deconstruction of autonomy

The Deconstruction of Autonomy

Theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of

autonomous architecture

Author: Xiangyu Li

Student ID: 4305035

Contact: [email protected]

Supervisor: Gregory Bracken

Date: 28-05-2014

https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=73872338&authType=name&authToken=ttPe&goback=&trk=abook_conn

Personal Motivation:

The motivation of this study is due largely to the introspection of the architectural

practice since the 1990s. Started architecture in 2008, the author witnessed the influence

of a new generation of architects and their “brainwashing” speeches, promoting

publications, and schematic images. Diagrams, fancy renderings, and political manifestos

occupied both professional and mass media, peddling an architectural language which

was easy to understand and operate, like a toy in hand. Architecture became less

“autonomous” as a self-sufficient discourse.

Thus, the author became curious about how architecture transformed from a result

of its own logic, to a straightforward operation driven by external aspects. How should

we define architecture? What is the core knowledge that architecture is based on? Is

architecture a social practice or a discipline, or cult? These questions are all related to the

issue of autonomy.

In this study, the discussion of autonomy is framed since the 1960s, when

architecture became more disciplined and institutionalized. It is a remote and fascinating

period from the view point of today. It is interesting to see how the claim for autonomy

actualized in architectural language, in the works of Rossi and Eisenman. Consciously or

unconsciously, the “non-autonomous” architecture of a new generation is influence by

the principles of autonomous architecture. For instance, the notion of type/prototype, the

process of geometric operation, and the attitude to treat architecture as a distant object,

are all heritage of the autonomous architecture, and developed in the following

generations. This is one of the key points of the argument.

With all the motivation and curiosity, the author started his study, outlining a

grand narrative of the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy of

architecture.

Content

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2 Typology: an autonomous formal structure .....................................................................................4 Formal Language: autonomy in geometric operation ......................................................................6 The deconstruction of autonomy .....................................................................................................8 Non-autonomous Architecture: a new language emerging ............................................................10 Causes: Alterations in the profession ..........................................................................................................12 Socio-economic evolutions ............................................................................................................15 Conclusion: The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy ..............................................18 Notes ..............................................................................................................................................20 Image credits ..................................................................................................................................22 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................23

The Deconstruction of Autonomy

Theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of

autonomous architecture

Author: Xiangyu Li

Keywords:

Autonomy, diagram, type, geometry

Abstract:

Whether architecture is an autonomous science has always been a debatable question.

The research object of autonomous architecture is its form, the disciplines of its formal

language. The concept of type, style, and geometry, for instance, stresses the issue of

form from different perspectives. However, it is a remarkable fact that the autonomy of

architecture is deconstructed in the works of a new generation of architects. The formal

manipulation is more dependent on external reference, on programmatic or iconographic

issues, while the meaning and discipline of form is flattened. A “prototype” under

operation of “geometry”, concerning program and context rigidly as “reasons”, has

become a kind of formal language today. The reason for the destruction of autonomy in

architecture lies within and without the discourse. By researching the shifting in the

notion of autonomy, the immediate environment of architectural practice, and the socio-

economic background, the author tried to discuss the cause of the deconstruction of

autonomy, and the possibility of rebuilding the autonomy of architecture today.

1

Introduction

The seeking for autonomy in architecture can be traced back to the 1960s. Like many

other social sciences, architecture claimed to be an autonomous science with its own

disciplines. Experiments and thought experiments were made by many architects,

constructing autonomous formal principles. The works of Aldo Rossi and Peter Eisenman

were among those, representing different approaches of autonomy.

Both started their exploration of autonomy in the 1960s, Rossi and Eisenman

faced a similar issue—the problem of Modernism, which was broadly discussed during

the time. However, they took completely different positions in the critique of Modernism

and the establishment of an autonomous architecture. For Rossi, the failure of modernism

dealt to “naïve functionalism”, when “type is reduced to a simple scheme of organization,

a diagram of circulation route, and architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous

value”. 1 For Eisenman, the attitude towards the Modernism was to bring it to its fullness. 2 With the notion that objects are independent from man in Modernism 3, he developed

the formal principle of the Modern Architecture. While Rossi based his theory on the

concept of type from the city and its history, Eisenman constructed a self-sufficient

language without referring to any notion of history.

