The MIT Press

CaMbrIdge, MassaChuseTTs

London, engLand

Architecture ’s DesirereADing the LAte AvAnt- gArDe

K . M i c h a e l h ay s

© 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in

any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including

photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval)

without permission in writing from the publisher.

MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity

discounts for business or sales promotional use.

For information, please email special_sales@mitpress.mit.edu

or write to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press,

55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142.

This book was set in Filosofia by Graphic Composition, Inc.

Printed and bound in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data

Hays, K. Michael.

Architecture’s desire : reading the late avant- garde /

K. Michael Hays.

p. cm.—(Writing architecture)

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978- 0- 262- 51302- 9 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Architecture, Modern—20th century—Philosophy. I. Title.

II. Title: Reading the late avant- garde.

NA680.H413 2010

724'.6—dc22

2009006132

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

d e s i r e 1

I write here about architecture’s status as a domain of cultural representa-tion.iamnotprimarilyconcernedwitharchitectureastheartofbuildingperse;nordoiconsideritasaprofession.rather,iex-aminearchitectureasawayofnegotiatingthereal,bywhichimeaninterveningintherealmofsymbolsandsignifyingprocessesatthelimitofthesocialorderitself—thatis,architectureasaspe-cifickindofsociallysymbolicproductionwhoseprimarytaskistheconstructionofconceptsandsubjectpositionsratherthanthemakingofthings.itisthusanarchitecturalimpulseorattitudethatiseektocharacterize,andacertainkindofattentionisneededtodetectit:specializedtheoreticaltechniquesandmethodsmustbebroughttobearonthissubject.Nevertheless,ihopetosuggesttoothatthearchitecturalimpulseispartofdailysociallifeanditswide-rangingpractices.Architecturecomprisesasetofoperationsthatorganizeformalrepresentationsofthereal(althoughiwillhavetocomplicatethatformulation),andhence,ratherthanmerelybeinginvestedwithanideologybyitscreatorsorusers,itisideologicalinitsownright—animaginary“solution”toarealsocialsituationandcontradiction(asLouisAlthusser’stakeonJacquesLacanputsit);thatiswhatismeantbyits“autonomy.”1Understoodinthisway,architecture’seffects—therangeofconceptualandpracticalpossibilitiesitbothenablesandlimits—aswellastheirreducibleaffectsitpresentsareapreciousindexofthehistoricalandsocialsituationitself.iamconcernedherewiththeeffectsandaffectsaswellasthefactsofarchitecture.

Desire

2

if ontology is the theory of objects and their relations—astructurewithinwhichbeingitselfmaybegivensomeorganiza-tion—then,ibelieve,art(generally)andarchitecture(especially)cananddooperateontologically.Architectureisfundamentallyaninquiry intowhat is,whatmightbe,andhowthe lattercanhappen.Architectureisonewayofattainingtheverb“tobe.”Butmyproblemisnotphilosophical;rather,itishistorical—thatis,iwant to investigate amoment inhistorywhen certainwaysofpracticingarchitecturestillhadphilosophicalaspirations.Theexpandeddecadeofthe1970s(whichiwilltaketoincluderoughlytheyearsbetween1966and1983)sawasearchforthemostbasicunitsofarchitectureandtheircombinatorylogics.Aldorossi’ssingulartypologicalfragments;Petereisenman’sframes,planes,andgrids;JohnHejduk’swallanditsnomadicadventures;andBernardTschumi’scinegrammaticsegments,whichframeandtriggerthearchitecturalimpulseitself—allwereunderstoodasfundamentalarchitecturalentitiesandeventsthatcouldnotbereducedortranslatedintoothermodesofexperienceorknowl-edge.This self-consciousness also aimed for an awareness ofarchitecture’spositioninsocietyandhistoryitself(philosophicalthinkingalwaysturnshistoricalwhenpushedtoitslimits);thusideological-representationalengagementsofarchitecturewiththeexpandingconsumersocietyofthe1970swereprobed,andvariousstrategiesofdistortion,resistance,andreappropriationweredevised.Theverynatureof subject-objectconstructionsandrelationsandofthesubject’srelationtoitsotherwasopenedtoascrutinyasintenseasanyphilosophicalinquiry.Andarchitec-turereachedalimitconditioninwhichitsobjectswerenolongerconstruedasmereelementsandassemblagesofbuilding,howevercomplicatedor sophisticated,but ratherasa representationalsystem—a way of perceiving and constructing identities anddifferences.2

d e s i r e 3

suchontologicalambitionswererecognizedevenatthetime;theyareimplicitinthewidespreadandrecurrentanalogiesbe-tweenarchitectureandtheultimatesystemofself-consciousnessthatislanguage.indeed,anotherwayofcharacterizingtheperiodinquestionwouldbetocallit“ArchitectureintheAgeofdiscourse,”a designation that has the advantage of aligning architecturewithotherdisciplinesthatsimilarlyturnedtolanguageintheirown respective self-examinations. As Jacques derrida put it,“Thismomentwasthatinwhichlanguageinvadedtheuniversalproblematic;thatinwhich,intheabsenceofacenterororigin,everything became discourse—provided we can agree on thisword—that is to say,wheneverythingbecamea systemwherethecentralsignified,theoriginalortranscendentalsignified,isneverabsolutelypresentoutsideasystemofdifferences.”3

