Architecture between Modernity and Dwelling: Reflections on Adorno's "Aesthetic Theory" Author(s): Hilde Heynen and T. W.

Adorno Reviewed work(s): Source: Assemblage, No. 17 (Apr., 1992), pp. 78-91 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171226 . Accessed: 16/05/2012 11:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Assemblage.

http://www.jstor.org

Hilde

Heynen
Between

Architecture

Modernity
Reflections Aesthetic

and
on

Dwelling:
Adorno's

Theory

teachesin the HildeHeynen at the of Department Architecture in Leuven, Universiteit Katholieke Belgium.

has a very At firstgloss, the modernprojectin architecture clearform:the modern movement is understoodalmost univocally,even by its opponents, as the privilegedarchitecturalexpressionof the pursuitof a liberatedsociety. But this seamlessattachment of a broadsocial and culturalprogram, on the one hand, and a moment from architectural history, takeson on the other, is no longertenable.The term modern in in modernism two contexts: differentmodulations the not does Giedion and Pevsner, architecture,as canonizedby "modern of the with the coincide unambiguously modernity Thereforethe relation project"as formulatedby Habermas.' should be queriedagain. between modernityand architecture And reflectionson the variousmeaningsof modernitymay illuminatecardinalthemes within the scope of architectural of architectureand society, modernism:the interwovenness the issue of dwelling.Here I the autonomyof architecture, of the relareturnto these themes to build an interpretation tion between modernityand architecture,inspiredby the AestheticTheory of T. W. Adorno.2 of the modernism/ The returnalso entails a reconsideration in the overlysimplisdebate terms that avoid postmodernism of this dominant tic, polemicalexchange.The categories of Adorno's workprohibita clear and complexity ambiguity determinationof which "side"he is on. Even if within philosophicaland aesthetic expositionshe is often understoodas defendingmodernism,his position is not so stakedout as the The attractionof his conventionalwisdom would suggest.3 workfor my purposesis preciselythe fact that he tarriesin a sort of twilightzone, disallowingan undialecticalsettling on

1. Adolf Loos,Villa MOller, Prague, 1930

79

~? ?:.:.S Z

prr

,!

AW.

L
.8
!

) c4o";

assemblage 17

or "postmodernism." ThereforeI will not intro"modernism" duce the theme of this essayunderthe poles of this debate, but ratherfromwithin the largerproblematicof modernity.

tion andrenewal, of struggle andcontradiction, of ambiguity and To be modern is to be in of a universe as which, anguish. part Marx said,'allthat is solidmeltsinto air.'6 MarshallBermanthus expressesthe characteristic paradoxof modernity:committing to the modernentails seekinggrowth, development,and change,but this processinevitablyinvolves the threatof losing contact with the past. the relationbetween modernityand architecInvestigating ture involvesthe queryof how this ambivalentexperience of modernityis expressedin architectural practiceand form. In our centurythere have been severalwaysof answering this question, but typicallya certainpolarization has taken that reduces the ambivalent character place fundamentally of modernity.

Two Concepts of Modernity

The wordmodernis one that remarkably and constantly The modern meant one changesmeaning.4 thing in the time of the Querelledes ancienset des modernes and something else to Baudelaire two centurieslater.Againstthe anciens' notion of defended a linearand cyclical history,the modernes to view teleological believinghistory be purposive,supposera to be specificand unrepeatable, ing every makingprogress associrelativeto the precedingperiod- whereasBaudelaire ated modernitywith the evanescentand the transitory "la c'est le transitoire, le fugitif, le contingent."' modernitc, viewson modernityhave inheritedboth Twentieth-century The programthe and the transitory. meanings, programmatic matic concept looks on modernityas a project:emphasisis placed on the pursuitof liberationand emancipationand a linear,purposivehistory.The transitory concept highlights the modern's"fugitive" realityand uncouplesits continual change and variationfrom a purposivepursuitof progress. These divergingconcepts areboth reflectionsof the perception of a concrete reality- a modernizingworldthat is cona worldthat today stantlyin the making,in transformation, looks differentfrom yesterday, and tomorrowwill be different concept considersthis again. But while the programmatic constant change to be the consequence of strivingtoward controlof the futureand the establishmentof an emanciconcept focuses on the fascinatpated society,the transitory of the character modern's fleeting effects. What gives ing is that these its modernity particularly intriguingcharacter links a two modes go hand in hand. Modernity,paradoxically, melanwith a certain toward the future orientation strong with a feeling for the ephemeral choly, a pursuitof progress and the transitory. Modernityis thereforeexperiencedin a ambivalent way. fundamentally in an environment thatpromis to findourselves To be modern transformation of ourselves isesus adventure, joy,growth, power, that threatens to at the same andthe world, time, and, destroy
everythingwe have, everythingwe know, everythingwe are. ...

