182

STRUCTURALISM

Eco

FUNCTION AND SIGN:THE SEMIOTICS OF ARCHITECTURE

SEMIOTICS AND ARCHITECTURE
Ifseniotics, beyond beitrgthe scicDce ofrecognized systensofsigns, is really to be a sciencestudying all cultural phenomenaas ifthey were systems sisrlsof on the hypothesisthat all cultural phenonena are, in realitn systems signs, of or th.rt cLrkurecan be undeBtood as .onftuniutior then one ofthe fields in wh;ch it will undoubtedly fnid itself rnost challengedis that of architecture. It should be noted that the tetmarcbite.twe \1ti11be used in a broad scnsc here, indicating phcnoncna of nrdustrial design and urban desisn as wcll as phenonrenaofarchitccture proper (I{e willleave aside,however,thc quesrion of whether our rorio$ on thesephenomnnwould be applicablc to rl,y 4'pe of design produ.ifls three'dimensiolul .o str .tians destifled to fetmit the f,lfilnent of sonre fun.tion .anftecte.l tuith ,& i,, io.ter], a dcfinitton thar would enbracc the design ofclothing, insofar as clothingis cutturalized and a means of participaring in sociery, nnd even rhe dcsisn of food, nor as rhe productior of something for the individualt nourishmcnt, but insofar as it involvcs the construction ofcontexis that have social funcrions and symbolic connotations, slch as p.rrticLrlarmenus! the acccssoles oi a meal, etc. a dcfinitioD rhat would be undelstood to cxclude, on the other hand, the production of rhree dimensional objects desthed primarily to be rortaz phteA rathet than utili?Ed in sociern such as works of art.) \vhy is architectureI particula! challenseto seniotics? First of aU because apparenrly most architectural objects do not .anhuniete (and are not dcsignedto communicate),but tr.tto,. No otre can doubt that a roof funda metrtally serves cover,and a slassto hold liquids ;. such a way rhat one can to then eas;lydrink them. lnderd, this is so obviously and unquestionablythe casc as it migbt seem perverseto itrsist upon see;ngas.n act of communication somerh;ng that is so well, and so easily, characre.izedas a possibiLity of function. Orc of the firsr questiotrsfo! semiot;csto fnce, then, if it aims ro provide keys to the cultural phenomenain rhs f;eld, is whether ir is possiblero interpret functions as havins somerhing to do wirh conmunicatioq aDd the point of it is that seeiDil functions from the semiotjcpoinr ofview might permit oneto understan.land deftre them bette! preciselyas functions, and therebyto dis.over other types of functionalirn which are just as essentialbut which a strright functjonal;t inrerpretarlo. keepsone from perceivins.l

ARCHITECTURE COMMUNICAIION AS
A phenomcnological .onsideration of our rclationship with architectural objects tells us rhat we conmonly do cxpcrience architecture as commun ication, evenwhile recognizingits functionalit) Let us imagine rhe point of view of thc nar who srarted the h;story of architccture.Still'allwonder and ferocity'(to useVicot phrase),driven bycold and rain ard following the example oi sonc animal or obeying an impulse in which hstinct and rersonjng are mixcd in a co.fused way, rhis hyporhrical

FUNCTION

AND

SIGN

183

Eco StoneAge man takesshelterin a.ecess,in some hole on e side ofa nountah, be examinesthe cave that shelrers nr a cave.Sheltered from the wind and.lin, hin, by daylight or by the light of a fire (we will assume he has already discoveredfire). He notes the arnplitude of the vault, and urderstands this as the limit ofan outsidespace, which is (with its wind and rain) cat off, and as thc besinnins af dn inside spa.e, which 1s likely to evoke ;n him some unclear nostalgiafor the womb, inbue hirn with feelingsofprotection, and appear still imprecise,and ambiguousto him, seenunder a play of shadow and light. Once rhe srorn is over, he night leavc the cave and reconsiderit from the outside; to there he would note dre entryway as'hole drat permits passage the ins;de', and the entrancewould recall to his mind the imageofthe inside:entrancehole, coveringvault, walls (or conthuous wall ofrock) surroundins a spacewirhin. Thus an 'idea of the cave' takes shape,which is useful at least as a mnemonic device,enabling him to thnrk of the cavelater on as a possibleobjective in case ofrainj but it also enableshim to recogrize itr another cavethe samepossibillty o/sreitel found in the first one. Atthe secondcavchc tries, the idea ofthatcave type, sonethingthat is soon replacedby the ideaof.a\etort.ourt-dmodal,, does trot exist concretelybut on the bass of which he can recognizea certain context of phenornena 'cave'. x The nodel (or concepd tunct;ons so well ihat he can now recognizefrom a distance someone eise'scave or a cave he does nor iDtetrd to nake use of, independentlyof whether he wants to take shehc in it or not. Thc man has Now this would still be learnedthar the cavecan assumevarious appearances. the z mattet of ar ind.iuidul: realization of an abstract model, but iD a sense nodel is alrcady coaifie.l, not yet on r soc;al level bur on thc level of this it ;ndividualwho proposesand communicates to himself,within his own mind. And hewould probably be able, atthis point, to comnunicate the model ofthe cave to other men, by neaDs of graphic signs. The architettwal code wodd genente an i.ofti. .ode, and the 'cave principle' would become an object of communicativeintercourse. At this point the drawins of a cave or the irnage of a cave in the distance becomes rhe communication of a possiblefunction, and such it rernains,even when there is neither fulfilnent ofthe function nor a wish to {ulfil it. what has happened,then, is what Rolatrd Barthes is spelking abour when he saysthat'as soon as there is a socict/, every usageis convertedinto a sigtr of itself'.2To use a spoon to get food to oft\ mouth is still, of course,the fulfilnent of a function, through the useofan artifact that allows rnd promotes that futrction; yet to say that ;t 'promoted ihc function indicates that the artifacr servesa connrunicative funct;on as well: it .ammuni.ates the furctiofl to be falfilled. Morcole\ the lact that someore usesa spoon becones, in the eyesoi the $ciety that observesit, tbe communication o{ a conformjty by bim ro (as certain usages opposedio ce.tain others, such as eatiry with onet hands or sipping food directly from a dish). The spoor promoresa .e/ tdift way of edtiftg, and sissifiesthdt udy af eating, just as the cave plomotes the act oftaking shelterand signifiesthe existenceof the possiblefunctionsi afld both objects s/8',t e/en tuhen they dre not beitg

184

S T RUCT URA L I S M

Eco

THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGN a with this semiotic framework,oneis not obliged characterizsignon the to that basis enherbehaviour it stimulates actualobiects wouldyerifvits o{ that or meaning: it is characterizedonly on the basis oI codified meanins thdt in a silien .shwal .ontext is attributed to the sign lebide. (h is true that eventhe but proce$s codification oI belong the realmofsocialbehaviour; thecodes to do Dotadmitolempiical verification either, although for based otrco$tancis inferred from obseryati,on communicatile usages,they would always be oI constructedas rtrr.rrrdl motuls, postriated as a theorcticdl hypothesis.) That a stair has obligd rne to go up does not concem a theory of that significatioqbut that occuting with certainIormal charactedstics det!as starrs occurs mine its Mture as a ya' /el;cle (justasthe verbalsignvehile units'),the objectcommunicates meits to atrarticulatiotr certain'distinctive of possiblefunctiotr - this is a datum o{ culture, and can be established independentlyof apparentbebtuion, and euenof a presumedmental reaction, on hy part. ln other words, in the cultxral context in which we live (and this is nillennia of historvas far as certain a modelof culturethat holdsfor several exists architectural an form that might ratherstable codes concerned)there are of upwardin be definedas 'an irclined progression rigid horizontalsurlaces in /. whichthe distance between sucessive surfaces elevation. is setsomewhere havea dimeflsion inthe direction between and9 inches, whichthe surfaces 5 in 15 and in of the progression plan, r, setsomewhere in betrveetr and 8 inches, of, which there is little or no distance between, overlapping sucessive or plane,the sumtotal suriaces whenprojected orthographically a horizontal on (or pans) fallinesomewhere 17 fron horizontal'.(To between and48 desrees this delinitioncouldofcoursebe added fornula relatins/to t)And sucha the form denotes meaning the ttair as a possibility goingup' on the basisof a of codethat I can work out and recognize operative as evenif, itr fact,no oneis goingup that stair at present even and though,in theory, orc mightevergo no just up it agah (even ifstairs areneverusedagainby anyone, asno oneis ever goinsto usa truncated pyramidagainin makingastronomical observations). sign Thuswhat our semiotic ftameworkwouldrecognize thearchitectural in 1sthe tuesen e of a sisn t)ehicleubose tunotcd meaninsis the fun tioft it nahes The semiotic perspective we havepre{erred that with irs disrinction between meanings forn! observable describable and apartfrom sisnvehicles and -the the meanings attribute them!atieastat som to stage ofthe semioric investwe igation,andthelattervariable deternined thecodes thelight of which but by in we the sign vehicles- permits us to recognizein architectural signssis, 'ead uehicbs capableof being describedand catabgued, which can denoteprecise functionsprovided one interpretsthem in ihe light of certaincodes,and are of successile meaninss with which these signvehicles capable beingIilled, of denotation, but whose attributioncanoccur, we will see, only by way as not furthercodes. alsoby way of connotation, the basis on of of Irom Significative forms,odes worked out on the strength inferences proposed structuralmodelsof givencommunicative rlations, usages and as on denotative connotative and meanings attached the sigtrvehicles the basis to as o{the codes this is the sernioric univers which a readine in ofarchitecture -

