ETH Library

Revisiting the debate aroundautonomy in architectureA genealogy

Conference Paper

Author(s):Charitonidou, Marianna

Publication date:2016-06

Permanent link:https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000442670

Rights / license:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Generic

This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection.For more information, please consult the Terms of use.

Critic|all II International Conference on Architectural Design and CriticismRevisiting the debate around autonomy in architecture A genealogy

Charitonidou, Marianna University of Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, Doctoral School «Lettres, langues, spectacles» ED 138, Centre of Research «Histoire des arts et représentations» EA 4414, Group “Aesthetics and Philosophy of Arts” and National Technical University of Athens, School of Architecture, Department of Architectural Language – Communication - Design (joint PhD Program), Paris, France, charitonidou@aaschool.ac.uk

Abstract This paper aims to trace a genealogy of the debate around autonomy by bringing to light the main episodes that fashioned it from the moment of crisis of the belief that a homogeneous Zeitgeist dispersed throughout civilization is sufficient for understanding the evolution of architectural knowledge until nowadays. By diagnosing the succession of encounters and conflicts that shaped this debate the different forms of societal concerns within the discipline of architecture will be revealed. The reductionist conception of urban complexity through its formal visualization and juxtaposition of its structures that the formalistic contextualism of Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter suggests in Collage City will be problematized here for neglecting the importance of urban politics and the social relevance of architecture and urban planning. Their system of autonomous grid and heterogeneous fragments will be criticized for not paying attention to any form of history that lies outside of architecture. Stuart Cohen underscores the significance of strategies that deal with physical, cultural, and architectural inputs to the process of design, stressing the relativity of value judgment and interrelating notions coming from opposed architectural tendencies, such as inclusivism and exclusivism, under the theoretical construct of contextualism. K. Michael Hays is interested in the oppositions between autonomization and historicization, as well as the evolution of their pas de deux. Stanford Anderson tries to discern how the submersion in the material conditions characterizing one's time could be avoided, as well as how it could be possible to address social issues without adopting a formally driven approach. Peter Eisenman questions whether an architectural autonomy is already social, or whether autonomy can be teased out from the social. He poses the following questions: is there a core of normative conditions, interior to architectural discipline, regarding type and disciplinal historicity that is inevitably activated via any act belonging to architectural design practice? Are there concepts that can escape their determination by this core of normative condition, and are not bound by history or historical context? This trajectory aims at revealing the sequence of controversies around distinctions such as culture/form, context/content, history/becoming, fiction/reality, construction of meaning/instrumentalist functionalism, internalism/externalism in order to propose a research model that overcomes the dichotomies of the Hegelian dialectic. The aspiration of this gesture is to respond to the interrogation of the conditions of possibility to get a distance from the preconceptions of types, the symbolic identification that accompany them and the a priori meanings attached to them.

Key words: genealogy, autonomy, historicity, internalism, externalism

Revisando el debate en torno a la autonomía en arquitectura Una genealogía

Resumen La contribución desarrolla una genealogía del debate en torno a la autonomía. Esto es, desde el momento de la crisis de la creencia en que un Zeitgeist homogéneo era suficiente para la comprensión de la evolución del conocimiento arquitectónico, hasta la actualidad. A través de un diagnóstico de la sucesión de los encuentros y conflictos que caracterizaron este debate, se revelan las diferentes formas de las preocupaciones sociales en la disciplina de la arquitectura. La concepción reduccionista de la complejidad de la ciudad a través de la visualización formal y la yuxtaposición de sus estructuras, que el contextualismo formalista de Colin Rowe y Fred Koetter sugería en Ciudad Collage, deja de lado la importancia de la política urbana y la relevancia social de la arquitectura y el urbanismo. Su sistema de cuadrícula autónoma y fragmentos heterogéneos desestima toda forma no-arquitectónica de la historia. Stuart Cohen subrayaba la importancia de las estrategias que tratan los insumos físicos, culturales y arquitectónicos del proceso de diseño, y la relatividad del juicio de valor. Bajo el constructo teórico del contextualismo, relacionaba nociones provenientes de tendencias arquitectónicas opuestas, como el inclusivismo y el exclusivismo. K. Michael Hays se interesaba en las oposiciones entre autonomización e historización, así como en la evolución de su pas de deux. Stanford Anderson buscaba maneras de evadir la inmersión en las condiciones materiales que caracterizan el propio tiempo, métodos para abordar cuestiones sociales sin adoptar un enfoque formal. Peter Eisenman se preguntaba si una autonomía arquitectónica es ya de por sí social, o si puede ser separada de dicha dimensión. ¿Existe un núcleo de condiciones normativas, interior a la disciplina arquitectónica, de acuerdo al tipo y a la historicidad disciplinar que se activa inevitablemente a través de cualquier acto perteneciente a la práctica del diseño arquitectural? ¿Hay conceptos que puedan escapar a la determinación por parte de este núcleo de condiciones normativas, y que no estén atados al contexto histórico? Esta trayectoria apunta a revelar la secuencia de controversias en torno a distinciones como cultura/forma, contexto/contenido, ficción/realidad, historia/devenir, construcción de sentido/funcionalismo instrumentalista, o internalismo/externalismo, para proponer un modelo de investigación que supere las dicotomias de la dialéctica hegeliana. Este gesto aspira a responder a la interrogante sobre las condiciones de posibilidad del establecimiento de una distancia con respecto a las preconcepciones de tipos, a la identificación simbólica que los acompaña y a los significados a priori que se les atan.

