Upload
xiangyu-li
View
233
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Theory thesis in TU Delft
Citation preview
The Deconstruction of Autonomy
Theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of
autonomous architecture
Author: Xiangyu Li
Student ID: 4305035
Contact: [email protected]
Supervisor: Gregory Bracken
Date: 28-05-2014
Personal Motivation:
The motivation of this study is due largely to the introspection of the architectural
practice since the 1990s. Started architecture in 2008, the author witnessed the influence
of a new generation of architects and their “brainwashing” speeches, promoting
publications, and schematic images. Diagrams, fancy renderings, and political manifestos
occupied both professional and mass media, peddling an architectural language which
was easy to understand and operate, like a toy in hand. Architecture became less
“autonomous” as a self-sufficient discourse.
Thus, the author became curious about how architecture transformed from a result
of its own logic, to a straightforward operation driven by external aspects. How should
we define architecture? What is the core knowledge that architecture is based on? Is
architecture a social practice or a discipline, or cult? These questions are all related to the
issue of autonomy.
In this study, the discussion of autonomy is framed since the 1960s, when
architecture became more disciplined and institutionalized. It is a remote and fascinating
period from the view point of today. It is interesting to see how the claim for autonomy
actualized in architectural language, in the works of Rossi and Eisenman. Consciously or
unconsciously, the “non-autonomous” architecture of a new generation is influence by
the principles of autonomous architecture. For instance, the notion of type/prototype, the
process of geometric operation, and the attitude to treat architecture as a distant object,
are all heritage of the autonomous architecture, and developed in the following
generations. This is one of the key points of the argument.
With all the motivation and curiosity, the author started his study, outlining a
grand narrative of the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy of
architecture.
Content
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2 Typology: an autonomous formal structure .....................................................................................4 Formal Language: autonomy in geometric operation ......................................................................6 The deconstruction of autonomy .....................................................................................................8 Non-autonomous Architecture: a new language emerging ............................................................10 Causes: Alterations in the profession ..........................................................................................................12 Socio-economic evolutions ............................................................................................................15 Conclusion: The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy ..............................................18 Notes ..............................................................................................................................................20 Image credits ..................................................................................................................................22 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................23
The Deconstruction of Autonomy
Theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of
autonomous architecture
Author: Xiangyu Li
Keywords:
Autonomy, diagram, type, geometry
Abstract:
Whether architecture is an autonomous science has always been a debatable question.
The research object of autonomous architecture is its form, the disciplines of its formal
language. The concept of type, style, and geometry, for instance, stresses the issue of
form from different perspectives. However, it is a remarkable fact that the autonomy of
architecture is deconstructed in the works of a new generation of architects. The formal
manipulation is more dependent on external reference, on programmatic or iconographic
issues, while the meaning and discipline of form is flattened. A “prototype” under
operation of “geometry”, concerning program and context rigidly as “reasons”, has
become a kind of formal language today. The reason for the destruction of autonomy in
architecture lies within and without the discourse. By researching the shifting in the
notion of autonomy, the immediate environment of architectural practice, and the socio-
economic background, the author tried to discuss the cause of the deconstruction of
autonomy, and the possibility of rebuilding the autonomy of architecture today.
1
Introduction
The seeking for autonomy in architecture can be traced back to the 1960s. Like many
other social sciences, architecture claimed to be an autonomous science with its own
disciplines. Experiments and thought experiments were made by many architects,
constructing autonomous formal principles. The works of Aldo Rossi and Peter Eisenman
were among those, representing different approaches of autonomy.
Both started their exploration of autonomy in the 1960s, Rossi and Eisenman
faced a similar issue—the problem of Modernism, which was broadly discussed during
the time. However, they took completely different positions in the critique of Modernism
and the establishment of an autonomous architecture. For Rossi, the failure of modernism
dealt to “naïve functionalism”, when “type is reduced to a simple scheme of organization,
a diagram of circulation route, and architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous
value”. 1 For Eisenman, the attitude towards the Modernism was to bring it to its fullness. 2 With the notion that objects are independent from man in Modernism 3, he developed
the formal principle of the Modern Architecture. While Rossi based his theory on the
concept of type from the city and its history, Eisenman constructed a self-sufficient
language without referring to any notion of history.
