WhattheF**k:WhattheForm PatrickM.

Dey ArchitectureinTheory ARCH5140 AmirAmeri UniversityofColorado CollegeofArchitectureandPlanning Midterm

GandelsonasandMortonframethereadingofGravesandEisenmansworkthroughalensof comparisonbetweenmeaningandforminarchitecture.Theirmeansofcontrivingthisreadingof architectureisachievedthroughhowGravesusesoppositiontocreatemeaningviaculturalvocabulary, whileEisenmanusesavocabularythatisautonomoustoarchitecturetoconveyaprocess,a methodologyofcreatingmeaningthroughprocessofcreatingform.InthisGravesismythologizinghis architecturebyusingmythicandculturalvocabulary,whileEisenmanisresistingthemythologizationof hisarchitecturebyusingamorphologythatneglectsanyvocabulary,exceptthatofastrictly architecturalvocabulary.WhilethereisaresistancetotheoryforGravesandEisenman,theresistance tomythismuchmoreprevalent.1 Gravesworkisframedbytheauthorsasgeneratingmeaningbyusingopposition.Essentially,usingtwo dichotomouselementsofculturalvocabulary,Gravesisabletogeneratesomesortofmeaninginhis work.Gravesisquotingthevocabulary(i.e.forms)andgrammar(i.e.architectonicrules)builtupover thegenerationstoestablishsignificationinarchitecturalcontext,whatiscalledthedoubleprogram. Forinstance,theoppositionbetweenhorizontalplaneandverticalplanerepresentstheoppositionof architectanduser.2Thisisabsolutefiction,andentirelyarbitraryinthedistinctionbetweenthe signifiedandsignifier.Inwhatwaydoesthehorizontalrepresentthearchitect?Itismerelyaframeto readahorizontalplane,sowhentheorientationsofsurfacesareanalyzedtheoppositionsaretakeninto account.Ifthehorizontalplaneisreadastheattributesofthearchitect,thennaturallytheuserwillbe readintotheverticalplanes. Here,inthecaseofthisrepresentsthat,thesignifiedis,asalways,arbitrarilyattachedtoasignifier.3 Thereisnonaturalrelationshipbetweenhorizontal(images)andthearchitect(concept).Asopposedto thepyramid,whichisanentirelymeaninglessgeometricshape,butachievesameaningthatappears obviousoncetheframeoftheoryisconstructed:itlookslikeamountain.Fromherethemindcango wildwiththisframeofreference.Themountainistheplaceofthegods(whythegodsareon mountaintopsisarbitrary),andthepyramidisatombfortheSolarGodHorusincarnatedasthePharaoh
IwillherebesynthesizingtheargumentsofDeMansTheResistancetoTheory(Minneapolis,MN:Universityof MinnesotaPress).1986.Pg.320)andBarthesMythToday.Inthattheresistancetotheoryentailstheory attemptingtoendtheoryandmaketheoryfact,buttheorywillneverend,thenresistancetomythologization attemptstoeradicatemetalanguageinanautonomouslanguage,whichinevitablyleadstoacontextually enframedmetalanguagebuiltupontheashesoftheprecedinglanguage. 2 Gandelsonas,MarioandDavidMorton.OnReadingArchitecture,Signs,Symbols,andArchitecture.NewYork, NY:JohnWileyInc.1980.Pg.248. 3 Saussure,Ferdinandde.CourseinGeneralLinguistics.NewYork,NY:PhilosophicalLibrary.1959.Pg.67.
1

