Critical Architecture Between Culture and Form...
Yale University, School of Architecture
Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form Author(s): K. Michael Hays Reviewed work(s): Source: Perspecta, Vol. 21 (1984), pp. 14-29 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567078 . Accessed: 30/01/2013 04:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
.
Yale University, School of Architecture and The MIT Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspecta.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K. MichaelHays
CriticalArchitecture BetweenCultureand Form
as activityand That architecture, a knowledge,is fundamentally culturalenterprise mayhardlyseema contentiousproposition.And yet questionsconcerningtheprecisenature between of the reciprocalinfluences cultureand architectural formbring and its opposingtheoriesofarchitecture intoforceful interpretation play.' In thisessayI shall examinea critical one resistant to theselfarchitecture, confirming, conciliatory operationsofa to dominantcultureand yetirreducible a purelyformalstructure disengaged fromthecontingencies ofplace and time. A reinterpretation ofa few projectsby Mies van derRohe will provideexamplesofa criticalarchitecture the thatclaimsforitselfa place between efficient of representation preexisting culturalvaluesand thewhollydetached autonomyofan abstractformalsystem. The propositionofa criticalrealm betweencultureand formis notso muchan extensionofreceivedviews as it is a challenge of interpretation to thoseviewsthatclaim to exhaust architectural meaningin considerations ofonlyone side or theother.It will be to beginwitha brief helpful,therefore, reviewof two prevalentinterpretive thatmakejustsucha claim. perspectives Mies van der Rohe Friedrichstrasse project charcoaldrawing 1919
15
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ii
/
"-
I
i
It,.
i;
?
!1
S
p
?
i
I,
?
i
'i .
"
aS
?
i
fi
i
iil
'4
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1
to
!
. i
,
,
-
."
Architecture as an instrument ofculture
Architecture as
form autonomous
The oppositepositionbeginswiththe The firstpositionemphasizesculture The temporalconventionof this to a as the cause and contentof built view, is, on assumptionthattheonlyalternative interpretation is seen factual the Architecture as of then, strict, form;the taskof theinterpreter, retrospective. recovery originating ofa single becomesthestudyofobjectsand alreadycompleted;thecriticor historian situationis the renunciation of as signs,symptoms, environments ?truth,>>and advocatesa proliferation attemptsto restorean architectural based solelyon form. of culturalvalues. and instruments interpretations object to its originalmeaning. made fromthissecond is essentially Misunderstanding is presumedto arise On thisview architecture Interpretations an epiphenomenon, by the dependenton positionare characterized naturallybecauseof thechangesin socioeconomic,political,and architecture, language,and worldview comparativeabsenceofhistorical concernsin favorofattentionto the thathave takenplace in thetime technologicalprocessesforits various statesand transformations. Moreover, objectand its objectfrom autonomousarchitectural separatingthearchitectural formaloperations-howits partshave themeaningmust the interpreter; as a functionalsupportforhuman been put together,how it is a wholly ofa therefore and as a reification be recoveredbya disciplined institutions of theculturalsituation integratedand equilibratedsystemthat ennobles reconstruction collectivevolition,architecture the culturethatproducesit; architecture in whichtheobjectoriginated.Starting can be understoodwithoutexternal and as important, how it the hegemonyofcultureand fromthedocuments,recordedactions, reconfirms references, whichare thebase material maybe reused,how its constituent and artifacts parts helps to assureits continuity. is and processesmaybe recombined. Accordingly,theoptimumrelationship of thehistoricalworld,understanding or seen as essentiallya self-transposition to be establishedbetweencultureand The temporalconventionof thelatter imaginativeprojectionbackwardin formis one ofcorrespondence, hereis thatofan ideal time. When thishistoricalmethodis of interpretation thevaluesof efficiently representing momentin a purelyconceptualspace; an >
~.~:'c
The problemforthe intellectual,then, was how to oppose thisdebilitating dismay,but firsthow to revealit-how to providea cognitivemechanismwith whichto registerthe intensechanges continuallyexperiencedin themodern city.Many of thecentury'searlyartistic fromthe woodcutsof experiments, EdvardMunch to the novelsof FranzKafka,maybe seenas attemptsto Edvard Munch articulatethe abject despairof the -The Scream,, individualcaughtby impersonal 1895 and incomprehensible forces.The reklamearchitektur (advertising of Eric Mendelsohnand the architecture) factoriesof Hans Poelzig made manifest, as ifto pin down and contemplate,the and dynamism,the contradictions, the disjuncturesin the processesand reasoningof commerceand industry.On .1.. the otherhand Dada's ferociousnihilism was an explicitattemptto demonstrate the futilityof conventionalmodesof reasoningin thefaceof thechaoticcity. As JeanArp put it, 5And Mondriannamedthe cityitselfas the ultimateformtowardwhichde Stijl tended. 6 It is againstthis metropolitanpredicamentthatthe early workofMies vanderRoheshouldbe seen.
L?
...
