The Deconstruction of Autonomy

Theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of

autonomous architecture

Author: Xiangyu Li
Student ID: 4305035
Contact: lixiangyutju@hotmail.com
Supervisor: Gregory Bracken
Date: 28-05-2017
Personal Motivation:
The motivation of this study is due largely to the introspection of the architectural
practice since the 1990s. Started architecture in 2008, the author witnessed the influence
of a new generation of architects and their “brainwashing” speeches, promoting
publications, and schematic images. Diagrams, fancy renderings, and political manifestos
occupied both professional and mass media, peddling an architectural language which
was easy to understand and operate, like a toy in hand. Architecture became less
“autonomous” as a self-sufficient discourse.
Thus, the author became curious about how architecture transformed from a result
of its own logic, to a straightforward operation driven by external aspects. How should
we define architecture? What is the core knowledge that architecture is based on? Is
architecture a social practice or a discipline, or cult? These questions are all related to the
issue of autonomy.
In this study, the discussion of autonomy is framed since the 1960s, when
architecture became more disciplined and institutionalized. It is a remote and fascinating
period from the view point of today. It is interesting to see how the claim for autonomy
actualized in architectural language, in the works of Rossi and Eisenman. Consciously or
unconsciously, the “non-autonomous” architecture of a new generation is influence by
the principles of autonomous architecture. For instance, the notion of type/prototype, the
process of geometric operation, and the attitude to treat architecture as a distant object,
are all heritage of the autonomous architecture, and developed in the following
generations. This is one of the key points of the argument.
With all the motivation and curiosity, the author started his study, outlining a
grand narrative of the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy of
architecture.
Content

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2

Typology: an autonomous formal structure .....................................................................................4

Formal Language: autonomy in geometric operation ......................................................................6

The deconstruction of autonomy .....................................................................................................8

Non-autonomous Architecture: a new language emerging ............................................................10

Causes:
Alterations in the profession ..........................................................................................................12
Socio-economic evolutions ............................................................................................................15

Conclusion:
The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy ..............................................18

Notes ..............................................................................................................................................20
Image credits ..................................................................................................................................22
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................23
 The Deconstruction of Autonomy

Theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of

autonomous architecture

Author: Xiangyu Li

Keywords:
Autonomy, diagram, type, geometry

Abstract:
Whether architecture is an autonomous science has always been a debatable question.
The research object of autonomous architecture is its form, the disciplines of its formal
language. The concept of type, style, and geometry, for instance, stresses the issue of
form from different perspectives. However, it is a remarkable fact that the autonomy of
architecture is deconstructed in the works of a new generation of architects. The formal
manipulation is more dependent on external reference, on programmatic or iconographic
issues, while the meaning and discipline of form is flattened. A “prototype” under
operation of “geometry”, concerning program and context rigidly as “reasons”, has
become a kind of formal language today. The reason for the destruction of autonomy in
architecture lies within and without the discourse. By researching the shifting in the
notion of autonomy, the immediate environment of architectural practice, and the socio-
economic background, the author tried to discuss the cause of the deconstruction of
autonomy, and the possibility of rebuilding the autonomy of architecture today.

1
Introduction
The seeking for autonomy in architecture can be traced back to the 1960s. Like many
other social sciences, architecture claimed to be an autonomous science with its own
disciplines. Experiments and thought experiments were made by many architects,
constructing autonomous formal principles. The works of Aldo Rossi and Peter Eisenman
were among those, representing different approaches of autonomy.
Both started their exploration of autonomy in the 1960s, Rossi and Eisenman
faced a similar issue—the problem of Modernism, which was broadly discussed during
the time. However, they took completely different positions in the critique of Modernism
and the establishment of an autonomous architecture. For Rossi, the failure of modernism
dealt to “naïve functionalism”, when “type is reduced to a simple scheme of organization,
a diagram of circulation route, and architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous
value”. 1 For Eisenman, the attitude towards the Modernism was to bring it to its fullness.
2
With the notion that objects are independent from man in Modernism 3, he developed
the formal principle of the Modern Architecture. While Rossi based his theory on the
concept of type from the city and its history, Eisenman constructed a self-sufficient
language without referring to any notion of history.

Musée National des Beaux Arts du

Québec proposal / BIG + Fugère
Architectes [1]

Since the 1990s, autonomy seemed to disappear from the works of the new
generation architects. Architects like MVRDV, BIG, and Bow-Wow developed a design
process based on straight-forward diagrammatic operation. Huge gestures in formal
manipulation create a toy-like architecture, in which autonomy disappeared. However,
the clarity of prototype, and the process of formal operation, which is the character of the

2
new architectural language, is obviously related to the methods in autonomous
architecture since the 1960s.With a rigid notion of type-function relation, and a method
of geometric operation of architecture as a distant object, the new method rapidly
occupies both the academy and practice, and represents the image of architecture towards
the public.
The reason for the destruction of autonomy is various. On one hand, the notion of
some basic concepts, for instance, form, type, context, and function have shifted in the
discourse of architecture. On the other hand, the transformations in design practice, in the
work flow, specialization, and power distribution in a project, altered the role and
profession of architects. The autonomous formal language was simplified, flattened, and
marginalized, generating an anxiety in the profession of architecture.
It is important to review the transformation of autonomous architecture, since it
represents the essence of architecture as a discourse. The study will contribute to the
notion of the architectural phenomenon today, offering a critical observation of the
position and design method in the architectural practice. Moreover, the study will also
allow us to rethink the role of architecture as a profession, its core knowledge and method,
and the possibility for a new autonomy in the discourse.
In this essay, the author will first study the construction of autonomy, different
approaches in Rossi’s and Eisenman’s schools. It is interesting to find out how the
principles of autonomous architecture later influenced the emerging non-autonomous
architecture. Consciously or unconsciously, the discourse of autonomous architecture
contains deconstructing aspects, which is reflected in the later practice of Rossi or
Eisenman, and the works of their followers. Second, the study will articulate the causes
for the deconstruction of autonomy. It is a process of the inbursting external references
and the exhausting inherent formal principles. Third, the author will discuss the situation
today and the possibility to reconstruct autonomy based on a new knowledge hierarchy.
However, a biography of autonomous architecture is a grand narrative, which is
beyond the capacity of the essay. The transformation of autonomy runs through the
architecture history since 1960s, and is related to the extensive and profound changes in
society. To avoid generalities, the author has to be selective in figures and events that are
brought to discussion.

3
Typology: an autonomous formal structure
If we take autonomy as a systematic formal principle, “type” must be mentioned as
source of its disciplines. The concept of type “describes a group of objects characterized
4
by the same formal structure”. The act of typify things is related the need of
categorizing, naming, and understandings things, in terms of their formal structure. In
architecture, the concept of type deals with the paradox of singularity and repeatability,
by defining a formal structure prior to certain forms.
The first coherent definition of type in architecture theory was given by
Quatremere de Quincy in the late eighteenth century. It was a period when the traditional
discipline of architecture was challenged by the emerging social and technical revolutions.
The concept of type explained the reason behind architecture. It is identified with “the
5
logic of form connected with the reason and use”. Beyond the formal structure, the
notion of type was deeply bound with history, nature, and use.
However, the form-type concept was weakened in the Neo-Classicalism, and
replaced by the concept of composition. In Durant’s theory, form was detached from use
and reason. Form was fragmented. With a method of composition based on a generic
geometry of axis superimposed on the grid, the connection between type and form
6
disappeared. In the late nineteenth century, the emerging functionism eliminated the
form-type notion from the discourse, by rejecting the past as a form of knowledge in
architecture.
In the 1960s, when the Modern Movement was considered as a failure, the issue
of formal and structural continuity of traditional cities was discussed in a series of
writings. Thereby, a new field of typological study appeared, that is, the form of city. In
the second half of 1960s, the most complex and systematic theory was developed by
Rossi and his circle. 7 In The Architecture of the City, the definition of type by Rossi was
“something that is permanent and complex, a logical principle that is prior to form and
that constitutes it”.8 For Rossi, typology was a tool to analyse city and to give forms to
architecture.

4
 The Market Trajan [2] The Gallaratese/ Aldo Rossi [3]

In Rossi’s urban science, the concept of typology tries to include the city in all its
9
dimensions. Rossi looked at different urban artifacts, both primary elements and
residential districts, seeing how type was preserved and transformed in the city. From city
observation to architecture design, Rossi based his design theory on typology, using types
to define formal structure, and its relation to the city. Colonnade, school, courtyard
housing… different types were observed, studied and applied in his works.

