3171226 Adorno Dwelling

8/13/2019 3171226 Adorno Dwelling

1/15

Architecture between Modernity and Dwelling: Reflections on Adorno's "Aesthetic Theory"Author(s): Hilde Heynen and T. W. AdornoReviewed work(s):Source: Assemblage, No. 17 (Apr., 1992), pp. 78-91Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171226.Accessed: 16/05/2012 11:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new form

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAssemblage.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3171226?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3171226?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/15


3/15

~?:.:.S Z

A W

prr

) c4o";

, r

L 1


4/15

assemblage 17

"modernism"r"postmodernism."hereforeI willnot intro-duce the theme of this essayunder the polesof this debate,but rather rom within the largerproblematicof modernity.Two Conceptsof ModernityThe wordmoderns one that remarkablyndconstantlychangesmeaning.4The modern meant one thingin the timeof the Querelledes ancienset des modernes ndsomethingelse to Baudelaire wo centuries ater.Againstthe anciens'cyclicalnotion of history, he modernes efended a linearandteleologicalview- believinghistory o be purposive, uppos-ing everyera to be specificandunrepeatable,makingprogressrelative o the precedingperiod whereasBaudelaire ssoci-atedmodernitywith the evanescentand the transitory"lamodernitc,c'est e transitoire,e fugitif,lecontingent."'Twentieth-centuryiewson modernityhave inheritedbothmeanings, he programmaticndthe transitory. he program-maticconceptlooks on modernityas a project: mphasis splacedon the pursuitof liberationandemancipationand alinear,purposivehistory.The transitory oncepthighlightsthe modern's"fugitive" ealityanduncouples ts continualchangeand variation rom a purposivepursuitof progress.These diverging onceptsare both reflectionsof the percep-tion of a concretereality a modernizingworld hat is con-stantly n the making, n transformation, world hat todaylooks different romyesterday, nd tomorrowwillbe differentagain.Butwhile the programmaticonceptconsiders hisconstantchangeto be the consequenceof striving owardcontrolof the future and the establishmentof an emanci-patedsociety,the transitory oncept focuses on the fascinat-ing character f the modern's leetingeffects. What givesmodernity ts particularlyntriguing haracters that thesetwo modesgo handin hand.Modernity,paradoxically,inks astrongorientation oward he futurewith a certainmelan-choly,a pursuitof progresswith a feelingfor the ephemeraland the transitory.Modernity s thereforeexperienced n afundamentally mbivalentway.Tobe modernsto findourselvesnan environmenthatprom-isesusadventure,ower,oy,growth,ransformationf ourselvesand theworld, nd,at the same ime,that threatenso destroyeverythingwe have,everythingwe know,everythingwe are. ...[Modernity] oursus all into a maelstrom f perpetual isintegra-

tion andrenewal,f struggle ndcontradiction,fambiguityndanguish.To be modern s to be partof a universenwhich,asMarx aid, all hat s solidmelts ntoair.'6MarshallBerman hus expresses he characteristicparadoxofmodernity: ommittingto the modern entailsseekinggrowth,development,andchange,but this process nevitablynvolvesthe threatof losingcontact with the past.Investigatinghe relationbetweenmodernityand architec-ture involves he queryof how this ambivalentexperienceof modernity s expressed n architecturalpracticeand form.In ourcentury here have been severalwaysof answeringthis question,but typicallya certainpolarizationhas takenplacethat reduces he fundamentally mbivalentcharacterof modernity.Building,Dwelling,ThinkingTo clarify he basicproblemof the relationbetween moder-nityandarchitecture, relyon Heidegger's eminal text"Building,Dwelling,Thinking."7Heidegger tartsout froman etymologicalreflectionon the Germanwords orbuildingand dwelling.Bauenderives rombuan,whichmeansdwell-ing-as-being.Heideggerdevelopsthe idea thatdwelling s theprimaryerm,meaninga wayof beingwhosefundamentalcharacter onsists of sparingandpreserving.Realdwellingfinds a placewhenpeopleremainat peacewithin what is pre-served, hat is, within the freespherethat safeguards achthing in its nature.This preserving elates o a "fourfold"dasGeviert): ne lives on the earth,under the sky,remainingbefore the divinities,andbelongingto men'sbeingwithoneanother.According o Heidegger,realdwellingentails anattitude that allowsfor the presenceof this fourfold;onlywhen these fundamentaldimensions of beinghuman cometo the fore canone considerdwelling o be authentic.Thus the true natureof building s to let dwell.Building sthe sparingandpreserving f the fourfold.Consequently,Heideggerargues,onlyif we arecapableof dwellingcan webuild.Hisexampleis a farmhouse n the BlackForest.Thefarmhouserelates o the earthbecause it is wellplacedon awind-shelteredmountainslopelookingsouth.It shields tsroomsagainst he stormscomingfromthe sky.It does notforgetthe altarcornerbehindthe communitytable.And it80


5/15

Heynen

makesroom for a child'sbed and the "treeof the dead"(acoffin), thus preservinghe fourfold n its oneness. But forHeidegger t is questionable ndeed whethertodaywe arecapableof dwelling.Becauseof the dominanceof a techno-logical-instrumentalistutlookupon the world,dwellingasthe sparingandpreserving f the fourfold s not really orth-comingin ourpresentcondition.What is traced, nstead,isthe "homelessness" f modernity.Assuming oramoment thatHeidegger'sdiagnosisof theoppositionof modernity o dwelling scorrect,we can under-stand variouspositionsof architectsand theoristsasradicallydivergentanswers o this situation.Until the 1960sanopti-mistic,programmaticendencydominatedarchitectural is-course,the most significant pokesmenof which wereGiedionand Pevsner.Theystoodup for an architecture f the modernmovementthat,in theirviews,was anintegralpartof themodernprojectof emancipationandprogress,hatgaveshapeto the futuretheyemphasized.Both wereconvinced hat anarchitecture hatresponds o the underlyingnecessitiesof itstimewillsucceed n healingthe ruptures:when architecture sintune withmodernity, ealdwelling theharmoniousrela-tion between man and his fellowman,between man and hisenvironment willcome forth. Formanyparticipantsn themodernmovement such a convictionformed he ultimateobjectivesof modernarchitecture.8The conviction bearson what Bermancalls a pastoralview ofmodernity,a vision that proclaimsa naturalaffinitybetweenthe materialand spiritualdimensions of modernization,betweentechnologicaldevelopmentandhumanwell-being.9Such a pastoralandprogrammatic utlook not onlyneglectsthe darker ide of capitalistdevelopment,but also tends topushasidethe ambivalent, ransitory, vanescent,and mel-ancholicaspectsof modernity, hus reducing ts character.In response o this optimisticandoperativereduction,an-otherpositionhasdevelopedaround he workof ManfredoTafuri.Inthis view,moderncivilization s fundamentallyo-talitarianandinevitably uppressesallmomentsof resistanceagainst he dictatorshipof the commodity,howevercreativeand variedtheymaybe. Where GiedionandPevsner awar-chitecture asa powerful nstrument o buildthe worldof to-morrow,Tafuri, nArchitecture nd Utopia,findsonlya lost

