Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Pro-feigning the Profane

“In the expression homo sacer, the adjective seems to indicate an individual who, having been excluded from the community, can be killed with impunity but cannot be sacrificed to the gods.” Giorgio Agamben, “In Praise of Profanation,” Log vol. 10.

There is nothing Architecture[1] fears more than itself. “Junkspace” is Koolhaas’s diatribe-disquisition on just this paranoia. Koolhaas feels that Architecture ended in the 20th century with the proliferation of air conditioning, automated stairs and mass-producible pastiche. Architects feel endangered by a global warming of tastelessness, of tackiness, of stucco-ness that threatens to overtake us by dint of its juggernaut size, momentum and ease. Ways of construction, economies of scale production, increasingly oppressive resource scarcity are the carbon omissions of the great vulgarity that is gradually eroding Architecture into architecture. The period Koolhaas associates with the birth of the air conditioning unit, the mall and the Levittown—or the first signs of Architecture’s rigor mortis—is the time American narratives hearken back to as the birth of mass (white) prosperity. This is the era when images projected through a glass fronted box could be consumed for the first time, not because of some great refinements of Filo T. Farnsworth’s first successful television, but because the glass fronted box could be consumed on a mass scale affordably for the first time. AC, escalators, TVs, automobiles, suburbs were the hammer and sickle of an American communism that secretly vied against the Russian communism not out of a fear of invasion, nuclear fallout, or totalitarianism, but out of a mass capitalist loyalty to our corporation’s way of doing business. Russian and Chinese communism celebrated communal parsimony, our communism worshipped communal profligacy. We won; Russia and China are still undergoing a corporate merger into our business-of-life platform. Our profligate communism is now more predicated upon China than Russian communism ever was. Communism in its political form is nothing more than simulacrum, than stucco. Which brings me back to architecture.

We read Vitruvius a couple millennia after his expiration, not because he was a particularly good architect, or a particularly elegant writer, or a particularly influential mind in his own time. Anyone would acknowledge that he was none of these. What Vitruvius reminds us, however, is that we are still the right hand professional to Caesars. We are cosmopolites; we are atelier-dilettantes. We understand how to make other peoples hands dirty and how to keep ours clean. We have special instruments no one else understands, we have special skills no one else adequately appreciates, we are artists, historians and professionals whereas other professionals are simply professional tradesmen. In the battles for client commissions and building inspector endorsements, we find security in obscurity, arming our justifications with the inscrutable escutcheons of “Art” and “subjectivity.” This story has not changed millennia later. And yet, we don’t seem to feed POW’s to lions in public arenas (secret ones, maybe), we don’t ape Roman notions of hygiene, we don’t patronize many ancient roman restaurants, and we don’t wear togas unless inordinate quantities of alcohol and dope are handy to distract us. Why ape Vitruvius? Because he canonizes our elite-hood. Today more than ever, Architecture schools pop The Ten Books on Architecture into reading lists to mollify the raging heartburn our discipline suffers after having supped on the deep-fried-fast-food-feast of the mass diet. Plop plop fizz fizz what a relief it is. Because the truth is we have grown fat on this diet. We wag our admonishing right index finger at the stuccoed-air conditioned box while we reach out with our left hand to accept the greasy wax paper one. Once in our lives we eat at Alinea, but we talk about it at every critique, every debate, and every explication of doctrine in order to simulate the fiction that we only eat and make the molecular-gastronomical. Yet, Architecture has never thrived more off the junk-economical. For this reason, we can’t look at ourselves naked in the mirror.

A rapid survey of Architecture’s mythology reads not unlike that of the Greek Pantheon. Before us there were only deities, demi-deities and heroes. It is no coincidence that the first 4000 years of Architecture’s mythology only recounts the houses we made for the supra-humans: ziggurats, temples, pyramids, palaces, churches, etc. Vernacular architecture is reserved for the archaeologist only; indeed, after four years of Architectural education, the only lecture I have ever attended that analyzes “vernacular” architecture, and does so without irony, has been in the archaeology department at the University of Chicago. We have only ever believed that a building is only Architecture if Apollo or Google Earth can see it without squinting too hard. Readers may argue, “whereas monumental Architecture was built for permanence, the plebeian home was constructed of such ethereal stuff that nothing could persist.” I have heard the argument before. It is the choir-song-soundtrack to Architecture’s fire and brimstone sermon admonishing practice for the pedestrian lest our fruits wither and ferment before they can be bottled in the cellar for our discipline’s perpetuity.

