1974

--t-----~- -"-"

".""

..... """"'--.... -.....~""'- --------~

.,

Olano Ast'Nt

"''' kl- I
I ......l U.-"
" "'I\ U

$)

Among Ihe ftve ,uaY$ In Iho Ina\lH\lr~lluu. 0' OllfJall/ lOII', Ihl IMI, Dian. Agrnt
and M~rlo Gandolsona 'I " ,mlollel and Archlt octur@r Idool08 1cal Consumption or
Theof1lllc.1 Work," slood 0111 'or II I hHOli1O IhoolOtlcnl 101181108' adOpltd from the
Parisian IlII Q"oIII'OUP, III thorOIlRhRolna uropoall ,,)proneh baud on structuraliit
Marxist princlplu: and lis sOftrh'R crlllcilln ollho AnsloArnarlcon nb.o rptlon of ,em lot
les InlO arthlleclural thoorv.' Tho ouay advanced whftl would baeom primary them.
lor OIono AsIt' I: Iho 51ruClu IO of Ih. ,"chnnHo bOlwoen Irchlt aCl urt .nd Ideology, of
arthlteclultos IdeoloRV, which wu baled on Iho plvolnl wo rk orLoul. AlihuSl.,.
"DeSig n versu. NonOoalgll," Iho Clnwplac. of her Ih, orotlcal
oeuvnt, conllnues tho elaborn tion of IhlllhM" wllhln an Althuu.rlan paradigm, bul
now avoids Iho problem.lle distinction of Ihe tnrllor GllftV bOlweon Ideologv .nd
theory or "Science; concenlratlng Inlload on Ih. dl.cur. 'v. l pecl',clIV of archlteclural
codes which .re neverlheloss permoablo 10 othor cultural cod os - whal Althusser
coiled Ihe ",Iatlve .ulonomy 01 lovols In a loclal lormatlon organized In a structured
bUI docenle",d tOlallly. BorlOwlng Iho Freudian concept of ovordelermlnatlon, Allhus
Sll Insisted that no Inslance or practice (archllecture, say) wos ever delermlned by
one Of even a set 01 other Instl nces or practices (economv and politics, say); neither
WIS . ny Inslanct ever lully autonomous. Rather, each was determined by Ih. eflects
and Inle .. ctlons 01 all the olhar Instancos at once - a set 01 Insides and outsides
enlolded In the struclural tOlallly.' ARresl 5005 the Interaction of these zones as an
..change 01 Ideological codes, each 01 which has Its own designations of relevance,
propriety. "'Iularlty, .nd so forlh. but which can IfOnstod" that 15, act as a kind of
commulatlon dovlce, movlns and sorting among other discourses and levels In the
cultulIl Reid. Acode Is Ilk n Ideological prospecl, constantly shifting Its polnl of
"ew, conslantly being produced, constantlv seeking 10 compare Itself to the concep.
tual possibilities 01 other codes. And archlleclure Is Ih ere fore not conNned to Its own
narrow Idiolect of design, bul ralher transcodes bet
d I
throwln! discursive lortes Inlo muiliple play.
ween es gn and nondeslgn,
Design can achlove a cert I I I
closu", 01 SpeclRclly-lts cultivation of lis 0 a n p ura ltV Within Its necessary en
01 olhereullural codes - It Is unconstrainedwn aulonomous techniques and occlusion
comblno multiple networks of scI/-reflexive by an Imperative of repreSenlatlon; It can
access for Rlterlng material from 0 t Id
meaning and provide various points of
use, as Agrest's
I
Nevertheless, deSign claSSlully conc I d
examp es of metaphor attest.
IIsibl. te.t (classical and IIs/bl, are seve produces whal Roland Barthes called a
of Inslltutlon.llnd techniques and hv~lonvms for Barthes). In which tho whole range
It an Integral whole. a trodltlonally '~go:~~ecessarv for Its legibility-and Ihat make
Non-design, In conlrast, produces a scrlPtlb!eSlgn -limil the pluaralltv of Ihe text.'
Indlc.tlons as to how It Is to b
d
text. permeable, fluctuating giving no
.
e rea demandl
h
'
",wntlng. To maintain the archltecturftl tex . ng t at Its reading be In effect Its
",fuses to mnke hlellrthles Integr-tl
t 5 plurality, a reading Is called for that
e
t
d
'
.
ons,
or
svnth eses of Ihe heterogeneous constltu n co es. thaI Instead Simply lu.t
Ing ,,,,,"'Sl
a.
's
aposcs fragment bV fragment - a productive read
mIS",n-slqu,nce.
I

-----------------------------New theoretical discourse is produced in this active exchange be.

tween deSlgn and non-design . The reWrit109 01 the Althu5serian structure in terms of
codes allows Agrest to construct a powerful il still skeletal model 01 the line 01 impingement between the autonomy of architectural discourse as it was understood in the mid1970S and the larger sociocultural field from which it was emergent and whose structures were immanent in its forms. Both the causal model of an economic-technological
base determining an architectural superstructure and the formalist model of a unified
freestanding architectural object can be rejected when it becomes possible to discer~
the mode 01 articulation between the various systems and, in this way, to define the
cultural and ideological overdetermination of the built environoment. or rather the process by which culture is woven into it.Not..
- Design versus Non-Design- was reprinted in Agr'est. Architecture {rom Without: Theoretical
Framings (or Q Criticol Practice (Cambridge: MIT Press. 1991).
1.
Diana Agrest and Mario Gandelsonas. "Semiotics and Architecture: Ideological Consumption
Of Theoretical Work,,- Oppositions t (September t973l. "'n opposition to ideology, we propose a theory of architecture, which is necessarily placed outside ideology. This theory de
scribes and explains the relationships between society and the built environments of
different cultures and modes of production . The relationships between theory and ideology might be viewed as a continuous struggle where ideology defends a type of knowledge
whose major effect is the preservation of existing social systems and their institutions, rather
than the explanation of reality.- This is a concise summation of the distinction made by A1thusser between ideology and knowledge or "'science- -what Agrest and Gandelsonas call
theory - differentiating the imaginary political function of ideologies, whose purpose is to
secure the conditions for reproducing the forms of social domination. from the epistemologi
col function of science. which is to produce descriptions of the real nature of objects. This
means neither that we can do without Ideology nor that science Is more valuable than ideology. Rather the two are different registers of social being. with different vocations and different material conditions of existence. See louis Althusser, -Ideology and Ideological State
Apparatuses,- in Lenin and Philo5()phy and Other Essays. trans. Ben Brewster (New York:
Verso. 1971): and For Marx. trans. Ben Brewster (New York: Pantheon, 1969)
The conception implies, of course. that each instance is not simply determined by the eco
2.
nomic level. as in reductionist Marxism. A1thusser does not allow this conception of the social formation to mean an equality of interaction between all instances. however; rather he
affirms that in each social formation there is one instance that is dominant. thus securing a

_.
...
to
certain kind of unity.
th t the shift In Agrest's language from Instance to discourse Is
Nole. ! 00, a
h' d'
not inconsistent. A1thusser regarded the work on m~dical .and, psyc latnc Is~o.urses pro
.
d
M h I Foucault as exemplary IOvestlgatlOns of the conditions of the
duced by hiS stu ent. IC e
'
production of knowledge.

h rd Miller (New Yorl<: HIli and Wang, 1974). Agres! attended

Roland Barthes, S/Z. trans. RIt a
.
d Balzac's SomJsine at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
8arthes's lectures on Honore e
in Paris, 1968, lectures that became S/Z.