rearguardction. Architecturemayexpress ts essentialincapacity n a sublimeway,but cannot realize ts futuregoals.This view is clearlyarticulatedby MassimoCacciari n his re-view of Tafuriand Dal Co's ModemArchitecture. acciariconcentrateson whathe callsthe Fragw6irdigesthe questionworthasking) hat Heideggerspellsout in "Building,Dwell-ing, Thinking."He pointsout that the majorelement inHeidegger s the questioningof the verypossibilityof dwell-ing poeticallywithin the presentcondition.Cacciariassumesthat the developmentof moderncivilizationhas renderedthe worldunfit forinhabitation:"Theproblem ies in the factthat spiritmayno longerdwell- it hasbecome estrangedfromdwelling.Andthis is whybuildingcannot 'make' heHome (Dimora) appear."'l1According o Cacciari,Heidegger's ssay s a reflectionon anonexistentlogic.The dwelling-building-dwellingyclehasno correlate n actualreality,but merelyfunctions as anindicationof what is absenttoday.Bydefining dwelling,Heidegger n factdescribes he possiblecondition of a modeof livingthat is presently mpossible,since"non-dwellingsthe essentialcharacteristic f life in the metropolis."Lifetoday, ife in the metropolis,no longerhasanything o dowithdwellingasWohnen,as the establishmentof a relationto the fourfold.Cacciariexplicitlyholds the view that"thehome is past,it no longer s."Developingout from thisthesis,he argues hat onlyan architecture hat reflectstheimpossibilityof dwellingsucceedsin obtaininga form ofauthenticity.Onlya "silent" rchitecture suchas that ofMies van derRohe- might succeedin escaping romideol-ogyandmystification.The workof Mies is characterizedby a"supremendifference o dwelling,expressed n neutralsigns.... The languageof absence here testifies to the absenceofdwelling.... The 'greatglasswindows'arethe nullity,thesilenceof dwelling.Theynegate dwellingas theyreflect themetropolis.'11I feel, however, hatCacciari,no less than Giedion andPevsner,also reduces he ambivalentcharacter f modernity.Cacciaribases his argumenton too strict a contrapositionofmodernityanddwelling,as if even the desire forrootsandties hasnothingwhatsoever o do withmodernity,as ifdwelling ies completelyoutsideeverydesire forchange.81


6/15

assemblage 17

Thereis undoubtedlya field of tension betweenmodernityanddwelling.The confrontationwithmodernitymeans thattraditional ies to a place,a socialenvironment,a cultureareaffected; t means that dwelling n the traditional enseof theword s violated.It does not follow,however, hat this con-frontationmust inevitablygiverise to an impasse,asCacciarithinks,an impassethat leavesprecious ewpossibilitiesopento architecture. think it is possibleto consider his field oftensionin a differentway, eavingmore room for the ambiva-lence of both modernityanddwelling.Inorder o developthis suggestion,I appealto Adorno.AdornoAdornobelongedto the firstgenerationof theoristsof theso-calledFrankfurt chool. He was of Jewishoriginon hisfather's ideand,likemanyothers,was forcedto emigratefromGermany n the early1930s,firstto Englandand laterto America.In 1950he returned o Frankfurt, ut the shockof the Holocaustlingered n his work.His texts are domi-natedby the questionof how it is possiblethat the idealsofenlightenment- the ideasof reason,progress, nd liberationfor all- are turned nto theiroppositewhenput into prac-tice. He findsthat the modernizationof the worldhas causedoppressionandmanipulationrather hanliberationandhewonderswhyandhow this developmentcame to be. Thesequestionsaredealtwith most explicitly n the Dialecticof En-lightenment, ut his other main works NegativeDialecticsandAestheticTheory are alsosteepedin this sensitivity othe paradoxical ndcontradictoryharacter f modernity.12His approachs specific:he combinesthe philosophicalqueryof the natureof enlightenmentwithan intenseanalysisofcontemporary rtisticdevelopments.This doubleapproach othe modern the philosophicalproblemof modernityandthe aestheticproblemof modernism enableshim to ad-dressboth the programmatic nd the transitory onceptsofmodernity, ts complexities, ts differentappearances, nd todetermine their interrelations.No doubt Adorno earneda lot from WalterBenjamin,hisolderfriend."LikeBenjamin,his primary im was to inter-pretmodernityby meansof concrete and specificphenom-ena. Both were convinced that modernrealityescapesaglobalizingand systematizingapproach: ailyreality s toomanifoldto makeclearby model thinking.This conviction

makes access to theirtexts difficult foran unprepared eader.Theirargumentations, on the whole,asystematicandparatactic,usuallywritten n an essayisticway,and,therefore,hardto summarize.Such is the case forAestheticTheory.The book canbe readasa profoundreflectionon the relationbetweenartand moder-nity,a reflection hat is not builtsystematicallynto an argu-ment, but rathercommenced from differentpointsof view,dealingwithdifferent hemes. Gatheringup all the threads nthis text is a hopelesstask.Nevertheless, wish to elucidatesomeof the main themes in the work, n particular,hosethemes relevant o developing he relationbetween moder-nityand architecture.CriticalityArt is perceivedbyAdornoas one of the last "refuges"whererealexperience s stillpossible,experienceof whathe calls the"nonidentical" that whichdoes not conform to the exist-ing system.It is beyond question,according o him, thatmodernization xerts abanalizing nfluence andcauses ifeto be superficial nd mediocre.Modernityevokesa "crisis fexperience"becauseit increasingly estroys ivingconditionsthat are favorable o real, ntenseexperiencesand profoundinterpersonalontacts.Adornoseescontemporary rtas a wayof expressing his cri-sis.14This is preciselywhyit is "modern":he modernismofart consists n its relation o the crisisof experience.Artcan-not escapethis condition."II autetre absolumentmoderne,"saysAdorno,repeating he adageof Rimbaud.Art submitstothe inevitabilityof the historicaldevelopmentsup to now; thasno alternativebut to acceptthis. But there is more. Forhim, an expressionof crisisimplicates he need to resistthetendency expressed.He interpretsRimbaud'sphraseas a cat-egorical mperative hat links an honest facingof socialrealitywitha consistent resistance o the continuationof this his-toricalsituation.Ifone wants to resisttendenciesof repres-sion andexploitation,one cannotacceptthem by ignoringthem as actual conditionsof existence.Froman artisticpointof view,thismeansthat modern art mustworkwithadvancedtechniquesandproductionmethodsandincorporate on-temporary xperiences.But this process ncludesat thesametime a significantcriticismand resistanceagainstthe existingsystem.82


