Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
-
Upload
mortiloquist-baalazevic -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
1/18
(dis)Functions: Marxist Theories of Architecture
and the Avant-garde
Michael Chapman
Abstract
This paper investigates the relationship between architecture and theories of the
avant-garde in the critical projects of the 1970s, with a focus on the theories of eter
!"rger and Manfredo Tafuri# !oth Tafuri and !"rger were writing from within the
conte$t of a radicali%ed Mar$ism and were fuelled b& an intellectual pessimism towards
the totali%ing s&stems of cultural production that 'uestioned the role of resistance in
aesthetics and the inabilit& of the historical avant-gardes to engage within the political
and economic fields of contemporar& societ (hile there is a common ancestr& tothese two approaches, and mutual acceptance of the failure of the avant-garde project,
the wor) of Tafuri has had an enduring influence on architectural histor& and theor&,
while !"rger*s s&nchronous wor) has attracted onl& a modest amount of scholarl&
attention in architecture despite its ongoing legac& in art theor& and, particularl&, within
an +merican conte$t# This paper argues that !"rger*s dialectical approach has a
significance for architectural theor& and presents a discursive position through which
Mar$ism and architecture can be advanced# Through a detailed reading of these two
approaches, the paper attempts to position architecture as a particular strateg& of the
avant-garde that overshadowed all fields of aesthetic production in the period#
Key Words
architectural theor&, art theor&, avant-garde, eter !"rger, Manfredo Tafuri
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
2/18
1. ntroduction
(hile aesthetics was among his numerous concerns, arl Mar$ left behind a limited
framewor) from which a theor& of art could be established# This is even more
ill-defined in relationship to architecture#1. +s /ambert uidervaart wrote, 2.t is
problematic to spea) of the Mar$ian model since3. Mar$ and 4ngels neverpropounded a comprehensive philosoph& of art and their scattered comments on art ma&
impl& more than one such model#56. Most attempts to structure a philosoph& of art
based on the writings of Mar$ assume a distinction between base and superstructure#
or the most part, this has been the structure that has dominated the integration of
Mar$*s wor) in architectural theor&, although this has been complicated b& the diversit&
of avenues through which it has been pursued#8. or a number of critics in art and
architecture, the distinction between the base and superstructure is less significant than
the methodological criti'ue of ideolog& that, in art, is conditioned b& the forces of
production and reception# This distinction is a central theme in the theories of the
avant-garde constructed b& eter !"rger and Manfredo Tafuri in the 1970s#
!& drawing from the dialectical method implicit in the earl& criticism of arl Mar$,
eter !"rger*s Theor& of the +vant-arde argued that the avant-garde is a collection of
accumulated strategies that are assembled in protest against an entrenched model of
cultural production# !"rger argued that previous Mar$ist attempts to theori%e art within
the conte$t of bourgeois societ&, most notabl& those of +dorno, /u)acs and !enjamin,
have failed to attribute sufficient weight to the function that art pla&s within this societ&
and, as a result, the& neglect its sociological contribution#:. The preconception that art
has no functional importance is, in !"rger*s anal&sis, onl& countered in the wor) of;erbert Marcuse, who saw the function of art as an affirmation of the values intrinsic to
the societ& in which it is produced# +s a result, !"rger concluded that the theoretical
incursions of both !enjamin and +dorno
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
3/18
a recogni%able form or aesthetic object#5 Tafuri*s influential and nihilistic position was
that the inherent functionalit&5 of architecture meant that it would alwa&s be governed
b& commercial and mainstream social forces# This made it ineffective as a medium
through which opposition could be e$pressed in a material form# /i)e !"rger, Tafuri
concluded that it is onl& through negation that architecture can participate in provocation
or action#
iven this, the significance of these two independent theories of avant-garde practice in
the 1970s is twofold# irst, the& e$tend the alread& developed social theories of +dorno,
/u)acs, and Marcuse into a broader theor& of artistic production that is applicable to
architecture= and second, the& inspired and virtuall& re-structured a generation of
+merican criticism, predominantl& from >ew ?or), through the emerging hegemonies
of @ctober, in art, and @ppositions, in architecture, respectivel (ithin this emerging
field of criticism, architecture is increasingl& implicated as a medium through which
avant-garde practices were inadvertentl& e$plored#
That these two discourses dovetail so closel both temporall& and ideologicall&, enables
a comparative and e$panded model of avant-garde practice to be theori%ed in
relationship to the disciplinar& boundaries of architectural production, laden as it is with
the pessimism and frustration that accompanied the derailed Mar$ist resurgence of the
1970s# (hile Tafuri and !"rger e$ist in isolated compartments5A. in the various
theories of postmodernism, the significance and s&nchronicit& of their ideas warrant
further and more prolonged scholarl& attention# This paper will conte$tuali%e !"rger*s
wor) in relationship to Tafuri and establish an alternative model through which
architecture and the avant-garde can be theori%ed, with particular concern for theMar$ist ancestr& that underpins both positions#
!. "ocia# forces in the 1$%&s
2n the introduction to Theor& of the +vant-arde in 197:, eter !"rger wroteB
w.hether the& want to or not, historians or interpreters hold a position in the social
disputes of their time# The perspective from which the& view their subject is determined
b& the position the& occup& among the social forces of the epoch#7.