5
Formal Language: autonomy in geometric operation
Parallel to the typological approach, the seeking for autonomy was pushed from another
direction—the formal language. The notion of formal language emerged in Modernism,
when type and style were eliminated, and form gained its independence. In the 1960s,
Eisenman attempted to develop the formal principles of Modernism into an autonomous
formal language. While autonomy for Rossi refers to the history, for Eisenman,
autonomy stands for the elaboration of a self-sufficient language. 10
Admittedly, the statement that autonomy of formal language emerged in the
Modern Movement is problematic. The manifesto of Modern Movement was the
rejection of formal principles from the past. For instance, Mies van der Rohe expressed
his repulse against form, or formalism. In a text published by De Stijl in 1923 he declared:
“We reject all aesthetic speculation, all doctrine and all formalism.” 11 On one hand, form
as the object of design practice was rejected; on the other hand, it was liberated from
style and form-type, giving an unprecedented freedom to formal manipulation. Form was
detached from meaning and matter, becoming an independent domain in architecture.
Despite functionism, Eisenman took formal principles as the essence of the
Modernism. His goal was to “carry out the objectives of the modern movement and bring
12
modern architecture to its fullness”. The lesson he learned from Modernism was its
objective form, taking architecture as an abstract and distant object. However,
“objectivity” was not fully achieved in the Modern Movement. In The End of Classical:
The End of the Beginning, the End of End, Eisenman claimed, “In reality, however, the
objective forms never left the classical tradition. They were simply stripped down
13
classical forms, or forms referring to a new set of givens (function, technology).” To
establish the theory of formal autonomy, Eisenman introduced linguistics. With a
structuralist linguistic notion of architecture, he found that the formal elements in
architecture should follow a deep structure, which was not perceived sensorially.
Analogous to language, Eisenman advocated “an architecture that could be read,
understood, and judged in the manner of a strictly mental operation.” 14
While the traditional notion of architectural elements was rejected, the concept of
geometry was established as an alternative to figure and image. Geometry represents a
complete abstraction of form. Thus, the neutrality of the abstract space cancelled any

6
reading of its content, meaning, and materiality, allowing an absolute geometric operation
in architecture.

Diagrams of House IV/ Peter Eisenman [4]

As a design method, the concept of process was introduced, suggesting that his
architecture was made through a transformational process, and must be read in terms of
15
the sequence in time. In this process, the subject, the presence of the architect, was
eliminated.

Ultimately, Eisenman's notion of design as a process of

transformation aims at undermining the role that the architect plays
in the conception of the design; a goal that conforms with the spirit
of Structuralism. Eisenman assumes that his design process is really
an objective and autonomous one; that the transformations from one
stage to another actually happen as a result of intimal laws; and that
the output of the process is an internal consequence of the process
itself. 16

Eisenman thought of the systematic transformation process as “an objective

17
procedure able to generate designs, without the intervention of the designer”. The
absence of the author, however, suggested an absolute autonomy in architecture.

7
The deconstruction of autonomy
Accordingly, Both Rossi and Eisenman attempted to establish an autonomous
architecture. For Rossi, the autonomous architecture was as received from the history;
18
while for Eisenman, it was as invented from a self-sufficient language. In their design
practice, they tried to distance themselves from the object, which endowed their
architecture with abstract, neutral, and self-sufficient forms. For them, the absence of the
author indicates the autonomy of the work. Although they took different attitude towards
the Modernism, while Rossi thought it a failure and Eisenman proposed to make it to its
fullness, they both rejected functionism. Rossi’s critique on “naive functionism” was
“architecture is seen as possessing no autonomous value”. For Eisenman, functionism
belonged to the tradition of humanism rather than modernism. Thus, an autonomous
castle was constructed without external reference, with a set of systematic operational
methodology.
However, the concept of type and formal language shifted, and somehow
developed into the architectural language that we are familiar today, in which autonomy
is replaced by external reference, while the notion of type and formal operation are
merely kept in appearance.

As has been mentioned before, the form-type relation was weakened in the Neo-
classicalism, and eliminated in the Modern Movement. The attempt of Rossi and his
circle was to contribute to its recovery. 19 Conversely, his architecture communicates with
one ideal city rather than the city in reality. The discontinuity with the surrounding built
environment and the schematic illustration in the layout makes his architecture an
overwhelming expression of its type.
If a type is detached from the context, and transformed into another formal
language, is it still recognised as the original type? A similar question could also be found
in the representation of street in Modernism, for instance, in the Golden Lane by the
Smithsons and the Unite d’Habitaion in Marseille by Le Corbusier. For Rossi, these are
among the examples of a typological representation of the city in the form of urban
20
themes. However, it is a problematic method to “apply” the type abstracted from the

8
city and its history to the building. In this case, architecture is reduced into a formal or
spatial representation of the type.
With the dissemination of its image, Rossi’s architecture was received as icons of
type. The formal-type notion was marginalized, and type was given representational
power, as an icon rather than as an actual formal logic. The idea of type was taken
literally as a naming of categories in terms of function and appearance.
Actually, Rossi turned his approach from type to image around 1976. The role of
a scientific notion of typology was replaced by image, memory, and imitation. His works
became juxtaposition of formal fragments rather than a typological unity. According to
Moneo, the form-type relation was broken since the period of neo-classicism, and Rossi
failed to fix it. Once the typological unity was fragmented, the only link to the past was
through image. 21

Similarly, the autonomous theory in Eisenman’s architecture shifted away from the
former linguistic notion of architecture. The concept of diagram was introduced as an
alternative to the structuralist linguistic principles in formal manipulation. The change of
attitude took place at the start of 1980s, when he realized that “the discourse of abstract
architecture had exhausted itself”. 22 He defined diagram as generator of form:

Generically, a diagram is a graphic shorthand. Though it is an

ideogram, it is not necessarily an abstraction. It is a representation
of something in that it is not the thing itself …it also acts as an
intermediary in the process of generation of real space and time. 23

The design process relying on a purist formal strategy altered into diagram, which
brought broader discussions into formal manipulations. With the growing size and
complexity of his projects, the external pressures like scale and program made it
24
necessary to use such a concept. In his book Diagram Diaries, he explained the shift
from the first stage “diagrams of interiority”, using grids, cubes, L-shapes, and bars, to
the second stage “diagrams of exteriority”, using concept like place, text, mathematics,
25
and science. He claimed that diagram separated “form from function, form from

9
meaning, and architects from the process of design”. But as Massimo Cacciari pointed
out, “It is problematic to act as a negative agent in architecture”. 26 It is a transition from
a complete self-sufficient formal language to an open system that dealt with its context
and programs with its form processing.
The diagram of Eisenman maintained the geometric principles from his earlier
discourse, and avoided schematic graphics from exterior reference. However, the notion
of diagram and process offered a tool to operate architecture forms like distant and
abstract objects. Once the foundation of autonomy was weakened, diagram would be
used as a tool of translating external requirements directly into the formal manipulation.
As a result, the process was no longer neutral and autonomous, but a reflection of
external and practical issues.
Finally, the architecture of Rossi and Eisenman was received as a stylistic issue.

Non-autonomous Architecture: a new language emerging

Before we discuss the new architectural language, it is necessary to review the definition
of autonomy in architecture. Autonomy suggests an inherent logic, a self-sufficient
formal structure, which architecture is considered as a result of its own discourse. It does
not necessarily mean a complete rejection of external aspects in practice, but those
aspects would not play a dominate role. That way, the works of the new generation of
architects are considered non-autonomous.
To have an overview of the architects the author was referring to, we could see a
27
recent architecture competition—the New Media Campus in Berlin. OMA, BIG, and
Büro-OS were shortlisted, and OMA was selected finally. It is interesting to put the three
together comparing their forms and concepts. OMA and Büro-OS gave similar proposals,
with a void in the middle of a massive volume. The proposal by OMA was named “the
digital valley”. They studied the workflow of the media industry, and arranged the
“informal office” space in the valley—the terraces in the void. The two sides of the valley
were not parallel, which represented the axis of the street and the previous Berlin Wall.
BIG proposed a “three-dimensional neighbourhood”. The concept of “neighbourhood”
was represented as a courtyard type. A series of public functions was lined in the stepping
void. What they have in common is the schematic composition based on the arrangement

10
of program, the iconic representation of their type, and huge formal operations as respond
to the context. Accordingly, their workflow can be described as “program—type—
geometric operation”, and the original type as well as the operational process are clearly
visible in the final product.