Palabras clave: genealogía, autonomía, historicidad, internalismo, externalismo

criti

c | a

ll

98 99

criti

c | a

ll98 99

back

to in

dex

back

to in

dex

99

2. On the episodes/conflicts/events that shaped the debate around autonomy 2.1. Between political and architectural/urban autonomy. The relationship between political and architectural autonomy is of central interest here. Autonomy in architecture cannot be reduced to a formal essence. Pier Vittorio Aureli refers to two kinds of autonomy projects: one applied to politics one applied to the city14. Mario Tronti’s conception of autonomy in politics is associated with that of Aldo Rossi and Manfredo Tafuri in architecture. Following Pier Vittorio Aureli, we could claim that Tafuri and Rossi held different points of view on architecture and politics. Despite their differences, Tafuri’s and Rossi’s approach vis-à-vis the concept of autonomy in architecture have certain affinities. The fact that Manfredo Tafuri used Aldo Rossi’s drawing dedicated to him as the front cover of his Architecture and Utopia (1976) manifests their interrelationship (Fig. 1). Since 1973, Manfredo Tafuri, in his Progetto e Utopia. Architettura e sviluppo capitalistico, refers to an “inherent opposition within all modern art: those who search into the very bowels of reality in order to know and assimilate its values and wretchedness; and those who desire to go beyond reality, who want to construct ex novo new realities, new values, and new public symbols.”15 In 1985, the thought that he develops in his Architettura e Realismo regarding the Italian postwar architectural culture brings to light the distance between the architectural project and reality, between architects mentality and the “capitalist development”16. Tafuri poses the question of how far goes the architect’s ambition to operate within the real conditions and change reality through the architectural project. Tafuri’s critical program is inextricable from the political objectives expressed though the problematic developed in the journal Contropiano, which was founded by Alberto Asor Rosa, Massimo Cacciari, and Antonio Negri in 1968 and published until 1971. At the same time, Rossi and the Venice Group were influenced by the politics of the Communist Party. Cacciari’s in his article “Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo”, published in Contropiano, traces a genealogy of the ideological mechanism through which the bourgeoisie internalized capitalism’s cultural and political crises17. The Institute of History at the IUAV, Venice’s school of architecture, played a significant role in relating politics and architecture. Mario Tronti in his Sull’autonomia del politico, published in 1977, brought together the issues he rose on working-class politics during a seminar delivered in 197218. Giorgio Grassi in his book La Construzione logica dell’ architettura, considers the terms of autonomy19. Alan Colquhoun notes that Grassi’s approach critiqued modern capitalism by showing that architecture can be autonomous by differentiating between architectural values and the political status quo20. Aldo Rossi’s conception of autonomy is focused on the history of the city. As Pier Vittorio Aureli reminds us in his book entitled The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture within and against Capitalism, for Rossi “autonomy entailed a refusal not of the reality of the emerging postindustrial city, but of the empirical interpretation of that reality and of the naive embrace of techno-utopian visions of the contemporary world”21. Marco De Michelis, in his article entitled “Aldo Rossi and Autonomous Architecture”, underscores that “Rossi’s assertion of the existence of an autonomous body of architectural knowledge raised the crucial question of a critical practice of architecture, of the reconquest of analytical tools specific to the city and the territory, and of the forms of their production.”22 Ludovico Quaroni, in La Torre di Babel, claims that architecture is able to “determine urban form”23. As Joan Ockman reminded us in the lecture she gave in the framework of the I International Conference on Architectural Design and Criticism critic|all in June 2014 under the title “Conjuring with Ghosts (Geists): A Dialectical Fairy Tale”, “Tafuri draws an analogy between psychoanalysis and historical analysis [understanding both] as interminable labors whose conclusions necessarily remain provisional”24. Aldo Rossi’s conception of memory combines autobiography and civic history. Rossi in his Scientific Autobiography writes: “Around 1960 I wrote The Architecture of the City […] it seemed to me that everything, once clarified, could be defined. I believed that the Renaissance treatise had to become an apparatus, which could be translated into objects. I scorned memories, and at the same time, I made use of urban impressions: behind feelings I searched for the fixed laws of a timeless typology. I saw courts and galleries, the elements of urban morphology, distributed in the city.”25

(Fig. 2) He also notes in the same book: “[R]ationalism is necessary, like order, but whatever the order, it can be upset by the external factors of another order - whether historical, geological, psychological.”26

1. Introduction. The transformation of the status of autonomy in architecture is at the center of this paper. The concept of autonomy in architecture has been proposed from different points of view. Carlo Olmo claims that autonomy resides in the uniqueness of the work as a document. According to him, the language of architecture is determined by the contradiction between intellectual labor and the forces of production. Olmo believes that the historian’s task is to understand and to reveal the special characteristics of this contradiction1. My presentation will focus on the period that extends from the late 1960s until nowadays. According to Tahl Kaminer “[a]utonomy, as a theoretical term, had been mostly absent in architectural discourse prior to the late 1960s.”2 However, we should bear in mind that Emil Kaufmann in his book on Ledoux and Le Corbusier, entitled Von Ledoux bis Le Courbusier and already published in 1933, develops a genealogy of autonomous architecture3. In the sphere of arts, the concern about autonomy dates as long as the emergence of the term ‘aesthetics’, which first appeared in its modern sense under in Alexander Baumgarten’s work in 17354. Before the late 1960s, autonomy in arts was more commonly understood as a critique of society. In the framework of this presentation, strict periodizations are avoided, taking into account Fredric Jameson’s thesis supporting that any decision concerning the choice of a point of departure of a narrative involves geopolitical presuppositions5. The aim is to unfold the trajectory of the controversies around autonomy in architecture and their relationship to the controversies around autonomy in politics. At the same time, its objective is to show how the concept of autonomy was treated and how its different conceptions contributed to the establishment of distinct architectural and urban design methods. Taking as a starting point Foucault’s understanding of genealogy as a critique6, the purpose is to provide a critique of what the theorized debates on autonomy in architecture teach us about architectural knowledge. In order to do so, it presents the synchronic and diachronic interrelationships of different contemporaneous phenomena in the realm of architectural reflection on autonomy. The aspect of genealogy that is at the core here is the fact that it is based on the intention of challenging history as a chronological pattern of events. The narrative thread followed here aims at revealing the force relations that operated in particular events that shaped the debate around autonomy in architecture. Using Foucault’s own terms, we could claim that the goal is to trace an effective history (wirkliche Historie) of the debates around architectural autonomy7. 1.1. Monumental, antiquarian or critical universal history? Nietzsche in “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life” distinguishes three aspects of universal history: the monumental, the antiquarian and the critical. According to Nietzsche, man learns from monumental history that the greatness that once existed was in any event once possible and may thus be possible again. Monumental history makes what is dissimilar look similar, and it diminishes the differences of motives and instigations so as to exhibit the effectus. Antiquarian history, on the other hand, idolizes the past to conserve it. In this way, it constructs the nation and national identity. For Nietzsche, antiquarian history tends with care that which has existed in order to preserve the conditions under which a person came into existence for those who shall come into existence him. In such a perspective, the town, the city, the land takes on a special meaning. The critical avatar, finally, designates, from the position of the present, the good and the bad with regards to past events. The critical evaluation is in the service of the future8. 1.2. On genealogy. What does it mean to take up genealogy as a form of history and problematization? There is a complex relationship between genealogy and critique. Manfredo Tafuri and Francesco Dal Co understand history as a critique of ideology9. In the context of Foucault’s work, genealogy is understood as a way to form a distinct kind of knowledge. If we accept that the project of autonomy in architecture is related to the will to discern the special features of a kind of knowledge that is inherent in architecture as discipline, we could try to identify the affinities between the concept of autonomy and that of genealogy. Foucault’s conception of genealogy has its roots in Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals10. The main idea that Foucault appropriates from Nietzsche’s genealogical way of thinking is the insight that formations of knowledge are always formations of power relations. As Michel Foucault notes, in his “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History”, the term “genealogy” should not be understood in terms of linear development. Foucault’s conception of genealogy insists on the necessity of the sensitiveness to the recurrence of the parameters under study. The attention paid to the recurrence aims “to isolate the different scenes where they engaged in different roles”11. Judith Butler gives the following definition: "genealogy investigates the political stakes in designating as origin and cause those identity categories that are in fact the effects of institutions, practices, discourses with multiple and diffuse points of origin."12 What is at the core of the methodology of genealogy is the fact that the shift concerns the way in which the events under question are serialized. It is the way that these events are organized in series and linked to each other that takes into play the concept of genealogy. 1.3. Towards a genealogist lineage of autonomy in architecture. This paper unfolds a genealogist lineage that follows the lines of relations of power that have shaped the debate around autonomy in architecture. An issue that is addressed is how different architects and historians of architecture understood the relation of architecture to the concept of autonomy. The history of autonomy in architecture has an ambiguous history. As Tahl Kaminer notes, autonomy and opposition to autonomy have been central to the discipline’s development in the last four decades. Kaminer, in her book Architecture, Crisis and Resuscitation, interconnects architectural movements and tendencies with their wider socio-economic context. She focuses on the analysis of the ways in which architecture responded to the requirements of neoliberal economy during the period between 1966 and 2001. She claims that autonomy “aided the discipline in coming to terms with the emerging post-Fordist order in the West”13.

