Reviews: Architecture
Architecture and Design
ARCHITECTURE IN THE AGE OF
DIVIDED REPRESENTATION: THE
QUESTION OF CREATIVITY IN THE
SHADOW OF PRODUCTION
dalibor vesely
MIT 2004 d32.95 $49.95
524 pp. illus 160 mono
isbn 0-262-22067-9
I
n his highly ambitious new book,
Architecture in the Age of Divided Representa-
tion: The Question of Creativity in the Shadow
of Production, Dalibor Vesely tackles a
number of issues central to the reading,
interpretation and making of contempor-
ary architecture that have long demanded
attention but remained untouched, prob-
ably because of the sheer complexity of
the task. The book is strictly neither a
theoretical nor an historical text, but the
intricate weaving of history and theory
together in a way that supports one of
Vesely’s clearly and oft-stated assertions
about the inextricable connections be-
tween different strands of thought usual-
ly considered distinct disciplines. Vesely
draws on his extensive knowledge of
philosophy, general history and architec-
tural history in order to produce his
argument, a complicated and original
synthesis. Indeed, the structure of the
argument is, in and of itself, a testament
to Vesely’s impressive erudition.
The premise around which the book is
organised is the divided nature of repre-
sentation. By this,Vesely means the partial
quality of any representation, because by
its nature, representation is selective. That
is, in any painting, sculpture, sketch or
model some aspects of the object are
represented to the exclusion of other as-
pects. The oppositional nature of inclu-
sion/exclusion mirrors the dualistic vision
of the Cartesian universe on the one hand,
and much of Western thinking on the
other. Dialectic relationships such as
subject/object, humanity/nature, and good/
evil are so central to how we understand
the world that twentieth-century philoso-
phers felt the need to invent other models
for thinking, yet oppositional models still
dominate our discourse. Vesely begins his
series of investigations by articulating the
apparent tensions between what he calls
the ‘instrumental and communicative’
values of architecture; otherwise stated,
between the technological and the crea-
tive; between the qualities that result from
scientific knowledge and those that result
from metaphorical and cultural knowl-
edge, from the exercise of the imagination
and application of poetic principles.
Indeed, here lies the very crux of Vesely’s
enterprise, to identify the origins of true
creativity in order to defend it against the
pressures of science and technology.
In disciplines such as architecture, most
believe, even today, that instrumentality can
be brought into harmony with symbolism, that
a balance can be established between them, that
instrumentality can produce its own symbo-
lism, or that the two can exist independently.
But, Vesely argues, nothing could be
further from the truth.
In order to defend his views Vesely
traces the origins of divided representa-
tion to the cosmological worldview of the
thirteenth century, then forward as it shifts
more and more to the scientific models of
the twentieth century. Vesely explains the
roles that geometry and optics play as
mediators between the sensible world and
the world of ideas. Again and again, he
underlines the limitations of instrumental
representation. He studies the importance
of light to seeing, to perspective and
therefore to spatial perception, as well as
the central role light plays in the under-
standing and articulation of space. Then
he reminds us of the tricks light and vision
can play on our apprehension of the
physical world. Finally, he reminds us of
the disengaged nature of technology.
Instrumental systems ultimately fail be-
volume 12 issue 1 february 2005 r bpl/aah The Art Book
cause of their abstract nature, no matter
how much they see like reality, they are
always simulations. Vesely extends this
argument to virtual reality representations
of the world, whose three-dimensionality
and colour make them no more ‘real’ than
a sixteenth-century painting. Further-
more, technology and instrumental sys-
tems are situated in the culture from
which they spring. Their strengths and
limitations are tied to the cultural context.
Most importantly, representational sys-
tems depend on the relationship between
human senses and the physical world for
their reception. It is highly unlikely that
anyone will be able to replicate this inter-
action between body and nature in a
machine. Therefore it is highly unlikely
that any form of representation will re-
place reality; architecture derives so much
of its power because it is a representational
mode situated in the physical world.
The very aspects of Architecture in the Age
of Divided Representation that give the book
its strength also contribute to its weak-
nesses: in places it is difficult to read,
sometimes because of an over-use of
jargon, at other times because of the com-
plexity of the argument. This is particularly
unfortunate because the book offers
important insights and raises key ques-
tions that should be available to a wide
readership in the field. In its present form,
the book will be difficult to assign as
reading to any but the most advanced
Eric ParryArchitects (EPA) Stockley Park (o⁄ce
building) Heathrow. Courtesy Eric ParryArchitects.
Photo David Grandorge.
49
Reviews: Architecture
students. I hope the work will run to many
editions and that, in the process, some of
the denser passages can be re-worked. As
Vesely moves from the more theoretical to
the more historical considerations in his
text, from the past to the present, his
writing does become clearer.
Vesely concludes his work with a
discussion of the so-called contemporary
‘crisis of representation’, which he quickly
identifies not as a crisis of meaning, as is
so often maintained, but as a ‘displace-
ment of meaning’. In his view, architec-
tural meaning has shifted from the
domain of experience to that of surface
and appearance. Vesely therefore argues
for the reinstatement of the human ele-
ment, praxis, into architecture. He adopts
the classical notion of praxis, ‘living and
acting in accordance with ethical princi-
ples. . .a situation that includes not only
people doing or experiencing something
but also things that contribute to the ful-
fillment of human life’. This is not a new
argument for Functionalism since func-
tion produces an instrumental approach
to design as opposed to a communicative
one. Nor does Vesely use the Phenomen-
ologists’ rationale for placing the human
being at the centre of design; nor the
postmodernists’ logic for a return to his-
torically-based architecture. Rather, Vesely
is trying to point a way to reinstate poetics
in architecture. It is for each reader to
determine whether he is successful or not.