Since the 1990s, autonomy seemed to disappear from the works of the new

generation architects. Architects like MVRDV, BIG, and Bow-Wow developed a design

process based on straight-forward diagrammatic operation. Huge gestures in formal

manipulation create a toy-like architecture, in which autonomy disappeared. However,

the clarity of prototype, and the process of formal operation, which is the character of the

Musée National des Beaux Arts du Québec proposal / BIG + Fugère Architectes [1]

2

new architectural language, is obviously related to the methods in autonomous

architecture since the 1960s.With a rigid notion of type-function relation, and a method

of geometric operation of architecture as a distant object, the new method rapidly

occupies both the academy and practice, and represents the image of architecture towards

the public.

The reason for the destruction of autonomy is various. On one hand, the notion of

some basic concepts, for instance, form, type, context, and function have shifted in the

discourse of architecture. On the other hand, the transformations in design practice, in the

work flow, specialization, and power distribution in a project, altered the role and

profession of architects. The autonomous formal language was simplified, flattened, and

marginalized, generating an anxiety in the profession of architecture.

It is important to review the transformation of autonomous architecture, since it

represents the essence of architecture as a discourse. The study will contribute to the

notion of the architectural phenomenon today, offering a critical observation of the

position and design method in the architectural practice. Moreover, the study will also

allow us to rethink the role of architecture as a profession, its core knowledge and method,

and the possibility for a new autonomy in the discourse.

In this essay, the author will first study the construction of autonomy, different

approaches in Rossi’s and Eisenman’s schools. It is interesting to find out how the

principles of autonomous architecture later influenced the emerging non-autonomous

architecture. Consciously or unconsciously, the discourse of autonomous architecture

contains deconstructing aspects, which is reflected in the later practice of Rossi or

Eisenman, and the works of their followers. Second, the study will articulate the causes

for the deconstruction of autonomy. It is a process of the inbursting external references

and the exhausting inherent formal principles. Third, the author will discuss the situation

today and the possibility to reconstruct autonomy based on a new knowledge hierarchy.

However, a biography of autonomous architecture is a grand narrative, which is

beyond the capacity of the essay. The transformation of autonomy runs through the

architecture history since 1960s, and is related to the extensive and profound changes in

society. To avoid generalities, the author has to be selective in figures and events that are

brought to discussion.

3

Typology: an autonomous formal structure

If we take autonomy as a systematic formal principle, “type” must be mentioned as

source of its disciplines. The concept of type “describes a group of objects characterized

by the same formal structure”. 4 The act of typify things is related the need of

categorizing, naming, and understandings things, in terms of their formal structure. In

architecture, the concept of type deals with the paradox of singularity and repeatability,

by defining a formal structure prior to certain forms.

The first coherent definition of type in architecture theory was given by

Quatremere de Quincy in the late eighteenth century. It was a period when the traditional

discipline of architecture was challenged by the emerging social and technical revolutions.

The concept of type explained the reason behind architecture. It is identified with “the

logic of form connected with the reason and use”. 5 Beyond the formal structure, the

notion of type was deeply bound with history, nature, and use.

However, the form-type concept was weakened in the Neo-Classicalism, and

replaced by the concept of composition. In Durant’s theory, form was detached from use

and reason. Form was fragmented. With a method of composition based on a generic

geometry of axis superimposed on the grid, the connection between type and form

disappeared. 6 In the late nineteenth century, the emerging functionism eliminated the

form-type notion from the discourse, by rejecting the past as a form of knowledge in

architecture.

In the 1960s, when the Modern Movement was considered as a failure, the issue

of formal and structural continuity of traditional cities was discussed in a series of

writings. Thereby, a new field of typological study appeared, that is, the form of city. In

the second half of 1960s, the most complex and systematic theory was developed by

Rossi and his circle. 7 In The Architecture of the City, the definition of type by Rossi was

“something that is permanent and complex, a logical principle that is prior to form and

that constitutes it”.8 For Rossi, typology was a tool to analyse city and to give forms to

architecture.