“Digital Valley” / OMA [5] “A Three Dimensional Neighbourhood” / BIG [6]

It is assertive to say the shortlisted companies represent the entire range of

architects at the time, because Barjak Ingels and Ole Scheeren used to work in OMA and
influenced by their approach. But their success in competitions reflects the general
picture of the architecture today. More and more architecture companies are influenced in
the way of doing and presenting their works, rendering an overall tendency towards a
new language.
We can draw a long list of architects, among which are the most influential ones
since the 1990s. The collective behaviour of this generation rendered a toy-like
architecture, a gigantic object-scape. The notion of type, context, function, and formal
language was simplified and flattened into image and diagram. It is a hybrid of type,
geometric processing, and neo-functionism, in which the autonomy of architecture
disappeared.

11
Causes: alterations in the profession
The reason for the destruction of autonomy is relevant not only to architecture theory but
also practice. The changes in the content of profession, the workflow, and the form of
cooperation, and the urban and social environment of practice profoundly influenced the
attitude towards autonomy.

The content of the profession changed with the rebalance of the force field in the entire
industry. Faced with growing complexity of commissions, architects must now justify
himself to many different parties, the client, building contractors and engineers, future
residents and users, and the neighbouring areas. 29 Architects are sometimes required with
more than a scheme for the building, but also a strategy of development, or suggestion for
program. The content of the profession extended, while the authority and power of
architects shrank. As the practice of the entire industry became systemized and
institutionalized, architecture was received as a product of cooperation rather than a piece
of work of any individual. The role of architects also shifted, from a heroic innovator to a
part of a chain of the production and reproduction process. Thus, there is less space for
autonomous disciplines.

…there was a strong belief in architecture’s autonomous tradition as

a bulwark of high culture. This is problematic, however, in the
present situation, in which the architect can no longer rely on that
autonomous history because the authority and power which the
traditional architect of cathedrals and palaces had to implement his
ideas no longer exists. 28

Since 1990s, there were architects attempting to face the situation for architectural
practice, by including the external forces into the discourse. Among them was the Super
Dutch Movement, represented by OMA, MVRDV, and Ben van Berkel. As we see in the
competition, OMA based their works on a profound argument on program, and came up
with new programmatic proposals concerning the transforming society and the position
of the building type. Likely, MVRDV used the concept “situation” of the design, which

12
was the physical place in terms of morphology. Nowadays, many more intangible factors
have a bearing on situation, including planning envelop, regulations on natural lights
allowance, and requirements for users and neighbouring areas, which they tried to include
in a “datascape”. Van Berkel, however, tried to collect all possible information related
and synthesize it to create a “diagram” with computer, forming the basis of the design. 30
The chain of program—diagram—form was established, which is considered as a logical
process nowadays.

International competitions, on the other hand, boosted the expansion of the non-
autonomous language. As a sample of the globalized architectural production,
competitions require relatively neutral and universal language, which is judged under an
equally neutral and universal evaluation system. The lack of common ground among
architects and juries in international competitions indicates the necessity of a more direct,
common, and understandable language, rather than a result of inherent formal logic.
Personally, the author has to admit that the proposals by OMA or BIG are relatively
comprehensive, attractive, and impressive in competitions.
The success of those companies also influenced others. In a comment Kick the
Architectural Competition Habit, Marshall Brown summarised that “the simple diagrams,
surreal formal effects, and easy imageability of their work has forced some of their more
established competitors to enter an arms race of gigantic object-scapes”. 31
However, the influence is not limited in the circle of architects. In some of the
important competitions, the proposals of the completion are widely transmitted through
media, which renders the competition a public event. To some extent, the competition
proposals represent the image of contemporary architecture for the public. As a result,
architectural competition achieved its communication value.
The developers and institutions are aware of its communication, and gain
“fantastic publicity from the mad traveling circus of design competitions”. Competitions
are held in order to attract financing, donors, and public awareness, without contacts,
32
necessary approvals, or even clear programs. Once the competition was established
merely for transmission, the proposals are received with their concepts and images, their
communication value.

13
 In this sense, the non-autonomous language was expected, awarded, and
transmitted in architectural competitions.

The new generation of architects since 1990s are faced with flattened and fragmented
cities. When identity, place, and meaning are eliminated from the city, neither typological
nor contextual approach could find valid access to the urban environment. The only
connection to the city is its image, its iconic presents in the city.
Since the Modern Movement, the continuity of structure, activity, and form which
allows consistent use of type is broken. The cities are constructed without a form-type
relation, which generates an embarrassing situation for Rossi, who attempted to relate
architecture and city with the notion of type. In the article On Type, Moneo stated: “The
object—first the city, then the building itself —once broken and fragmented, seems to
maintain its ties with the tradition discipline only in images of an ever more distant
33
memory.” The inherent formal structure of the city was destructed, as well as that of
architecture. The shift of Rossi’s work reflects this tendency.
A more radical allegory about contemporary city is given by Koolhaas, in The
Generic City. It is a superficial city that breaks with the old city, which is considered as
“destructive cycle of dependency”. In a generic city, the concept of identity is strongly
rejected.

It is nothing but a reflection of present need and present ability. It is

the city without history. It is big enough for everybody. It is easy. It
does not need maintenance. If it gets too small it just expends. If it
gets old it just self-destructs and renews. It is equally exciting—or
unexciting—everywhere. It is “superficial”—like a Hollywood
studio lot, it can produce a new identity every Monday morning. 34

Absurd as it seems from appearance, the generic city reflects the fact that the city
is becoming an endless artificial space without any identity. It is no more than a
temporary container of urban life. Being generic, the city can support no architecture of
autonomy, but a super juxtaposition of its image.

14
Causes: socio-economic evolutions
In a broad sense, the reasons found in the transformation of architectural industry
represent an extensive and profound revolution in society. The concept of consumerism,
mass media, and non-place can explain the phenomenon in architectural practice.

The change from autonomy to non-autonomy is related to the shift from producerism to
consumerism in economy. The concept of consumerism refers to “economic policies
placing emphasis on consumption. In an abstract sense, it is the consideration that the free
choice of consumers should strongly orient the choice of what is produced and how”. 35
Since the non-autonomous architecture emphasise program or function as the
basis of design, it seems comparable to the functionalism positions in the Modern
Movement. However, unlike the “social reform” movement in Modernism, which
attempted to redefine a new lifestyle through design, the contemporary architecture takes
a serving position. In other words, the position of modernism is to design and reform the
user from the standpoint of the designer, a heroic idea that placed himself over the people,
while the practice of consumerism is totally user oriented. The shift from modernism to
consumerism happened in almost all industries, which redefined the relationship between
production and consumption.
In some ways, the architecture of autonomy resembles a producerism perception.
The construction of its own discipline, a self-sufficient system reflects the priority of
production. Although rejecting the principles of Modernism, Rossi and Eisenman were
still in the consistence of producerism. Their manifestos were as constraint as those of
Modern Movement. While in a consumerism society, the design activities are user-
oriented, which means to base every aspect of the industry on the needs or potential needs
on the user. Of course, the design of the product, as a part of this process, is included.
The values of the profession are not to reform the society from the ideology of a designer,
but to allocate the standpoint of their works around the satisfaction of the users.
Autonomy, which seems to be wordy monologue of the architect, is rejected.

15
The booming mass media since 1980s, on the other hand, was destructing the autonomy
in architecture. The mass media brought the ideology of architects to the public. Through
this channel, architects participate in public events in different ways.
Rendered as public events in mass media, the presence of architecture is beyond
the physical built environment, and has extended to the public realm. The revaluation of
architecture considered its communication value. More than ever architects are presented
in mass media, in publications, television, and internet. It is not merely self-promotion,
but architectural production in another domain. Not only building schemes, but also
images, concepts, and idols are produced by architecture companies along with the media.
For instance, image production includes conceptual design and competitions; concept
production covers publications, exhibitions, and public lectures; idol production
represents the mechanism of promoting star architects and rendering them as public
figures.
The consumption of images, concepts, and idols are happening at the same time.
Image consumption, for instance, rendered the visual representation of a project, if not
more than, at least as important as the project itself. After fantastic renderings, diagrams
become the next battlefield for representation, which evokes a satisfaction of
“understanding” the object. Concepts consumption creates a tagging perception of the
ideas of the architects. Global of local, avant-garde or nostalgic, naturism or urbanism…
the ideas of architects are labelled with a series of words, which are still far from their
theoretical approaches. The consumption of idols is a consumption of their public image,
personality, and moral obligation. The presence of architects in public events, for
instance, post-disaster reconstructions, philanthropic programs, and development forums,
renders their public images.
Mass media generates a secondary reality, where architects and their works are
presented as images, as icons, or as labels, which in turn influenced the production.
Architecture is supposed to be photogenic, labelled, and communicative. Gradually, a
schematic architectural language took over mass media, becoming the image of
contemporary architecture.