1974

DI.&nil Agn:'f.

D~51~1I versus Non-Design

The specific relationship of architecture 10 Ideology has been generally excluded

from consideration In traditional architectural criticism. Concerned only to relate
archltecmre formally, or internally, to itself. or at best to relate architecture ex:ternally to sOciety In general. criticism has failed to truly incorporate the cWruroJ problematic of architecrure Into its domain of concern. When the cultural dimension
has been introduced, it has more often been as a simple explanation of architectu.re

as "reflecting" a particular culture-the notion of style as the expression of the

spirit of the age-than as a problem to be confronted independently from a consistent theoretic.u standpoint.
Practicing architects and critics of architecture have repeatedly
emphasized the need to relate architecture to its social or culmral context. Positions
have been developed around such concepts as "comextualism" and "ugly and ordinary" by writers like Colin Rowe and Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi. Rowe.
for example, speaks of an architectural contextualism that situates the object of design or analysis in its phYSical-historical surroundings in terms of formal elements
and relations: Venturi and Scon Brown speak of the need to recognize mass culture
as Ihe necessary cultural product of our time and as a new source of inspiration for
designers. However, rather than attempting to appeal to the notion of coUage-a
familiar archllecluraJ stralegy In periods of transition-or to the simulation of the
objects of mass culture, this analysis will attempt to investigate the mechanisms of
the built environment at this specific historical moment.
I wish to explore here the external or cultural relations of ucruteclure-that is, between architecture and its social context-by means of a theoretical model that posits two distinct forms of cultural, or symbolic. production.
,. / The first, which I shall call des;a", is that mode by which architt,cture relates to cultural systems outside itself; it is a normative process and embraces not only architecture but also urban deSign. The second, which is more properly called nOD~csjgn. V
describes the way in which different cultural systems interrelate and give form to
[he buill world; it is not a direct product of any institutionalized design practice but
rather the result of a general process of culture.
In thus examining the mechanisms which relate architecture
to culture-the processes by which meaning is produced, not only within archHec~re or design, but also in the domain of non-design-we are, of course, analyzing
,;J Ideology itself. For ideology is no more than the social production of meaning,
Thus: aU cultural prodUction, such as architecture. when articulated at the econonuc and political levels, manifests the ways in which ideology is produced as
part of a given social structure,'
In this sense, it is unnecessary to compare one type of architecrure
to
any
other
type of cu.C
h
i ,m the accepted mode of .. ,orm.u,
r
-,
.
lecture-as
mternal criticism-or to co
'
"
the.
.
mpare it to society m general. Rather. one must oppose
nOUon of architecture as desia" to the notion of a radically different kind of s),mbolIc configuration-non - d'
ThiS OppOsltlon
' , allows a reading of the bUl'It en Vl-.
tslgn.

,Sf I '974 I

201

ronment in terms of the relationship between different cultural systei. Design and
non-desIgn. m fact, can be seen as two modes of social discourse; and to consider
them in this way opens up the question of what might be called the "active relationshlp" between design. as one cultural system. and other cultural systems.
Design ;md Culture

Design. considered as both a practice and a product. is in effect

a closed system-not only in relation to culture as a whole, but also in relation to
other cultural systems such as literature. film. painting. philosophy. physics. geometry. etc. Properly defined. it is reductive. condensing and crystallizing general cultural notions 'Within its own distinct parameters. Within the limits of this system.
bowever, design constitutes a set of practices-architecture, urban design. and industrial design-unified with respect to certain normative theories. That is, it possesses specific characteristics that distinguish it from all other cultural practices and
that establish a boundary between what is design and what is not. This boundary
produces a kind of closure that acts to preserve and separate the ideological identity ./
of design. This closure. however. does not preclude a certain level of permeability
toward other cultural systems-a permeability which nevertheless is controlled and
regulated in a predse way.
Culture, on the other hand, is understood to be a system of
social cod" that permit information to enter the public domain by means of appropriate Signs. As a whole, culture can be seen as a hierarchy of these codes. manifested through various texts.'
The relationship becween design and culture may. then, be
Stated as the mode by which design is articulated as one cultural system in relation
to other cultural systems at the level of codes. The transformations in these articulations are blstorically determined. and they display themselves as changes in the
structures of meaning. Thus, the development of specific forms of articulation betwee.n design and other cultural systems can be seen as a dynamiC process, the study
of whlch opens up the problem of the production of meaning.
The relationship becween design and other cultural systems
is heightened and intensified at certain moments in this process, and its precise
articulations become clearer. In architecture. this occurs when new economic, technical. functional. or symbolic problems force the production of new formal repertories, or the expansion and transformation of existing vocabularies.
Thus. during the French Enlightenment. elementary geometrical fi ures (the sphere. the pyramid. the cube. etc.) were introduced as the primary ;onstituents of a new formal vocabulary by the "revolutionary" architects
Boullee and Ledoux. For Ledoux these forms expressed the new notions of the sublime. while for Boul1ee they represented the universe and its scientific explanation
developed in the context of profound social md political change.'


Specificity
.
th culrural systems ilio im. "' This recognition of articulations between deslgn and 0 er
h. h
be d
..,."'" ~.....
difli
cesw Ie nuy
un er7"'" \ ~: ,J plies the recognition of differences between lhem- . eren
. ~L _I _-= ,c .
"""v''''
.
.
.
hi h ",,,mts uoe UMuoCOtlOD
.
stood through the notion of sptci6city.4 This 15 a DOuon w C r----of codes according to their relation to design or to other cultural.syster:' od
.
Three types of codes regulate the interpret.l110D an pr ~cnon
10
hi h m>.y
of texts in design. First. there ue those cod es we
be seen .. .exclusIvela.ns
design, such as codes establishing relationships between plans and elevao.ons or p
.
hi h e sh.1red
by varIOUS cultural
and cross-seeUOilS.
Second. there are those codes wear
.

