Columbia University Graduate School of Ahitectue, Planning and Preservation NewYork, New York Architecture | Theory | since 1968 | edited by K. Michael Hays The IIT Pres | Cambridge, Massachusetts | London England1975 erard Teehum “the Architectural Paradox So Interatoel, September October 1975; revised Jn Berard Techumi Archtectu and Disjuneton (Cambridge: MT Pres, 198), "The concept of space is nat a space" Bernard chun begins with an Athussesian Aistncion between apace a3 he abject of knowledge and seus existing spaces in ter then to superimpose several other dscns on this fst one all mobilized Toward theory of “the plessire of architecture” Techur textualizes architecture by obliquely resterin the pest'68 languages of Head Lefebvre and stuatinism, Prilppe Sellers andthe Tl Qul group, Roland Barthes and Jacques Dera, aswel {a5 the erin eral theory ofthe Fankirt School and dragng these, In tur, ‘cos aisthand knowledge of lian orchitertura roel, conceptual art, and per foumance ata of which creates one af the more startngly expansive interes of architecture theory ‘The athusserian formulas, of course, based onthe older Mars Jan distinction of scence and cology andreas tat while we can conceptualize the world and its ota n an absat way, there sa it between that knowledge and the here and now of imediate perception and practice. But Tschum further ‘ssoclates this distinction wit Georges Batalles economy of the pyramid and the Tabyrinth which doesnot pase the two spaces of conception and perception so ‘mucha ifld them The pyran sa substantive; its proof of architectures power nd its initation. Kt aames the entire train of architecture, al the recognizable Categories and entities ane thet “proper” concepts, bt ina vold—the conceptual knowledge ofthe pyramid can ever be positioned actualized in ay concrete way. The labyrinth, onthe other han, copula thas no substantive meaning but only 2 function of culating sigs in an erotic interplay copulation —which serves to Undermine the “roper™ erties of conceptual entities in ode to break though to tteything tha that sameness sacudes Ad yet the labytath produces the pyramid tne ca each the experience othe new and ofthe ether ony trough conceptual "This fight toward the summit (which, even dominating empires, the composition of knowledge) s but one oftheroutes ofthe “abrinth et hs out, which we must follow false lead afte flee lead, in earch of ring? cannot be avoided by us, no rlter how we ty Architect, being bath conceptual and perceptual init very ‘ature le both pyrami an ayrnth Tat sits paradox. The ony “solution tothe paradox produced In architecture the- ory thus fa, Techami reminds us, i sence, a ira istic statement that might provide modern architectural Netry wih uitmate punching its self anion” But chum suggests a possbe alternative to silence, one that might accelerate and insensy te arhitetural pardon rather than negate it "experienced space" which, mnore than a concept ora perestion, sa process, away of proccing space, an event elated to both Batale’sexpécence Inéleure an the situations vénements, but tow rewriten in terms of Rolnd Barthes textual pleasure. For Barthes'splis/ Joulsance formulation, which Wt opposes and then joins the wo types of pleasure, rot only provides a way of thinking this fundamental paradox but also coorcnates ther binaries Uke architecture’ "selective hstorism" as against its avan-grde ar bitions, ts conformist escipeary constrains as agaist ts revolutionary poicalpotentials, vigor as against its sensuality its sed and open processes f signif Cation, Sates: rex of plese ete de pli: the et hat cote is grants evo the et ha Comes cr and does otek ith Eke toa conforble price of eae. Sens texted junc the tet that pore a state of aes, te tet tat comes {Gea othe pont of ran bree) unsetes the readers stone cut, yO lave assump te consistency fe tastes, ales, memos, bing tas is a but Barthes's point nd Tecnu, 1s aot merely to ivade the proper with the in proper butt recagniz he “arachonic” process before tel separation, uw he sj eh Keys the te tens is el ain i ands the as of lease tn iss san andro sud fee slant nd contr patptes the hound dons a uture and inte destino at ature: he eos cass fevey ot i sefd tte plese andes os (hat is is) He i asic si ice vr duty pees? The texte de psi promotes a sltconscious, reflected ap- precation within a bounded iventry of entities, techniques, and evaluative catego Fes ofthe escigine the teste de jolssance cus the eae ait rom the standard topol of ealture Plasr pertain tothe propity, the comfort, and the securty of pyramidal krowledge, the reaim ofa uned but emateriaized conceptual fois: Sonces the orgasmic breaking up of tha unity through the constant labyrinthine detours of fea the ragmentation of experience. (Tschum “You dot reat ee the tube, You may see a cornet, or aside othe ellg, but never all defining surfaces fat the same tine. You touch 2 wal, you hear an echo. But how do you relate alt these perceptions to one single abject”) The texte de oussonce quate ts own Aiscarsiveeategovies forthe sheer til of trensresio. in his 1977 "The Pleasure ‘of Acitectre” chur wot, ‘he achtecre of plessue es were onepua and spatial