16
The concept of non-place describes the loss of identity and the sense of place in
contemporary cities. In Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity,
Marc Auge claimed:

If a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with

identity, then a space which can not be defined as relational, or
historical, or concerned with identity will be a non-place. The
hypothesis advanced here is that supermodernity produces non-
place, meaning spaces which are not themselves anthropological
places and which, unlike Baudelairean modernity, do not integrate
the earlier places. 36

Place was created in a long term interrelation between community and space,
where there was shared identity and collective memory. While the anthropological notion
of place suggests identity, history, and memory, Auge found the mass produced new
facilities in the city without such characters. He used the word non-place, or space, to
describe such phenomenon. In a non-place, the historical relation between identity and
place is cancelled, when human-being can acquire a temporary identity like a passer-by.
In this way, the autonomous approaches though type, place, and collective
memory are no valid in a city of supermodernity.

17
Conclusion:
The construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of autonomy
The biography of autonomy is a grand narrative, including all aspects within and without
the discourse. In the construction of autonomy, the attempt to conceptualize, abstract and
distant the object was essential. The autonomous approach dealt with a simplified ideal
reality, and focused on the objective formal structure, excluding other demotions in
architecture. In this sense, for the emergence of a new non-autonomous language, the
basis in aesthetics, theory, and methodology was founded in the discourse of autonomous
architecture.
The principles of non-autonomous architecture were rooted in the principles of
autonomous architecture.
With the profound transformation in architectural practice and the entire society,
the discourse of purity, self-sufficiency and autonomy got exhausted. Within its skeleton,
more functional and social aspects were introduced. When external power was projected
in the operation of a distant and abstract object, the language of “object-scape” emerged.
The systematic knowledge in formal structure was flattened and simplified as a diagram
process.

If autonomy in architecture fades out, is it possible to generate a new autonomy? As the

object of the autonomous architecture in the 1960s is the formal structure, what will be
the object of the discipline today? And what knowledge can the discourse rely on?
In Diagram Work, Ben van Berkel pointed out that the repetitive process of
verifying knowledge deeply inhibits the architectural practice is a threat to its future.
There for, he proposed an integration of the discourse:

In order to avoid total disillusionment and exhaustion, architecture

must continue to evolve its internal discourse, to adapt in specific
ways to new materials and technological innovations, and to engage
in constant self-analysis… The end of the gran narrative does not
mean that architects no longer dream their own dreams, different
from anyone else’s.37

18
 If we review the construction of autonomy in the 1960s, we will find it based on
external reference. Rossi and his colleagues brought in urban geography, anthropology,
and topology, while Eisenman’s narrative is largely based on a reflection of structural
linguistics. Their works institutionalized the external reference, and transformed social
and cultural aspects into architectural issues. Rather than deconstructing disciplines in
architecture, they attempted to integrate the external aspects in the inherent formal
principles. The reconstruction of autonomy in architecture relies on the redefinition of the
discourse and the recognition of cultural conventions, within and without the profession.
More than ever is architecture influence by external references. However, after
decades of flooding in external principles, it is time to rethink of architecture as a
discipline, and rebuild its inherent and conclusive system.

19
Notes:
1. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984), 46
2. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 146
3. Peter Eisenman. “Post-Functionalism” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d.
Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998), 238
4. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 23
5. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 28
6. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 29
7. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 35
8. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984), 40
9. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007): 39
10. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 149
11. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into
the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 304
12. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 146
13. Peter Eisenman. “The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of
End” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998),
525
14. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 150
15. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 151
16. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into
the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 333

20
17. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into
the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 1995), 333
18. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 152
19. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 37
20. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007): 51
21. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 40
22. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 193
23. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999), 28
24. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 195
25. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004), 195
26. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999), 214
27. BIG, OMA, Büro-OS To Compete for New Media Campus in Berlin
http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/
28. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2000), 23
29. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2000), 23
30. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2000), 24
31. Marshall Brown, Comment: Kick the Architectural Competition Habit
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138
32. Marshall Brown, Comment: Kick the Architectural Competition Habit
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138
33. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978), 41
34. Rem Koolhaas, S,M,L,XL, (Monacelli Press, 1995), 1250

21
 35. Consumerism, From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism
36. Marc Auge, Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, tans.
John Howe (Verso, 2009), 77
37. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Preface to “Diagram Works,” ANY 23 (1998)

Image Credits:
1. Musée National des Beaux Arts du Québec proposal / BIG + Fugère Architectes.
http://www.archdaily.com/57324/musee-national-des-beaux-arts-du-quebec-
proposal-big-fugere-architectes/
2. The Market Trajan. Aldo Rossi, The architecture of the city
3. The Gallaratese. Nicolin, Pierluigi, Carlo Aymonino / Aldo Rossi, housing
complex at the Gallaratese Quarter, Milan, Italy, 1969-1974
4. Peter Eisenman. Diagrams of House IV. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept
of Type in Architecture:An Inquiry into the Nature of Architectural Form”
5. “Digital Valley” / OMA.
http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/
6. “A Three Dimensional Neighbourhood” / BIG.
http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/

22
Bibliographys:
1. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, (MIT Press, 1984)
2. Rafael Moneo. “Peter Eisenman” in Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies—
in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects, (MIT Press, 2004)
3. Peter Eisenman. “Post-Functionalism” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d.
Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998)
4. Rafael Moneo. “On Typology” in Oppositions, (MIT Press, 1978)
5. Pier Vittorio Aureli, “the Difficult Whole,” Log 9 (2007)
6. Leandro Madrazo Agudin, “The Concept of Type in Architecture: An Inquiry into
the Nature of Architectural Form” (PhD diss., Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule Zürich, 1995)
7. Peter Eisenman. “The End of Classical: The End of the Beginning, the End of
End” in Architecture Theory since 1968, e.d. Michael Hays, (MIT Press, 1998)
8. Peter Eisenman, Diagram Diaries, ( Universe, 1999)
9. Bart Lootsma, Super Dutch: New Architecture in the Netherlands, (Princeton
Architectural Press, 2000)
10. Rem Koolhaas, S,M,L,XL, (Monacelli Press, 1995)
11. Marc Auge, Non-place: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, tans.
John Howe (Verso, 2009)
12. Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, Preface to “Diagram Works,” ANY 23

23
 自治的解构

理论与实践问题在转型中
自治的体系结构

作者:李向宇同学 ID: 4305035

联系人:lixiangyutju@hotmail.com 主管:Gregory Bracken

日期:28-05-2017

个人动机:

本研究的动机主要是对 20 世纪 90 年代以来建筑实践的反思。从 2008 年开始，作

者见证了新一代建筑师的影响，以及他们的“洗脑”演讲、宣传刊物和示意图。图
表、花哨的效果图和政治宣言占据了专业和大众媒体，兜售一种易于理解和操作的
建筑语言，就像手中的玩具一样。作为一种自给自足的话语，建筑变得不那么“自
主”了。

因此，作者对架构如何从结果中转换而感到好奇。
其自身的逻辑，到一个由外部因素驱动的简单操作。我们应该如何定义架构?架构
所基于的核心知识是什么?建筑是一种社会实践还是一门学科，还是一种崇拜?这
些问题都与自治问题有关。

在这项研究中，自 20 世纪 60 年代以来，关于自治的讨论被框定了。

建筑变得更加规范和制度化。从今天的观点来看，这是一个遥远而迷人的时期。有
趣的是，在罗西和艾森曼的作品中，自治的要求是如何在建筑语言中实现的。无论
是有意识还是无意识，新一代的“非自主”建筑都受到自主建筑原则的影响。例如，
类型/原型的概念，几何操作的过程，以及将建筑视为一个遥远的对象的态度，都
是自主建筑的遗产，并在后世得到发展。这是争论的关键之一。

带着所有的动机和好奇心，作者开始了他的研究，概述了 a

建筑自主性的建构、解构和重构的宏大叙事。

内容

1
文
摘.............................................................................................................................
...............1 介
绍.............................................................................................................................
......... 2

类型:一个自治.....................................................................................正式结构 4 正
式语言:自治的几何操作...................................................................... 6

自治.....................................................................................................的解构 8 非
自治架构:一门新语言的新兴............................................................ 10

原因:
在职业..........................................................................................................改变 12
个社会经济演
进............................................................................................................ 15