Judgments about the meaning and value of the discursiveturn,however,werenotallpositive.“Thereturntolanguageisaproofoffailure,”ManfredoTafurideclares,andthoughhisposi-tionismoreambivalentthanthisassertionwouldindicate,heneverwaversfromhisargumentthat,bythe1970s,whatremainsofmodernityisonlyaspectralsenseofourexistence,inwhichwewrestlewiththebarelyperceptibleandunsolidechoesofanarchitecturalpastthatcannotberecoveredandafuturethatwillnotarrive.Theadvancedarchitectureofthe1970smustthereforeremaina“salvageoperation”inwhich“theelementsofthemod-ernarchitecturaltraditionareallatoncereducedtoenigmaticfragments—tomutesignalsofalanguagewhosecodehasbeenlost—shovedawayhaphazardlyinthedesertofhistory.4

Tafuri’sanalysisfindsarchitectureinadoublebind.Totheextentthatarchitecturecanfunctioninacapitalistsociety,itin-evitably reproduces the structure of that society in its ownimmanentlogicsandforms.Whenarchitectureresists,capitalismwithdrawsitfromservice—takesitoff-line—sothatdemonstra-

4

tionsbyarchitectsofthecriticaldistanceoftheirpracticefromdegradedlifebecomeredundantandtrivializedinadvance.Thistransmutationofthecold,all-encompassingblueprintofamodeofproductionintothepureformalizationofaesthetictechniqueisarchitecture’sdestiny,its“plan.”Andhavingidentifiedthat,Tafuriassertstheintolerablebutinescapableconditionsofpossi-bilityforcontemporaryarchitecture:tocollapseintotheverysystemthatcondemnsarchitecturetopuremeans-endinstrumen-tality,ortoretreatintohypnoticsolitude,recognizingthatthereisnolongeraneedforarchitectureatall.Thus“‘thedisenchantedavant-garde,’completelyabsorbedinexploringfromthecomfortofitscharmingboudoirs theprofunditiesofthephilosophyoftheunexpected,writesdown,overandoveragain,itsownreactionsundertheinfluenceofdrugsprudentlyadministered.”5

The“over-and-over-again”indictmentofthepostwaravant-garde—theempty,numbingrepetitionofformsleftoverfromthepresumed-authentichistoricalavant-garde—becamesome-thingofaleftistcriticaltropeafterPeterBürger’sTheory of the Avant- Garde (German,1974;english,1984).Bürger’sderogatorytermneo- avant- gardethereforesuggestsitselfasanappropriateappellationfortheworkiaminterestedinhere.CertainlytherepetitionoftheformalelementsandoperationsofLeCorbusier,destijl,andconstructivismis themost immediatelyapparentcharacteristic of the experiments of eisenman, Hejduk, andTschumi,ifnotrossi,whomonemightneverthelessthinkofasaneo-enlightenment-avant-gardiste.Bürger’scategorizationseemsinescapable:“Theneo-avant-gardeinstitutionalizes the avant-garde as artandthusnegatesgenuinelyavant-gardisteintentions.This is true independentlyof the consciousness artistshave oftheiractivity,aconsciousnessthatmayperfectlywellbeavant-gardiste. . . .Neo-avant-gardiste art is autonomousart in thefullsenseoftheterm,whichmeansthatitnegatestheavant-gardisteintentionofreturningarttothepraxisoflife.”6