Since the 1990s, autonomy seemed to disappear from the works of the new
generation architects. Architects like MVRDV, BIG, and Bow-Wow developed a design
process based on straight-forward diagrammatic operation. Huge gestures in formal
manipulation create a toy-like architecture, in which autonomy disappeared. However,
the clarity of prototype, and the process of formal operation, which is the character of the
Musée National des Beaux Arts du Québec proposal / BIG + Fugère Architectes [1]
2
new architectural language, is obviously related to the methods in autonomous
architecture since the 1960s.With a rigid notion of type-function relation, and a method
of geometric operation of architecture as a distant object, the new method rapidly
occupies both the academy and practice, and represents the image of architecture towards
the public.
The reason for the destruction of autonomy is various. On one hand, the notion of
some basic concepts, for instance, form, type, context, and function have shifted in the
discourse of architecture. On the other hand, the transformations in design practice, in the
work flow, specialization, and power distribution in a project, altered the role and
profession of architects. The autonomous formal language was simplified, flattened, and
marginalized, generating an anxiety in the profession of architecture.
It is important to review the transformation of autonomous architecture, since it
represents the essence of architecture as a discourse. The study will contribute to the
notion of the architectural phenomenon today, offering a critical observation of the
position and design method in the architectural practice. Moreover, the study will also
allow us to rethink the role of architecture as a profession, its core knowledge and method,
and the possibility for a new autonomy in the discourse.
In this essay, the author will first study the construction of autonomy, different
approaches in Rossi’s and Eisenman’s schools. It is interesting to find out how the
principles of autonomous architecture later influenced the emerging non-autonomous
architecture. Consciously or unconsciously, the discourse of autonomous architecture
contains deconstructing aspects, which is reflected in the later practice of Rossi or
Eisenman, and the works of their followers. Second, the study will articulate the causes
for the deconstruction of autonomy. It is a process of the inbursting external references
and the exhausting inherent formal principles. Third, the author will discuss the situation
today and the possibility to reconstruct autonomy based on a new knowledge hierarchy.
However, a biography of autonomous architecture is a grand narrative, which is
beyond the capacity of the essay. The transformation of autonomy runs through the
architecture history since 1960s, and is related to the extensive and profound changes in
society. To avoid generalities, the author has to be selective in figures and events that are
brought to discussion.
3
Typology: an autonomous formal structure
If we take autonomy as a systematic formal principle, “type” must be mentioned as
source of its disciplines. The concept of type “describes a group of objects characterized
by the same formal structure”. 4 The act of typify things is related the need of
categorizing, naming, and understandings things, in terms of their formal structure. In
architecture, the concept of type deals with the paradox of singularity and repeatability,
by defining a formal structure prior to certain forms.
The first coherent definition of type in architecture theory was given by
Quatremere de Quincy in the late eighteenth century. It was a period when the traditional
discipline of architecture was challenged by the emerging social and technical revolutions.
The concept of type explained the reason behind architecture. It is identified with “the
logic of form connected with the reason and use”. 5 Beyond the formal structure, the
notion of type was deeply bound with history, nature, and use.
However, the form-type concept was weakened in the Neo-Classicalism, and
replaced by the concept of composition. In Durant’s theory, form was detached from use
and reason. Form was fragmented. With a method of composition based on a generic
geometry of axis superimposed on the grid, the connection between type and form
disappeared. 6 In the late nineteenth century, the emerging functionism eliminated the
form-type notion from the discourse, by rejecting the past as a form of knowledge in
architecture.