Building,Dwelling,Thinking
To clarifythe basic problemof the relationbetween modernity and architecture,I relyon Heidegger'sseminaltext "Building, Dwelling,Thinking."7 Heideggerstartsout from an etymologicalreflectionon the Germanwordsfor building and dwelling.Bauenderivesfrom buan,which means dwelling-as-being.Heideggerdevelopsthe idea that dwellingis the term, meaninga wayof being whose fundamental primary characterconsists of sparingand preserving. Real dwelling finds a place when people remainat peace within what is preeach served,that is, within the free spherethat safeguards relatesto a "fourfold" (das thing in its nature.This preserving one lives on the earth,underthe sky,remaining Geviert): before the divinities,and belongingto men's being with one another.Accordingto Heidegger,realdwellingentails an attitude that allowsfor the presenceof this fourfold;only when these fundamentaldimensionsof being human come to the fore can one considerdwellingto be authentic. Thus the true natureof building is to let dwell. Buildingis of the fourfold.Consequently, the sparingand preserving Heideggerargues,only if we are capableof dwellingcan we build. His example is a farmhousein the BlackForest.The farmhouserelatesto the earthbecause it is well placedon a mountain slope lookingsouth. It shieldsits wind-sheltered roomsagainstthe stormscoming from the sky.It does not forgetthe altarcornerbehind the community table.And it
80

us all into a maelstrom of perpetual disintegrapours [Modernity]

Heynen

makes room for a child'sbed and the "treeof the dead" (a the fourfoldin its oneness. But for coffin), thus preserving Heideggerit is questionableindeed whethertoday we are capableof dwelling.Becauseof the dominanceof a technooutlook upon the world,dwellingas logical-instrumentalist the sparingand preserving of the fourfoldis not reallyforthcoming in our presentcondition. What is traced,instead, is of modernity. the "homelessness" diagnosisof the Assumingfora moment that Heidegger's is oppositionof modernityto dwelling correct,we can understandvariouspositionsof architectsand theoristsas radically divergentanswersto this situation.Until the 1960san optidismistic, programmatic tendencydominatedarchitectural course,the most significantspokesmenof whichwereGiedion of the modern and Pevsner.They stood up foran architecture movement that, in theirviews,wasan integralpartof the that gave shape modernprojectof emancipationand progress, to the futurethey emphasized.Both wereconvincedthat an architecture that respondsto the underlying necessitiesof its time will succeedin healingthe ruptures: when architecture is in tune with modernity,realdwelling- the harmoniousrelation between man and his fellowman, between man andhis in the environment- will come forth.Formanyparticipants modernmovement such a convictionformedthe ultimate objectivesof modernarchitecture.8 The convictionbearson what Bermancalls a pastoralview of modernity,a vision that proclaimsa naturalaffinitybetween the materialand spiritualdimensionsof modernization, between technologicaldevelopment and human well-being.9 Such a pastoraland programmatic outlook not only neglects the darker side of capitalistdevelopment,but also tends to evanescent,and melpush aside the ambivalent,transitory, ancholic aspects of modernity,thus reducingits character. In responseto this optimistic and operativereduction,another position has developedaroundthe workof Manfredo Tafuri.In this view, modern civilizationis fundamentallytotalitarianand inevitablysuppressesall moments of resistance againstthe dictatorshipof the commodity,howevercreative and variedthey may be. Where Giedion and Pevsnersaw architectureas a powerfulinstrumentto build the worldof toand Utopia,finds only a lost morrow,Tafuri,in Architecture