d e s i r e 5

Theneo-nessofthisworkismadeallthemorecompellinginthespecificmediumofarchitecturebythefactthatnotonlyTafuributalsothemoreconservativeColinrowecametoallbutthesameconclusionearlierandindependentlyofBürger.Accordingtorowe,ifthehistoricalavant-gardesharedcommonideologicalrootswithMarxism,italsosharedaMarxistphilosophicalambitiontointerfuseformandword—variouslyarticulatedasexpressionandcontent,systemandconcept,practiceandtheory,buildingandpolitics,or(inBürger’sterms)artandlife.Thatthefusionultimatelyfailedmaybeattributedtoashiftinthetermsinwhichtheexperienceofmodernityitselfhadtobeconceivedinpostwararchitecture—ashiftfrommodernityfullydevelopedastheessen-tialdesiredgoalofarchitecturetomodernityasarchitecture’slimitingcondition.inhis introductiontoFive Architects,roweassertswhatseemstobetheonlypossiblechoicefortheadvancedarchitectureofthetime:adheretotheforms,the“physique-flesh”oftheavant-garde,andrelegatethe“morale-word”toincantation.Forifthelatterhasbeenreducedto“aconstellationofescapistmyths,”thephysiquestill“possess[es]aneloquenceandaflexibilitywhichcontinuesnowtobeasoverwhelmingasitwasthen.”Themeasureofarchitectureliesnolongerintheefficacywithwhichitprefiguresanewandbetterworldbutratherinitsachievementwithinthecontingentconditionsofthemodern,ofmeetingthedemandsof theflesh, as itwere, of elevating formas its ownlanguagewithoutreferencetoexternalsentiments,rationales,orindeedsocialvisions:“Thegreatmeritofwhatfollowsliesinthefact that itsauthorsarenotenormouslyself-deludedastotheimmediatepossibilityofanyviolentorsuddenarchitecturalorsocialmutation.”Theplasticandspatial inventionsofcubismandconstructivism,ofGiuseppeTerragni,AdolfLoos,Miesvanderrohe,andLeCorbusier,remainthestandardspecifictotheideologicallyindifferentmediumofarchitectureitself.Thearchi-tectsofthepostwaravant-gardeare“belligerentlysecondhand,”

6

scamozzistomodernism’sPalladio,aseriesofsimulacra.Yetitisonlythroughtheacceptanceofthatstandardandtherepeti-tionofjustthosesimulacrathatarchitects’aspirationscanbeintelligible.7

Thisisthestory,then,onwhichTafuriandroweagree:inafirstmoment,therevolutionaryavant-gardesoftheearlytwentiethcenturysurgicallyprobethemoderncityitself—thesociopsycho-logicalmetropolis ofGeorg simmel,Georg Lukács, andWalterBenjamin—in order to identify the patterns of its essentialcharacteristics,whichcanthenbeconvertedintoartisticform;inTafuri’swords:

To use that experience as the foundation for visual codes and codes of action borrowed from already established characteristics of the capitalist metropolis—rapidity of change and organization, simultaneity of communica-tions, accelerated rhythms of use, eclecticism—to reduce the structure of artistic experience to the status of pure object (an obvious metaphor for the object- commodity), to involve the public, as a unified whole, in a declaredly interclass and therefore antibourgeois ideology: such are the tasks taken on, as a whole, by the avant- gardes of the twentieth century.8

inasecondmoment,adimensionofachievedautonomyofformallows architecture to standagainst the very social orderwithwhichitiscomplicit,yetthesamecomplicityracksarchitectureintoanagonisticposition—combative,strivingtoproduceeffectsthatareofthesystemyetagainstit.Butthelanguageofformsthusdiscovered—simplegeometricalvolumes,serializedpointsandlines,diagonalvectors,planesinverticallayersandhorizontalstacks,framesandgrids—takesonanabsoluteautonomywiththeresultthat,inafinalmoment,thearchitecturalneo-avant-

d e s i r e 7

gardecanpeelthelanguageofffromthereal,repeatingthesamealreadyreifiedformsbuttransformingthemintoaself-enclosed,totallystructuredsystemofsigns.Therepetitionoftheneo-avant-gardeisthat“ofsomeonewhoisawarethatheiscommittingadesperateactionwhoseonlyjustificationliesinitself.Thewordsoftheirvocabulary,gatheredfromthelunarwastelandremain-ingafter thesuddenconflagrationof theirgrand illusions, lieprecariouslyonthatslantingsurfacethatseparatestheworldofrealityfromthesolipsismthatcompletelyenclosesthedomainoflanguage.”9inthisview,inthearchitectureoftheageofdiscoursewewitnessthe“freeingofarchitecturaldiscoursefromallcontactwiththereal.”10

Thelackofasocialneedforarchitecture;architecture’stotallossofthereal:thereisplentyofevidenceintheworksandwrit-ingsofthearchitectsinquestiontosupportTafuri’sconclusion.ButabriefexcursuswillsuggestamoredialecticalpositionthaneitherTafuriorroweallows.rossiandeisenman,forexample,areexplicitlyandespeciallysensitivetotheeffectsofreification,buttheirworkisnotjustavictimofitseffects;theycriticallyinscribetheseeffects.inrossi’stypologicalthinking,therelent-lessfragmentation,atomization,anddepletionofthearchitecturalelementsseemtofollowpreciselytheprocessthatLukácscalledreification(Verdinglichung).Andyettypology(veryliketherealismrecommendedbyLukács),involvesthepowertothinkgenerally,totakeupthefragmentsandorganizethemintogroupsandtorecognizeprocesses,tendencies,andqualitieswherereificationyieldsonlylifelessquantities.Whatismore,forLukácstheformofexperiencethatmostconcretelyrepresentstheforceofreifi-cation is crisis—that point where, as in Tafuri’s analysis, themnemonicfunctionofarchitectureisjustabouttofail,wherethememorybankshavebecomesocompartmentalizedandaridthattheywillholdnothingotherthanthemostbleached-outmaterial.Atthisstage,thecognitivevocationofarchitectureistoreflector

8

tocausereflectionontheprocessesbehindsuchcrisis:crisisismodulatedintocritique.