The truth is, look outside, drive down the highway, google earth the outskirts of every major American city, and you will see architecture, “vernacular” architecture, emanating in all directions. It is huge, it is expansive, it is cheap, it is transient, it is redundant, it is most often ugly, but it is there and it is here in super-abundance. So, if monuments are Architecture’s Titans and Giants of yore, why is it that still to this day we only ever discuss Titanic and Gigantic design when chances are, on a typical day, you will see no sign of such design anywhere. Again, it is Architecture’s enduring faith in its own religion, its alabaster and ebony simulacrum. “Everything is metamorphosed into its inverse in order to be perpetuated in its purged form. Every form of power, every situation speaks of itself by denial, in order to attempt to escape, by simulation of death, its real agony” (Baudrillard 37). The suburb, the big-box are our agony; the Bilbao effect, CCTV, and the Phaeno are our opiate ecstasy, our blinded-Oedipus-like-apotheosis, our fables. The monuments of yore, the star-chitects of now, their tomes, their treatises, their lore, their glossy monographs, the Kostofs, Vitruvius’s, Lootsmas, Jencks and Albertis who have narrated our rituals, are our thanatology, or rather, our mythology to reconcile Architecture’s thanatology.

…..Yeah though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no stucco….

In his exhaustive investigation of the Architecture and geometries of the Laurentian Library in “Underfoot and Between Boards at the Laurentian Library,” Ben Nicholson explains that the library’s books were arranged according to Plato’s epistemological mapping of the different branches of knowledge. As you enter the library, all of the sciences are to the right, including physics, biology, medicine, history and politics, and are arranged according to the scale of the respective study’s object. To the left, the more metaphysical sciences are similarly arranged according to scale, with the first of three groups consisting of poetry and literature, often in the vulgar tongue, and the last consisting of religion, in Latin. The profane and the sacred. The second group, the one between poetry and religion, as Nicholson points out, is the most fascinating because it delimits the sacred from the profane, the gods from the humans, the celestial from the terrestrial. This is where you would find Vitruvius and Pythagoras, in the space of architecture and geometry, the two disciplines that translate the heavens into discrete, intelligible and palpable forms—in other words, the processes of profanation. When all languages were one, we attempted to use architecture to bring us to the heavens. But with the smiting of the tower of Babel, gravity compressed our ambitions, and out of the addled and incoherent babble of a thousand incommensurable tongues, we found two pre-Babelian dialects, architecture and geometry, that would, instead, bring the heavens to us. Trebatius, the Roman jurist, wrote “in the strict sense, profane is the term for something that was once sacred or religious and is returned to the use and property of men” (Agamben, 23). Thus it is that Architects and geometers mediate between the profane and the sacred, the Caesar and the slave, the CEO and the migrant worker. And so Kostof, the (slightly drier) J.R.R. Tolkein of Architectural mythology, recognizes when he tells of Daedalus’s labyrinth and his bestiality aid for Pasiphae, or of Senmut, Queen Hatshepsut’s architect, who boasted “I had access to all the writings of the prophets; there was nothing which I did know of that which had happened since the beginning” (Kostof, 5). We are not laborers and we are not rulers, we know our wax wings will melt should our hubris take us too high, and yet we won’t take the ferry to Sicily, we don’t actually make the building, we don’t actually commission it, but we make smaller versions that allow us to look down upon mankind in simulation of the gods’ perspective. Just ask yourself how many contemporary urban planning schemes, roof designs and circulation patterns privilege a heavenly view ever seen only by its modelers (architects), financers and the gods. We profane.