action.Architecturemay expressits essential rearguard incapacityin a sublime way,but cannot realizeits future goals. This view is clearlyarticulatedby MassimoCacciariin his review of Tafuriand Dal Co's ModemArchitecture. Cacciari concentrateson what he calls the Fragw6irdiges (the question worthasking)that Heideggerspellsout in "Building, Dwellin He out that the element major ing, Thinking." points of dwellis the of the verypossibility Heidegger questioning ing poeticallywithin the presentcondition.Cacciariassumes that the developmentof modern civilizationhas rendered the worldunfit for inhabitation:"The problemlies in the fact that spiritmay no longerdwell- it has become estranged from dwelling.And this is why buildingcannot 'make'the Home (Dimora)'appear."'l1 Accordingto Cacciari,Heidegger'sessayis a reflectionon a nonexistent logic. The dwelling-building-dwelling cycle has no correlatein actualreality,but merelyfunctionsas an indicationof what is absent today. By definingdwelling, Heideggerin fact describesthe possiblecondition of a mode of living that is presentlyimpossible,since "non-dwelling is the essentialcharacteristic of life in the metropolis."Life today,life in the metropolis,no longerhas anythingto do with dwellingas Wohnen,as the establishmentof a relation to the fourfold.Cacciariexplicitlyholds the view that "the home is past, it no longeris."Developingout from this thesis, he arguesthat only an architecturethat reflectsthe impossibilityof dwellingsucceeds in obtaininga formof - such as that of authenticity.Only a "silent"architecture Mies van der Rohe - might succeed in escapingfrom ideology and mystification.The workof Mies is characterized by a in indifference to neutral dwelling,expressed signs. "supreme ... The languageof absence here testifies to the absenceof dwelling.... The 'greatglasswindows'are the nullity,the silence of dwelling.They negate dwellingas they reflectthe metropolis.'11 I feel, however,that Cacciari,no less than Giedion and of modernity. Pevsner,also reducesthe ambivalentcharacter Cacciaribases his argumenton too stricta contrapositionof modernityand dwelling,as if even the desirefor roots and ties has nothing whatsoeverto do with modernity,as if dwellinglies completelyoutside everydesirefor change.
81

assemblage 17

There is undoubtedlya field of tension between modernity and dwelling.The confrontationwith modernitymeans that traditionalties to a place, a socialenvironment,a cultureare affected;it means that dwellingin the traditionalsense of the wordis violated.It does not follow,however,that this confrontationmust inevitablygive rise to an impasse,as Cacciari thinks,an impassethat leaves preciousfew possibilitiesopen to architecture.I think it is possibleto considerthis field of tension in a differentway,leavingmore room for the ambivalence of both modernityand dwelling.In orderto develop this suggestion,I appealto Adorno.

makesaccess to their texts difficultfor an unprepared reader. Their argumentation is, on the whole, asystematicand paratactic, usuallywrittenin an essayisticway,and, therefore, hardto summarize. Such is the case forAestheticTheory. The book can be readas a profoundreflectionon the relationbetween art and moderinto an argunity, a reflectionthat is not built systematically but rather commenced from different ment, points of view, with different themes. all dealing Gatheringup the threadsin this text is a hopeless task.Nevertheless,I wish to elucidate some of the main themes in the work,in particular, those themes relevantto developingthe relationbetween modernity and architecture.

Adorno
Adornobelonged to the firstgenerationof theoristsof the so-calledFrankfurt School. He was of Jewishoriginon his side like father's and, many others,was forcedto emigrate from Germanyin the early1930s,firstto Englandand later but the shock to America.In 1950 he returnedto Frankfurt, of the Holocaustlingeredin his work.His texts are dominated by the question of how it is possiblethat the ideals of and liberation enlightenment- the ideas of reason,progress, their when for all are turnedinto opposite put into practice. He finds that the modernizationof the worldhas caused oppressionand manipulationratherthan liberationand he wonderswhy and how this developmentcame to be. These questions are dealt with most explicitlyin the Dialecticof Enbut his other main works- NegativeDialectics lightenment, - are also steeped in this sensitivityto and AestheticTheory character of modernity.12 and contradictory the paradoxical His approachis specific:he combines the philosophicalquery of the natureof enlightenmentwith an intense analysisof artisticdevelopments.This double approachto contemporary the modern- the philosophicalproblemof modernityand the aesthetic problemof modernism- enableshim to addressboth the programmatic and the transitory concepts of and to modernity,its complexities,its differentappearances, determinetheir interrelations. No doubt Adornolearneda lot from Walter Benjamin,his aim was to interolder friend."LikeBenjamin,his primary of concrete and means specificphenompret modernityby ena. Both were convinced that modern realityescapesa dailyrealityis too globalizingand systematizingapproach: manifoldto make clearby model thinking.This conviction

Criticality
Art is perceivedby Adornoas one of the last "refuges" where realexperienceis still possible,experienceof what he calls the - that which does not conformto the exist"nonidentical" It is beyond question, accordingto him, that ing system. modernizationexerts a banalizinginfluence and causeslife to be superficial and mediocre.Modernityevokesa "crisisof it increasingly because experience" destroysliving conditions that are favorable to real,intense experiencesand profound contacts. interpersonal Adornosees contemporary art as a wayof expressingthis crithe modernismof sis.14This is preciselywhy it is "modern": art consists in its relationto the crisisof experience.Art cannot escape this condition. "IIfaut etreabsolument moderne," saysAdorno,repeatingthe adageof Rimbaud.Art submits to the inevitabilityof the historicaldevelopmentsup to now; it but to accept this. But there is more. For has no alternative him, an expressionof crisisimplicatesthe need to resistthe tendency expressed.He interpretsRimbaud'sphraseas a categoricalimperativethat links an honest facingof social reality with a consistent resistanceto the continuationof this historicalsituation. If one wants to resisttendencies of repression and exploitation,one cannot accept them by ignoring them as actualconditionsof existence. From an artisticpoint of view, this means that modern artmust workwith advanced contechniques and productionmethods and incorporate at same the But this includes experiences. process temporary time a significantcriticismand resistanceagainstthe existing system.
82

