Culture, Space and Architecture?

Culture, Space and Architecture?
I. CULTURE+PERCEPTION=ARCHITECTURE [C+P=A]
II. ANTI-POLITICAL SPACE [Political Space]
III. ARCHITECTURE IS…[?]
5/4/2004 by Richard Hamming

C+P=A

During the twentieth century, many different architectural theories emerged, evolved and disappeared from society in varying degrees. Society and culture of the United States and Europe had significant impact on these theories. The use and perception of space is also a source of influence toward these architectural theories. The first part of this paper will discuss this issue of how culture and the perception of space has influenced the making of architecture as the multiple theories and positions of thought and philosophy shifted over time.
Diana Agrest and Mario Gandelsonas wrote “In the last twenty years the production of ‘theories’ of architecture and design has dramatically accelerated in a way that emphasizes the particular role of architectural theory as it has been continuously developed over five centuries. The function of these ‘theories,’ now as always, has been to adapt architecture to the needs of Western social formations, serving as the connection between the overall structure of a society and its architecture. In this way architecture has been modified to respond to changing social demands; architecture thereby becoming assimilated to society through ‘theoretical’ operations” (Nesbitt, p. 112). These sentences relay how apparent the impact that society has on the formation and adaptation of architectural theories exists today.
Throughout the twentieth century many eras of architectural theories addressed the issue of culture and the perception of space. A list of these doctrines by David Smith Capon (p. 40) includes: Formalism, Minimalism, Mannerism, Functionalism, Rationalism, Brutalism, Historicism, Academicism, Post-Modernism, Semiology, Symbolism, Constructivism, Materialism, Organic Theory, Arts & Crafts, Methodology, Contextualism, Regionalism, Traditionalism, Neovernacular, the Picturesque, Humanism, Futurism, Radicalism, Deconstructivism, the Avante Garde, and Utopianism.
Modernist writers such as Walter Benjamin and Kenneth Frampton covered the span of time between the Enlightenment of the 1700’s through to the Industrial Age. This period sought a change in life, to gain a fresh start and part from tradition. The society was shifting from the countryside into villages and cities – this had a great impact on the perception of space and architecture. The establishment of the Bauhaus and the other ‘modern’ movements also incorporated relationships with the various cultures (such as the Russian Constructivists, the Italian Futurists, and the Dutch De Stijl). De Stijl called for “a balance between the individual and universal and for the liberation of art from both the constraints of tradition and the cult of individuality” (Frampton, p. 143). Futurists were “fundamentally opposed to culture” (Frampton, p. 85) – this opposition at the very least acknowledges that culture exists and has impact on architecture. They were merely choosing to consciously ignore it. Constructivists hoped to “reform society on a new class and functional basis; substitute power stations for cathedrals, technocrats for aristocrats” (Jencks, p. 37).
These theoretical and historical approaches to architecture over the decades have a strong link with the culture. Culture, in Scott’s words is “an organism with a life of its own” (Capon, p. 135). And “Mies van der Rohe wrote that “Greatness is not to express oneself, but to do what history demands should be done at a given moment” (Capon, p. 135). Determining what should be done seems to take away from the basic concept of having free will to do what one wants. If we are to merely conform to designing and providing what society and culture apparently demand at any given time, than how could anyone truly break from tradition and produce anything “new” or “modern”? David Smith Capon goes on to say that “the concept of truth…in relation to architectural thought is…a true reflection of its age and culture” (p. 135). The influence of culture apparently has continued hand-in-hand with many architectural theories during the twentieth century. “Paul Ricoeur’s distinction between culture (a local, particular phenomenon) and a dominant universal civilization is framed as an opposition between nature and technology” (Nesbitt, p. 469).
“Architecture builds, over and over, philosophically endorsed ideas of home, city, place…from this viewpoint, architecture is a deeply conservative force that keeps what is philosophically, politically, and ideologically ‘proper’ in place” (Diani, p. 2). In the contemporary cultural issue of phenomenology, space is described as unable to be read the same way that text is read. “It is more easily understood…when compared with texts written for the theatre, which are composed of dialogues, rather than with poetry or other literary texts, which are monologues” (Lefebvre in Leach, p. 142). Space can also become ‘culture itself’, according to Henri Lefebvre, when “toward the end of the period of accelerated growth, countries discover how spaces may be pressed into to services of cultural consumption and of the tourism and leisure industries” (Lefebvre in Leach, p. 143).
It seems safe to discern from the various theorists of the twentieth century that the perception of space and culture have had a significant impact on the making of architecture. The shifting positions from Walter Benjamin (Modernism) to Martin Heidegger and Henri Lefebvre (Phenomenology) to Roland Barthes (Structuralism) to Jean Baudrillard and Fredric Jameson (Post-Modernism) to finally, Andrew Benjamin, Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault (Post-Structuralism) have portrayed how these shifts of architectural theory have maintained that connection to cultural impact.