systems. among which design is included (i.e .. spatial. iconiC). Third. there are!h~
which. while they are crucial to one cultural system (such as rhy!hrn 10 musIc).
participate-albeit transformed-in another (such as architecture) by VIrtUe of
shared characteristic, i.e., in the case of rhythm. the temporality of the sequence.
auditory in one cose and visual in the otber. In a decreasing order of specificity. !he
first type of codes are specific to design. the second bave a multiple specificity. and
the third are non-specific.
The specificity of. signifying system is not. however. defined
solely by the specificity of its codes. but also by the form in which !hose codes are
articulated; that is to say. the combination of codes may be specific. al!hough !he
codes themselves mayor may not be specific to the system in question.6 Examples of
specific code articulation in architecture are found in classical theories of harmony
that utilize the articulation of musical codes and arithmetical proJX>rtional series for
the invention of specific archittc[uraJ codes, which are then used to determine the proportions of and relationships among the different elements of a building.
Specificity manages to maintain the limits of architecture despite the apparent changes that occur under the pressures of history. technology. s0cial action, or symbolic change. On the one hand, the most specific codes remain
within the system of architecture; on the other hand, the less spectfic codes link
design with other systems through the opening and closing of its limits. This mechanism allow~ for the articulation of design with some systems and not with others, a
process which operates according to the "internal" determinations of design-that
is, according to the rules of architectural language, to the logiC of the configuration,
and to the meaning proper of the "text" of design.'
The Mannerist inverSion of the established archittttural rulesby which each element is used in contradiction to what should be its
iIin
d
.__ c
..
II
preva g I eoIOgl\..41
mncuon-Is
an
exce
ent
example
of
such
internal
dete
.
.
. w hic h
.
.
TnUD.aUOn, m
the lDverslODS so weaken the limits of architecture as to allow
_
. h h " . I"
an operung to codes
excernat to It; t us t e painter y architecture of the s t
.L
.
IX eenUl century in ha.ly.
ThiS process of articulation might howeve "k
._
"
al" d
'
T, .... e puce accordin g to extern
eterminations-to the forces of economics
..
ideologies foreign to design. The influence of herm 0 th
h pohues, or other
r
e c oug t on tbe design of
th e Esconal Pal ace, lor
example demonstrates th
I f
h
'
e roe a sue exte al r.
.
architecture. Both the plan and the general config
.
Tn
actors 10
.
uratlon seem to bave be d . d
from mysucal or hermetic geometric regulating Ii
b d
en enve
opments in quantitative mathematics, and partly o~:sha ase p~rt~y on parallel develsance editions of Vitruvius,' but not as mI h b
pters ehnunated from Renais
g t e assumed d ctl c
architectural theory. Magic codes were thus s bs '
' Ire Y ITom classinl
.
u tlrutes for the Albe .
.
codes. Geometry, while represented by similar fi ures
.
r~ geomemc
different meaning. At the same time these
g
was Imbued WIth an entirely

geometric
.
tinctly separate from other magic codes su h
h
magIc codes remained dis cast ose based
practices which never entered in their phys' al
' .
on verbal or gesrural
IC -spauallmplications into architecture.

,;;>(Sf

It" 1 ...,
M~lophoric

Opentions In

~sign

The ~K"'pt of the. closing and opening of limits introduces the notion of an IdeologJ Ic.llilttnng m rhe production of design, which takes place by means of c<min prott~~ of symbol~u~,on. In this Ca.se an equivalence, or exchange. of sense Is
produced by restrtcung lh. access of certain codes and figures from other systems
intO uchite<:mTe.

The notions of metaphor and ml'lonymy allow for a more systematic

an.lysis o f this symbolic functioning. These should be considered as the mechanisms
of opening and closure, ultimately revealing rhe way in which design maintains Its
limits in reb,tion to culture and acts as a filter in relation. to meaning. 10
Metaphor and metonymy are, of course, notions that have been
used prindpally in the analysis of discourse and text. Since in tlus context we are
ID",l :zing the production of meaning and not its structure. the reference in general will
be: to metaphoric or metonymic opcnllions rather than to these figures as they are ap~
pli~ to cliSSical rhetoric. "
These tropes or rhetorical figures represent the most condensed
t..'tpresslon of t\\'O basic kinds of relationship in discourse: the relation of similarity.

which underlies the met.phor, and the rel.tion of contiguity, which determines the
mttOn)'my. ucb may e.xist in the relationship between the figure and the content or

in the relation ~tween figure and figure.

The development of any discourse (not necessarily a spoken
one, md in this case the architectural discourse) may develop along two semanticsyn~ctic lines; one theme in the expression or content may lead to another either by
mems of similarity or by means of contiguity. 11 The most appropriate term for the
former relation is "metaphoriC" while the latter might be termed "metonymic,"ll
In its relationship to other cultural systems, a necessary condition for the regeneration of sense, architecture takes part in a game of substitutions
which, thought of in terms of metaphoric or metonymic operations, explains at
the most specific level of form the translation from extra-architectural to intra.architectural systems in a recoding which, by means of reducing meanings, main-

runs the limits of architecture.

The well-known nautical metaphor in Le Corbusier's Villa Sa'\'O)'e exemplifies this functioning. Here, two different signifying systems are related:

dwelling and ocean liner. The necessary condition for this relationship is provided

by the existence of an element common

to both. in this case the window. Through

a me~phoric operation, a figurative substitution of the signifying element common to both systems is produced (dwelling/window-liner/window), carrying
and tnnsferring codes from one system (liner) to the other (house). The new form
is thus loaded with the new meanings required to translate into figures the proposed
new architectural ideology.
The operation involved may be explained by the following

propositions:

Housing Code:

lin~Code :

House

Window

W.lI

Inb.bit

"''''go of Ught

Boundary, Protection

Bo ..

Window

Decks

SoU + Inh.bit +

"""go of Ught +
View + $e;tt + Sun

Promenade

MO\~lent

: etc.

: etc.

Teclmology
Hou~Window

[jJ><JlVu>doo'

LinaWindow

Ught + View
+ Movement +
Technology + ...

House Window

Light + View + Movement

+ Technology + ...

The similml)' of functions-in this case, both liner and house are forms of habitation-mues the metaphor possible.
To these rneu.phoric tr.mspositions other metonymic operations
are added-for example, the promCll.,1< .Mitccturolt--which also carry further meanings related to the liner.
FwKrlonUatMenphon
At .m ~ sale, where the system of architectural design co-exists with many others ilinost b)' definition, me role of the metaphor as a fihering device becomes particularl), .-.;dent, especially in the functional approoch to urban deSign.
At the moment when urbanism was constituted as an instirutionalized practice in the first deade of this cenrury, urban formal codes were developed on the basis of the prevailing architecrural codification. From the set of possible
sYStems tb~t give me.ming (Q form, the functional approach was emphasized almost
e.xdush"t"l),. Le Corbusier may serve once more to exemplify the type of functionalism
th.il is.it work in .i filtering operation in the substitutive relation between architec[Ure
and other systems.
In I.e Corbusier's texts \om une architecture (1923) and Urbanisme
(1925). th~ m~t.phoric apentions function clearly as a mechanism for contact
between diffaent cuJrunI systems md. on other levels. as a means to architectural
recodificuiOD. I.

At the building scale. I.e Corbusier establishes a connection be~

[\\~ uch.itectur.tl S)'Stems ~d other systems. such as technology. tourism, sports,
md geomeay. This connection is est.tblished through a metaphor based on similarity
of function. I S
Geometry. far example, had acted as an internal code for formal
control from the classical period of Greek architecture. [t had not, however, functioned u the provider of the formal vocabulary itself, geometric regulating lines
being the "invisible" ele.ments in the construction. For Le Corbusier, however, geom~
etry bearne nOi only m instrwnent of formal control, but also the provider of the
formal ''Oabu/aT)' itself in tWI) and three dimensions. The instrument (tool) for representation. that is, drawing, became first the project itself, and then the constrUC~
tion, without aheration.
At the urhm scale, I.e Corbusier's metaphoric operation estab
lishes a relation between geometry as a signifying system and the city by means of
the common element of "order," which is manifested as a "grid"; a system of equi~a
lences is estJ.blis.hed between the geometriC grid with its connoted codes and the CIty
grid \\ith the set of \..uues ascribed to it by Le Corbusier.

