197s Bernard Tschumi The Architectural Paradox 1. Mest people concemed with architecure feel some sort of disillusion and dis- ‘may. None of the early utopian ideals of the twentiech cenrury has materialized, Zone ofits social aims has succeeded. Blurred by reali, the ideals have turned into redevelopment nightmares and the aims into bureaucrat policies. The split be. {wveen social reality and uiopian dream has been total the gap between economic ‘constraints and the illusion of all-solving technique absolute. Pointed out by cides who Knew the limits of architectural remedies, this hiscricsl spit has now been bypassed by attempts to reformulate the concepts of architecture. In the proces, 4 new split appears. More complex, i s not the symptom of professional auivewe or Sconomic ignorance but the sign ofa fundamental question tha lies in the ery Zature of architecture and ofits essential element: space By focusing om italh. chitecure has entered an unavoidable paradox that is moze present in space than anywhere els: the impossibility of questioning the nature of space and at che samme time experiencing a spatial praxis 2. T have no intention of reviewing architectural trends and thelr connection 10 the ans. My general emphasis on space rather thas on diel- Pines (or, architecture, semiology, ec.) is not aimed ar negating academic catego Nation. The merging of disciplines is too worn a path to prove a simulating ‘tncrary. Instead, I would like to focus atention on the present paradox of space and on the asture ofits terms, urying co indicate how one might go beyond this self comradicdon, even ifthe answer should prove intolerable. I begin by cecalling the historical context of this paradox. Iwill examine first those trends that considee axchitectae a x thing ofthe ming, as a dematerilized or conceptual discipline With its linguistic or morphological variations (the Pyramid); second, empirical ‘esearch that concentrates on the senses, on the experience of space as well as om the relationship berween space and praxis (the Labyrinth); and third, the contradic: {ory mature ofthese two temas and the difence becween the means of excping the paradox by sifing the actual ature ofthe debate, a, for example, through Politics, and the means that alter the paradox altogether (the Pyramid and the Labyrinth). 3. Linguistically to define space means both “to make space Gistiner” and “to state the precise nature of space." Much of the current conficion about space can be illustrated by this ambiguity. While art and architecture have been concerned essentially with the frst sense philosophy, mathematics, and phys. ‘cs have ied throughout history to give interpretaons to something variously described asa “material thing in which all material things ae located" os thing subjective with which the mind categorizes things.” Remember: with Des. artes ended the Aristotelian wadition according to which space and time were “categories” thar enabled the classification of “sensory lnowiedge” Space beceme absolut. Object before the subjec, se dominated senses and boties by containing them. Was space inherent to the totality of what exists? This was the question of space for Spinoza and Leibniz. Returning to the old notion of category. Kant de-scum | 2975 | 209 on and dis- scribed space as neither matter nor the set of objective relations berween things but sateriallzed, as an ideal internal structure, an 2 priori consciousness, an instrument of Inow!- tured into edge. Subsequent mathematical developments on non-Huclidesn spaces and their be split be- topologies did not climinate the philosophical discussions. These reappeared with 2 economic * the widening gap berween abstract spaces and society. But space was generally 2c- at by critics cepted asa coca mauale, a sore of all-embracing set with subsers such as literary space, snow been, Sdeclogical space, and psychoanalytical space. process, 2 ‘4 Architecrurally, co define space ((o make space distinct) lit- I naivere or ezally meant “to determine boundaries.” Space had rarely been discussed by archi- tects before the beginning of the twentieth century. But by 1915 it meant Raum ‘with all Is overtones of German esthetics, with the notion of Raurempiniimg or “felt volume” By 1925 che idea of felt space had merged with the idea of composition to become 2 chree-dimensional continuum, capable of metrical subdivision that could be related to academic rules, From then on, architectural space was consis- sends and ‘ently seen as 2 uniformly extended material to be modeled in various ways, and non disci- thehistory ofarchitectureas the history of spatisl concepts, From the Greek “power of als catego {nveracting volumes" tothe Roman “hellowed-out interior spac.” from the modern scimulating “interaction berween inner and outer space” to the concept of “transparency,” his- ax of space sorians and theorists referred to space asa three-dimensional lump of matter, seyond this To drew a parallel berween the philosophies of period and >y recalling the spatial concepts of architecture is always tempting, but never was it done as consider obsessively a8 during the 1930s. Giedion related Einstein's theory of relativity to discipline, cubist painting, and cubic planes were translated into archltecare in Le Corbusier’ | empiri Vila Steinar Garches, Despite these space-iime concepts, the notion of space 1e- well as on mained chat of simplistic and amorphous matter co be defined by its physical contadic- boundaries. By the late 1960s, freed from the technological determinants of the sf escaping postwar period and aware of recent linguistic studies, architects talked about the 2, through square, the steet, and the arcade, wondering if these did noc constitute a litle. id and the known code of space with is own syntax and meaning. Did language precede these socioeconomic urban spaces, did it accompany them, or dd it follow them? Was nake space space a condition ora formulation? To say that language preceded these spaces was confusion certainly not obvious: uma activities leave races that may precede language. So cure have was there a relationship between space and language, could one “read” a space? Was there a dialecuic berween social praxis and spatial forms? 