Wecanbegintorestorethesocialandhistoricalmeaningoftypemaking—andindeedofthelargerprojectunderconsider-ationthattypologyhelpsinaugurate—bypositingitasanabstrac-tionfromaspecifichistoricalmoment,acrisis,evenamomentoftrauma.Fortheveryconditionsonwhichthetypologyprojectdepends—namely,thecontinuingtraditionoftheeuropeancityasdocumentedinrossi’sL’architettura della città(1966)—had,by the timeof this theorization, alreadydisappearedas a con-temporaneous object of experience, giving way to the city ofinformation,advertisement,andconsumption.By1971denisescottBrown (just to giveoneexample)hadproposed that thecommunicationacrossspaceofthesocialvaluesofgroupshadsupersededthemoreconventionalsortsofneedforarchitecture.“LasVegas,LosAngeles,Levittown,theswingingsinglesontheWestheimerstrip,golfresorts,boatingcommunities,Co-opCity,theresidentialbackgroundstosoapoperas,TVcommercialsandmassmagads,billboards,androute66aresourcesforachangingarchitecturalsensibility,”writesscottBrown.“infact,spaceisnotthemostimportantconstituentofsuburbanform.Commu-nicationacrossspaceismoreimportant,anditrequiresasymbolicandatimeelementinitsdescriptivesystems.”11

Weneednotrehearsethewaysinwhichmassmediachangedtheverynatureoftheexperienceofpublicspaceduringthistime,excepttorecallthatadvertisingmediajoinedwiththeextensivedevelopmentofbuildingsontheoutskirtsofthecityandthenewdistributionofservicestosuburbancommercialzones,makingitmoredifficult to control thequalityofurbanspace throughtraditional tectonicandtypologicalmeans.Messagereceptionchallengedthetactileexperienceofobjects,andvoice,asitwere,becametenant lieuofthefullbody;informationnowstructuredspaceandprepareditforexperience.scottBrown,robertVenturi,

d e s i r e 9

andothers seizedon thenewperceptual conventionsadequateforcomprehensionwithinthisnewsystem.Theperceptionofarchitecturalsurfacesbegantoovertaketheexperienceofurbanspaceinthetraditionalsense.imageconsumptionbegantore-placeobjectproduction,andthesheerheterogeneityofimagesexplodedanysingle,stabletypologyofthecity.Publicmeaningwasnowtobefoundinthesignsandperceptualhabitsforgedin apluralist, consumerist, suburban culture.Consequently asplitwasfelttohaveopenedupbetweentheeuropeantectonic-typological tradition and the everyday world of the Americanpopularenvironment,asplitthatwasfundamentaltotheoreticaldebatesofthe1970s.

Thepoint,however,isthatnoneofthiswasmissedbyrossi.Forwhilerossi’stypologicalobsessionsseemtobeawayofcon-stantlyconfirmingthedeterminatepresenceofthetraditionaleuropeancity—refractingitshistoricallogicofformthroughaneo-enlightenmentlensincontingent,contradictory,andquasi-surrealways—theirpeculiarmnemonic functionalsomakes itpossibletoseeinthemanewbeautyinpreciselythatwhichisvanishing.Theoriginalityofrossi’sworkmaywellbeitscapacitytoconvey,alternatelywithmelancholyorunblinkingdisenchant-ment,thatthetraditionaleuropeancity—whichinsomesensemeansarchitectureitself—isforeverlost,andthatthearchitec-turalavant-gardehasreachedanend.TafuriinsistedasmuchinadirectresponsetowhatMassimoscolari,speakingofrossiandtheTendenza,consideredarefoundingofthediscipline:“ThethreadofAriadnewithwhichrossiweaveshistypologicalresearchdoesnotleadtothe‘reestablishmentofthediscipline,’butrathertoitsdissolution,therebyconfirmingin extremisthetragicrecog-nitionofGeorgsimmelandGyörgyLukács:‘aformthatpreservesandisopentolife,doesnotoccur.’inhissearchfortheBeingofarchitecture,rossidiscoversthatonlythe‘limit’ofBeingthereisexpressible.”12

