Essay

Taboo?

TABOO?

ARCHITECTURE SEEMS TODAY, MORE THAN EVER, TO BE CAUGHT IN THE TRAP BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND ELITISM, BETWEEN THE NEED TO MERGE WITH LIFE AND THE IMPERATIVE TO FIT INTO THE AESTHETIC CANON OF THE TIME. IT IS, IN A WAY, IMPOSED ON US").

Good architecture is that which has the ability to negotiate conveniently with both masters. Today, however, the world's architecture seems resigned to exhausting itself more in a struggle with life. It has given up any attempt to deviate from the path marked out by the "guiding light" of official aesthetic criticism. She is perhaps overwhelmed by the effort to control the visceral impulses of budget, function, political pressure, popular taste, and then her own emotions, experiences, ambitions, memories and auctorial idiosyncrasies. Or, rather, it is discouraged, after the failure of some admirable attempts to tidy up the forms in the last decades of the last century. What is certain is that all architects, from the megastar to the student, passing through their well-behaved trainers, have once again channeled their imagination in a single formal direction: that directly descended from modernism. Where are our avant-gardists? All of architecture is happily humming the age-old refrain about simplicity and economy of means. Has it sunk into our subconscious? The same reductionist aesthetic code, denounced half a century ago as autistic, is mechanically promoted, perfected, distilled, reinternalized and intellectualized to the limit, sublimated, then imposed on life. Poor life still doesn't accommodate him, but never mind, the guerrilla war continues.We initiates sure love Peter Zumthor, for example, because that's how we were brought up, he and we, to cultivate a Calvinist sensibility for the frustrated and impeccable form. And he does it masterfully. But what's the rest of the world to blame, what's to make sense of the buzz delivered by hundreds of little buzzers, like Louis the Vinyl Vinyl Vuittoons? What do they say to humanity - which, moreover, continues to constantly avoid them? I'm not referring specifically to minimalism - a trend legitimized to exist, like any other - but to the ubiquitous modernist language as a whole, the one created in and for the age of industrialization. How much longer are we going to insist, like late modernists, like socialism, on crossing an old woman across the street without taking into account that she still doesn't want to? Who is responsible for the fact that architecture ignores the cultural and social phenomena associated with its creative act?Answer: the high architectural critics, the venerable scholars who promptly block the search for alternative, more democratic languages. They have put the fear into architecture, after publicly executing postmodernism with incredible zeal, then severely decried deconstructivism, so that there is nothing left of them. They crushed them, their democratic substance and all. They called complexity chaos. They called irony irony. Social condescension they called populism. The forms with which the postmodernists were trying to "warm up" architecture, the vigilant called kitsch. They didn't take into account that it was, after all, a first attempt to thaw the "cold war" with the world. As a result, out of instinctive fear of this Olympian critique, we are still stuck in the same expressive toolkit, which is constantly being revived. Not even "inventoried", as Zevi would say, or "revised", as Derrida would say. Or too little.AESTHETICALLY CORRECT

Modern vocabulary still has sufficient resources to be perpetuated, we keep being told (for example, by William J.R. Curtis). Only total revolutions can bring about language change. The digital, ecological, technological revolutions, the permanent democratization of culture (both controlled and out of control) are not enough, one would say. So there's no chance, therefore all search has ceased. Our architecture has even given up situational awareness. It has forgotten how once its searches continued, even after John Ruskin had sanctioned the Cristal Palace with the appellation cucumber greenhouse. They continued even as he asserted, with all his authority and eloquence, that existing architectural styles would have been more than sufficient for the needs of his contemporary society, concluding dogmatically, "We do not need a new style in architecture." (And our Farfuridi said "either to revise, I accept! but not to change anything; or not to revise...")

Well, yes, as liberal as postmodernism claims to be, we continue to be endured by an official aesthetic critique, as in the days of the academists. It is as well-intentioned, as convinced of its own truth, as rigid and restrictive. But unlike Blondel's centralized and rather naïve critique à la Blondel (so it wasn't hard for a thin-souled Perrault to give it a bob), today's Western aesthetics are more diffuse, more insinuating and thus more hegemonic. Dozens of jury panels have xeroxed criteria for architectural language burned into their brains. Dozens of highly-rated magazines imbue architects' retinas with neo-modern paradigms - successful, of course, and always photogenic, because they are selected on the basis of the same cool idiom (literally and figuratively). They create myths. Image criticism and the globalization of communication reinforce the power of this formal code. It has become subliminal, master of the guild consciousness. It has become taken for granted.

The phenomenon is therefore difficult to localize and then relativize. There is, of course, no evil conspiracy to annihilate. Unfortunately! There is only what has always existed: the comfort of guaranteed landmarks. There are seized and accredited truths, which the committees and the venerables see to ensure that they are not undermined. They are then at the disposal of all criticism and all architecture as reliable benchmarks. Against their backdrop, any creation can then afford to play the game of subjectivity, proudly declared. But wo woe betide anyone who does not self-censor his liberties! In the end, the diversity of opinions is just an illusion because, on taboo subjects, none of them goes beyond the accepted framework. They are all "aesthetically correct".

