Conflicting Values Pye s ry Y ° oT Bhs a4 2 shInhale... The Future Has Already Begun by Ron Witte 11 rad to sum up the 20th century, | would say inefble hypothesis! No wonder we ae pro by humanity, ad destoye al sions and Few would deny chat the fallow fom the ceo neo-avant-garde continues to envelop us in Yehudi Menuhin productive ways. But the murkiness of this Hleological coud hs also obscured the con tours of progress, Those of ws who came of age after 1968 have litle choice but to recon sider our relationship tothe notion of archi tectural advancement. If we can on by the extraordinary optimism that vided architecture through much ofthis cen i os), we ea atleast he motivat ce by the knowledge that if the frst hall of this century proved tha chasing half proved thatthe fi ture is imposible to outrun, sported dangerous, the so DESERTS, APPARITIONS, AND METAPHYSIQUES Early one February morning in 1968, Reyner Banham had an epiphany. Atop a hill in the Mojave Desert, he contemplated a view that included his traveling companion mating op rattlesnakes by kicking the scruffy bushes tha thr the desert floor As he called out to his fiend—"You aren't really looking for rae esnakes, are you?"—at an immeasurably greater distance he glimpsed an ephemeral Tuminescence .. urescing like nothing so SOME ONE HUNORED years ag, Nietzsche told much as the ‘Cherenkov Light’ that us that C Taf told us that ideology was dead, In re- atomic reactor”? Unsure of what exactly he cent years architects have heard repeatedly had seen, Banham ered to explain his vision that our own discipline is dead. In light of all through peculiar alchemy of science and hese deaths, ou relationship tothe future is sentiment, 4 kind of explanatory sehizophre in urgent need of reassessment. ‘Three nia chat both cased and exacerbated bis conf des after modern architecture abdicated sion at che sight of the laminows mist. The its claim to canonical status and thre decides _optial effect was undoubtedly caused by a imo architecture’ critical diversification, naturally explicable phenomenon—a “paral progress” hasbeen ured under a prod but increasingly dilute outpouring of architec ing surface ofthe silts” The quasi-certanty tural activity: For those of us who see the last ofthis physical explanation, however did lle plain the ensuing metaeffect that bathed eatendel dinner with che folks has offered up Banham: “mine eyes dazed, my sensibility an absurd scenario: heaping servings of infi- was transfixed, my consciousness trans nite possibility accompanied by a side order of formed." Maybe the heat had taken is tll on nl was dead, In the early chil and eerie in the depths ofa water-cooled 4B vsavano orion macazineBanham’ English constitution; siding a bik around in the desert sand could well have ‘compounded his eshaustion. Or maybe th eon ight that had bathed his room atthe Best Western the night Before stil ckered in his retinal memory: In any ease, within the volume of a single inhaled breath, Baaharn ad permitted the tangled vapors of met (imeaningfulness) and poique (materiality) t Hinge in his hangs, nstany tansforming him into a sel- proclaimed deser freak ‘Banham's apparition ean be understood in sore allusve terms: from up on that hill he fared out ata civilization that was moving in two directions atthe same time, In terms that, are by now clichéd—though no less signif ant because of it—1968 marked an apogee/divide in the cultural history of th 2owh century. As an architectural eri, Ban ham teetered om this cultural erst. The slow ly decomposing material vpon which he Talanced a canonical compost heap-—eit ted the air that he beeathed, insiling the ¥ sion before himn, On the one hand, as Banham wrote, if you sought an image of the dsl tion of « corrupted civilization you could hardly have done better than the barren desert across which he looked; on the oth squinting your eyes in the hard lght allowed ape to emerge from that desolate seune, 4 Intent figure whose shimmering briliance i Juminated an extriordinary future. As exhil rating a it was leetng, this fare appeared os "delicate limpiiey and perfectly lyered metrical regula all subtle and prec too atmosphercally fragile to ast The evaporation of