pradones mere in he mile Uf eg. wheve architectural agate bess i 2 housand pees whet he elements bf arhtere ae dsmaned an is les tanspesse. No mtahorcal para hte, ba ‘team and viblanced experts. Such aches questions academic (nd popula) ‘sumptions dss argued ses a fond eter memars. Tylor ore an ecessry cons regen, comin. quees, chs and nelossm. Sah trchtectre is perverse becaise mal signicarc es use ny ly or arose nd l= ‘rtely tees acess aie at ing pleaseBut foussonce cannot be absolute, fori eat i tobe read, fa space tobe experienced, it wl beso according toot agains ura codes. And calture, then pls, to. The experience of architecture Ie wedged in a gay between ‘wo architectural surfaces, two edges ofthe pyramid and the labyrinth, te types of pleasure, one conceptual cutualy conservative, and rule-bound, the othe sensual, transgressive, eve vtet» Its the gap thai ert, Furthermore, iis the erotic tat reodes the relationship be tween architecture and polities, Before, we were to wat forthe realization of « new mode of production tht would necessitate anew architecture utopia tat would never come, How architectures social power is its very uselesnessto society and only the paradox of transgression ubbing agains rule can figure utopia, ‘Sine the 39705, folowing his own analysis ofthe aretetual paradox though his atcitectural projects, Tschumi has used a sees oftchnigues that he calls cosspogianming, transprogramming, and dispogrammning, each of whch associates 2 given spatial type wth alan and unltended acts (ole val Ingin the athea", seoking diferent modes of experiencing space, tiinngarhitec ‘ures inhabitants in’ new ways of practicing space. These techniques reuse the distinctions betwen concept and percept, container and action, and install the new processes of event-space "I would tke to propose” Tschumi fond of saying, “that the future of architecture ties in the construction of events>= ete 1+ Ts pehaps wot engin th ede hat “Text” is ot a exc tery even ‘sel Ings phenomenon. nde, Rl ares encuneed te ee ee ! ot Alcan ndscape re Roland Barthes, The Rust Canguape, ves Rr How 2nd [New Yar: and Wang. g86 p60) and went ont produce Tet ut of te ssc bare olan Barthes, The Pose othe Tet, ans char Maer New Yo il aed Wang. 3975L 49-50) 2. Gerges Eotale, "Uexpince meu a Ques campletes (Pts Galina, 97 1968), vol. p. toe: edn Des Halle, Aine rete: The Wtings of eages Bet, as ley Wing (Camidge MIt Press 989». 7, 3. artes, Ihe Aes ofthe ep {Berard chon "he lessor of rete Archie Design 3 (March 97) 28 “Therein aitetre whut acon a arte ht evens, no are nibout potam. 2 By exensan, the isso atinectre thot vena” Berd “Tehumi, lec of Achtectue’ Atfram September 9 9.4 6 suc statements can be oon tousbot Tscunts wings on ete, bul his one cones rom °St Concepts Climbs Documents of facitecie and Thar (02),197s Bernard Techaal The Architectural Paradox 1. Mont people concerned wi architecture fel some sort of dilusion and is- may None ofthe eatly opin ideas of the wens century bas materialize, ‘noe its socal ams as suceeded lured by rey, the deals have turned ito redevlopmentnighenares and the sims into bureaucratic plicies The split be tween socal reality and utopian deam has been ttl the gap between economic ‘constrains andthe iusion of al-solving technique absolute Pointed out by rts Gro Inew the limits of architectural remedies, this historical spit has now been bypased by atempe to reformat the concepts of architecture. Inthe proces. a new split appear. More complex, ts not the symptom of profesional naivete of Economic igaorance bat the sign ofa fundamental question that his inthe very farue of architecture and of esential element space. By focusing on ise. a- ‘hitecre hs entered an navoidable paradox that iS more present in space chan nywtere ele the imposbiy of questioning the mature of space anda he same time experiencing 2 spatial praxis {ET have no tention of reviewing architectural wends and. their connection tothe ate My general emphasis on space rather than on di pines (at architecture, senilogy, ete) sno aimed at negating academic catego Fizaton, The merging of icipline too wora a path wo provide a simulating ftneray nea I would ike to focus stetion on the present paradax of space and onthe ature of terms, ying to indie how one might go beyond this Saf ccatradicton, even f the anser should prove intolerable {begin by recalling the hori context ofthis parador. wil examine ist hose ends that consider reblture a a thing of the mind, as a demuteralized or concep! discipline ‘yh its linguistic or morphological variations (tbe Pyramid): second, empirical, ‘esearch that concenrates on the senses, onthe experience of space a well son the etionship beween spice and prais (the Labyrinth); and thd, the contac tory mature ofthese wo ferns an the difference berween the means of escaping the paradox by sing the acl ature ofthe debate, as, for example, through pois, and the means that alter the paradox altogether (éhe Pyramid and she Labyrinth 3. Linguistica to define space means both "vo make space isin and “to sate the precce nature of space” Much ofthe current confusion shout space can be strated by this ambiguity. While art and archtetare