10

WhiletheworkofrossiandtheTendenzaandthatofscottBrownandVenturimakeuptwomoreor lessdivergentproblematics,thefactthattheyaresimilarevenintheirdifferenceswasrecog-nizedinthetheoreticalliteratureofthemidtolate1970s.MarioGandelsonas’sdialecticalnegationofthedifferencesbetweenthe“neorationalism”ofrossiandthe“neorealism”ofscottBrownandVenturiwithhiscategoryof“neofunctionalism”isonlythefirstexampleofawidespreadtheoreticalattempttoresolvethecontradictoryaspirationsofanarchitecturalrepresentationofthesocioculturalmomenttogetherwithanarchitecturalautonomyinthefaceofthesame.13WhathasnotbeennoticedisthefactthatPetereisenman’s“postfunctionalism,”formulatedinhis1976editorialresponsetoGandelsonasanddevelopedinthedecadeafterinhis“citiesofartificialexcavation,”isasimultaneousab-sorptionanddisplacementofthesametwoproblematics(neora-tionalismandneorealism)—adoublenegationorneutralizationofGandelsonas’sneofunctionalism.Butthecounterdialecticthateisenmantwistsoutof thisschemeis thepositionthat theau-tonomyprojectmustbeextendedbecausetheheterogeneityoftheconsumerist,mediaticcityhasnowcollapsedunderitsownweight,producingnotdifferencebutsameness.Foreisenman,architecturedoesnotsomuchaspiretoautonomy,aswithrossi,asitisforcedintoitbytheverysystemitseekstorepresent.Thepriceofautonomyisareductioninandaspecializationofform,whichbecomescutofffromothersocialconcernsevenas,initsvery isolationandaridness, itbecomesperfectlyadequate for,representativeof,andhomologouswiththesocietythatsponsorsit.WhatVenturiandscottBrownpresentasthediscoveryofhap-pilypossible,practicalfutures,eisenmanrecognizesasnothingmorethanamisprojectionofourownbalefulhistoricalmomentandsubjectivesituation.

TheinterpretationsofTafuriandroweencodethepremisethatthepostwar“disenchanted”avant-gardesymbolizesthetorsions,

d e s i r e 11

contradictions,andclosuresofacertainhistoricalandsocialmo-ment.Thisviewdoesnotsufficientlyrecognize,however,themoredialecticalfactthatthisarchitecture—initsveryobjectivityandautonomy—hasalreadyinternalizedthatwithwhichthecriticsintendtoconfront it: that is,architecturehasalready incorpo-ratedtheannulmentofitsownnecessity(bothitsfunctionalandrepresentationalvocations)andconsequentlyrecodedtheobjectasthesymbolicrealizationofjustthatsituation.Thisarchitectureisareflectiononthefoundationsandlimitsofarchitectureitself.ishallthereforeadoptadifferentterminologyandrefertothear-chitectureandtheethosofthisgroupasthelateavant-garde,withalltheconnotationsthiscontradictorylocutionentails:ofintran-sigenceandsurvivalbeyondwhatshouldhaveended;ofamomentinalargertrajectorybeyondwhichonecannotgo;oftechniqueaccumulatedtothepointofbleakrumination;ofproductivenega-tivity.inthelatephase,thearchitecturalsymbolicbeginstocloseinon itself, to regard itself as a vast accumulationof signifiersratherthanasthenever-concluded,positiveproductionofmean-ing.Thelateavant-garde’sintrojectionoflossandabsencemeansnotthatthearchitecturalobjectisempty,lacking,freedofcontactwiththereal—asTafuriandrowehaveit—butratherthattheobjectrenders its pathological content directly; it is the very form inwhich a certain lack assumes existence, the form necessary toimaginearadicallackintherealitself.

The term late avant- garde has the advantage of associationwithFredricJameson’slate modern,bywhichheintendsanex-tremereflexivitywithinthemodernitselfratherthanareplayofmodernism—thatis,aconditioninwhichtheideology(under-stood as a positive and necessary framework for practice) ofmodernismhasbeentheorizedandidentifiedintermsofartisticautonomy,“areturntoartaboutart,andartaboutthecreationofart.”Unlikethefullycommercializedpostmodernism,thelatearchitecturalavant-gardekeepsitsnamesake’scommitmentto

12

rigorousformalanalysis,makingthematerialofarchitecturestandagainstconsumerism.Butunlikethehistoricalavant-garde,itself-consciouslyclosesinonitsownlimitsratherthanopensoutward;itsoriginalsiteisoneofthetraumaofhavingarrivedtoolate.Afterall,wheneverythinghasbeenaccountedfor,howdoyouaccountforwhatremains?Thelateavant-garde“cannevertakeplaceinany first time, but is always second when it first happens.”14ThetermalsorecallsTheodorAdorno’sconceptof“latestyle”andedwardsaid’selaborationofit.saidseeslatenessasanunresolvedcontradiction involving“anonharmonious,nonserene tension,andaboveall,asortofdeliberatelyunproductiveproductivenessgoingagainst.”itismadepossibleatcertainmomentsinmodernhistory“whentheartistwhoisfullyincommandofhismediumneverthelessabandonscommunicationwiththeestablishedsocialorderofwhichheisapartandachievesacontradictory,alienatedrelationshipwithit.Hislateworksconstituteaformofexile.”15

