Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MI CHAE L HAYS
ARCHI TECTURE S
DESI RE
READI NG THE LATE AVANT- GARDE
Writing Architecture series
ARCHI TECTURE S
DESI RE
Writing Architecture series
A project ol the Anyone Corporation
a| Ve.-s. !|- oo.s|.o e !-.e.-s
Bernard Cache. .pp
4.|.-.o- as V-a|e. laooa-. |om!-. Veo-,
Kojin Karatani. .pp
u.--o.-s. !eea|.-s e 6eo-mea, 4.|.-.o-
Ignasi de 8ola- Horales. .pp6
6eoso..eos
John Bajchman. .pp
So.| l|a.-s as V-me,
John Lejduk. .pp8
l-|.em- e !|- ue-| 4.|.-.o-
Boger Connah. .pp8
.- ao1 V-me,. 0o 4.|.-.o- ao1 o-,
Luis Fernandez- Galiano. .ccc
4 lao1s.a- e .-os
Paul \irilio. .ccc
4.|.-.o- em |- 0os.1-. ssa,s eo l.oa| ao1 k-a| Sa.-
Elizaleth Grosz. .cc.
lo!|.. lo.ma.,. 4.|.-.o- ao1 |- l.soa| 4s
Giuliana Bruno. .cc
Sao- u-a.|s
Hichael Cadwell. .cc
u.se.-s e |- lmm-1.a- l-s-o. lo.-o.o 4.|.-.oa| Ve1-o.sm
Anthony \idler. .cc8
uao.o e 4.|.-.o-
Leon Krier. .ccp
4.|.-.o-`s u-s.-. k-a1.o |- la- 4.ao- 6a1-
K. Hichael Lays. .c.c
THE MI T PRESS
CAMBRI DGE, MASSACHUSETTS
LONDON, ENGLAND
ARCHI TECTURE S
DESI RE
READI NG THE LATE AVANT- GARDE
K . MI CH A EL HAYS
.c.c Hassachusetts Institute ol 1echnology
All rights reserved. Ro part ol this look may le reproduced in
any lorm ly any electronic or mechanical means (including
photocopying. recording. or inlormation storage and retrieval)
without permission in writing lrom the pullisher.
HI1 Press looks may le purchased at special quantity
discounts lor lusiness or sales promotional use.
For inlormation. please email specialsalesCmitpress.mit.edu
or write to 8pecial 8ales Iepartment. 1he HI1 Press.
Layward 8treet. Camlridge. HA c....
1his look was set in Filosoha ly Graphic Composition. Inc.
Printed and lound in the Inited 8tates ol America.
Lilrary ol Congress Cataloging- in- Pullication Iata
Lays. K. Hichael.
Architecture`s desire . reading the late avant- garde /
K. Hichael Lays.
p. cm.(\riting architecture)
Includes lilliographical relerences.
I8BR p8- c- .6.- .3c.- p (plk. . alk. paper)
.. Architecture. Hodern.cth centuryPhilosophy. I. 1itle.
II. 1itle. Beading the late avant- garde.
RA68c.L.3 .c.c
.'.6dc..
.ccpcc6.3.
.c p 8 6 3 . .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi i
DESI RE 1
ANALOGY 23
REPETI TI ON 51
ENCOUNTER 89
SPACI NG 135
NOTE ON THE COVER 171
ILLUSTRATION
NOTES 173
C ONT E NT S
A C K R O\ L E I G H E R 1 8 vii
Iuring the years ol writing toward the topic ol architecture`s
desire. I presented related work at several schools and had lruit-
lul discussions with many colleagues. I am especially gratelul lor
criticisms and suggestions lrom the laculty and students ol the 1I
Iellt and the Ohio 8tate Iniversity. Hy own students at Larvard
have made invalualle contrilutions to my thinking alout this
material. And I have especially lenehted lrom sustained discus-
sions with Pier \ittorio Aureli (who also pointed me to the draw-
ing used on the cover). George Baird. Hichael Bell. Harco de
Hichelis. Jellrey Kipnis. 8anlord Kwinter. Hary Lou Lolsinger.
John HcHorrough. 1oshiko Hori. \inilried Elysse Rewman.
Iiana Bamirez. Anthony \idler. \al \arke. and Jim \illiamson.
I am deeply thanklul to Fredric Jameson lor his comments on an
early dralt.
Portions ol some analyses included here have appeared in 6..-s
e 4...a| r.a.a.eo. !|- le| e l-- .s-omao. :,,:,
(Rew ork. Bizzoli. .pp). Sao.oa.-s. !|- las le|s e je|o
u-1o| (Rew ork. \hitney Huseum and Alrams. .cc.). and
8-oa1 !s.|om. (Rew ork. Bizzoli. .cc3). Hy essay "Prolegomena
Linking the Advanced Architecture ol the Present to 1hat ol the
.pcs through Ideologies ol Hedia. the Experience ol Cities in
1ransition. and the Ongoing Ellects ol Beihcation.` in l-s-.a
3. (Camlridge. HI1 Press. .cc.). was proto- to the present
proposition.
I thank Hatthew Allate and Hargarita Encomienda at the HI1
Press lor their patience and care with the text and design. Cynthia
Iavidson nurtured and directed this project at every stage.
A C KNOWL E DGME NT S
ARCHI TECTURE S
DESI RE
I E 8 I B E 1
I write here about architectures status as a domain of cultural representa-
tion. I am not primarily concerned with architecture as the art ol
luilding per se. nor do I consider it as a prolession. Bather. I ex-
amine architecture as a way ol negotiating the real. ly which I mean
intervening in the realm ol symlols and signilying processes at
the limit ol the social order itsellthat is. architecture as a spe-
cihc kind ol socially symlolic production whose primary task is
the construction ol concepts and sulject positions rather than the
making ol things. It is thus an architectural impulse or attitude that
I seek to characterize. and a certain kind ol attention is needed to
detect it. specialized theoretical techniques and methods must le
lrought to lear on this sulject. Revertheless. I hope to suggest too
that the architectural impulse is part ol daily social lile and its wide-
ranging practices. Architecture comprises a set ol operations that
organize lormal representations ol the real (although I will have to
complicate that lormulation). and hence. rather than merely leing
invested with an ideology ly its creators or users. it is ideological
in its own rightan imaginary "solution` to a real social situation
and contradiction (as Louis Althusser`s take on Jacques Lacan puts
it). that is what is meant ly its "autonomy.`
1
Inderstood in this
way. architecture`s ellectsthe range ol conceptual and practical
possililities it loth enalles and limitsas well as the irreducille
allects it presents are a precious index ol the historical and social
situation itsell. I am concerned here with the ellects and allects
as well as the lacts ol architecture.