7/15

Heynen

This nuancespecifiesAdorno'saesthetictheory:modern artas art is critical.The criticalvalue of a workof art is not em-bodied in the themes it dealswithorin the "commitment"ofthe artist;on the contrary,t is immanent in the artisticpro-cess as such. Adorno s convinced that the mimetic potentialof art,if correctlyapplied "correct" ot in politicalbut inautonomous,disciplinary, rtistic erms- constitutes itscriticalcharacter, ven apart romthe personal ntentionofthe artist.MimesisAdornodescribesmimesis (aconcepthe partlyadoptsfromBenjamin)"1asa kindof affinitybetweenthingsandpersons,which exceedsthe mere antithesisbetweenobjectand sub-jectand is not based on rationalknowledge.Mimesismustnot be conceivedin the strict senseof imitation,representa-tion, orreproduction.The mimetic moment of cognitionmeansmuch more; t has to do with the possibilityof ap-proaching he world n a differentwaythaninstrumentalthinkingandsituatingthe affinityat a deeper evel than sur-face similarity.16Since mimesis does not dependon a visualsimilaritybetween a workof art and what it represents,heconcept does not exclude itsapplication o abstractart.Ab-stractpainting,forexample,can, in a properlymimeticway,presentthe alienationandobjectification ypicalof modernreality.According o Adorno,artcharacteristicallyndeavors ocreate a dialecticalrelationbetween two momentsof cog-nition,mimesis and ratio.A workof artcomes into beingnotonlyon the basis of a mimetic impulse,but alsofrom therationalityandthoughtof the artist.Mimesisandratio,how-ever,areopposedto one another n an antitheticaland para-doxicalrelation; heycannot be simply,complementarilyreconciled.ForAdorno,this is what isparticularlynherent tothe antinomythat determines he value of a workof art:"7hequalityof a workdependson the extent to which it succeedsin raising he antithetic moments of both mimesisandratio,withoutwipingout the contradictionsbetween them bysome kindof reconciliatory nity. Insuch a view, tensions,dissonances,and paradoxesorm the obvious attributesofmodernworksof art.Adornorelates he criticalcharacter f artto its mimetic as-pect in differentrespects.On a first evel,artformsone of

the fewspheres n societywithinwhichthe mimetic principleis still respected.This alonealready ontains a criticismofa socialpractice hat is increasingly ominatedby a mereinstrumentalrationality:he functionlessnessof art, ts refusato be "for-something-else,"nmistakablympliesa formofcriticismwithregard o a societywhereeverythings obligedto function. Art is critical n anotherway.On the basis of adialecticalcombinationof mimesis andratio,worksof artyielda knowledgeof realitycriticalby nature.In its mimeticrelation o reality,modern arthighlightssomethingaboutthenature of modernreality not the beautiful,harmonious,andcharming,but, on the contrary,he dissonant,chaotic,and inhuman.In a word,modern art visualizes he tornnature of ourreality.NegativityThe mimetic impulse,according o Adorno,hasto do witha gestureof negativity.The workof art does not produceapositiveimageof realityor a positive mageof whatan idealrealitycouldbe; rather, t producesanegative mage.Artshowsthe negativeaspectsof what iscalledreality.Adornostronglyprivileges he negativebecause he is convincedthatonlybya gestureof negativity s art allowed o evoke the"other,"he utopian.Indeed,the utopianis not even conceiv-able in positiveform,for no imageis powerfulenoughtoillustrate t withoutridiculeandbanality." Forhim, the ob-jectiveof modern art s to makepeopleawareof the terrifyingaspectsof everydayife. Giventhe circumstances,negativityis the only possible wayto keepthe ideal of the utopianvivid.Forsimiliarreasons,dissonance n m odern art takes the

placeof harmonyas a model of form.Onlythe dissonantcangivean account of a dissonantreality;n fact,only by meansof dissonance s artpermittedto arousethe memoryof har-mony.Theseductivepower f the charm urvivesnlywhere heforcesofdenialarestrongest:n the dissonancehatrejects elief n theillusionof theexistingharmony. . Ifasceticism nce struckdown he claimsof theaestheticna reactionaryay, t hastodaybecome hesignof advanced rt.... Artrecordsnegativelyustthatpossibilityf happinesswhich heonlypartiallyositiveanticipationfhappinessuinouslyonfrontsoday.'9Art indeedrefers o harmony Adornomaintains hat onewayor the other art is also a promesse ubonheur but it83