criti

c | a

ll

criti

c | a

ll10

0

101

back

to in

dex

back

to in

dex

key role for the encounter of urban and architectural issues played the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies (IAUS), which was founded in 1967. The debates around the common field of architectural and urban design were also fertilized by the architecture periodical Oppositions that was published between 1973 and 1984.

Fig. 3. 2.4. On the debate between the critical and the post-critical agenda. During the 1980s, in parallel with the effort to remain faithful to the critical agenda of the architectural discipline asserting its autonomy, a post-critical approach emerged. The post-critical agenda come to represent a common ideological justification of architectural practice in a world dominated by late capitalism. After the 1990s, a post-critical pursuit of innovation appeared in the American academy concerning architecture. Certain vanguard approaches that were developed around digital design during the 1990s in the American academy insisted on disciplinary autonomy. The post-critical posture has sought to disengage architecture from any form of emancipatory politics. It became known in the United States of America with key representatives Robert Somol, Sarah Whiting, Stan Allen, Sylvia Lavin and Michael Speaks. Its main characteristic is its opposition to the critical approach. Peter Eisenman and Michael K. Hays are key representatives of the critical approach. They both defended the idea that autonomous architecture is critical. The post-critical approach introduces to architectural discourse the concept of complexity based on A Thousand Plateaus of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari30. Its main objective is the creation of new forms of relations between architecture and culture through the incorporation of parameters that are related to social conditions. Its rhetoric is mainly characterized by an enthusiasm for the potential of technology and networks. It often neglected the political and social relevance of architectural complexity. Although diagrams were supposed to deal primarily with fields and forces, like economic, political and social trends, they have been often reduced to stylized compositional orientations. The meaning ascribed to diagrams is emblematic of a desire of the architectural discipline to address the fundamental structures of reality. Is the post-critical turn a depoliticized or a neoliberal interpretation of architecture? What are the implications of post-political discourse in architecture? The ways in which the vision of autonomy is expressed in the architectural discourse really vary. Certain versions are characterized by a critical point of view, while other categories of architectural autonomy are more associated to a neoliberalist imaginary. The post-critical debate brings into focus the antagonism between the neoliberal and critical categories of autonomy in architecture. According to Tahl Kaminer, the critical and the neoliberal rose from the ashes of modernism in the late 1960s31. 3. On the externalist/contextualist paradigm 3.1. Collage city or contextualism? Colin Rowe was asked to initiate and develop urban design as a post professional degree program at Cornell, in 1963. The methods and theories of his Cornell Urban Design Studio, which was taught between 1963 and 1982, engaged on a figure-ground analysis. Stuart Cohen used the term contextualism in 1965 in order to describe Cornell urban design tools. Contextualism is linked to the attempt to derive architectural-urbanistic form from context, including what Rowe and Koetter have called the psychocultural field. Stuart Cohen, in his article entitled “Physical Context/Cultural Context: Including it All”, published in the second issue of Oppositions in 1974, underscores the significance of strategies that deal with physical, cultural and architectural inputs to the process