Eric Mendelsohn Schocken Department Store Stuttgart 1926-29
K. Michael Hays 18
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E?e
JiS
Ifl
,
Georg Grosz ,Friedrichstrasse> lithograph 1918
"~ L-~ ;f\
`r,
i.1 `;k 9
c
i! A~
91 r
The ratherstartlingimage of the 1922 skyscraper project,publishedin the secondissue of G, comprisestwo architectural propositions.One, a result ofexperiments alreadybegun in Mies's Friedrichstrasse project,is a building surfacequalifiedno longerby patternsof shadowon an opaque materialbut by Mies van der Rohe the reflections of lightby Friedrichstrasse and refractions glass. The other,a radicaldeparture project, charcoal fromeven the earlierskyscraper studies, drawing is a buildingformconceivednot in 1919 termsof separate,articulatedmasses relatedto one anotherbya geometrically derivedcore, but as a complexunitary volumethatdoes not permititselfto be read in termsof an internalformal logic. With thesetwo related the propositionsMies confronted of and problem physically conceptually object to the relatingthe architectural city.The glass curtainwall-alternately or refractive reflective, transparent, dependingon lightconditionsand viewingpositions-absorbs,mirrors,or distortsthe immediateimagesofcity life. The convex,facetedsurfacesare perceptuallycontortedby the invasion of circumstantial images,while the reflection each concavityreceiveson its surfaceis thatof its own shadow, creatinggaps whichexacerbatethe disarray.
f
~?'i
I
tz~ r ..,
i/
\~3~i)~i
K. Michael Hays 19
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mies van der Rohe
Mies van der Rohe
Skyscraperprojectplan
Skyscraperproject model
1922
1922 4[,.? 'f'
r
1
"ltl
.1
li
(I-I
:1:1M
4f,
Thesesurface distortions accompany andaccentuate theformal inscrutability In ofthevolumetric configuration. derivedform,theviewercan classically graspan antecedent logicoftheobject, therelationships between deciphering itspartsandconnecting everyparttoa coherent formal theme;thealternative positedbyMiesis an objectintractable to decodingbyformal analysis.It is for impossible, example,to reducethe wholeto a number ofconstituent parts armature or relatedbysomeinternal some formal transformed through indeed,nosuchcompositional operation; exist.Neitheris it possible relationships to explicatetheobjectas a deflection the fromsometype;Mieshasrejected that such classical design meanings methods tendto promote.Insteadhe hasinvested meaningin thesenseof surface andvolumethatthebuilding timeandplace, assumesin a particular moment. in a contextually qualified Miesinsiststhatan orderis immanent in thesurface itselfandthattheorderis continuous withanddependent upon theworldin whichthevieweractually and moves.Thissenseofsurface fromtheknowledge volume,severed orderora unifying ofan internal logic, thebuilding is enoughto wrench idealizedrealm fromtheatemporal, formandinstallit ina ofautonomous in therealworld situation specific ofexperienced time,opento the oflifein the chanceanduncertainty MieshereshareswithDada metropolis.' an antagonism againsta prioriand intothe reasoned order;he andseeksanother chaosofthenewcity plunges, a systematic orderwithinit through thealeatory, the useoftheunexpected, inexplicable." This solicitationofexperienceis intrinsicto the meaningofthework;it servesto identifyand individuatethe workitselfas an eventhavingsensuous and temporalduration, particularity to its bothof whichare infrangible and for conveying capacity producing meaning.Nevertheless,Mies's to skyscraper projectis not conciliatory of its context.It is a thecircumstances of its worldly criticalinterpretation situation.
Mies van der Rohe
Skyscraper project
charcoaldrawing 1922
K. MichaelHays 20
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mies van der Rohe Bank project Stuttgart
In the skyscraperproject of I922 Mies
approacheda radicallynew conception betweenthe corporeality of reciprocity of the architectural object and the imagesof culturethatsurroundit;
collage 1928
!
by 1928-in projects like the Adam
in buildingon the Leipzigerstrasse Berlin,the bank in Stuttgart,and the in competitionforthe Alexanderplatz his to have diverted Berlin-he seems These projectsabstainfrom efforts. any dialogue with the physical of theircontexts;as particularities in the demonstrated peremptorily could blocks the drawings, glass-walled be reproducedon anysite withno manipulationof theirform. significant each buildingunit has been Though to the shape and size of its own adapted lot (forexample,the Alexanderplatz project),the relentlesssamenessof the order unitsand theirundifferentiated tendto denythe possibilityofattaching to the placementor significance of theforms.But the arrangement of repudiation a prioriformallogic as theprimarylocus of meaningis preciselywhat is at issue; it is this repudiationthatlinksthe projectsof
SC~
Z
1&
I4,,
-u
..'''
..
Mies van der Rohe ;;;
Alexanderplatzproject 1928 ""
i
Ii 1; i? i':
i
1928 to the research of I922. Meaning
t'
is made a functionof impersonal productivesystemsratherthanof formal devices. operationsor of representational
i.
*? :I ~~,,,...,?r:?
-?9
6
MiesvanderRohe Alexanderplatz project collage 1928
0 ,S
rs r% Y~~~'?~~?~I*; 4p if 1A--
-
... ..,..-:
.
JiA4
-
..
46'LT
-
:-?
"'
K. Michael Hays 21
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Both conceptionsofthearchitectural embodimentof object-as the efficient a dominantsystemofvalues,and as existenceof the uncircumstanced autonomousform-areseriously challenged,ifnotdefeated,by theway in whichthissilentclearingclaimsa place in theworld.Firstthereis the between recognitionof thereciprocity the culturallyqualified,empirical conditionsof buildingproductionand thepracticeofarchitecture. Mies's obduraterefusalto manipulatehis canbe verified Here we musttakeMies at his word. objectsto conformto anya prioriformal Our observations ofMies's early masterwork the of has the effect of to