8/15

assemblage 17

can fulfillthis referenceonly by mimesis of its opposite.So"dissonance s the truthaboutharmony."20"AutonomyInAdorno'sview,art has a doublecharacter. t is at once asocialfact,fullydeterminedby society,and an autonomouspractice,obeying ts owntechnicalprinciples.Artis a faitsocialbecauseit is the productof one formof social abor.Its socialdetermination,however, pringsneitherfromadirect influenceproceeding rom the structureof powerand relationsof production o art,nor fromthe socialcommitmentmanifestin art's hematic content. Rather,art is socialbecause its "material"s alwaysalready ocial.Adornounderstandsmaterialn the broadestsense of thewordascomprising he concrete stuff from which a workofart is made,the techniquesavailable,he arsenalof imagesand memoriesdeployedby the artist,and the work'svariouscontexts. This material s unmistakablyocially ormedandthis social determination aturates he work tself.The workof art is alsoautonomous.Asmimesis,aswork-in-process,artgivesshapeto its materialon its ownterms.Andthe autonomouscharacter f art is not in contradictionwithits criticalcontent. Indeed, n a famousdisagreementwithBenjaminandothers,Adorno nsistedthat the artisticdisci-plineowes its criticalpotential argely o its autonomous de-velopment.2'First-rateworksof artare,in anycase,accordingto Adorno,critical;heyhighlight n theirspecificmimeticwayaspectsof reality hat would otherwiseremainconcealed.Inhis analysesof particularworksof modern iteratureandmusic,Adornodemonstrates he ways n which the socialde-terminationof the artisticmaterialand the autonomous ar-tisticprocessingof this materialdialecticallyead to a workthat is critical oward ts socialreality.ArchitectureAdornowrote ittle aboutarchitecture, nlya few shortpas-sagesinAestheticTheory nd one essayof 1965 entitled"FunctionalismToday."22n the latter,he turnsagainst heprevailing, igid orm of functionalismof that time, directinghis criticismprimarilyoward he loss of architecture's u-tonomy.Ifarchitectural unctionalism s understoodasad-herenceto the purelypractical,nstrumentaldemandsof

efficiencyandeconomy,then the aesthetic moment of archi-tecture is abandoned,andprecisely his reduction,Adornoclaims, s responsible orthe monotonyandthe paltrinessofarchitecturalmanifestations n the 1960s.This critical tance relative o functionalism s nuancedinAestheticTheory,whereAdornodevelopsa position closelyrelated o Benjamin'sn "ErfahrungndArmut."23n this1933essayBenjamin ustifies he cold andsober architectureof the Bauhaus.He argues hat this architectures the ade-quateanswer o a socialdevelopmentmarkedbya "crisis fexperience." nmodernity, he possibilitiesof gainingpro-foundexperiences, ormingmemories,andlearning romthem areeverdiminishing.The Bauhaus's mooth surfacesandglass-and-steel onstructions reateenvironmentsnwhichexperience ades and the occupantcannot "leavetraces."This architecturetherebycomplieswiththe realityof its socialcontext, forpeopleno longerfeel in need of expe-rience nor wish to accumulate ts markings.The transparentarchitectureof modernismand the penetrating paceit de-scribesareexactly n tune with this new attitude.Adornofollowsa similar ine of thought inAestheticTheory.He advances he thesisthat a "pragmatic"pproach n artaswellas in architectureimpliesa perfectawareness f the so-cial condition andin that awareness esides he truthfulnessof functionalism.A functionalarchitecture stablishesamimeticrelationshipwith a socialreality hat is also charac-terizedby functionality.Yet, in its dialecticnegativity, hemimeticgesturealso constitutesa criticismwithregard othat reality. f,however andthis is preciselyAdorno'sre-proachof functionalism n practice the mimetic momentis abandoned, f Mimesisan Funktionalitdtdecays nto mereFunktionalitdt,hen functionalistarchitecture oses its criti-cal distance andcanplayonlya confirmatoryole.In the doublenatureof functionalism, he interwovenness fits progressive ndregressivemoments,Adorno discernsareflectionof enlightenmentdialectics.Enlightenmentaimsat the emancipationand liberationof manbyputtingreasonabovemyth.Butthis aim revertsnto myth if one loses sightof the targetandreason s reducedto mere instrumentalrationality.A similardialectics s at work n functionalism.Aslongasarchitectureaims to fulfillreal,objectivehumanneeds, one cannotbut recognize ts progressivemoment,

84


9/15

Heynen

whichcomprisesa criticismof a social conditionin whichthese realneed areactuallydenied.If, however, unctionalistarchitecturecollapses nto a societalsystemfor which"func-tionality"s an ultimategoal,with no furtheraim,then itmustbe seen as regressive.The antinomies f matter-of-factnessonfirm he thesisabout hedialectical ature fenlightenmentnwhichprogressndregres-sionare ntertwined. iteralnesssbarbaric.Completelybjecti-fied,artbecomesa mere actandceases o beart.The crisisoffunctionalismpensupthepossibilityf achoice: ither o giveupartor to changetsconcept.24The issues raisedherebyAdornoarerelevant o the develop-ments of the last fewdecades.Leadingarchitectsand theo-ristshaveclearlyopted not to banish architecture rom thedomainof art.Indeed,one of the most dominant themes inthe expositionsof architecturalpostmodernisms the appealto approacharchitectureagainas an art.The question,then,is whetheran attempthas been made to changethe verycon-cept of art.The reclaimingof architecture'sautonomyhas,forthe most part,been dominatedby a traditional,"respect-able"conceptof art,artregarded s a rathermarginalphe-nomenonwithlittle relevance or the day-to-day outinesofsociety,a fieldof activity or a few exceptionallygiftedper-sonswhowish to express heirhighlyindividualcreativity.When Adornospeaksof modern art and of changing ts con-cept, he has somethingquite different n mind: individualcreativity an neverbe detached from socialphenomenaanda new conceptof art should embraceboth autonomyand so-cial relevance.ArchitectureBetweenAutonomyandSocialDeterminationAdorno'snotion of the doublecharacter f art- autono-mous and sociallydetermined,criticaland mimetic- can-not be transferred o architectureustlike that. Evenif it ispossibleto speakof a doublecharactern architectureandstate that architecture s both autonomous and sociallydeter-mined, its social determination s of anotherkindthan that ofart. ForAdorno,as we have seen,artis sociallydeterminedbecauseit workswithmaterialsandtechniquesthat arethemselvesthe reflectionsof socialhistory.No doubt this isalso true forarchitecture, nd even to a very argeextent.

