years in advance, preoccupations now common to the cultural sphere: dislo-nad pecan Haran tn 1, cated imagery, artificiality, representational relity versus experienced reality, ‘The mixing of genres and disciplines in this ‘work was widely attacked by the academic establishanent, still obsessed with concepts of disciplinary autonomy and selfrefereniality. But the significance of such evens is not 4 matter of historical precedence or provocation. In super Imposing ideas and perceptions, words and spaces, these vents underlined the importance of certain kind of rela- ‘tionship between abstraction and narrative a complex jux- taposition of sbstract concepts and immediate experiences, contradictions, superimposition of mutually exclusive sen sibilities. This dialetic between the verbal andthe visual culminated in 1974in series of "iterary”proects organized {in the studio, in which texts provided progzams orevents on which smdents were to develop architectural works. The role ofthe text was fundamental in thar it underlined some sspest ofthe complementing (or, occasionally, lack of com- plementing| of events and spaces. Some texts, ike Italo Cal: vino's metaphorical descriptions of “Invisible Cities,” were 0 "exchitectual” as to require going far beyond the mere ‘ustration of the authors already powerfl descriptions Franz Kafka’ Burrow challenged conventional architectural perceptions and modes of representation, gar Allan Poe's “Masque of the Red Death (done during my tem 2s Visiting Critic at Princeton University] suggested parallels between ‘narrative and spatial sequences. Such explorations of the intricacies of language and space naturally had to touch on James Joyce's discoveries. During one of may trips frm the‘United States I gave extracts from Pinnegans Wake as the program. The site was London's Covent Garden andthe ar chitecture was derived, by analogy or opposition, from Joyce's text. The effect of such research wat invaluable in providing a framework forthe analysis ofthe relations be ‘ween events and spaces, beyond functionalist notions. “The unfolding of events in a iterary context Inevitably suggested parallels to the unfolding of events in swchstecture Space versus Program ‘To what extent could the literary narative shed ight on the organization of events in buildings, whether called “use,” functions,” “activities” ox “programs”? If writers could manipulate the struccre of stores i the same way as they ‘owist vocabulary snd grammar, couldn’ architects do the same, organizing the program in similarly objective, de tached, or imaginative way! For if architects could self camscionsly use such devices os repetition, distortion, or juxtaposition in the formal elaboration of walls, couldn't they do the same thingin terms ofthe activites that occurred within those very walls! Pole vaulting in the chapel, bicy- cling inthe laundromat, sky diving in the elevator shalt? Raising these questions proved increasingly stimulating: conventional organizations of spaces could be matched to the most surrealistcally absurd sets of activities. Or vice vers: the most intricate and perverse organization of spaces could accommodate the everyday life of m average suburban family Such research was obviously not aimed at providing immediate answers, whether ideological or prac ‘ical, Far more important seas che understanding that the ‘elation between program and building could be eitherhighly sympathetic or coneived and artical. The ater, of couse, fascinated us more, as it rejected all functionalist leanings. Te was ¢ ume when most architects were questing, at tacking, or outright rejecting modem movement orthodoxy. Wie simply refused to enter chese polemics, viewing them as stylistic or semantic butles. Moreovey, if this orthodoxy was often attacked forts reduction to minimalist formal manip- ‘lations, we refused enrich it with witty metaphors. sues of intertetaaley, multiple readings and dual codings had co integrate the notion of program. To use a Palladian arch for an athledic club alters both Pelladio and the nature of the athletic event ‘Asan explocation of the disunction between expected form and expected ue, we began a series of projects ‘opposing specific programs with particular, often conflicting spaces. Programatic context versus urban typology, urban «ypology versus spatial experience, spatial experience versus procedure, and so on, provided a dialectical framework for research, We consciously suggested programs that were im possible onthe sites that were to house them: a stadium in Soho, prison near Wardour Steet, ballroom in a church: yard. At the same time isues of notation became fundsmental: ifthe reading of architecture was to include the events that took place ini, i would be neccesary to devise modes of notating such activities, Several modes of notation ‘were invented to supplement the limitations of plans, seo tions, or axonometrics. Movement notation derived from choreogiaphy, and simultancous score derived from music notation were elaborated fr architectural purposes, It movement notation usually proceeded from our desire o map the actual movement of bodies in spaces, iincreasingly became a sign that dd not necessarily refer to these movements but rather to the idea of more: ment form of aotaton that was thereto recall that ar chitecuare was also about the movement of bodies in space, ‘ht their language andthe language of walls were ulumately complementary. Using movement notation as a means of recalling issues was an attempt to include new and stereo typical codes in architectural drawing and, by extension, in sts perception; layesings, juxtaposition, and superimposition ofimages porposeflly blued the conventional relationship between plan, graphic conventions and their mesning in the built ealm. Increasingly the drawings became both the no tation ofa complex architecural reality and drawings art ‘works| in their own igh, with their own frame of reference, deliberately sec apare from the conventions of architectural plans and sections The fascination withthe dramatic, either in ‘he program [murder, sexuality, violence or in the mode of representation [strongly outlined images, distorted angles of visioo—as if sen ftom a diving airforce bomber is thereto fore a response, Architecture ceases to be a backitop for ‘actions, becoming the action ioe, All this suggests that “shock” anus be maa- ‘lactured bythe architect fachitecture isto communicate. Influence from the mass media from fashion and popular ‘magazines, informed the choice of programs: the lunatic ‘asylum, the fashion insticue, che Falklands wa. I also in ‘venced the graphic techniques, om the straight Black and white photography for the early days to the overcharged ‘pease pencil illustration of later yeas, stressing the inevi- table “meditization” of architectural activity. With the dea matic sense that pervades much of the work, cinematic devices replace conventional description. Architecture be comes the discourse of events as much asthe discourse of specs. rom our workin the early dey, when event, ‘movement, and spaces were analytically juntaposed in ms tual tension, the work moved toward an increasingly syn thetic attitude, We had begun with a crkque ofthe city, had gone back to bases: to simple and pure spaces, to baren landscapes, room; to simple body movements, walking in 4 straight line, dancing, to shore scenarios. And we gradually the complesity by introducing terary parallels and sequences of events, placing these programs within ex ‘sting urban context. Within the worldwide megalopolis, new programs are placed in new urbaa situations. The pro- ‘ess has gone fll czcle: ie stared by deconstructing the city, today it explores new codes of assemblage2eeee Uae w a A A