FUN C TI ON

185

communicltion becomes viable, a universe in which verifi.aiion through observable physical behaviour and actual objects (whether denotata or referents)would be simply irrelevant and in which rhe only co.crete objecrsof any rele,tnce are the archite.twal obie.ts ds sighifi.ati,e forhs. Withln these bounds one can begin to seethe various communicativepossibiliriesof archi

Eco

ARCHITECTURAIDENOTATION
The object of usc is, in its communicative capacity,the sign vehicle of a pre cisely and conventionally denotedmeaning ;ts function. More loosely,it hns beensaid that the first meaning of x building is what one must do in order to inhabit it - thc architectural object denotesa 'form of inhabitation'. And it is clear rhat this denotation occurs even when one is not availing oDeselfof the denoted inhabitability (or, more generalh the denoted utilny) of the architectural object. But we must remember fron the outset that therc is morc to architectrral comnunication thatr this. Iften I look at the windows on rhe faqadeof a building, for instance,thcir denoted function may trot be uppernost in my mind; my attention may be rurned ro a w;.dow-meaning thar is based on the function but in which the function has recededto the extent that I may even forget it, for the monent, of concentratingon relationshipsthrough which the windows becone elernents rbythm -lust as someonewho s readinga poern may, without an architectural entirely disregardingthe meaningsof the words there, let them recedeinto the background and thereby enjoy a certain formal play in the sign vehicles' contextual juxtaposition. And tbus an arcbirect might presenrone with some false windows, whose denoted function would be ;llusorn and rhesewindows could still function ns windows in tbe architecturalcontea'tin which they occur as and be enjoyed (given the aesthetjcfunction of the rrchitectural message) Morcover windows in their forn, their number, their disposition on a fagade(portholcs,loopholes,cultain wall, etc.) may, besides denoting a func tioq rcfcr to a certain conceptionofinhabitation and usei theymay roaroraaa ouetall ideologr that has inforned the architeccs operation. Round arches, pointed arches and ogee arches all function in the load-bearing senseand denotethis function, but theycolnote diverscways ofconceiving the function: they begnrto assune a symbolic functior. Let us remm, however,to denotation and the primary, utilitarian functiotr. accordiryto Ve said that the object ofuse denotesthefunction coDventionally, codes. Let us here consider some of the geleral conditions under which an object derotes its fulction corventionalh According to an immenorial architectural codificatiol, a stair or a raDp denoresthe possibility of going up. But wherher it is a simple ser of srepsin a garden or a grand staircase Vanvitelli, the winding stairs of the Eiffel Tower by or the spiralling ramp ofFfunk Lloyd lvrighCs GuggenheimMuseum, one finds oneselfbeforea form whose interprerationinvolvesnot only r codifiedconnecof tion betweenthe form and the function but also a conyentional coDceptiotr how one fulfils the fr:nction with the forn. Recentln for example, one has been able to go up also by meansof an elevator, and rhe interpretat;onofthe elevator

18 6

S T RUCT URA L I S M

Eco involves, besidesthe recognition of the possibleIuncriotr - ad rather than beingdisposed the motor activityo{ moviry one'sfetin a certainway - a to conceptiotrof how to fulfil the function through the various accessory dvices at one's disposal in th elevatox.Now the 'legibility' of thesefeaturesoI the elevator might be taken for granted, and presurnablyrheir designis such that none of us would haveany troubleinterpreting them.But clearlya primitive man usedto stairsor rampswould be at a lossin lront of an elevator; best the intentions on the part of the desi$r would trot result in making the thing clear to him. The designer may have had a conception the push br:nons,the of graphic arows indicating whether the elevatoris about to go up or down, and the emphatic floorlevel indicators, the primitive,evenif he can gr:ess but the function, does not know that these forns are the 'key' to the function. He simplyhasno realsraspof the codeofthe elevator. Likewise misht possess h only fragmentsof the code of the revolving door and be deterrnined useone to of theseas if it were a matterof an ordinarydoor.We can see, rhen,thar atr architectt beliel in forrn that 'follows tunction' would be rather naive unlessit reallyrested an understa ing ofthe processes codilication on oI invoived. In other words, the principle that fom follows iunction might be resrated: the fotn of tbe obiect n'"st, besides nakins tbe function possible,denotethat cbarly etough to make it ptdcticable as ue as desituble, clearly function enoughto disposeone to the actionsthough which it would be fulfilled. Then all the ingenuity of an architect or designercannot make a new form functional (and camot sive form to a new function) uitbort tbe suppott of exktins p/ocesses codification . . . of A work of art can certaitrly be somethingnew and higt y informative; it can present articulations elenents of that correspond an idiolecrof irs own and to not to pr-existing codes, it is essentially objectintendedto be confor an ternplated, and it catr communicate this new code, implicit in its makeup, precisely fashioninsit on th basiso{ the pre-existing by codes, evoked and ngated. Now an architectural objecrcould likewisebe something new and informativej atrdif intended promotea new function,it couldcontainin irs to {orrn (or in its relation to comparable Iamiliar formd indicationsfor the 'decoding' of this function. It too would be playing upon elementsof preexisting codes,but rather than evokiry and negatingthe codes,as the work o{ art night, and thus directing anntion ultimately to itself, it would have to progressivelytransform thern, progressivelydeforming already known forns andthe functions conventionally referable these to forms.Otherwise archithe tctural objectwould beome, a {unctional not object, indeed work ofart: bur a an ambisuous forrn, capable beinstuerpretedin the lighr oI variousdi{of ferentcodes. Suchis the cas wirh 'kinetic'obiects that simulate outvard the appearance objects usejobjects usetheyare not, in effect,because of o{ of of the underlying ambiguitythat disposes them to any useimaginable so to and nonein particular. shouldbe notedthar the situationoI atr objecropento (It any useimasinabl - and subjectto none - is different {ron that of an object subject a nurnber determinat to of uses, we will see.) as One rnight well wish to go further into the nature of architecturaldenotation (here described rougl r andwith nothingin rheway of detailed only analysis). But we alsomentioned possibilities architedural of connotation, which should be clarified.

F U NCTION AND S TGN

187

ARCHITECTURAL CONNOTATION
Ve said that besides denoting its futrction the architectural object could connote a certain ideology of the function. But ufldoubtediy it can connote other things. The cave, in our hypothetical nodel of the beginning of archi tectufe.came to derote a shelterfunction. but no doubt in time it would have begun to connote 'family' or 'group', 'securiq", 'familiar sulroundiryJ, etc. Then would its connotative nature, this symbolic 'turction' of the object, be less fuflctio dl rhan its f;rst fun.tion? In other words, given that rhe cave denotesa cenain b^si. utilitas (to borrow a rern from Koenis), thcre is thc questionwhether, witb respectto life in society,the object would be any les rsefrl in terms of its ab;lity, as a symbol, to couote such things as closeness and familiarity. (From the semiotic point of view, the comotatiotrs would be founded on the denobtion of the pr;mary ,til;tds, but that would not diminish A seattells ne first of all thnt I cln sit down on it. But ifthe seat is a throne, it must do more than seat one: it servesto sert one with a certaitr digtrity, to corroborate its user's 'sitting in dignity' perhaps through various accessory sisns conDotins lesalness' (eagleson the arms, r h;gh, oowned back, etc.). Indeed the connotation o{ dignity and regalnesscan becone so functiomlly important that the basic Iunction, to seat one, may even be dighted, or dis torted: a throne, to connote regalness, often demandsthatthe person sitting on it sit rigidly and uncomfortably (along with a septrein his right hand, a globe in the left, and a crown on his head), and therefore sents one'poorly'with respecrto the primary rtil;tzs. Thus to seatone is only one of the functions of the tbrone- atrd only oft ofits meanings,the first but notthe most important. So the rirle &u dto" should be extefldedto all the usesoI objects of use (in our perspectiyq to the various communicative, as well as to the denoted, Iuncdons), for wirh respectto life in society the 'syrnbolic' capacitiesof these objects are no less'useful' thar thei 'functional' capacities.And it should be clear that we are not be;ng metaphoricai nr calling th symbolic connotations {unctional, because although they may not be tumediately identified with the 'futrctions' narrowly defined, they do represert (and indeed conrnunicate) in eachcasea real social utility of the object. It is clar that the most imporrant function of the throne is the 'synbolic' one, and clearly evening dress(which, insteadof servingto coverone like most everydayclothing, ofteD'uncovers' for women, and for rnen covers poorly, lengthen;ngto tails behind while leaving the chest practically bare) is functional because,thanks to the complex of conventions it connotes, it pernits cerilin soc;al relations, confirms then, $ows their acceptance the plrt of those who are communicating, with it, on their social status,their decisionto abide by ceitain mles, and so forth.a

ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNICAIION AND HISTORY FUNCTIONS AND SECONDARY FUNCTIONS PRIMARY

Sinceit would be awkward fron here on to speak of 'tutrctions' or the one hand, when referring to the denotedarjliras and of'synbolic' connotations on the other, as ilthe latter did not likewise representreal functions, wewill speak of a'prinary' fun.tiolt (which is denoted) and of a conplex of secondary

188

S T RUCT URA L I S M

and It Eco futLtiolts l, hi(-harconnotative). shouldbe renernbered, is impliedin beensaid, that the terns primary and srro"lary will be used what has already discrinination(rs iI the onefunctionwere not hereto convey, an axiological in mechanism, the sense th others), rathera semiotic but morimportantthan Iunctions rest on the dnotatiotr of the primary function that the secondary of liust aswhenonehasthe connotation 'badtenor'from the word for'dog' in on the process denotation). o{ Italian,.rre, it rests o{ the example wherewe canbeginto see intricacies Let us take a historical primary and secondaryfunctions,comparingthe recordsof intr' these the havelong debated historians pretationhistoxyhas left us. Architectural and panicularlythe smrcturalvalueof the ogive Three codeo{ the Gothic, have major hypotheses beenadvanced, 1 the ogive has a structuraltunction,and the entire lofty and elegant structureof a cathedralstandsupon it, by viftue of the rniracleof equilibriun it allows; impres the valu,evenif it Sives opposite the ogivehasno structural sion; rather, it is the wbs of th ogival vault that have the structural value; valuein the couse of corstluction,Iunc the ogivehad a structuJal the of frarnework; later, interplav thrusts tioningasa sorto{provisional up was andcountrthrusts picked by thewebsatrdbv theotherelements of and in theorythe ogives the crossvaultingcould of th structure, havebeenelininated.s

one might adhereto, no one has ever No matter which intrpretation crossvaultiry d',otel a structual function doubted that th ogivesof the along suppon reducedto the pure interplayof thrustsand counterthrusts turns rather on the referent o{ that the slender,nervous elernentsi cotrtoversy denotation: is the denoted function an illusionf Even iI it is illusorv, then, the indeedif communicative valueof the ogivalribbing rrnairsunquestionabl; to colnmubi.ate the Iunction, atrd not to the dbbing had beetrarti$lated only pe/mit i\ rhat lal'r would, while perhaps appearins more valid, simplv be be that theword unicornisa sign, it moreintentional. ll-ikewise. aannot denied and eventhoughits non'existence eveflthough the unicom doesnot exist, to might havebeen surpris thoseusingrheterm ) rc While they were debatins the functioml value of ogival ribbing' however, that the codof the Gothic oI historians and interpreters all periodsrealized of (in other words, that the lements the had also a lymbolic' dimension functionsto them);one of had sone complexes secondary Gothic cathedral knew that the ogival vault and the wall piercedwith great windows had something connotativ to communicate Now what that somethingmight be has subcodes connotative time and again,on the basiso{ elaborate beendefined patrimony of givengroups founded on the cultural conventionsand intellectaal persPectives, with by and givenperiodsand determined particularideological which they arecongruent. There is, for exarnple, the standard romantic and proto-romartic inteF pretation! whereby the structure of the Gothic cathedral was intended to world, barbaric and the reproduce vault oI Celticforests, thus the pre-Roman nedieval period, legions of and primitiye, o{ dflridical relisiosity. And in the

F U NC TIO N AND S IGN

put commentators allgorists themselves defining, and to accordingto codes of Eco precisionand subtlety, formidable the individual meanings every single of architectural element; will suffice referthe reader the catalogue it to to drawn r:p,centuries later,byJorisKarlJuysmans his ra cathedrule. in But thereis, afterall, a singular documentwe couldmention- a code's very constitution andthat is thejustification Sugergives ofthe cathedral his De in 'rebusin ddministrdtione s,rdastls,in the twelfth century.6There he lets it be understood, proseandin verse,thatthe in light that peneuates streams in Irom (or the structure oI the walls that permits the the windows into the dark naves light to be o{feredsucharnpleaccess) rnust represent very elfusivftss of the the divine creativeenergy, notion quite in keepingwith ertain Neoplatonic texts a and basedon a codifiedequivalence between light and participation the in we could saywith sone assuraflce, thn, that for men of the twelfth century oI the cothic windows and glazing(andin generalthe space the navestraversed giventhe term by streams light) comoted 'participation' (in the technicalsense o{ in medievalNeoplatonism);but the history of the interpretation of rhe cothic teaches that over the centuriesthe samesigtr vehicle,in the light of different us has subcodes, beenable to connorediversethings. inthe nineteenth century witnessed phenonenon one a typicalo{ the Indeed, perioda codeh its entirety(all artisticstyle,a historyofart-when in a givetr manner, 'mode of forming', independently the connotations its indi a of of (with whichit vidualmanifestations messass)comes in to connote ideology an wasintimately unitedeithelatthe moment its bifth or at thetime of its most of characteristic affirmation). Onehadat thattimetheidertification'Gothicstyle = religiosity', identification undoubtedly precediry an that rsted the other, on = connotative identifications, suchas 'verticalemphasis elevation the soul of Godward'or contrast light streaming oI throughgeat windowsand naves in = Now thes connotations deeply are so rootedthat even 'shadows mysticism'. today sone effort is reqairedto rememberthat the Greektempie too, balanced and harnonious in its proponions, could connote,accordingto another lexicoq thelevation the spiritto theGods,andthat something the altar of like of Abrahamon the top of a rnountain couldevokemystical feelingqthus one .omotative lexiconmayirnpose itselfoverothers th course time and,for in o{ exanple,the cotrtrastoI lig.htand shadowbeconeswhat one most deeply associates mvsticstates mind. with of A metopolis like New York is sruddd with rco-Gothicchurches, whose to the ofthe divine.And style(whose was 'lansuase') chosen express presence fact churches hav(Ior thefaithful) still thecurious is that,by conventioqthese the samevalue today, in spite of the fact that skyscrapers by which they are now hemmedin on every side, and nade to appea! very small, alrnost in all miniaturized haverendered verticality the emphasized this architecture to but indistinguishable. example this shouldbe etrough remitrdus that An like thereareno mysterious values derivingsimplyfron the natureof 'expressive' from a dialectic the Iorms themselves, that expressiveness instead and arises for between signiliative forms and codesof interpretations; otherwisethe Gothic churchesof New York, which are no longer as distinctively attetruated and verticalas they usedto be, would no longerexpress what they usedto, whilein {acttheystill do in some respects, andprecisely because are'read' they

190

S T RUCT URA L I S M

Eco

them as distinctivelyvertical on rhe basisof codesthat permit one to recognize (and new code ofreading), the advent ofthe in spite of the ncw fornal context skyscraperhas now brought about.

AND HISTORY ARCHITECTURAL MEANINGS

It would be a mistake, however, to imagine that by their very nature architecturrl s;gn vehicleswould denote stable prirnary functjons, with only the secondaryfunctions varying itr the course of history. The example of ogival ribbing has aiready shown us a denoted function undergoing cLtious flucturtions - it was considered by some effective and essent;al,but by others provisionalor illusory-and thereis everyreasonto believethat in the coruseof time certtn primary fmctions, no longer effective,would no longer even be no the denoted, the 'addresses' longer possessing requisitecodes. So, in the course of history, both prinary and secondaryfunctions night be found undergoing losses,recoveriesand substitutions of vadous kinds. These losses, recoveriesand substitutionsare common to the life oI lorms in general, and constitute the norm in tbe course of the reading of works of art proper. If they seen more striking (and paradoxical) in the fild of architecturnl forms, that is only becauseaccording to the common view one is dealing there with functional objects of an unequivocally indicated, and thts uniuocally .om municative, natulej to give the lie to such a vjew, there is the story - its very currency puts its authenticity in doubt, but if unhue it is in any casecredible about the mtive wearing an alarm clock on bis chest, an alarn clock inter' pretd as a petrdantlas akind of 'kinetic jewelry', one might say)rather than as a timepiece:the clock's measurementof time, and indeed the very notion of only on the basis 'clock time', is the tuuit o{ a codification and comprehensible otre type of fluctuation in the life of objects of use can therefore be senitr the vaiiety of readingsto which they ale subjeci, regarding both primary ald s ec o n d a ry n c ti o n s ...3 fu

ARCHITECTURAL CODES WHAI ISA CODEIN ARCHITECTURE?