In the 1960s, when the Modern Movement was considered as a failure, the issue
of formal and structural continuity of traditional cities was discussed in a series of
writings. Thereby, a new field of typological study appeared, that is, the form of city. In
the second half of 1960s, the most complex and systematic theory was developed by
Rossi and his circle. 7 In The Architecture of the City, the definition of type by Rossi was
“something that is permanent and complex, a logical principle that is prior to form and
that constitutes it”.8 For Rossi, typology was a tool to analyse city and to give forms to
architecture.
4
In Rossi’s urban science, the concept of typology tries to include the city in all its
dimensions. 9 Rossi looked at different urban artifacts, both primary elements and
residential districts, seeing how type was preserved and transformed in the city. From city
observation to architecture design, Rossi based his design theory on typology, using types
to define formal structure, and its relation to the city. Colonnade, school, courtyard
housing… different types were observed, studied and applied in his works.
The Market Trajan [2] The Gallaratese/ Aldo Rossi [3]
5
Formal Language: autonomy in geometric operation
Parallel to the typological approach, the seeking for autonomy was pushed from another
direction—the formal language. The notion of formal language emerged in Modernism,
when type and style were eliminated, and form gained its independence. In the 1960s,
Eisenman attempted to develop the formal principles of Modernism into an autonomous
formal language. While autonomy for Rossi refers to the history, for Eisenman,
autonomy stands for the elaboration of a self-sufficient language. 10
Admittedly, the statement that autonomy of formal language emerged in the
Modern Movement is problematic. The manifesto of Modern Movement was the
rejection of formal principles from the past. For instance, Mies van der Rohe expressed
his repulse against form, or formalism. In a text published by De Stijl in 1923 he declared:
“We reject all aesthetic speculation, all doctrine and all formalism.” 11 On one hand, form
as the object of design practice was rejected; on the other hand, it was liberated from
style and form-type, giving an unprecedented freedom to formal manipulation. Form was
detached from meaning and matter, becoming an independent domain in architecture.
Despite functionism, Eisenman took formal principles as the essence of the
Modernism. His goal was to “carry out the objectives of the modern movement and bring
modern architecture to its fullness”. 12 The lesson he learned from Modernism was its
objective form, taking architecture as an abstract and distant object. However,
“objectivity” was not fully achieved in the Modern Movement. In The End of Classical:
The End of the Beginning, the End of End, Eisenman claimed, “In reality, however, the
objective forms never left the classical tradition. They were simply stripped down
classical forms, or forms referring to a new set of givens (function, technology).” 13 To
establish the theory of formal autonomy, Eisenman introduced linguistics. With a
structuralist linguistic notion of architecture, he found that the formal elements in
architecture should follow a deep structure, which was not perceived sensorially.
Analogous to language, Eisenman advocated “an architecture that could be read,
understood, and judged in the manner of a strictly mental operation.” 14
While the traditional notion of architectural elements was rejected, the concept of
geometry was established as an alternative to figure and image. Geometry represents a
complete abstraction of form. Thus, the neutrality of the abstract space cancelled any
6
reading of its content, meaning, and materiality, allowing an absolute geometric operation
in architecture.
As a design method, the concept of process was introduced, suggesting that his
architecture was made through a transformational process, and must be read in terms of
the sequence in time. 15 In this process, the subject, the presence of the architect, was
eliminated.
Ultimately, Eisenman's notion of design as a process of
transformation aims at undermining the role that the architect plays
in the conception of the design; a goal that conforms with the spirit
of Structuralism. Eisenman assumes that his design process is really
an objective and autonomous one; that the transformations from one
stage to another actually happen as a result of intimal laws; and that
the output of the process is an internal consequence of the process
itself. 16
Eisenman thought of the systematic transformation process as “an objective
procedure able to generate designs, without the intervention of the designer”. 17 The
absence of the author, however, suggested an absolute autonomy in architecture.