have ‘een concerned esenial wth the ist sense, philosophy, mathematics, and phys ses hive aed aoughowt hisory to ive interpretations to something variously ‘desrinedas a "material hing in Which all ater hings ae loate” a 8 "somne- thing subjective with which the mind categorizes hing.” Remember with Des- farts ended the Arson tadion aconding to which space and me were “ateories” that enabled the clasication of "sensory knowledge” Space became bole. Object before the subject, it dominated senses and bodies by containing Them. Was space inherent to ee totaty of what exits? This was the question of space for Spon and Lebar, Returning to the old notion of cregory, Kant de-serbed space 2 neither mater nor the st of objective rations hecween things but ts an ideal internal sructre, a pelo consciousness, an instrument of know ‘ge. Subsequent maternal developments oo non-Euclidean spaces and het Copologies didnot eliminate the piloophicl discussions. These reappeared with the widening gop beween abtarspaces and society. Bu space was general ac coped apa mina sort of all-embracng st with subsets suchas rary space, ‘deologial pace, and psychoanalytic space 1 Architecturally, to define pace (o make space dissin) lit ‘cally meant “to determine boundries” Space had arly been discussed by archi tects before dhe beginning of the twense cenury. But by 1915 it meant Ream nth al ts overtones of Geran estes, with the notion of Fauna or “Tl Volume,” By 1923 the dea of elk space had merged withthe idea of composition to become a three-dimensonal conrnuim, capable of mewteal subdivision that Could be relate to academic rules. Prom then on, architectural space was cons tently seen asa uniformly estended material to be modeled in various ways, and thehistryofarchiteette atthe history ofspatal concepts. From the Grek" power af fnteracing volumes” tothe Romaa "Bollowed- vt aterior space,” from the modern teraction beeen ner and outer space” tothe concept of “ransparency”his- torins and theorists referred to space 3s three mensional lump of matter “T draw a parallel berwen the pilorophie of «period and the spatial concepts of architecture is always emptng, ut never was it done a ‘bsesively as during the 1930s. Gedion related Ensiin’s theory of relativity to ‘cubist pining and cubist panes were uansated into architecture in Le Corbusier's Vila Sein a Garces, Despite these space-time conceps, che notion of space re mained that ofa siplie and amorphous mater t be defined by its phys Tundaes By the late 1960s, fied from the technalogial determinants of the postwar peviod and aware of recent bnguste studies, architec talked about the gui, che sect and the arcade, wondering if these did not conte a lite own code of space with its cn syntax ae meaning Di language precede these Socioeconomic urban spaces, id i accompany ther, or dd it fallow them? Was Space a condition ora formation? Tsay that nguage preceded these paces was eraily not obvious: human actives leave traces chat may precede language. So teas thete a rebionship between space and language, could one “ead” 2 space? ‘Wis there a dilectle between socal peas and spatial fers? 5 Yer the gap temaned beeen dea space (the product of mental processes) ad eal space (the prosct of soil praxis) Although soc ‘stincion x cenanly not deologlealy neual, we shal ee that in he nature farchtecure. Asa set, the ony sees attempts tobe this plosophial fap were those that intodoed historia or polite concepts such as “produc tho.” in che wide sense it had in Mars eal texts. Moch research in France and in tay opposed space "as a pore for” to space “at a socal produc.” space "asa lermediary’ to space “as meas of reproduction ofthe mode of production,“his politco-philophiclerique had he advantage of giving an altembracing approach to space, avoiding the previous dssocason berween the parscular” (agmented socal space), he “gener” (lglco-mathematial or men talspces), and the “singular” (physical and delineated spaces). But by giving an ‘vel privity to historia processes, olen reduced space to one ofthe numero Socioeconomic prodts that were perptuting 3 pial satus qua ‘6, Before proceeding to 4 dete examination ofthe ambi. lence of de defnton of space is pers useflto consider brily his particular expression of pace in architecture It eetory exends fom an all-embracing “ev rything is arcitecrre™ to Hegel® minimal defnton. This later tterpeetation st be ponte out, for deserbes 3 dificult thats constrive to arciectre ‘When Hegel elaborated his aesthetic tory? he conventionally dsangulshed five acs and gie them an order architectr, sculpture, painting, music, and poety He Started with architecture because he thought it preceded the others in bo concep ‘land historical terms. Hegel uneasiness in these fst pages issking His mbar ‘assent di not relly proceed fom his conservative aston but was cused by a question that ha haunted architect for centuries: were the functional and ech nial eharateritice of house ora temple the means to an end that excluded hose ‘ery characters? Where di the shed end and architecture begin? Was architec tural discourse a dacourse about whatever did not relate tothe "uildng” sl? Hegel concluded inthe