4

In Rossi’s urban science, the concept of typology tries to include the city in all its

dimensions. 9 Rossi looked at different urban artifacts, both primary elements and

residential districts, seeing how type was preserved and transformed in the city. From city

observation to architecture design, Rossi based his design theory on typology, using types

to define formal structure, and its relation to the city. Colonnade, school, courtyard

housing… different types were observed, studied and applied in his works.

The Market Trajan [2] The Gallaratese/ Aldo Rossi [3]

5

Formal Language: autonomy in geometric operation

Parallel to the typological approach, the seeking for autonomy was pushed from another

direction—the formal language. The notion of formal language emerged in Modernism,

when type and style were eliminated, and form gained its independence. In the 1960s,

Eisenman attempted to develop the formal principles of Modernism into an autonomous

formal language. While autonomy for Rossi refers to the history, for Eisenman,

autonomy stands for the elaboration of a self-sufficient language. 10

Admittedly, the statement that autonomy of formal language emerged in the

Modern Movement is problematic. The manifesto of Modern Movement was the

rejection of formal principles from the past. For instance, Mies van der Rohe expressed

his repulse against form, or formalism. In a text published by De Stijl in 1923 he declared:

“We reject all aesthetic speculation, all doctrine and all formalism.” 11 On one hand, form

as the object of design practice was rejected; on the other hand, it was liberated from

style and form-type, giving an unprecedented freedom to formal manipulation. Form was

detached from meaning and matter, becoming an independent domain in architecture.

Despite functionism, Eisenman took formal principles as the essence of the

Modernism. His goal was to “carry out the objectives of the modern movement and bring

modern architecture to its fullness”. 12 The lesson he learned from Modernism was its

objective form, taking architecture as an abstract and distant object. However,

“objectivity” was not fully achieved in the Modern Movement. In The End of Classical:

The End of the Beginning, the End of End, Eisenman claimed, “In reality, however, the

objective forms never left the classical tradition. They were simply stripped down

classical forms, or forms referring to a new set of givens (function, technology).” 13 To

establish the theory of formal autonomy, Eisenman introduced linguistics. With a

structuralist linguistic notion of architecture, he found that the formal elements in

architecture should follow a deep structure, which was not perceived sensorially.

Analogous to language, Eisenman advocated “an architecture that could be read,

understood, and judged in the manner of a strictly mental operation.” 14

While the traditional notion of architectural elements was rejected, the concept of

geometry was established as an alternative to figure and image. Geometry represents a

complete abstraction of form. Thus, the neutrality of the abstract space cancelled any

6

reading of its content, meaning, and materiality, allowing an absolute geometric operation

in architecture.

As a design method, the concept of process was introduced, suggesting that his

architecture was made through a transformational process, and must be read in terms of

the sequence in time. 15 In this process, the subject, the presence of the architect, was

eliminated.

Ultimately, Eisenman's notion of design as a process of

transformation aims at undermining the role that the architect plays

in the conception of the design; a goal that conforms with the spirit

of Structuralism. Eisenman assumes that his design process is really

an objective and autonomous one; that the transformations from one

stage to another actually happen as a result of intimal laws; and that

the output of the process is an internal consequence of the process

itself. 16

Eisenman thought of the systematic transformation process as “an objective

procedure able to generate designs, without the intervention of the designer”. 17 The

absence of the author, however, suggested an absolute autonomy in architecture.

Diagrams of House IV/ Peter Eisenman [4]

7

The deconstruction of autonomy

Accordingly, Both Rossi and Eisenman attempted to establish an autonomous

architecture. For Rossi, the autonomous architecture was as received from the history;

while for Eisenman, it was as invented from a self-sufficient language. 18 In their design

practice, they tried to distance themselves from the object, which endowed their

architecture with abstract, neutral, and self-sufficient forms. For them, the absence of the

author indicates the autonomy of the work. Although they took different attitude towards

the Modernism, while Rossi thought it a failure and Eisenman proposed to make it to its

fullness, they both rejected functionism. Rossi’s critique on “naive functionism” was

“architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous value”. For Eisenman, functionism

belonged to the tradition of humanism rather than modernism. Thus, an autonomous

castle was constructed without external reference, with a set of systematic operational

methodology.