Fig 1. 2.2. On the contradictions of the imaginary of autogestion and autonomy: urban politics and the conflict between the reason of the State and human reason. The approaches of Cornelius Castoriadis and Henri Lefebvre could help us to shed light on the imaginary of the politics of self-governance. Self-governance tactics and the imaginary that accompanies them are thought to revive all the contradictions between the reason of the State and human reason, which is to say, liberty. Cornelius Castoriadis, in The Imaginary Institution of Society, emphasizes the internal relation between what is intended (the development of autonomy) and that through which it is intended (the exercise of this autonomy). He notes that these are two moments of a single process. He defines as revolutionary politics as “a praxis which takes as its object the organization and orientation of society as they foster the autonomy of all its members and which recognizes that this presupposes a radical transformation of society, which will be possible, in its turn, only through the autonomous activity of individuals.”27 The questions are then: How might a politics like this exist? On what could it be based and what would be its implications for the tactics of formation of urban design tools? Henri Lefebvre, on his part, in his “Theoretical Problems of Autogestion”, underlines that autogestion introduces and stimulates a contradiction with the State. Lefebvre supports that autogestion tends to resolve the totality of various contradictions by sublating them into a new totality. Lefebvre essentially concludes his “Theoretical Problems of Autogestion” posing the following question: Is the principle of autogestion an ideal whose rational core and content is ultimately clearly derived from the democratic ideal? Castoriades poses the following question in the chapter “Theory and Revolutionary Project” of The Imaginary Institution of Society: Does not the critique of rationalism exclude the possibility of establishing a destructive and constructive “revolutionary dynamics”? Despite the fact that Lefebvre takes the position that autogestion could not be a utopia, he refers to Henri Desroche’s notion of “occupia”, which is used to define a genre of socializing and practicing, or practical utopia. He claims that autogestion “shows the practical way to change life”28. How does this concept of “the practical way to change life” in Lefebvre’s thought relate to Castoriadis’ understanding of praxis? According to Castoriadis, praxis is based on a kind of knowledge that is always fragmentary and provisional. What would an integration of such a conception of knowledge into the procedures of formation of architectural and urban design tools entail? 2.3. Architecture and urban renewal: on the emergence of urban design as a discipline In 1964, a group of young architects got together to form CASE, the Committee of Architects for the Study of the Environment. In 1969, a meeting of the CASE group was organized by Arthur Drexler and Colin Rowe at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) of New York. Both Colin Rowe and Peter Eisenman participated in this group. The outcome of this meeting featured in the subsequent book Five Architects, published in 1972. The New York Five refers to a group of five New York City architects: Peter Eisenman, Michael Graves, Charles Gwathmey, John Hejduk and Richard Meier. In 1966, Peter Eisenman proposed an exhibition on urbanism to Arthur Drexler, Director of Architecture and Design department of at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) of New York that they would organize together, a year later, in 1967, under the name The New City: Architecture and Urban Renewal (Fig. 3)29. The exhibition brought together four different groups coming from Princeton, Cornell and Columbia Universities, and the M.I.T. These groups proposed urban design interventions in Harlem, New York. Beginning at the early 1960s, Jose Luis Sert established the discipline of urban design distinguishing it from urban planning. The fact that urban design was proposed by Sert as a program within architecture schools shows his intention to incorporate it in architectural thought. The emergence of the concern about post-war American cities is very apparent not only in the pedagogy of architecture, but also in the themes of the exhibitions during the 1960s. A

criti

c | a

ll

criti

c | a

ll10

2

103

back

to in

dex

back

to in

dex

3.3. Between context and function. Is there a cultural content in modern architecture’s functionalism? How is the functionalism of modern architecture related to its context? In Reyner Banham’s eyes, modernity in architecture comprises function, technology, and aesthetics39. Such a tripartite understanding of architecture implies that design procedures are determined by socioeconomic circumstances. That is to say that architecture’s sociohistorical context and its functional issues can only be understood as interrelated. Banham pays special attention to the wider context of society and human culture. Alan Colquhoun, on his part, in his article entitled “Postmodernism and Structuralism: A Retrospective Glance”, published in the journal Assemblage in 1988, notes: “function relates architecture to the context in which it was built and to outside factors, but yet its form should be informed by its own formal traditions. There is no direct translation between function and form. Their relation is always mediated by custom and history. The architectural imagination should be free to choose from the entire cause of architectural forms without being constrained by a priori theories about the dictates of the spirit of the age.” 40 Following Rem Koolhaas, we could claim that “rather than viewing architecture as autonomous, it is more relevant to consider that form does not have to follow function and that there is not a prescribed definition of the connection between a building and its image.”41 According to Michael K. Hays, despite architecture is autonomous, it is impossible to separate an architectural object from its sociohistorical context. Theory encompasses the totality of architecture, contributing the idea that social, historical, and ideological frameworks are embedded within architecture. Hays underscores that “[a]ny theory that talks about architecture only, that does not relate architecture to the larger social, material field, is utterly useless.”42

Fig. 2. 4. On the internalist paradigm 4.1. The crisis of the subject: from modernism to textual understanding of architecture. The emergence of modernism in architecture provoked a crisis of the concept of the subject. Mario Gandelsonas claims that “modernist architecture’s notion of object-type starts to weaken the creative subject with the idea of an anonymous collective subject.”43 He draws attention to the fact that rather than determining the architectural signifier the architect is determined by it. That is to say that, “the site of production becomes reduced and passive.”44 The investigation of the aspirations concerning the recovery of the subject of humanism could be the key in order to understand the mechanisms of production of subjectivity when different approaches concerning theory of architecture are structured. The architects engaged in the discourse around deconstruction tried to treat the debate on subjectivity in modern architecture in a context of textuality. They composed a set of morphological and structural relations concerning the architectural object so that the decodification of the architectural structure becomes possible thanks to the mediation of the representative values. The adoption of a textual understanding of architecture is associated with a treatment of writing and architecture as a fluid and interdependent system of codes. The attraction of poststructuralist thinking to architecture invokes an open-ended play of meanings. The main argument of Roland Barthe’s book entitled Le degré zéro de l’écriture (Writing Degree Zero) could be summarized as the intention to show that if writing were dispossessed of any meaning outside itself, it could become radical and revolutionary45. Could autonomy be understood as a zero degree for architecture? Reyner Banham spoke of “degree zero” as the “null value” condition of architecture that he saw in the bare industrial buildings of Albert Kahn46, while Ignasi de Sola-Morales spoke of the rarified minimalism of Mies’ spaces as the

of design32. We could claim that contextualism evolved as a resistance to the Zeitgeist mentality of Modern architecture. It sought sources of formal order in the specific spatial and temporal context of the project. Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter in their Collage City tried to theorize this process of deriving architectural-urbanistic form from context, mobilizing Karl Popper’s neoliberal conception of “the Open Society”33. Rowe and Koetter were suggesting since 1973 in Collage City a method of translating urban multiplicity in its formal characteristics (Fig. 4). The reduction of the city’s complexity to its pictorial display has been criticized. Their strategy is problematic because it seems to neglect the importance of urban politics and the social relevance of architecture and urban planning. Rowe and Koetter proposed a system of autonomous grid and heterogeneous fragments. Their interpretation of the urban texture is interesting, but it remains restrained within the borders of architectural discourse. It neglects any non-architectural form of history, such as cultural or political. At the same time, it seems to pay no attention to any material external to architectural discipline.

Fig. 4.