affirmative: artecare was whatever in a bullding did noe point outlty Architecture was a sor of “atic supplement” aed wo theszple bling But the difcyof such an argument appears wien one tiesto concave fof a building that exces the uy of spice, a tilding tht wold have no other purpose than “architec” ‘Alhough such a question may be selva, inde a sori sng ech ia the preset search fo areitecual autonomy. Afer more than half 2 century of sina pretense, of system theories that defined its the intersection of Indstialzaton, soology, pois, and ecology, architecture wonders ican exist ‘without having to find se meaning ors justfcation in some purposeil exterior eed “The Pyramid: Stating the Nature of Space (or The Demateralization of Architecture) 2, ite concerned with Hegel's “artistic supplement,” architects have neverteless not regarded the constructed building 35 he Sol and ineriabe aim ofthe atvy “They have shown a renewed iotret in he ies of playing am active role falling fMeelogical and philsophicl functions with respect to architecture. Just as B Lis sitky ad the Venn brochers sought to deny de importance of realizing a work and ‘resid an arbitectral atu, so the avant garde fees reasonably ret ax within ‘he real of concep, Comparable to the eal conceal ats" rejeion of dhe at ‘commodity market and its alenang effets, the architec postion seems justified by the very remote possibilty they had of building anything other than &"meze reflection of the prevalent mode of production Moteorer, historical precedent exis © give enough cedibity ‘to wat coud paradoxically be described either a6 a withdrava from realty or 52 takeover of new and unkown territories. "What is architecture?” asked Boule “Will | define with Vtrovive as the art oF building? No. This definition contains 2 crs eror Vitruvius takes the effect forthe case One mst conceive in order to ‘ake, Our forefathers only bl their hut afer they had conceived Ms image. This production ofthe mind, tis craton is what consiutes architecture, that Which we pow can define asthe ar to proce any bling and bring to perfection. Theat ‘of bling is thus only a secondary at har seems appropriate 0 cal dhe scenicsow ars | 228 prt ofachitscure”” At sme when architectural memory rediscover its role a hitectral history, wih ts eatses and manifesto, has ben convenient confirm fing to architects that spa concepis were made bythe writings and drawings of spe ar much as by dee bul translations ‘The questions, "ks there any razon why one cannot proceed fom design that canbe constructed to design that corcerns itself only with the eol- ogy and concept of arcitetre”” and "if architectnl work consis of questioning ‘he nature of architecture, what prevents from making tis quesioning 2 work of architecture in fae?" were aeadyshetoria questions in 1972. The renewed Imporance given to concepual sims inarchitectare quickly became established, The medium usd forthe communication of concepts barame architecture; information| tres autetue, the stnade was architecros; the writen program or bet a Gchitecrre; gossip wae architecture, prodcion was architecture; and ineitably, the architect wa architecture. Ecaping the predicalle ideological compromises of Tnling, the acitee could Gnally achieve the sensual stfacion tha the making sf material objets no longer provided, 8, The demteraizaton of arehitectre ito the real of con cepts was more the characteristic of a period thar of any parclar avant-garde {group Thus ie developed in varios directions and stack movements as ideologically ‘opposed as, for example, “radical architecture”? and "rational archtectare," But the (gestion i asd was fuadamentl sf everything ws architecture, by vite of the techies decsion, what dingushed archiecture tom anyother human activity? ‘This quest for deny evaled that the architetfeedom did not necessarily eoin- cde with the feedom of rehstecture, Warchitectre seemed to have ined feedom fom the soco- economic consti of building processes, any ada counter designs and manis- tos were ineviably reinstated in the commercial cuits of palleries or magazines. [ike concepial art in the mid 1960s, architecture seemed to have guined autonomy by opposing the initial framework. Buti the proces it had become the ns tuona opposition, thus growing ita che very sing ic tied 10 oppose. “Although some architects, following «pola analysis that we ‘stall soon describe, were in fivor of doing avay with archtectreakogetbe, the search for autonomy inevitably turned back toward architec il, 28 no ober ‘context would ea provide fri The question bacame: i here an architectural ‘sence, » being that anscende all octal, pois, and economic stems?” This tntologtal Bias njected new blood ota a concept hat already had been well aired by art theorists Investigations into Hegel’ “supplement” received the suport of structural ingle tudes in France and aly. Analepes with language appeared en nase, some useful, sme partcultly naive and middling. Among these nguisic analogies, wo Higae prominently 9, The first theory chims tht the Hegelian "supplement added othe snplebulding and constativ of reste, s immediately tack ‘bysome semantic expansion tht would force ths ardatectral