Then again, maybe we don’t profane enough. As Giorgio Agamben’s theories on the sacred and profane in “In Praise of Profanation” suggests, our problem may be that we make a religion out of feigning profaning. Let us first clarify what consecration and profanation mean in architectural terms. Agamben explains that “if ‘to consecrate’ was the term that indicated the removal of things from the sphere of human law, ‘to profane’ meant, conversely, to return them to the free use of men” (Agamben, 23). Architecture, as told in its mythology, translates base practices like construction, materiality, labor management, resource husbandry into symbolic, monumental form that houses—physically and metaphysically—the gods it honors. The architect consecrates by fashioning vulgar matter into a panegyric monument that reifies the distinction between men and gods. “Religio,” Agamben explains, “is not what unites men and gods but what ensures they remain distinct” (Agamben, 24). Don’t forget, we are the intermediaries between gods and men, meaning we are lesser than gods but superior to men, we fly over the water but below the clouds on our self-made wings. On the other hand, the bastard architecture of suburbs, big boxes, and the huddled masses that inhabit them, have contaminated what for every other century prior to the 20th had been reserved for the sacred, namely Architecture. Babel has toppled, and now we are bringing the gods to us at an unprecedented scale by actually returning architecture “to the use of men.” This is precisely what 9 out of 10 architects are working on and it is precisely what 0 out of 10 forms of architectural media documents. Why? Because “to profane means to open the possibility of a special form of negligence, which ignores separation or, rather, puts it to a particular use” (Agamben, 24). In a religion presided over by Kostof, Vitruvius, Eisenman, et al., the elision of distinction constitutes not just profanity but heresy. Again, Agamben can help us here.

We must distinguish between secularization and profanation. Secularization is a form of repression. It leaves intact the forces it deals with by simply moving them from one place to another….Profanation, however, neutralizes what it profanes. Once profaned, that which was unavailable and separate loses its aura and is returned to use. Both are political operations: the first guarantees the exercise of power by carrying it back to a sacred model; the second deactivates the apparatuses of power and returns to common use the spaces that power had seized (Agamben, 26)

Victor Hugo was wrong when he had his archdeacon point to his mass-produced Bible and then at a Cathedral, exclaiming “this will kill that. The book will kill the edifice.” That never died, it merely secularized into other forms such as government buildings, palaces, ramparts, institutes, corporation headquarters, mansions etc. For all of Eisenman’s efforts to provoke an “autonomous discourse of Architecture” in his early house designs, born out of the ambition to architectonically manifest a Derridean a-signifying revolution only ever waged in semiotic terms, his practice and his Caesar-like control of Architectural theory did nothing but “carry [power] back to a sacred model.” When Venturi raises a column off the ground, or when Johnson turns a chippendale clock into a tower, or when Greg Lynn, Ali Rahim, Alonso-Diaz and the parametric vanguard claim scripting is their apostrophe to the phenomenological paradise of the virtual, they are invariably rendering any revolutionary impulse entirely obscure and inscrutable, thereby doing nothing more than re-entrenching Architecture’s lofty dimension between heaven and earth, and doing so on the Powerful’s dime. Their inclusion in the latest chapter of every Architectural encyclopedia that begins in Ziggurats, Pyramids, Vitruvius and all sacred spaces should come as no surprise.

Where do we go? How can we begin to look in the mirror and enjoy what we see? What fitness regimen must we adopt to look beyond our unhealthy body image and shed away the adipose of mass production? In a word: play.

Every great Architectural movement begins with play but ends in rarefied pastiche. The Beaux Arts pulled apart the temple walls and played with their assemblage; the Bauhaus took the planarity of mechanized production and played with composition; Venturi played with the iconic; SITE played with the big-box; Koolhaas played with the polemical and the quotidian; Gehry played with the industrial; Lynn played with the digital. Who today is playING with the OSB, the chain link, the carpet, the stucco, or in a word, the unit, the off-the-shelf, off-the-boat from China unit that is everywhere but in Architecture? Before Bilbao, there was Gehry’s private residence in Venice, distinguishable by its playful manipulation of chain link and corrugated metal. Before CCTV, Koolhaas actually made OSB sexy. Before the National Portrait Gallery, Venturi played with the composition of pre-fab windows and quotidian building elements in his mother’s house. “Just as the religio that is played with but no longer observed opens the gate to use, so the powers of economics, law, and politics, deactivated in play, can become the gateways to a new happiness” (Agamben 25). The key to productive profanation is playing without secularizing. Venturi and Warhol’s gestalts originated with play but then secularized into Pop—they returned the profane to the sacred. The same can be said for Gehry and Koolhaas.