Heynen

This nuance specifiesAdorno'saesthetic theory:modern art as art is critical.The criticalvalue of a workof art is not embodied in the themes it deals with or in the "commitment"of it is immanent in the artisticprothe artist;on the contrary, cess as such. Adornois convinced that the mimetic potential not in politicalbut in of art, if correctlyapplied- "correct" artisticterms- constitutes its autonomous,disciplinary, criticalcharacter, even apartfrom the personalintention of the artist.

Mimesis
Adornodescribesmimesis (a concept he partlyadopts from Benjamin)"1 as a kind of affinitybetween things and persons, which exceeds the mere antithesisbetween object and subject and is not based on rationalknowledge.Mimesis must not be conceived in the strict sense of imitation, representaThe mimetic moment of cognition tion, or reproduction. means much more;it has to do with the possibilityof approachingthe worldin a differentway than instrumental thinkingand situatingthe affinityat a deeperlevel than surface similarity.16Since mimesis does not depend on a visual similaritybetween a workof art and what it represents,the concept does not exclude its applicationto abstractart.Abmimetic way, stractpainting,for example,can, in a properly and the alienation objectificationtypicalof modern present reality. endeavorsto Accordingto Adorno,art characteristically create a dialecticalrelationbetween two moments of cognition, mimesis and ratio.A workof art comes into being not only on the basis of a mimetic impulse,but also from the rationalityand thought of the artist.Mimesis and ratio,however, are opposed to one anotherin an antitheticaland paradoxical relation;they cannot be simply,complementarily reconciled.ForAdorno,this is what is particularly inherentto the antinomythat determinesthe value of a workof art:"7 the of a work on it the extent to which succeeds quality depends in raisingthe antithetic moments of both mimesis and ratio, without wipingout the contradictionsbetween them by some kind of reconciliatory unity. In such a view, tensions, dissonances,and paradoxesform the obvious attributesof modern worksof art. Adorno relatesthe criticalcharacter of art to its mimetic aspect in differentrespects.On a firstlevel, art formsone of

the few spheresin society within which the mimetic principle contains a criticismof is still respected.This alone already a socialpracticethat is increasingly dominatedby a mere the functionlessnessof art, its refusal instrumentalrationality: to be "for-something-else," unmistakably implies a form of criticismwith regardto a society whereeverythingis obliged to function. Art is criticalin anotherway.On the basis of a dialecticalcombinationof mimesis and ratio,worksof art yield a knowledgeof realitycriticalby nature.In its mimetic relationto reality,modern arthighlightssomething about the natureof modern reality- not the beautiful,harmonious, the dissonant,chaotic, and charming,but, on the contrary, and inhuman. In a word,modern art visualizesthe torn natureof our reality.

Negativity
The mimetic impulse, accordingto Adorno,has to do with a gestureof negativity.The workof art does not producea positive image of realityor a positiveimage of what an ideal realitycould be; rather,it producesa negative image.Art shows the negativeaspectsof what is called reality.Adorno stronglyprivilegesthe negativebecause he is convincedthat only by a gestureof negativityis art allowedto evokethe the utopian. Indeed, the utopian is not even conceiv"other," able in positive form,for no image is powerfulenough to " For illustrateit without ridiculeand banality. him, the objective of modern art is to make people awareof the terrifying life. Given the circumstances,negativity aspects of everyday is the only possiblewayto keep the ideal of the utopian vivid. For similiarreasons,dissonancein m odern art takesthe place of harmonyas a model of form. Only the dissonantcan give an account of a dissonantreality;in fact, only by means of dissonanceis art permittedto arousethe memoryof harmony. The seductive of the charm survives power onlywherethe forces of denialarestrongest: in the dissonance that rejects beliefin the illusionof the existing . If . . asceticism once struck harmony. downthe claimsof the aesthetic in a reactionary way,it hastoday becomethe signof advanced art.... Artrecords just negatively that possibility of happiness whichthe onlypartially positive of happiness confronts anticipation ruinously today.'9 Art indeed refersto harmony- Adornomaintainsthat one - but it du bonheur way or the other art is also a promesse
83

assemblage 17

can fulfillthis referenceonly by mimesis of its opposite. So "dissonanceis the truth about harmony."20"