Currentarchitecture,orexample,workswithnew materialsandtechniquesmade availablethrough mportantsocialchangesof recentyears, romtechnologicaldevelopmentsand increasedworkefficiencyto the energycrisisand the re-organizationof the constructionindustry.Moreover,whereasthe social determinationof art,as Adornosees it, is situatedmainlyat the source the materialsandtechniquesimma-nent in artisticpractice, he social determinationof the artis-tic subject- the materialof architecture lso includespriorprograms ndcontexts that aredefinitelysociallycondi-tioned,as well as a social result.A building,afterall,alwayshas a socialfunction,it servesa usefulpurpose.All of whichdoes not, however,alterthe fact that a strict au-tonomyhas to be assigned o the architectural rtisticprocessas a process.As a discipline hat specializes n articulatingspacein order o giveshapeto people's iving,architecture sunmistakably utonomous.Design is not simplythe man-agementof heteronomousprinciples uch as functionalorconstructiverequirements,psychologicalneeds of the con-sumers,representational emands,and the like.Thereis al-waysan autonomous moment in the designprocess n whichan architect s occupiedwitharchitecture s such.At thesametime, this irreducible rchitecturalmoment cannotpos-siblybe detached from allthe other factorsdetermining hefinalresultpresented n the form of a buildingor some otherartifact.It is difficult, therefore, o distinguishbetween the categoriesof autonomousandnon-autonomousarchitecture.Which isnot to saythat no distinction whatsoever an be made be-tween differentworksof architecture.Sucha distinction,however,should be based not on the autonomousornon-autonomouscharacter f the work,but rather,on the extentto which the worksucceedsin settlingcontradictoryequire-ments. The rankof a workdependson the degreeto whichitfulfillsthe autonomousrequirementsmposed by the devel-opment of the disciplineof architecture s wellas the re-quirements mposed externallyby demands of economy,functionality,and so forth,withoutdenyingthe contradic-tionsbetween the two realms.Adornowrites,"Beautyodaycanhave no othermeasureexcept the depthto whicha workresolvescontradictions.A workmust cut throughthe contra-dictions andovercomethem, not by covering hem up, but

85


10/15

assemblage 17

2. HannesMeyerand HansWittwer,projectfor the Peter'sSchool, ompetitionntry,1926

by pursuing hem."25 rchitecturewill continueto be sociallyinvolvedandcriticaland autonomousonly by refusing ocoverup contradictions.Modernityas conceivedbyAdorno s constitutedby contra-dictorymoments: iberationanddiscipline, nnovationandeternalreturn o the same,developmentandstagnation.These contradictorymomentsmutuallydetermineeachother: here is no liberationwithoutdiscipline;anykindofinnovationentails a return o the same;development s im-possiblewithout a certainmoment of stagnation.Becauseofthe dialecticalrelationbetweenthe contradictorymomentsconstitutingmodernity,Adornoprivilegeshe principleofnegativity:f everypositively ormulatedobjectivehas aninherentmoment in which the pursuedobjectturns nto itscontradiction liberation nto repression, nlightenmentinto myth- then it is preferableo put one'strustin thenegative.Rejecting he existingby an ever-repeatedmove-ment of destructionandbreaking hroughconventionandnormalizationagainandagainarereliableguideson the wayto actual iberationandemancipation,a utopian objectiveimpossible o definein a positiveway.Adorno dentifies themodern so stronglywiththisgestureof negativity hat to himthe requirement hat "ilfaut treabsolumentmoderne" oldsthe obligationconstantly o questionandundermine heexisting.The relationbetweenarchitecture ndthisparadoxicalmodernity, hen, mustbe complex.The veryprocessof mod-ernization s carriedout, in part,by andin architecture:co-nomicgrowth eads to materialrealizationsn the form ofbuildingsand transformations f environments; rchitectureis fundamentally ffectedby technologicaldevelopments,newmaterials,and new programs. nthisway,architecturesin line with a processof modernization hat maybe deter-

minedby economicgrowthand concentrationof power;ar-chitecturecannotget roundthis social determination.But"ilfautetreabsolumentmoderne" lso means that a criticalreac-tion is required, hatarchitecture an create ts own marginsin whichmore is possiblethan slavishobedience to dominat-ing powers, han meekreproductions f whatalready xists.This double demand forrecognitionand criticismof modernrealitycan be answeredby architecturen mimesis.Ina mi-metic process, he facts ofa social conditionarepresented nan "expressive" ay,not reducedto mere calculations. namimeticmanipulation, omethingis shownthat normally e-mainshidden;hence this processcontains a moment criticalof what is acceptedas normal.The autonomous moment ofarchitecture s also based on mimesis,in its "expressive" ayof givingshapeto space.HannesMeyer's eter'sSchoolAn analysisof one of HannesMeyer'smost famousdesigns,the Peter'sSchoolin Basel, llustratesan architecturebe-tweenautonomyand socialdetermination.Meyer s generallyacknowledgedo be a straightforwardunctionalist,and hiswritingsoften confirmthisviewin an explicitway.26nthebest of his designs,however, t is not merefunctionality hatis at stake,but rather,a mimesis of functionality.Thereexist two versionsof the project or the Peter'sSchool,whichMeyerdesigned togetherwithHans Wittwer.The firstis an entryfor a competition,dated 1926; he second is pub-lishedin the periodicalBauhausof 1927.27In the earlierver-sion,the buildingcloselyfollowsthe requirementsof thecompetitionprogram, as morevolume,and containsspaces,such as a caretaker'sapartmentand a teachers'room,thataremissingin the secondversion.The westernfaqadeof thecompetitionentry,without an externalstair,has a lessdy-namic articulation hanthe final version.The famous cantile-veredplanes,however,already ppearas the hallmark f thedesign.The competitionprojectwas submittedby Meyerand Witt-wer under the motto "compromise."n theirexplanation,theystate that theiraim was to designa schoolwith class-rooms and collectivespaces lluminatedby skylights,but thatthe constraints mposed by the site rendered his impossible.

86


11/15

Heynen

Several imes they repeatthat the site is not reallyapt for thisprogram.They evengo so faras to suggestalternativebuild-ing sites in the vicinity,arguing hat onlya relocationwouldpermitthe historicalmonumentsin the neighborhood ofurtherputrefyundisturbed.This ironic attitudepervades he form of the designas well.The hoveringplanesof the terracesprofoundlyaffect thepublic spaceandthe surroundingtreets,castingheavyshad-ows anddestroying he site'sopennessandclarity. nthisway,the projectreactsnegatively o its site, while,at thesametime, its visualimpactemergesfromthe spatialdevicesinventedprecisely o overcomethe limitations of the situa-tion. The competition entry s characterizedby an interplaybetweenmimesisof functionalityand negativity.The gestureof mimeticallyreproducingunctionalitys evenmorestronglypresent n the publishedversion.Onlyonequarterof the single-pageayoutis reserved ordrawings fthe building a site plan,partialelevation,and section,witha cantedaxonometric hat immediatelycatches the eye.Themajorpartof the pageis devoted to explanatory otes andcalculations,disguising he formalimpulsesandcreating heimpression hat the projectemergesfrommere technical andprogrammaticonsiderations.A closeanalysisof the changesto the originalcompetitionprojecthighlights he dissonance,tension,andnegativity hatcharacterize he publishedver-sion.The contradictory elationshipwith the site is stressedby releasing he groundarea o parkingandpublictransporta-tion (inthe firstproject t was a playground).Reducingandrearranginghe buildingvolumeincreases he formal ensioncreatedby its relation o the suspendedplatforms.The wholenow seems all the moreout of balance,not onlybecause ofthe terraces,but alsobecause of the protrudingprismat thesouth side.The overallimpression s one of dynamism, en-sion,andnegationof the existingqualitiesof the urbanspace.Thus by its mimesis of functionality he projectreactscriti-callyto the givenprogram ndexposesnegatively he de-structionof the historicalcontext, embodyingan instanceofdissonancewithina harmonicenvironment.This effect isachievedthroughformaloperations n a purelyarchitecturalgestureandhereinresidesa moment of autonomythat can-not be ignored.Althoughthe project s supposedto be justi-