结论:
建设、解构和重建自治..............................................18 笔
记.............................................................................................................................
.................20 学
分.............................................................................................................................
.....形象 22 书
目.............................................................................................................................
..... 23

2
 自治的解构

理论与实践问题在转型中

作者:象屿李

关键词:
自治的体系结构

自主、图、类型、几何

文摘:

建筑是否是一门独立的科学一直是一个有争议的问题。自治建筑的研究对象是它的
形式和形式语言的学科。例如，类型、样式和几何的概念从不同的角度强调形式的
问题。然而，新一代建筑师的作品却解构了建筑的自主性，这是一个值得注意的事
实。形式操纵更多地依赖于外部引用，依赖于程序化的或图标化的问题，而形式的
意义和规则则是扁平的。“几何”操作下的“原型”，严格地将程序和语境作为
“理由”，已成为一种形式语言。建筑的自主性被破坏的原因在于建筑内部和外部
的话语。通过对自主性观念的转变、建筑实践的当下环境、社会经济背景等方面的
研究，探讨了当今建筑自主性解构的原因以及重建自主性的可能性。

介绍

对建筑自治的追求可以追溯到 20 世纪 60 年代。与许多其他社会科学一样，建筑
学自称是一门拥有自己学科的自主科学。许多建筑师进行了实验和思想实验，构建
了自主形式原则。阿尔多•罗西(Aldo Rossi)和彼得•艾森曼(Peter Eisenman)的作
品也在其中，它们代表了不同的自治方式。

罗西和艾森曼都是在 20 世纪 60 年代开始探索自主性的

面对一个类似的问题——现代主义问题，这在当时被广泛讨论。然而，他们在对现
代主义的批判和独立建筑的建立上却采取了完全不同的立场。对罗西来说，现代主
义的失败导致了“幼稚的功能主义”，当“类型被简化为一种简单的组织结构，一
个循环路径图，而建筑被认为是没有自主价值的”。对艾森曼来说，对现代主义的态度是使它

3
变得充实。
2
在现代主义的概念中，客体是独立于人的，他发展了现代建筑的形式原则。罗西
的理论是建立在城市和历史的类型概念上的，而艾森曼则在没有任何历史概念的情
况下构建了一种自给自足的语言。

魁北克国立艺术博物馆提案/大型+ Fugere
师[1]

自 20 世纪 90 年代以来，自治似乎从新的作品中消失了。

一代建筑师。像 MVRDV、BIG 和 bo - wow 这样的架构师开发了一个基于直接的

图表操作的设计过程。正式操作中的巨大手势创建了一个类似于玩具的体系结构，
其中自治消失了。然而，新建筑语言的特点是原型的清晰性和形式操作的过程，这
显然与 20 世纪 60 年代以来的自治建筑的方法有关。这种新方法具有一种刚性的
类型函数关系概念，是一种将建筑作为一种远程对象的几何操作方法，它快速地占
据了学院和实践，并代表了建筑对公众的形象。

破坏自治的原因是多方面的。一方面

一些基本概念，如形式、类型、语境和功能，在建筑话语中已经发生了变化。另一
方面，设计实践中的转换、工作流程中的转换、专业化和项目中的权力分配，改变
了架构师的角色和职业。自治形式语言被简化、扁平和边缘化，在建筑行业产生了
焦虑。

回顾自治体系结构的转换是很重要的，因为它

将建筑的本质作为话语来呈现。这项研究将有助于理解当今建筑现象的概念，对建
筑实践中的位置和设计方法进行批判性的观察。此外，这项研究也将让我们重新思
考建筑作为一种职业的角色，它的核心知识和方法，以及在话语中实现新的自主性
的可能性。

在本文中，笔者将首先对自主性建设进行研究，不同于以往

罗西和艾森曼的学校。有趣的是，我们可以发现自治架构的原则后来是如何影响到
新兴的非自治架构的。无论是有意识还是无意识，自治建筑的话语都包含着解构的

4
方面，这反映在罗西或艾森曼后来的实践中，以及他们追随者的作品中。其次，本
研究将阐明自主性解构的原因。它是一个外在的不可言喻的引用和令人筋疲力尽的
固有形式原则的过程。第三，作者将讨论今天的情况，以及基于新的知识体系重构
自治的可能性。

然而，关于自治建筑的传记是一个宏大的叙述，也就是。

超出了论文的能力范围。自主性的转变贯穿了 20 世纪 60 年代以来的建筑史，与
社会的广泛而深刻的变化有关。为了避免泛泛而谈，作者必须对所讨论的人物和事
件有选择性。

类型学:一个自主的正式结构。
如果我们把自主性作为一种系统的形式原则，那么“类型”必须作为其学科的来源
加以提及。类型的概念“描述了一组以相同形式结构为特征的对象”。事物的类型化行
为与分类、命名和理解事物的形式结构有关。在建筑学中，类型的概念处理奇异性和可重复性
的矛盾，通过在某种形式之前定义形式结构。

建筑理论中第一个连贯的类型定义是由

在十八世纪晚期的昆西时期。那是一个建筑传统学科受到新兴社会和技术革命挑战
的时期。类型的概念解释了架构背后的原因。它是用“与理由和使用相联系的形式
逻辑”来确定的。除了形式结构之外，类型的概念与历史、自然和使用紧密相连。

但是，新古典主义削弱了形式概念

被构图的概念所取代。在杜兰特的理论中，形式与使用和理性是分离的。形式是支
离破碎的。基于网格上叠加的轴类几何形状的组合方法，类型和形式之间的连接消
失了。在 19 世纪晚期，新兴的功能主义从话语中消除了形式概念，将过去作为建筑知识的一种形式加以拒绝。

在 20 世纪 60 年代，当现代运动被认为是失败的时候，问题就出现了
对传统城市的形式和结构的连续性进行了一系列的论述。由此，一个新的类型学研
究领域出现了，那就是城市的形式。60 年代后半期，罗西和他的团队提出了最复
杂、最系统的理论。在城市的建筑中，罗西对类型的定义是“一种永恒而复杂的东西，一种先于形式并构成
它的逻辑原则”。对罗西来说，类型学是一种分析城市和给建筑以形式的工具。

5
图拉真市场[2] 加拉塔人/阿尔多·罗西[3]

在罗西的《城市科学》中，类型学的概念试图将城市包含在所有的科学之中
维度。罗西观察了不同的城市工艺品，包括主要元素和居民区，观察了城市如何保存和改造类型。从城市观
察到建筑设计，罗西的设计理论以类型学为基础，用类型来定义形式结构及其与城
市的关系。在他的作品中观察、研究和应用了不同类型的住宅。

形式语言:几何操作的自主性。
与类型学方法类似，对自主性的追求也从另一个方向——正式语言——推进。形式
语言的概念是在现代主义中产生的，当时类型和风格都被摒弃了，形式也得到了独
立。在 20 世纪 60 年代，艾森曼试图将现代主义的正式原则发展为一种自主的正
式语言。罗西的自主性指的是历史，埃森曼的自主性指的是一种自给自足的语言。
10

不可否认的是，正式语言的自主性在文中出现。

6
现代运动是有问题的。现代运动的宣言是对过去的正式原则的拒绝。例如，密
斯·凡·德罗表达了他对形式或形式主义的反对。在 1923 年 De Stijl 出版的一篇
文章中，他宣称:“我们拒绝一切美学思考、一切教条和一切形式主义。”“11 一
方面，作为设计实践对象的形式被拒绝;另一方面，它从形式和形式中解放出来，
给正式的操纵提供了前所未有的自由。形式脱离了意义和物质，成为建筑中一个独
立的领域。

尽管功能主义，艾森曼还是把形式原则作为其本质

现代主义。他的目标是“实现现代运动的目标，使现代建筑达到完美”。他从现代主
义中吸取的经验是它的客观形式，把建筑当作一个抽象的、遥远的对象。然而，“客观性”在现代运动
中并没有完全实现。在《古典的结尾:开始的结尾，结束的结尾》中，艾森曼
说:“但在现实中，客观的形式从来没有离开过古典传统。”他们只是简单地剥离
了经典的形式，或指一套新的赋予(功能，技术)的形式。为了建立正式自治理论，
艾森曼引入了语言学。他以建筑的结构主义语言学概念，发现建筑的形式元素应该
遵循一种深层的结构，而不是感官上的感知。与语言类似，艾森曼提倡“一种可以
通过严格的心理操作来阅读、理解和判断的架构”。“14
虽然传统的建筑元素的概念被否定了，但是概念

