Architecture as Embodied Knowledge Alberto Perez-Gomez, Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 40, No. 2, Jubilee Issue. (Winter, 1987), pp. 57-58. Stable URL: hitp://links,jstor.org/sicisici= 1046-48834 28 198724%2940%3A2%3CS7%3AAAEK%3E2.0,CO%3B2-L, Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) is currently published by Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup:/www.jstor org/about/terms.html. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/www jstor.org/journals/aesa.huml Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupulwww jstor.org/ "Tue May 23 17:35:10 2006Alberto Pérez-Gémez is Professor of ‘Architecture at McGill University and a JAE Board member. To declare that there is rampant confu- sion with regards to the disciplinary bounds and specificity of architecture is perhaps stating the obvious. This lack of Clarity, however, is often ignored by archi- tects and critics when trying to articulate in language, for themselves and the pub- lic, the problems of our profession. False assumptions, usually taken for granted, result in much superficial criticism and irrelevant debate, The definition of architecture cannot be grasped through either a myopic view of recent history, or a scientistic obsession with self-referentiality, methods or objec tivity. Only a deeper, all-embracing under- standing of the historical role of architec- ture in human culture can begin to cast ‘some light upon the issues. History shows that architecture has been a profound, “interdisciplinary” form of knowledge, allowing humanity to dwell on the earth, This is not a metaphor, but a literal reality. Today we find it difficult to {grasp that a “radical orientation’ is per- haps indispensable for the survival of cul- ture, permitting humanity to transcend its ‘mortal individuality and become part of a larger, significant and timeless reality. Knowledge has provided just that orienta- tion, in many different modes, at every moment in human history. n this sense, knowledge must be understood as a pos- session of embodied consciousness, qualitatively different from superfluous information. itis the very wisdom that humanity needs to survive, not only in terms of its material needs, but primarily in order for it to remain open to Being and attain authentic well-being, the fullness of human potential which characterizes dwelling and differentiates it from other orders of existence on earth. ‘Through symbolization, knowledge has reconciled the finite with the infinite, the ‘specific with the universal, the temporary with the eternal, expressing the inexpres- sible in authentically human terms. Histor- ically, this knowledge had been embodied in manifold ‘universes of discourse.” When articulated in words, knowledge Architecture as Embodied Knowledge has generally taken the form of myth or, in its particular Western transformation, ‘metaphysics. During the two thousand years of Western history prior to the late- eighteenth century knowledge was synon- ymous with a comprehensive orbis doctri- ‘nae which included science and its poetic complement, allowing humanity to come to terms with the fundamental questions Cf meaning of human action (the practice of any discipline) in relation to life as a whole. In the same sense, architecture and art, regardless of thelr ever changing and interchanging universes of discourse, tra- ditionally fuiled the task of providing an ‘embodied metaphysics for society. On ‘many accounts, the fulfillment of this essential task has become increasingly difficult over the last two hundred years. Architects and artists have tended to avoid the issue both by claiming the self- referentiality of art and architecture and by adopting an ultimately nihilistic beliet in the arbitrary nature of all formal ian- ‘guages. This position, however, will lead nowhere. The making of the arts (poiesis) has always conveyed, in their specific uni- verses of discourse, not “information” but true knowledge. The work of architecture could have been asstone circle or a pyramid, a daidalon in the form of awe-inspiring defensive weap- ‘ons, boats or temples, a tomb or an altar, Gothic cathedral, the setting for a mys- tery play, a Renaissance church, the ideal plan of a city, the text and drawings of Francesco Colonna, a Baroque palace and its garden, fireworks displays or the canvas and wood structures for urban cel- ebrations, the etchings of Piranesi, the drawings of Boullée and Hejduk, or, indeed, a few modern buildings such as La Tourette, Ronchamp, the chapel at Colonia Goell and Villa Mairea, Today we have a problem understanding what is. ‘essentially the same about these manifold embodiments of architectural ideas. Obviously, the medium posits a first, naive differentiation. But to identify the history of architecture with the history of build- ings is a damaging fallacy which stems directly from prejudices concerning spe- cialization and positivistic definitions rooted in the nineteenth century. Overcoming this prejudice is an important first step to clarity the disciplinary speci- ficity of our profession. Architecture is the re-creation of a symbolic order, deployed in the most immediate and concrete uni verse of essences (rather than visual appearances). It is concerned with the articulation of