AgainstthereceivedviewofTafuriandrowe,theexaminationof the late avant-garde undertaken in the following chaptersshowsadifferentrelationbetweenarchitectureandthereal,ofarchitecture’srepresentationofthereal.itwillbecomeevidentthatthereceivedviewofTafuriandroweisnotsomuchincorrectasitisnotcorrectenough.Fortherealisnotsoeasilydealtwithasthereceivedviewimplies—itisnotjusttherebeforesomemate-rialsymbolicpracticemakesitmanifest.Architecture’simpera-tiveistograspsomethingabsent,totraceordemarcateaconditionthatisthereonlylatently.inshort,mythesisisthathavinglongsincebeendeprivedofitsimmediateusevalue,architectureinthe1970sfounditselfchallengedasamodeofculturalrepresentationbymore commercially lubricatedmedia. Feeling the force ofchangedhistoricalconditionsandadevelopedconsumersociety,themostadvancedarchitectureofthe1970sretractedtheframeofidentitybetweenthearchitecturalobjectandthesociomaterialground(on this, so far,all are inaccord).This retraction isa

d e s i r e 13

formof pragmatic negation that follows the historical avant-garde’s strategiesof resistance—avariantdemandedbyanewsituation, but one that produces an impasse, since resistanceseemsnolongertobringchange(andthisiswhereTafurileavesit).At thispoint,however, themostadvancedarchitecture forcesatransductionupward,asitwere,toahigherplaneofabstraction—atransitionfromtheoutward-directednegativityofthehistoricalavant-garde(whichproducedanarchitecturalobjectthat,throughcertaindemystifyingoperations,strivedtoresistordisrupt theverysituationthatbroughtitintobeing)toasecond-ordernega-tivity, an architecture reflecting onArchitecture (whose objectconsequentlybecomesinternallysplit,aswewillsee).Thearchi-tecturalobjectassuchisdisenfranchised(thoughnotnecessarilydestroyed),annulledasanimmediatethingandreconceivedasamediatingmaterialandprocess.Theobject-in-itselfbecomesanobject-different-from-itself,asignifierdirectedtowardtheverydisciplinarycodesandconventionsthatauthorizeallarchitecturalobjects—it becomes symbolic in Lacan’s sense. The object be-comesamediumforarealthatitdoesnotsimplyreproduce,butnecessarilybothrevealsandconceals,manifestsandrepresses.

Acertainpatternemerges.Whatinthereceivedviewappearsastheconditionsof impossibilityforanarchitecturalsystem—ahistorical and social situation inwhich there isnoneed forarchitecture as a cultural representation or, rather, in whichitsrepresentationaldomainhasnoaccesstoanyrealitybeyondit—in fact establishes the conditions for new and differentarchitectural functions.Forassoonasarchitecture’sneed isarticulated as symbolic—as soon as the architectural object ispresentedanew,repeatedassymbolized—aninquiryislaunchedintoarchitecture’spossibilitiesratherthanitsactualities:Wheredoesarchitecturecomefrom,andwhatauthorizesitsexistenceasarchitecture—beyondtheparticularconstitutionsalreadyinplace?Thisisthequeryofthelateavant-garde.Towhichinresponsethey

1.1 Aldo Rossi, Dieses ist lange her—ora questo è perduto, 1975, drawing. Courtesy Fondazione Aldo Rossi.

16

offernot architecture itself but evidence that it exists, asAdornomightsay.16ButthepatternoftheresponseisLacanian.Anem-piricalneedreorganized inamediumof thesymbolic iswhatLacandistinguishesasademand,whichdirectsitssignifierstoanOther(originallytheMother,orlanguageitself,butheresome-thingexteriortoarchitecture,somethingbeyonditsgrasp,whichicharacterizeinthechaptersthatfollow)thatisexperiencedasinterveningin(granting,denying,limiting)thesatisfactionoftheneed.Whenneedisreorganizedasdemand,theimmediate,actualobjectofneed is sublated (Lacanuses theHegelianno-menclatureofAufhebung)onlytoreappearinmediatedform—astheavatarofadimensiontranscendenttotheimmediateobject(thedimensionof theMother’s love, in theoriginal instance;ahorizonat the limitofarchitecture in thepresent instance,architecture’sessentialbutabsentstructure)andtheprocess-objectthroughwhichthatdimensionfindsexpression.17