:H .f--

- --?

i?,1

3. Meyerand Wittwer,Peter'sSchool,revisedprojectaspublishedin Bauhaus,1927

87


12/15

assemblage 17

fiedthrough echnicalcalculations, his justifications onlyapartialone andalone cannotaccountfor the actual dialecti-cal formof the building.AdolfLoos'sRaumplanAdornounderstandsmimesisascomprisingnearly psofactoa gestureof negativity.Yet I think this privileging f thenegativemomentcannot be appliedunmodulated o archi-tecture.Architecture ealizesthrough ts verymateriality nineluctablepositivityand stresses n its disciplineaspirationsunnecessaryo the visualarts,music,or literature hatwereAdorno'sprimary xamples.WhereasAdorno nsiststhat itis mainlynegativity hat comprehends he promesse ebonheur f a workof art,28 do not believethis restrictionfully appliesto architecture; rchitecture's romesse ebonheur annotbe negativeonly.The horizon of everyworkof architectures constitutedby the desireto giveshapetodwelling n the world, o givea shapethat is primarily osi-tive.This is exemplifiedby the workof Adolf Loos.The relationof Loos to canonicmodernismhas neverbeenquite clear.Praisedas precursor ndmaster,he has neverbeen unambiguously partof the moderntraditionas it wasdefinedby Giedion.His architectures in manyways ncon-sistentwith the tenets of the modernmovement.For ex-ample,the construction echniqueandconcretestructureofthe Looshaus n the Michaelerplatz emainsafely nvisible,not "truthfully" xposed.He combinesmanydifferentarchi-tectures:an interiormust fulfill demandsother thanthefagades,a front ookscompletelydifferent rom a back,thefagadeof a shopis conceivedin anotherwaythanthat of ahouse.Loos'sarchitectures not modern n the orthodoxsense.It is,however,quite modern n the senseIhavedescribedabove,followingAdorno.His architecture eflects n a mimeticwaya penetratingexperienceof modernity,of a worldfallingapart.In his writings,Loosoften expresses he insightthatmoderncultureis fundamentally haracterized y momentsof ruptureanddifferences: raftdiffers romart,artdiffersfromindustry,dwellingdiffers romarchitecture.Thisrecognitionof essentialdivergencesappearsn his architec-ture,too, perhapsmost evidently n the differencebetween

the upperand lowerpartof the faqadeof the Looshausor betweenthe interiorsandexteriorsof his housesorin thedifferenceswithinthe Raumplannteriors hemselves.In the Raumplan he interior allsapart nto a conglomerateof detailsand roomsof differenttonality.There arehigh,light,representativeoomswith a richvarietyof materials;small,cosysittingareaswitha "feminine" ccent;studiesandlibrarieswith dark imber and leather-coveredurniture;pri-vate bedroomsand servants'halls,eachwith a distinctandspecificcharacter.Allaregatheredup into a moresingular x-teriorvolumeand threadedtogetherby the rotatingmove-ment of the stairs; he Raumplans not abeautiful,harmonicwhole of false rhetoricandglamour,but a whole of disso-nances.The differencesbetween the interior trictly epa-rated from the exteriorand the roomsof the Raumplan,whichinduce a certainsense of disruption, xpress n a mi-metic waythe fragmentationypicalof the experienceofmodernity.29The "scars f damageanddisruption"hatAdornodefinesascharacteristic f the moderncan be detected in Loos'srefusalto giveshapeto a harmonic,syntheticwhole.3" his refusalrecognizes he loss of sense that determines, n Nietzsche'swords, he experienceof the worldafter"God'sdeath":whenthe dominionof a religious-teleologicaliew of the worldhasdisappeared,t becomesdifficultto experience he worldas acoherentandmeaningfulwhole.But whatmust be under-scored s thatby recognizing ustthis fact,Loos alsopreservesthe memoryof what an experienceof sense couldbe. Thefragmentation f the Loosian nterior s not total: n theRaumplanan oppositemovement- the movementof inte-gration is alsorealized,radiatinga sortof comfortandestablishing he promiseof a real"home."Bothaspects,thepositiveformof inhabitationand the negativerejectionofexistingreality,arepresent n a tensionalrelation o one an-other.Andyet anotherof Adorno'scriterias therebyevoked:"The crucialdifference s whether the negationof meaningin artworks s meaningfulorwhether t representsan adapta-tion to the statusquo;whetherthe crisisof meaningis re-flectedby the workorwhether t is immediateandbypassesthe subject.""3his phrase s the perfect nquiryof Loos'smodernism,an architecturehat mirrors he objectivenega-tion of every otal experienceof senseevenas it givesshape

88


13/15

Heynen

andreason o the crisisof sense in a thoroughprocessingofthe contradictory ataof modernity.32

