Your blog comments will be due on Thursday, June 20th by 10 am. You may draw from these questions for your posts, or develop your own response to the readings.
- On page
43 Harvey provides a list from Ihab Hassan’s schema of some of the dichotomies
that define the difference between modernism and postmodernism. What are some
of the terms that Harvey explores in depth?
In what ways does he explore these characteristics of postmodernism and
how does he approach the term from several angles? What do you think of his analysis of these
terms and the examples he provides? Choose
one of the terms he does not explore in depth and examine the ways in which
this term is a part of our zeitgeist
(or “spirit of the age”).
- Harvey
and Tschumi provide sharp critiques of “so-called” postmodern
architecture. What are their critiques
and how do they compare to other critiques we have read from Tafuri and
Jameson?
- Harvey
references the demolition of the Pruitt-Igloe housing development (a housing
development similar to Ballymun and based on Le Corbusier’s principles) as a
useful demarcation for the “end” of modernism.
Using Harvey’s chapter as a critical lens, in what ways is Bolger’s play
reflective of postmodern ideas, philosophies, and attitudes?
- Compare Tschumi’s ideas of “limits” in architecture to some of the ideas put forth in Harvey’s essay (for instance, what might be the relationship to Tschumi’s ideas and those of Barthes and jouissance or Derrida and deconstructionism?). Given our current exploration into ideology and imagination, how would you respond to Tschumi’s “Theory of Architectural Disjunction”?
Harvey references the demolition of the Pruitt-Igloe housing development (a housing development similar to Ballymun and based on Le Corbusier’s principles) as a useful demarcation for the “end” of modernism. Using Harvey’s chapter as a critical lens, in what ways is Bolger’s play reflective of postmodern ideas, philosophies, and attitudes?
ReplyDeleteHarvey marks the end of modernism by one specific date. July 15th, 1972 at exactly 3:32 PM, when the Pruitt-Igoe housing development in St. Louis was destroyed. It was deemed uninhabitable for the low income people that it housed. This housing development was not something that could be changed, it was locked into a “closed form” (44). Aronowitz, who seems to favor the more optimistic side of post-modernism, describes an example of Modernist development to Post-modernist development. “Modernist’ town planners, for example, do tend to look for ‘mastery’ of the metropolis as a ‘totality’ by deliberately designing a ‘closed form,’ whereas postmodernists tend to view the urban process as uncontrollable and ‘chaotic,’ one in which anarchy’ and ‘change’ can ‘play’ in entirely ‘open’ situations” (44). I cannot say how this housing development would be changed to fit a chaotic, more dynamic lifestyle but I would suspect that its would have to deal more so with the construction. Many apartment complexes in college towns are put up very quickly with cheap materials. I would imagine that a post modernist building would either be designed for easy repurposing or rebuilding to suit the updated needs of society. The repurposing would make the most sense for it falls under the ephemerality of postmodernism. Postmodernism does not have as strong of a base as modernism, for it leaves much open to the people. Bolger’s play is a great example of anarchist tendencies of post modernism.
For These Green Heights, written by Bolger, describe a destitute housing development that was torn down, and relocated a group of individuals to Ballymun. The fate of Ballymun was purely dependent upon the construction of the surrounding buildings. The destruction of the former building opened up society to a more democratic way of life. Some choices were clearly better than others, but without the ‘closed form’ of society people do not know what to do with themselves. This correlated nicely to Carol Gilligan's In a different voice (1982), where she states, “The idea that all groups have a right to speak for themselves, in their own voice, and have that voice authentic and legitimate...” (48). This optimistic perspective is one that shows up more so in the beginning, but there is a vulnerability to this theory. “...accept the fragmentation, the pluralism, and the authenticity of other voices and other worlds poses the acute problem of communication and the means of exercising power through command thereof” (49). This quote describes the counter for Carol Gilligan, as well as the resulting effect of a modernist to postmodernist society in These Green Heights. Control became a huge issue in this play, for the junkies were increasing exponentially, and they were creating a damper on their families as well. The only hope for this lack of control would be the addition of shopping malls, and other promised buildings that would bring in a greater sense of centralization.
I like how you quote Carol Gilligan here in reference to Bolger's play. We might want to consider what happens at the end of From These Green Heights where the people seem to have a much greater say in the construction of public housing. Going back to where we began at Wright's Broadacre City, how does the idea of a "people's" architecture differ from Wright's vision of a "master architect" as the primary governing force over city planning and construction?