DESIRE
2
Il ontology is the theory ol oljects and their relationsa
structure within which leing itsell may le given some organiza-
tionthen. I lelieve. art (generally) and architecture (especially)
can and do operate ontologically. Architecture is lundamentally
an inquiry into what is. what might le. and how the latter can
happen. Architecture is one way ol attaining the verl "to le.` But
my prollem is not philosophical. rather. it is historicalthat is. I
want to investigate a moment in history when certain ways ol
practicing architecture still had philosophical aspirations. 1he
expanded decade ol the .pcs (which I will take to include roughly
the years letween .p66 and .p83) saw a search lor the most lasic
units ol architecture and their comlinatory logics. Aldo Bossi`s
singular typological lragments. Peter Eisenman`s lrames. planes.
and grids. John Lejduk`s wall and its nomadic adventures. and
Bernard 1schumi`s cinegrammatic segments. which lrame and
trigger the architectural impulse itsellall were understood as
lundamental architectural entities and events that could not le
reduced or translated into other modes ol experience or knowl-
edge. 1his sell- consciousness also aimed lor an awareness ol
architecture`s position in society and history itsell (philosophical
thinking always turns historical when pushed to its limits). thus
ideological- representational engagements ol architecture with
the expanding consumer society ol the .pcs were proled. and
various strategies ol distortion. resistance. and reappropriation
were devised. 1he very nature ol sulject- olject constructions
and relations and ol the sulject`s relation to its other was opened
to a scrutiny as intense as any philosophical inquiry. And architec-
ture reached a limit condition in which its oljects were no longer
construed as mere elements and assemllages ol luilding. however
complicated or sophisticated. lut rather as a representational
systema way ol perceiving and constructing identities and
dillerences.
2
I E 8 I B E 3
8uch ontological amlitions were recognized even at the time.
they are implicit in the widespread and recurrent analogies le-
tween architecture and the ultimate system ol sell- consciousness
that is language. Indeed. another way ol characterizing the period
in question would le to call it "Architecture in the Age ol Iiscourse.`
a designation that has the advantage ol aligning architecture
with other disciplines that similarly turned to language in their
own respective sell- examinations. As Jacques Ierrida put it.
"1his moment was that in which language invaded the universal
prollematic. that in which. in the alsence ol a center or origin.
everything lecame discourseprovided we can agree on this
wordthat is to say. when everything lecame a system where
the central signihed. the original or transcendental signihed. is
never alsolutely present outside a system ol dillerences.`
3
Judgments alout the meaning and value ol the discursive
turn. however. were not all positive. "1he return to language is a
prool ol lailure.` Hanlredo 1aluri declares. and though his posi-
tion is more amlivalent than this assertion would indicate. he
never wavers lrom his argument that. ly the .pcs. what remains
ol modernity is only a spectral sense ol our existence. in which
we wrestle with the larely perceptille and unsolid echoes ol an
architectural past that cannot le recovered and a luture that will
not arrive. 1he advanced architecture ol the .pcs must therelore
remain a "salvage operation` in which "the elements ol the mod-
ern architectural tradition are all at once reduced to enigmatic
lragmentsto mute signals ol a language whose code has leen
lostshoved away haphazardly in the desert ol history.
4
1aluri`s analysis hnds architecture in a doulle lind. 1o the
extent that architecture can lunction in a capitalist society. it in-
evitally reproduces the structure ol that society in its own
immanent logics and lorms. \hen architecture resists. capitalism
withdraws it lrom servicetakes it oll- lineso that demonstra-
4
tions ly architects ol the critical distance ol their practice lrom
degraded lile lecome redundant and trivialized in advance. 1his
transmutation ol the cold. all- encompassing llueprint ol a mode
ol production into the pure lormalization ol aesthetic technique
is architecture`s destiny. its "plan.` And having identihed that.
1aluri asserts the intoleralle lut inescapalle conditions ol possi-
lility lor contemporary architecture. to collapse into the very
system that condemns architecture to pure means- end instrumen-
tality. or to retreat into hypnotic solitude. recognizing that there
is no longer a need lor architecture at all. 1hus "'the disenchanted
avant- garde.` completely alsorled in exploring lrom the comlort
ol its charming !eo1e.s the prolundities ol the philosophy ol the
unexpected. writes down. over and over again. its own reactions
under the infuence ol drugs prudently administered.`
5
1he "over- and- over- again` indictment ol the postwar avant-
gardethe empty. numling repetition ol lorms lelt over lrom
the presumed- authentic historical avant- gardelecame some-
thing ol a leltist critical trope alter Peter Burger`s !|-e, e |-
4.ao- 6a1- (German. .p. English. .p8). Burger`s derogatory
term o-e- a.ao- a1- therelore suggests itsell as an appropriate
appellation lor the work I am interested in here. Certainly the
repetition ol the lormal elements and operations ol Le Corlusier.
de 8tijl. and constructivism is the most immediately apparent
characteristic ol the experiments ol Eisenman. Lejduk. and
1schumi. il not Bossi. whom one might nevertheless think ol as a
neo- Enlightenment- avant- gardiste. Burger`s categorization seems
inescapalle. "1he neo- avant- garde institutionalizes the a.ao-
a1- as a and thus negates genuinely avant- gardiste intentions.