几何是作为图形和图像的替代品而建立的。几何表示形式的完全抽象。因此，抽象
空间的中立性消除了对其内容、意义和物质性的任何解读，允许在建筑中进行绝对
的几何操作。

房屋 IV/ Peter Eisenman[4]图

作为一种设计方法，引入了过程的概念，提出了过程的概念。

体系结构是通过转换过程构建的，必须按照时间顺序进行读取。在这个过程中，主体，即
架构师的存在被排除了。

最终，艾森曼将设计视为一个转型过程的理念，旨在削弱建筑师在设计理念中所扮
演的角色;符合结构主义精神的目标。Eisenman 假设他的设计过程是客观的和自主

7
的;从一个阶段到另一个阶段的转变实际上是由内膜定律引起的;过程的输出是过程
本身的内部结果。16

艾森曼认为系统改造过程是一个“目标”
程序能够生成设计，而不需要设计者的介入。然而，作者的缺席暗示了建筑的绝对自治。

自治的解构

因此，罗西和艾森曼都试图建立一个自治的体系结构。对罗西来说，自治建筑是历
史的接受;而对于艾森曼来说，这是一种自给自足的语言。在他们的设计实践中，他们试图与
物体保持距离，这赋予了他们的建筑抽象、中立和自给自足的形式。对他们来说，作者的缺席表明了
作品的自主性。尽管他们对现代主义采取了不同的态度，而罗西认为这是一个失败，
而艾森曼提出要使其达到圆满，他们都拒绝了功能主义。罗西对“朴素功能主义”
的批判是“建筑被视为没有自主价值”。对于艾森曼来说，功能主义属于人文主义
的传统，而不是现代主义。因此，在没有外部参考的情况下，利用一套系统的操作
方法构建了一个自治的城堡。

然而，类型和形式语言的概念发生了变化

发展成我们今天所熟悉的建筑语言，在这种语言中，自主性被外部引用所取代，而
类型和形式操作的概念仅仅停留在表面上。

如前所述，在新古典主义中，形式型关系被削弱，在现代运动中被消除。罗西和他
的团队的尝试是为了帮助球队恢复。相反，他的建筑与一个理想的城市沟通，而不是现实中的城市。
与周围建筑环境的不连续和布局中的示意图使他的建筑成为其类型的压倒性的表达。

如果类型与上下文分离，并转换为另一个形式

语言，它是否仍然被认为是原始类型?同样的问题也可以在现代主义对街道的描述
中找到，例如，在斯密松(Smithsons)的《黄金巷》(the Golden Lane)和勒·柯布
西耶(Le Corbusier)的《马赛的联合 d’habitaion》(the Unite d’habitaion)中找到。
对于罗西来说，这些都是典型的以城市主题的形式表现城市的例子。然而，将从城市及
其历史中抽象出来的类型“应用”到建筑中是一种有问题的方法。在这种情况下，体系结构被简化为
类型的正式或空间表示形式。

随着形象的传播，罗西的建筑被视为偶像

类型。形式类型的概念被边缘化了，而类型被赋予了代表性的力量，作为一个图标
而不是一个实际的形式逻辑。从字面上看，类型的概念是根据功能和外观来命名类
别的。

事实上，罗西在 1976 年左右改变了他的风格。的作用

科学的类型学概念被形象、记忆和模仿所取代。他的作品并不是一种类型化的统一

8
性，而是将正式的片段放在一起。Moneo 认为，形式型关系自新古典主义时期就
被打破了，而 Rossi 也没能修复它。一旦类型学的统一性被打破，与过去唯一的联
系就是通过形象。21

同样，艾森曼建筑中的自治理论也从以前的语言建筑概念中转移出来。图的概念作
为结构主义语言原则在正式操作中的替代。态度的转变发生在 20 世纪 80 年代初，
当时他意识到“抽象建筑的话语已经耗尽了自己”。22 他将图定义为形式的生成者:

一般来说，图是一种图形简写。虽然它是一个表意文字，但它并不一定是一个抽象
概念。它是事物的一种表征，因为它不是事物本身……它在产生真实空间和时间的
过程中也扮演着中介的角色。23

设计过程依赖于一种纯粹的形式策略转化为图，其中

将更广泛的讨论引入了正式的操纵。随着他的项目的规模和复杂性越来越大，外部
的压力，如规模和程序，使得有必要使用这样的概念。在他的《图解日记》一书中，他解释
了从第一个阶段的“内在关系图”(使用网格、立方体、l 形和条形)到第二个阶段的“外在关系图”(使用地点、文本、
数学和科学等概念)的转变。他声称图表将“形式与功能、形式与意义、建筑师与设计过程”分开。但正如马西
莫•卡查里(Massimo Cacciari)所指出的，“在建筑中扮演消极角色是有问题的”。
它是一个从完全自给自足的正式语言到处理其上下文和程序的形式处理的开放系统的过渡。

艾森曼的图表保持了他早期的几何原理。

语篇，避免从外部引用示意图。然而，图和过程的概念提供了一种工具来操作像遥
远的和抽象的对象这样的体系结构形式。一旦自治的基础被削弱，图将被用作将外
部需求直接转换为正式操作的工具。结果，这一进程不再是中立和自主的，而是对
外部和实际问题的反映。

最后，罗西和艾森曼的建筑被认为是一个风格问题。

非自治架构:一种新兴的语言

在讨论新的体系结构语言之前，有必要回顾一下体系结构中的自治定义。自主性意
味着一种内在的逻辑，一种自给自足的形式结构，建筑被认为是其自身话语的结果。
它并不一定意味着在实践中完全排斥外部方面，但这些方面不会起主导作用。这样，
新一代架构师的作品就被认为是非自治的。

为了对作者所指的架构师进行概述，我们可以看到 a
最近的建筑竞争——柏林的新媒体校园，27 个，大的，和 buo - os 被列入候选名
单，最终选择了 OMA。把这三个词放在一起比较它们的形式和概念是很有趣的。
OMA 和 Buro-OS 也提出了类似的建议，在大量的书中出现了空白。OMA 的提案

9
被命名为“数字谷”。他们研究了传媒业的工作流程，并在山谷中布置了“非正式
办公室”空间——虚空中的梯田。山谷的两边不是平行的，它代表了街道的轴线和
前柏林墙。BIG 提出了一个“三维街区”。“邻域”的概念是庭院类型。一系列的
公共功能被排列在踏出的空隙中。它们的共同之处在于基于程序安排的示意性构图，
它们类型的标志性表示，以及响应上下文的大型正式操作。因此，它们的工作流可
以被描述为“程序类型-几何操作”，并且在最终的产品中可以清晰地看到原始类
型和操作过程。

“数字谷”[5] “三维街区”/ BIG [6]

我们可以肯定地说，入围的公司代表了整个行业

当时的建筑师，因为 Barjak Ingels 和 Ole Scheeren 曾经在 OMA 工作并且受到他

们的方法的影响。但他们在竞赛中的成功反映了当今建筑的总体情况。越来越多的
建筑公司在做和展示自己的作品时受到影响，呈现出一种新的语言的总体趋势。

我们可以列出一长串建筑师，其中最具影响力的。

自 1990 年代以来。这代人的集体行为造就了一个玩具般的建筑，一个巨大的物件
景观。类型、上下文、函数和形式语言的概念被简化并简化为图像和图表。它是一
种类型、几何处理和新功能主义的混合体，建筑的自主性消失了。

原因:职业的改变

10
破坏自主性的原因不仅与建筑理论有关，也与实践有关。专业内容、工作流程、合
作形式以及实践的城市和社会环境的变化，深刻地影响了人们对自治的态度。

这一职业的内容随着整个行业中力场的再平衡而改变。面对日益复杂的委托，建筑
师现在必须向许多不同的方、客户、建筑承包商和工程师、未来的居民和用户以及
邻近地区证明自己的价值。建筑师有时需要的不仅仅是一个建筑方案，还有一个发展策略，或者是规划
建议。这一职业的内容不断扩展，而建筑师的权威和权力却在萎缩。随着整个行业
的实践变得系统化和制度化，建筑被视为合作的产物，而不是任何个人的作品。建
筑师的角色也发生了转变，从一个英勇的创新者变成了生产和复制过程的一个环节。
因此，自主学科的空间更小。

有一种强烈的信念认为建筑的自治传统是高雅文化的堡垒。然而，这在目前的情况
下是有问题的，在这种情况下，建筑师不能再依靠那种自治的历史了，因为传统的
大教堂和宫殿的建筑师所必须实现的权威和力量已经不复存在了。28