_....-.

,,
.oIlS! I

.,'4 I .OS
Thus. in Urbanisme, the existing city is seen as equivalent to disor-

der. ch.os. ill~ess .nd irrationality. On the other hand. the grid. the geometric order.

ls seen as eqUlvalent to order, health, beauty. reason, modernity. and progress. "Geometry Is the foundation .... It is also the material basis on which we build those

symbols which represent to us perfection and the divine."16

In the plans for the Ville Contemporaine. and later for the Ville
R.dieuse. Le Cor busier establishes the equivalence between those two systems by
means of the common element of grid-order. The appropriate connoted codes of the
geometric grid are transferred through a figurative substitution to the dty plan and
hecome the codes of the city itselC

It can be seen, in this case, that while there is an initial opening

of the system. its closure is produced by means of a metaphorical equivalence by

which the means of representation are imposed as ideological filters in order to develop an architectural recodification. In this substitution, meanings are limited and
filtered by a system (geometry) which. while it may not be specific to architecture.
wil!. in its recoding. become specific to urban design. This is made possible by the
[.tel that a system such as geometry may participate in a double "game": symbolic at
a formal -cultural level, and-instrumental, or representative, at the level ofehe specific
practice where physical configuration becomes the device that alIows for translation
and recoding.
The relationship between geomecry as a symbolic system on the
one hand, and as a basic organizational system on the other, is not, of course, a new
problem and may be found at other points in the history of architecture. In the work
of Piranesi, for example, the figurative and the geometric coexist. juxtaposed in a
clear dialectical relationship. The rear of the altar of S. Maria del Priorato. for C<arnpl~, crudely displays the set of geometriC volumes which serve as its suppOrt,
while the face presents itself as almost pure allegory. The architectural contradiction
between geometry and symbolism is here critically posed.11
When Boullee and Ledoux adopled geometry in itself as a formal system. the sacred symbology was substituted for a more secular symbologythat of man. In Le Corbusier, however, there is no longer a separation between the
geometric and the symbolic; rather geometry itself represents the symbolic aspect of
form. and carries with it an entire set of implicit values.

The Critique of Functionalism

With the waning of the enthusiasm for functionalism in the late 1940s, a series of
works appeared which, conscious of the cultural reductivism of the heroic period.
were explicitly concerned with the cultural rather than the functional aspects of design. This cultural concern was demonstrated by an intention to make explicit the
articulation berween architecture and other cultural systems. I I The work of the active
members of Team 10 (Alison and Peter Smithson) reintroduces culture in this sense,
and again new openings and closures are produced by means of metaphoric operations: openings to incorporate "the culture"; closures to preserve the specificity of
the system.
However, while in Le Corbusier the metaphor was reductive in
terms of the possible inclusion of other cultural ~ystems-~ pro~uct of the exclusive
nature of geometry and its concomitant modernIsm- the m~~nuon .ofTeam 10 was
(0 establish relations between archi(ecmre and other systems. Our hIerarchy of associa.tions," (hey stated. "is woven into a modulated conti~uum representi~g t~e .(rue
compleXity of human associations . ... Wc must (Voivcan archucclurc fro~ (he: fobnc of hfe: ItStlf.
. I
f h
mplexI'ty of our way of thought. of our passIOn for the nalural
an eqUlva ent 0 C e co
..
"19
world and our belief in Ihe ablluy of man.

't elf precisely to the functionalist resm ddresses 1 S

This cntlo
'. . . n of cultural aspects, here described as
d
.ts elirrunauo
1920s an to I
.
fl .e 'tself" These aspects were considered ..
due1i\ism of the
..
" d "the fabnc 0 \Ie I
"human aSSOClatlons an
10
intrinsic
aspect
of
architecture
by
Teahm
.' bel'ng used as the substitutive operaan
metap or IS
Once more, .
d '
Two types of metaphor are used. The
" . al" spects mto eSlg n .
. ,
tion to incorporate Vlt a
.
al resembles Le Corbusler s use of gef<
ban form m gener ,
one, which accounts or ur
hi h ccounts for the realization of ideas at a
ban al The other, W c a .
ometry at an ur
sc e. . d
f damental element of urban deSIgn.
building scale, is itself conceIve as a un peration links twO systems through the
The first metap honc 0
'Tf<" d thus re1ates the O'ty to nature (a tree). Hence the plans
common element I e, an
I 'd ' h the attributes of a tree and given qualities
for Golden !.>.ne. The city is over <II ' ; ' \ el of form the city is underslood as a tree
o

'

of growlh. organicity. movemem; all le ev

possessing a stern, branches, and leaves.

dry /hfe

net/lift

w / Uk

branches. leaves. etc.

The second type of metaphoric operation articulates the relationship between design
and life at the scale of the building and operates on the basis of a common function :
cir<:ulation of people (street) . In the proposal for Sheffield, the corridor IS transformed through substitution into a street, carrying with it the urban codes which,
when cransferred to the building, give it "life."
Despite the explict intent of Team 10 to open the system of
a.rcllircaure to culture, ho"..ver, the result does not, in the end, differ much from
the reductive system they criticze. The type of substitution utilized-the recodification of a.rcllitecture by means of yet another formal analogy-is fundamentally sintilar to that effected by Le Corbusier, The process by which the Smithsons assimilate
"life" to design is described exclusively in socio-cultural terms, even though "nature - is invoked, while the form adopted is taken directly from nature, that is, from
organic, pbysical life. The other systems to which architecture is supposed to be
acti\oe!y linked (in this case, life or nature) are, in this way, filtered and reduced
through the metaphor of one system, that of architectural forms. Thus, there is little
real difference be",-.en the street in the air and the open corridor; the symbolic functioning whicb would make an architecture "out of life itself" is in fact absent. We
lTli.y now see that metaphoric operations. rather than functioning to open the design
system beyond its limits. in fact operate as filtering mechanisms which precisely define those limits.

It is paradoxical that the metaphor which allows for the inter-

rel~tion Of.different codes is here used as a closing mechanism. Design is once again
a Sltve which allows the passage of certain meanings and not others, while the metaphor, which is used as , translating device from other codes to architecture, provides
'. mechanism by. which ideology operates through design. In the infinite field of
Slg~~ posslbiliDe~: the metaphor defines, by a complex process of selection, the
field of the possIble, thus consolidating itself in different regions by means of a
language or languages.