1his is true independently ol the consciousness artists have ol
their activity. a consciousness that may perlectly well le avant-
gardiste. . . . Reo- avant- gardiste art is autonomous art in the
lull sense ol the term. which means that it negates the avant- gardiste
intention ol returning art to the praxis ol lile.`
6
I E 8 I B E 5
1he o-e- ness ol this work is made all the more compelling in
the specihc medium ol architecture ly the lact that not only 1aluri
lut also the more conservative Colin Bowe came to all lut the same
conclusion earlier and independently ol Burger. According to
Bowe. il the historical avant- garde shared common ideological
roots with Harxism. it also shared a Harxist philosophical amlition
to interluse lorm and wordvariously articulated as expression
and content. system and concept. practice and theory. luilding
and politics. or (in Burger`s terms) art and lile. 1hat the lusion
ultimately lailed may le attriluted to a shilt in the terms in which
the experience ol modernity itsell had to le conceived in postwar
architecturea shilt lrom modernity lully developed as the essen-
tial desired goal ol architecture to modernity as architecture`s
limiting condition. In his introduction to ..- 4.|.-.s. Bowe
asserts what seems to le the only possille choice lor the advanced
architecture ol the time. adhere to the lorms. the "|,s.o-- fesh`
ol the avant- garde. and relegate the "mea|-- word` to incantation.
For il the latter has leen reduced to "a constellation ol escapist
myths.` the |,s.o- still "possess[es] an eloquence and a fexilility
which continues now to le as overwhelming as it was then.` 1he
measure ol architecture lies no longer in the elhcacy with which
it prehgures a new and letter world lut rather in its achievement
within the contingent conditions ol the modern. ol meeting the
demands ol the fesh. as it were. ol elevating lorm as its own
language without relerence to external sentiments. rationales. or
indeed social visions. "1he great merit ol what lollows lies in the
lact that its authors are not enormously sell- deluded as to the
immediate possilility ol any violent or sudden architectural or
social mutation.` 1he plastic and spatial inventions ol culism
and constructivism. ol Giuseppe 1erragni. Adoll Loos. Hies van
der Bohe. and Le Corlusier. remain the standard specihc to the
ideologically indillerent medium ol architecture itsell. 1he archi-
tects ol the postwar avant- garde are "lelligerently second hand.`
6
8camozzis to modernism`s Palladio. a series ol simulacra. et it
is only through the acceptance ol that standard and the repeti-
tion ol just those simulacra that architects` aspirations can le
intelligille.
1his is the story. then. on which 1aluri and Bowe agree. In a
hrst moment. the revolutionary avant- gardes ol the early twentieth
century surgically prole the modern city itsellthe sociopsycho-
logical metropolis ol Georg 8immel. Georg Lukacs. and \alter
Benjaminin order to identily the patterns ol its essential
characteristics. which can then le converted into artistic lorm.
in 1aluri`s words.
!e os- |a -r-.-o.- as |- eoo1a.eo e ..soa| .e1-s
ao1 .e1-s e a..eo !eeo-1 em a|-a1, -sa!|.s|-1
.|aa.-.s..s e |- .a.a|.s m-ee|.sa.1., e
.|ao- ao1 eao.:a.eo. s.mo|ao-., e .emmoo..a-
.eos. a..-|-a-1 |,|ms e os-. -.|-....sme -1o.-
|- so.o- e a.s.. -r-.-o.- e |- saos e o-
e!-. (ao e!..eos m-a|e e |- e!-.- .emme1.,.
e .o.e|.- |- o!|... as a oo.-1 o|e|-. .o a 1-.|a-1|,
.o-.|ass ao1 |--e- ao.!eo-e.s .1-e|e,. so.| a-
|- as|s a|-o eo. as a o|e|-. !, |- a.ao- a1-s e |-
o-o.-| .-oo,.
8
In a second moment. a dimension ol achieved autonomy ol lorm
allows architecture to stand against the very social order with
which it is complicit. yet the same complicity racks architecture
into an agonistic positioncomlative. striving to produce ellects
that are e the system yet against it. But the language ol lorms thus
discoveredsimple geometrical volumes. serialized points and
lines. diagonal vectors. planes in vertical layers and horizontal
stacks. lrames and gridstakes on an alsolute autonomy with
the result that. in a hnal moment. the architectural neo- avant-
I E 8 I B E 7
garde can peel the language oll lrom the real. repeating the same
already reihed lorms lut translorming them into a sell- enclosed.
totally structured system ol signs. 1he repetition ol the neo- avant-
garde is that "ol someone who is aware that he is committing a
desperate action whose only justihcation lies in itsell. 1he words
ol their vocalulary. gathered lrom the lunar wasteland remain-
ing alter the sudden confagration ol their grand illusions. lie
precariously on that slanting surlace that separates the world ol
reality lrom the solipsism that completely encloses the domain ol
language.`
9
In this view. in the architecture ol the age ol discourse
we witness the "lreeing ol architectural discourse lrom all contact
with the real.`
10
1he lack ol a social need lor architecture. architecture`s total
loss ol the real. there is plenty ol evidence in the works and writ-
ings ol the architects in question to support 1aluri`s conclusion.
But a lriel excursus will suggest a more dialectical position than
either 1aluri or Bowe allows. Bossi and Eisenman. lor example.
are explicitly and especially sensitive to the ellects ol reihcation.
lut their work is not just a victim ol its ellects. they critically
inscrile these ellects. In Bossi`s typological thinking. the relent-
less lragmentation. atomization. and depletion ol the architectural
elements seem to lollow precisely the process that Lukacs called
reihcation (l-1.o|..|oo). And yet typology (very like the realism
recommended ly Lukacs). involves the power to think generally.
to take up the lragments and organize them into groups and to
recognize processes. tendencies. and qualities where reihcation
yields only lileless quantities. \hat is more. lor Lukacs the lorm
ol experience that most concretely represents the lorce ol reih-
cation is crisisthat point where. as in 1aluri`s analysis. the
mnemonic lunction ol architecture is just alout to lail. where the
memory lanks have lecome so compartmentalized and arid that
they will hold nothing other than the most lleached- out material.
At this stage. the cognitive vocation ol architecture is to refect or
8
to cause refection on the processes lehind such crisis. crisis is
modulated into critique.
\e can legin to restore the social and historical meaning ol
type makingand indeed ol the larger project under consider-
ation that typology helps inaugurately positing it as an alstrac-
tion lrom a specihc historical moment. a crisis. even a moment
ol trauma. For the very conditions on which the typology project
dependsnamely. the continuing tradition ol the European city
as documented in Bossi`s l`a.|.-oa 1-||a ..a (.p66)had.
ly the time ol this theorization. already disappeared as a con-
temporaneous olject ol experience. giving way to the city ol
inlormation. advertisement. and consumption. By .p. Ienise
8cott Brown (just to give one example) had proposed that the
communication across space ol the social values ol groups had
superseded the more conventional sorts ol need lor architecture.