Read the full text in issue 3/2013 of Arhitectura magazine

TODAY, MORE THAN EVER, ARCHITECTURE SEEMS TO BE CAUGHT IN A TRAP BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND ELITISM, NAMELY, BETWEEN THE NEED TO FUSE WITH LIFE AND THE IMPERATIVE TO COMPLY WITH THE AESTHETIC CANON OF ITS TIME. (ON THIS UNIDENTIFIABLE AESTHETIC CONSTRAINT, MATISSE SAID, A CENTURY AGO: "WE ARE NOT MASTERS OF OUR OWN CREATION. IN A WAY, IT IS IMPOSED ON US").

Good architecture is that which is capable to negotiate conveniently with both its masters. Or global architecture nowadays seems to be rather resigned to leading an exhausting battle with life. It has renounced any attempt to stray away from the path lit by its "beacon", i.e. official aesthetic critique. It is most likely overwhelmed by the great effort made to control the visceral impulses of the budget, the functionality, the political pressure, popular taste, then its own emotions, experiences, ambitions, memories and auctorial idiosyncrasies. Or rather it has become discouraged after the failure of several admirable attempts made in the last decades of the past century to refresh its forms. The fact is that all architects, from the megastar to the student, passing through their tempered trainers, have once more channeled their imagination into one single formal direction, i.e. that which directly descends from modernism. Where are our avant-gardists? All architecture is briskly humming the century-old tune about simplicity and sparingness of means. Has it become integrated in our subconscious already? The same reductionist aesthetic code, denounced half a century ago as autistic, is being promoted mechanically, perfected, distilled, re-appropriated and intellectualized at the last minute, then imposed upon life. Poor life keeps on refusing to come to terms with it, but in vain; the guerilla war continues.We, the initiated, surely love Peter Zumthor, for instance, because this is how we have been brought up: respectful of Calvinist sensitivity, of the crude, impeccable form. And he does it in masterly fashion. But what is the fault of the rest of the world, what is it supposed to make of all the Zumthor-like products delivered by the hundreds of little Zumthors like hundreds of plastic Louis Vuittons? What do they tell the world - which avoids them constantly anyway? I am not referring to minimalism in particular, a trend entitled to exist like any other, but to the omnipresent modernist language on the whole, the one created in and for the industrial era. How much will we insist, like the late modernists, like socialists, to help an old lady cross the street without taking into account the fact that she doesn't want to? Who is responsible for the fact that architecture ignores the cultural and social phenomena associated with its act of creation?The answer is: the high architectural critique, the venerable scholars who promptly block any quests for alternative, more democratic languages. It is they who put fear in architecture's heart, after having publicly executed postmodernism with an incredible zeal, and then after having severely stigmatized deconstructivism as well until nothing remained. They crushed them to the ground, their democratic base and all. They called the complexity chaos, they called irony lack of seriousness, they called social condescension populism. The vigilant ones described as kitsch the postmodernist forms meant to "warm architecture up" a little. They took no account of the fact that it was basically a first attempt to terminate the "cold war" with the world. Consequently, due to the instinctive fear of this Olympian criticism, we are still stuck to using the same set of expressive tools, constantly revived. We have not even "made an inventory" of it, in Zevi's words, or "revised" it, as Derrida would say; or we did so to a very little extent...AESTHETICALLY CORRECT

Modern vocabulary still possesses sufficient resources to be perpetuated, we are constantly told (for instance, by William J.R. Curtis). Only total revolutions can cause a change in language. The digital, the ecological, the technological revolutions, the permanent democratization of culture (the controlled one, as well as the one which got out of hand) are not sufficient, one would say. Therefore we do not stand a chance; therefore, any quest has ceased. Our architecture has even given up on becoming aware of the state of play. It has forgotten all about its former quests, including after John Ruskin sanctioned Cristal Palace by calling it a cucumber hothouse. The same quests were in progress while he stated, in all his authority and eloquence, that existing architectural styles would have been more than sufficient for the needs of contemporary society, and drew the dogmatic conclusion: "We do not need a new style in architecture". (Our Farfuridi would also say "it can be revised, I agree! but it should not change a bit; or it should not be revised...")

Well, however liberal postmodernity might consider itself, we continue to be guided by an official aesthetic critique, like in the days of academia. It is well-meaning and thoroughly convinced of its truth, but it is just as rigid and restrictive. However, unlike the critique à la Blondel, centralized and fairly naive (therefore easily mockable by a sensible spirit like Perrault), Western aesthetics nowadays is more vague, more allusive and therefore more hegemonic. As far as the architectural language is concerned, dozens of jury committees boast the same photocopied criteria which are also engraved on their brains. Dozens of reputed magazines assault the architects' eyes with neo-modern paradigms, which indeed are fairly accomplished and unfailingly photogenic, given that they have been selected according to the same criterion of the cool idiom (literally, as well as figuratively). They do create myths. The critique by images and the globalization of communication are strengthening the power of this formal code. It has become subliminal, completely taking over the guild's conscience. It has become a matter of course.

Thus, the phenomenon is primarily hard to locate in order to be afterwards undermined by relativity. There isn't any evil conspiracy to dismantle, unfortunately. There is only what has always been: the comfort of secure landmarks. There are truths which have been confiscated and then accredited, the untroubled supremacy of which is watched over by committees and respectable persons. They are then made available to the entire critique and to the entire architecture as safe landmarks. Backed by such landmarks, any creation can then afford to be subjective, and openly and proudly so. But pity the fellow who fails to establish the limits of his freedoms by self-censorship! Finally, the freedom of opinion is just a sham, because no freedom can go beyond the accepted and guarded limits when it comes to taboo topics. They are all "aesthetically correct".

Read the full text in the print magazine.