Autonomy
In Adorno'sview, arthas a double character. It is at once a social fact, fullydeterminedby society, and an autonomous Art is a fait practice,obeyingits own technicalprinciples. socialbecause it is the productof one form of sociallabor. Its socialdetermination,however,springsneither from a direct influence proceedingfrom the structureof power and relationsof productionto art,nor from the social commitment manifest in art'sthematic content. Rather, art is socialbecause its "material" is alwaysalreadysocial. Adornounderstandsmaterialin the broadestsense of the wordas comprisingthe concrete stuff fromwhich a workof art is made, the techniques available,the arsenalof images and memoriesdeployedby the artist,and the work'svarious contexts. This materialis unmistakably sociallyformedand this socialdeterminationsaturatesthe workitself. The workof art is also autonomous.As mimesis, as work-inprocess,art gives shape to its materialon its own terms.And the autonomouscharacterof art is not in contradictionwith its criticalcontent. Indeed, in a famous disagreementwith Benjaminand others,Adornoinsisted that the artisticdiscipline owes its criticalpotentiallargelyto its autonomousdeworksof art are, in any case, according velopment.2'First-rate to Adorno,critical;they highlightin their specificmimetic wayaspectsof realitythat would otherwiseremainconcealed. In his analysesof particular worksof modernliteratureand the waysin which the social deAdorno demonstrates music, terminationof the artisticmaterialand the autonomousarlead to a work tistic processingof this materialdialectically that is criticaltowardits social reality.

efficiencyand economy, then the aesthetic moment of architecture is abandoned,and preciselythis reduction,Adorno claims, is responsiblefor the monotony and the paltrinessof architectural manifestationsin the 1960s. This criticalstance relativeto functionalismis nuanced in AestheticTheory, whereAdornodevelopsa position closely in "Erfahrung relatedto Benjamin's In this und Armut."23 1933 essayBenjaminjustifiesthe cold and soberarchitecture of the Bauhaus.He arguesthat this architectureis the adequate answerto a social developmentmarkedby a "crisisof experience."In modernity,the possibilitiesof gainingprofound experiences,formingmemories,and learningfrom them are everdiminishing.The Bauhaus'ssmooth surfaces and glass-and-steel constructionscreate environmentsin which experiencefades and the occupantcannot "leave traces."This architecture therebycomplies with the reality of its socialcontext, for people no longerfeel in need of experiencenor wish to accumulateits markings. The transparent architectureof modernismand the penetratingspace it describesareexactly in tune with this new attitude. Adorno followsa similarline of thought in AestheticTheory. He advancesthe thesis that a "pragmatic" approachin art as well as in architectureimplies a perfectawareness of the social condition and in that awareness residesthe truthfulness of functionalism.A functionalarchitectureestablishesa with a social realitythat is also characmimetic relationship terizedby functionality.Yet, in its dialecticnegativity,the mimetic gesturealso constitutes a criticismwith regardto that reality.If, however- and this is preciselyAdorno'sreproachof functionalismin practice- the mimetic moment is abandoned,if Mimesisan Funktionalitdt decaysinto mere then functionalistarchitecture loses its critiFunktionalitdt, role. cal distanceand can playonly a confirmatory of In the double natureof functionalism,the interwovenness and regressive its progressive moments, Adornodiscernsa reflectionof enlightenmentdialectics.Enlightenmentaims at the emancipationand liberationof man by putting reason above myth. But this aim revertsinto myth if one loses sight of the targetand reasonis reducedto mere instrumental A similardialecticsis at workin functionalism. rationality. As long as architectureaims to fulfill real,objectivehuman moment, needs, one cannot but recognizeits progressive
84

Architecture
Adornowrotelittle about architecture, only a few shortpasand one essayof 1965 entitled sages in AestheticTheory In the latter,he turnsagainstthe "Functionalism Today."22 rigidform of functionalismof that time, directing prevailing, auhis criticismprimarily towardthe loss of architecture's functionalismis understoodas adtonomy. If architectural herence to the purelypractical,instrumentaldemandsof