DeleteWithin the article, Post Modernism, Harvey critiques postmodernism and its roles in modern cultural experience. Postmodernism, Harvey argues, became a distinctive ideology in the 1970’s as a study of the vernacular. Unlike previous aesthetic movements, postmodernism diverged from modernism by probing “questions to how radically different realities may coexist, collide and interpenetrate” (Harvey 41). Studying various realities instead on one essential theory becomes a central theme in which the postmodernist sets to attain. The structural rigidity of the modernist is thus dismantled and exposed to the notion of interweaving culture, politics, and economics within a given society.
ReplyDeleteThis outlook has directed the post-modernist to strive for comprehensive knowledge of various complex understandings. Where modernists discerned how things were in relation to one another, postmodernists were more interested in continually breaking apart and reattaching philosophies and ideals of the past. Jameson’s ideals parallel this notion of postmodernism repackaging ornamentations of the past to a contemporary form lacking depth and substance.
In the process this has led to a rejection of “all sense of historical continuity and memory, while simultaneously developing an incredible ability to plunder history and absorb whatever it finds there as some aspect of the present” (Harvey 54). History becomes subjective which disrupts any attempt in defining patterns or applications of meta-narratives. Furthermore, Postmodernist architecture becomes surface oriented. It takes pieces from the past without any historical reference and blatantly superimposes it onto a structure.
Bernard Tschumi, in Architecture & Limits, critiques postmodern design as not appropriating itself adequately within the limitations of architecture. Architecture is built upon limitations of symmetry, composition, form/ function, and the Vitruvian Triad. Without such limitations, according to Tschumi, there is no determination of the true essence of architecture. Furthermore, he explains postmodernism’s insufferable way of deconstructing traditional aspects of architecture for the sake of ornamentation; form follows form. He sees architecture not as an object (attributed to postmodernism) but rather but as a collaboration of space and events.
I think you set up an interesting discussion here about how postmodernism tends to "plunder" history, resulting in a disjointed, "schizophrenic," mentality. Tschumi offers us an alternative perspective, discussing the ways in which architecture is a "collaboration of space and events." I would question, though, Tschumi's essentalist notions of the body within that space. Bodies, and our ideas of the body, have a history (Foucault's Birth of the Clinic and History of Sexuality provide a great introduction to the history of "bodies"), and it is also a gendered body. Whose "body" are we building for? In what ways can certain spaces replicate a perspective of history that highly privileges a "male" body, experience, and point of view? Ultimately, these questions lead us to a large problem with postmodernism--by leaving things "open-ended," "relative," etc, do we pave the way for a discrete, but no less powerful, form of oppression?
DeleteInitially I was planning on responding wholly to the first question; however, as I read with that question in mind my thoughts continued to return to Tschumi and limits. Therefore I will be focusing on a connection between the Hassan’s comparisons, Harvey’s commentary, and Tschumi’s limits.
ReplyDeleteThe following five comparisons were the most clear/intriguing posed by Hassan (Pg 43):
form(conjunctive, closed) _____ antiform(disjunctive, open)
purpose _____ play
root/depth _____ rhizome/surface
paranoia _____ schizophrenia
God the Father _____ The Holy Ghost
The most fruitful aftermath of Hassan’s Schematic differences between modernism and postmodernism is that of imagery. He illustrates a significant change of thought and purpose, begging for the clarification and definition between the two. Harvey adds to this battleground of Postmodernism opinions that, “The moral crisis of our time is a crisis of Enlightenment thought...the Enlightenment affirmation of ‘self without God’”(Pg 41). I found this note interesting compiled with Hassan’s hefty religious comparison of God the Father asModernism and The Holy Ghost as Postmodernism. Harvey continues his thought but it breaks from statements that are only applicable to the Christian mind and defines the absence of God’s truth as being “without any spiritual or moral goal”(Pg 41). This moral goal is what so many have argued is lacking in Postmodernism; Postmodernism is schizophrenic, playful, superficial, not grounded in morality. Because of these defining characteristics, Postmodern architecture has befallen to the scrutiny of critics on various fronts however as Marx hints, there is a future to come of the alienated individual or in this case the anarchical postmodern architecture.
Tschumi discusses limits in architecture in his three essays Architecture and Limits I, II, and III--obviously. He allows for the word define to come into play when describing limits, he notes: “What is meant by ‘to define?’--‘To determine the boundary or limits of,’ as well as ‘to set forth the essential nature of.’” (Pg 153) Freeing limit from its negative connotation, Tachumi, continues on offering how certain constraints, guideline, or definitions can propel architectural works forward. Hassan defined attributes of Modernism and Postmodernism in order to classify the to as separate entities with separate goals and even feelings or atmospheres.
Note: Tschumi was specifically intriguing to me because the paper I am writing for History of Architecture, entitled Enclose to Extend, is discussing framing limits and the beneficial factors of doing so. Great source!