/i)e man& theorists of the ran)furt school, !"rger*s theor& is concerned with a much
broader historical project that accepts modernism as paradigmatic and enabling but is
pessimistic about the cultural machiner&5 that produces it and undermines its social
efficac + similar historical5 gravitas underpins Tafuri and has been critical to his
legac& as both theorist and historian# The decade preceding the initial publication of
both !"rger and Tafuri*s criti'ue of the avant-garde was one of tumultuous social
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
4/18
upheaval# ollowing his death in 19A9, Theodor +dorno*s +esthetic Theor& was
published in erman in 1970, although its transition into 4nglish was dela&ed due to the
comple$it& of the translation and the widel& contested form of the boo)#. ollowing
from his post-war essa&s, +dorno*s wor) provides an enduring Mar$ist criti'ue of the
culture industr& and a nihilistic appraisal of culture*s failed opposition towards it# The
publication of +dorno*s epic wor) fuelled an influ$ of research in the erman languagethat further legitimi%ed art as a valid forum for investigations in philosoph
ostmodern architecture, which emerged in +merica primaril& after the publication of
Denturi*s Comple$it& and Contradiction in +rchitecture E19A8F and the cumulative
criti'ues of post-war modernism in classic te$ts, such as Gane Gacobs*s /ife and Heath of
reat +merican Cities E19A1F, was also enhanced through its read& reception within a
commercial mar)etplace# Hespite the fact that Denturi, Icott !rown, and 2%enour*s 1976
wor), /earning from /as Degas, originall& carried the subtitle, The reat roletarian
Cultural /ocomotive,59. architecture in this period gravitated towards populism5
rather than socialism and was concerned more with the visual preferences of theproletarian rather than their social emancipation#10. rederic Gameson e$tended this
argument in his ostmodernism or the Cultural /ogic of /ate Capitalism, where he drew
Genc)s and Denturi into a broader Mar$ist dialectic, with its antithesis in the blea)est5
and implacabl& negative5 criti'ue of Tafuri# or Gameson, the appeal to populism in
post-modern architecture was a reaction to the elitist but differentiating and innovative
practices of high modernism, effectivel& rendering it indiscernible from the cultural
industr& of advanced capitalism#
Jnli)e the Mar$ist revisionism occurring in related disciplines, in architecture the periodwas characteri%ed b& a decidedl& non-revolutionar& structuralist reappraisal of the )itsch
landscapes of corporate +merica# This primaril& +merican phenomenon mee)l&
interpreted the theoretical motives of critical theor& in the 19A0s into a literalist and
historicist consumer pastiche that was readil& applied to the surfaces of +merican
capitalism throughout the 190s# The Genc)sian inspired post-modernism,511. even
more than conceptual art, was heavil& critici%ed for its eas& appropriation b& mar)wt
capitalism, despite its humanist allegiances as it became the signature st&le for corporate
towers across the southern states of +merica#16.
