architecture ARCHITECTURE (1970)
architecture ARCHITECTURE
The term “architecture” refers to a set of more or less systematized representations and beliefs about the built world and the practices related to it historically, defined within western culture as “classical architecture” or “modern architecture”. We will refer to it as “architecture. The term ARCHITECTURE, refers to the production of knowledge about that built world and those related practices. ARCHITECTURE as production of knowledge is developed as critical work on architecture.
This text, as part of a more general theoretical work on architecture is placed in an eccentric position within the field delimited by “architecture”, and at a certain distance form the rules that constitute its core. From this position we intend to confront a number of questions, to break the monolithic appearance of architecture, to disarticulate the illusion of unity sustained through the rhetorical structures of the architectural discourse. The present historical moment demands a radical change in the practice of architecture. Instead of adding architectural products to the already existing ones, we should produce knowledge about architecture and its effects.
The written text is part of the critical deconstructive work on architecture. Its function is to indicate the place of this production in relation to “architecture and the impossibility and uselessness of its recuperation by “architecture”, to unearth the repressive mechanisms within architecture that obscure the conditions that determine the architectural discourse and its practice, to disclose through their subversion the mechanisms that preserve its limits, and to produce knowledge on architecture as a historically defined class ideology.
THE SYSTEMS OF RULES INDICATION
If by architecture we mean the (conscious or unconscious) system of rules used by architects to produce form, as well as to recognize buildings as architectonic—and distinguish them from those that are not—our work is an attempt to indicate the prescriptive and conventional nature of that system of rules: to make explicit, to produce knowledge of it not to work blindfolded within it, and to undermine it.
Some of the implicit rules of the current system of architecture are:
Work within ARCHITECTURE does not define itself by constructive truth, utility or expression, rather it is a work of indication and production of knowledge. At the present time we should raise the question of the object (and the subject) of architecture itself as a signifying practice, as production of meaning. Is it possible to think with objects? No, if they are considered as product and result of architecture; yes if they are considered as one of the texts embodying a particular theoretical work.
THEORY/PRACTICE PRACTICES
ARCHITECTURE is a resolution of the contradiction between design and building, between theory and practice.
“Theory” is defined in architecture as everything related to this activity except building, that is projects and written texts. “Practice” refers to the building of the object—as a final goal, as the only practice.
We believe that in ARCHITECTURE both aspects are to be considered as practice. Practice will be defines in this text as a process of transformation on a given primary matter whose result is something new, something different from the given elements of the initial primary matter. This work of transformation subverts the ideological reproduction or repetition of the primary matter. The theoretical work as part of ARCHITECTURE is to be considered as practice even without effective design or building. Instead, the design or building are not to be considered as practice if there is not production of knowledge through them.
The distinction between theory and practice as it has been understood up to now—projects and texts on one hand, built objects on the other—is no longer pertinent. Instead another distinction should be established. The ideological practice of architecture as it relates to an overall ideology should be distinguished from the practice of ARCHITECTURE, which constructs an analytical zone where the rhetorical and ideological systems of architecture are criticized and radically transformed.
At this juncture, the production of knowledge on architecture is crucial—a work that implies an eccentric position, a certain distance, a displacement of architecture and its inscription in history and the social.
CONSUMPTION READING
ARCHITECTURE shot not be consumed only by the sight or the feeling of space. The deciphering of ARCHITECTURE is only possible through understanding, through the work of reading at various levels. Instead of a single unitary reading we propose multiple readings. The multiple readings subvert the double reading imposed by the system: that of the architect and the layman. In both cases these readings propose a work on meaning. Objects in isolation present know meaning, but in context they present other meanings as well sometimes even contradictory among themselves. But to work with the meaning of objects is no to say that we attempt to create new symbols or new rhetoric systems—we are interested in the object’s potential for indication, for the dissemination of sense, and not to “communicate” systems of meanings responding to a historically defined logic (ideology). This work does not attempt to refer to an established code; it rather points at the deconstruction of the “oppositions” created by the system.
OBJECT-PRODUCT PRODUCTION
The object of architecture if the formal-physical construct designed by the architect to fit a function (technical, of use or aesthetic). In this system the work of design is only a means for the architect to produce a building, a production that is eclipsed by the object-product.
From this operation we are left with two remainders: the drawing and the building. They represent precisely the two places where the work on signification takes place. The work is hidden in architecture by the set of notions indicated before—truth, fitness, expression, theory/practice, form/function—and by the complicity between rhetoric and ideology, by the circulation and repetition of form that hide the reproduction of the same ideology.