Weareinthematrixofdesire(wehavebeenallalong).intheLacaniansystem,desireis“theforceofcohesionwhichholdstheelementsofpuresingularitytogetherinacoherentset,”where“theelementsofpuresingularity”areunderstoodasnothinglessthanthemostbasicsignifyingunitsoftheunconscious.18Whichistosaythatdesireisthemachinethatrunstheentirepsychicsystem.desireistheconstantproduction,connection,andre-connectionofsignifiers,ofarchitecturalquanta,ofthepulsatingflows of pure interpretation; this is why Lacan so insistentlyidentifiesdesireandmetonymy.Whatisuggesthereandinthechaptersthatfollowisthatarchitecturaldesireismaterializedintheobjectsofthelateavant-garde—thesymbolicdesireconsti-tuted by architecture’s “bigOther,” its laws and language, itsoriginaloneness;desireasthearchitecturalunconscious;desireasthepursuitofarchitecture’soriginalobjectforeverlost(theTabernacleinthedesert,theVitruviantreehouse,theprimitivehut).19Hencetheobsessivesearchinthisworkforarchitecture’sfundamentalcodesandprinciples,allthetimeknowingfullwell

d e s i r e 17

therecanbenone,thatoutsidethearchitecturalsymbolicistheradicalnothingnessofthearchitecturalreal.Hencetoothetum-blingintotheabyssasdesireseeksitsobject:fordesiredesiresitselfinitsobject.itdeterminesitselfbynegatingitsobject,thenbecomestheobjectabolishedthroughitsownself-appropriation.Lacan’sformulais,“desireisthedesirefordesire,thedesireoftheOther.”20Andwecanfeelthefullsignificanceoftheadventofdesireatthisparticularmomentinarchitecture’shistorybyrecognizingthatarchitecturaldesirearisesasakindofabsolutealterityexactlywhenthepossibilityofarchitecture’snonexistenceisglimpsedonthehorizon.inotherwords,thequestionofhowarchitectureexceedsitselfistheothersideofimaginingarchi-tecture’send.Thusthelateavant-gardeistheformarchitectureassumeswhenitisthreatenedwithitsowndissolution.

Themarksofdesirearevarious.Theyincludethereduced,singlevolumesandfragmentsthatpopulaterossi’sghost-litcityscapesandHejduk’scarnivalesquevillages,andtheevenmoreminimalel-cubesofeisenmanandcinegramsofTschumi—allbitsandpiecesfromthearchitecturalsymbolicunderstoodasanaloguesofthesocialtext(whichbythe1970shadseenitspossibilitiessimilarlyreducedandminimized).Andtherepetitionsofthesesameformsaredesirelookingforitsobjectandconstantlymissingthemark(“thisisnotthat”),aninsatiablequestbestunderstood,aswewillsee,onthemodelofanarchitecturaldeathdrive.Thesearchitectsaddressthematterexplicitly:eisenman,whose“endoftheend”seekstoabolishhistorytofulfillitself;rossi,withhisallegoricaldrawingofstrivingDieses ist lange her / Ora questo è perduto (thisislonggone:architecturesurvivesbecausethetimeofitsfulfillmenthaspassed);21Hejduk,withhiswallevent,“which.. .mightalsobeconsideredthemomentofdeath”;22andTschumi,whose ManhattanTranscriptsareanentirescreenplayofdeathanddesire.Throughdesire,architectureisrenderedeccentrictoitself.Andtherearemomentswhenanarchitecturalexperienceproducesthatconceptionofeccentricity—momentsofbecoming,

18

affects,encountersthatarenonrepresentationalmodesofthought;momentswhenasensationjustbarelyprecedesitsconceptandweglimpseverybasic,primitivearchitecturalideas,axiomsforfuturearchitectures.encounterandeventareparticularlyopera-tive in thework ofHejduk andTschumi (Tschumi coined thetermevent-spaceinarchitecture),butallofthesearchitectsfindwaystodislocatearchitecturalexperience,openingituptothe

1.2 Jeffrey Kipnis, 3 Masterpieces of Late- Twentieth- Century Design Theory, 1990.

d e s i r e 19

factthatallperceptionispartialandideological.Theirworkhasbeencalled“critical”inrecognitionofthischaracteristic.Yetibelievethattheconceptofdesiremoreadequatelysignalstheircorollaryattempttoescapetheideologicalclosuresofthesituationthroughtheportalsofthelibidinalandthecollective;“critical”impliesperhapsa toocerebralasceticismofspecializedelites,thoughthattooiscorrectasfarasitgoes.Moreover,iaminsist-ingthattheworkunderinvestigationheredoesmorethanextendthecompulsorycriticalnegativityofthehistoricalavant-garde.inatheoreticalsense,anarchitecturethat,byinternalizingcriticalnegativity,positsitselfaseccentrictoitselfisevenmoreradical.

Thecompleteabsorptionofstructuralisttenetsintoarchitec-turehadbythe1970smadeitpossibletothinkarchitecturalformastheeffectofrelationsofdifferenceamongelementsthatthem-selves had no substantivemeaning—Ferdinand de saussure’s“differencewithoutpositiveterms.”Thelateavant-garde,ontheotherhand,istheexactinversionofthatformulation:itpresentsasingulararchitecturedifferentfromitself—anarchitecturethat,inordertoinstallitselfasarchitecture,mustalreadybemarked,traced,transgressed,anddividedfromitselfbymemoriesofapast(rossiandHejdukareexplicitaboutthis)andanticipationsofa futurecontinuing identity(aseisenmanandTschumidif-ferentlyinsist).iwillfollowderridainusingthetermspacing torefertothistearingofthesingularityfromitself,thisinternal-izeddiffering.Therefore,themetonymyofarchitecture’sdesireis:analogy,repetition, encounter, spacing.eachcomponentwillbedevelopedinthereadingsofarchitecturethatfollow.