4choing the broader cultural and intellectual shifts that were ta)ing place, and notac)nowledged in the restrictive narrowing of Genc)s*s post-modernism, the emergence
of architectural theor& as a multi-disciplinar& critical practice is often located
historicall& within this appro$imate period#18. These were anchored b& the
coincidence of two 'uite unrelated trajectoriesB !aird*s influential re-reading of
Iaussure and architecture E19A9F1:. and Tafuri*s polemical rereading of Mar$ism and
the avant-garde in the same &ear#1
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
5/18
theoretical activit& that tore at the heart of the commercial foundations of architecture
and the passive role of the historian in accommodating it#1A. The re-emergence of
Mar$ism at this time was significant, not just in the conte$t of !"rger and Tafuri*s wor),
but also in societ& at large# providing a model for rewor)ing historical framewor)s that
transformed the critical function of social histor.
'. Theory of the Avant-arde
eter !"rger*s Theor& of the +vant-arde was different from previous theories of
modern art b& its interpretation of the avant-garde as a historical phenomenon as
opposed to an aesthetic one# !"rger argued that a process of institutionali%ing art had
occurred in the late eighteenth and earl& nineteenth centuries and this had led to the
gentrification of art and the isolation of its inherentl& bourgeois audience#1. 2n this
sense, he follows the earlier precedents of +dorno and !enjamin, who drew a distinctionbetween organic5 and nonorganic5 artwor)sB the former being associated with the
bourgeois structures intrinsic to the production of art and meaning and the latter with the
categor& of avant-gardist wor)s characteri%ed b& fragmentation and a collapse of the
structures of holistic meaning#19. !"rger maintained that the radical creative
approaches of the first decades of the twentieth centur& were an attempt to both identif&
and dismantle this institutionali%ation of art, attac)ing the bourgeois gentrification of the
art process and ultimatel& realigning creativit& with the e$perience of modern life#
2n short, the historical avant-garde attac)ed the autonom& of the art object and itsinstitutionali%ation and conflated the categories of art and life# !"rger argued that the
neo-avant-garde5 appropriated tactics of the historical avant-garde but in an emaciated
form, no longer challenging the autonom& of art but activel& reinforcing it in a
depolitici%ed and opportunistic waot until there is
universal availabilit& does the categor& of artistic means become a general one#6.
2t is this aspect of !"rger*s wor) that is of profound significance for architecture#
2nstead of marginali%ing architecture from the historical avant-garde Ethe conventional
perspectiveF, it enables a correlation between the two, where architecture, li)e an& other
artistic means,5 can be appropriated towards avant-gardist ends# 2t no longer needs to
be contained at the margins of art practice but resides as a central concern of the
historical avant-garde, and sits along side photograph&, film, drawing, and collage as atactic through which the st&listic5 categories of aesthetics are dismantled# !"rger*s
writing on means has some commonalities with +dorno*s criti'ue of functionalism,69.
where he argued that in architecture the absence of st&le was effectivel& a st&le itself#
+dorno, who differentiated between purposeful and non-purposive arts, argued that the
lac) of aesthetic content, for e$ample, as pure functionalism, is a m&th, since the
e$pression of functionalit& is in itself a st&le#80. or +dorno, architecture is heavil&
engaged in the c&cles of aesthetics, especiall& in regard to the need for aesthetic renewal
operating not as an alternative to the visual arts but in unison with them# +rchitecture*s
inherent functionalit& made it a radical and easil& appropriated weapon in the armor& ofthe avant-garde, capable of nurturing life and e$perience but at the same time
reconte$tuali%ing the aesthetic 'ualities of the wor) of art and negating the categories
attached to these#
(hile a large amount of critical attention has been devoted to the neo-avant-garde, the
vast majorit& of !"rger*s short wor) is concerned with the machinations of the historical
avant-garde and, more particularl&, its evolution in opposition to bourgeois aestheticism#
!"rger*s argument is that the 1960s allowed the institution of art to be recogni%ed for the
first time, establishing the vantage point, through avant-garde practice, from which it
also could be criti'ued# The historical avant-garde revolutioni%ed art practice but wasunable to institute an& substantial transformation of the political or economic structure
of capitalism# or !"rger, the more contemporar& avant-garde practices are limited b&
the formulation of this institution of art, which means the& no longer operate in
connection with societ& but within the dislocated and autonomous structure of this
institution, embod&ing, in the process, a corrupt art econom
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
8/18