The Questionof DwellingTo conclude,Iwish to return o the subjectof dwelling.Ac-cording o Heidegger,modern man no longerdwells becausehe suffers rom an oblivionto the realmeaningof being(Seinsvergessenheit).s he is no longerconscious of the fun-damental dimensionsof his existence,of his relationshipwithdasGeviert,his wayof beinghasbecome unauthenticandthus he "stays"omewhere nstead of "dwells"here.LikeHeidegger,Adornocomes to the conclusionthat "dwell-ing in the proper ense is now impossible.""33dorno,how-ever,givesdifferentreasons orthis development.He doesnot blame the failureof the fundamentalrelationof man to"being" or his inability o dwell.Rather,he understands heproblemfrom an ethicalpointof view:concretely,he won-derswhetherman can feel at home in a worldwhereAusch-witz has been possible.He believes it is unbecomingto feelat ease in a worldwhere so manythings go so essentiallywrong.34If truedwelling s no longerpossible n aworldsuch asours,thisundoubtedlyhas consequencesforarchitecture.For,as Ihave said,the horizonof everyworkof architecture s deter-minedby the aspiration o giveshapeto habitation.31If thedynamicsand the fleetingcharacteristics f modernityareincompatiblewith the continuity,stability,and security ra-ditionally inked with dwelling, hereemergesa widegapbetweeneverymodernarchitecturalealizationandthe uto-pian imageof feeling-at-home-in-the-world.his gapis notso much the result of a restrictionof possibilitiesandmeansas it is inherent to human existencein a conditioncharacter-izedby an insatiablecraving orgrowthanddevelopment.The gapbetween whatwe actuallybuild andthe utopianob-jectiveof dwellingformsa constitutiveelement of modernity;and the recognitionof its existence is essentialto an archi-tecturethat wants to be modern.An architecture hat is adequateto modernitymust be two-dimensional,a confrontationrather han a symbiosis.It givesshapeto dwelling,albeitin a provisional ndinadequateway,

and, throughthatveryshape, t alsogivesan account of theimpossibilityof dwelling n the proper ense.The modernismof architectures constitutedpreciselyby the way t expressesthis tension between the formsof the habitableand theworldunfit for human inhabitation.In such a process,architecture orms the material rameworkof dwellingbut failsto expressdwellingexhaustively.A formof "nonsynchronicity"ccurs n the process,betweenactualdwelling,which is subjectto rapidchangesand successivetransformationstypicalof the modernindividual,andthe ar-chitecture,whichthrough tsmaterialityhas a moreperma-nent character.WalterBenjaminhasalready aptured hisnonsynchronicity f dwelling.Theoriginalormofeachdwellingsnot thebeing-in-a-houseutthebeing-in-an-envelope.hisenvelopebears heimprint f itsinhabitant.nextreme ases he housemightbecome uchanenvelope.Thenineteenth enturywaslonging ordwelling s noothercenturywas. tconsideredhehouse he case orthehumanbeing. .. Thetwentieth entury roughthisdwellingnthe oldsense oanendbyitsporosity,t transparency,tspreferenceorfreelightand reeair .The Jugendstilasprofoundlyhakenthebeing-in-an-envelope.oday t hasdiedanddwelling asdecreased:orthelivingonesthroughhe hotelroom, or hedeadonesthroughhecrematoria.36Ifcontinuouschangeand shiftingof identitiesare inherentto modernity, hen an architecture hatwrapsandencasesthe individual s not adequate.The fittedcoveringwillonlytoo soonbecome a pinchingstraitjacket.Architecture hatattemptsexhaustively o expressdwelling, n the old senseof the word,tracesa printof the occupant,but onlyforanimpossiblemoment, not fora livingprocess.Architectureanddwellingdo not merge; heir common planeis so fractured hat a unityis inconceivable.Adorno'sasser-tion that the wholecannot be composed by halvesthat havebeen tornapartalsoappliesto the relationbetweenarchitec-ture anddwelling.37Modernism s a gameof ambivalencesandthe wayeachworkof architectureplays hese ambiva-lences determines ts position: he more a worksucceedsinhighlightingrelationsof tension,withoutreducing heirin-herentcontradictionsn a reconciliatory ynthesis, he betterit willbe ableto remainon the boardof ourcontradictoryrelationshipwithreality.

89


14/15

assemblage 17

NotesThis articleis basedon my Ph.D.dissertation,written underthe guid-ance of A. Loeckxand G. Bakaertand presentedto the Facultyof Ap-plied Sciences at the KatholiekeUniversiteit, Leuven,underthe title"Moderniteiten architectuur:Hetmoderniteitsbegrip n het werkvanLoos,May,Giedion en Tafuri: Eenkritische reflectie vanuit Adorno'sAesthetischeTheorie."An earlierver-sion in Dutch was publishedinArchis 1 (1990).1. Cf. SigfriedGiedion,Space,TimeandArchitecture(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1980),Nicolas Pevsner,Pioneersof ModernDesign (Harmondsworth: enguinBooks,1987),andJfirgenHabermas,"ModernityVersusPostmodernity,"NewGermanCritique22 (Winter1981).2. T. W. Adorno,AesthetischeTheorie Frankfurt m Main:Suhrkamp,1970).The Englishtranslation,AestheticTheory(London:Routledgeand KeganPaul, 1986), is notoriouslybadand has been withdrawnby thepublisher.In the absence of a bettertranslation,however,quotationsand referencesare taken from thissource.For a good Englishintro-duction, see LambertZuidervaart,Adorno'sAestheticTheory:TheRedemption f Illusion(Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press,1991).3. Whereas scholarssuch as AndreasHuyssenand FredricJamesontendto classifyAdorno as a modernist,MartinJayhighlightshis "proto-deconstructivist"position. HelgaGripp,Michael Ryan,andJean-FrancoisLyotardalso drawattentionto parallelsbetween Adorno'sthought and the workof Derrida.4. Fora detailed historyof the sig-nificance of the term modern,

especiallyin German,see H. U.Gumbrecht, "Modern,Modernitit,Moderne," n O. Brunner,W.Conze, and R. Kosseleck,eds.,GeschichtlicheGrundbegriff'HistorischesLexikon urpolitish-sozialenSprache n Deutschland,vol.4 (Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta,1978).For a terminologicalhistoryofmodernity,ee Matei Calinescu,FiveFacesof Modernity:Modernism,Avant-garde,Decadence,Kitsch,PostmodernDurham:Duke Univer-sity Press,1987).5. CharlesBaudelaire,"LePeintrede la vie moderne," n Oeuvrescompldts Paris:Seuil,n.d.), 553.See also Willem vanReijen,"Post-scriptum," n W. Hudson and W.van Reijen,eds., ModernenversusPostmodernen Utrecht:HES,1986),9-49.6. MarshallBerman,All ThatIs SolidMelts into Air: TheExperience f Mo-dernity London:Verso,1982), 15.7. MartinHeidegger, "Building,Dwelling,Thinking," n Poetry,Lan-guage,Thought(London:Harperand Row, 1971), 143-62.8. Francesco Dal Co calls this the"nostalgicutopiaof dwelling,"whichpervadesmajortendenciesin mod-ern architecture.See his FiguresofArchitecture nd Thought(NewYork:Rizzoli,1990),esp. chap. 1,"Dwellingand the 'Places'of Mo-dernity."This reconciliatory ptionis not, however,specific to the mod-ern movement alone. ChristianNorberg-Schulz, orexample,whois criticalof functionalist architec-ture and the InternationalStyle,shares his basic belief that architec-ture can help man "learn o dwell."See his TheConceptof Dwelling(NewYork:Rizzoli,1985).9. Berman,All That Is Solid MeltsintoAir, 135.