(whythePharaohisHorusincarnateisarbitraryaswell).Thus,thetombmountainisthegateforwhich thedeadsolarkingtranscendstothegodsandbecomesOsiris.Thelinkis,ofcourse,arbitrarybetween pyramidandmountaingate,whichisconstructedthroughthemythsoftheEgyptians.Butitis undeniablethatthepyramiddoesresembleamountain.Inthecaseofthepyramidandmountain,the relationbetweensignifiedandsignifierisseeminglylessarbitrarythanhorizontalandarchitect.Each mustundergoamountainofrhetoricandtheoreticaljustificationtolinktheirrespectivesignifiedand signifier. Apartfromthisarbitraryrepresentationsofonethingtoanother,thereisalwaysthequalityofwhat dividestheopposites.Atwhatpointisathingstillitsownontologicalthing?Andatwhatpointdoesthe thingbecomeitsopposite?TakeforinstancethedichotomyinreadingGravesworkofthenaturaland theartificial,theinandtheout.4Atwhatpointdoesarchitecturebecomenatural?Bylogical analysis,ifhumansareaproductofnature,thenallthingsdonebyhumansarenatural,andbuiltinto thenaturalorder(ofcourse,thisisaninformalfallacy,butisaframetointerpretwith).Istherean actualdelineationbetweeninsideandoutside,theartificialandthenatural?Orarethetwoextensions ofeachother?AsLeviStraussdefineswithatrafficlight,whydoesgreenmeangoandredmean stop?Whilegoandstopareinoppositiontoeachother,howisredandgreenopposed?Howis thesignificationofthestopandgodualitycreatedinthesignifierredandgreen,whicharewithout opposition?5Thereisntone.Thetwoareonlydifferent.6Likewise,theoppositionofinsideandoutside assignifiersarearbitrarilyattachedtotheweakoppositionbetweenartificialandnaturalasthe signified. TheauthorsfurtherthisframeofoppositionbypresentingEisenmanasthecontrarytoGravestheory andwork.ThisconstructofEisenmanversusGravesissimplyanotherarbitraryopposition,butgivesa readingofthetwoactuallybeingopposites.Thoughthereadingofthetwoappeartobeopposites, visuallytherelationbetweenGravesBenacerrafHouseandEisenmansHouseIIisslim.Thetwo residenceslookverysimilarwithaverysimilararchitectonicvocabulary.Thetwohousesbothutilize autonomousandartisticusesofthewall,window,column,beam,door,andsoforth.Thedifferent readingofthesetwohousesliesnotinhowtheylook(inwhichtheyareactuallysimilar),butinhowthe twoarereadthroughopposingtheories.
Gandelsonas.OnReadingArchitecture.Pg.249,255. Leach,Edmund.Oysters,SmokedSalmon,andStiltonCheese,ClaudeLviStrauss.NewYork,NY:Fontana CollinsPublishing.1974.Pg.16. 6 Saussure.CourseinGeneralLinguistics.Pg.120.
5 4

Eisenmanispresentedasrejectingmythicvocabularyofarchitecturalform.Inotherwords,iftheuseof Corbusiersgardenwindowisideal,thenithascertainconnotationwiththeformofthewindow,and therefore,acertainmythologizationofthewindow.Eisenmanistryingtoeliminatethemythologization ofanyformbyreducingthearchitecturallanguagebacktothesignifiedandthesignifier,andtryingto notletthetwoformametasignifiedthatcanbeattachedtoanothersignifier.7ThisishowBarthes establishesmythasametalanguage.Eisenmanstrivesforthisdemythologizationinhisworkbyusinga languagethatisautonomoustoarchitecture,namelytheline,plane,andvolume,andtheir representationsinarchitecture,whichis,respectively,thecolumn,wall,andvolume(orspace).8 InHouseIIthewallisgivenanambiguousreadingbydoublingitsreading.Essentially,thewallcanbe readasanextensionofthecolumn(i.e.abunchofcolumnsplacedsidebyside,oranextrusionofthe column),oritcanbereadasaresideofthevolume(e.g.usingthelawofconservationofinformation, ifthevolumeisdestroyed,thenthewallremainsastheinformationreferringtotheexistenceofthe volume).9Eisenmancallsthissortofstructuringofarchitecturalformdoubledeepstructure,10which isitsownformofmythologization,asitisametalanguage. Theuseofcolumn,wall,andvolumeareformsthataremeanttobestrictlyarchitectural,sothe architectcancreateanautonomousarchitecture,anarchitectureofpositiveterms.11Inthiswaythe architectureisnotsupposedtoreferenceanythingoutsideofitself,asopposedtoGravesarchitecture, whichreferencesexistingculturalvocabularyandgrammarofarchitecture.WhereGraves communicatesarchitectureasamyth,Eisenmancommunicatesanarchitectureofprocess,of methodology.12Toclarify,Gravesuseslanguagethatexistsoutsideofthecreationofthework,while Eisenmanistryingtoinventalanguagefortranslationthroughthemethodsofcreatingthework. Throughthisconstructionoflanguageviamethodology,ametalanguage,thedoubledeepstructureis formed.ToEisenmanthepurposeofthedoubledeepstructureistoprovideintheobjecttwo conceptualreadings,sothattheobjectcanneverbeheldinthemindasasingleentity,butratherasina stateoftensionorasadialectbetweentwoconceptualnotions.13

7 8

Barthes,Roland.MythToday,Mythologies.NewYork,NY:Farrar,StrausandGiroux.1972.Pg.115. Gandelsonas.Pg.264265. 9 Ibid.Pg.266 10 Ibid.Pg.268. 11 Saussure.Pg.120. 12 Gandelsonas.Pg.268269,270. 13 Eisenman,Peter.TakenfromGandelsonas.Pg.269.