this future-figure was inevitable. By the late "60s, Banham and other critics and architects had begun to inhale th ideological ether they had been manufitur ing since atleast the mi 50s. These volatile fumes Fill widening gaps that developing in an increasingly disparate archi ural universe. By 1968, the same year that Stanley Kubrick's 2001: Space Ode im posed its black monolith upon the silver reen,atchiteets worked feverishly to force their own, all-too-Miesian inonolith into an ‘ideological shredder. While it took some tin to grind it up-—that big box was tough—ar chitecrre exited the "60s in a willflly, even happily, heterogeneous state, By the early" itwas not only posble Int even imperative to claim that “everything is architecture.” Tan tmerable propositions, such as Superstaio tion that "we shal have microscopes and laleidoscopes to investigute the mysteries of upidity and boredom® and Arata TsozakConflicting Values pronouncement that “process alone is erut- worthy” stirred up a Uberating fragrance. As dizzying a dis Fagrance was, vapors were nonetheless tinged with the slightly malodor- fu perfume that necessarily accompanied the roxting corpus of modern architecture, By the mid-1970s, che functional, technologie, uni versal, and even progressive imperatives ofthe tvant-garde had become a fertile manure from hich the futare was supposed to lower. Ta retwen briefy, and alluively, to the Mo- jave: were Banham stil foraging in the deere today, his progress would be impeded by the ‘Washboard Effect. As erude as they may have been, roals were essential to Banham as he made his periodic treks in a series of not-so- ddesere-worthy rented ears. His chosen paths ‘were ronds sed so infrequently that thee def inition was questionable. Today, those same reas are traversed by legions of bucket ced desert enthusiasts, encased in the rugged usury of Land Rovers and shaded by Oakley sunglases. The endless passing of hundreds of thousands of wheels has carved a repetitive pattem of hardened ridges in these roads— ridges whose destructive eapacity is apparent to anyone who has driven a well-traveled dit road, This micro-topography is nearly invis- le within the vastness ofthe desert, but its small serially distributed high and low points ate recalibrate by every passing ear, eventuah ly becoming so precisely tuned as to ratle say the aspirations of even the ardiest d= vers. Few vehicles can tolerate 4 sustained journey along these bumps: their mechanical assemblages simply dissolve under the dress ‘of constant vibration, One might think of these tiny bumps asa form of resistance —the fonly means by which the desere ean fight buck. Theirs sa slighty sadistic resistance: a desert whose very definition evokes fatness and enormity here responds with miniscule, ht absolutely certain topographic changes. Justa all hose Land Rovers have let their mark on the desert, since the 1960s whole herds of architects have heen traversing a n= creasingly evacuated architectural landscape. The second half ofthe 20th century has pro= duced a furious ertque of modern architec- te, a eriique whose tenaciousess insineates that we are wo Ienger exiting tmoderee but rather eritiquing the critique of mox mis or even critiquing the critique of the critique of modemism, We have become e ‘uisitely expert at drawing out the discord, Inconsistencies, and conflicts that permeate 50 architecture. Almost invisibly, our expertise hhas manifested an architeetoral Washboard fect. Furthermore, this effect has long since lefe che restricting bounds of roadways. With no territory off-limits, we have crisscrossed the entire architectural landscape with endless tracks oferta! minus, ‘Nevertheless, while it may have trampled a few flowers of progress along. is wa}, the Washboard Effect is no more, nd no less than a fully mature testament to the exhilaat ing effectiveness of modernity’ inherent ap- and petite—in both its “establishment” Samt-exablshment™attire—for the cln tal forthe discretely knowable entity that the Enlightenment assured us we would one day find, The Wishboard Effect has given us the finest, most elemental architectural matter Jmaginable: an airborne dust of infinite poss- bites. Ti the