;owever, as !uchloh has demonstrated, the nihilistic assumption that the
commodification of art in the 19A0s is chained to the absolute failure of the avant-garde,
while dialectical in its basis, is flawed#81. The avant-garde, constituting a disorgani%ed
and anachronistic arra& of widel& disparate tactics, never intended, or was capable of, a
permanent destruction of the institution of art# 2t was, as !"rger ac)nowledged, a
phenomenon that merel& recogni%ed this institution5 for the first time and thenradicall& attac)ed it#86. ;owever, the argument that the failure to destro& the
institution5 in the 1960s meant the futilit& of opposition forever after is tenuous and, as
!uchloh demonstrated, neglects the important s)irmishes between art and its endemic
institutional hegemon& that have ta)en place since#88. +s oster argued, these assaults
can onl& be seen as an e$tension of avant-garde activities, even on the basis of !"rger*s
own strictl& defined terms and categories#8:. The historical avant-garde is not a start
and endpoint of opposition but merel& a transformation of the conte$ts where this
opposition is directed#
. Architecture and uto*ia
(hile !"rger*s thesis set out to diagnose the failure of the avant-garde project, Tafuri*s
writing from the same period argued that it was architecture*s immersion within
capitalist s&stems that meant it would alwa&s fail as a model of social or political
criti'ue# irst published in 4nglish in 197A, Tafuri*s seminal criticism of the avant-garde
project is delivered in +rchitecture and JtopiaB Hesign and Capitalist Hevelopment#8
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
9/18
forces of production that there were no avenues through which it would be able to affect
or disrupt the means of production# 2t was, in its nature, an outcome of production rather
than the means to oppose it# The nihilism of Tafuri is articulated in his tortured
description of this hopeless fateB
t.he historical inevitabilit& of this phenomenon can be recognised# !ut having been so,it is no longer possible to hide the ultimate realit& which renders uselessl& painful the
choices of architects desperatel& attached to disciplinar& ideologies# Jselessl& painful5
because it is useless to struggle for escape when completel& enclosed and confined
without an e$it# 2ndeed, the crisis of modern architecture is not the result of tiredness5
or dissipation#5 2t is a crisis of the ideological function of architecture#:0.
or Tafuri, the implication is clear# aced with no other avenues of practice and
operating within a discipline slavishl& and inevitabl& tied to the forces of production,
architecture can no longer see) comfort in purel& architectural alternatives5:1. and
needs to dismantle the ideological structures that are internal to it# Criticism has animportant role to pla& on this front# +s with !"rger, Tafuri*s method echoes the earl&
wor) of Mar$, which sets out to dismantle the illusions pertaining to ideolog& and bring
its operations into the light#5 The closing paragraph echoes Mar$*s criti'ue of religion,
where dialectical criticism la&s bare the inherent contradictions of ideolog +ttempting
to reconcile political pra$is with architecture, Tafuri wroteB
t.he s&stematic criticism of the ideologies accompan&ing the histor& of capitalist
development is therefore but one chapter of such political action# Toda&, indeed, the
principal tas) of ideological criticism is to do awa& with impotent and ineffectual m&ths,which so often serve as illusions that permit the survival of anachronistic hopes in
design#5:6.
Tafuri*s criti'ue of the inherent futilit& of architectural practice is continued in later
wor)s with a specific emphasis on the avant-garde#:8. The twin operations of Tafuri*s
polemic are embodied in the rationalist pursuit of the object Ethe sphereF and the
lab&rinthine obsession of the avant-garde to undermine it# or Tafuri, both are
ineffective practices for resisting the hegemon& of capitalist production and an e$tension
of the flawed logic of radicalit& that underpins the paper architecture of the 1970s#
Hespite his scepticism towards these practices, it is important to illustrate that Hada, inparticular, provided an important conduit in Tafuri*s dialectic, embod&ing, in a number
of passages, the chaotic5 avant-garde trajector& that opposed but s&nthesi%ed with the
rationali%ing and homogeni%ing forces of modernism# or Tafuri, Hada represented the
most destructive and anarchic5 of the avant-garde movements, but its tactics were
ultimatel& assimilated b& capitalismB firstl&, as a means of control for planning5 and,
more damagingl&, as a precursor to its advances# 2n his dialectical theor&, Tafuri arguedB
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
10/18
Hada*s ferocious decomposition of the linguistic material and its opposition to
prefiguration had resulted in. the sublimation of automatism and commercialisation of
values that. now spread through all levels of e$istence in the advance of capitalism
3.# Hada, b& means of the absurd, demonstratedLwithout naming itLthe necessit& of
a plan#::.