"Las \egas. Los Angeles. Levittown. the swinging singles on the
\estheimer 8trip. goll resorts. loating communities. Co- op City.
the residential lackgrounds to soap operas. 1\ commercials and
mass mag ads. lillloards. and Boute 66 are sources lor a changing
architectural sensilility.` writes 8cott Brown. "In lact. space is
not the most important constituent ol sulurlan lorm. Commu-
nication across space is more important. and it requires a symlolic
and a time element in its descriptive systems.`
11
\e need not rehearse the ways in which mass media changed
the very nature ol the experience ol pullic space during this time.
except to recall that advertising media joined with the extensive
development ol luildings on the outskirts ol the city and the new
distrilution ol services to sulurlan commercial zones. making
it more dilhcult to control the quality ol urlan space through
traditional tectonic and typological means. Hessage reception
challenged the tactile experience ol oljects. and voice. as it were.
lecame -oao |.-o ol the lull lody. inlormation now structured
space and prepared it lor experience. 8cott Brown. Bolert \enturi.
I E 8 I B E 9
and others seized on the new perceptual conventions adequate
lor comprehension within this new system. 1he perception ol
architectural surlaces legan to overtake the experience ol urlan
space in the traditional sense. Image consumption legan to re-
place olject production. and the sheer heterogeneity ol images
exploded any single. stalle typology ol the city. Pullic meaning
was now to le lound in the signs and perceptual halits lorged
in a pluralist. consumerist. sulurlan culture. Consequently a
split was lelt to have opened up letween the European tectonic-
typological tradition and the everyday world ol the American
popular environment. a split that was lundamental to theoretical
delates ol the .pcs.
1he point. however. is that none ol this was missed ly Bossi.
For while Bossi`s typological olsessions seem to le a way ol con-
stantly conhrming the determinate presence ol the traditional
European cityrelracting its historical logic ol lorm through a
neo- Enlightenment lens in contingent. contradictory. and quasi-
surreal waystheir peculiar mnemonic lunction also makes it
possille to see in them a new leauty in precisely that which is
vanishing. 1he originality ol Bossi`s work may well le its capacity
to convey. alternately with melancholy or unllinking disenchant-
ment. that the traditional European citywhich in some sense
means architecture itsellis lorever lost. and that the architec-
tural avant- garde has reached an end. 1aluri insisted as much in
a direct response to what Hassimo 8colari. speaking ol Bossi and
the 1endenza. considered a relounding ol the discipline. "1he
thread ol Ariadne with which Bossi weaves his typological research
does not lead to the 'reestallishment ol the discipline.` lut rather
to its dissolution. therely conhrming .o -r-m.s the tragic recog-
nition ol Georg 8immel and Gyorgy Lukacs. 'a lorm that preserves
and is open to lile. does not occur.` In his search lor the Being ol
architecture. Bossi discovers that only the 'limit` ol Being there
is expressille.`
12
10
\hile the work ol Bossi and the 1endenza and that ol 8cott Brown
and \enturi make up two more or less divergent prollematics.
the lact that they are similar even in their dillerences was recog-
nized in the theoretical literature ol the mid to late .pcs. Hario
Gandelsonas`s dialectical negation ol the dillerences letween the
"neorationalism` ol Bossi and the "neorealism` ol 8cott Brown
and \enturi with his category ol "neolunctionalism` is only the
hrst example ol a widespread theoretical attempt to resolve the
contradictory aspirations ol an architectural representation ol the
sociocultural moment together with an architectural autonomy in
the lace ol the same.
13
\hat has not leen noticed is the lact that
Peter Eisenman`s "postlunctionalism.` lormulated in his .p6
editorial response to Gandelsonas and developed in the decade
alter in his "cities ol artihcial excavation.` is a simultaneous al-
sorption and displacement ol the same two prollematics (neora-
tionalism and neorealism)a doulle negation or neutralization
ol Gandelsonas`s neolunctionalism. But the counterdialectic that
Eisenman twists out ol this scheme is the position that the au-
tonomy project must le extended lecause the heterogeneity ol
the consumerist. mediatic city has now collapsed under its own
weight. producing not dillerence lut sameness. For Eisenman.
architecture does not so much aspire to autonomy. as with Bossi.
as it is e.-1 into it ly the very system it seeks to represent. 1he
price ol autonomy is a reduction in and a specialization ol lorm.
which lecomes cut oll lrom other social concerns even as. in its
very isolation and aridness. it lecomes perlectly adequate lor.
representative ol. and homologous with the society that sponsors
it. \hat \enturi and 8cott Brown present as the discovery ol hap-
pily possille. practical lutures. Eisenman recognizes as nothing
more than a misprojection ol our own lalelul historical moment
and suljective situation.
1he interpretations ol 1aluri and Bowe encode the premise that
the postwar "disenchanted` avant- garde symlolizes the torsions.
I E 8 I B E 11
contradictions. and closures ol a certain historical and social mo-
ment. 1his view does not sulhciently recognize. however. the more
dialectical lact that this architecturein its very oljectivity and
autonomyhas already internalized that with which the critics
intend to conlront it. that is. architecture has already incorpo-
rated the annulment ol its own necessity (loth its lunctional and
representational vocations) and consequently -.e1-1 the olject as
the symlolic realization ol just that situation. 1his architecture is
a refection on the loundations and limits ol architecture itsell. I
shall therelore adopt a dillerent terminology and reler to the ar-
chitecture and the ethos ol this group as the |a- avant- garde. with
all the connotations this contradictory locution entails. ol intran-
sigence and survival leyond what should have ended. ol a moment
in a larger trajectory leyond which one cannot go. ol technique
accumulated to the point ol lleak rumination. ol productive nega-
tivity. In the late phase. the architectural symlolic legins to close
in on itsell. to regard itsell as a vast accumulation ol signihers
rather than as the never- concluded. positive production ol mean-
ing. 1he late avant- garde`s introjection ol loss and alsence means
not that the architectural olject is empty. lacking. lreed ol contact
with the realas 1aluri and Bowe have itlut rather that the olject
renders its pathological content directly. it is the very lorm in
which a certain lack assumes existence. the lorm necessary to
imagine a radical lack in the real itsell.