Diagrams of House IV/ Peter Eisenman [4]
7
The deconstruction of autonomy
Accordingly, Both Rossi and Eisenman attempted to establish an autonomous
architecture. For Rossi, the autonomous architecture was as received from the history;
while for Eisenman, it was as invented from a self-sufficient language. 18 In their design
practice, they tried to distance themselves from the object, which endowed their
architecture with abstract, neutral, and self-sufficient forms. For them, the absence of the
author indicates the autonomy of the work. Although they took different attitude towards
the Modernism, while Rossi thought it a failure and Eisenman proposed to make it to its
fullness, they both rejected functionism. Rossi’s critique on “naive functionism” was
“architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous value”. For Eisenman, functionism
belonged to the tradition of humanism rather than modernism. Thus, an autonomous
castle was constructed without external reference, with a set of systematic operational
methodology.
However, the concept of type and formal language shifted, and somehow
developed into the architectural language that we are familiar today, in which autonomy
is replaced by external reference, while the notion of type and formal operation are
merely kept in appearance.
As has been mentioned before, the form-type relation was weakened in the Neo-
classicalism, and eliminated in the Modern Movement. The attempt of Rossi and his
circle was to contribute to its recovery. 19 Conversely, his architecture communicates with
one ideal city rather than the city in reality. The discontinuity with the surrounding built
environment and the schematic illustration in the layout makes his architecture an
overwhelming expression of its type.
If a type is detached from the context, and transformed into another formal
language, is it still recognised as the original type? A similar question could also be found
in the representation of street in Modernism, for instance, in the Golden Lane by the
Smithsons and the Unite d’Habitaion in Marseille by Le Corbusier. For Rossi, these are
among the examples of a typological representation of the city in the form of urban
themes. 20 However, it is a problematic method to “apply” the type abstracted from the
8
city and its history to the building. In this case, architecture is reduced into a formal or
spatial representation of the type.
With the dissemination of its image, Rossi’s architecture was received as icons of
type. The formal-type notion was marginalized, and type was given representational
power, as an icon rather than as an actual formal logic. The idea of type was taken
literally as a naming of categories in terms of function and appearance.
Actually, Rossi turned his approach from type to image around 1976. The role of
a scientific notion of typology was replaced by image, memory, and imitation. His works
became juxtaposition of formal fragments rather than a typological unity. According to
Moneo, the form-type relation was broken since the period of neo-classicism, and Rossi
failed to fix it. Once the typological unity was fragmented, the only link to the past was
through image. 21
Similarly, the autonomous theory in Eisenman’s architecture shifted away from the
former linguistic notion of architecture. The concept of diagram was introduced as an
alternative to the structuralist linguistic principles in formal manipulation. The change of
attitude took place at the start of 1980s, when he realized that “the discourse of abstract
architecture had exhausted itself”. 22 He defined diagram as generator of form:
Generically, a diagram is a graphic shorthand. Though it is an
ideogram, it is not necessarily an abstraction. It is a representation
of something in that it is not the thing itself …it also acts as an
intermediary in the process of generation of real space and time. 23
The design process relying on a purist formal strategy altered into diagram, which
brought broader discussions into formal manipulations. With the growing size and
complexity of his projects, the external pressures like scale and program made it
necessary to use such a concept. 24 In his book Diagram Diaries, he explained the shift
from the first stage “diagrams of interiority”, using grids, cubes, L-shapes, and bars, to
the second stage “diagrams of exteriority”, using concept like place, text, mathematics,
and science. 25 He claimed that diagram separated “form from function, form from
9
meaning, and architects from the process of design”. But as Massimo Cacciari pointed
out, “It is problematic to act as a negative agent in architecture”. 26 It is a transition from
a complete self-sufficient formal language to an open system that dealt with its context
and programs with its form processing.
The diagram of Eisenman maintained the geometric principles from his earlier
discourse, and avoided schematic graphics from exterior reference. However, the notion
of diagram and process offered a tool to operate architecture forms like distant and
abstract objects. Once the foundation of autonomy was weakened, diagram would be
used as a tool of translating external requirements directly into the formal manipulation.
As a result, the process was no longer neutral and autonomous, but a reflection of
external and practical issues.
Finally, the architecture of Rossi and Eisenman was received as a stylistic issue.