Architectural signsas denotativeand connotativeaccordingto codes,thecodes and subcodesas naking diflerent readingspossiblein the courseofhistorn the architect'soperation as possiblya matter of'facing' tbe likelihood of his work beiry subject to a variety of readings,to the vicissitudes conmu cation, by of designingfor variable prinary functions and open secondaryfunctions (opetrin the sensethat they may be determiftd by unforseeable future codes)- everything that has been said so far migrhtsuggestthat there is little questlon about what is meant by code. As long as one confinesoneselfto verbal cornmunication,the notion is fairly But clear: there is a codeJanguage, and thre are certain connotativesubcodes. when, in another sectionofthis study,we weDt oD to considervisual codes,for example,we found we had to list a number of levelsofcodification (including, but not limited to, iconic and iconographic codes), and in the process to

FUN C TI ON

191

introducc various 'clarifications' of the conccpt of codc, and or the different qpes of arriculatior a code may provide for'Ifc also saw the irnportance oI the prhciple that thc clencnts of articulation under a given code car be syntagms another,more 'analytic' code,or that rhe syltagrns ofone code can of turn out to bc clementsof articulation of anothcr, morc 'synthetic' code. Tlis should be kept in nind when considerhs codesh architecture,for ole might be tenpted to attribute to an arclitectrual code aticulatiols that belolg really to some code, either nore analytic or more synrhetic, lyng outside archi Iie can expect some problems,then, ;n the definition of the codes of archi tecture.First ofall, fron the anemps therehave beento date to spelloutaspects of architecrural communication, we can see that rhere rs the prollem of neglecting considerwhether what one is look;.g at is referableio I synt$dc to code rather than a semanticcode that is, to rules concening, rather than the meaningsconventionallyattributed to, individunl slgn vehicles, the aniculation of certain significativesructures seFrable frorn these sjgn vehiclesand their meanings or for thnt matter to someunderLying technicnlconvention. Catchwofds like 'senxntics .'f architecture' have led some to look for the equivaient of the 'word' of verbnl language in architectural signs, for units eDdowedwith definite meaning, indeed for symbols referring to referetrts.But sinccwc know therc can be convetrtionsconcerning only the syntactic articulation of sigls, it rvould bc appropriate to look also for purcly syntactic codificationsin architecture(findins such codificationsand defining thcm with precisio\ Ne night be in a bctter position to understand and classify,at lcast from the poht ofview of scmiotics,objccts whose oncc denorcd functions can no longer be ascertanred, such as the nenhir, the dolmen, the Stonehense Then, too, in rhe caseofarchitecture, codesofreading (and ofconstructior) of the object would have to be distlnguished from codes of reading (and of consffuction) of the d"saz for the object (adnittedly we are considering here only a semioticsof architectural obiects, and not a semiotics of architectural designs).Of course the notational codesof the design,while conventionalized independentlSare to some extent derivativesof the codes of the object: they provide ways h which to'transcribe'the object, just as to transcribe spoken language there are conventions for representing such elements as sou.ds, syllablesor words.8ut that doesnot mean a semioticinvestigntionofthe archi tectural designwould be without some interestingproblems of its own there are in a design,forexample, varjous systems ofnotation (the codesoperative in a p l a n ar e not , lr r t e rh ..rm r a . rh o \c o p (ra u ,e rn J \e.ron or rn J s,fl nt diagran for a building),r0and in thesesystems notation there can be found of iconic signs, diagrams, jndices, synbols, qualisigns, sinsigns, etc., perhnps enough to fill dre cntirc gamut of sisns proposed by Peilce. Much of the discussionoI architecture as cornmunication has centred on typalosi.dl .odas, cspecially scmantic typological codes, those concerning fulctional and sociologicalnrpcstit has bcenponitcd outthatthere are in archi tecrure configurations clearly indicatins'church','railroad station','palace', etc. l(c will rcturn to typological codeslatcr, but it is clcar that they constitute only ole, if perhaps the most conspicuous, of the level of codification in

Eco

192

S T RUCT URA L I S M

Eco

In attempting to move proglessively back from a level at which the codes are so cornpiex and temporal - for it is clear that 'church' has found different aniculations at diJferent moments in history - one might be tempted to hypothesize {or architecture something like the 'double alticulation' found in verbal languages, and assumethat the most basic level of artiulation (that is, the units constituting the 'second' articulation) would be a matter of gomehy. ll rrc h ' L e ffu rei r rh e a rt o f rh e drri .ul .rti ono' ' pa.e< .rr rhen perhap' w e already have,in Euclidt geometry,a good definition of the rudimentary code of architecture.Let us sav that the secondarticulation is basedon rhe Euclidean stoi.heia lthe 'elenents' of classical geometry); then the 'fi!st' articulation would involve certain higherJevel sparial units, which could be called cro'ez"r, with thescombining into spatial syntagmsof one kind or anotheil'z In other words, the angle, the straight line, the various curves,the point, etc., might be elen s of a seondaniculation, a levelat which the udts are trot yet distinctiue (having differential sisnificant (endowed with meaflins) blt ^rc value); the square, the triaryl, the parallelograrn,the ellipse - even rather complicated i[egular Iigures, as long as they could be definedwith geonetric equations of some kind - might b elemnts o{ a lirst 3rticulation, a level at which the units begin to be signilicanq and on rectangle within atrother might be an elementarysyntagnatic combinatior (as in some window-wall relationship), with more conplex syntagms to be found in such things as spaceenclosingconbinations of rectangles articulations basedon the Greek cross or plan. Ofcourse solid geometrysuSgests thepossibility oia third leveloI anicu lation, and it could be $sumed that further articulative possibilities would come to light with the recognition of non-Euclideangeometries. The trouble is that this geometric code uodd not petain specifi.a y to drchitc.tarc. Besideslying behid some artistic phenomena - and not iust those it of absract, geomerric an (Mondrian), because has long beefl held that the con{igurations in representationalart can be reduced to an artiulation, i{ perhaps a quite cornplex one, of primordial gonetric elemetrts- the code ofthe clearly underliesthe formulations of geometryin the etymologicalsense word (sufleying) and other types of 'transcriptiotr' of terrain (topographic, geodtic,etc.).It might ven be identifiedwith a 'gestaltic'code presiding over our perceptionoI all such forms.Ighat we havehere,then, is an exampleof one sort of code one can arriv at whn attemptirg to analyse the elements of articulation of a certain 'language': a code capable of sewing a netalanguage ^s Ior it, atrd for a nurnber o{ other rnore synthetic codes as well. So it would be better to passover a odeof this kind, just as in linguisticsone passsover the possibility of going beyond 'distinctive features' in a.alysing phonemes.Adninedly such amlytic possibilitiesmight have to be explored if one had to compare architectural phenomenawith phenomena belonging to some other llaryuage', and thus had to find a rnetalanguagecapable of describing them in the same trms - Ior ifftance, one rnight wish to 'code' a cetain landscape in such a way as to be able to compare it with certain proposed architectural solutions, to detrmine what architetural anifacts to inselt in the context of that landscape,and if one resortedto elementsof the code of solid geonetry (pyramid, cone, etc.) in defiiing the struture of the landscape,then it would make sense describethe architecturein the light of to B"t the fact that a/chitecture that geomtric code, taken as a metalanguage.ls

FUNCTION

AND

SIGN

cdn be desoibed in terms of geometry does at i di.dte that ar.hite.t le ds such k faunded otl d seanetic.ode. Afier all, that both Chineseand words articulated in the phonemesof thc Italian language can be seen as a matter of amplitudes, fre<luencies, wave forns, etc., in rndio-acousticsor when converted into grooves on a disk does not indicatc that Chinseand Italian rest on one and the samecode; it simply shows that the languagesadmit of that type of analysis, drat for ccrtain purposesthey can he rcduced to a conmon system of traffcriptiotr. Itr fact there are few physical phenomeDathat would trot pennit amlysis in tenns of chemistryor physicsat the rnoleculr level,ald in turn anatomic code, but that doeslot lead rs to believethattheMo,r l;sa should be alalysed with the same irstrurnents used il amlyshg a nineral specimeD. Then what nore properly archirectural codes have energed in various analyses recendn 'semiodc' readingsofarchitecture? or, VARIETIES OF ARCHITECTURAL CODE

Eco

It would appear,from those that have come to light, that arcbitectLrraL codes could be broken down roLrghlyas follows: 1 Technical codes To this category would belong, to take a ready example, articulations of the kind dealt wirh in thc scienccof architectural engineering.The architectural form resolves into beams, floorilg systcms, columns, plates, reinforcedconcreteelemcnts,insulation, wiring, eic. There is at this level of codification ro communicative 'content', except of course in caseswhere a structural (or such; therc is only a structural technical)function or techniqueitself becornes logic, or structural conditions behind architecture and architectural signific.tion condit;ons that might therefore be seenas sonewhat analogous to a second articulation in verbal languages,where though one is still short of meaningsthere are certain formal conditions of signification.la 2 Synractic codes Theseare exempli{iedby typological codesconcerninganicuhtion into sp.tial plan, 'open' plan, labyrinth, high rise, etc.), types (circular plan, Greek-cross but there are certainly orher syntacticconventionsto be considered(a stairway does not as a rule go through a windoq a bedroorn is generally adjacent to a

3 Semantic codes Theseconcertrthe significant units of architecture,or the relatioft established between individual architectural sign vehicles (even some architectural syntagms) and theii detrotative ard connotative neannrgs. They rnight be r , r n $her h e r. rn ,,s h,h e ,n .r\e u n ,r' rh 'u h d i rided la) .lenotephnaty fu11.tiors (roof, stairway,window);