supplement 0 be less a piece of architecture tan the representation of oretbing else. Architectures then nothing but the space of representation. soon as its distinguished fom the simple building, it represents something other than elf the socal structare, the power of the King the dea of God, and s on. ‘The second tory questions an nderstanding ofarchsecure asa language tht refers to meanings ouside elt efuses the interpretation of 2 ‘lee-dmensionl translation of sca ales, for architectre would then be noth sng but the ingutstie product of social determinants thus dams that te achitec- tural objet is pare language and that archtecure ran endless manipulation ofthe frammar and syntax of the architec sign. Ratnalaxcitectur, for example,becomes sect vcabulryof architectural elements of he pst, with hee oppo stions, conta, and redisibutns. Not only does ert elf and tos own history, but fonction-—the existent) jusiation of the work—becomes vital rater than rea So the lnguage is closed in mn sel, and archivecate becomes a truly autonomous orgtassm Forms do no fll functions but reer to ober for tnd fancions relate to symbols, Ulimaely architecture fees sl fom way alt gether For doss not need to cll or external justifications. In a eric arte Opps, Manfredo Tar can thus describe Ado Ross architecture a "a universe of carefully selected signs, within which the Iw of exclusion dominate, nd in fat te the controling expresion,” and the tend i epresens a5 “Varchiecre dans le boudoir” because the circle dawn around linguistic experimentation reveals 3 preg nan afinity withthe obpesively rigors writings ofthe Margus de Sade reed from reality, independent ofieology, architectural al vues are srving toward a purity unatained since the Russian format cricsm of She 1970s, een twas argued thatthe only vai object of erry ecm was he Irerary text Here, the tttology of architectare—ihat san atcitecre tat de scribes iself—bocomes sj of empty gn, often derive from a selective hi tonics that concentrates oo moments of histor: the early mosiern movement, the oman monument, the Renalsance palace, the cate. Tansmited though history, {un removed from the consrans oftheir ime, am hese sigs, dese dagrans af spaces, become dhe generative matrices of today’s work? 1. They might. Architectural theory shares with theory & peculiar character itis presnpive, So the series of signe and arcictions that ‘he Just been described may undoubedly prove a wseful mode forarchieas engaged ina perpetual search for new support disciplines, even fi not clear waeter sy tens of nonverbal signs, sch a pace, proceed fom concepts sna verbal sys tems. However, te eal importance of thie research lie inthe question iask abot the nature of architect ater thn nthe making ofarctectre. Tis not wit ‘ut recaling the perverse and ypeetcl search forthe very origins of architecture Rusienber atthe outst, dots achtectare produce copes or models? Fi annot imitate an order, can it couse one, whether tbe the world or sodety? Mu achitecture reat ts nen model, has no erested model? Potive answers nent Seeker cal Proccurr s Peete tesshy imply: some archetype. But 35 this archetype cannot exist ouside architecture frchiecure nist prodace one te I thus becomes some sort ofan essence cat precedes existence, So the architec s once gain "the peron who conceives the frm tthe bulking without manipulating materials himsel,” He conceives the pum this ukimate model of reason, Architecture becomes a ema and the forms con ‘ive bythe architect ensure the domination of the idea over matter “The Labyrinth: Making Space Distinct (or The Experience of Space) 11 Should ines te utente baer Pai fe? Sh sk oh hse oe niles hiesnd end eg an ost canes area peel yt oc th yt a Shall etc, whi tard with he ing of ons em the Be th tale fal ounce hist? Slee pr othe ‘evo sey toad ald ral pe? My yt te st al agg nt the Aerio cg, es th rel hee om snc and eal Senn: ‘pc Ren es heating Sere eon te pad hee of By Cat, ewe ‘bry lin ad Scag, hen he St a my Lig Room. Sc a fet enw ot ny so fog be yet, Th matey fy fod ccd with nl rales wh te tery pa MY oy cain to gl prepress erin: pe, ci Tsay isymnetn. hs mh rit Ug epee ef a, cst the Ale Tch, ne he Fy, Bae they pcb arin th Hoe Disks aod ‘sce by no cle cma nthe gece and ma Sho and les bay ed Su ad Ws 40h Stet, a whe my dy is eine slo ity ts engi dings syns adisf 12 This parly sensory approach hasbeen a ecurent theme in ‘is century's understanding snd appreiton of spac Its not necesito expand length othe precedents witnessed by eweniedh-cenur architecture Sfice 10 Say tht current comerstion seems to caste between (a) the German esthetic “veromes of te Reunnping theory, whereby space i oe “Fe” 38 something ‘Metin the inner ature of man by a =ymboli iby, and (b) an ea that echoes Sehemmer’s work w the Basha, whetely spice was not only the medkum of expe- Fence bu also the muterilzation of theory For example, the emphasis gen 10 Imorement found in dance the “elemental means for he realization of pace creative impulses" for dance ould articulate and oder space. The parallel made bewen the ddancer’s movements andthe more tadiional means of defining and arcclaing Space. such a5 walls or columns, i