You might want to read the context of Tschumi's questions on page 153 with a greater critical eye. I think in that section he's mocking ideas of "limits" and "essential nature" in favor of disjunction and the ephemeral. See, for example, what he outlines on page 171-2 in regards to his theory of disjunction: the "rejection" of "synthesis" in favor of "dissociation," "superposition," "juxtaposition," and "combination." However, I do think Tschumi's obsession with "limits" becomes over-determined in that in trying to eschew limits, he draws attention to them. I find his reference to Joyce really interesting in this regard as the idea of "the epiphany" is a moment where experience surpasses our linguistic capacity.
Delete..which is a kind of "limit," I would add for clarification.
DeleteBoth Bernard Tschumi and David Harvey have sharp critique of post-modern architecture. They critique both modernist and post-modernist architects of not serving architecture. Tschumi and Harvey believe that these architects have their own agenda.
ReplyDelete“Tschumi criticizes modern ideas about ‘“honesty of materials,”’ and postmodern nostalgia for poche and mass of wall. According to Tschumi, these tectonic or even ‘“builderly”’ concerns are not central to architecture.” (Tschumi156) He perceives this type of architects as people who want attention and want to have a show instead of making good architecture. Tschumi argues that Architecture should be more than a building because it involves knowledge and good ideas. (Tschumi152) He also argues against theorists who tend to be trapped into architectural terminology. He advised that both architects and architecture critiques should be more focused practical reasons rather than philosophical concepts.
Harvey argues that post-modernists are confused. According to him, “(the) imitation (of) mediaeval squares and fishing villages, custom-designed or vernacular housing, renovated factories and warehouses, and rehabilitated landscapes of all kinds, all in the name of procuring some more ‘“satisfying’” urban environment (is) untruthful.” (Harvey40) Harvey believes that there is a need of being able to distinguish fiction and science. He argues that the post-modernism is simply a reaction against modernism. In other words, it is a fight of ideas between people of different believes. These people wanted to drag the whole world in their disagreement. Modernists believe into mastery and control whereas the post-modernists do not like to be controlled; they want to be free.
In conclusion, I believe that post-modernism is fundamental because it creates awareness about social evils. As a result, if people are aware, there is a hope that people will solve the issues or attempt to fix them. Unfortunately, the post-modernists way of approaching these issues tends to be more chaotic. As both Tufari and Jameson urges, post-modernism creates a wrong utopia and false hope into humanity. However, Jameson, unlike Tufari, believes that there is hope for improving the world. Jameson argues that if capitalism, for instance, is improved and adapted to today’s world, things will get better. (Jameson 67)
Thank you,
Edgar Irakiza
Be careful in your response to Harvey above. For one, he's paraphrasing Venturi et al.'s _Leaving Las Vegas_ rather than making his own claims about postmodern architecture. Also, I can't find in the text where he talks about such things as being "untruthful." Such an evaluative statement would be a very dangerous thing for a postmodern critic such as Harvey to do in the sense that it would assume that there is a "Truth" that architects are not relating in their work. I do like what you are saying about postmodernism creating an awareness of "social evils" as anti-colonialism, feminism, the Civil Rights movement, and the struggle for gay rights all derived from the breakdown of "master narratives" and the acceptance of "alternative" views and ways of looking at the world. However, a big criticism in a lot of these movements is that it's hard to perpetuate movements toward social justice if everyone is deconstructing them all the time! You might be interested in Gayatri Spivak's work and her idea of "strategic feminism." She argues that far from being grand narratives that pervade for all time in all contexts, social movements such as feminism must sometimes consolidate to fight greater "social evils." Here's a good summary of the idea: https://sge.lclark.edu/2012/03/12/an-introduction-to-strategic-essentialism/ I could see how such a movement could be valuable for architecture. Postmodernism can be paralyzing in its tendency to "dismantle" and deconstruct. However, in some contexts, especially in regards to structures for public works, one has to make an essentialist move, even if such moves are contingent and only relative to a particular place and time.
DeleteHarvey's writings provides a few references to the book "Learning from Las Vegas" by Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour. I read this book a few years ago in another class at Taliesin, but the way Harvey uses the "teachings" of it to talk about postmodernism is a point of view we had not considered in that class. Now it makes more sense than it did back then. The main idea that "Learning from Las Vegas" touches on is the fact that the traditions and the vernacular culture of Las Vegas were ultimately replaced by what mega-casino owners and contractors came to call "the greater good": the idea, at least in their minds, that the faster you build something, no matter what that product may be, and the more people you are able to build that something for, the better you are and the more successful you will become.
ReplyDeleteHarvey touches on this idea when he talks about the influence postmodernism had on the arts and on architecture, and yet I would argue if it wasn't the other way around? "The boundary between fiction and science fiction has, ... effectively dissolved, while postmodernism characters often seem confused as to which world they are in, and how they should act in respect to it" (Harvey, 41). Capitalism seems to have become the leading force in everything, everyone, does.