Obviouslythereisaparadoxherewithanarchitectureofpositiveterms.GandelsonasandMortonsay thatEisenmaneliminate[s]allfactorsatthecommunicationlevelexceptthemessageitself.14This entailsthatnothingoutsideofthemessageisnecessaryforthecommunicationoftheconcept. Ultimately,thisisaparadox.Ifcommunicationisnecessaryregardlessofwhatisbeingcommunicated, suchasmethodologyforEisenmanforoneconcepttobetransmitted,thenultimatelythefactorsat thecommunicationlevelcannotbeeliminated.Whilethisisaresistancetocommunication,that resistanceisreallyasubsetoftheresistancetomythologization,aresistancetometalanguage. OnecannotescapereadingintowhatEisenmansaysaboutthedoubledeepstructureasaformof Newspeakforarchitecture,wheretheviewer(nevertheuseroroccupant,becausethesearecontextual tothearchitecture,andsomethingthatexistsoutsideofanautonomousarchitect;toreferenceauser makesthebuildingincompletewithouttheuser,sotheusermustbeexcluded)15mustdoublethink,16 orprocessoneinterpretationoftheinformation,whileconsciouslybeingawareof,butignoring, anotherinterpretationofthesameinformation.Inthissense,Eisenmanisstrivingforanarchitecture withaparedlexicon,whichistolimitthereadingsofarchitecture;thatis,tocreatearchitectureandto readarchitectureunderalimitedvocabulary17thatisonlymeanttoreadthemethodologyofabuilding designscreation. Canarchitecturehaveitsownlanguageinpositiveterms?Orisarchitecturesimplystuckwiththe vocabularyandgrammarofitspredecessors?Canarchitectureresistmythologization?ArchiNewspeak isaresistancetomythologizationofarchitecture.Itisabsolutelyparadoxicalthatarchitecturecanbe autonomous,asitdependstoomuchoncontext(i.e.site,users,client,constructionmethods,et cetera).Tschumiprescribesanarchitectureofsensualitytocorrect,or,attheveryleast,toembracethe paradoxofautonomousarchitecture.18Butsensualizingarchitectureleavesitopentomythologization aswell.Certainlythereisaproblemtoautonomouslanguageinarchitecture,sothequestionmustbe begged:canalanguagebeautonomous?Orisitalwayssubjectedtoarbitraryimageconcepts?Derrida wouldclaimthatauniversal,autonomousarchitectureis,indeed,arbitrary:asortofuniversal tongue.Andoncesoundsnolongerhaveanyrelationofnaturalrepresentationwithexternalsensible things,theyaremoreeasilylinkedtothespontaneityoftheunderstanding.Articulated,theyfurnisha
14 15

Gandelsonas.Pg.258. Ibid.Pg.261. 16 Orwell,George.ThePrinciplesofNewspeak,1984.NewYork,NY:SignetClassic.1950.Pg.309310. 17 Rowe,ColinandFredKoetter.CollageCity.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.1978.Pg.65. 18 Tschumi,Bernard.ArchitectureandDisjunction.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.1996.Pg.2751.