important, When dhe dancers Tisha Brown and ‘Stone For entduce this spatial discussion n the mid-1960s, the relaionship [etween theory and practice ceisom and perception, had 10 tke anther cra, and the concept of thuoreucal praxis could not be snp indicative. There was no way in space to fll the ar-nguage prac. It cold be argued tat the discourse tourart was at and this could be exhibited a sch, the theoretical discourse about Space euralnly was not space. "The attempt to trigger + new perception of space reopened & basi philosophical question. Remember: you areinside an enclosed space with equal height and width, Do your eyes inact you about the cube merely by noticing it, without giving any sdonal interpretation? No, You don't really see the cube. You nay se a commer, or side, or the cling, but never al dein surfaces athe sme time. You ouch wall, you ear an echo Bur howd you late al these perceptions to oe single object? eit rough an operation of reason? 1}. This option of eon, which precedes the perception of the eabe as a eube, was marred bythe approach of concep peformance ars. ‘Wile yor eyes ete pving instructions about saccsive pats ofthe cube allowing you o form the concept af cube, the ats was giving instructions about he conceptof cube, smalting your senses through the itermedkary of reaton. Thi eve, ‘his mirror image, 2s import, for the inerplay berween the ne perception of “peoformance” space andthe rational men tthe origin ofthe pce was typically fone aspect of the architectural process the mechanics of perception ofa dsonet space, that the complee space ofthe performance, with the movements, the thoughts, the received Snsructons of the actors, at wel a the socal and physical ‘context in which they performed. i the most meresting part of such performance ‘was the undaiying discussion onthe "nature of space” in genes oppased tothe hpi and gereepion of disnc paces in pare ‘isin recent works hat the recurring etymological distinction appear tte strongest. Reduced to the cold simply of six planes tht deine the boundaries oa more orks regular cube, the Series of spaces designed by Bruce "Nauman, Dovg Wheeler, Rober Irwin, or Michel Asher do not play with elaborate spatial articultions, Their emphasis is duewhere. By resting visual and physieal perception tothe fants of al stimulations, they turn the expected experience of the space inte something stogether diferent, The alot oul ernoved sensory ‘efntion ineraly throws the viewers back om themscoes, In “deprived sper” (0 borrow the teminology of Germano Celan, te “parsspans” can only ind thems salves as the subject, aware ony oftheir own fanasis and pulsations, ale only to react wo the bw-densty signals of their ov Bodies. The mateality of the body eoincides with the materiality of the space. By 2 series of exhsions tat become Sipnfcatordy in oppostion tothe remote exterior space and social context the subjes only “experience ter own experience” 4, Whether such spaces might be sen as reminiscent of the behaviors spaces ofthe beginning ofthe cenury, where reactions were hopefully triggered, oF a che new echo ofthe Raumanpigung theory, now ceaned-up of is nolan estecc overtones, sof ite theoretical importance. What mater: thet double comet for dese ay to “make space distinct (Lo deine space in paral) 'soaly there throw one back on the interpretation ofthe “nature of space” self ‘As opposed te the prevouly described pyramid of rasa, the dak corner of expe ‘ence are a; unlike a hin where all sensations, al felings are enhanced. but ‘where no oneview is preeat to provide a de about how to get out. Ocesionl consciousness of lite hep, for perception i the Lbyrinh presupposes immed cy Unlike Hegel’ casicldstincsion herwcen the moment of perception and the moment of esperience (when one’ consciousness makes anew object out of er ceived one), te metaphorical Labyrinth implies thatthe rst moment of pereption caret dhe experience ull. ‘eis hardly surprising, therefore, tht there may be no way out ‘of de aby. Denis Holey in his book on Georges Baal” poits out tht fom Bacon to Leni the Labyrinth was linked with the desir to get ont, an cence wat seen 2 the meas find an ex. Rejecting such an interpretation, Baal suggested ‘hate only fect sto ransform the Labyrinth nto Baal prison. The radon meaning ofthe meuphoe was reversed: one newer hows whether one is inside oF ot since one cannot grasp iin one look. just 2s language pves us word that en ‘irl os bt that we ase inorder to break thei surround, he Labyrinth of experience ‘wae fll of openings that did not tll whether they opened toward is outside oF its inside ‘The Pyramidand the Labyrinth: The Paradox of Architecture 15 Tosngle ot parcular areas of cancer, such ste ational pay af language as ‘opposed 1 he experience ofthe senses, would bea tedious game if it were 10 lead toa nave confrontation between the mind and the body. The achtectoral avant ade has fought often enough over alternatives that appared 36 oppostes—st0cstu 97s 225 ture and chaos, omament at purity, permanence and change, reason and incon, ‘anoles enough tas been shown tit ch aenates were in at complemen {ary bur alts of a dematerlalation of architecture in oncologic