Non-autonomous Architecture: a new language emerging
Before we discuss the new architectural language, it is necessary to review the definition
of autonomy in architecture. Autonomy suggests an inherent logic, a self-sufficient
formal structure, which architecture is considered as a result of its own discourse. It does
not necessarily mean a complete rejection of external aspects in practice, but those
aspects would not play a dominate role. That way, the works of the new generation of
architects are considered non-autonomous.
To have an overview of the architects the author was referring to, we could see a
recent architecture competition—the New Media Campus in Berlin. 27 OMA, BIG, and
Büro-OS were shortlisted, and OMA was selected finally. It is interesting to put the three
together comparing their forms and concepts. OMA and Büro-OS gave similar proposals,
with a void in the middle of a massive volume. The proposal by OMA was named “the
digital valley”. They studied the workflow of the media industry, and arranged the
“informal office” space in the valley—the terraces in the void. The two sides of the valley
were not parallel, which represented the axis of the street and the previous Berlin Wall.
BIG proposed a “three-dimensional neighbourhood”. The concept of “neighbourhood”
was represented as a courtyard type. A series of public functions was lined in the stepping
void. What they have in common is the schematic composition based on the arrangement
10
of program, the iconic representation of their type, and huge formal operations as respond
to the context. Accordingly, their workflow can be described as “program—type—
geometric operation”, and the original type as well as the operational process are clearly
visible in the final product.
It is assertive to say the shortlisted companies represent the entire range of
architects at the time, because Barjak Ingels and Ole Scheeren used to work in OMA and
influenced by their approach. But their success in competitions reflects the general
picture of the architecture today. More and more architecture companies are influenced in
the way of doing and presenting their works, rendering an overall tendency towards a
new language.
We can draw a long list of architects, among which are the most influential ones
since the 1990s. The collective behaviour of this generation rendered a toy-like
architecture, a gigantic object-scape. The notion of type, context, function, and formal
language was simplified and flattened into image and diagram. It is a hybrid of type,
geometric processing, and neo-functionism, in which the autonomy of architecture
disappeared.
“Digital Valley” / OMA [5] “A Three Dimensional Neighbourhood” / BIG [6]
11
Causes: alterations in the profession
The reason for the destruction of autonomy is relevant not only to architecture theory but
also practice. The changes in the content of profession, the workflow, and the form of
cooperation, and the urban and social environment of practice profoundly influenced the
attitude towards autonomy.
The content of the profession changed with the rebalance of the force field in the entire
industry. Faced with growing complexity of commissions, architects must now justify
himself to many different parties, the client, building contractors and engineers, future
residents and users, and the neighbouring areas. 29 Architects are sometimes required with
more than a scheme for the building, but also a strategy of development, or suggestion for
program. The content of the profession extended, while the authority and power of
architects shrank. As the practice of the entire industry became systemized and
institutionalized, architecture was received as a product of cooperation rather than a piece
of work of any individual. The role of architects also shifted, from a heroic innovator to a
part of a chain of the production and reproduction process. Thus, there is less space for
autonomous disciplines.
…there was a strong belief in architecture’s autonomous tradition as
a bulwark of high culture. This is problematic, however, in the
present situation, in which the architect can no longer rely on that
autonomous history because the authority and power which the
traditional architect of cathedrals and palaces had to implement his
ideas no longer exists. 28
Since 1990s, there were architects attempting to face the situation for architectural
practice, by including the external forces into the discourse. Among them was the Super
Dutch Movement, represented by OMA, MVRDV, and Ben van Berkel. As we see in the
competition, OMA based their works on a profound argument on program, and came up
with new programmatic proposals concerning the transforming society and the position
of the building type. Likely, MVRDV used the concept “situation” of the design, which
12
was the physical place in terms of morphology. Nowadays, many more intangible factors
have a bearing on situation, including planning envelop, regulations on natural lights
allowance, and requirements for users and neighbouring areas, which they tried to include
in a “datascape”. Van Berkel, however, tried to collect all possible information related
and synthesize it to create a “diagram” with computer, forming the basis of the design. 30
The chain of program—diagram—form was established, which is considered as a logical
process nowadays.