10. MassimoCacciari,"EupalinosorArchitecture,"Oppositions21(1980): 107.11. Cacciari,"EupalinosorArchitec-ture,"112.12.T. W. Adorno and MaxHorkheimer,Dialectic of Enlighten-ment (London:Verso,1979),andT. W. Adorno,NegativeDialectics(NewYork:Continuum, 1983).13. See SusanBuck-Morss,The Ori-gins of NegativeDialectics (Brighton:Harvester,1978).14.Adorno,AestheticTheory,50.15. Benjamin ntroducedhis con-cept of mimesis in the essay"Oberdas mimetische Vermogen," nGesammelteSchriften,vol. 2 (Frank-furtam Main:Suhrkamp,1972-89),210-13.16. Cf. the concept of imitation inGeert Bekaert,"Imitatiealslevens-beschouwing:Over het omgaanmetoude teksten,"Wonen-TA/BK 0(1983):20-27.17.An antinomyis an apparentcon-tradiction between two theories or arealdiscrepancybetween two appar-ently proventheories.Antinomiesoccur in a logical systemif certainpropositionsobtainat the same timeas theirnegation.18.This point of view is probablyrelatedto the Jewishtraditionof theban on images: he one and onlytrueGod, Jahweh,cannot and mustnot be depicted, does not even havea realname,because no image orname could do justiceto his infinityand truth. In a similarway,Adornois convinced that utopiacannotbedirectlynamed,described,ordepicted. If utopiashould obtaina concreteappearance, t will imme-diately adopt dogmaticand totali-tarianfeatures and installa lackoffreedom that is contraryo the un-reachable deal that it implies.

19. T. W. Adorno,"OberdenFetischcharakter n der Musik unddie Regressiondes H6rens," nDissonanzen,vol. 14 of GesammeltSchriften(Frankfurt m Main:Suhrkamp,1973), 18-19.20. Adorno,AestheticTheory,17,161.21. Forthe relevanttexts of this"debate," ee Ernst Bloch et al.,Aestheticsand Politics (London:Verso,1977), and Buck-Morss,TheOriginsof NegativeDialectics.22. T. W. Adorno,"Funktionalismheute," in GesammelteSchriften10(Frankfurt m Main:Suhrkamp,1977), 375-95; translatedas "Functionalism Today,"Oppositions17(1979): 31-41.23. Walter Benjamin,"Erfahrungund Armut"(Experienceand pov-erty), in Illuminationen Frankfurtam Main:Suhrkamp,1977), 291-2624. Adorno,AestheticTheory,90.25. Adorno,"FunctionalismToday41.26. ClaudeSchnaidt,HannesMeyeBuildings,Projects nd Writings(Teufen:Niggli, 1965).MichaelHays s criticalof the reductivefunctionalistreceptionof Meyerin"Reproductionand Negation:TheCognitive Projectof the Avant-garde," n ArchitectuReproductioned. BeatrizColomina et al. (NewYork:PrincetonArchitecturalPress1988).27. Bothprojectsare documented iHannesMeyer1889-1954:ArchitekUrbanist,Lehrer, xhibition cata-logue (Berlin:Ernst& Sohn, 1989)78ff.28. "Art'spromessedubonheur, henhas an even moreemphaticallycritcal meaning: t not only expressesthe idea that currentpraxisdenieshappiness,but also carries he con-notation that happinessis some-

90


15/15

Heynen

thing beyond praxis.The chasm be-tween praxisand happinessis sur-veyed and measuredby the powerof negativityof the workof art"(Adorno,AestheticTheory,17-18).29. As Massimo Cacciariand BeatrizColomina,embroideringonBenjamin's hemes, haveobserved,it is the rejectionof total harmonyin Loos's houses that makesroomfor realexperience - an experiencethat, in a disintegratedworld,is "au-thentic"justbecause it is an experi-ence of fragmentation.See MassimoCacciari,"Interieur t experience,"Critique51, nos. 452-53 (January-February1985): 106-18, and BeatrizColomina,"On Adolf Loosand JosefHoffmann: Architecture n the Ageof MechanicalReproduction," H 6(1983): 52-58.30. "What guarantees he authenticqualityof modernworksof art? It isthe scarsof damageand disruptioninflicted on the smooth surfaceofthe immutable"(Adorno,AestheticTheory,34).31. Adorno,AestheticTheory,221.32. This is exactly the reasonwhyCacciariregardsLoos as the repre-sentative of "negative hinking."Cf.F. Amendolagine and M. Cacciari,Oikos da Loosa Wittgenstein(Roma:Officina Edizioni,1975).33. T. W. Adorno,MinimaMoralia:Reflections romDamagedLife (Lon-don: New Left Books,1974), 38.34. AdornoseverelycriticizedHeidegger,not onlyon this subject,but also with regard o the wholetenor of his philosophy.His criticismwas particularly imed at the archai-zing element typicalof Heidegger'sviews and the lack of sensibilityforhistorical and social paradoxes.SeeT. W. Adorno,TheJargonofAu-thenticity,trans. Knut Tarnowskiand FredricWill (London:New LeftBooks,1973).

35. Cf. Geert Bekaert,"Mensenwonen,"in Omtrentwonen(Deurne[Antwerp]:Kluwer,1975), 53-130.36. Walter Benjamin,DasPassagenwerkFrankfurt m Main:Suhrkamp,1983),291-92.37. Adorno,Dissonanzen, 20, refer-ringto the relationbetween popularand serious music.

FigureCredits1. HeinrichKulka,AdolfLoos(Vienna:VerlagAnton Schroll,1931).2, 3. HannesMeyer1889-1954:Architekt,Urbanist,Lehrer, xhibi-tion catalogue (Berlin:Ernst &Sohn, 1989).

91

3171226 Adorno Dwelling

Documents