3.2. On the dichotomies of Collage City Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter pose the question of whether the city could behave “as both a theatre of prophecy and a theatre of memory?”34 Their conception of architecture implies that architectural artifacts function both as space occupiers and space definers. Through the theory that they establish writing Collage City, they intend to resolve modern urban planning contradictions. They seem to believe in an objective reality of facts and in their capability to scrutinize them. They criticize modern architecture for setting incompatible goals due to the inherent contradiction between the myth of science and the fantasy of freedom, that is to say, the incompatibility between objectivity and humanity. They understand this opposition as an antagonism between progression and freedom. They refer to the will of modern architecture to overcome history and to respond to the spirit of the age, the Zeitgeist. They conclude their introduction underscoring that their gesture is characterized by the recognition that “the occasional virtues of the modern city” are “patent and the problem remains how, while allowing for the need of a modern declamation, to render [modern architecture] virtues responsive to circumstance”35. Despite their intention to render architecture responsive to reality, they also wish to conserve a utopian aspect in architectural thought. Their reference to Karl Mähheim’s understanding of utopia manifests their intention to preserve the potentialities of utopian thought: “Whenever the utopia disappears, history ceases to be a process leading to an ultimate end. The frame of reference according to which we evaluate facts vanishes and we are left with a series of vents all equal as far as their inner significance is concerned."36 Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter seem to be interested in the dialectical opposition between experience and perception. This opposition could be understood as a conflict between the way we perceive space and the way we experience it. They also try to understand the encounter of the actual perception with the mythical fantasy that Ernst Cassirer describes in the phrase they choose to use in order to open the first chapter of their Collage City entitled “Utopia: Decline and Fall?: “Where we do not reflect on myth but truly live in it there is no cleft between the actual reality of perception and the world of mythical fantasy"37. In order to achieve the reconciliation between utopianism and realism, they try to bring into proximity Hegelian and Saint-Simonian propositions. Despite their efforts, they do not overcome the dichotomies of the Hegelian dialectics. This becomes evident in the final paragraph of the book where they declare that "[u]topia as metaphor and Collage City as prescription: these opposites, involving the guarantees of both law and freedom, should surely constitute the dialectic of the future."38

criti

c | a

ll

criti

c | a

ll10

4

105

back

to in

dex

back

to in

dex

Fig 5.

“degree zero” of architectural form47. Bruno Zevi in the book he published in 1997 under the title Landscape and the Zero Degree of Architectural Language claims that the endeavor to understand the disciplinary culture of architecture is linked to the architecture’s project of autonomy48. 4.2. On the internal possibilities of architecture Peter Eisenman, in 2000 in his article entitled “Autonomy and the Will to the Critical”, notes that “[w]hile traditionally any project of autonomy was primarily formal, autonomy is being proposed here as a means of demotivating the architectural sign.”49 He relates autonomy to the objective of “cutting the sign off from its previous value in function and meaning”50. He also underlines that “autonomy is neither formal nor semiotic per se”51. For him, autonomy “opens the internal processes of architecture to their own internal possibilities.”52 Eisenman’s axonometric drawings are illustrative of his theory of complete architectural autonomy wherein architecture’s expression is limited to its own formal vocabulary. In the case of axonometric illustrations that Peter Eisenman produced for the House I-XI Projects one can discern the process of formation of the architectural artifact (Fig 5). In these visual representations there is an absence of reference to a user that is to inhabit the architectural space. We are faced with an internalist interpretation of design procedure. The absence of any reference to the individuals that could inhabit the architectural space is both paradoxical and problematic due to the fact that architectural design necessarily implies the conception of a fictive user since the conception of form in architecture is always destined to a use. This kind of aestheticization of the design procedure is linked to an indifference vis-à-vis the social and political problematics that the fabrication of assemblages of spaces and the modes of inhabiting them inevitably involve. 5. On how to overcome polarities. 5.1. On how to overcome the dichotomies of Hegelian dialectics. In contrast to the Hegelian philosophy of history, Nietzschean and Foucauldian genealogies are not holistic projects but perspectival undertakings, which aim to bring to light “discontinuous systematicities”53. At the same time, genealogy avoids a supra-historical perspective. Genealogy as a method of historical investigation could be understood either as a method of critical investigation or as a method of normative evaluation. In order to revisit the polarity between a context based and a convention based understanding of architectural design, we should wonder if the aspect of critical investigation and the aspect of normative evaluation are oppositional. If these two functions of the genealogical posture are not oppositional, then autonomy and context could be thought together, overcoming the distinction between internalism and externalism. Such an endeavor of overcoming dichotomies could be related to what Stanford Anderson calls “semi-autonomous architecture”54. Anderson supports that architecture practice is determined by certain conventions that are associated with its own disciplinary traditions. In parallel, he claims that architecture should critically question its own conventions within a larger cultural context in which its inhabitants live. Stanford Anderson in his article “Critical Conventionalism in Architecture,” published in 1986 in the first issue of Assemblage, notes that “a convention is not to be valued primarily for its novelty, beauty, or internal consistency, or for its autonomy, or for the law and order it brings to practice, but rather for its (culturally framed) true or liberating relations to other conventions of practice.”55 This conception of convention could be understood as a form of expression of genealogy as a method of normative evaluation. Charles E. Scott underscores that “[f]or Foucault, orders of knowledge constitute orders of power that find their expression in types of authority”56. Mary McLeod, on her part, seems to consider that architecture is never independent of the commercial society in which it operates and is therefore always subject to economic and political influences. In her article entitled “Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstructivism”, first published in the journal Assemblage in 1989, she asserts that “the commonly assumed polarity of modernism/artistic autonomy and postmodernism/mass culture (cultural “contamination”) simply does not hold.”57 This assertion could be interpreted as a call to overcome polarities such as culture/form, context/content, history/becoming, fiction/reality, construction of meaning/instrumentalist functionalism and internalism/externalism. 5.2. Beyond architecture but within architecture: from interdisciplinarity to transversality. If we intend to invent theoretical and design tools that will provide us with the capability to overcome the contradiction between the architectural discipline’s historical and technological specificity and its connection to an enlarged cultural and social sphere, we should revoke the dualism between an internalist point of view and an externalist one. We can only have knowledge about the inner states of our own discipline thanks to our effort to situate it within an overall structure of symbolic activity. The theoretical construct of an analogy between the intention of incorporating social and political aspects in design strategies and contextualist design methods seems to be inadequate given that the transformation of an existing situation into a materialized architectural concept is not a cause-effect procedure. The diagnostic factors of the framework in which the architectural artifact is to be inscribed is not sufficient for establishing the design and theory tools that will permit the emergence of conceptual generative strategies. The potentialities of an epistemological model for architecture based rather on the concept of transversality58 than that of interdisciplinarity should be examined. Transversality renounces the divisive fallacy between content and context, as well as that between architecture and society. At the same time, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s concept of assemblage, which designates a dynamic and consistent multiplicity of elements59, could also be useful for rethinking the dualism between autonomous and heteronomous architecture. An assemblage swings between territorial closure and a deterritorializing movement implying that the dynamic tension between these two tendencies cannot be resolved dialectically.