However, the concept of type and formal language shifted, and somehow

developed into the architectural language that we are familiar today, in which autonomy

is replaced by external reference, while the notion of type and formal operation are

merely kept in appearance.

As has been mentioned before, the form-type relation was weakened in the Neo-

classicalism, and eliminated in the Modern Movement. The attempt of Rossi and his

circle was to contribute to its recovery. 19 Conversely, his architecture communicates with

one ideal city rather than the city in reality. The discontinuity with the surrounding built

environment and the schematic illustration in the layout makes his architecture an

overwhelming expression of its type.

If a type is detached from the context, and transformed into another formal

language, is it still recognised as the original type? A similar question could also be found

in the representation of street in Modernism, for instance, in the Golden Lane by the

Smithsons and the Unite d’Habitaion in Marseille by Le Corbusier. For Rossi, these are

among the examples of a typological representation of the city in the form of urban

themes. 20 However, it is a problematic method to “apply” the type abstracted from the

8

city and its history to the building. In this case, architecture is reduced into a formal or

spatial representation of the type.

With the dissemination of its image, Rossi’s architecture was received as icons of

type. The formal-type notion was marginalized, and type was given representational

power, as an icon rather than as an actual formal logic. The idea of type was taken

literally as a naming of categories in terms of function and appearance.

Actually, Rossi turned his approach from type to image around 1976. The role of

a scientific notion of typology was replaced by image, memory, and imitation. His works

became juxtaposition of formal fragments rather than a typological unity. According to

Moneo, the form-type relation was broken since the period of neo-classicism, and Rossi

failed to fix it. Once the typological unity was fragmented, the only link to the past was

through image. 21

Similarly, the autonomous theory in Eisenman’s architecture shifted away from the

former linguistic notion of architecture. The concept of diagram was introduced as an

alternative to the structuralist linguistic principles in formal manipulation. The change of

attitude took place at the start of 1980s, when he realized that “the discourse of abstract

architecture had exhausted itself”. 22 He defined diagram as generator of form:

Generically, a diagram is a graphic shorthand. Though it is an

ideogram, it is not necessarily an abstraction. It is a representation

of something in that it is not the thing itself …it also acts as an

intermediary in the process of generation of real space and time. 23

The design process relying on a purist formal strategy altered into diagram, which

brought broader discussions into formal manipulations. With the growing size and

complexity of his projects, the external pressures like scale and program made it

necessary to use such a concept. 24 In his book Diagram Diaries, he explained the shift

from the first stage “diagrams of interiority”, using grids, cubes, L-shapes, and bars, to

the second stage “diagrams of exteriority”, using concept like place, text, mathematics,

and science. 25 He claimed that diagram separated “form from function, form from

9

meaning, and architects from the process of design”. But as Massimo Cacciari pointed

out, “It is problematic to act as a negative agent in architecture”. 26 It is a transition from

a complete self-sufficient formal language to an open system that dealt with its context

and programs with its form processing.

The diagram of Eisenman maintained the geometric principles from his earlier

discourse, and avoided schematic graphics from exterior reference. However, the notion

of diagram and process offered a tool to operate architecture forms like distant and

abstract objects. Once the foundation of autonomy was weakened, diagram would be

used as a tool of translating external requirements directly into the formal manipulation.

As a result, the process was no longer neutral and autonomous, but a reflection of

external and practical issues.

Finally, the architecture of Rossi and Eisenman was received as a stylistic issue.

Non-autonomous Architecture: a new language emerging

Before we discuss the new architectural language, it is necessary to review the definition

of autonomy in architecture. Autonomy suggests an inherent logic, a self-sufficient

formal structure, which architecture is considered as a result of its own discourse. It does

not necessarily mean a complete rejection of external aspects in practice, but those

aspects would not play a dominate role. That way, the works of the new generation of

architects are considered non-autonomous.