1he term |a- a.ao- a1- has the advantage ol association
with Fredric Jameson`s |a- me1-o. ly which he intends an ex-
treme refexivity within the modern itsell rather than a replay ol
modernismthat is. a condition in which the ideology (under-
stood as a positive and necessary lramework lor practice) ol
modernism has leen theorized and identihed in terms ol artistic
autonomy. "a return to art alout art. and art alout the creation ol
art.` Inlike the lully commercialized postmodernism. the late
architectural avant- garde keeps its namesake`s commitment to
12
rigorous lormal analysis. making the material ol architecture stand
against consumerism. But unlike the historical avant- garde. it sell-
consciously closes in on its own limits rather than opens outward.
its original site is one ol the trauma ol having arrived too late. Alter
all. when everything has leen accounted lor. how do you account
lor what remains 1he late avant- garde "can never take place in
any hrst time. lut is always second when it hrst happens.`
14
1he term also recalls 1heodor Adorno`s concept ol "late style` and
Edward 8aid`s elaloration ol it. 8aid sees lateness as an unresolved
contradiction involving "a nonharmonious. nonserene tension.
and alove all. a sort ol delilerately unproductive productiveness
going aa.os.` It is made possille at certain moments in modern
history "when the artist who is lully in command ol his medium
nevertheless alandons communication with the estallished social
order ol which he is a part and achieves a contradictory. alienated
relationship with it. Lis late works constitute a lorm ol exile.`
15
Against the received view ol 1aluri and Bowe. the examination
ol the late avant- garde undertaken in the lollowing chapters
shows a dillerent relation letween architecture and the real. ol
architecture`s representation ol the real. It will lecome evident
that the received view ol 1aluri and Bowe is not so much incorrect
as it is not correct enough. For the real is not so easily dealt with
as the received view impliesit is not just |-- lelore some mate-
rial symlolic practice makes it manilest. Architecture`s impera-
tive is to grasp something alsent. to trace or demarcate a condition
that is there only latently. In short. my thesis is that having long
since leen deprived ol its immediate use value. architecture in the
.pcs lound itsell challenged as a mode ol cultural representation
ly more commercially lulricated media. Feeling the lorce ol
changed historical conditions and a developed consumer society.
the most advanced architecture ol the .pcs retracted the lrame
ol identity letween the architectural olject and the sociomaterial
ground (on this. so lar. all are in accord). 1his retraction is a
I E 8 I B E 13
lorm ol pragmatic negation that lollows the historical avant-
garde`s strategies ol resistancea variant demanded ly a new
situation. lut one that produces an impasse. since resistance
seems no longer to lring change (and this is where 1aluri leaves it).
At this point. however. the most advanced architecture lorces a
transduction upward. as it were. to a higher plane ol alstractiona
transition lrom the outward- directed negativity ol the historical
avant- garde (which produced an architectural olject that. through
certain demystilying operations. strived to resist or disrupt the
very situation that lrought it into leing) to a second- order nega-
tivity. an architecture refecting on Architecture (whose olject
consequently lecomes internally split. as we will see). 1he archi-
tectural olject as such is disenlranchised (though not necessarily
destroyed). annulled as an immediate thing and reconceived as a
mediating material and process. 1he olject- in- itsell lecomes an
olject- dillerent- lrom- itsell. a signiher directed toward the very
disciplinary codes and conventions that authorize all architectural
oljectsit lecomes 8ymlolic in Lacan`s sense. 1he olject le-
comes a medium lor a Beal that it does not simply reproduce. lut
necessarily loth reveals and conceals. manilests and represses.
A certain pattern emerges. \hat in the received view appears
as the conditions ol impossilility lor an architectural system
a historical and social situation in which there is no need lor
architecture as a cultural representation or. rather. in which
its representational domain has no access to any reality leyond
itin lact estallishes the conditions lor new and dillerent
architectural lunctions. For as soon as architecture`s need is
articulated as s,m!e|..as soon as the architectural olject is
presented anew. repeated as s,m!e|.:-1an inquiry is launched
into architecture`s possililities rather than its actualities. \here
does architecture come lrom. and what authorizes its existence as
architectureleyond the particular constitutions already in place
1his is the query ol the late avant- garde. 1o which in response they
1.1
Aldo Rossi, Dieses ist lange her
ora questo perduto, 1975, drawing.
Courtesy Fondazione Aldo Rossi.
16
oller oe a.|.-.o- .s-| !o -..1-o.- |a . -r.ss. as Adorno
might say.
16
But the pattern ol the response is Lacanian. An em-
pirical need reorganized in a medium ol the 8ymlolic is what
Lacan distinguishes as a demand. which directs its signihers to an
Other (originally the Hother. or language itsell. lut here some-
thing exterior to architecture. something leyond its grasp. which
I characterize in the chapters that lollow) that is experienced as
intervening in (granting. denying. limiting) the satislaction ol
the need. \hen need is reorganized as demand. the immediate.
actual olject ol need is sullated (Lacan uses the Legelian no-
menclature ol 4o|-!oo) only to reappear in mediated lormas
the avatar ol a dimension transcendent to the immediate olject
(the dimension ol the Hother`s love. in the original instance.
a horizon at the limit ol architecture in the present instance.
architecture`s essential lut alsent structure) and the process-
olject through which that dimension hnds expression.
1
\e are in the matrix ol desire (we have leen all along). In the
Lacanian system. desire is "the lorce ol cohesion which holds the
elements ol pure singularity together in a coherent set.` where
"the elements ol pure singularity` are understood as nothing less
than the most lasic signilying units ol the unconscious.
18
\hich
is to say that desire is the machine that runs the entire psychic
system. Iesire is the constant production. connection. and re-
connection ol signihers. ol architectural quanta. ol the pulsating
fows ol pure interpretation. this is why Lacan so insistently
identihes desire and metonymy. \hat I suggest here and in the
chapters that lollow is that architectural desire is materialized in
the oljects ol the late avant- gardethe symlolic desire consti-
tuted ly architecture`s "lig Other.` its laws and language. its
original oneness. desire as the architectural unconscious. desire
as the pursuit ol architecture`s original olject lorever lost (the
1alernacle in the desert. the \itruvian tree house. the primitive
hut).