frm (he Pyssnud) and of sensual experience (he Labyrinth) 0 diferent. But i the exs- tence of such an equation does not aie doubts ever 1s complementary, eainhy Biss questions abou how such equations can go beyond the vicious cle of ers that speak only of themseles “The answer may He the context a which such an equation tates place A common aecustion of analyses or even of works that concentace on the spel nature of ashtecrare i that they are “paral.” dats they fold and tf in sme Paglossian worl where socal and economic ores are conveenty “bsen. Nor alfecting the determining frees of production, hey consti harmless Torts of private expression, We sll therefore briefly consider the ambiguous pa tiulares ofthe relasonships between architectare a pois. "ie Thee ve een well eseached inthe past Few years. The role of architecture an planning hasbeen aoalaed in terms of» projection on the round ofthe images of social aston x2 fafa anslation of the stractanes sotesy inc buildings or ets, Such stdlesundene the difcalky architecture bas in ating a8» poliocl insrument,Recaing the nostalgic and atemuated ery of the Ransanrevoltionary “socal condenses” ofthe 1920, some advocated the se face at peaceful ool of vocal ansformaion, asa mens of changng the rel tion betwen te nv and society by pnerating new estes. But the “hubs in community bugs propotsd not on requredan existing revolutionary se fy bat aoa Hind belie ia an interpretation of beavorsm acording to which Inadual behavior could be inuenced by the organization of space. Aare that “tial organaion may teraporay modify ndividal or group behavoe but may Tv change the sociononomie strctte of aetna society architectural resol tlonaries looked for beer grounds. Their aterpts o finda socal eet if not evolutionary role for archectre culminated in the years following the May 1968 ‘seis with “quer” buildings, whore symbolic and exemplary value lay i their ‘Sizue of urben space and notin dhe design of what was bul, On de cultural front, plan fora suralstic destruction of eablshed valuesytems were devised by tain acl” designers, This nihilistic peneguste fr scl and economic change was 2 esperate tempt to use the afcitects mode of ecpression co denounce inst tom rend y rans them nt azcicecurl tras, wonicaly“erlying where the system was going” by designing the ites of desperate Fru sor surprisingly, twas the quesoa ofthe production system hat finally led to more relate proposils. Aimed at esributing the captalisic division of labor, these proposal sought a new undersunding of the technicians! fote in balding, in eras of« responsible pares directly woved in the ro ‘heron cycle, thus shifting the concept ofarchtetre toward the genera organi tion of batding processes. 17. Yet its che unreal (or uatesisic) positon of dhe artist ot schitec that may be ts very reality Except fo the ls ate, most pola ap rowces suffered from the predictable foition of schools of architectre tht tie Pe fe der exmconmental knowledge tothe revolation. Hegl’s architecture, the ‘appement” didnot sem to have the night revlationary edge. Or did? Does architecture, in ts long-established iolaton, contain more revoltionary power than it tumerous ansfers into the objective rates of the Dulng Industry and socal housing? Does he socal Fanon of arhitctare iin is very lack of Fanti? In fa, ateitcture may bve ite other ground. st 3 the sureaiss could not ind dhe right compromise be. owen scandal and soeal acceptance, architect esto hae tle choice betweensutonom and commitment, between the radial anachronism of Schl’ “courage to lk of roses" and society: I the architectural piece renounees its astonomy by recognising its tet ideological and financial dependency, accepts the mecha nisms of society it sanctuaries elf nan a-forar-sake postin, i doesnot scape cstifeation among exiting ideological compartments. ‘So architecture seems to survive only when sve its nate by negating the frm that society expects of al hacer pt that tha bas nes et ey re dete ees of elt, ney fee eee His ‘as bcos hrm conti very rength ns sity where prot Is prevalent. Rather than an obscure artic supplement or cultural asifstion for Financ manipulations, architect sat unllkeSeworks, fr these empirical ap= partons” as Adorno puts, "produces delight that cannot be sold or bough, chit dhs no exchange value and cannot be integrated in the prodicton cycle.” 18. Ics hardly surprising, therefore, thatthe non-necessiy of architecere is necessry loneliness, dts bck on self fs tole not defined by soci, achiecuare will have co deine alone. Ua 1750 architectural spice ‘ould rely onthe paradigm of the ancent precedent. Afe hat time, unl wel no {he rwenceh cenrury. his csscl source of unity progressively became the scaly determined program. In view of the present-day plarztion of ontological dis course and sensual experience I well sare that any suggestion that they now {orm the nseparable bu mutual exchuve terms of architect equtes some ly ‘ation. This must bein with description of the apparent mpossbiity of escaping fom the paradox ofthe Pyramid of concepts and the Labyrinth of experience. of ‘mmateral arctecure a5 2 concept and of material architecture ata presence. ‘To