794

S T RUCT URA L I S M

Eco

(b) haveconnotativesaeondaty fun.tions ltymp num, triumphai arch, neoGothicarch)i (c) connote tdrolos'es of inbabitation Gomnon room, dinins room, panouJl;or (d) at a largerscale neaningundet cenain havetypological fun.tiondldnd palace, railroadstation).15 types\hospital, villa, school, sociolosiail The inventory coutd of course becomequite elaborate- there should, for instance,be a specialplacefor typeslike 'gardencity' and 'new towfl', and for the codifications emersins from certaitr recent nodi operundi \deriled tuolr, of something a tradition,a aesthetics) havealreadycreated that avant-garde manner, their own. of is But what standsout about thesecodes that on the whole they would appear possibilities. go, to be, as comunicative systems ratherlimitedin operational They a!e, that is, codific^tions of aheady uothed'o t solutions,.odlliicati'o'rs y\eldinl staflddrdizedtuessages this instead of onstituting, as would codes a of relationships truly on the modelof thoseof verballanguages, systm possible could be generated. significandydifferent messages ftom which countless o{all kinds,messages serves {ormulatiotr the ofmessages A verballanguage (andis irnerentlynithera class instruideologies connoting most diverse the i6 of ment nor the supersructure a panicular econonic base) Indeedthe produced r:nder codes a verballansuase of makes the diversity ofthe messases connotations conin it all but impossible identify any overallideological to might be sideringbroad samplirysof them. Of coursethis characterization to the challenged, forthereis soneevidence support theorythat theveryway in it is obliges one speaking to seethe world in a which a language articulated ofsome partiularway(thre might be,then,ideological andconnotation bias But kind inherntin the laryuage).l7 evengiventhat, on the most profound, as ultirnatelevel,one couldtake a verballanguage a field of lnearlyabsolatel to in wnich the ,peaker is ftee to improvise novel mssages suit fteedon, iI unexpected situations.And in architectuJ, the codesare really those to indicated above, that doesnot seem be the case. the is a for The pointis notthat in articulating churh, example, architect in prescription be thatchurches made a the first placeobeying socio-architectural And in we moreto saylater). andused(aboutthissortof deterninant will have the end he would be free to tly to find a exploit someway in which to nak from different to a churchthat while conforming its type would be sornewhat providea somewhat a any that had yet appeared, churchthat would therby unaccustomed, 'refreshing'context in which to worship and imaginethe he time,in orderIor it to be a chuJch, rlationship with God.But if at the same must unfailingly aniculate the building in mani{old conformity to a type ('downto the hardware', operative architectule in onemight say),if the codes allow only slislt differencesfrom a standardizednessage,howeverappealins, somehaveimagined to it is freedom thenarchitecture not the field of creative be, but a system o{ rules for giving society what it expects in th way of not somehave might be considered the service In that casearchirecture continually {or imagined to be-a mission menofunusualcultureatrdvision, it readying new propositions to put bIore the soialbody - but a servicein the

FU N C TIO N AND S IGN

195

;n sense wh;ch waste disposal,water supply and mass transir are seivices:an Eco oper:rtion that is, even with changesand technical refinenents from time to time, the routine satisfactiono{some preconstituteddemand. It would appear to be rather impoverished d, an art, then, also, if it is elsewhere,to put before the publlc characteristicof an, as we have suggested yet cone to expect (Eco, 1968, op. cit., ch. A.3). things fiey have not So the codes that have been mentioned wo d amout to little more than lexiconson the model of those of iconosraphic, stylistic :rrd other specialized systems, or lirnited repertories oI set constructions. They establish not senerative possibilities but ready made solutions, not open forrns for extemporary lpeech' but fossilized forms at best, 'figures of speech', or providing for formulaic presentationof the unexpected(ls a comple schemes mcnt to the systemof established, identified and never really disturbed expec tations), rather than relationships from which conrnunication vnryjng in infoflnation content as determincd by the 'speaker'could be irnprovised.The codesofarchitecture world thenconstitute a rhctoric inthenarrow sense ofthe word: a store of ttied and tue aiscursiue fornrlas. lThat is, they would consrittrrea rhetoric ir the senseof the term discussed Eco, 1968, op. cjt., in p a L4 . 4. 2. 2. ) And this could be said not only of the scmantic codes, but also of the syntactic codificationr, which clearly confnre us to a certain quite specialized 'granmar' of buildirg, and the technical codes,for it is obvious that evetrthis body of 'empty' forms underlying architecture (colunl, beam, etc.) is too architecturalmessage: pemits a kind it specialized permit everyconceivable to has ofarchitecture to which civilization in its evolving rechnologies accusroned us, a kind relating to certain principies of statics and dymmics, ccrtain geometricconcepts, and many ofthen from Euclidt geometry,certain elements systemsof construction the principles, concepts,elementsand sysremsthat, proving relatively stable and resistant to wear and tear, are found codified ulder the science archirecturalengineering. of

ARCHITECTURE MASS AS COMMUNICATION? APPEAL ARCHITECTURE IN MASS

If architectureis a systen ofrhetorical formulas producing just those messages

throurunny

oI udrs Iias cometo ;xpect Gasone;fw]ifiTliidftiouT

meiinia

o]-ihe mqpertedi, ifi-a;lFei <fisti-ru;inshesit from various forms of mas culture? The trotion that architecture is n forrn of mass culture has become rather popular,r! and as a communicntive operation directed toward large groups of people and co irning certain widely subscribedto attitudes and ways of life whilc meetnrstheir expectatjons,it could certainly be called mass cornmulication looscln without bothering about any detailed criterir. But even under morc carcfui consideration,l' architectural objects seemto have characreristics cornmon with the messages in ofmass comnunication. To . geP?a,l:it starts with Architectural 'discourse' generally-42{_4lu z-ss acceptedpremises,builds upon tbem well known or readily acceptable 'arsunents', and thereby eiicits l certain rype ot consenr. ('This

196

S T RUCT URA L I S M

Eco

proposition is to our liking; it is in most respeds something we are

involvedonly represent a 3lrqqdy fiqlller ytrb, "nd the dif{erences welcone improvement or vaiation of some kind.')
Architectural discourseis psycholo+i.anypelsusiL'er with a gentlehand (even if one is not aware nI iE* as a 6rn oT manipulation) one is orompted to follow the 'iDstructions' inDiicit in the architedural me * rs e ; l u n c ri o n \ a r. nor onl y.rgnrl i .d bur al .o pronrored and ' ' ;- i.- ::- ._ ]4 u !!d , l u rf r\ re rrl n produtr\ dl d al rrl ude.arc promotedrhrough etc. 'hidden persuasion',sexual associations, Architectural discourseis experien.edinattehti"ely, in the sane way in 6levision, rhe comis which we experiencethe dffi"ff "f.f;fiiT;"d o r i d v e ri \i i q - n o r. rh ar i ,. i n rl ' e w Jv i n qhrch une r. meant to e \p e ri e n .ew o rk . o - rn Jnd nrher nore demandi rgrrc* ase.. w l rrch the message, interestin the intentions of tbe 'addresser''?o Architectural messages n flelier be interprete.lift an abenant uay, and ra

-All foiion"6t',iii6?ft6;'6ii6iifi;Elidiiiiaiiia"iii.iiiiErpreting

if we were to use the-Veltlrlde M;lo flI gJqql,pSrygsj! -ol-!9!ictsus r!!!4qts asdustcloths,but we usethe-coverof an e]evate{roadw,aptot seltllg oxt of the rain or hanglaundryout to dry overa rtling and see
tro peFersion in this.