19
Lence the olsessive search in this work lor architecture`s
lundamental codes and principles. all the time knowing lull well
I E 8 I B E 17
there can le none. that outside the architectural 8ymlolic is the
radical nothingness ol the architectural Beal. Lence too the tum-
lling into the alyss as desire seeks its olject. lor desire desires
.s-| in its olject. It determines itsell ly negating its olject. then
lecomes the olject alolished through its own sell- appropriation.
Lacan`s lormula is. "Iesire is the desire lor desire. the desire ol
the Other.`
20
And we can leel the lull signihcance ol the advent
ol desire at this particular moment in architecture`s history ly
recognizing that architectural desire arises as a kind ol alsolute
alterity exactly when the possilility ol architecture`s nonexistence
is glimpsed on the horizon. In other words. the question ol how
architecture exceeds itsell is the other side ol imagining archi-
tecture`s end. 1hus the late avant- garde is the lorm architecture
assumes when it is threatened with its own dissolution.
1he marks ol desire are various. 1hey include the reduced. single
volumes and lragments that populate Bossi`s ghost- lit cityscapes
and Lejduk`s carnivalesque villages. and the even more minimal
el- cules ol Eisenman and cinegrams ol 1schumiall lits and
pieces lrom the architectural 8ymlolic understood as aoa|eo-s
ol the social text (which ly the .pcs had seen its possililities
similarly reduced and minimized). And the --..eos ol these
same lorms are desire looking lor its olject and constantly missing
the mark ("this is not |a`). an insatialle quest lest understood.
as we will see. on the model ol an architectural death drive. 1hese
architects address the matter explicitly. Eisenman. whose "end ol
the end` seeks to alolish history to lulhll itsell. Bossi. with his
allegorical drawing ol striving u.-s-s .s |ao- |- 0a o-se -
-1oe (this is long gone. architecture survives lecause the time
ol its lulhllment has passed).
21
Lejduk. with his wall event. "which
. . . might also le considered the moment ol death`.
22
and 1schumi.
whose Hanhattan 1ranscripts are an entire screenplay ol death
and desire. 1hrough desire. architecture is rendered eccentric to
itsell. And there are moments when an architectural experience
produces that conception ol eccentricitymoments ol lecoming.
18
allects. -o.eoo-s that are nonrepresentational modes ol thought.
moments when a sensation just larely precedes its concept and
we glimpse very lasic. primitive architectural ideas. axioms lor
luture architectures. Encounter and event are particularly opera-
tive in the work ol Lejduk and 1schumi (1schumi coined the
term -.-o- sa.- in architecture). lut all ol these architects hnd
ways to dislocate architectural experience. opening it up to the
1.2
Jeffrey Kipnis, 3 Masterpieces
of Late- Twentieth- Century
Design Theory, 1990.
I E 8 I B E 19
lact that all perception is partial and ideological. 1heir work has
leen called "critical` in recognition ol this characteristic. et I
lelieve that the concept ol desire more adequately signals their
corollary attempt to escape the ideological closures ol the situation
through the portals ol the lilidinal and the collective. "critical`
implies perhaps a too cerelral asceticism ol specialized elites.
though that too is correct as lar as it goes. Horeover. I am insist-
ing that the work under investigation here does more than extend
the compulsory critical negativity ol the historical avant- garde.
In a theoretical sense. an architecture that. ly internalizing critical
negativity. posits itsell as eccentric to itsell is even more radical.
1he complete alsorption ol structuralist tenets into architec-
ture had ly the .pcs made it possille to think architectural lorm
as the ellect ol relations ol dillerence among elements that them-
selves had no sulstantive meaningFerdinand de 8aussure`s
"dillerence without positive terms.` 1he late avant- garde. on the
other hand. is the exact inversion ol that lormulation. it presents
a singular architecture dillerent lrom itsellan architecture that.
in order to install itsell as architecture. must already le marked.
traced. transgressed. and divided lrom itsell ly memories ol a
past (Bossi and Lejduk are explicit alout this) and anticipations
ol a luture continuing identity (as Eisenman and 1schumi dil-
lerently insist). I will lollow Ierrida in using the term sa..o to
reler to this tearing ol the singularity lrom itsell. this internal-
ized dillering. 1herelore. the metonymy ol architecture`s desire
is. aoa|e,. --..eo. -o.eoo-. sa..o. Each component will le
developed in the readings ol architecture that lollow.
But lor now. we are hnally in a position to situate the represen-
tational range ol late avant- garde architecture lrom the spatial
Imaginary to the codes and laws ol the 8ymlolic in the larger
nonrepresentational held ol the Beal. And it should le made
clear now that my understanding ol the Beal lollows the readings
ol Lacan ly scholars like Fredric Jameson and 8lavoj Iizek and is
20
lest summarized ly Jameson`s lamous pronouncement that the
Beal "is simply Listory itsell.`
23
It is interesting in the present
context to remind ourselves that it was Jameson`s conlrontation
with the negative thought ol 1aluri that virtually lorced the produc-
tion ol Jameson`s correlate to the Beal- as- Listory. which is the
imaginary projection he calls cognitive mapping. 1he imperative
to think totality is one on which 1aluri and Jameson agree (and
dealing with the Beal must always involve a totalizing propensity).
et lor Jameson. architecture still has the important social lunc-
tion ol articulating material lorces that would otherwise remain
ungraspalle and linking the local. phenomenological. and sulject-
centered experiences ol space to the developing sulject- producing
structures ol capitalism itsell. And right where 1aluri sees the
lading away ol class ("there can never le an aesthetics. art or
architecture ol class`).
24
Jameson hnds the residue ol what used
to le called class consciousnessa mapping ol one`s social
placelut ol a paradoxical kind. premised on the representation
ol the "properly unrepresentalle` glolal structure in each ol the
local. experiential moments that are themselves the ellects ol that
structure. Cognitive mapping is lundamentally a development
ol Althusser`s radical rewriting ol ideology as "a representation ol
the imaginary relationship ol individuals to their real conditions
ol existence.` itsell. ol course. a reading ol Lacan`s Imaginary-
8ymlolic- Beal triad. Cognitive mapping is. on one side. a kind
ol collective "mirror stage` in which the allective immediacies ol
identity are in dialectical play with the alienating closures and
misrecognitions that are the lyproducts ol any representation at
all. But at the same time. the map is also a trace- trait ol the social
8ymlolic. a "social symlolic a.` with potential to lreak out lrom
its ideological prison. Beyond that. at the limit ol the 8ymlolic
order. is the Beal"Listory itsell`which supports the social
even as it remains oldurately unavailalle and unsymlolizalle.