International competitions, on the other hand, boosted the expansion of the non-
autonomous language. As a sample of the globalized architectural production,
competitions require relatively neutral and universal language, which is judged under an
equally neutral and universal evaluation system. The lack of common ground among
architects and juries in international competitions indicates the necessity of a more direct,
common, and understandable language, rather than a result of inherent formal logic.
Personally, the author has to admit that the proposals by OMA or BIG are relatively
comprehensive, attractive, and impressive in competitions.
The success of those companies also influenced others. In a comment Kick the
Architectural Competition Habit, Marshall Brown summarised that “the simple diagrams,
surreal formal effects, and easy imageability of their work has forced some of their more
established competitors to enter an arms race of gigantic object-scapes”. 31
However, the influence is not limited in the circle of architects. In some of the
important competitions, the proposals of the completion are widely transmitted through
media, which renders the competition a public event. To some extent, the competition
proposals represent the image of contemporary architecture for the public. As a result,
architectural competition achieved its communication value.
The developers and institutions are aware of its communication, and gain
“fantastic publicity from the mad traveling circus of design competitions”. Competitions
are held in order to attract financing, donors, and public awareness, without contacts,
necessary approvals, or even clear programs. 32 Once the competition was established
merely for transmission, the proposals are received with their concepts and images, their
communication value.
13
In this sense, the non-autonomous language was expected, awarded, and
transmitted in architectural competitions.
The new generation of architects since 1990s are faced with flattened and fragmented
cities. When identity, place, and meaning are eliminated from the city, neither typological
nor contextual approach could find valid access to the urban environment. The only
connection to the city is its image, its iconic presents in the city.
Since the Modern Movement, the continuity of structure, activity, and form which
allows consistent use of type is broken. The cities are constructed without a form-type
relation, which generates an embarrassing situation for Rossi, who attempted to relate
architecture and city with the notion of type. In the article On Type, Moneo stated: “The
object—first the city, then the building itself —once broken and fragmented, seems to
maintain its ties with the tradition discipline only in images of an ever more distant
memory.” 33 The inherent formal structure of the city was destructed, as well as that of
architecture. The shift of Rossi’s work reflects this tendency.
A more radical allegory about contemporary city is given by Koolhaas, in The
Generic City. It is a superficial city that breaks with the old city, which is considered as
“destructive cycle of dependency”. In a generic city, the concept of identity is strongly
rejected.
It is nothing but a reflection of present need and present ability. It is
the city without history. It is big enough for everybody. It is easy. It
does not need maintenance. If it gets too small it just expends. If it
gets old it just self-destructs and renews. It is equally exciting—or
unexciting—everywhere. It is “superficial”—like a Hollywood
studio lot, it can produce a new identity every Monday morning. 34
Absurd as it seems from appearance, the generic city reflects the fact that the city
is becoming an endless artificial space without any identity. It is no more than a
temporary container of urban life. Being generic, the city can support no architecture of
autonomy, but a super juxtaposition of its image.
14
Causes: socio-economic evolutions
In a broad sense, the reasons found in the transformation of architectural industry
represent an extensive and profound revolution in society. The concept of consumerism,
mass media, and non-place can explain the phenomenon in architectural practice.
The change from autonomy to non-autonomy is related to the shift from producerism to
consumerism in economy. The concept of consumerism refers to “economic policies
placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the consideration that the free
choice of consumers should strongly orient the choice of what is produced and how”. 35
Since the non-autonomous architecture emphasise program or function as the
basis of design, it seems comparable to the functionalism positions in the Modern
Movement. However, unlike the “social reform” movement in Modernism, which
attempted to redefine a new lifestyle through design, the contemporary architecture takes
a serving position. In other words, the position of modernism is to design and reform the
user from the standpoint of the designer, a heroic idea that placed himself over the people,
while the practice of consumerism is totally user oriented. The shift from modernism to
consumerism happened in almost all industries, which redefined the relationship between
production and consumption.