Political Space
Fredric Jameson posed the question “Is Space Political?” in his short essay (Leach, p. 256). Both sides of this debate include many well-respected contemporary theorists who use their specific rationale for defending their opinions. Roland Barthes and Robert Venturi are among those whose researched thoughts and theories can be used to suggest that space is not political. Research into the opposition of this idea will be discussed and described here in the second part of this paper. “A second generation of Modern…architects’ preoccupation with space as the architectural quality caused them to read the buildings as forms, the piazzas as space, and the graphics and sculpture as color, texture, and scale” (Venturi, p. 104).
Theoretical and philosophical writings on Structuralism and Semiotics address this concept of space not being political. Semiotics can be defined as “the theory of the different systems of signs” and “is considered to be only a first stage towards a future general theory of ideologies” (Nesbitt, p. 115). Semiotics is also associated with “studying all cultural phenomena as if they were systems of signs – on the hypothesis that all cultural phenomena are, in reality, systems of signs, or that culture can be understood as communication – then one of the fields in which it will undoubtedly find itself most challenged is that of architecture” (Gottdiener, p. 56). [The relationship of semiotics to architecture is fairly complex, but is broken down into a logical process in Barthes’ and Venturi’s readings from class].
The French literary critic Roland Barthes is dubbed the “founder of modern semiology” by Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon (p. 95). “Barthes is primarily known for his interpretative work on literature, but his multi-disciplinary ability – embracing photography, music, the novel and poetry, and popular culture – gives him a good field position…” (Riley, p. 56). Barthes wrote about Paris’ most well know sign: the Eiffel Tower. The semiotics of this structure have become “incorporated into daily life until you can no longer grant it any specific attribute…it is as literal as a phenomenon of nature whose meaning can be questioned to infinity but whose existence is incontestable” (Barthes in Leach, p. 172). Signs become symbols of daily life and specific to different cultures rather than relying on hidden political agendas. The Eiffel Tower is essentially a monument, “an utterly useless monument” (Barthes in Leach, p.173), which has no function other than to gain a great panoramic view of Paris.
Other examples of well-know signs in the twentieth century culture can be found in Las Vegas. Space created by architecture is intended to be “sacred” (Venturi, p. 7). The mixing and dilution of architectural styles throughout the city have created more of a series of signs that are further highlighted by the actual signs along the street. “This architecture of styles and signs is antispatial; it is an architecture of communication over space; communication dominates space as an element in the architecture and in the landscape” (Venturi, p. 8). Here, signage is primarily used for guiding and directing the passerby into the hotels and casinos. The spaces created by many of these structures are also monuments, or signs, themselves. This city is built upon the dream of “getting rich quick” rather than tying itself into the political arguments of space supported by Peter Eisenman and Bernard Tschumi. Colquhoun wrote that “form was merely the result of a logical process by which the operational needs and the operational techniques were brought together. Ultimately these would fuse in a kind of biological extension of life, and function and technology would become transparent” (Venturi, p. 133). This fusion appears to be merely between space and forms themselves with the people who use the spaces; this relationship does not appear to associate itself with postmodern thoughts of political space. As stated in class on April 6th: by itself space is not political – you have to apply something to it.

?
The eternal question asked in architectural schools all around the world: What is architecture? This question, or any other “what is…?” question, is repeated every generation throughout history, and even more amazing is how this same question can have an unlimited array of correct answers. Part three of this paper will be an attempt to describe and formulate a concept for answering this question.
Walter Gropius stated that “Architecture is said to be the true mirror of the life and social behavior of the period” (Capon, p. 136). Giedion wrote that “Architecture reflects the condition of the age from which it springs…social, economic, scientific, technological, ethnological” (Capon, p. 136). And Ruskin’s viewed architecture as “the embodiment of the Polity, Life, History and Religious Faith of a Nation” (Capon, p. 136). These are all great examples of helping to define what architecture is – but what about today, in 2004, in the United States? Reyner Banham, in 1965, stated that “left to their own devices, Americans do not monumentalize or make architecture” (p. 56). Despite Banham’s apparent dislike for Americans, architecture can be defined in today’s culture. Architects today need to regain the lost “dominance over the field” and regain control of the “over-all design” (Banham, p. 98).
A starting point may be Paul Jay’s reference to architecture being “the art and science of constructing buildings” as well as “a social institution that orders and regulates the nature of buildings and how we think and experience them” (Diani, p. 26). It was stated in class January 27th that art is not relative or necessary for architecture. I would disagree with this opinion; architecture without art is simply building. We wouldn’t need architects to construct buildings – engineers could do that. If society simply perceived architects as professionals who provided ‘blueprints’ for contractors to construct buildings, architecture would be in serious trouble. I don’t pretend that this perception doesn’t exist today, but I believe optimistically that the majority of society would seek an architect to provide them with a unique architectural form to meet their specific needs. People, at least subconsciously, are aware of how spaces and buildings can “feel” right or “look” right. This experience lends to their appreciation of the architect. Bernard Tschumi wrote that “architecture is a function of both…the sensual experience of a real space” and “the appreciation of rational concepts” (Nesbitt, p. 538).
Architecture blends the engineering necessities of the structure and mechanical and electrical systems with the artistic aspects of acknowledging the site, complementing its surroundings, incorporating the aesthetical detailing with any art or sculptural elements, creating an experience pleasing to the user of the space (or simply viewing it from a distance), and utilizing the space to efficiently meet the requirements of the owner. Architecture is complex. It cannot be simplified into a dictionary definition such as the art or science of building. The theory of what architecture is will continue to shift and change over the years, as it always has. It will be interesting to see how future technology will affect the realm of architecture.








Works Cited
Banham, Reyner. Design by Choice. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1981.
Capon, David Smith. Architectural Theory Volume Two (Le Corbusier’s Legacy): Principles of Twentieth-century Architectural Theory Arranged by Category. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1999.
Diani, Marco and Catherine Ingraham. Restructuring Architectural Theory. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988.
Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1996.
Gottdiener, M. and Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos. The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1991.
Leach, Neil. Rethinking Architecture: a Reader in Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Maasik, Sonia and Jack Solomon. Signs of Life in the U.S.A.: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1994.
Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.
Riley, Charles A. II. Color Codes: Modern Theories of Color in Philosophy, Painting and Architecture, Literature, Music, and Psychology. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1995.
Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour. Learning From Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1977.