D<sign/Non-D<sign
There is however another possl'ble
"

an~ cul~.

f'

way 0 staung the relationship between deSIgn

Rather than seeing systems of culture from a point of view that imposes

hierarchlcol relationship in which h'

.
'
..
arc uecture or design is dominant, we may poSIt
OODon of lhe non-designed" buil
'
"
.
t envuonment_ social texts" as it were, pradII ted by .a. gl\'Hl
culture.
I

Ii

The act of placing design (that is, both architecture and urban
cXsign) ~n reU~on to the rest of the built environment-the non-designed environ~
m<Dt-unmediately changes the level at which the problem is formulated. While in
~ wo n: of Team 10 the. problem is stated as internal to a Single cultural system
(uclUttUre or urban desIgn)-the relating of architecture to the dty in such a way
tlut the fOrmer acquires the "life" of the latter, here the signifying function of design
is ronsidued to rel.,e to and, in relating, to oppose the rest of the built environment.
It is regarded as a problem mtanal to cultul<, and thus to an entire set of cultural systems.
In these terms, architecture is no longer either implicitly or ex-

plidtly =n as the dominant system, but simply on, of many cultural systems, each
of which, induding architecture, may be closed or "designed." But it is the entire
~ of different cultural systems configuring the built environment which we call
non..design.
In the world of non-design, that no-man's-land of the symbolic,

tM scene of soci~ suuggle, an internal analysis of single systems is revealed as inadeq\U~ md impossible to apply. Here there is no unique producer, no subject, nor is

there an established rhetorical system within a defined institutional framework. Insttold there is ~ complex system of intertextual relationships.
The opposition berween design and non-design is fundamenWI)' defined by three questions: first, the problem of institutionaJity; second, <he probkm of limits cmd sp<ri6dty; and third, the problem of <he subjert. While the first

esrablisbes <he relationship between design and non-design, the second establishes
their respecti'" types of articulation wi<hin culture (ideology), and <he third establishes <he processes of symbolization.
Design may be defined as a social practice that functions by a
of sod~ny sanctioned rules and norms-whether implicit or explicit-and therefore is constituted .tS an institution. Its institutional character is manifested in the
normath'e writings and written texts of architecture. which fix its meaning and.
therefOre. its reading. These texts insure the recording of <he codes of design and
guu41mee their performance as filters and preservers of unity. They assure the homogeneity and closure of the system and of <he ideological role it plays. The absence of
a llOl'tm.ti'\"e written discourse in non-design. on the other hand. precludes defining
it .tS m institution and mues possible the inscription of sense in a free and highly
undetermined way: we are here presented with an aleatory play of meaning. Thus,
while design maintains its limits and its spedficity, these defining aspects are lost in
the semiotially heterogeneous text of non-design. 1o
Noo-design is the articulation-as an explicit form-between
different cultural systems. This phenomenon may be approached in two ways: as
empirical fact-the acrual existence of such systems found, for example, in the
street. where MCrutecture. painting. music, gestures, advertising. etc. coexist-and
.tS .t set of related codes. In the first instance. at the level of "texts." each system
re.mUns closed in itself, presenting juxtaposed manifestations rather than their relationships. At the level of codes, on the o<her hand, it is possible to discern the mode
of uticul,uion becween the various systems and. in this way. to define the cultur.tl
and ideological overdetermination of <he built environment, or rather <he process by
which culture is 'woven into it.ll The predisposition of non-design to openness implies permeable limits and an always fluctuating or changing spedfidty.
Finally, if design is <he production of an historically determined
individual subject which marks the work, non-design is the product of a social subject. the same subject which produces ideology. It manifests itself in the delirious, <he
carni\'alesque, the oneiric, which are by and large excluded or repressed in deSign.
To study the reality of non..design and its symbolic production
in relation to culture. it is necessary to perform an operation of "cutting"- "cutting"
set

, h '
per.tes on "secret" marks md the
,
_ I
,
. full d ,'o( mNning, cuttmg operates on a space o(
'" hllit , "" dl ,-erlllg the",
' "PU'
'hieh codes substitut<, exchmge, repIace, and
\"~,~\S H II'mN 0 ( mNmng. to" .
. uI
' -""
.
'
til< (orm 0 ( a paruc
ar m ode
~'l t'.ach other .md in which IllstOr)1 IS seen as .
f b'
d
of $ ~"tx"itill&, d~mined bl' Ihe dOllble v.lue of use and exchmge 0 0 , )octs , an
,
.
'-_ d tood """thm that same logIC 0 f sym~s ~ 'S':,ubol:k n_~opmmdl which m.1)'
un ers
.
,
,
ed b th
ocial sub)'oct o( Ideology and
boll< prodllttitm and which is perform
y e same s

l\,J ,,,... "d<d ,hen'I&:' ror while d<Clp erlllg 0

I.}II;::

tbt unrot' i<m& H

The mom",,, one object may be substituted for mother beyond

its "11.I1\'(\iollal" u:;e-'-aille, it h" a value added to it which is the value of exchmge,
J.nd \his 'l.AhH~~ "\s nothmg but sylll bol-IC. 0 ur worId 0 fsymbolic performmces. IS _comprised of . chain of SlIch exchanges in meaning; that is how we operate Wlthm the
. I'd eoIogy m
. a "fret state"
....lm o f idrolo&), NOIl-design IN'''' uns
, while design
hides It,
The mode of analysis (or these twO phenomena of design and
I\OI\-deslsn (" INSt from the firsl moment that the difference between them is recognited) ll.mst therefore vu y.

" ...dins- Mis~n-s<quence

."s", oomplex soci.tl ~'Xl. "' semiotiC.1l1y heterogeneous object in which many different
~nir)'il\g m.uters .1nd codes intervene. non-design has .1 disposition to

be open (0 il

",1\1 C.1.U he~ a misc-(D-stqumct,

\\'e propos~ here for non-design a productive reilding , not as
th~ re-product1on of a uniqu~ or final sens~, but as a way of retracing the mecbmisms
hl' which th~t SeI\se W.1S prod.u~. H Productive reading corresponds to the expansive
~ntb.l of non-design and permits access to th~ functioning of meaning as an interse<."tion of cod6. The oblect of .malysis is not the "content," but the conditions of il
ctmtent, not the "full" sense of design but, on the contrary, the "empty" sense which
inronns aU wo rks. U Instead of reading by follOwing a previously written text , the
~adil\g stuts from a "signifier of departure," not only toward an architectural text
but towud o ther texts in culture, putting into playa force analogous to that of the
unconscious, which also has the capadty to traverse rod articulate different codes..
The metaphOriC operation partidpates asymmetrically in both
~adings, design and non-design. While in design the metaphor is not only the JX>int
o f dCp.cl.rture but also the fina.l plint of the reading, in non-design the metaphoric and
meto nymic oper.uions function simila.rly to dreams, as cha.ins which permit access to
meanings that ba\'~ been repressed, thus acting as expansive forces. This expmsive
mechanism rna)' be s~n to be a device used for the purpose of criticism in the work
of Pir.lnest. His opposition to the typological obsession of his time is an indication
of his pe.rceptio~ of t~e crisis of a~hi{ecture rod the consequent need for change
~d tr.msfonnauon. H1S Campo MOnlo is a true architectural "explosion" thilt anticip.u't:s the destiny of our 'Western cities.I. Pira.nesi's "explosive" vision comprises not
just the uchitectural system per se but rather a system of relationships, of contiguity
.wd substitution.
Non-design may also be seen as a.n explosive transformiltion of
design. This kind of explOSion implies in some way the dissolution of the limits of
uchitet'ure, of the ideological limits whi~h enclose different architectural practices.
In from of two drawmgs of Piranesi's Coreen, one of me Carcere
Oscura of 174-3 from the series of the Opere writ and the other of the Carceri Oscure
from the In\'mlioni, the Russian fi~aker Eisenstein makes a. reading which may be
C'OnSi~ered ~ an exa.mple of thlS ~pe o~ analysis, Eisenstein applies a cinernatogra.plllC re.tdtng to the first prison, hlS rea.d.ing prodUcing displacemems with respect

silU.a.lion which

\\~

---..