We must play with what is sacrosanct in Architecture not within Architecture (that’s just secular), but within architecture—bringing the sacred to the profane. Now that’s profoundly profane. That is why my thesis begins in playing with the brick.


Works Cited

Agamben, Giorgio. “In Praise of Profanation,” from Log. Anyone Corporation,

New York. Vol.10 Summer/Fall 2007, pgs. 23-32.

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulations. Semiotext[e]: USA. 1983.

Hugo, Victor. The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Penguin Press: New York. 2004

Kostof, Spiro.

Koolhaas, Rem. “Junkspace.” 2002.

Nicholson, Ben. “Underfoot and Between Boards in the Laurentian Library.”

Thinking the Unthinkable House (CD Rom). 1997



[1] Throughout this essay, I will use the terms Architecture and architecture to discriminate between the elect form of practice responsible for high theory and monumentality and the more common yet bastardized practices responsible for suburbs and big-boxes.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

rhizomatic architecture

As per the first couple observations on nothingness and architecture as well as today's talk on rhizomatic and post critical architecture, let us ask how the built environment can be rhizomatic. For Betsky, architecture is a verb, not a noun; buildings are nouns; they are instransigent and uncompromising. Where this argument can overstate itself--a flaw of many post structuralist architectural formulations--is its neglect of the transformative powers of use versus the morphological powers of design(ing). The article we read today, "Lethal Theory" by Eyal Weizman, illustrates one odious instance of such capacity for violent and drastic resignification.

Take parkour, for instance. For those who are unacquainted with this sport, recall the opening scene in the latest James Bond film which involves an extremely acrobatic fight scene through a construction site. This is a fascinating moment, certainly not a dead moment. If anything it constitutes the revivification of a self-aborting building. The very mundane building is in the process of construction whilst James and his prey are literally reconceiving how the gestating building can work spatially. Plumbing becomes hallway, floor slabs become stairs, stairs become obsolete, and cranes--the ancllary and prenatal tools to formal realization--become the building. Architecture is turned inside out by use, in spite of otherwise terribly banal design. In fact, parkour developed in corbusien architecture in France precisely because its painfully regular form was so amenable to deviant forms of habitation and movement. Venturi's and/or-ism is realized in such moments and, arguably, enunciated and stimulated by precisely those forms that Betsky would pronounce most dead. Use can be architectural necrophilia, prophetic perversion, frankenstein's bolt of thunder.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Ben's thoughts behind/before his blunt questions

1) Who Gets It and Who Wants It?..
The global network and network within cities is great for those who see a newly connected universe, but surely it is a chimera of fairness for others, where the lack of parity in resources becomes blatantly obvious.Who gets What design, and anyway does the Who necessarily want the What? Might there be a wealth of design in poverty & a poverty of design in wealth?

As designers, how do you make sense (and provide for) gross imbalance of resources & stuff across the globe? Or, to put it another way: what happened to ethics?
..And What are People Going to Do All Day?
Edmund Scarry: What Do People Do All Day? If we are not tasked with constantly making things: what are humans going to do? How do we design for that?

We engage in off-site global slavery for an excess of First World consumer stuff that nobody really wants. Treaties are made to cultural prevent upsets: is it time to make a treaty to stop off-loading beyond-thrift-store, baled-up, Junk-for-Jesus, used-clothing around the world? (NYTimes You-Tube: The Kenya Riots, Feb 14th 2008: Why is everyone is wearing cast-off corporate picnic tee shirts?

2) Urban/Rural Dichotomies
The Favela Syndrome: designing outside the system: hacking state organized urbanism & consumer culture: how do the two systems of being coexist? When people speak of 50% of the world’s population living in cities, what about the other 50% ? Why is so much design energy given to world cities and so little on the countryside, further exacerbating the schism between urban & rural states of being. How do we deal with design imperialism in the face of multiple ways of doing things by others?

Starved of happenstance and the incidental (which rural states take for granted) the urban dweller turns to the design & manufacture of the visceral to make up for the loss. Are we suffering from bipolar urbo-rural mood swing disease?