Washboard Effect has changed our idea of progress through its ruthless capacity for atomization, thas also profoundly alered ‘our position relative to progres. Ear mod- fem progress was envisaged as something dis ‘ane laminous promise hovering atthe edge ‘of an immeasurably large tabula risa. Given good eyesight and the right atmospheric con ditions, our progressive destiny was realy brilliantly, and totally apparent. Under the weight of our persistent pursuit of *au- tonomies,” “localities,” “and “non-hierar- cies,” this long view of progress collapsed ‘during the 1960s, to be replaced by close-up View that lee us understand the innumerable niero-topographies within architeceure nowt enigmatic whole. But while it ehucidated the vany possibilities and dangers chat lurked within the canon, chis microscopic view also introduced a dangerows myopia into architec: ture. Our insatiable desire to granulate any form of architectural superstructure has deaen the clo of progres in upon us enshrouding tus in an atmosphere that s thick with the fog of decades of ertigue The weight ofthis fog has been magnitied by shat Ernst Bloch ‘referred to as the “melancholy of flfillmens,"* + condition that arises alongside the inherently compromised fr partial fulllnent of idelied aspirations Although Bloch made his observation in refer- fence 10 the “perfection of the technological ‘world after the Second World Wa, our eur- Fent progressive sensibility is imbued with a similarly semicfuliled and gloomy aura Whether or not the project of the 1960s is complete,” is successes are broad enough 0 have propelled us into just such a period of partial, melancholic flillment. Ie would be a Inisake to overlook the collective frits ofdecades of labor in the dm light of our ambi- ‘ent suspicion, but would be tragi to believe that we can remain melanchoically neutral (a+ progressive) in the ideological fil “The melancholic fog that tod surrounds vshas led many to think that the posiiliy of 2 progresive outlook has disappeared, Writ- ing three decades after Banham’s adventures in the eritial desert, Vittorio Gregort has siggested that“... more than thre years of| critiquing modern arcitecare has led to ase- ies of conclusions that has failed to reeon- struct any structure of horizons and perspectives, oF even any consistent renewal fof instruments or method.” Gregotts lament reveals «futile lnging for “universal arguments"! The very idea ofa set ofconsis- tent conchsions or methods is bound up in the logic of early modernism. Seeking the shining beacon that les somewhere an there beyond the haze, Gregot, with his own pro- ject of “conservation and restitution,” resur- reets the progressive impulse a “some race of 2 foundation for architecture useil tothe de- fense and rearrangement of the present.” Sil, even if Gregort® desires are saturated with a soft-focus nostalgia for s ard-edged ‘moment, one ean help but be at least litle sympathetie with his description of horizon Tess architeceral present or even a ie in awe of is willingness to articulate his canon envy. ‘The problem les not in the fat that Gre sont and others are lobing but rather in shire and bes they are looking. Tis not that we are without horizons, but eather that we are sur- rounded by 2 mltifariogs nevus of horizons that skewer, wrap, and fill the constellation of | possibilty that has descended upon us. When misread as some sort of interfering hav, this soiling architectural constellation entices us to believe that mometbing must lie beyond, Nothing lies beyond. There is no distant pro= tresive profile, There is not even a distant sky against which that profile can be read ‘Nevertheless, our current lack of distance, our Jmmersion i the efuviua, has nothing eo do with progeess being dead. On the contrary, progress ies dead ahead Pethaps never before has the specter of progress been s0 exhilarating. New under- standings of program, new technologies, new aesthetic sensibilities and, perhaps most i portant, new critical eapacites, have Ts ont an architeetral potential unimaginable cree ddeeades ago. Rather than looking through, around, and beyond the production ofthe last thirty years, we should look straight ahead and into this ambient