I
to !h., limits imposed by pictorial and architectural codes, therehy making It "explode" in a kind of cinematographiC sequence. " This Is the st.rtlng point of a reading

chat tm-els across literary, political, musical, and historical codes, multiplying In this
way perceptions which are potential in the Piranesian work. A proof of this potential
lies in EisenStein's reading of Piranes;'s second engraving, done eighteen ye.rs l.ter,
in which Eisenstein finds that !he second is actually an explosion of the first prison,
don., by Piranesi himself" It should he noted that Eisenstein Is here dealing with a
dosed culrunl system, such as architecrure or painting. What Eisenstein t.kes, how.,ver, is nOl just any closed work from these fields but rather the work of someone like
?iran"';, who poses the problem of the explosion in form (or form as explosion) In
his Guarl , or in his Campo Martia, which is a delirium of typological chaining. Al!hough this Pir>nesian strategy touches problems speCific to architecture, It also
comes '-err close to the problem of the explosion of sense in architecture, to the
problem of meaning u signifying chaining. In creating this extreme situation, PI

ran.,.i is implidtly assessing !he problem of the limits of architecture as a "I.nguage,"

that is, u a closed system.

Fragmmu of Reading
00< ...ru"9, half asIp 00 a banquett, in a bar, just for fun I tried to mum,rot' all th, languages within
ambot: music. COO\'ttSOliom. the sounds of cMirs. glasses. a whole stereophony of which a squore in Tangiers
(., described by Semu Sanluy) is th, tx<mplary sit'. That too spok' within m" and this ",-called "inlerior
spett:h lWS w:ry like tht noise of tM square, like thot amassing of minor voices coming to me from the outside:

I my1df "'" a ""biic squall, a sook; through me paM words, tiny syntagms, bi~ of formula" and no
sentence formed, as though tOOt Wtlt tM law of such a langua~. This spctch, at once very cultural and
wry SImJ9C. 'MlSaboo.yaU laicaJ, sporadic; it set: up in me, through its apparel! Bow, a definitive discontinuity:
this non-sentence "'" in na II")' ",mething that could nat have ."eded ta th, ""t.. ce, that might have
bD before tht smtmcc; it was: what is et(mally, splendidly, outside the sentence. 19
The urban environment as the object of reading is not "seen"
as a closed, simple unity but as a set offragmmt!. or "units of readings." Each of these:
units may be replaced by others; each part may be taken for the whole. The dimension of !he built environment, empirically determined, depends upon the denSity of
meanings. the "semantic volwne."
Since these fragments appear as an articulation of different texts
belonging to various cultural systems-e.g., film, art, literature-it is possible to
read them by starting from any of these systems, and not necessarily from design.
Certain types of configurations, like public places (streets, plazas, cafes, airports), are ideal "fragments of readings," not only for their "semantic
volwne," but also for the compleXity they reveal as to the signifying mechanisms in
Don-design. They may be characterized as signifying "nodes," where multiple codes
and pbysical matter are articulated, wbere design and non-deSign overlap, and where
history and !he present are juxtaposed. 10
The reading that can he produced by these places is not a linear
discourse but an infinite and spatialized text in which those levels of reading, orga~
nized ~ong various codes, such as theater, film, fashion, polities, gesture, are combined and articulated. The reading example we choose to present below is In Itself
metaphorical. It is the metaphor of architecture as theater. It is not a specific detailed
m.i1..lysis, but rather it exemplifies the mechanisms of chains and shifters.
Chains:

A metaphor begins to function by articulating the referential codes in relation to other

codes by means of repbdng the referential codes in the signifier of departure With another code.. In this way, a chain linking the codes is developed. Once the intersemiotic

ween an:hileclure and Iheater, is produced and a poss.ihl~

metaph or, sueh as tl 1 bel
. .'
I rod
d
,
f
d'
g
I
'
S
established
the
chain
of
sIgmhers
.Io
ng
t.e
es
an
subrod~
I"'''' 0 rea In
,
"
I '
._ ' ....
.
.
. ~ hy "natural .1ssociatlon -( loll 1S m e tOll 'lllh... ..J."iof t.h.at cultural s}'stem IS Orga.lUZcu
. .
..
Signifiers appear and disappear, shdUlg through olher texts m a
ploy th.. moves along Ihe codes of, for inSl.nce, the theater (I.e.. S<:IU C, gestural.
decorative, acting, Ie.xtual, verbal, elc.) in an inlertextu.l nelwork. Th,S pl.), conUn
" fi er becomes ..'I.olher
dc''''rture
signifier,
ues unu'1 some slgm
'
,.... openmg th~ . network
lo\vard new chains through what \-\Ie have ca.lIed the misr m-stqumct., dll~S t~rtm& o~er
readings from olher cultural systems like film, f.shio n, etC. These S1gmfiers whIch
open 10 other systems may be called ,hif"", "
6

Shifters:
Such. reading presents a symbolic struclure of a "decondensed" kind. By deconden5,ltion we refer to an operation which is the reverse of tholt in the el.l.bon. tion of
dreams. Condensation and displacement are the twO basic oper.ltlons in the work o f

elaboration of dreams. By them, the passage is produced from Ihe latent level to the
manif..1 level of the dream. These 1\\'0 operations of condensation .nd displ.cem ent
are t\vo ways of displacing meanings, or of overdetermining. o r giving more: uu.n
one meaning to. some elements; they are produced precisely by means of the two
operations already discussed, namely metaphor and metonymy. The metaphor corresponds to condensation. and metonymy to displacement. Jl In this way. it is possibl~
10

see the relationship between ideology (cullural codes) and subjecl (of ideology

md of the unconscious) in the logic of symbolic production in the environment ~s

determined by a particular mode of production.
Some signifier fragments function as "condensers" from which

decondensation is possible through a net\\'Ork of meanings. These will be called

"shifters." A set of readings could be regarded as a musical staff in which variOUS
signifiers are situated in a polyphonic organization with each voice at a diflerem level
of reading. Certain of these signifiers organize several different readings and allow
for the intercrossmg of codes and for the shifting from one to the next. These are the
shifters; they are part of a process of exchange of codes. They are the conditions of
the probability of producing different readings; they are structures of transitio n. the
organizers of symbolic space. These connective. condensing structures ,ne the key fO
the understanding of the complexity of the bUilt environment as an infinite text.
Tbey are not concerned with signification but with the linking o f signifiers. They .. re
the key to an intertext where meanings are displaced. thereby forming a netwOrk in
which the subject of the reading. the laws o f the unconscious, and the hiSlQrico
cul1ura1 delerminants are articulated. The importance of this notion of shifter is Ill ..
it accounts for the process of configuration and for the dynamic aspect of a. canfigu
ration, rather than for objects and functio ns. It accounts fo r the symbolic aspect o f