Heynen

which comprisesa criticismof a social condition in which these realneed are actuallydenied. If, however,functionalist architecturecollapsesinto a societal system for which "functionality"is an ultimate goal, with no furtheraim, then it must be seen as regressive. The antinomies of matter-of-factness confirm the thesisaboutthe andregresdialectical natureof enlightenment in whichprogress is barbaric. sionareintertwined. Literalness objectiCompletely fied,artbecomesa merefactandceasesto be art.The crisisof of a choice:eitherto give functionalism opensup the possibility art or to its up change concept.24 The issues raisedhere by Adornoare relevantto the developments of the last few decades. Leadingarchitectsand theoristshave clearlyopted not to banish architecturefrom the domain of art. Indeed, one of the most dominant themes in the expositionsof architectural postmodernismis the appeal to approacharchitectureagain as an art.The question, then, is whetheran attempt has been made to change the veryconautonomyhas, cept of art.The reclaimingof architecture's for the most part,been dominatedby a traditional,"respectas a rathermarginalpheable"concept of art, art regarded nomenon with little relevancefor the day-to-dayroutinesof society, a field of activityfor a few exceptionallygifted persons who wish to expresstheir highly individualcreativity. When Adornospeaksof modern art and of changingits concept, he has something quite differentin mind: individual creativitycan neverbe detached from socialphenomena and a new concept of art should embraceboth autonomyand social relevance.

Currentarchitecture, for example,workswith new materials and techniques made availablethroughimportantsocial changesof recent years,from technologicaldevelopments and increasedworkefficiencyto the energycrisisand the reorganizationof the constructionindustry.Moreover,whereas the social determinationof art,as Adornosees it, is situated mainlyat the source- the materialsand techniques immanent in artisticpractice,the social determinationof the artistic subject- the materialof architecturealso includesprior and contexts that are definitelysociallycondiprograms tioned, as well as a socialresult.A building,afterall, always has a social function, it servesa useful purpose. All of which does not, however,alterthe fact that a strictauartisticprocess tonomy has to be assignedto the architectural as a process.As a disciplinethat specializesin articulating space in orderto give shape to people'sliving,architectureis autonomous.Design is not simplythe manunmistakably of heteronomous principlessuch as functionalor agement constructiverequirements,psychological needs of the conand the like. There is alsumers,representational demands, in an autonomous moment the ways design processin which an architectis occupied with architectureas such. At the same time, this irreducible architectural moment cannot posbe detached from all the other factors sibly determiningthe final resultpresentedin the form of a buildingor some other artifact. It is difficult,therefore,to distinguishbetween the categories of autonomous and non-autonomousarchitecture. Which is not to say that no distinctionwhatsoevercan be made between differentworksof architecture.Such a distinction, however,should be based not on the autonomousor nonautonomous character of the work,but rather,on the extent to which the worksucceeds in settling contradictory requirements. The rankof a workdepends on the degreeto which it fulfillsthe autonomousrequirementsimposed by the development of the disciplineof architectureas well as the requirementsimposed externally by demandsof economy, functionality,and so forth,without denyingthe contradictions between the two realms.Adornowrites,"Beautytoday can have no other measureexcept the depth to which a work A workmust cut throughthe contraresolvescontradictions. dictions and overcomethem, not by coveringthem up, but
85

Architecture BetweenAutonomy and SocialDetermination

Adorno'snotion of the double characterof art- autonomous and sociallydetermined,criticaland mimetic - cannot be transferred to architecturejust like that. Even if it is possibleto speakof a double characterin architectureand state that architectureis both autonomous and sociallydetermined, its social determinationis of anotherkind than that of art. ForAdorno,as we have seen, art is sociallydetermined because it workswith materialsand techniques that are themselves the reflectionsof socialhistory.No doubt this is also true for architecture,and even to a verylargeextent.

assemblage 17

2. HannesMeyerand Hans Wittwer, projectfor the Peter's

School, competition entry,1926

mined by economic growthand concentrationof power;architecturecannot get roundthis social determination.But "il moderne" also means that a criticalreacfaut etre absolument tion is required,that architecturecan create its own margins in which more is possiblethan slavishobedience to dominatof what alreadyexists. ing powers,than meek reproductions This double demand for recognitionand criticismof modern realitycan be answeredby architecturein mimesis. In a mimetic process,the facts of a socialcondition are presentedin an "expressive" way,not reducedto mere calculations.In a mimetic manipulation,something is shown that normallyremains hidden;hence this processcontains a moment critical of what is accepted as normal.The autonomous moment of architectureis also based on mimesis, in its "expressive" way of givingshape to space.