自上世纪 90 年代以来，有建筑师试图面对建筑的现状。

实践，通过将外部力量纳入话语之中。其中包括以 OMA, MVRDV 和 Ben van

Berkel 为代表的超级荷兰运动。正如我们在竞争中所看到的，OMA 基于对项目的
深刻论证，提出了关于改造社会和建筑类型的新方案。很可能，MVRDV 采用了设
计的“情境”概念，即形态学上的物理位置。如今，许多无形的因素都与形势有关，
包括规划信封、有关自然光津贴的规定，以及对用户和邻近地区的要求，他们试图
将这些纳入“数据角”。然而，Van Berkel 试图收集所有可能的与之相关的信息，
并将其综合起来，用计算机创建一个“图”，形成设计的基础。程序-图表-形式的链被建
立，这被认为是当今的一个逻辑过程。

另一方面，国际竞争促进了非自治语言的发展。作为全球化建筑生产的一个样本，
竞争需要相对中立和通用的语言，在同样中立和通用的评价体系下进行评判。建筑
师和陪审团在国际竞赛中缺乏共同点表明，有必要使用一种更直接、更通用、更容
易理解的语言，而不是固有的形式逻辑的结果。就个人而言，笔者不得不承认，
OMA 或 BIG 的建议相对全面、有吸引力，在竞争中也令人印象深刻。

这些公司的成功也影响了其他公司。在评论中

马歇尔•布朗(Marshall Brown)总结道，建筑竞争的习惯“简单的图表、超现实的
形式效果以及他们作品的易想象性，迫使一些更成熟的竞争对手加入了一场大型物
体景观的军备竞赛”。31 日
然而，这种影响并不局限于建筑师的圈子。在一些
在重要的比赛中，完成比赛的提案通过媒体广泛传播，使比赛成为一项公共事件。

11
在某种程度上，竞赛提案代表了公众对当代建筑的印象。因此，建筑竞争达到了它
的传播价值。

开发商和机构都意识到它的沟通和收获

“疯狂的设计竞赛的疯狂宣传”。举办比赛是为了吸引资金、捐助者和公众的注意，
没有联系，没有必要的批准，甚至没有明确的项目。32 .一旦仅仅为了传播而设立竞赛，就会
收到提案的概念和图像，以及它们的传播价值。

在这个意义上，非自治语言被期望、奖励和

传播在建筑竞赛。

上世纪 90 年代以来，新一代的建筑师面临着被夷为平地、支离破碎的城市。当身
份、地点和意义从城市中消失时，无论是类型学还是语境方法都无法找到有效的进
入城市环境的途径。与这个城市唯一的联系就是它的形象，它在这个城市的标志性
礼物。

自现代运动以来，结构、活动和形式的连续性

允许类型的一致使用被破坏。城市是没有形式关系的，这给罗西造成了尴尬的局面，
他试图把建筑和城市联系到类型的概念上。在一篇关于类型的文章中，Moneo
说:“首先是对象——城市，然后是建筑本身——一旦破碎和支离破碎，似乎只在
一个越来越遥远的记忆的图像中与传统学科保持联系。”城市固有的形式结构和建
筑结构都遭到了破坏。罗西工作的转变反映了这一趋势。

库哈斯(Koolhaas)在《当代城市》一书中提出了一个更为激进的寓言。

一般的城市。它是一个与旧城相分离的肤浅的城市，被认为是“依附的破坏性循
环”。在一个普普通通的城市，身份的概念被强烈地排斥。

它只不过是现在需要和现在能力的反映。这是一个没有历史的城市。它对每个人都
足够大。它是很容易的。它不需要维护。如果它变得太小，它只会花费。如果它变
老了，它就会自我毁灭和更新。它在任何地方都是同样令人兴奋的——或者是不兴
奋的。它是“肤浅的”，就像好莱坞的工作室，它可以在每周一早上产生新的身份。
34

从表面上看似乎很荒谬，但普通的城市反映了城市这个事实

正在变成一个没有任何身份的无尽的人工空间。它只不过是城市生活的一个临时容
器。作为一个普普通通的城市，它不支持任何自治的建筑，而是支持其形象的超级
并列。

原因:社会经济的演进

12
从广义上讲，建筑产业转型的原因是一场广泛而深刻的社会革命。消费主义、大众
传媒和非场所的概念可以解释建筑实践中的现象。

自主性向非自主性的转变与经济中由生产至上主义向消费主义的转变有关。消费主
义的概念是指“强调消费的经济政策”。从抽象意义上说，消费者的自由选择应该
强烈地指向产品的选择和方式的选择。35
由于非自治体系结构强调程序或功能

在设计的基础上，它似乎与现代运动中的功能主义立场相当。然而，与试图通过设
计重新定义一种新的生活方式的现代主义“社会改革”运动不同，当代建筑占据了
一个有用的位置。换句话说，现代主义的立场是站在设计师的立场来设计和改造用
户，这是一个将自己置于人之上的英雄主义理念，而消费主义的实践则是完全以用
户为导向的。从现代主义向消费主义的转变在几乎所有行业都发生了，这重新定义
了生产与消费之间的关系。

在某些方面，autonomy 的架构类似于一个产品的感知。

建设自己的学科，自给自足的制度体现生产的优先。罗西和艾森曼虽然拒绝现代主
义的原则，但仍然是生产主义的一致性。他们的宣言和现代运动的宣言一样具有约
束力。在消费主义社会中，设计活动是面向用户的，这意味着要根据用户的需求或
潜在需求来建立行业的各个方面。当然，产品的设计，作为这个过程的一部分，也
包括在内。专业的价值不在于从设计师的意识形态来改造社会，而在于把自己的作
品的立场围绕着用户的满意。自治，似乎是建筑师冗长的独白，被拒绝了。

另一方面，自上世纪 80 年代以来蓬勃发展的大众传媒正在破坏建筑的自主权。大
众传媒把建筑师的意识形态带到了公众面前。通过这个渠道，建筑师以不同的方式
参与公共活动。

作为公共事件在大众媒体中呈现，建筑的存在是超越的

物理建筑环境，并已扩展到公共领域。体系结构的重估考虑了它的传播价值。在大
众媒体、出版物、电视和互联网上出现的建筑师比以往任何时候都多。它不仅是自
我推销，而且是另一个领域的建筑生产。不仅建筑方案，还有图像、概念和偶像都
是由建筑公司和媒体一起制作的。例如，图像制作包括概念设计和竞赛;概念制作
包括出版物、展览和公开讲座;偶像制作代表了明星建筑师的晋升机制，使他们成
为公众人物。

图像、概念和偶像的消费同时发生。

例如，图像消耗使项目的视觉表示至少与项目本身同样重要。在出色的渲染之后，
图表成为代表的下一个战场，这唤起了“理解”对象的满足感。概念消费创造了对
架构师思想的标记感知。全球化的本土、前卫或怀旧、自然主义或都市主义……建

13
筑师的理念被贴上了一系列的标签，这与他们的理论方法相去甚远。对偶像的消费
是对公众形象、个性和道德义务的消费。建筑师参与公共活动，例如灾后重建、慈
善项目和发展论坛，展现了他们的公众形象。

大众传媒产生了一个次要的现实，建筑师和他们的作品。

以图像、图标或标签的形式呈现，进而影响生产。建筑应该是上相的，有标签的，
有交流的。渐渐地，一种建筑图式语言占据了大众媒体，成为当代建筑的形象。

非地点的概念描述了当代城市中身份的丧失和地点感的丧失。《异类:超级现代性人
类学导论》，Marc Auge 声称:

如果一个地方可以被定义为关系的、历史的和与身份有关的，那么一个不能被定义
为关系的、历史的、或与身份有关的空间就不是一个地方。这里提出的假设是，超
现代性产生了非地点，这意味着空间本身并不是人类学意义上的地点，而且不像波
特雷式的现代性，它没有整合早期的地点。36

场所是在社区与空间的长期相互关系中创造出来的，

那里有共同的身份和集体的记忆。虽然人类学上对地点的概念暗示着身份、历史和
记忆，但奥格发现，城市里大量生产的新设施却没有这些特征。他用“非地点”或
“空间”来描述这种现象。在非地点，身份与地点之间的历史关系被取消，当人可
以获得一个暂时的身份，如过路人。

通过这种方式，自治方法通过类型、位置和集合来实现

在一个超级现代化的城市里，记忆是无效的。

结论:

自治的建构、解构和重构

自主性传记是一种宏大的叙事，包括话语内部和外部的所有方面。在自主性的建构
中，试图概念化、抽象和远离客体是必不可少的。自治方法处理的是一个简化的理
想现实，关注的是客观的形式结构，排除了建筑中的其他降级。从这个意义上说，
随着一种新的非自治语言的出现，在美学、理论和方法论上的基础都建立在自治建
筑的话语中。

非自治架构的原则根植于

自治的体系结构。

随着建筑实践和整个社会的深刻变革，

14
纯净、自给自足和自主性的话语已经枯竭。在它的骨架中，引入了更多的功能和社
会方面。当外部力量投射到一个遥远而抽象的物体上时，“物景”的语言就出现了。
形式化结构中的系统知识被简化为图解过程。

如果架构中的自主性消失了，是否有可能产生新的自主性?由于 20 世纪 60 年代自
治建筑的对象是形式结构，那么今天这个学科的对象是什么呢?话语可以依赖什么
知识?