To have an overview of the architects the author was referring to, we could see a

recent architecture competition—the New Media Campus in Berlin. 27 OMA, BIG, and

Büro-OS were shortlisted, and OMA was selected finally. It is interesting to put the three

together comparing their forms and concepts. OMA and Büro-OS gave similar proposals,

with a void in the middle of a massive volume. The proposal by OMA was named “the

digital valley”. They studied the workflow of the media industry, and arranged the

“informal office” space in the valley—the terraces in the void. The two sides of the valley

were not parallel, which represented the axis of the street and the previous Berlin Wall.

BIG proposed a “three-dimensional neighbourhood”. The concept of “neighbourhood”

was represented as a courtyard type. A series of public functions was lined in the stepping

void. What they have in common is the schematic composition based on the arrangement

10

of program, the iconic representation of their type, and huge formal operations as respond

to the context. Accordingly, their workflow can be described as “program—type—

geometric operation”, and the original type as well as the operational process are clearly

visible in the final product.

It is assertive to say the shortlisted companies represent the entire range of

architects at the time, because Barjak Ingels and Ole Scheeren used to work in OMA and

influenced by their approach. But their success in competitions reflects the general

picture of the architecture today. More and more architecture companies are influenced in

the way of doing and presenting their works, rendering an overall tendency towards a

new language.

We can draw a long list of architects, among which are the most influential ones

since the 1990s. The collective behaviour of this generation rendered a toy-like

architecture, a gigantic object-scape. The notion of type, context, function, and formal

language was simplified and flattened into image and diagram. It is a hybrid of type,

geometric processing, and neo-functionism, in which the autonomy of architecture

disappeared.

“Digital Valley” / OMA [5] “A Three Dimensional Neighbourhood” / BIG [6]

11

Causes: alterations in the profession

The reason for the destruction of autonomy is relevant not only to architecture theory but

also practice. The changes in the content of profession, the workflow, and the form of

cooperation, and the urban and social environment of practice profoundly influenced the

attitude towards autonomy.

The content of the profession changed with the rebalance of the force field in the entire

industry. Faced with growing complexity of commissions, architects must now justify

himself to many different parties, the client, building contractors and engineers, future

residents and users, and the neighbouring areas. 29 Architects are sometimes required with

more than a scheme for the building, but also a strategy of development, or suggestion for

program. The content of the profession extended, while the authority and power of

architects shrank. As the practice of the entire industry became systemized and

institutionalized, architecture was received as a product of cooperation rather than a piece

of work of any individual. The role of architects also shifted, from a heroic innovator to a

part of a chain of the production and reproduction process. Thus, there is less space for

autonomous disciplines.

…there was a strong belief in architecture’s autonomous tradition as

a bulwark of high culture. This is problematic, however, in the

present situation, in which the architect can no longer rely on that

autonomous history because the authority and power which the

traditional architect of cathedrals and palaces had to implement his

ideas no longer exists. 28

Since 1990s, there were architects attempting to face the situation for architectural

practice, by including the external forces into the discourse. Among them was the Super

Dutch Movement, represented by OMA, MVRDV, and Ben van Berkel. As we see in the

competition, OMA based their works on a profound argument on program, and came up

with new programmatic proposals concerning the transforming society and the position

of the building type. Likely, MVRDV used the concept “situation” of the design, which

12

was the physical place in terms of morphology. Nowadays, many more intangible factors

have a bearing on situation, including planning envelop, regulations on natural lights

allowance, and requirements for users and neighbouring areas, which they tried to include

in a “datascape”. Van Berkel, however, tried to collect all possible information related

and synthesize it to create a “diagram” with computer, forming the basis of the design. 30

The chain of program—diagram—form was established, which is considered as a logical

process nowadays.