In some ways, the architecture of autonomy resembles a producerism perception.
The construction of its own discipline, a self-sufficient system reflects the priority of
production. Although rejecting the principles of Modernism, Rossi and Eisenman were
still in the consistence of producerism. Their manifestos were as constraint as those of
Modern Movement. While in a consumerism society, the design activities are user-
oriented, which means to base every aspect of the industry on the needs or potential needs
on the user. Of course, the design of the product, as a part of this process, is included.
The values of the profession are not to reform the society from the ideology of a designer,
but to allocate the standpoint of their works around the satisfaction of the users.
Autonomy, which seems to be wordy monologue of the architect, is rejected.
15
The booming mass media since 1980s, on the other hand, was destructing the autonomy
in architecture. The mass media brought the ideology of architects to the public. Through
this channel, architects participate in public events in different ways.
Rendered as public events in mass media, the presence of architecture is beyond
the physical built environment, and has extended to the public realm. The revaluation of
architecture considered its communication value. More than ever architects are presented
in mass media, in publications, television, and internet. It is not merely self-promotion,
but architectural production in another domain. Not only building schemes, but also
images, concepts, and idols are produced by architecture companies along with the media.
For instance, image production includes conceptual design and competitions; concept
production covers publications, exhibitions, and public lectures; idol production
represents the mechanism of promoting star architects and rendering them as public
figures.
The consumption of images, concepts, and idols are happening at the same time.
Image consumption, for instance, rendered the visual representation of a project, if not
more than, at least as important as the project itself. After fantastic renderings, diagrams
become the next battlefield for representation, which evokes a satisfaction of
“understanding” the object. Concepts consumption creates a tagging perception of the
ideas of the architects. Global of local, avant-garde or nostalgic, naturism or urbanism…
the ideas of architects are labelled with a series of words, which are still far from their
theoretical approaches. The consumption of idols is a consumption of their public image,
personality, and moral obligation. The presence of architects in public events, for
instance, post-disaster reconstructions, philanthropic programs, and development forums,
renders their public images.
Mass media generates a secondary reality, where architects and their works are
presented as images, as icons, or as labels, which in turn influenced the production.
Architecture is supposed to be photogenic, labelled, and communicative. Gradually, a
schematic architectural language took over mass media, becoming the image of
contemporary architecture.
16
The concept of non-place describes the loss of identity and the sense of place in
contemporary cities. In Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity,
Marc Auge claimed:
If a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with
identity, then a space which can not be defined as relational, or
historical, or concerned with identity will be a non-place. The
hypothesis advanced here is that supermodernity produces non-
place, meaning spaces which are not themselves anthropological
places and which, unlike Baudelairean modernity, do not integrate
the earlier places. 36
Place was created in a long term interrelation between community and space,
where there was shared identity and collective memory. While the anthropological notion
of place suggests identity, history, and memory, Auge found the mass produced new
facilities in the city without such characters. He used the word non-place, or space, to
describe such phenomenon. In a non-place, the historical relation between identity and
place is cancelled, when human-being can acquire a temporary identity like a passer-by.
In this way, the autonomous approaches though type, place, and collective
memory are no valid in a city of supermodernity.
17
Conclusion:
The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy
The biography of autonomy is a grand narrative, including all aspects within and without
the discourse. In the construction of autonomy, the attempt to conceptualize, abstract and
distant the object was essential. The autonomous approach dealt with a simplified ideal
reality, and focused on the objective formal structure, excluding other demotions in
architecture. In this sense, for the emergence of a new non-autonomous language, the
basis in aesthetics, theory, and methodology was founded in the discourse of autonomous
architecture.
The principles of non-autonomous architecture were rooted in the principles of
autonomous architecture.
With the profound transformation in architectural practice and the entire society,
the discourse of purity, self-sufficiency and autonomy got exhausted. Within its skeleton,
more functional and social aspects were introduced. When external power was projected
in the operation of a distant and abstract object, the language of “object-scape” emerged.