criti

c | a

ll

criti

c | a

ll10

6

107

back

to in

dex

back

to in

dex

56. Charles E. Scott, “Genealogy” in: Leonard Lawlor and John Nale (ed.). The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 57. Mary McLeod. 1989. “Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstructivism.” Assemblage. 8: 22-59. 58. Félix Guattari. 2015. “Transdisciplinarity Must Become Transversality”. Theory, Culture & Society. Special Issue: Transdisciplinary Problematics 0(0): 1–7. 59. Gilles Deleuze, and Félix Guattari, op. cit. Fig. 1. Also Rossi, The Assasination of Architecture, L'architecture assassinée, 1975. Dedicated to Manfredo Tafuri. Fig. 2. Rossi Aldo, Consolascio Eraldo, Reichlin Bruno, Reinhart Fabio, Città Analoga (Analogous City), 1976. Courtesy Fondazione Aldo Rossi. Fig. 3. Front cover of the book. Arthur Drexler, Elizabeth Kassler, Sidney Frigand (ed.).The New City: Architecture and Urban Renewal. New York: Museum Of Modern Art, 1967. Fig. 4. Vienna, figure-ground plan. (Source: Rowe, Colin, Fred Koetter, Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978, p.169.) Fig. 5. Peter Eisenman, Frank House (House VI), Cornwall Bridge, Connecticut, USA, 1972-1975. Courtesy of Peter Eisenman Architects. References Anderson, Stanford. 1986. "Critical Conventionalism in Architecture". Assemblage, no. 1: 7–23. Anderson, Stanford. 2002. "Quasi-Autonomy in Architecture: The Search for an 'In-Between'". Perspecta, no. 33: 30–37. Anderson, Stanford, “CASE and MIT: Engagement” in: Arindam Dutta (ed.). A Second Modernism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013. Aureli, Pier Vittorio. The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture within and against Capitalism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008. Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. London: Architectural Press, 1960. Banham, Reyner. The New Brutalism; Ethic or Aesthetic? London: The Architectural Press, 1966. Banham, Reyner. A Concrete Atlantis: U.S. Industrial Building and European Modern Architecture, 1900–1925. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1986. Barthes, Roland. Le Degré zéro de l'écriture. Paris: Seuil, 1972. Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb. Theoretische Ästhetik: Die grundlegenden Abschnitte aus der "Aesthetica" (1750/ 58), trans. & ed. Hans Rudolf Schweizer, Hamburg: Meiner, 1983. Cacciari, Massimo. 1969. “Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo” in: Contropiano 1:131–201. Cacciari, Massimo. Architecture and Nihilism: On the Philosophy of Modern Architecture. Translated by Stephen Sartarelli. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Cohen, Stuart. 1974. "Physical Context/Cultural Context: Including it All.” Oppositions. 2: 1- 40. Colquhoun, Alan. 1988. “Postmodernism and Structrualism: A Retrospective Glance.” Assemblage. 5: 6-15. Colmenares, Silvia, and Federico Soriano (ed.). criti|all vol. 1. Libro de Conclusiones 2005 / Book of Findings 2015. Madrid: DPA-Prints, Departamento de Proyectos ETSAM-UPM, 2015 Arthur Drexler, Elizabeth Kassler, Sidney Frigand. (eds.).The New City: Architecture and Urban Renewal. New York: Museum Of Modern Art, 1967. Deleuze, Gilles, Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. Eisenman, Peter. 1963. "Towards an Understanding of Form in Architecture." Architectural Design. 33: 457-458. Eisenman, Peter, Graves, Michael, Gwathmey, Charles, Hejduk, John, Meier, Richard, Five Αrchitects: Eisenman, Graves, Gwathmey, Hejduk, Meier. New York: Wittenborn, 1972. Eisenman, Peter. 1984. "The End of the Classical: the End of the Beginnining, the End of the End." Perspecta. 21 : 154-173. Eisenman, Peter. 2000. "Autonomy and the Will to the Critical." Assemblage. 41: 90–92. Eisenman, Peter. Formal Basis of Modern Architecture. Baden: Lars Muller, 2006. (facsimile reproduction of Dissertation submitted in August 1963 at Cambridge University) Eisenman, Peter. Eisenman Inside Out: Selected Writings, 1963-1988. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (1966), trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1973. Foucault, Michel. “Nietzsche, Genealogie, Histoire”, in Suzanne Bachelard (ed.). Hommage à Jean Hyppolite. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971, p. 145-172. Foucault, Michel, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” in: Donald F. Bouchard (ed.). Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977, p. 29–52. Foucault, Michel, “The Order of Discourse” in: Robert Young (ed.) Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader, , trans. Ian McLeod. Boston, London, Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981, p. 48–78. Foucault, Michel, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” in: Paul Rabinow (ed.). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984, p. 76-100. Gandelsonas, Mario. 1998. “The City as the Object of Architecture.” Assemblage, no. 37: 128-144. Grassi, Giorgio, La Construzione logica dell’ architetture. Padova: Marsilio, 1967. Groat, Lina, and David Wang. Architectural research Methods. New York: Monacelli, 2002. Guattari, Félix. 2015. “Transdisciplinarity Must Become Transversality”. Theory, Culture & Society.Special Issue: Transdisciplinary Problematics 0, no. 0: 1–7. Jameson, Fredric. The Geopolitical Aesthetic: Cinema and Space in the World System. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992. Hays, Michael K. 1984. "Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form." Perspecta, no. 21: 14-29.