*lt'e,,' ' t'. rddrs,.ee 1?lnsa$ireqifieFotFNalis iFim.Mo',ol oa;h;objrcl u. u oLldhr\ e .ome 'en.eof bengenglsidinTpi,, en'fo-n

Thus architcture fl .t ates bet'ueet1 being ruther coerciue,imply;nE

Architecture berozgs te!fu tg!!:l!::/!!!,tq /,/e,ju{l!\Tqp m11n rer rndmor read' clorh,nc. rnv.idoTbirng rpJii'(i{erro,.' -ro-uear
music and hieh fashion. Architecture h d besizss.'r It is oroduced under economic conditions v e ry\i n i l rr ro rh e n n e \ soverni ns ru, h of ma* . uI ur, rnd n rhr. roo differs from other forns ofculture. Paintersmav deal wnh salleries.and l i rt' l i l ' ^ o d J n d n e e di o r haveanrrhi re ro do w i rh $ hJr rhey l i nd rhem ,se&qs_ !ss!ti4C-.s!d writingLthe painter can always pursue paitrthg independently,perhaps while making a living in some otkr way, and the writer can produce works for which there is no market, perhaps with no thought of having them publbhed, but rhe archirectcannor be,

l t al t nu wlll ll\ e lll \ uc h a n o l u L h a w r l v t t n 1 1 , 4 d n t t e t t f l . 1 t l | c r t 4 t , a ler r ir g ) uJ u' c r r ' ) oJ . e ( f r r .

wri,eh $:rhpuhri,herl."Ljqrb .9:tp{!!rirb:9

!o_uh !.bll

engaged the practice u.9hIqqryI,49S,,IU:rUC-!gl4!!193 in of

g rv e ne \o n o m) a n d (e c h noo8y rnd tr) ng ro erbrr. e rhe l ogi cl ' e ' i nd' rh e re . \e n q h e n h e $ o L rl d rke ro.onte' r t. , . e

EXTERNALCODES ARCHITECTURE BASED CODES AS ON EXTERNAL IT TO

we began with the premisethat architecturewould, to be able to com municate the functions it pemits and pronotes, have to be based on

F U N CTIO N AN D S IGN

797

we have seenthai the codesthai could properly be called arclitectural establishrather limired opeiatioDalpossibiliries,that they fulctiotr not on the model of a languagebur as a systen of rhetorical fonnulas atrd soltriionsi aheady produced messdse becones soncthing of resting on thesecodes,the architecruial message mass appeal,somethinSthat may be taken for granted, sonething that yet it seemsthat architectu.e may llso move in the d;rect;on of i.nov aiioD and higher information content, going againstexisting rhetorical and ideolosical expectations; it cannot be the case, howeveL th.t when architecrure moves in thh dircction n departsfron given codesentirely,for without the basisof a code of some kind, there wc,uld be no effectiveconmunication . . . It goeswithout snyjng, for instance,that an urban designercould lay out a strcet oD the basisofthe lexicon that enbraces and definesthe type'streeC; he could even,with a ninor dialecticbetweenredundancyand infornation, make it somewhat difierent fronr previous ones while still operating withnr the traditional urbanistic system. proposeshis elevated streets(closu to the type vhcn, however,Le CorbLrsier .street'),he noves outsidethe accepted typologn which 'bridge' than to d1ctype has streetsat ground levcl or, if elevsted,elevntedin a different fashion and for differelr reasons-and yct he doesso with ncennin assurance, believingthar th;s new sign, along witL thc rest of his proposed citn $,ould be accepted and comprehendedby the uscrs. Now whether such a belief is justified or not,;t would have to be bascd on sonething like this: the a.chirect hrs preceded certain with an cxaminationofcertain new socialexigencies, architecturaldesigrl certain rcndcncies the developrnent the nodern city in of 'eristential' desiderata, and life rvnhnr it, and has traccd our, so to speak,a semanticsystemof certain (developingfrom the currcnt situation) on the basjsof which future exigencies new functionsand new architecturalfoms might come into being. In other words, rhe architect world havc identified: r 2 3 presumablyas a systemof sone kind; a sericsof social exigencies, and that would a systen of functions that would satisfy the exigencies, becomesigr rchicles of those exigencies; and a system of forms thar would correspond to the functions, and that $" , , |d l- . om . L B,. \.\,(1 ,- u l rh o .e fu i ,u o r' .

Eco

this meals that to producc thc new Froni the point of view of conmon sense, architccture Le Corbusier was obliged, before thhkhg likc ar architcct, to tlink like a sociologist,an anthropologist, a psycholosist, an ideologist, etc., and wc will return to that shortly. But fi.sr we nightconsidu the pcculiarity of the phcnonenon frorn the semioticpoint of!;ew only atthc last level,the levelofpoint 3 above, do we fnrd forns that could ofarchitecture coDstitutc be ulderstood as'architecture'.So while the elements rhemselves system,ther becomea code only when coupled with systenx that a lie outside architccture. . . above?Lct us use whatabout architecture, then, if we acceptthe hypotheses of X for the systen ofarchitectural fc'rms,Y for the s-vstem fmcrions, and (for

198

STRUCTURALISM

Eco

rhe systemof social exigencies, the althropological system- an r night be a or table o[ a certain width, which permits and signifiesa ceruin fumrion:r (to eat ar a consideral,ledisiance frorn one another,let us say), which nr tum allows the realizationofan anthropologicalvalue [ ('formal' relationship),whose sigr vehicle that function has becorne. Then rhe unirs in X, as sparial forms, admir ofseveral kinds of descript]ontwo dimensional (through a set of drawnrgsor a phorograph), verbal (through an oral or writter description), mathematical (through a seriesof equrrions), etc.; the units in Y, as functions, admit of either verbal description or repres entrtion in terns of som iconic (cinemntographic,for example), kinesic, or ot he r k i n d o f s y s re mfo r' ra n s c ri bi ng' funcri ons; nnd rhe uD i rs i n K , rs arthropological values,can be desoibed verbally. Now it is clear that while a form x is being usedit might seem(to the user) quiie closelytjedto a functionl and an nnthropologidlvalue I just as closely as 3 meaning seems(to the speaker)tied to a verbal sign vehicle.Bur fton1 the point of vicw of semiotics,it is possibleto dascribethe u"its of ed.h of these three synems indepe .lertl), without, th.t is, havins recourseto the units of either of the odrcr two. This is something that was never envisagedby those who have considered the norioD of mca ng suspcct,bccauscup to now studics in scnuntics have bccn conductcd nrsidethe circlc of verbal 'interprctants'. So abovc and beyord what elseit offers, semioticsshows us the possibility ofinvestigatiDgsystems of sigrs whcre the plales of expressionald contert are not inseparable- or at lcasr where they cal be more successtully separated. THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SYSTEM

Bur in introducing this (, this a.thropologicrl systern, have rve jeoprrdized the senioric framework beh;nd everythingwe said before? Having s.id thrt architecturehas to elaborateits s'gn vehiclesand nessages with referenceto somethingthat lies o,rsid? it, nr we fo.cd to adin;t its signs cannot, after all, be adequatelycharacterizedwithout bringing somethinglike relerezrs back into the picture? Ifle have argued that seniotics must confine nself to the let srd, of ihe Ogden Richards ffiangle becnuse in semiotjcs one studies codes as phenomenaofculture and,leavlDgasideverifiable rcalitiesto which thc signs may refer, examlne only the comrunicativc rules cstablishedwithin a social body: rules of the equivalence between sign vchicles aml mcaninss (thc definition of the latter being possiblcoDly through intcrprctants or othcr sisn !ehicles by neans ofwhich the meaningsmay bc significd),and ruLcs reearding the syntqmatic combination of rhe elencnts of rhc paradignatic rcpcrtories. This mcans notdrat thc referetrtisnon-exisrent,but thrtitis the objecr ofot / (physics,biolosx crc.): scniotics can, ald mrst, corfne itself to the sciences rh c , r l r.rra l . \p fl i n ,\ g.\prri ,8..m : nr r n , "r " lf for architccturc, thcn, (r for any othe! srstem of signs,we had to adnit that rhc planc of cotrtetrtinvolved somethingthat did not belong to the semiotic universe,we woul.l bc faccd with a phenomelon co ourding seniotics, or at any rate confoundnrg all rhe notions we have elaborated,here and elsewhere, on seniosis.n

F U N CTIO N AND S TGN

199

So it is not casually that we have beel referring to an atrrhropolosical Eco tysrem'i we have been referring, that is, to facts that Nhile belorghg to rhe may nevertheless senasabeady codifed, a be universe olthe socialsciences thus reducedto a culturnl system. . . To put it differently, ler us say that the architect has decidedto rcstructurc the urban fabric ofa city (orthe'shape of landscape'h a certain area)fiom the point oI view of the perceptibility of its'image.'r] He rnight thel base his operation upon ruies of n code concernedpreciselywith phenomenaof nnage rccosnition and orientation la code that could be elaborated on the basis of data from interviews and bssic researchon perception, and perhapseve. take irto accountexigencies ofcommerce orcirculntion, nedicalfindlngs on frctors contributing to stress, etc.). But then the validity and significance of tbe opcration, basedon that code, would depend upon confining oneselfto thar particular point of view As soon as it becamenecessa.yfor the architecr to relate his architecturcto some other systemof social phenomenaas well the one dealt with in proxcmics, let us say the code concerned wjth irnage recognitionatrd orientatiotrwould haveto be brokendown and integratedwith a code corcermrg proxcnic phenomena;and since there would no doubt be more than just thesc two external systemsto relnte to, it would become necessary fnrd the relations bctween a number of differcnt systemstracing ro them all back to an rurderlying Ur-code common to all of then, on which elaboration of the new architectrral solurions woul.l ultimately have to be So the rchitct,;n practice, is conthualiy obligcd to be somethnrgother thnn an lrchitect. Tine and agah he is forced to become something of a sociologist,a psychologist,atr anthropolosist a semiotician ... And that he can rely in this to some extent or tearnwork - that is, on having experts in the various fields working with him - does not change the situation very much, even if teamwork nakes it seem less a natrer of guesswork. Forced to fnrd forms that will give form to systemsover which ,e has no pouer, forced to artjculate a languagethrt has always ro expresssomethiDgexterDalto ir - wc said thefe were possibllities of the poetic flmction and self-reflexivenes in of architecture, but the fact renains that becaDse its very nature (and cven thoush it has tfaditionally been understoodas I matter of prre 'arrangenenc, rcgardnrg only its own forrns)these cnn never lake over'in it, as they can itr other typcs of discourse,such as in poetry, painting or music - the architect fnrds linrclf obliged in hi! wotk to thihk i, terns of the tatd tr, rnd rlis |le musr do no mattcr how much he may seem to brve become a rechnician, a speciaiist, somconciDtcnt on specificoperationsrnther than generrl questions.