在图的工作中，本·范·贝尔克尔指出了重复的过程

验证知识严重地抑制了架构实践，这对它的未来是一个威胁。为此，他提出了一种
语篇整合:

为了避免总失望和疲惫,架构必须继续发展其内部话语,以特定的方式适应新材料和
技术创新,并进行不断的自我心理分析…格兰叙事的结束并不意味着建筑师不再梦
想自己的梦想、与别人's.37 不同

如果我们回顾一下 20 世纪 60 年代的自治建设，我们会发现它是基于

外部引用。罗西和他的同事引入了城市地理学、人类学和拓扑学，而艾森曼的叙述
主要基于结构语言学的反映。他们的作品将外部的参考制度化，将社会文化方面转
化为建筑问题。他们没有解构架构中的学科，而是试图在固有的形式原则中整合外
部方面。建筑自主性的重建依赖于对话语的重新定义和对文化传统的认可，无论是
在专业内部还是在专业之外。

架构比以往任何时候都更受外部引用的影响。然而,在

数十年来，外部原则泛滥，是时候重新思考建筑作为一门学科，重建其固有的、决
定性的体系了。

注:

1。《城市的建筑》，(麻省理工学院出版社，1984)，46。

2。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。“彼得·艾森曼”《理论焦虑与设计策略》——《八名当代
建筑师的作品》(麻省理工学院出版社，2004)，146

3 所示。彼得艾森曼。“后功能主义”自 1968 年以来的建筑理论，e.d.，迈克

尔·海斯，(麻省理工学院出版社，1998)，238。

4 所示。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。《论类型学》，(麻省理工学院出版社，1978)，23 5。拉
斐尔·芒尼奥。《论类型学》，《反面》(麻省理工学院出版社，1978)，28 6 页。拉
斐尔·芒尼奥。《论类型学》，(麻省理工学院出版社，1978 年)，第 29 页。拉斐
尔·芒尼奥。《论类型学》，(麻省理工学院出版社，1978)，35 8 页。阿尔多·罗

15
西，《城市的建筑》(麻省理工学院出版社，1984)，40

9。《困难的整体》，第 9 卷(2007):39 页

10。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。《理论焦虑与设计策略》——《八名当代建筑师的作品》(麻
省理工学院出版社，2004)，149

11。莱安德罗·马德拉佐·阿古丁，“建筑类型的概念:对建筑形式本质的探
究”(diss 博士)。,Eidgenossische 科技

Hochschule 苏黎世,1995),1995
12。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。“彼得·艾森曼”《理论焦虑与设计策略》——《八名当
代建筑师的作品》(麻省理工学院出版社，2004)，146

13。彼得艾森曼。经典的终结:开始的结束，结束的结束

《建筑理论的终结》，e.d. Michael Hays，(麻省理工学院出版社，1998)，525

14。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。“彼得·艾森曼”《理论焦虑与设计策略》——《八名当
代建筑师的作品》(麻省理工学院出版社，2004)，150 页

15。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。“彼得·艾森曼”《理论焦虑与设计策略》——《八名当
代建筑师的作品》(麻省理工学院出版社，2004)，151

16。莱安德罗·马德拉佐·阿古丁，“建筑类型的概念:对建筑形式本质的探
究”(diss 博士)。,Eidgenossische 科技

Hochschule 苏黎世,1995),1995

17 所示。莱安德罗·马德拉佐·阿古丁，“建筑类型的概念:对建筑形式本质的探
究”(diss 博士)。,Eidgenossische 科技

Hochschule 苏黎世,1995),1995
18 岁。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。“彼得·艾森曼”《理论焦虑与设计策略》——《八名
当代建筑师的作品》(麻省理工学院出版社，2004)，152

19 所示。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。《论类型学》，(麻省理工学院出版社，1978)，3720。
《困难的整体》，第 9 卷(2007):51 页

《论类型学》(麻省理工学院出版社，1978)，40
21。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。

22。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。《理论焦虑与设计策略》——《八名当代建筑师的作品》(麻
省理工学院出版社，2004)，193

23。彼得·艾森曼，图表日记，(宇宙，1999)，28

24。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。“彼得·艾森曼”，《理论焦虑与设计策略》，《八名当代建

16
 筑师的作品》(麻省理工学院出版社，2004)，195

25。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。“彼得·艾森曼”，《理论焦虑与设计策略》，《八名当代建
筑师的作品》(麻省理工学院出版社，2004)，195

26 岁。彼得·艾森曼，图表日记，(宇宙，1999)，214

27。BIG, OMA, Buro-OS 在柏林竞争新媒体校区

http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/
28。《超级荷兰人:荷兰的新建筑》(普林斯顿建筑出版社，2000)，23
29。《超级荷兰人:荷兰的新建筑》(普林斯顿建筑出版社，2000)，23
30.《超级荷兰人:荷兰的新建筑》(普林斯顿建筑出版社，2000)，24 页
31 日。马歇尔·布朗(Marshall Brown)，评论:改掉建筑竞争的习惯
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138
32。马歇尔·布朗(Marshall Brown)，评论:改掉建筑竞争的习惯
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7138
33。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。 《论类型学》，(麻省理工出版社，1978 年)，第 434 页。库
哈斯，S,M,L,XL， (Monacelli Press, 1995)， 1250。

35。消费主义,从维基百科
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism
36。马克·奥格，《异类:超级现代性人类学导论》。John Howe (Verso, 2009)，
77 岁
37 岁。本·范·贝尔克尔和卡罗琳·博斯，《图论》序言，第 23 卷(1998 年)

图片致谢:

1。魁北克国立艺术博物馆提案/大型建筑。
http://www.archdaily.com/57324/musee-national-des-beaux-arts-du-quebec-
proposal-big-fugere-architectes /
2。图拉真市场。奥尔多·罗西，这座城市的建筑

3 所示。Gallaratese。Nicolin Pierluigi, Carlo Aymonino / Aldo Rossi，位于意大利

米兰 Gallaratese 区，1969-1974

4 所示。彼得艾森曼。“建筑类型的概念:对建筑形式本质的探究”

17
5。“数字流域”/ OMA。
http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/
6。“三维街区”/大。
http://www.archdaily.com/459281/big-oma-buro-os-to-compete-for-new-media-
campus-in-berlin/

参考书目:

1。阿尔多·罗西，《城市的建筑》(麻省理工学院出版社，1984)

2。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。“彼得·艾森曼”《理论焦虑与设计策略》——《八名当代
建筑师的作品》(麻省理工学院出版社，2004)

3 所示。彼得艾森曼。1968 年以来建筑理论中的“后功能主义”，e.d. Michael

Hays(麻省理工学院出版社，1998)

4 所示。拉斐尔·芒尼奥。《论类型学》，《反面》(麻省理工学院出版社，1978)5。
码头维托里奥·奥莱利，《艰难的整体》，第 9 (2007)

6。莱安德罗·马德拉佐·阿古丁，“建筑类型的概念:对建筑形式本质的探
究”(diss 博士)。,Eidgenossische 科技

Hochschule 苏黎世,1995)
7 所示。彼得艾森曼。经典的终结:开始的结束，结束的结束

《建筑理论的终结》，e.d. Michael Hays，(麻省理工学院出版社，1998)8。彼

得·艾森曼，图表日记，(宇宙，1999)

9。《超级荷兰人:荷兰的新建筑》(普林斯顿建筑出版社，2000)
10。雷姆·库哈斯，S,M,L,XL， (Monacelli 出版社，1995)
11。马克·奥格，《异类:超级现代性人类学导论》。约翰·豪(封底,2009)
12。本·范·贝尔克尔和卡罗琳·博斯，《图论》的前言，任何 23 页

18