exchange: It provi~es an insighl into the problem of Ihe mode of operation of ideolo gy Within the built world. It allows us to enter into a mechanism of productiOn o f
sense that corresponds to an ideology of exchange.
. . .
If the system o f architecture and of design. even when ~ pia)'
Wlth It, I.S ~~ays cIo.sed Within a game of commentaries of language-a metalingl1al
game-It IS mtere~nng to speculate on the Outcome of a similar" game of non.-4esign.
a ~ame of the b~il~ world. For non. design is a non-language. and by comparison
Wl~h a language. It IS ~adness since it is Outside language, and thus outside society.
ThiS non-language. thiS nonsense constitutes an explosion of the established lan gu.age in rel~tion to a s~se already established (by conventions and repressive rl1le-s) .
It

It 15 s~bohc of Ihe buUt world Outside the rules of design and Iheir internal "ling.UlS~C games. It permits us finally to understand another logiC which informs the
SIgnificance of building.

.<G ocsr I 1974 I

211

The Productive Re.oding

The oUldoor,part of Ihe cof'-Ima,, eslablishes the relalionship coft/'''eft and is.",.wol m ImDS at rJx
oppoSlilOn SIdewalk,as passall' orcirculolion/'id"",lk I1S (afe; another danml i. rJx ~dtMGJk-drcaJaboa is
inlroduced;
prople
wilh Ihe --, OIIe .)UUK
<--",,", In
' UIC
_L . ,_,,,oct
. .
. link Ihe fi"l Op""'ilion
r
XUJfJa
pt.OpIt"WA.
SlQClltw& steed; somt
prople Sli '" Ihe Sldewolk / cafe, Prople are dimibulof in 0 field of ohjrru 11,," IIlG)' be dislinguishof os.."..,
for usc and obi"" for background, Buildings ore obj"''' and flJlOdes; rJx badground is. cmli....H ~
Ihe farade of Ih"~fe Slands oul as a medialing dtmtlll which bccouscaf iu tronsparmcy cralles. rda,irmb ip
between the tXltn~r caft or caftl'strect and the inltrior CQft. The interior cal( rcpcns the samt oppositims
bellV'," propl'/obi"" and background/ mirralS, which Ih",,,eh.. DOW bcwrnt maliatalS """"" ataior
ond inlerior in a ref/e"ion in which obj'''', sidewalk, propl', S"eft, and mlrnar ""'" 41e '"ptrim".,ro, , , '
Th, "''', which are dislribuled in raws and ill which pa>plt arrdUSltRd, nsanlIKs
a pi t Thi, ,ubSlilulion produces a pain! of departure, from co(,/mm 10 calc/pit
V1

Caft stOLS

Pit sei ts
X

Pit sealS

TbeGttr

Background plant caft

Ba.ckground plane scene

X

Background plane scene

Thallu

New rrodings may b, produced:

The Gaze:

"til,

Th, gall from Ih, caf, as pillrans(orms 11" "'ttl inlO a

and sw"'l" Ihrough rJx codes both of rJx colt
and Ih' Ihroler, Codes o'Y'nilllh, go"': Ih, prople from whom and 10 whom Ihty are dirmof-Obs<n-cr /
Obstrved; the pJacts from where and [0 whtrt Ih'Y art directed-Public/Privolt; the dtsirt whicb gmcnncs
them-Voyeurism/ Exhibitionism. In their interrelation, places configure the lJGll: frootal-obIiqut-siM
view. Scene and pil arc confused in a general scme where gmt and desire are slruclurcd and aniculaled logrtha.
Th, pl",sure in Ih, realiUllion of desire is 9"',raled nOi only allh, visual I"" bul also al rJx In-d of langoogt
in aclion: Ihal is, discourst.
Discourse within the "'lht4IU- is fragmented. disptrstd among ''(Inous actors and
SpcclOlOrs, OrlicuJoting ilStlf without either dominating or subordinating, with the body in actioo, with the
gc:slUre.

Gesture:

GesliculOling bodies (orm a chain wilh c101hes as a ",ond skin, rtgulalof by Ih, galures of fashion which
playa role in me marking and disguising of soc differences. Cafe, the domain of men, is incOrporolcd in the
cilyas Ih",ler, arliculaled wilh fashion, Ih' domain of worn"" as coslum" Th, 1IV0 100000her 1I1Insform Ihe
visual codes, which link cafelmasculinily and fashion / ftmininily, Iher,by confoundinglhtm,
Th, geslure is nOi only IhOi of a SlOIic pasc, bUllh, muhiplial galUre of Ih, body in mm"",,,,,, mgaga! in
entries and exits from the scme.
Discourse and gtslUre configure Ihe scme; meanwhile, lime and volume periorale the plane of decorolion and
configure Ih' spoce,
The scene in the streets:
The scme in the slrccts is in turn the explosion of the cafel rht4ter.

The streel as a scene of scenes:

, ,
.
,
' lurn Prol'" " inlO Ih, caf', optnmg II up 10 new pallld'gms aod Ihm codes,
The slrut as a scme 0f .scenes In

The system of cafes:

f!
hi h l(I<alu of It,! hillory, of lIS origins, of lIS
Ealh 101, is not 0 lof, in IlStif but Is pcIrt of 0 Iyst,m 0 <0 d, II' C
uunsformotions. thus "t.Mishing Ih. pcIrodigm of Ih, c.f,.

f blJ places'.
The system of the fragments 0 pu c
I I rn wch of Ih." 1.1 nol only physlc.lly
d'
f
IS pl"O! monumenlS. n u
h
Th, <of, I><longlio t poro Igm a SI'" . '
I I 10 complex ,nlllld:c.f,.squor" cof
jll!lto"""" but .1", t"w.lly juxl.pcIsed. This IroJ1lfornlllh~. P
n I " W, art aII'tln In Ih, 111"1. bUI
mork", "f.-Sl"'1. The Slrett is lronsformed in 1o a new poml a epar u .
now the strttt is Q scene.

or':

Street.
f
I of consumpllon, Ih, scm. 0f scm,,; II IS
A scene in movement. The street Is the scene 0 struB9 c,
infinitely lontinuous. unlimil.d in Ih. motion of object!, of 8""', of gtllUrd.
It is th, scene of history.

It is 0 SCent but it il .~o what is behind the scene. whal Is nol setn. or nol .lIowed 10 I>< seen. When
whot is I><h:nd the scen. is shown, II products. d,myslifylng dfeel, lik. Ih.1 of exposing Ih. r""ons for Ih,
split I><twetn individual and SOIi.l. I><lw,en prlWlI' and public.
The fa~.des from. Ih. sUI. Th.y funClion as scen.ry or decorolion .nd conlrollh. demysllfying tlreel.
Th, decarotian moy or moy nat eorrtspond 10 Ih. contenl of "pr"",t.li.n. This .ccmluald lIS mask-lik,
cMroctcr.
~ple

as decoration:

Fashion trunslorms peopl. InlO objects. linking sU",t and Iheal/! through on, aspecl of Ihelr common rllual
DQlurr.