( ONCLL LO\ S at the O.e m;ght rhispoinrbeleftwith thcnleathathaving roleoI supplynrg

'wordi to signify 'things' lyirg outsideits province, architectureis powerlessto proceedwithout a prior determinationofexactly what those 'things' are (or are go'n8 to be). or ore nighr have comc to a sonewhat different conclusion: that even though the systemsof functions and values it is to convcy are external to it, architecturehrs the power, rlrrough the operation of ns systen of stimulative

200

S T RUCT URA L I S M

Eco

sign vehicles,to determine what those funct;ons and values are going to be restrictiry men to a Particular way of life dictating laws to cvents' These both 8o too far, and they go along with iwo unfortunate ideasof the role ofthe architect.Accordins to the first, he has onlv to find the proper forms to answer to what he can takc as 'programmatic' givens;herehe may accepion faith certanrsociologicaland ideologicaldeterininationsmade bv others,which may not be well founded According io the secord, the rclitect (and we know artificer ot what curreDcythis delusion has enjoyed) becones a derniuse, 'n This alternative to thesevarieties of overconidence has alreadv been sug tbe a/cbite.t shaltld be designiflSfor l)ariable prihtlrv l'ftctio's dftd gesteA. apen secandaryfun.tio,s.

NOTES
ChrGti.nNorbcrsschutz,r,rehtit{jnAt.hite.tuft'adtalt\Agc,lvla$rMlIPre$'1965 {olaid Bdhs, Eleuz,s o/so.nilo!:'r' r\nnerte Lavc6 rnd colh S'nnh lrrd's )'Ne* York:

tunction thrt s prcdoninant d dre rr.htccturrl mcs'se, whrt I" rhi\.xe i;t thc isiEti. o' l - pofl .Ii or' l , or,-r Ru n ' , 1 " o ' o ' " 'qfd " r'"r"'3' ! ed rl '/" l - r". ' \ 1 .' s, ,' . ,n d l' ^ _ r l,l^ .- ' , -l ' ' " Vu*., vr'r p.*, 1966, pp.350-77 ) Bnrrr.hitcctuml nossagesdisplrv 'ls' in-1.i4"". lunctions listcd bv lsLobsor, afchir.cntre involics conrh. fi". ;riier tunndi.rive \'r,v), muni.dtioo rbar is connfivc 1or iDrPerrti'c, maLins o.e nlhabn i1 h r 'cit'h enotive ithinL of the.31m of r Greek tcnple. rhe tubrlen'e of a L'roque churchl' Phari' (obviourly i. the mrny atcrtion'schinE devi.er.l archire.rurc the Phrtic lDrdionnrishr he n,und to be Drt.loni.nt, iben. in su.h nsrases xs obolisks.rrches, rnd tvmPrna hur e*abhhed tor .k" rhe lekl of urhsn iabric. therc channels rre opencd [d "t architecturrl nc$ass, rs in r Diizza s cnnrnrs continued ahcntion to tho fuc'd$ oi thc lw|ere, Jor oDe examplc to rtlicv' an,vconh$ron buildnrss that su ound itl, 'netalingndl o' ih. code 6r inrcrpretins thc messse archne.turc i$u'nes r sclf erfhinins rbo"r J'nqv'r t,'i n .h e ''1 , r l;, ' ''\o'puhl _ ''-.nr"' .rtrdv'1r'r_'5 , r"- ....i,"- ,.,' a ,1 ,' \."' lo e hF.r' l -' Li " 1 o r ,r f.le no n . ' J.o'i ' o ' .i. "r ' l "{i ' ol I t' ,b Ja 3'oedb\'l ' w. Io ,lJ' ..' ,.r 'r' Reconsirlcrcd ir tunciionalism: ree Lonn Sullivtrn. lhe Trll o{lic. Buildins iristicrlll | h l o4 pD '0 L r /r l!.,N.\ +rr'nl ^'r'\, \hJ tt? 1 la ^ a 4 d ^ J'o hJ r\ r' ra r' \J\' r ' tL l, \t tt J , .o n .;'1 svn,bolic raluc was impon.r! nor onl! to srllivrn hur also to Le corbusier on ihe rhe lcvcl ol unrsn.lcsisn tDrning to the relatiorrln'ms in the ;nmhrivc !.lue ol!on;s s t t'\" MIT nb'ds_ \'d' rel \' ' lr ' .1-,r! t,4P ' f r b ' L jln - e d ' L ' r ' n1J : ,'l J1l n. I . ,.t9 L e D.D.o r ' .n ' 'o q "e i o1 r\ , -' ., Li ' '' ul "c ":' o ,t,a tl l '. l odr t |'.i ,c' "' t,t,- .h ,' ," \l \t,4 ^ 1 ' ' ,? tr . 106\l r" \r 'n ed l " kl ^' R .l -d r "5 {lh - ' ' S..Op " 'l - - o ,7 ' r d nJ Al Trs'silas ENin Abbd S";{, Arrd S"s"; ." ,hc lbb?y chft.lt af sr Dt"i r"l e lf o' | t r n o r 1 r "o . 'o4'i ' . "11Jrtr' J,", Loi 6 Jo'ol i I r l.' ,;l .i r ' ^ /.1 "r 'r'l vo-d' dell M.n?ntt. edieYalt, in trobbht di !"tu Ll'nb-t" !c;, 5;i1"pp. d.rl e{erici ?s"i.d. I4ih., lvlarzoratl, 1963 see ciuiio Crflo Arsai, P/.sdio r dertto,I4ila.: Il srggiatore. 1965 Ciulio carlo irn ri ,1.. D.sisne m$ rnedir', n Op. cii lsclczione dclh criticr darc coniedporanerl' 2' (the openrperta)is th. tirle **'. *h.re the ndior or NorLs thd e'rin open ' r'rl '4' oof r" -;.'h;;e JL - .,.1 i' o'rd"r .Dh 'rl 'd '3 ' 1.I L' ,""D P l a^-) ..' "^ "' - : .,,...o F Po j.' .oB "'.1 . 11 f "d ' "' r ' n l o'q p llo q' l. n \u - ln ^ ;n " h ' - .o ll' tr | )J "_"! l ri o' r\'q' fn ' 8. L,_F\"".' ,r ...' r' 1 .,., D .1 ",,, '! '0" ' '. " than a deurld rnN$sn ofsLstxcted:i iiiefJ lhds. nr ireco-* l.* inrpo,r,nt ol '"*"*g dle Plar oI si8ns, at a *-"ntic a!f,,,a.b to rhe city Ic sh.uu tv to !nd{find tr,* *rc-;t cir,vi53 nructure. buiihrlwe mn* ncler d,v and qemurncver wrni to undcditdthrtan)

F UNCTTON

AND

SICN

201

ottr final sisnilied', to fill in ttu $ructurc,loi \.niolosy.t presentnevs posi$ rhe exisrence and any cultural (o4 lor tlEt mrtter, psvcholosical)conllex .onirons us vtrh ntinitg nctdphorical ch.i'\ h vhi.h the sisninedis alNaysdcieficd dr bccon s nsct. sis.ili.r'. Now ir is rue rh rnr city conaronh ns Nith phc.omcna of etricbment knd nrLxtitulion) of meinins, but the semniic valuc olthc ciry c.r.ryes rot oDly when one res it as i $rucrure rhI rjcnerac bcaning: it emergesrho Fhen, in exFeriencingii, one N nling n wnb concr$c siEnilicrtio.s.I.deed, to oppor !o rhe concrereprocc$ ofrisnificarion nrthclightollvhich mishl bc 10..rpty ihe.ctivity thccityndesigned rhe noiion oia nee pla) oi purc sign-vchiclcs of rrchiredure of nDch oi is.r.ariv. thrust. For il this notion were canied ro 3n extreme,rnd dre lisnif,crtive powd ola ciq considered really inlinne as nrinne 3s the sisnif(Iive poNer of verbal lancua8cs,Nhich nr spite oj the iact thii man ha! lifrle say vdr regard to rhcn con$nutio. and laws sill pernirnin e, be tr.lequatcl)\pokc. -thcn thcrc would.o lorser seemto be any loinr in deignns r'ncw .ity: in a.y c{isrins city there would.lready be the elemen$ oi an innnnc nunbd oI po$iblc co,rbinfioN. perDntins every trpe of life wirhin rhat lorn. ln rcab, rhc problern of.rchnecrure h nu! of denning the linit bqond rhi.h an cxisiins lorn .o lonser .llovs the rrpe ol life one has in mind, tho linii bcyond which thc .rchitecturalsisn vehiclestharpa$ bsfore onc appcarno lona(as. matixolfreedo'n butas rhe \rry imaseoi a donination, ofan idcolo$ that nrposes,through the.hetorical fornx it htrs