Architecturewill continue to be socially by pursuingthem."25 involvedand criticaland autonomousonly by refusingto cover up contradictions. Modernityas conceivedby Adornois constituted by contradictorymoments:liberationand discipline,innovationand eternalreturnto the same, developmentand stagnation. moments mutuallydetermineeach These contradictory other:there is no liberationwithout discipline;any kind of innovationentails a returnto the same;developmentis impossiblewithout a certainmoment of stagnation.Becauseof moments the dialecticalrelationbetween the contradictory of the Adorno principle privileges constitutingmodernity, has an if formulated objective negativity: everypositively inherentmoment in which the pursuedobject turns into its contradiction- liberationinto repression, enlightenment to put one's trust in the into myth - then it is preferable movenegative.Rejectingthe existingby an ever-repeated ment of destructionand breakingthroughconvention and normalization againand againare reliableguides on the way to actualliberationand emancipation,a utopian objective impossibleto define in a positiveway.Adornoidentifiesthe modern so stronglywith this gestureof negativitythat to him moderne" holds the requirementthat "ilfaut treabsolument the obligationconstantlyto question and underminethe existing. The relationbetween architectureand this paradoxical modernity,then, must be complex.The veryprocessof modecoernizationis carriedout, in part,by and in architecture: nomic growthleads to materialrealizationsin the form of architecture of environments; buildingsand transformations is fundamentallyaffected by technologicaldevelopments, In this way,architectureis new materials,and new programs. in line with a processof modernizationthat may be deter-

HannesMeyer's Peter's School

An analysisof one of HannesMeyer'smost famous designs, the Peter'sSchool in Basel,illustratesan architecture between autonomyand socialdetermination.Meyeris generally to be a straightforward functionalist,and his acknowledged In the in view an often confirm this explicit way.26 writings best of his designs,however,it is not mere functionalitythat is at stake,but rather,a mimesis of functionality. There exist two versionsof the projectfor the Peter'sSchool, which Meyerdesignedtogetherwith Hans Wittwer. The first is an entryfor a competition, dated 1926;the second is published in the periodicalBauhausof 1927.27In the earlierversion, the buildingclosely followsthe requirementsof the has more volume, and contains spaces, competition program, such as a caretaker's apartmentand a teachers'room, that are missing in the second version.The westernfaqadeof the competition entry,without an externalstair,has a less dynamic articulationthan the final version.The famous cantileof the veredplanes,however,alreadyappearas the hallmark design. The competition projectwas submitted by Meyerand WittIn their explanation, wer underthe motto "compromise." they state that their aim was to design a school with classbut that roomsand collectivespacesilluminatedby skylights, the constraintsimposed by the site renderedthis impossible.
86

Heynen

Severaltimes they repeatthat the site is not reallyapt for this They even go so faras to suggest alternativebuildprogram. in sites the vicinity,arguingthat only a relocationwould ing the historical monuments in the neighborhoodto permit furtherputrefyundisturbed. This ironicattitude pervadesthe form of the design as well. The hoveringplanesof the terracesprofoundlyaffect the streets,castingheavy shadpublic space and the surrounding ows and destroyingthe site's openness and clarity.In this way, the projectreactsnegativelyto its site, while, at the same time, its visualimpact emergesfrom the spatialdevices invented preciselyto overcomethe limitations of the situation. The competition entryis characterized by an interplay between mimesis of functionalityand negativity. The gestureof mimeticallyreproducing functionalityis even more stronglypresentin the publishedversion.Only one quarterof the single-pagelayout is reservedfor drawingsof the building- a site plan, partialelevation,and section, with a canted axonometricthat immediatelycatches the eye. The notes and majorpartof the page is devoted to explanatory calculations,disguisingthe formalimpulses and creatingthe impressionthat the projectemergesfrom mere technicaland A close analysisof the changes considerations. programmatic to the originalcompetition projecthighlightsthe dissonance, the publishedvertension, and negativitythat characterize sion. The contradictory with the site is stressed relationship the area to and by releasing ground public transportaparking tion (in the firstprojectit was a playground). Reducingand the volume increases the formaltension rearranging building createdby its relationto the suspendedplatforms.The whole now seems all the more out of balance,not only because of the terraces,but also because of the protrudingprismat the south side. The overallimpressionis one of dynamism,tension, and negation of the existing qualitiesof the urban space. Thus by its mimesis of functionalitythe projectreactscritiand exposes negativelythe decallyto the given program structionof the historicalcontext, embodyingan instance of dissonancewithin a harmonicenvironment.This effect is achievedthroughformaloperationsin a purelyarchitectural gestureand herein residesa moment of autonomythat cannot be ignored.Although the projectis supposedto be justi87
f--

:H!.