Architecture in the Age of Divided Representa-
tion makes a seminal contribution to archi-
tectural thought. Vesely is deeply indebted
to Hans-Georg Gadamer although he does
not merely appropriate Gadamer’s ideas
but interprets and adapts them to the
architectural realm. The book is provoca-
tive on so many levels and will, undoubt-
edly, spark debates that are long overdue
in the field.
deborah ascher barnstone
Washington State University
ROMAN HOUSE – RENAISSANCE
PALACES: INVENTING ANTIQUITY
IN FIFTEENTH-CENTURY ITALY
georgia clarke
Cambridge University Press 2003 d75.00 $95.00
409 pp. 9 col/178 mono illus
isbn 0-521-77008-4
A
s Giovanni Rucellai memorably put
it, ‘there are two things that men
do in this world: the first is to
50 The Art Book volume 12 issue 1 february 2005 r bpl/aah
reproduce, the second is to build’. In the
fifteenth century building was an oppor-
tunity to show off one’s classical pedigree
and knowledge. Foundation-laying cere-
monies were performed on days when the
auguries were favourable, commemorative
medals were sealed in foundations and
walls, inscriptions cemented into build-
ings or carved on façades, and documents
forged to back up claims to ancient des-
cent. Imitation and emulation were not the
only goals. Betterment was preferable, so
patrons and architects were afforded high
praise indeed when the humanists told
them that they outshone even the ancients.
Georgia Clarke explores the idea of
a ‘Roman house’ in antiquity and in the
Renaissance in a book based on an
impressive array of classical, Renaissance
and modern sources. The modern notion
of the ‘Roman house’, she reveals, is
dependent on the rediscovery of Hercula-
neum and Pompeii in the eighteenth
century, but in the fifteenth century it
was very different, variable, and largely
dependent on Vitruvius and other classical
literary references. But the Renaissance
game was not to reconstruct a Roman
house per se so much as to find solutions
to fifteenth-century architectural problems.
The first chapter of the book considers
some of the reasons why and the ways
in which patrons and humanists tried to
claim connections with antiquity. The
second surveys important concepts shared
between antiquity and the Renaissance –
magnificence, variety and imitation. The
third and fourth chapters explore in depth
textual and physical sources for the Ro-
man house, suggesting that in the end it
was the Renaissance architects’ imagina-
tion, rather than their ability to study
antique fragments, that led to the most
exciting developments in the design of the
Renaissance palace. Nowhere is this more
evident than in the palace façades, for
which, paradoxically, no classical exam-
ples remained. Therefore it was where
architects could be at their most inventive.
The fifth and longest chapter of the
book turns to the detailed examination
of Renaissance palace architecture and
considers the different responses to clas-
sical inspiration in the different centres of
the Italian peninsula. Florence, explored
through the specific example of the
Palazzo Medici, had no monopoly on the
classical revival. Local variations from
Naples to Venice are used to demonstrate
just how ingenious architects could be in
the fifteenth century. Examples of rusti-
cated masonry, the use or imitation of
materials such as marble and features
such as roundels, capitals, new classical
versions of Gothic biforate windows,
doorways and interiors are surveyed to
demonstrate just how imaginative archi-
tectural interpretations of the antique
were. Rather than a break with the past,
ingenious designs, materials and techni-
ques often referred as much to local tradi-
tion and continuity with the medieval past
as to a sudden classical groundswell.
The last chapters present a more
balanced argument than the strong literary
bias of the first three. Like the physical and
textual evidence for antique models, the
fifteenth-century evidence is fragmented
and diffuse. Or as the author poetically
puts it, ‘a complicated skein of interlac-
ing variegated threads crossing and re-
crossing, appearing and disappearing’.
The argument is repeatedly made that
the influence of antiquity came through
the study of texts and then, later in the
fifteenth century, the study of ancient
ruins. Were fragments – ‘tangible but too
often mute’ – only brought to life through
the text? The wealth of examples of
palaces, some well known and others
relatively obscure, seems to undermine
this relatively narrow argument that prior-
itises literary texts and suggests that
patronal, humanistic and practical or
artistic responses need to be teased out
to a greater extent.
This is a book which is as much about
classical texts as it is about Renaissance
domestic buildings. As a result Roman
House will bridge the changes at Cam-
bridge University Press very well indeed as
it will appeal to an audience interested in
both Renaissance architecture and culture
and in the survival of classical texts and
remains. The only exceptions are in some
problems with Greek breathings and
accentuation, something that the Press
might like to consider if it will be focusing
on classical subjects in the future. A useful
appendix of manuscript and print copies
of Vitruvius’ De Architectura recorded in
libraries in Italy during the fifteenth
century displays the philological basis
of the book in fine form. Overall it is an
impressively researched, well produced
and elegantly illustrated book which
makes it all the more sad that CUP are
pulling out of art-book publishing.
carol m richardson
The Open University