miasma so that we Inhale...The Future Has Begun For decades, architecture's progress has been stymied at regular intervals. by decreasingly effective forms of oppositional critique: “form = bad, social = good,” or “technology = bad, form = good,” or “building = good, ‘theory might exploit its gravities, resonances, and coincidences. Gregot is standing inthe cen- ter of the progressive sandstorm, struggling to get out and choking on what he is con- vince is kind of ideological sing. Instead swe should call this place rea 51, shed our innate skepticism shout the apparitions be- fore us, and inhale ‘Jest 25 Banhar inhale mete aid pyigue in a singe breath, our lungs are filed foxy with the recombinant fares of commodity Firm- ness, and delight, Within this context, our Jongstnding propensy for discreetly oppeni- sional obsession-—finetona, formal, techno- logieal, et—is increasingly specious. For decades, architecture’ progress hasbeen sqmied at regular intervals by deereasingly ef featve forms of oppositional eritque: “form = tnd, social = good" technology = bad, fer = good,” oF “building = goo, theory ~ bad,” ot ven “thy generation = good, that generation = Ind,” ete. The oppasitional eriiques that w= erie these polarities do lie: more than yet again reverse the critical pendula. The aggregate character of or conternpo- rary architectural culture suggest that noth er critical model might he more productive: a “relational” critique instead of an oppositional critique. Rather than defining programmatic, formal, or technological concemns in dierete terms, relational eritique induees architec ture¥ constituent clements to play agitating yet codependent roles. Oe ofthe character ‘ics of cur alloy-lke present concerns the lo- cus of what is canstzwted—spaialy, materially, and meaningflly—as an architectoral cond tion, While a good alloy is entirely dependent ‘upon the quality ofthe separate elements that 0 nto its fabrication, in the final object chose Separate elements are indiscernible fom one another. In other words, the overall perfor- mance of an aggregate of commodity frm fess, and delight increases as each catalyzes and is eaalyzed by the resonant exchange of ‘nual engagements that make up the archi tectural whole. Such a wholes neither a-com modus, noe afm, nor a-delightfl. On the contrary, relational ertque proces a shift- ing Figuecless figure whose visibility emerges fom the active cultivation of architectures in- trinsic complies. “The significance or “meaning” ofthis fig ureless figure depends directly upon the ex tent to which meta and physique ean be made indistinguiskable from one another. Their Imerger necessitates a sort of grity idealism fn the part of the archites—an opportunis- tie compression of architecture’ material bad,” or even “my generation = good, that generation = bad.” construe on the one hand and its idealized spiratons on the other. As we already know, the distant horizon is insuficienly rity t0 ‘be useful tous today. We are beginning to re- alize that the curently claustrophobic sate of ‘progres—brought on by it ton nea, 0 om- nipresent position—is equally useless. We ‘would do well to refocus our contemporary perspective by hollowing uta void within the progressive cloud, a foregrounding space across which we can more realy recognize and exploit a larger segment of the synthetic mosphere surrounding us toy. Nate 1. Mano Tie, ite and Ung Dig ad apatites aga La Pet, (Combis MIT res 198, 2. Reyer nh, Se Arr Camrig rom 1 Hse Arie” the ie fa ey ‘rien by Han allen in and rial phd Alli Arie” in Ba 12 (1968 The Soper ipa Timeninne e eign drain Spr” in Dama 45 Je 196, oa ae tne come am seve Cy" ey. pe a Talo (Nenerbe 196), Al he of thee are wa rst rice Ca, 1985-148 A Pacer ay Oca wth Edvard igo elites (New Yrs Cola Uerty Gra se Scho fects, Maing a Psat Riel 1, Ee lac, The Ung Fe of ea Lt Jk ps a rk Maer. Cambri 10. Vitoce Gres ie A aor Weng Frances Zac tame (Cambide MIT Pra Graham Funtio, 199,18 a, 1 Are nae” A Fre ban Nea The ste ssl with inner UFO ad coniy Acknowledement hank Sih Wing and Bob Mealy fer pal comers ed one cee i ary Rom Wie pring archi vith WW of Cam ids, Masato and aan pfcer of rarcare atthe Haran Dee So. winrenssenins i909 BL