Butfornow,wearefinallyinapositiontosituatetherepresen-tationalrangeoflateavant-gardearchitecturefromthespatialimaginary to the codes and lawsof thesymbolic in the largernonrepresentationalfield of thereal.And it shouldbemadeclearnowthatmyunderstandingoftherealfollowsthereadingsofLacanbyscholarslikeFredricJamesonandslavojŽižekandis

20

bestsummarizedbyJameson’sfamouspronouncementthatthereal“issimplyHistoryitself.”23itisinterestinginthepresentcontexttoremindourselvesthatitwasJameson’sconfrontationwiththenegativethoughtofTafurithatvirtuallyforcedtheproduc-tionofJameson’scorrelatetothereal-as-History,whichistheimaginaryprojectionhecallscognitivemapping.TheimperativetothinktotalityisoneonwhichTafuriandJamesonagree(anddealingwiththerealmustalwaysinvolveatotalizingpropensity).YetforJameson,architecturestillhastheimportantsocialfunc-tionofarticulatingmaterialforcesthatwouldotherwiseremainungraspableandlinkingthelocal,phenomenological,andsubject-centeredexperiencesofspacetothedevelopingsubject-producingstructuresofcapitalismitself.AndrightwhereTafuriseesthefadingawayofclass(“therecanneverbeanaesthetics,artorarchitectureofclass”),24Jamesonfindstheresidueofwhatusedto be called class consciousness—amapping of one’s socialplace—butofaparadoxicalkind,premisedontherepresentationofthe“properlyunrepresentable”globalstructureineachofthelocal,experientialmomentsthatarethemselvestheeffectsofthatstructure.CognitivemappingisfundamentallyadevelopmentofAlthusser’sradicalrewritingofideologyas“arepresentationoftheimaginaryrelationshipofindividualstotheirrealconditionsof existence,” itself, of course, a reading of Lacan’s imaginary-symbolic-realtriad.Cognitivemappingis,ononeside,akindofcollective“mirrorstage”inwhichtheaffectiveimmediaciesofidentityareindialecticalplaywiththealienatingclosuresandmisrecognitionsthatarethebyproductsofanyrepresentationatall.Butatthesametime,themapisalsoatrace-traitofthesocialsymbolic,a“socialsymbolicact”withpotentialtobreakoutfromitsideologicalprison.Beyondthat,atthelimitofthesymbolicorder, is thereal—“History itself”—which supports the socialevenasitremainsobduratelyunavailableandunsymbolizable.“Conceivedinthissense,”Jamesonwrites,

d e s i r e 21

History is what hurts, it is what refuses desire and sets inexorable limits to individual as well as collective praxis, which its “ruses” turn into grisly and ironic reversals of their overt intention. But this History can be apprehended only through its effects, and never directly as some reified force. This is indeed the ultimate sense in which History as ground and untranscendable horizon needs no par-ticular theoretical justification: we may be sure that its alienating necessities will not forget us, however much we might prefer to ignore them.”25

Jameson’sHistory—“absentcause,”“unrepresentable”and“unsym-bolizable,”the“untranscendablehorizon,”“Necessity”—isalwaysinplacebutonlyasanundifferentiatedandultimatelyintractableoutside(Lacandefinestherealas“thatwhichresistssymboliza-tionabsolutely”):thevanishingpointofthesymbolicandimagi-naryalike,theendofthelinetowardwhichtheirplaysofpresenceandabsence,signifiersandimagesincline.Thelatearchitecturalavant-gardeis,intheend(attheend),areckoningwiththisreal.

Jameson’s“Historyiswhathurts”passagewaspublishedin1981.itisinterestingtoponderwhetheritisanalyticalorsymptomaticofitstime.inanycase,Historyiswhathurtarchitectureatpreciselythissamemoment,asthepractico-inertbegantoturnbackonandagainsttheaccumulatepracticesofarchitecture.Andthesenseonehaswhenscanningthefracturedlandscapeofthelateavant-garde,ofafailurethatisalternatelyinevitableanddeliberate,andafinalitythatisdreadedbutenjoyed—theseareexplainableonlyaseffectsofHistory’scontradictions.26Thearchitectureofthelateavant-gardeperformstheimpossibilityofarchitecture’sfullrealization;itstagesanarchitecturalprojectthatforhistoricalreasonsmustbeunder-takenbutultimatelyisbroughttofailurebyadynamicintegraltotheprojectitself.sucharetheworkingsofarchitecture’sdesire.27