restate my point, the paradox is not about the impossibility of perceising both architectural concept (the six faces ofthe cube) and tal space at the same ime bat about the impos of questioning the nature of space ad at the same time making ot experiencing el space. Unless we search for an escape from arestecture into the gener organization of building procese, the paradox esis: achatecture is made of two terms tat ae interdependent bt mutta ex ‘Shane deed, acheter of pine whi hay ge ate ay of nls. Arh css hentia fdlh, he ery tah gs he ‘Fang. ¥e cannot both experience and think that we experience. "The concep of| og doesnot bark; the concept of space satin spe. Inthe same way, the achievement of architectural realy (bil sng) def architectural theory whe at the sme time being a product of So theory ant praxis may be dialectic to one another, but in space, the tanslation of the concet, the onercaming of the aberaction i realty, involves the dissolution of the dialect and an incomplete statement. This ests neff, hat, perhaps forthe frst ume 1 history, architecture can never be, The eet ofthe great tates of socal progress obliterated, and so i the security of archetype. Defined by ite qi Honing, ahitectze ss alway the expression ofa ack, a storcaming, a nonconple tion alvays mises something, eer reality ar concept, Architectures oth being, and nonbeing. The only stemate tothe paridor i lence «final nic sate ‘ment that ight provide modern achiectral history with swims pachline, its elf asiiliion 19. Before leaving this brie exploration of architect spurt ox, its tempting to suggest 2 way of accepung the paradox whe eating the silence seems to imply. This concusion may be intolerable to pilosphers, in that tears he subject of architecture, you and I (and one knows logcans are never drunk). may be intolerable to scientits who want to maser the subject ence, ema be nclerabe to arts who want o object the subj,sqm Las | 227 {et ur fst examine the Tabyrinth in the couse ofthis argu- ‘ment it is been implied tht the Labyrinth shows elf 2s a low history of space. ‘ur that trl revelation of the Labyrinth is histrialy impossible eeuse no point of transcendence ia ie Ss arable One can patspate in and share the fndamen tls ofthe Labyrinth, but one's perception i only part of the Labyrinth ast manifests itself One can never sein tay, or ean one eapress One is condemned rt sind cannot go outside and see che whole But remember: ars flew avy, omar the son. So afer all, does the way ov ofthe Labyeinh he in che making of the Pyramid, hough projection of the subject toward some transcendental objectivity? Unfortunately not. The Labyrinth cannot be dominated, The top ofthe Pri isan Jmaginary pice, and Ica fell down: the mare of the Labyrinth is such that t ‘cs dca ha nelde the dream af te yeu 20” But the real importance ofthe Labyrinth and of Spa experience is ehewhere. The Pyramid, the analysis of the archiceceral objet, the ‘breaking down ofits forms and elements al cutaway from the question of he sb ject Along with the spatial press mentioned easier, de sensual ayhtecrara ality isnot experienced a an absrat object aleady tansformed by consciousness but as an immediate and concrete human activity pai, wth als subject: This importance ofthe eubjct in ear opposition to all philosophical and historical txtemps to objecily the ined perception of ality, far example in he eations of production, To alk bout the Labyrinth and is prais means to insist here on its {njetie aspects: is person and requires an mediate experience. Opposed 19 Hegel's sang and ose to Bataille’ "incrior experienc.” this immediay bridges sensory pleasure and reson, HSntoduces new atiulations betwen the side and the outside, berween private and pole spces I suggests new oppositions between Aisolated terms and new telations betwen homogeneous spaces. This immediacy {doesnot give precedence tothe experiential term, however Ritson yen te ti il at the et pac ech dp psn kets, ‘cen ah axes. TT This “experlence” may have repercussions that go fr be yond mans is “subject.” Tom beeen ratioality and the demand for irrational tur present selety mones oward eer ates sytem plus excess sone ofits Symptoms. we may s00n ive to consider architec as the indispensable comple- tent to this changing praxis Inthe pst, achitectare give linguistic metaphors (he Coste the Strcture, the Labyrinth) #0 society may now provide the euaral model As lag a social practice rejects the paradox of ea and ral space, imaginatioa—Interior experience—may be the only means ro transcend it By changing the prevalent ates toward space and ts subject, the dream ofthe step beyond the paradox can een provide the conditions fr renewed socal ates. Ista eroicism isthe pleasure of exces ater than the exces of pleasure, so the solution ofthe pasado isthe imaginary Blending of the architecture rule andthe experience of pleasure or thse ses, sete tren feed by Hens eben a pli dP {Pa Eations Andyepos, 1973) ad the wats of Cats and lope, Se ao Be tae Tacha, “Raock” onthe poten of space, Arte Dip, Oetbe. 2. frcch Hegel, ePhiepy dan, wl 1 (anda: Bll and Son, 1920), 5 enne-Louu Bol, Ea a et, Jan Mae Perouse de Months (Pars Her ‘mann 1968)