the immutable, the ‘mathesis as "given" in the primordial, geometrical engagement of humanity-in- the-world ‘A second important consideration relates to the simplistic identification of informa- tion with knowledge. Today, itis true, we a individuals have more information about a wide variety of subjects. However, ‘when it comes to knowledge, the norma- tive framework for our praxis, we seem to be extremely limited. ‘The obsession with information and the illusion concerning its applicability, seek- ing to functionalize, control and manipu- late variables in order to attain greater ‘efficiency and economy, is usually moti- vated by the noble presumption that the ‘system”’ can be easily put to work in the ‘name of humanist values. This is, how- ever, profoundly misleading. When infor- ‘mation systems (applied science or meth- ‘odologies) take the place of knowledge as the guide of praxis, the self-referential val- tues of the system (efficiency and econ- (omy) invariably dominate production. Itis ‘not surprising, therefore, that the modern ‘obsession with information posited by a technological world-view, has been gen- erally detrimental to what we manage to build. Computers may indeed allow the architect to have at his or her fingertips all the information one needs to plan a more “functional” hospital, solving manifold behavioral issues. And there is always the hope that the finished building will elicit fewer complaints from the surgeons or the patients about the designer's prover- bial ignorance, but the fundamental prob- em of meaninglessness will stil prevail Architecture is not the embodiment of information; it is the embodiment of meaning. It has as much to do with the ‘opposition which the world presents to humanity as it does with the “resolution” ‘of humanity's material needs. Neither of the two dimensions are, of course, inde- pendent, but the modern emphasis on shelter over dwelling has clouded the real issues. In order to posit a symbolic order, the architect needs to have his or her own storia, the history-theory which is not a method but rather a new mythos, an Understanding of the meaning of the architect's actions "here and now" in relation to the totality of culture.This is, indeed, the architect's basic knowledge, far more important in the long sun than particular skills or techniques. This is what we must teach, starting from the fundamental questions affecting the discipline of architecture and avoiding at all costs the illusion that architecture can be reduced to formulae or styles. It is use- less to pretend that a student takes a vari- ‘ety of specialized courses in humanistic, technological and artistic subjects and then magically synthesizes” this infor- mation. Perpetuating the world of make~ believe in which school simulates the office and the supposedly unquestionable values of a neo-conservative "reality," no matter how precisely or effectively, will only reinforce the present nonsense. Equally destructive is the substitution of ‘embodied making, the realm of true free- dom and authentic originality, with frag- ‘mented and homogenized reductions in the form of planning, drawings and speci fications that merely simulate buildings, and whose true, often undeclared value, is. only that of becoming effective tools of control. Itis our duty, as architectural educators, to point the way towards a ‘meaningful synthesis, asking the right questions at the right time, ‘Once knowledge is grasped as a radical orientation, in possession of embodied being, the relationships between history land theory, and between theory and prac- tice in architecture appear as fundamen- tally non-problematic. History is a storia for the present and theory is not an ars. fabricandi or method. HUMANITY IS NOT ‘CARTESIAN MACHINE. Our minds are ‘not computers and our consciousness is always embodied. The ground of reality, the "given" in the “world-as-lived,” is an ambiguous continuum which cannot be reduced to either subjectivity or objectiv- ity. Our flesh is also of the world and itis ‘open to Being. We think with our hands and our gestures, and again this is not a metaphor. Learning from the insights of G.B. Vico, history, our personal storia, becomes the normative intellectual frame- work for “making.” The “tool” is our human disposition, our personal fascina- tion and wonder. Such is the point of departure: the meaningful work of our fel- low poets, the makers of human culture. All scientistic prejudices must be elimi nated by this realization, under the threat Of seeing the discipline of architecture recede even further into the cultural irre- ‘evance (or plain obsolescence) to which it ‘seems to have been condemned by modern society. ‘Some will still claim that this position leads to subjectivity, to an attitude in which “anything goes.” This is certainly rot so, but we must recognize that the inescapable risks entailed by the neces- sary internalization of cultural values and Personal knowledge are an intrinsic dimension of modernity (regardless of our ideological preference) and must be faced squarely. Even philosophers of science, ‘such as Heisenberg, knew fifty years ago that “objectivity” in'the physical sciences was a delusion. The observer always sees in terms of the experience and beliefs, which constitute the