The specific dynamic of the production of ARCHITECTURE can be defined by the articulation of three texts: the written text (writing), the graphic text (drawing), and the physical text (place). None of these texts represent the other two. There are points of similarity, but they allow the accentuation of the differences and heterogeneity that separates them.
FORM/FUNCTION SIGNIFICATION
Instead of looking at objects exclusively as a physical form adjusted to a certain function they will be considered as a symbolic production, as produced by a practice that through them of their design-construction manipulates meaning. They cannot be thought as outside their condition of carriers of meanings as the effect of a complex writerly practice or of a reading that organizes, disperses and reorganizes that meaning. As a static effect, as a presence, the object hides the signifying practices related to it, replacing them by a pseudo-correlation with function. Both terms of this relationship appear as naturally linked. They are reciprocally defined in a tautological circularity. It is from this tautology that we propose to get away in order to understand that both forms (objects, buildings) and functions should be considered as one of the possible choices our of an infinite range of possibilities. The form-function relationship in architecture allows us to articulate objects within the system of social action, as mediators between man and action, between man and the world, but at the same time it forbids the understanding of another deeper systematic organization of objects that goes beyond mere formalism or economism. As the introduction of the problem of meaning into the consideration of objects and the environment takes the place presently occupied by the form/function relationship as the subject matter of architecture it necessitates the reorganization of that activity: architecture is thus transformed from a mask that hides its real functioning into a practice of ARCHITECTURE as demystification, as production of a specific knowledge. The task of ARCHITECTURE consists in clarifying the place of architectural ideology within general ideology, within history, and thus its linkages with a mode of production, a social class, and a given social formation.
architecture ARCHITECTURE
The term “architecture” refers to a set of more or less systematized representations and beliefs about the built world and the practices related to it historically, defined within western culture as “classical architecture” or “modern architecture”. We will refer to it as “architecture. The term ARCHITECTURE, refers to the production of knowledge about that built world and those related practices. ARCHITECTURE as production of knowledge is developed as critical work on architecture.
This text, as part of a more general theoretical work on architecture is placed in an eccentric position within the field delimited by “architecture”, and at a certain distance form the rules that constitute its core. From this position we intend to confront a number of questions, to break the monolithic appearance of architecture, to disarticulate the illusion of unity sustained through the rhetorical structures of the architectural discourse. The present historical moment demands a radical change in the practice of architecture. Instead of adding architectural products to the already existing ones, we should produce knowledge about architecture and its effects.
The written text is part of the critical deconstructive work on architecture. Its function is to indicate the place of this production in relation to “architecture and the impossibility and uselessness of its recuperation by “architecture”, to unearth the repressive mechanisms within architecture that obscure the conditions that determine the architectural discourse and its practice, to disclose through their subversion the mechanisms that preserve its limits, and to produce knowledge on architecture as a historically defined class ideology.
THE SYSTEMS OF RULES INDICATION
If by architecture we mean the (conscious or unconscious) system of rules used by architects to produce form, as well as to recognize buildings as architectonic—and distinguish them from those that are not—our work is an attempt to indicate the prescriptive and conventional nature of that system of rules: to make explicit, to produce knowledge of it not to work blindfolded within it, and to undermine it.
Some of the implicit rules of the current system of architecture are:
- 1. The constructive “truth” that requires the exhibition of structure, of the “soul” of the building and devalues both “surface” and “ornament”, both disavowed but necessary to define “virtue”. The function of the constructive truth is to hide the formal work of the architect, to hide the conventional nature—which is culturally determined—by subordinating it to the building systems and technology. Its effect is the naturalization of form as the simple result of technology.
- 2. The correct “fit” to functional requirements implies seeing the building as something to be “used” (its function) at the point when we read its signification. This reading of the building as linked to a function is one of the typical ideological mechanisms in our culture. “we believe in a practical world of uses, of functions, but we live in a world of sense, of reasons.” (Roland Barthes) The function of fitness to use is to hide the symbolic aspects, the work on meaning, which is thus associated with art, with the “irrational”. Its effect is the naturalization of form as simple result of utility or use.
- 3. The “expression” is rendered by means of a repetition through transformations and variations of a formal system by means of rules that are neve made explicit. The function of expression is to hide the conscious-unconscious work on form and meaning, which is seen as a product of intuition or inspiration. Its effect is the naturalization of form as a simple result of the artist’s expression.