International competitions, on the other hand, boosted the expansion of the non-

autonomous language. As a sample of the globalized architectural production,

competitions require relatively neutral and universal language, which is judged under an

equally neutral and universal evaluation system. The lack of common ground among

architects and juries in international competitions indicates the necessity of a more direct,

common, and understandable language, rather than a result of inherent formal logic.

Personally, the author has to admit that the proposals by OMA or BIG are relatively

comprehensive, attractive, and impressive in competitions.

The success of those companies also influenced others. In a comment Kick the

Architectural Competition Habit, Marshall Brown summarised that “the simple diagrams,

surreal formal effects, and easy imageability of their work has forced some of their more

established competitors to enter an arms race of gigantic object-scapes”. 31

However, the influence is not limited in the circle of architects. In some of the

important competitions, the proposals of the completion are widely transmitted through

media, which renders the competition a public event. To some extent, the competition

proposals represent the image of contemporary architecture for the public. As a result,

architectural competition achieved its communication value.

The developers and institutions are aware of its communication, and gain

“fantastic publicity from the mad traveling circus of design competitions”. Competitions

are held in order to attract financing, donors, and public awareness, without contacts,

necessary approvals, or even clear programs. 32 Once the competition was established

merely for transmission, the proposals are received with their concepts and images, their

communication value.

13

In this sense, the non-autonomous language was expected, awarded, and

transmitted in architectural competitions.

The new generation of architects since 1990s are faced with flattened and fragmented

cities. When identity, place, and meaning are eliminated from the city, neither typological

nor contextual approach could find valid access to the urban environment. The only

connection to the city is its image, its iconic presents in the city.

Since the Modern Movement, the continuity of structure, activity, and form which

allows consistent use of type is broken. The cities are constructed without a form-type

relation, which generates an embarrassing situation for Rossi, who attempted to relate

architecture and city with the notion of type. In the article On Type, Moneo stated: “The

object—first the city, then the building itself —once broken and fragmented, seems to

maintain its ties with the tradition discipline only in images of an ever more distant

memory.” 33 The inherent formal structure of the city was destructed, as well as that of

architecture. The shift of Rossi’s work reflects this tendency.

A more radical allegory about contemporary city is given by Koolhaas, in The

Generic City. It is a superficial city that breaks with the old city, which is considered as

“destructive cycle of dependency”. In a generic city, the concept of identity is strongly

rejected.

It is nothing but a reflection of present need and present ability. It is

the city without history. It is big enough for everybody. It is easy. It

does not need maintenance. If it gets too small it just expends. If it

gets old it just self-destructs and renews. It is equally exciting—or

unexciting—everywhere. It is “superficial”—like a Hollywood

studio lot, it can produce a new identity every Monday morning. 34

Absurd as it seems from appearance, the generic city reflects the fact that the city

is becoming an endless artificial space without any identity. It is no more than a

temporary container of urban life. Being generic, the city can support no architecture of

autonomy, but a super juxtaposition of its image.

14

Causes: socio-economic evolutions

In a broad sense, the reasons found in the transformation of architectural industry

represent an extensive and profound revolution in society. The concept of consumerism,

mass media, and non-place can explain the phenomenon in architectural practice.

The change from autonomy to non-autonomy is related to the shift from producerism to

consumerism in economy. The concept of consumerism refers to “economic policies

placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the consideration that the free

choice of consumers should strongly orient the choice of what is produced and how”. 35

Since the non-autonomous architecture emphasise program or function as the

basis of design, it seems comparable to the functionalism positions in the Modern

Movement. However, unlike the “social reform” movement in Modernism, which

attempted to redefine a new lifestyle through design, the contemporary architecture takes

a serving position. In other words, the position of modernism is to design and reform the

user from the standpoint of the designer, a heroic idea that placed himself over the people,

while the practice of consumerism is totally user oriented. The shift from modernism to

consumerism happened in almost all industries, which redefined the relationship between

production and consumption.

In some ways, the architecture of autonomy resembles a producerism perception.