3) The 6th Sense
Buckminster Fuller No More Second Hand God. Page v.
Man is born with an extraordinary inventory of universal phenomena. Most of the inventory is invisible, operating either infra or ultra to our sense apprehending….We are given facilities to permit and induce our progressively greater apprehension and comprehension of the universal phenomena.

Urbanistas have a reputation for being cosmologically insentient. How do we explore, calibrate, expose, and design for qualities that are traditionally invisible, such as body/mind energies leaking from the pineal-eye? What are the perameters of the intangible? How do we design for more than the presence of a product and, what is the white space, that others do not explore, that surrounds ‘Design without Objects’ or ‘A World without Objects’?

What happened to the notion of being reflective? The hyper-cycle of consuming stuff could prompt its rejection, which in turn leads to a resurgent interest in the ineffable: is this the Ghost Dance revisited? How does the ineffable engage with the material, a designed sublime, where constructs of ‘no-thingness’ sit content?

How do we design for the need for the visceral and need for the ethereal/not being tied down at one and the same time? what happens to the moon & month, the moonstral cycles of being?


4) Design Doctrine..
‘Humans were given the mandate to use the world as they see fit’: has this theologically driven pitch run its course? What is being done in design to accept and follow the contribution of other living creatures, acknowledging that animals, plants, geothermal and weather systems all have equal pull? Has the anthro-centric vision of the world, as humanity’s sandbox, become untenable? What did the Biomorphic Design agenda leave out? Put another way: does Mother Nature really care an iota what we do?
..Suburbo-Smalltown-Christocentric Design
Why is there an absolute negation of what mainstream Christocentric suburbia/exurbia/small-town-folks are interested in?: Why has haute-design chosen to side-step red-state evangelical culture. (Christian-radio, Effingham Illinois 2/14/08: Program discrediting democrat presidency: Barak Hussein Obama (“Barak: name given to the donkey that Mohommad rode on the night-flight from Jerusalem to Heaven what he met the former prophets. Obama educated in madrassa as a schoolboy. Despite his conversion from Islam to Christianity, how can we be sure about the Muslim within?”)

5) Positivist Materialism..
What gets left out when engaging positivistic design? Is change the only way that a designer can operate? Where to go from happy-happy joy-joy. What does hyper-mutating design do with the jingle Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without!? Is constantly morphing change really a delaying tactic for what may well be Design on Credit? [How do we engage concepts such as the repetition of a built structure like the Ise Shrine, where change is measured by what happens in the repetition of its creation and what happens to the structure over time as it engages the elements?]

..& Junk-bonding Metaphor
Metaphor: the implication of something without its material presence. The positivism of design has sidestepped the telling of stories, an oral tradition, neither written or built. The great eBay shuffle: redistributing manufactured goods to trigger memories/projections of desire, reminiscence or quiet that they imply. Network intrigue versus cultural richess, the quality of lingering, wondering, wandering.
6) Contradiction
What happens to design at points of contradiction, uncertainty and global tensions? Designing a solution for all aspects feeds contradiction, for it can deny some and embrace others simultaneously. How is the symbiosis between warfare & peacefare (to build and to destroy at the same time) different from nature’s symbiosis?
How is the happy-happy joy-joy carnival of design sensibility reconciled against a backdrop of an excluded underclass, who live out what the Have’s term: ‘Suffering”? How do we deal with the swing between optimism and pessimism, the realm between, is it possible to design for an interstitial state?

Ben's Blunt (asked and un-asked) Questions

I) BLUNT QUESTIONS (a close version of the following questions was sent to each of the participants prior to the roundtable)

1) Who Gets It and Who Wants It?
Who gets What design, and does the Who necessarily want the What?

2) Urban/Rural Dichotomies
The Favela Syndrome: designing outside the system: hacking state organized urbanism & consumer culture: how do the two systems of design coexist?

3) The 6th Sense
How do we explore, calibrate, expose, and design for qualities that are traditionally invisible and intangible , such as body/mind energies and the pineal-eye?

4) Design Doctrine
‘Humans were given the mandate to use the world as they see fit’: has this theologically driven pitch run its course?

5) Contradiction
Designing a solution for all aspects feeds contradiction, for it can deny and embrace simultaneously. What happens to design at points of contradiction, uncertainty and global tensions? How is the symbiosis between warfare & peacefare (to simultaneously build and destroy) different from nature’s cyclical symbiosis?