Work within ARCHITECTURE does not define itself by constructive truth, utility or expression, rather it is a work of indication and production of knowledge. At the present time we should raise the question of the object (and the subject) of architecture itself as a signifying practice, as production of meaning. Is it possible to think with objects? No, if they are considered as product and result of architecture; yes if they are considered as one of the texts embodying a particular theoretical work.
THEORY/PRACTICE PRACTICES
ARCHITECTURE is a resolution of the contradiction between design and building, between theory and practice.
“Theory” is defined in architecture as everything related to this activity except building, that is projects and written texts. “Practice” refers to the building of the object—as a final goal, as the only practice.
We believe that in ARCHITECTURE both aspects are to be considered as practice. Practice will be defines in this text as a process of transformation on a given primary matter whose result is something new, something different from the given elements of the initial primary matter. This work of transformation subverts the ideological reproduction or repetition of the primary matter. The theoretical work as part of ARCHITECTURE is to be considered as practice even without effective design or building. Instead, the design or building are not to be considered as practice if there is not production of knowledge through them.
The distinction between theory and practice as it has been understood up to now—projects and texts on one hand, built objects on the other—is no longer pertinent. Instead another distinction should be established. The ideological practice of architecture as it relates to an overall ideology should be distinguished from the practice of ARCHITECTURE, which constructs an analytical zone where the rhetorical and ideological systems of architecture are criticized and radically transformed.
At this juncture, the production of knowledge on architecture is crucial—a work that implies an eccentric position, a certain distance, a displacement of architecture and its inscription in history and the social.
CONSUMPTION READING
ARCHITECTURE shot not be consumed only by the sight or the feeling of space. The deciphering of ARCHITECTURE is only possible through understanding, through the work of reading at various levels. Instead of a single unitary reading we propose multiple readings. The multiple readings subvert the double reading imposed by the system: that of the architect and the layman. In both cases these readings propose a work on meaning. Objects in isolation present know meaning, but in context they present other meanings as well sometimes even contradictory among themselves. But to work with the meaning of objects is no to say that we attempt to create new symbols or new rhetoric systems—we are interested in the object’s potential for indication, for the dissemination of sense, and not to “communicate” systems of meanings responding to a historically defined logic (ideology). This work does not attempt to refer to an established code; it rather points at the deconstruction of the “oppositions” created by the system.
OBJECT-PRODUCT PRODUCTION
The object of architecture if the formal-physical construct designed by the architect to fit a function (technical, of use or aesthetic). In this system the work of design is only a means for the architect to produce a building, a production that is eclipsed by the object-product.
From this operation we are left with two remainders: the drawing and the building. They represent precisely the two places where the work on signification takes place. The work is hidden in architecture by the set of notions indicated before—truth, fitness, expression, theory/practice, form/function—and by the complicity between rhetoric and ideology, by the circulation and repetition of form that hide the reproduction of the same ideology.
The specific dynamic of the production of ARCHITECTURE can be defined by the articulation of three texts: the written text (writing), the graphic text (drawing), and the physical text (place). None of these texts represent the other two. There are points of similarity, but they allow the accentuation of the differences and heterogeneity that separates them.
FORM/FUNCTION SIGNIFICATION
Instead of looking at objects exclusively as a physical form adjusted to a certain function they will be considered as a symbolic production, as produced by a practice that through them of their design-construction manipulates meaning. They cannot be thought as outside their condition of carriers of meanings as the effect of a complex writerly practice or of a reading that organizes, disperses and reorganizes that meaning. As a static effect, as a presence, the object hides the signifying practices related to it, replacing them by a pseudo-correlation with function. Both terms of this relationship appear as naturally linked. They are reciprocally defined in a tautological circularity. It is from this tautology that we propose to get away in order to understand that both forms (objects, buildings) and functions should be considered as one of the possible choices our of an infinite range of possibilities. The form-function relationship in architecture allows us to articulate objects within the system of social action, as mediators between man and action, between man and the world, but at the same time it forbids the understanding of another deeper systematic organization of objects that goes beyond mere formalism or economism. As the introduction of the problem of meaning into the consideration of objects and the environment takes the place presently occupied by the form/function relationship as the subject matter of architecture it necessitates the reorganization of that activity: architecture is thus transformed from a mask that hides its real functioning into a practice of ARCHITECTURE as demystification, as production of a specific knowledge. The task of ARCHITECTURE consists in clarifying the place of architectural ideology within general ideology, within history, and thus its linkages with a mode of production, a social class, and a given social formation.