"Conceived in this sense.` Jameson writes.
I E 8 I B E 21
u.se, .s o|a |os. . .s o|a -os-s 1-s.- ao1 s-s
.o-rea!|- |.m.s e .o1...1oa| as o-|| as .e||-...- ar.s.
o|..| .s os-s` oo .oe .s|, ao1 .eo.. -.-sa|s e
|-. e.- .o-o.eo. 8o |.s u.se, .ao !- a-|-o1-1
eo|, |eo| .s --.s. ao1 o-.- 1.-.|, as sem- -.-1
e.-. !|.s .s .o1--1 |- o|.ma- s-os- .o o|..| u.se,
as eoo1 ao1 ooaos.-o1a!|- |e.:eo o--1s oe a-
..o|a |-e-..a| os..a.eo. o- ma, !- so- |a .s
a|.-oa.o o-.-ss..-s o.|| oe e- os. |eo-.- mo.|
o- m.| -- e .oe- |-m.`
25
Jameson`s Listory"alsent cause.` "unrepresentalle` and "unsym-
lolizalle.` the "untranscendalle horizon.` "Recessity`is always in
place lut only as an undillerentiated and ultimately intractalle
outside (Lacan dehnes the Beal as "that which resists symloliza-
tion alsolutely`). the vanishing point ol the 8ymlolic and Imagi-
nary alike. the end ol the line toward which their plays ol presence
and alsence. signihers and images incline. 1he late architectural
avant- garde is. in the end (at the end). a reckoning with this Beal.
Jameson`s "Listory is what hurts` passage was pullished in .p8..
It is interesting to ponder whether it is analytical or symptomatic ol
its time. In any case. Listory is what hurt architecture at precisely
this same moment. as the practico- inert legan to turn lack on and
against the accumulate practices ol architecture. And the sense one
has when scanning the lractured landscape ol the late avant- garde.
ol a lailure that is alternately inevitalle and delilerate. and a hnality
that is dreaded lut enjoyedthese are explainalle only as ellects ol
Listory`s contradictions.
26
1he architecture ol the late avant- garde
perlorms the impossilility ol architecture`s lull realization. it stages
an architectural project that lor historical reasons must le under-
taken lut ultimately is lrought to lailure ly a dynamic integral to the
project itsell. 8uch are the workings ol architecture`s desire.
2
A R A L O G 23
Mobilized explicitly against the scientism not only of modernist functionalism
but also of the remaining positivist design methodologies and operations
research of the 1960s, which sought to arrive at optimal architectural organi-
zations mathematically and avoid the slippery problems of architectural repre-
sentation and translation, Meaning in Architecture (1969), edited by Charles
Jencks and George Baird, proposed a preliminary semiotics of architecture
elaborating the basic structuralist insight that buildings are not simply physical
supports but artifacts with meaningsigns dispersed across some larger social
text.
1
1he repercussions ol this and similar structuralizations ol
architecture as critiques ol lunctionalist and positivist dogmas
would prove enormous. extending over the next decade ol archi-
tecture theory. and the essays in V-ao.o .o 4.|.-.o- are lut
early examples ol what would quickly lecome a widespread search
lor a system ol architectural meaning.
But il the structuralist projection into architecture was perhaps
inevitalle (structuralism is designed to manage all cultural sys-
tems ol signihcation) and in certain ways already latent in earlier
models ol architectural interpretation (those ol Emil Kaulmann.
John 8ummerson. or Budoll \ittkower. lor example). the most
pertinent and lruitlul level ol homology letween architecture
and language still had to le decided. In other words. what was to
le the scale ol architecture`s structure Is an individual work or
group ol works like a language. or is architecture as a whole struc-
tured like a language 1he hrst view has alhnities with traditional
ANALOGY
24
treatments ol luildings as organic units whose origins and in-
tentions ol lormation must le elucidated. whereas the second
view. which the editors ol V-ao.o .o 4.|.-.o- adopt and which
would lecome the disciplinary norm. shilts the interpretive vo-
cation considerally. Ro longer is the interpreter`s task to say
o|a the individual work means (any more than it is the linguist`s
task to render the meanings ol individual sentences). rather. it is
to show |eo the codes and conventions ol architecture enalle
oljects to produce meaning. Questions are raised alout users`
and readers` expectations. alout how a structure ol rules enters
into and directs the design ol a work. alout how any architectural
"utterance` is a shared one. having leen spoken already and
therelore shot through with qualities and valuesquestions. in
short. alout architecture`s pullic. ideological lile. Horeover. the
goal or limit condition ol the theoretical project. in this view. is
to analyze not just luildings or projects lut the whole ol the system
ol architectural signihcation.
George Baird`s essay lrom that volume. "la u.m-os.eo 4meo-os-
in Architecture.` lollows Boland Barthes`s early semiotics to
reveal some lasic issues alout the structure ol architectural
signihcation. First. il architecture as a whole is like a language
(a specihcally encoded grammar. or |aoo-). then the individual
work is a particular instantiation or ellect ol that generalized lan-
guage (analogous to a speech act. or ae|-)the architect cannot
simply assign or take away meaning. and that meaning cannot le
axiomatic.
2
According to this semiotics. architecture is a readalle
text. and the protocols and parameters ol its legilility are what
we mean ly |-e... Bhetoric operates within the structure ol
shared expectations and demands a social. dialogical. even erotic
relationship with the readerBaird`s "amorous dimension.` But
rhetoric is not simply a suljective expression. Its procedures are
inseparalle lrom processes ol argument and justihcation with
respect to the social lunction ol making architectural sense.