The world started to develop so much, so fast that ultimately postmodernism became the "total acceptance of the ephemerality, fragmentation, discontinuity, and the chaotic" (Harvey, 44), and yet it seems like no one -be it artist, architect, designer, composer, philosopher, etc- stopped to ask why or where this would lead them.
As Tschumi points out in his writings, postmodernism ultimately led to "the narrowing of architecture as a form of knowledge into architecture as mere knowledge of form" (Architecture and Limits I). The most clear and in-your-face proof of this fact is in the type of architecture being built around the world today by a new breed of what have become known as "starchitects". Creating -I dare call it architecture now instead of buildings, since for Tschumi "Building may be about usefulness, architecture not necessarily so" (Architecture and Limits 1)- architecture has become exactly what this author has described it as: non-usefulness. You see it all around the world in the form of architecture with shapes that dictate the form of the spaces within, with the creation of this coming as a result of trying to fit the inside into the shell.
When did people become so unimportant? Architecture was forever doomed the moment we ourselves allowed this to happen, and it seems that we are nowhere close to jumping off this downward spiral. When and why did architecture lose its usefulness?
If it has come to this, I want to no longer be an architect, but a Builder.
I'm interested in the way you quote from Harvey's critique of fiction and then relate it to capitalism. Could the "unreality" and confusion that we see in fiction be a product of a nihilist capitalism that fractures people and nations and holds no ideology? Also, I like the way in which you talk about Tschumi and his emphasis on "people," but couldn't Tschumi, to some extent, be accused of being a "starchitect" in his reliance on poststructuralist theories rather than the "vernacular" of the "people"? Are Tschumi's structures more "essays" than buildings? It seems as if you are moving away from people like Tschumi and countering his ideas with the idea of "usefulness." I would really like to see you elaborate more on this idea and the distinction between being an "architect" and a "Builder."
ReplyDeleteAr-chi-tect (noun): a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction; a person who designs and guides a plan or undertaking. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
ReplyDeleteOrigin of ARCHITECT: Middle French architecte, from Latin architectus, from Greek architekton: master builder (from archi + tekton = builder + carpenter) (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
Build-er (noun): one that builds; especially: one that contracts to build and supervise building operations. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
Use-ful-ness (noun): the quality of having utility and especially practical worth or applicability. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
Is Bernard Tschumi describing himself and his work when he says that postmodernism ultimately led to "the narrowing of architecture as a form of knowledge into architecture as mere knowledge of form" (Architecture and Limits I)? Probably not since he would be too proud to ever make such a declaration in regards to himself, but this statement unfortunately does ring true. In no way do I intend to pick on Mr. Tschumi, I don’t know him and I am not very familiar with his work, but his case with the Acropolis Museum he designed in Athens, right on the foot of the hill that holds the real Acropolis, makes the perfect case in point to illustrate why this kind of thinking bothers me so much. Having visited Tschumi’s Acropolis Museum I can say that the crowning achievement of this piece of architecture is the top floor which was designed to basically hold the real Parthenon exactly as it stands in the Acropolis: same footprint, same angles of direction, same height. But as one teacher recently commented:
“If one wants to truly experience the Parthenon, head up the hill or visit the British Museum”. Ouch!
And yet, this comment made me think even more about the subject of form in architecture. What would lead a Greek architect to say something like this about a piece of architecture meant to hold the “crowning achievement” of Greek history? "Building may be about usefulness, architecture not necessarily so" ( Tschumi, Architecture and Limits 1), and this is the answer. It seems that the Acropolis Museum is architecture: it serves no useful purpose since the authentic pieces of the Parthenon are located in London, nor is it useful in terms of how the spaces work and relate to each other, how the spaces relate to the outside shell, how this shell responds to the context of the city of Athens.
The sad part is that this exact same sequence of analysis can be applied to so many pieces of architecture the whole world over, whether designed by “starchitects” or not. I was surprised to find that a major qualifier for earning the status of “starchitect” is the amount of press and media space an architect receives; if an architect stops receiving press time she/he loses the mention.
Architecture has been forever doomed since the moment the term “starchitect” was created and since the first person to be given the title allowed himself to be dubbed thee. It is no wonder mere mortals think of all architects as divas impossible to work with. Some of these architects so presumptuously dare write that they, not their clients, know what is best for the clients to live the perfect life, whether it is at home, work, a museum, or the experience of the Parthenon.
For millennia human kind has survived without the need for architects, but they have needed builders to provide the basic and universal human necessity of shelter. It is about time that all architects around the world return to constructing Buildings, the kind Tschumi says may be about usefulness. People are too important for architecture to be done in any other way.