Notes 1. Carlo Olmo. 1995. “One History, Many Stories.” Casabella. 59, no. 619-620: 79. 2. Tahl Kaminer, “The birth of autonomy” in: Architecture, Crisis and Resuscitation: The Reproduction of Post-Fordism in Late-Twentieth-Century Architecture. London: Routledge, 2011, p.73. 3. Emil Kaufmann. Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier. Ursprung und Entwicklung der Autonomous Architecktur. Vienne/Leipzig: Rolf Passer, 1933. 4. Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten. Theoretische Ästhetik: Die grundlegenden Abschnitte aus der "Aesthetica" (1750/ 58), trans. & ed. Hans Rudolf Schweizer, Hamburg: Meiner, 1983. 5. Fredric Jameson. The Geopolitical Aesthetic: Cinema and Space in the World System. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992. 6. Michel Foucault, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” in: Paul Rabinow (ed.). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984, p. 76-100. 7. Ibid. 8. Friedrich Nietzsche. On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, trans. Ian Johnston. Arlington, VA: Richer Resources Publications, 2010. 9. Manfredo Tafuri, Francesco Dal Co. Modern Architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1979. 10. Friedrich Nietzsche. On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), ed. and trans. Douglas Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. 11. Michel Foucault, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” in: Paul Rabinow (ed.). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984, p. 76-100. 12. Judith Butler. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990. 13. Tahl Kaminer, op. cit. 14. Pier Vittorio Aureli. The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture within and against Capitalism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008. 15. Manfredo Tafuri. Progetto e utopia. Bari: Laterza, 1973, trans. Architecture and Utopia. Cambridge, Mass,: MIT Press, 1976, p. 24. 16. Manfredo Tafuri, “Architettura e Realismo”, in Vittorio Magnano Lampugnani (ed.). Architettura moderna: L’avventura delle idee 1750–1980. Milan: Electa, 1965. 17. Massimo Cacciari. 1969. “Sulla genesi del pensiero negativo” in: Contropiano 1: 131–201. 18. Mario Tronti. Sull’autonomia del politico. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1977. 19. Giorgio Grassi. La Construzione logica dell’ architettura. Padova: Marsilio, 1967. 20. Alan Colquhoun. 1988. “Postmodernism and Structrualism: A Retrospective Glance.” Assemblage. 5: 6-15. 21. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “Autonomy and History” in: The Project of Autonomy: Politics and Architecture within and against Capitalism. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008, p. 13. 22. Marco De Michelis, “Aldo Rossi and Autonomous Architecture” in: Terence Riley (ed.). The Changing of the Avant-Garde: Visionary Architectural Drawings from the Howard Gilman Collection. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2002, p. 92. 23. Ludovico Quaroni. La Torre di Babel. Padova: Marsilio, 1967. 24. Joan Ockman, “Conjuring with Ghosts (Geists): A Dialectical Fairy Tale” in: Silvia Colmenares and Federico Soriano (ed.). criti|all vol. 1. Libro de Conclusiones 2005 / Book of Findings 2015. Madrid: DPA-Prints, Departamento de Proyectos ETSAM-UPM, 2015, p. 56-57. 25. Aldo Rossi. A Scientific Autobiography.Translation by Lawrence Venuti. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981, p.5-16. 26. Ibid. 27. Cornelius Castoriadis, “Theory and Revolutionary. Project Praxis and Project. Knowing and Doing” in: The Imaginary Institution of Society, trans. Kathleen Blamey. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987, p. 50. 28. Henri Lefebvre, “Theoretical Problems of Autogestion”, State, Space, World. Selected Essays, ed. Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden, trans. Gerald Moor, Neil Brenner, and Stuart Elden. Minneapolis; London: Minneapolis University Press, 2009. 29. Arthur Drexler, Elizabeth Kassler, Sidney Frigand. (ed.).The New City: Architecture and Urban Renewal. New York: Museum Of Modern Art, 1967. 30. Gilles Deleuze, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. 31. Tahl Kaminer. op. cit. 32. Stuart Cohen. 1974. "Physical Context/Cultural Context: Including it All.” Oppositions. 2: 1- 40. 33. Colin Rowe, and Fred Koetter, “Collage City and the Reconquest of Time ” in Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978, p. 125. 34. Colin Rowe, and Fred Koetter, “After the Millennium” in Collage City, op. cit, p. 49. 35. Colin Rowe, and Fred Koetter, “Introduction” in Collage City, op. cit, p. 8. 36. Colin Rowe, and Fred Koetter, “After the Millennium” in Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978, p. 32. 37. Colin Rowe, and Fred Koetter, “Utopia: Decline and Fall?” in Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978, p. 9. 38. Colin Rowe, and Fred Koetter, “Excursus” in Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978, p. 181. 39. Reyner Banham. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. London: Architectural Press, 1960. 40. Alan Colquhoun. 1988. “Postmodernism and Structrualism: A Retrospective Glance.” Assemblage. 5: 6-15. 41. Rem Koolhaas, and Sarah Whiting. 1999. “Spot Check: A Conversation between Rem Koolhaas and Sarah Whiting.” Assemblage. 40: 36-55. 42. Michael K. Hays. 1996. “Editorial”. Assemblage. 30: 6-11. 43. Mario Gandelsonas. 1998. “The City as the Object of Architecture.” Assemblage. 37: 128-144. 44. Ibid. 45. Roland Barthes. Le Degré zéro de l'écriture. Paris: Seuil, 1972. 46. Reyner Banham. A Concrete Atlantis: U.S. Industrial Building and European Modern Architecture, 1900–1925. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986. 47. Ignasi de Sola-Morales. 1994. "Mies Van Der Rohe and the Degree Zero" in Lotus international. 81: 20-27. 48. Bruno Zevi. Landscape and the Zero Degree of Architectural Language. Venice: Canal and Stamperia Editorial, 1999. 49. Peter Eisenman. 2000. "Autonomy and the Will to the Critical". Assemblage. 41: 90-91. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid. 53. Michel Foucault, “The Order of Discourse” in: Robert Young (ed.) Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader, , trans. Ian McLeod. Boston, London, Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981, p. 69. 54. Stanford Anderson. 2002. "Quasi-Autonomy in Architecture: The Search for an 'In-Between'". Perspecta, no. 33: 30–37. 55. Stanford Anderson. 1986. “Critical Conventionalism in Architecture.” Assemblage. 1: 6-23.

criti

c | a

ll

criti

c | a

ll10

8

109

back

to in

dex

back

to in

dex

Biography Marianna Charitonidou es candidata a doctora en l’Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense y la Universidad Técnica Nacional de Atenas. Posee una Maestría en Ciencias en Diseño Ambiental Sostenible de la Architectural Association, una maestría en Filosofía del Programa de Posgrado ‘Diseño-Espacio-Cultura’ de la Escuela de Arquitectura de la Universidad Técnica Nacional de Atenas, una maestría en Ingeniería Arquitectónica de la Escuela de Arquitectura de la Universidad Aristóteles de Tesalónica y una maestría en Arquitectura de la École Nationale Supérieure d'Architecture de Paris-Malaquais. Ha presentado sus investigaciones en muchas conferencias internacionales y ha publicado varios artículos. Sus últimas publicaciones incluyen: « L’AUA entre le Team 10 et le postmodernisme » en Une architecture de l’engagement: l’AUA 1960-1985 (catálogo de exposición en la Cité de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine de Paris) y « Réinventer la posture historique : les débats théoriques à propos de la comparaison et des transferts » en Espaces et Sociétés.