A R A L O G 25
1he most productive dimension ol Baird`s essay (though he
does not take lull advantage ol it) is his setting ol Claude Perrault`s
concepts ol positive and arlitrary leauty into active equivalence
with the |aoo- / ae|- system. For what is achieved in the complex
lractionpositive leauty is to arlitrary leauty as |aoo- is to
ae|-should not le understood as a simple simile ol architec-
ture as language. nor should it le understood in terms ol the more
complex assertion that the individual work ol architecture must
le perceived dillerentially against the network ol the architec-
tural system as a whole. For Perrault`s positive leauty is applied
not just to ao architecture (the classical language. say. or some
other specihc style) lut to a|| ol architectureto Architecture.
1he implication ol the complex lraction is that any individual
work ol architecture. in all its contingency. locality. and arli-
trariness. can le dissolved lack into a specihcally architectural
lut universal structured systema symlolic orderol which it is
a partial instantiation.
1here is one more important corollary ol this machinery.
1hough Baird does not mention it. his semiotic lraction is capalle
ol generating out ol its linaries a third term. which might articu-
late the reciprocal exchanges letween the discursive network ol
architecture as a whole and the individual instances ol that system
a kind ol synthetic operator letween the symlolic system and the
specihc architectural signiher. 1he reemergent notion ol archi-
tectural typology attempts to do just that.
3
1he logic ol types asserts
that the various elements ol architecture are not in themselves
lull ol meaning. they are not items that have sulstantial content.
Bather. they are relational lorms. elements in a structured system
on the same order and ol the same relative scale as phonemes in
language (or what Claude Levi- 8trauss. in his study ol myth.
called "mythemes`).
4
4.|.-.-m-s. as we might call them. make
up the lasic mechanism ol architectural thought. the distinctive.
recurring comlinations ol such elemental units are types. and
26
the logic ol their organization is typology. Few terms lrom the
architecture theory ol the late .p6cs and early .pcs carry the
same power as that ol typology. and the reason. I suggest. lies in
type`s mediating position in architecture`s imagination and
symlolization.
A passage lrom Adorno`s .p6 refection on lunctionalism
and architecture will help explain the work ol imagination.
4.|.-.o- .oo.-s. |eo .ao a .-a.o oes- !-.em-
sa.-. |eo| o|..| ems. o|..| ma-.a|s` 4|| a.es
-|a- -..e.a||, e eo- aoe|-. 4.|.-.eo.. .ma.-
oa.eo .s. a..e1.o e |.s .eo.-.eo e .. |- a!.|.,
e a..o|a- sa.- oes-o||,. l -m.s oes-s e
!-.em- sa.-. l .eoso.s ems a..e1.o e oes-s.
6eo.-s-|,. sa.- ao1 |- s-os- e sa.- .ao !-.em- me-
|ao .me.-.s|-1 oes- eo|, o|-o .ma.oa.eo .m-
-oa-s |-m o.| oes-o|o-ss. Imagination lreaks
out ol the immanent connections ol purpose. to which
it owes its very existence.
5
Architectural imagination (.o!.|1oos|a. the work ol making
images and schemata) exceeds any empirical demand made on
architecture with a lorm and an allective lorce leyond reason or
end. lorm or lunction. Consider an example. Let us give the name
|a.- to the architectural allect ol purpose- lecoming- lorm. that
is. to a hypothetically originary architectural condition. (At its
most primitive level architecture has always leen seen as a mi-
mesis and an analogue ol natural conditions. the accident ol a
tree lranch lalling across two trunks is turned into an entire
system ol support and measure. the continuation ol a ridge line
lecomes a wall marking the territory ol a group. the clearing ol
a held lecomes a city.) Architecture. or the vocation ol architec-
ture`s imagination. then. is lundamentally the making ol a place.
A R A L O G 27
where place is understood to have certain lormal. dimensional
propertiesa space marked oll as distinctas well as a specihc
set ol uses or purposes attached to it (hence. lor example. a place
ol gathering. a place ol worship. a commemorative place. a restlul
place. kaom-o||). \hen conlronted with a particular situation
a site. program. materials. and the likearchitecture`s imagina-
tion enlolds all ol its conditions into lormal quanta. intensities.
or architectemes and produces an analogue ol the originary. pur-
poselul. place- making condition ol architecture.
In order lor the purposelul qualities ol this analogue to le put
into relation. in order lor the qualities to achieve expression. an
autonomous system ol organization is requiredone that has
internal consistency as well as external ellect. 1ypology is one
such system. Inderstood in this way. a typological analysis ol
architecture demands a rigorous attention to lorm as well as to
the symlolic identihcation that extends outward lrom structure
into externality and alterity in a prolilerating chain ol metonymic
associations. 1his is where typology legins to trace the contours
ol architecture`s desire. For typology`s ellort to grasp analytically
the preanalytic and indeterminate conditions ol architecture`s
possilility (which is to say. its Other). or. put dillerently. to give
lorm to that which lrings architecture into leing. is analogous to
the desire to assimilate the desire ol the Other to onesell. "Che
vuoi` (\hat do you want ol me). architecture asks ol its Other.
lolding inward to question its own identity. incorporating its own
distance lrom itsell.
6
Iesire is the ellort to maintain architecture
as a sulject together with that other world which is its surround
and its origin and lrom which it remains lorever apart.
1ypology designates the paradoxical point at which architecture.
whose inauguration is instrumentally directed. appears as a
spontaneous. almost natural lorce (a residue ol that originary
union ol lorm and purpose). which is not limited to any particular
historical context since its exemplarity is lound across places and
28
times. 1he assertion ol the centrality ol type is. then. an assertion
ol the reality ol architectural appearance itsell (and not merely
some lunctional cause lehind it)ol the .ma- ol architecture
(the work ol type is image- ination) as its symlolic identihcation
as architecture. Balael Honeo lorcelully generalized the impor-
tance ol typology and its mediatory potential in a structured held.
"1o understand the question ol type is to understand the nature ol
the architectural olject today. It is a question that cannot le
avoided. 1he architectural olject can no longer le considered as
a single. isolated event lecause it is lounded ly the world that
surrounds it as well as ly its history. It extends lile to other oljects
ly virtue ol its specihc architectural condition. therely estallish-
ing a chain ol related events in which it is possille to hnd common
lormal structures.`
)
is opposed to the system ol identihcations (indicated ly a). 1he
shilting. refecting. doulled relationship letween the olject and
the olject- ellect that is the ego is indicated in the graph ly the
diagonal line. which must le read loth as a vector ol desire fow-
ing letween a and a