Rituals:
Propl' mm at com." peopl' promenad,. defining a rllu.1 sl"'''. portieipcliing In ",emonits.nd ....
NOles
1. Accordingly, uchltecture itself must be approached as il plrllcular form of cultural pro
duction-as a specific kind of overdetermined practice.
2 . Jury Lotmm, "ProblemH de Ii. typologie des cuhures," In Essays In 50711011a, ed. Julia KIls
3.

4.
S.
6.

7.

8.

t~ol, }osene ReyDebove, and DonnolJeoln Umllcer (The Holgue: Mouton, 1971) .
See Jean Marle Perouse de Momdos. Etlcnnel.oub Boullu (Nl."W York: George Bru1ller,
1974); Emil Kolufmollln, Nchiltcture In the Age of Re4Jon (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Unlver
sityPr<ss.19SS) .
See Christian Metz, LanSOgc tl c1nnno (Paris: Klinclcsielc, 1971); Emilio Gaffonl, Progtllo dl
smliolico (Bari: Laterza, 1973) .
Ibid.
Christian Metz, "SpecUldtt des codes et/ou spectficite des Iwgages," StmlotlCQ I, no. ...
( 1969).
The role of specificity In mdmalnlng the limits of archlteC(ure becomes evident , (or ex unple, In the development of the steel Industry In the nineteenth century, which determined the development of Its own Independent techniques according 10 a reason and
coherence of its own (exemplified In works of such architects u Elffel and Paxton). while
the world of architectural forces developed according to a logiC neatly dissociated from
technology. Such technical-formal developments are absorbed through symbolic rnecha.
nisms that Incorporate the structural system as one of the exprelis!ve elements of the
uchiteclonic vocabulary. This prevents the fusion of archltecture With engineering and
its disappearance as an autonomous practice.
Heinrich Wolfflln. RmalssanceandBaroqut (Ithac.1: Cornell University PreiS, 1966) .

.0,(51 I '914 I Zl)

9.

10.

11 .
12.
13.
14.

Rene Thylor, "Architecture and Miglc: Considerations on the Idea afthe Estorlat." in Essays
In lhe History of ArchlieclUrr Presmled 10 Rudolf Wiukower, ed. Douglu Fraser. Howard Hibb.ud.
and Mlhon j . lewin. (New York : Ph.ldon. 1967) .
The notions o f closing .and opening would .lllow rethinking of certa.in aspects of design
at the level of mean1ng in a manner more system,uie and specific than the traditional
historical analysts that looks for the explanation of the meaning of formal uchitecrural
structures In the SOCiocultural Context In general rod considers it as a problem of conlem.
Pierre Fontanler. Us figures du discours (1821; Paris: Fl.immarion, 1968) .
Roman Jakobson. Studies on Child Language and Aphasia (The Hague: Mouton. 1971).
This Is developed by Mario GiUldelsonas, "On Reading Architecture," progressiveArchittc!Uu,
May 1972; Idem. "Linguistics and Ar~ltecrure." C""I<II, 373 (February 1973).
I refer In this anicJe to the Le Corbuslet of Towards Q New Archittcture and The City of Tomorrow,

although it Is possible to say that there are several Le Corbusiers.

15 . Le Corbusier, Tht City of Tomorrow (London: John Rodker, 1929).
16. Ibid .
17 . Manfredo Tafurl, GJOWlJUli Battista Piranesl: L'architttturo come Utopia ntgalivo- (Thrin: Academia
deU. Sclenze. 1972) .
] 8. This articulation has, of course, always been present in uchitectural treatises from

the Renaissance to Le Corbusler. But it Is important here, however, to posit it in this

functionalist context where the conception of culture is universilist, reductivist, and
Imperlallsttc.
19 . Alison Smf(hson, ed., Team 10 Prima (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1968) .
20 . See Diana Agrest and Marlo Gandelsonas, "Critical Remarks in Semiotics and Architecture," ScmialicQ 9, no. 3 (1973) .
21 . Diana Agrest, "Towards a Theory of Production of Sense in the Bullt Environment"
(1968-1973). in On S",,". ed. Stanford Anderson (Cambridge. Mass. : MIT Press. 1972).

Here I proposed considering the street as a signifying system.

22. Roland Barthes. $odt/Fouritr/Loyola (Paris: Editions du Seull, 1972). See the follOwing
works on architectural typology: Carroni, Progmo di scmiolico; Giulio Argan, "Sul concetto
della tlpologia architetlonlca," in Progetotdcstino (Milan: Alberto Mondadori. 1965); Aldo
Rossi, L'archittnuro ddla cina (Padua: Marsilio Editori, 1966); Alm Colquhoun. "Typology
and Design Method," In Meaning in Nchittctuu, ed. Charles Jencks and George Baird (New
York : George Braziller. 1970). pp. 267-277.

23 . See J. J. Goux, Economittt symbolique (Puis: Editions du Seuil, 1973) .

24. Roland Bmhes. SIZ (Paris: Editions du Seull. 1970).
2S . An Important difference between the reading of design md non-deSign is the existence
or non-existence of a written text. In the case of design one may reconstruct a discourse
In such a way as to illuminate its meaning by a previous reading. When we read Le Corbusier, we reconstruct a reading made by him. In the case of non-deSign, however, we must
put ourselves in the position of direct reading.
26. Tafurl, GiO'.'a1Uli Battista Pironesi.
27. S. M. Eisenstein, "Piranesi e la fiuldlta. delle forme," Rasstgna Sovittlca 1-2 (1972).
28. Manfredo Ta.furi, "Plranesi, Eisenstein e 1. dialettica," Rasxgna Sovieico 1-2 (197 2) .
29. Ro land Barthes. Th, PI,,,ur,,[[h, rex' (New York: Hill and Wang. 1975). p. 49.

30. These nodes, thought of as referents to non.design, permit a more precise formulation
of its meaning a.nd distinguish it from the term "place" with which we designate the
signifying structure.
31. Roman Jakobson, "Les categories verbaJes et Ie verbe Russe," in Essois dt IinguiSliqut gtnhllit
(Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1963); Roland Barthes, Syslane dt 10 modt (Paris: Editions du
Seull, 1967). The shifter should not be mistaken as being in itself possessed of "double
meaning," a notion which has become almost dassic.tl in architecture. It does not refer
to language. Double meaning on the contrary, refers to the issue of content, to the problem of ambiguity in relation to language and to m~taphor. While the shifter aCCOWllS for
the chaining of fragments, double meaning refers to a totality with different memings.
There Is no chaining and no process involved in this notion .
32 . Sigmund Freud, Inltrprttation of DrtCIms (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1961); idem. Psycbopa,hology of Evtryd,y Lif, (New York: Norton. 1966) .