Biografía Marianna Charitonidou is PhD Candidate in Philosophy and Architecture at the Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense and the National Technical University of Athens. She holds a Master of Science Degree in Sustainable Environmental Design from the Architectural Association, a Master of Philosophy Degree from the Postgraduate Program ‘Design-Space-Culture; of the School of Architecture of the National Technical University of Athens, a Masters Degree in Architectural Engineering from the School of Architecture of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and a Masters Degree in Architecture from the École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Paris-Malaquais. She has presented her research at many international conferences and has published several articles. Her latest publications include: « L’AUA entre le Team 10 et le postmodernisme » in Une architecture de l’engagement: l’AUA 1960-1985 (catalog of exhibition at the Cité de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine de Paris), and « Réinventer la posture historique : les débats théoriques à propos de la comparaison et des transferts » in Espaces et Sociétés.

Hays, Michael. K. Oppositions Reader: Selected Essays 1973-1984. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. Hendrix, John Shannon. The Contradiction Between Form and Function in Architecture. Oxon, New York: Routledge, 2013. Heynen, Hilde. 1992. “Architecture between Modernity and Dwelling: Reflections on Adorno’s ‘Aesthetic Theory.’” Assemblage, no.17: 78-91. Jameson, Fredric. A Singular Modernity : Essay on the Ontology of the Present. London : Verso, 2002. Kaminer, Tahl. Architecture, Crisis and Resuscitation: The Reproduction of Post-Fordism in Late-Twentieth-Century Architecture. London: Routledge, 2011. Kaufmam, Emil. Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier. Ursprung und Entwicklung der Autonomous Architecktur. Vienne/Leipzig: Rolf Passer, 1933. Keller, Sean, "The Anxieties of Autonomy: Peter Eisenman from Cambridge to House VI" in: Robin Schuldenfrei (ed.). Atomic Dwelling: Anxiety, Domesticity, and Postwar Architecture. London: Routledge, 2012. Koolhaas, Rem, Sarah Whiting. 1999. “Spot Check: A Conversation between Rem Koolhaas and Sarah Whiting.” Assemblage. 40: 36-55. Lawlor, Leonard and John Nale (ed.). The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Lefebvre, Henri, State, Space, World. Selected Essays. Edited by Neil Brenner and Stuart Elden, trans. Gerald Moor, Neil Brenner, and Stuart Elden. Minneapolis; London: Minneapolis University Press, 2009. McLeod, Mary, 1989. “Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstructivism.” Assemblage, no. 8 : 22-59. Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, trans. Ian Johnston. Arlington, VA: Richer Resources Publications, 2010. Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals (1887). ed. and trans. Douglas Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Ockman, Joan (ed.). Architecture Culture 1943-1968. New York: Rizzoli,1993. Olmo, Carlo. 1995. “One History, Many Stories.” Casabella. 59, no. 619-620: 75-86. Paltrinieri, Luca. L'expérience du concept. Michel Foucault entre épistémologie et histoire. Paris : Publications de la Sorbonne, coll. « La philosophie à l'oeuvre », 2012. Puglisi, Luigi Prestinenza. Theoretical Meltdown. Architectural Design. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Riley, Terence (ed.). The Changing of the Avant-Garde: Visionary Architectural Drawings from the Howard Gilman Collection. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2002. Rossi, Aldo. Scritti scelti sull’architectura e la città 1956-1972. Milan: Clup, 1975. Rossi, Aldo, and Peter Eisenman (ed.). Aldo Rossi in America: 1976-1979. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1980. Rossi, Aldo, and Peter Eisenman (ed.). The Architecture of the City (1966), trans. Diane Ghirardo and Joan Ockman. Chicago ; New York: The Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts and the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, Cambridge, Massachusetts ; London: The MIT Press, 1984. Rossi, Aldo. A Scientific Autobiography, trans. Lawrence Venuti. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981. Rowe, Colin. The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa and Other Essays. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1976. Rowe, Colin, and Fred Koetter, Collage City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1978. Rowe, Colin, and Alexander Caragonne (ed.). As I Was Saying: Recollections and Miscellaneous Essays. Volume Three: Urbanistics. Cambridge, Mass & London: MIT Press, 1996. Visker, Rudi. Michel Foucault: Genealogy as Critique, trans. Chris Turner. London: Verso, 1995. Schumacher, Thomas. 1971. “Contextualism: Urban Ideals plus Deformations.” Casabella, no. 359-360: 78-86. Somol, Robert E. Autonomy and Ideology: Positioning an Avant-Garde in America. New York: The Monacelli Press, 1997. Tafuri, Manfredo. Teorie e Storia dell’architettura. Laterza, Bari, 1968. Tafuri, Manfredo. 1969. “Toward a Critique of Architectural Ideology.” Contropiano, no. 1: 31-79. Tafuri, Manfredo. 1972. “Design and Technological Utopia” in: Emilio Ambasz (ed.). Italy: The New Domestic Landscape, exhibition catalogue. Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1972, p. 388-404. Tafuri, Manfredo. La sfera e il labirinto: Avanguardie e architettura da Piranesi agli anni '70. Einaudi, Torino, 1980. Tafuri, Manfredo. Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development (1973), trans. Barbara Luigia La Penta. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1976. Tafuri, Manfredo. 1974. “L’Architecture dans le Boudoir: The Language of Criticism and the Criticism of Language” in: Oppositions, no. 3: 37-62. Tafuri, Manfredo. Theories and History of Architecture. New York: Harpercollins, 1981. Tafuri, Manfredo. The Sphere and the Labyrinth: Avant-Gardes and Architecture from Piranesi to the 1970s. Translated by Pellegrino d'Acierno. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1987. Tafuri, Manfredo, Francesco Dal Co. Modern Architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1979. Tronti, Mario. Sull’autonomia del politico. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1977. Vidler, Anthony. Histories of the Immediate Present : Inventing Architectural Modernism. Cambridge, Mass. : 2008. Zevi, Bruno. Landscape and the Zero Degree of Architectural Language. Venice: Canal and Stamperia Editorial, 1999.

criti

c | a

ll

criti

c | a

ll11

0

111

back

to in

dex

back

to in

dex