Tafuri*s criticism resembles that of (alter !enjamin, who saw the primar& objective of
avant-garde practice as a transformation in the conditions of production rather than
merel& an alteration of its aesthetic or spatial conditions through e$perimentation#:
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
11/18
+. ,onc#usion
+s well as a shared emphasis on e$perience, there are a number of overlapping themes
in the writing of Tafuri and !"rger that are of significance for architectural criticism#
!oth draw from a Mar$ist historical-dialectical method,
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
12/18
has radicall& transformed the critical theor& of art and suggests that the potential of
avant-gardism as a creative strateg& has entered a new historical epoch# +s Gameson has
observed, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of
capitalism#5
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
13/18
4ndnotes
1. @n this see Martin Ga&, NThe +esthetic 2deolog&* as 2deolog&O= or, O(hat Hoes 2t
Mean to +esthetici%e oliticsP5 Cultural Criti'ue E1996F, pp# :1-A1#
6. /ambert uidervaart, The Iocial Iignificance of +utonomous +rtB +dorno and
!"rger,5 The Gournal of +esthetics and +rt Criticism, :, 1 E(inter, 1990F, A6#
8. + ta$onom& of the approaches to theori%ing Mar$ and architecture is available in
Havid Cunningham and Gon oodbun, Mar$, +rchitecture and Modernit&,5 Gournal of
+rchitecture, 11, 6 E600AF, 1A9-1
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
14/18
Modern olemics,5 erspecta, 61 E19:F, 1:#
11. or a discussion of the distinction between postmodernism and Genc)s*s branded
ost-Modernism see Icott Colman, ost-Modernism and the oreclosure of the
+rchitectural 2maginar&,5 in 2maginingB roceedings of the 67th 2nternational I+;+>
Conference, ed# Michael Chapman and Michael @stwald E>ewcastleB Iociet& of+rchitectural ;istorians +ustralian and >ew ealand, I+;+>, 6010F,
p# 9
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
15/18
!ourgeois Iociet&5 in !"rger, Theor& of the +vant-arde, pp# 8icolaus E/ondonB enguin, 1978F,
pp# 10
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
16/18
concentrated meditation on architecture is translated as Theodor +dorno, unctionalism
Toda&,5 trans# Gane >ewman and Gohn Imith, @ppositions, 17 EIummer 1979F, 80-:1#
80. +dorno, unctionalism Toda&,5 p# 86#
81. !uchloh, Theori%ing the +vant-arde,5 p# 61#
86. !"rger, Theor& of the +vant-arde, p# 19#
88. !uchloh, Theori%ing the +vant-arde,5 p# 61= see also ;al oster, (hat*s >eo
about the >eo-+vant-ardeP5 p# 1A#
8:. oster, (hat*s >eo about the >eo-+vant-ardeP5
p# 60# oster offers an e$tension of !"rger*s dialectic b& conceptuali%ing the
neo-avant-garde as an e$tension of the institution of art against which it operates in a
deconstructive5 capacit
8
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
17/18
:1. @p# cit#
:6. @p# cit#
:8. /each warns against placing too much emphasis on the historical conte$tuali%ationof Tafuri*s wor) and the inherent romantici%ation of the 19A0s protest movement,
arguing that in the subse'uent decade Tafuri developed a model of resistance through
criticism that transcended the popular reception of his wor) and is no less important for
the imbalance in its up-ta)e that we can now observe#5 Iee +ndrew /each, Manfredo
TafuriB Choosing ;istor& EhentB + R I !oo)s, 6007F#
::. Tafuri, +rchitecture and Jtopia, p# 98#
:
-
8/9/2019 Marxist Theories of Architecture and Avant-Garde
18/18