The systematic knowledge in formal structure was flattened and simplified as a diagram
process.
If autonomy in architecture fades out, is it possible to generate a new autonomy? As the
object of the autonomous architecture in the 1960s is the formal structure, what will be
the object of the discipline today? And what knowledge can the discourse rely on?
In Diagram Work, Ben van Berkel pointed out that the repetitive process of
verifying knowledge deeply inhibits the architectural practice is a threat to its future.
There for, he proposed an integration of the discourse:
In order to avoid total disillusionment and exhaustion, architecture
must continue to evolve its internal discourse, to adapt in specific
ways to new materials and technological innovations, and to engage
in constant self-analysis… The end of the gran narrative does not
mean that architects no longer dream their own dreams, different
from anyone else’s.37
18
If we review the construction of autonomy in the 1960s, we will find it based on
external reference. Rossi and his colleagues brought in urban geography, anthropology,
and topology, while Eisenman’s narrative is largely based on a reflection of structural
linguistics. Their works institutionalized the external reference, and transformed social
and cultural aspects into architectural issues. Rather than deconstructing disciplines in
architecture, they attempted to integrate the external aspects in the inherent formal
principles. The reconstruction of autonomy in architecture relies on the redefinition of the
discourse and the recognition of cultural conventions, within and without the profession.
More than ever is architecture influence by external references. However, after
decades of flooding in external principles, it is time to rethink of architecture as a
discipline, and rebuild its inherent and conclusive system.
19
Notes:
1. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984), 46
2. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 146
3. Peter Eisenman. “Post-Functionalism” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d.
Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998), 238
4. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 23
5. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 28
6. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 29
7. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 35
8. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984), 40
9. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007): 39
10. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 149
11. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into
the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 304
12. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 146
13. Peter Eisenman. “The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of
End” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998),
525
14. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 150
15. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 151
16. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into
the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 333
20
17. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into
the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 333
18. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 152
19. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 37
20. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007): 51
21. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 40
22. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 193
23. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999), 28
24. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 195
25. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 195
26. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999), 214
27. BIG, OMA, Büro-OS To Compete for New Media Campus in Berlin
http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/
28. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2000), 23
29. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2000), 23
30. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2000), 24
31. Marshall Brown, Comment: Kick the Architectural Competition Habit
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138
32. Marshall Brown, Comment: Kick the Architectural Competition Habit
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138
33. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 41
34. Rem Koolhaas, S,M,L,XL, (Monacelli Press, 1995), 1250
21
35. Consumerism, From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism
36. Marc Auge, Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, tans.
John Howe (Verso, 2009), 77
37. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Preface to “Diagram Works,” ANY 23 (1998)
Image Credits:
1. Musée National des Beaux Arts du Québec proposal / BIG + Fugère Architectes.
http://www.archdaily.com/57324/musee-national-des-beaux-arts-du-quebec-
proposal-big-fugere-architectes/
2. The Market Trajan. Aldo Rossi, The architecture of the city
3. The Gallaratese. Nicolin, Pierluigi, Carlo Aymonino / Aldo Rossi, housing
complex at the Gallaratese Quarter, Milan, Italy, 1969-1974
4. Peter Eisenman. Diagrams of House IV. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept
of Type in Architecture:An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form”
5. “Digital Valley” / OMA.
http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/
6. “A Three Dimensional Neighbourhood” / BIG.
http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/
22
Bibliographys:
1. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984)
2. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004)
3. Peter Eisenman. “Post-Functionalism” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d.
Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998)
4. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978)
5. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007)
6. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into
the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 1995)
7. Peter Eisenman. “The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of
End” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998)
8. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999)
9. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2000)
10. Rem Koolhaas, S,M,L,XL, (Monacelli Press, 1995)
11. Marc Auge, Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, tans.
John Howe (Verso, 2009)
12. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Preface to “Diagram Works,” ANY 23
23