5. Yet the gap remained between ideal space (the product of ‘mental processes) and real space (the product of social praxis). Although such a distineion is certainly not ideologically neutral, we shall see that itis in the nature aime were of architerare. Asa result, the only successful stempes to bridge this philosophical ce became cE 83p were those that introduced historical or political concepts such as “produe- containing sion,” im the wide sense i had in Mans early texts. Much research in France and usstion of q in Italy opposed space “as a pure form” to space “asa social prodit,” space “as an Kant de- za intermediary” to space “as a means of reproduction of the mode of production.”This politco-philosophical critique had the advantage of giving an all-embracing approach to space, avoiding the previous dissociation between the ‘paeicula” (fragmented socal space), the “general” (logico-mathematial or men. tal spaces), and the “singular” (physical and delineated spaces) But by giving an overall prorty to historical processes, i often reduced space to one ofthe numerous Seioeconomic products that were perpetsating 2 policial status qo,” 6. Before proceeding to a dialed examination of the ambi lence ofthe definition of space, its perhaps useful to consider briely this particular ‘expression of space in architecture. Its territory extends from an all-embracing "er. crything is architecture” ro Hegel’s minimal definition. This later interpreation must be pointed our, for ic describes a dificulty that is consttutve to arctectue, ‘When Hegel claborated his aestheric theory’ he conventionally distinguished five ats and gave them an order: architecur, sculprure, painting, musi, and poetry. He stared with achitecrure because fe thoughs it preceded the others i both concep, twal and historical terms, Hegel's uneasiness in these frst pagesis striking. His ember. rassment dd not really proceed fiom his conservative classification but wae caused by a question that had haunted architects for centuries: were the funcional and tech aieal characteristics of « house ar a temple the means (oan end that excluded those very characteristics? Where did the shed end and architcrure begin? Was architec. tual discourse a discourse about whatever did not relate 10 the “building” ite? Hegel concluded in the affirmative: architecure was whatever in a building did not Point to uty. Architecture was a sort of artistic supplement” added to dhe simple building Bur the difficulty of such an argument appears winen one eles to conceive ofa building that escapes the utlty of space, a building that would have no other purpose than “architeerare” ‘Although such 2 question may be irrelevant, it finds a surpris: ing echo in the present search for architecrural autonomy. After more than balf ¢ century of scentific pretense, of system theories that defined ic as the intersection of industialization, sociology. politics, and ecology, architecture wonders fit can exist ‘without having to find its meaning or its justification in some purposeful exterior need. ‘The Pyramid: Stating the Nature of Space (or The Dematerialization of Architecture) 7, Little concemed with Hegel’s “artistic supplement,” architects have nevertheless ot regarded the constructed building as the sole and inevitable aim oftheir activity. They have shown a renewed interest th idea of playing an active role in falling ‘Geological and philosophical functions with respect to architecture. Just as El Sitzky and the Vesnia brothers sought to deny the importance of realizing a work and stressed an architectural atticude, so che avant-garde feels reasonably free to act within the realm of concepts. Comparable to the early conceptual artists’ rejection of the are commodity market and its alienating fects, the architects’ position scems justified by the very remote possibility they had of building anything other than a “mere reflection of the prevalent mode of production.” Moreover, historical precedents exist co give enough credibility to what could paradoxically be described either as a withdrawal from reality or as « takeover of new and unknown territories, “What is architecture?” atked Boullée “Will I define it with Vitruvi rt of building? No. This definition contains a (ass error. Vitruvius cakes the effect for the cause. One must conceive in order to ake, Our forefathers only buile their hu afer they had conceived its image. This production of the mind, this ereation is what constitutes architecture, that which we ow can define asthe art to produce any building and bring it to perfection, The art of building is thus only a secondary art that it seems appropriate to call the scientific