The construction of its own discipline, a self-sufficient system reflects the priority of

production. Although rejecting the principles of Modernism, Rossi and Eisenman were

still in the consistence of producerism. Their manifestos were as constraint as those of

Modern Movement. While in a consumerism society, the design activities are user-

oriented, which means to base every aspect of the industry on the needs or potential needs

on the user. Of course, the design of the product, as a part of this process, is included.

The values of the profession are not to reform the society from the ideology of a designer,

but to allocate the standpoint of their works around the satisfaction of the users.

Autonomy, which seems to be wordy monologue of the architect, is rejected.

15

The booming mass media since 1980s, on the other hand, was destructing the autonomy

in architecture. The mass media brought the ideology of architects to the public. Through

this channel, architects participate in public events in different ways.

Rendered as public events in mass media, the presence of architecture is beyond

the physical built environment, and has extended to the public realm. The revaluation of

architecture considered its communication value. More than ever architects are presented

in mass media, in publications, television, and internet. It is not merely self-promotion,

but architectural production in another domain. Not only building schemes, but also

images, concepts, and idols are produced by architecture companies along with the media.

For instance, image production includes conceptual design and competitions; concept

production covers publications, exhibitions, and public lectures; idol production

represents the mechanism of promoting star architects and rendering them as public

figures.

The consumption of images, concepts, and idols are happening at the same time.

Image consumption, for instance, rendered the visual representation of a project, if not

more than, at least as important as the project itself. After fantastic renderings, diagrams

become the next battlefield for representation, which evokes a satisfaction of

“understanding” the object. Concepts consumption creates a tagging perception of the

ideas of the architects. Global of local, avant-garde or nostalgic, naturism or urbanism…

the ideas of architects are labelled with a series of words, which are still far from their

theoretical approaches. The consumption of idols is a consumption of their public image,

personality, and moral obligation. The presence of architects in public events, for

instance, post-disaster reconstructions, philanthropic programs, and development forums,

renders their public images.

Mass media generates a secondary reality, where architects and their works are

presented as images, as icons, or as labels, which in turn influenced the production.

Architecture is supposed to be photogenic, labelled, and communicative. Gradually, a

schematic architectural language took over mass media, becoming the image of

contemporary architecture.

16

The concept of non-place describes the loss of identity and the sense of place in

contemporary cities. In Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity,

Marc Auge claimed:

If a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with

identity, then a space which can not be defined as relational, or

historical, or concerned with identity will be a non-place. The

hypothesis advanced here is that supermodernity produces non-

place, meaning spaces which are not themselves anthropological

places and which, unlike Baudelairean modernity, do not integrate

the earlier places. 36

Place was created in a long term interrelation between community and space,

where there was shared identity and collective memory. While the anthropological notion

of place suggests identity, history, and memory, Auge found the mass produced new

facilities in the city without such characters. He used the word non-place, or space, to

describe such phenomenon. In a non-place, the historical relation between identity and

place is cancelled, when human-being can acquire a temporary identity like a passer-by.

In this way, the autonomous approaches though type, place, and collective

memory are no valid in a city of supermodernity.

17

Conclusion:

The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy

The biography of autonomy is a grand narrative, including all aspects within and without

the discourse. In the construction of autonomy, the attempt to conceptualize, abstract and

distant the object was essential. The autonomous approach dealt with a simplified ideal

reality, and focused on the objective formal structure, excluding other demotions in

architecture. In this sense, for the emergence of a new non-autonomous language, the

basis in aesthetics, theory, and methodology was founded in the discourse of autonomous

architecture.

The principles of non-autonomous architecture were rooted in the principles of

autonomous architecture.

With the profound transformation in architectural practice and the entire society,

the discourse of purity, self-sufficiency and autonomy got exhausted. Within its skeleton,

more functional and social aspects were introduced. When external power was projected

in the operation of a distant and abstract object, the language of “object-scape” emerged.

The systematic knowledge in formal structure was flattened and simplified as a diagram

process.

If autonomy in architecture fades out, is it possible to generate a new autonomy? As the

object of the autonomous architecture in the 1960s is the formal structure, what will be

the object of the discipline today? And what knowledge can the discourse rely on?