Eco

1l 14

on thcsc, and on dre .odes thd follo{, se Kltrns Kocnis, 1164, op. cit., pp. 38 j2, 'Lriicol.?ione del linsniggr, rr.bnctonico; and Cillo Dornes. Sinbalo, .a,nani.azbne. .o,3!-oj Tnrnri Einaudi, 1952. 15 On ihe con.ept ol t)pc, scc, bcsidcsDorlles and Koenis, dre tei entitled snt .on.cfro di tipoloda rrcbii.tonicr' h lrs.n\ wort (1965. or. cit.), whers tbc prop( paraucl is drawn betw..narchitccturaltypologyandi.onosrrrhyjtypeisdcino.lasttottLot farnd.wnic\ .oncs closc ro rlie deturition of fisures olspccch (as /cl,z/o,i senenl' di iuspettotez.a. ol gene..l s.hemespn,viJrg for iormuhic prcsenLriionof the u,re{pected)given in lco 1963, op.cn.,parA.4.2.2;sccalsoS.rgioBetti,i Se'niD!i. criticism rndtbe hi$ori.alc.ntinuity of lnropcan rrchirccue'. 2.1,. 2. 19 53 rnd viftono Grogofti l l tttitatiD dell tt.hnetutu, Mil.n: Feftinelli. 1966. :16 lor Josefh shlin\ weu-known viows on linstritics sceJosel Srnlin,Matisfl dd Ln'stkti.s, Nev York, Inrernational, 1951. 17 That lansurrc d(cinnrcs 1be way in which one rees realit,v,sec Bcnjanin Lcc Whorf, Ld"srnp, Ihaqht a"d Rcdlity. John Crrol, ed., cambridgc, Ma!!.: lvll l Prc$,1956,1964. ind FilibertoMsnna, DGig., communicaTione etreticr e mss 13 Sc. Aicrnerr/.,196J,ot.cn. n\ed\^', Fdilizia M.det"a, as,1965i scc lor ihrr naiter the vhole ol nsue 35 oi Ed'lizt M.d.r,,, rnd notc thc drnt ofth.sr.pliics, 19 Forporhaps tbc nost co!,prehensive$udy to daie, secFns.o,1967, op. cit. 20 lb quotcI/alcr Benj,nin' Dirr$io. trnd concenii.tion lom lohr opposites whi.h bay Lc ntrrcd rs follo$i, A n.. \rho concentates before ivork of3rt,sabsorbcd L) it. Hc cri.6 iDro rhh work ot .( $e way legendrelh ofrhe chineso painter whcn bc ricwed hG rinished piintins. In con.as! nr dNh.red nassabsorbs rhc work ot aii. This i\ mor ohvious vth rcsard io 6uildinss.Architccttu h.s.l$.ysreresented the prorotype olr work ofartihc rc..ptio. o l w h , c h i c o . s u . n a te d b ya co lle .r ivityin r $ iso id L ta ctio n .(l bcWotkoIA dl D .he r\se ol Nlechanical Reprcdudion , in llannah Aicndt, .d., Illt,"inoti,ns, H^rt.\ z.hn ftnnr.), NeN nnki Har.onrt, Bft.c & World, 1968, D.2.11.) 2l M.dg,,, Jcd,.arcd to dcsisn, cited.bove, ud Seetlie issue ot a/ilit innoductidr, Prcblemi .lcl JcsiEn .

sen{aiedivari.usdodcsof eoshvene.t. ', Il nib della dopp,r adicolazionc and !co. 1963,op. cir., ch. B.:L-1, 'l codici 'Anicola,ionidei codicivisivi, ofvice ve6ai see Throushdie useolrhewonsco.le, ihcn, a plan niEht bc rcad.s a section the .nrusins lnutriion dcs.ibcd in Giovanni Khus (oe,ris ,4ralai dd |nqtu$io dell nr.hnetutu nt.hnltoni.o, Flatunc: liorcnti.., 1964.ch. 8,lna tinu..hidmat. Iiorentina,1967. tuad.ftd edahe dadi.i nate.1nd edn,Fldence: 3arty.ed,.Milton tstno 2.r1, ArcLite.t'te ds srn.e: H.tt t. L.ok tt At.hite.t /,, Joseph Nev York:Hoiizonrtcs, 19J7,and,4/.r,t?rrrrai, ,/.s, Veni.eandRome: Geidelft.ans.), In*iiub per la Collaborarionc autr le, 1960. T he ren .ho rcn cisdc iiv . dlr on. r or , ( t pac e, plic e' ) . I or r r h e o r e t i c a l c o n s . m i i o n o l t h c .l scc nodrc, as prnn.ry elc'nenb nre sFrial irt!, nchdins rrchnecturc, rhc rcnarks by op. cit.j pp. 143 5, Ltl.httcttrfl ca,her'.s Mo.drian discu$edin Fusco196,1. ^'rd Nato fet soiolasjd arhtdtonia, Bdti: Dedalo l.tbti. 1967. '"edi,h: ",. SeeChrniian N orberg-Scbb, I"tentions in At.hite.tue,C,mbidge, Ma$.: MIT Ptu$,196i. u

in p,.ticultrr rhc

202

S T RUCT URA L I S M

Eco

2z

23

Reviewing rbc tu( vcrsion ol rhis texr, Maiia Cori. Review,stttne"ti criti.i.1967,1l4): pp. 447 50, conmented that tfie inirodnciion ol the trnrhropolo'jiGl synon inro thc discu$ion w.s , rir', one rhtri reopsnsd the problcs of thc autono.ry of scniotics as a science. while I a.knowledEc rh&c nisht have bccnsoDe malicious i'tentro ir,I vould like ro point ouftbat I was rcdly trying ro resolvethe problenr,which rvonld nive come up in any cas, rnd th{ herco'nnen*, tosetherwith r seriesol doubh advancedbyvtrtoio Crcsorti in point r liide clear.r, cvcn to mc. cotrvebarion. h.ve driven meion,kinsrhn Seelrncl\ 1960,op. cn.j Lucirntr de Rora Lapocticanrbahisri.adiLynch,op.cn.2a,dako Donald Appleyard, K.vin Lynch lonn My.t, The Viee f/ohtbe Ro,d, Cambridse,Mass.: ^nd rrnchfts, olrese.rchon proceduEs ofcodi{icfion f the levelofnhnate seeChrntorhef Alexinder, N.teso" the slnthesk of roffi, aanbiidsc: H.rvrid Unive6itt Press,1964. For a parallel drawn bctwccn Alcrand&t work .nd th.t of {ructurllish. see 1953, Maria aotiero Lo $ruturalismo tunzio.al. di CliisioDher Alexlnder', Co,,,!,itr,

2 4 loran.smple

HOW AN EXPOSITIONEXPOSES ITSELF

ID contemporary expositions a country no longer says,'Look whnt I produce' but ' L o o k h o w s ma rt I a m i n p r esenti ng hat I produce.' The' pl dnetary w society'has already standardizcd industrial production to such a degreethat the facr of showhg a tractor or a spacecapsuleno longer differentiatesone image of civil;zation from another The olly solution left is symbolic. Each county shows itself by the way in which it is ablc to presentthe same thing other countries could also plesent. The prestigegame is won by the counny rhat besr rells whar it does, independeutlyof what it actually does.The archi r e. a rru .o l u r o n ,c n n ' i -r rh ' r e r o' erporron.. In order to understand the problem better, lct us assumethat architecture (and desisn, jn its overall sense);s an acr of communication, a mcssage,of which the parts or the whole can perform the double action of evcry communication, connotation and denotrtion. A word or a phrase caD denotc something.The word 'moonlight', forexample, means,unequivocalh the light thatthe *rth's satellitegivesoff. Atthe sametime it has a broaderconnotation depending on the historical period and education of the person who communicates or receivesa messageusing the word. Tbus it could connote'a romantic situation', 'love', 'feeling', nnd so on. In architecture,it seemsat lirst that the inherent function of every item prevents us fron regard;ng it as a message, a medium of communication (a stajrcaseis used for going up, a as chair for sitting); if architecturecommunicatessomething,it is in the form ofa symbol. The colonnade by Bemini in St Pelert Squarein Rome crn be interpreted as an immeNc pair of ams, open to embraceallthe faith{ul. Aside fron ihis, a product of archnecture or design js simply llke a mechanism that *qgests a function and acts on thc user only as a stimulus tha! requ;res a behavioural response:a staircasc,bccause is otre step nfter anolher,doesnot it allow ole towalk on a plane, but stimulatesthe walkefto ascend. Astimulus is physiologicallevel and has nothing lot a syrbol; a stimuhs acts directly at the But as Rolard Barrhesvrote inhis Ebnents of Semtolo$, as soon as society can be said to exist, every use also bccomcsthe sign of that same use. The staircasebecones for everybody the colvcntional sisn to denote ascending, wherher or not anvoneascends eiven sraircase fact. The known connection a in