6) Positivist Materialism
What gets left out when engaging positivistic design? Is constant change the only way that a designer can operate? What does hyper-mutating design do with the jingle Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without! ?

Question concerning the politics of design

1. should an architect always feel a responsibility to change the way people think?

2. then is it ok to build architecture that is merely a temporal manifestation of current thought?

3. i ask this question because i believe that many architects are struggling with the idea that their work should stand the test of time. isn't that what theorists are most concerned with, and commercial architects give up on?
Here goes the first installment of (not-dumb never asked) questions.......


1. Questions to the Conference

Do you feel the chair you are sitting in reflects your personality, and/or your own design sensibilities? Was your choice of seat conscious? Additionally, what are a few of your favorite chairs?

Would you agree that you all are, in essence, curators? On the point of collaboration and co-authorship, where do you see the role of the curator? Do you see curating as a form of art/design as relevant as any other?

2. If everything is design, what is good design and why?

Design is the idea, the invention, the process, the materials, the product, the visual, the effect, the usage, ect. Does the overall health of the design, environmentally and physically, make it good or bad? Does the functionality, or ability to problem-solve make it good or bad? Does the appeal and emotive response to it make it good or bad? Is it the harmony of all three? Is good and bad subjective to personal opinion? If so, to who’s opinion, the audience, the designer, or the outside critics of the design world? Does aiming at a specific audience make a design elitist or better functioning?

Collaboration?

What is collaboration? Is it intentional team-work? Is it the osmosis/zeitgeist idea of complex systems of human interaction? Can one individual come up with a design? Do so many things effect design that an individual’s idea is just a reaction to it? Just how great do you have to be in order to stand out? Does a designer have to encompass all aspects of design or can a person concentrate on one and still sleep at night? Is collaboration always about working together, or can healthy competition for money, power, fame, ect., fuel new, possibly better, designs? Is an individual’s desire to work alone a bad thing if in the end every action has a reaction?

why debate? Designing is just a job!

Whether design is everything or nothing, is it not alright if a designer makes, does, and thinks in his or her own way?

3.-How did Bruce come up with the conclusion that we need 4 worlds to support out consumption?

-What would you say design is, and do you think design is being denied?

-if design is denied, why do you say is denied, and what do you classify as denying design, and who do you think is withholding design.

4. To Bruce Mau:
What is it that you do? How does it fall under the cloud of design? Would it be appropriate to ask if you are really a designer, or is your practice as yet unnamed, maybe "pre-apocalyptic-engineering" would be more apt... Would you feel more comfortable at another school? Your definition of design seems to be more based on a process or a series of material selections and manufacturing decisions. What implications do you think your design process is supposed to have on the practice of invention in design?
To Zoe Ryan :
You've been attacked several times; but you seem to be refusing to defend yourself without aligning with a member of the panel. If you were to assume that none of these characters are on your side or willing to back you up, what would you say?
To Mr. Kipnis:
If design exists in order to affect the way that people understand the world, what are successful examples of this affective design?
To Aaron Betsky:
Your comments about design seem to threaten the practice in an almost opposite method from Mr. Mau; but with the same effect, mainly, that architecture, design, as a medium driven by realization and commodity could cease to exist if it becomes only an ephemeral grouping, in miniature, of what could be, or with the passing of time, what could have been. If your intention to demote architecture to an artistic medium in order to free up the thinking of the practice was regularized, how would you sleep at night?

5. so here are some domb questions:

so what do you think is "good" design?
what should be though, sought, and taught?
what do you think young designers and yet-to-be designer's task?
what do you think you have in common?

that is the question

First of all, don't miss this Friday's presentation by Bjarke Ingkel of BIG (http://www.big.dk/) at room 1100 in the Art and Architecture Building at UIC at 6:00 p.m.

In the spirit of the axiom "the dumbest question is the one never asked," here are the questions that were never asked of the discussants. As with most axioms, the penetrating wit and seductive eloquence of these questions truly debunks the aphorism that unasked questions are necessarily dumb. Therefore since brevity is the sole of wit and tedious the limbs and outstretched flourishes......


The questions will follow this post