In Diagram Work, Ben van Berkel pointed out that the repetitive process of

verifying knowledge deeply inhibits the architectural practice is a threat to its future.

There for, he proposed an integration of the discourse:

In order to avoid total disillusionment and exhaustion, architecture

must continue to evolve its internal discourse, to adapt in specific

ways to new materials and technological innovations, and to engage

in constant self-analysis… The end of the gran narrative does not

mean that architects no longer dream their own dreams, different

from anyone else’s.37

18

If we review the construction of autonomy in the 1960s, we will find it based on

external reference. Rossi and his colleagues brought in urban geography, anthropology,

and topology, while Eisenman’s narrative is largely based on a reflection of structural

linguistics. Their works institutionalized the external reference, and transformed social

and cultural aspects into architectural issues. Rather than deconstructing disciplines in

architecture, they attempted to integrate the external aspects in the inherent formal

principles. The reconstruction of autonomy in architecture relies on the redefinition of the

discourse and the recognition of cultural conventions, within and without the profession.

More than ever is architecture influence by external references. However, after

decades of flooding in external principles, it is time to rethink of architecture as a

discipline, and rebuild its inherent and conclusive system.

19

Notes:

1. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984), 46

2. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—

in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 146

3. Peter Eisenman. “Post-Functionalism” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d.

Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998), 238

4. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 23




8. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984), 40

9. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007): 39



11. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into

the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische

Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 304



13. Peter Eisenman. “The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of

End” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998),

525








20







20. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007): 51




23. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999), 28





26. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999), 214

27. BIG, OMA, Büro-OS To Compete for New Media Campus in Berlin

http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-

campus-in-berlin/

28. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton

Architectural Press, 2000), 23





31. Marshall Brown, Comment: Kick the Architectural Competition Habit

http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138

32. Marshall Brown, Comment: Kick the Architectural Competition Habit



34. Rem Koolhaas, S,M,L,XL, (Monacelli Press, 1995), 1250

21

http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-campus-in-berlin/




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rem_Koolhaas

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monacelli_Press&action=edit&redlink=1

35. Consumerism, From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism

36. Marc Auge, Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, tans.

John Howe (Verso, 2009), 77

37. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Preface to “Diagram Works,” ANY 23 (1998)

Image Credits:

1. Musée National des Beaux Arts du Québec proposal / BIG + Fugère Architectes.

http://www.archdaily.com/57324/musee-national-des-beaux-arts-du-quebec-

proposal-big-fugere-architectes/

2. The Market Trajan. Aldo Rossi, The architecture of the city

3. The Gallaratese. Nicolin, Pierluigi, Carlo Aymonino / Aldo Rossi, housing

complex at the Gallaratese Quarter, Milan, Italy, 1969-1974

4. Peter Eisenman. Diagrams of House IV. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept

of Type in Architecture:An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form”

5. “Digital Valley” / OMA.


campus-in-berlin/

6. “A Three Dimensional Neighbourhood” / BIG.


campus-in-berlin/

22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism

http://www.archdaily.com/57324/musee-national-des-beaux-arts-du-quebec-proposal-big-fugere-architectes/

http://www.archdaily.com/57324/musee-national-des-beaux-arts-du-quebec-proposal-big-fugere-architectes/





Bibliographys:

1. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984)


in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004)

3. Peter Eisenman. “Post-Functionalism” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d.

Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998)

4. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978)

5. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007)



Hochschule Zürich, 1995)

7. Peter Eisenman. “The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of

End” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998)

8. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999)


Architectural Press, 2000)

10. Rem Koolhaas, S,M,L,XL, (Monacelli Press, 1995)

11. Marc Auge, Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, tans.

John Howe (Verso, 2009)

12. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Preface to “Diagram Works,” ANY 23

23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rem_Koolhaas

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monacelli_Press&action=edit&redlink=1

deconstruction of autonomy

Documents

nonautonomous architecture

reconstruction of autonomy

issue of autonomy

discussion of autonomy

architectural language

autonomous formal structure

formal language

new language emerging