languageinagreementwithitslaws.Hereindeedwehavethearbitrarynatureofthevocalsignifier.19 ThisispreciselywhatEisenmanisstrivingfor,butthearbitrarymeaningofautonomouslanguagein demythologizedarchitectureultimatelyendsinparadox. TakeHofstadtersanalogyofastringofdominos,forinstance,inthinkingaboutastringofneurons firing.Ifthedominosareknockedover,thenachainreactionoftheotherdominosensues.Butifoneof thedominosdidnotfalldown,thoughallotheronessucceedingitdidfall,thenitmustbeasked:why didthatonenotfalldown?Thesimple,andentirelymyopic(nearsighted)answerwouldbe,Because itdidntfalldown.Inthinkingaboutneurons,someneuronswontfireinachain,whiletherestdo.20 Why?Avoidinganarrowmindedresponse,thenasignificationmustbeattributedtothesignifier.Ifthe dominodoesntfall,thenanexternalimageconceptwouldhavetobeattributedtoit.InEisenmans work,thesamequestionofcommunicationandmeaninginthearchitectureissubjecttobeingasked why?foritsusage.Whyisthatcolumnthere?Themyopicansweris,Becausethecolumnisthere. Butthecommunicationofwhythecolumnisbroughtbackintomythologization,duetothe metalanguageoftheprocess.Thecolumnistherebecauseitisaresidueofthewall,whichhasbeen deconstructedIfanadditionlanguageisnecessaryforreadingtheprocessofhowthecolumngot there,thenthebuildingisnotcomplete,andthereforenotautonomous.Obviouslythemessage (signified)cannotbetranslatedwithoutcommunicatingsomesortoftheory(signifier).Itisasif Eisenmanwasconstructinganarchitecturalwordsalad,whichissyntacticallycorrect,butthe nonsensicalsemanticscanbereadthroughtheconstructionofthesentenceitself.21Ifthiscanbedone, then,onceagain,mythhasstolenthelanguagethatwasmeanttoevademythologization.22 Pointinfact,thestruggleforArchiNewspeakisparadoxicaluntoitself.Tosubjectanarchitectural languagetoalanguagewithoutcontextis,initself,creatingalanguage,ametalanguage,and,therefore, amythologizationofarchitecturallanguage.IftheModernistagendaforarchitectureistoparedown thevocabularyofarchitecture,thenitisbeingsubjectedtoametalanguagethatisbasedontheflowery andsuperfluous(i.e.unnecessarywords)languageofitspredecessor.Ifthegoalistoreducethe vocabularyandachieveanautonomouslanguage,thenthatlanguagemustderiveitselffromthe languagethatgaveitthefoundationforenframingthecontextualaspectofautonomouslanguage. Essentially,theautonomouslanguageisacopyofalanguagethatisalsoacopyofitspredecessor;a
19 20

Derrida,Jacques.Economimesis,Diacritics,Vol11.Baltimore,MA:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress.1981.Pg.19. Hofstadter,Douglas.IAmaStrangeLoop.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.2008.Pg.3739. 21 Chomsky,Noam.SyntacticStructures.Boston,MA:Mouton&Co.1957.Pg.15. 22 Barthes.Mythologies.Pg.131133.

copyofacopyofcopyofaOrabetterwaytoput,takethemathematicalparadoxofCantorSets,in whichasetofnumberscanbeinsideanothersetofnumbersthatisinsideasetinsideofaset,evenits ownset.Likewise,thismetalanguageofautonomousarchitectureisalanguagewithinalanguagewithin alanguagewithin...Thus,ArchiNewspeakisaresistancetomythologization,while,paradoxically,being mythologizedintheprocess. Ultimately,GandelsonasandMortonsOnReadingArchitectureisadichotomouscomparisonof structuringforminarchitecturefromestablishedsyntaxandsemantics,aswasthecasewithGraves, andfromautonomoussyntaxtoinventsemanticsofform,asitwasforEisenman.Incomparingboth methodsofstructuringimageandmeaning,theauthorsareframingthereadingofarchitectureas eitherstandingontheshouldersofgiants(ifImayusethewordsofSirNewton),orbeingthelone geniuswhoseekstoinventavisionofwhatarchitectureisintheimageofRandsHowardRoark.Inthe formercase,thatofGraves,mythologizationofarchitectureisembraced.Inthelatter,thatofEisenman, mythologizationisresisted,butultimatelythearchitecturesuccumbstothemetalanguageofmyth. Ultimately,theonlywayforrealizedarchitecturalformtobeperfect,aswellasexistautonomously withoutbeingsubjectedtomythologizationisaparadoxuntoitself:itmustnotexist.Then,liberated fromphysicalbeing,[architecture]willbecomenothingbutanidea,andatlastitwillbeperfect.2324

Hollis,Edward.TheSecretLivesofBuildings.NewYork,NY:HenryHold&Co.2009.Pg.40.Theoriginalquote reads,Then,liberatedfromphysicalbeing,TheParthenonwillbecomenothingbutanidea,andatlastitwillbeperfect. 24 ItoccurstomeattheendofthispaperthatIhavenotdiscussedAlberti,butithasoccurredtomethatAlbertiis stillpresenthere.Albertidefinesbeautyasthatwhichnothingcouldbeadded,diminishedoraltered,butfor theworse.(OntheArtofBuildingTenBooks.Trans.JosephRykwert.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.1988.Pg.156). ToaddAlbertiwouldonlybefortheworse.Inthatsense,Albertiispresentinthispaperinprinciple,thoughnever referenced,exceptinthisfootnote.

23