very fabric of his or 2. We are, therefore, ‘condemned to “interpret.” We make the world in every instant as we polarize it through the motility of our body, but there is no creation ex-nihilo. In architecture a realization of this personal dimension of knowledge is paramount, founded on an authentic, passionate historical ground- ing, on an understanding of what we (as a humanity) have made, because that which we have not created (nature, the cosmos) will always remain opaque, regardless of how well our instrumental theories can serve our purpose of material domination, This necessarily personal grounding is the indispensable articulation that may allow the embodied making of the architect, the architect's unique vision, to become rele- vant in the world of culture and society. A cursory look at history will demonstrate that the solid and coherent body of work which we now consider to be our “tradi tion,” was always the result of this vision- ary enterprise. Its social value as radical ‘orientation depended on the authenticity of the architect's cultural diagnosis, of the architect's "ideas" vis-a-vis the ground of inherited, often unaccounted, “beliefs” of the architect's contemporaries. Histori- cally, the great architects have always been part of an intellectual elite, possess- ing true knowledge (in the sense defined above) and even partaking from the lead- ing edge of philosophy and science. Fur- thermore, itis relevant to remember here that, etymologically, ideas are images and that these have always embodied the essential order of architecture, manifested in drawings, models or manifold artifacts. Even though a healthy tension between beliefs and ideas has always existed in the history of culture, it is obvious that in the contemporary world the gap between. architectural intentions and the world of buildings often approaches insurmount- able proportions. This gap can be closed, as it has been in exceptional circum- stances. But to pretend in the name of ideologies that the gap does not exist creates confusion and further delusions, (On one hand, the malaise of society is related to the anonymity of cities which reflect the values of land development, technology and political compromise. The physical environment is sadly mute; it lacks imagery and is refractory to desire. On the other hand, the same society sup- Ports ideological uniformity, tends to Identify reality with simulations, denies the importance of myth and symboliza- tion, assumes life to be a transparent pro- cess, and thus finally denies the essential function of architecture as knowledge. Facing this contradictory but most excit- ing world, | would like to couch the moral (of my story in a form first invented by Phi- libert de !'Orme in the sixteenth century: The “good” architect, fully aware of the potential of modernity, takes the bull by the horns and, without hiding behind selt- referential games or supposedly eternal Classical values, attempts to transcend the ‘world of simulations and recover through his or her work, through personal making, ‘an openness to Being in the face of the abyss. The architect's work confronts technology with desire and thus explores the true potential of new materials. itis by definition new because itis not precon- ceived; itis a discovery occurring at the intersection of the potential of abstraction inherent in modern consciousness with the ground of figuration inherent in the ‘human body itself, capable of recollecting Being through the architect's personal techniques for making. The “bad” archi- tect, well trained in a handful of refined methods, follows in the footsteps of technocrats or developers and responds toa fragmented understanding of moder- nity, playing reductivist games in order to ‘operate within the system of prevalent beliefs. This architect's work can be seductively familiar because itis precon- ceived, but itis revealed as either mute or false by the dominating presence of the very materials and technology with which itis built. He or she may abdicate per- sonal responsibility as a creator of ideas and hide behind a formalistic or fun« tional contextualism; or he or she may, ‘once again, declare exasperation with his- tory and speculation and embrace scien- tism, behaviorism and technology as the only'positive answers; or finally the “bad” architect may adopt pseudo-myths and. tunauthentic nostalgic attitudes, using ‘easily recognizable and marketable his- torical forms as ideological signs that ‘support the flight from reality of an ‘obsolete romanticism. Itis perhaps Octavio Paz who has best ‘summarized the necessity of a critical dimension embodied in the very poetic fabric of any authentic work of art after the disintegration of the traditional cos ‘mos in the early-nineteenth century. The: knowledge of the architect, present and future, must enable the architect to ‘make in this considered manner, inform- ing the architect's praxis with an articul tion which might be defined as history- theory-criticism, a mytho-poesis which Incorporates dreams and imagination, allowing for an authentic cultural diagno- sis in thought and action. More than two thousand years ago, Herakleitos wrote ‘some very moving words that beautifully epitomize my plea: "The hidden harmony is stronger than the visible.”