-?

i?,1

3. Meyerand Wittwer, Peter's School, revised project as published in Bauhaus,1927

assemblage 17

fied throughtechnicalcalculations,this justificationis only a partialone and alone cannot account for the actual dialectical form of the building.

the upperand lowerpartof the faqadeof the Looshaus or between the interiorsand exteriorsof his houses or in the differenceswithin the Raumplaninteriorsthemselves. In the Raumplanthe interiorfalls apartinto a conglomerate of details and roomsof differenttonality.There arehigh, roomswith a rich varietyof materials; light, representative areas with a "feminine" accent;studies and small,cosy sitting libraries with darktimberand leather-covered furniture; private bedroomsand servants' halls, each with a distinct and All aregatheredup into a more singularexspecificcharacter. teriorvolume and threadedtogetherby the rotatingmovement of the stairs;the Raumplanis not a beautiful,harmonic whole of false rhetoricand glamour,but a whole of dissonances. The differencesbetween the interiorstrictlyseparatedfrom the exteriorand the roomsof the Raumplan, which induce a certainsense of disruption,expressin a mimetic waythe fragmentationtypicalof the experienceof modernity.29 that Adornodefines as The "scars of damageand disruption" of the moderncan be detected in Loos'srefusal characteristic This refusal to give shape to a harmonic,syntheticwhole.3" in that of sense the loss Nietzsche's determines, recognizes words,the experienceof the worldafter"God'sdeath":when view of the worldhas the dominion of a religious-teleological to difficult becomes it experiencethe worldas a disappeared, coherent and meaningfulwhole. But what must be underscoredis that by recognizingjust this fact, Loos also preserves the memoryof what an experienceof sense could be. The fragmentationof the Loosianinterioris not total: in the Raumplanan opposite movement - the movement of integration- is also realized,radiatinga sort of comfortand establishingthe promiseof a real"home."Both aspects,the positive formof inhabitationand the negativerejectionof existing reality,are presentin a tensionalrelationto one another.And yet anotherof Adorno'scriteriais therebyevoked: "The crucialdifferenceis whetherthe negation of meaning in artworksis meaningfulor whetherit representsan adaptation to the status quo; whetherthe crisisof meaning is reflected by the workor whetherit is immediate and bypasses This phraseis the perfectinquiryof Loos's the subject.""3 the objectivenegamodernism,an architecturethat mirrors tion of everytotal experienceof sense even as it gives shape

AdolfLoos'sRaumplan
mimesis as comprisingnearlyipso facto Adornounderstands of the a gestureof negativity.Yet I think this privileging to archiunmodulated cannot be moment applied negative tecture.Architecturerealizesthroughits verymaterialityan ineluctablepositivityand stressesin its disciplineaspirations to the visualarts,music, or literaturethat were unnecessary Adorno'sprimary examples.WhereasAdornoinsists that it de is mainlynegativitythat comprehendsthe promesse I do not believe this restriction bonheur of a workof art,28 de architecture's promesse fullyappliesto architecture; bonheur cannot be negativeonly. The horizonof everywork of architectureis constituted by the desireto give shape to posidwellingin the world,to give a shape that is primarily tive. This is exemplifiedby the workof Adolf Loos. The relationof Loos to canonic modernismhas neverbeen and master,he has never quite clear.Praisedas precursor a partof the moderntraditionas it was been unambiguously defined by Giedion. His architectureis in many waysinconsistent with the tenets of the modernmovement. For example, the constructiontechnique and concrete structureof remainsafelyinvisible, the Looshausin the Michaelerplatz He combines not "truthfully" many differentarchiexposed. tectures:an interiormust fulfilldemandsother than the fagades,a frontlooks completelydifferentfrom a back,the fagadeof a shop is conceived in anotherway than that of a house. Loos'sarchitectureis not modern in the orthodoxsense. It is, however,quite modern in the sense I have describedabove, followingAdorno.His architecturereflectsin a mimetic way a penetratingexperienceof modernity,of a worldfalling apart.In his writings,Loos often expressesthe insight that characterized modernculture is fundamentally by moments of ruptureand differences:craftdiffersfrom art,art differs This from industry,dwellingdiffersfrom architecture. in his architecessential of divergencesappears recognition between in the difference most ture, too, perhaps evidently

88

Heynen

and reasonto the crisisof sense in a thoroughprocessingof the contradictory data of modernity.32

The Question of Dwelling

To conclude, I wish to returnto the subjectof dwelling.Accordingto Heidegger,modern man no longerdwellsbecause he suffersfrom an oblivionto the realmeaning of being As he is no longer consciousof the fun(Seinsvergessenheit). damental dimensionsof his existence, of his relationshipwith das Geviert,his way of being has become unauthentic and thus he "stays" somewhereinstead of "dwells" there. LikeHeidegger,Adornocomes to the conclusionthat "dwellAdorno,howing in the propersense is now impossible.""33 this different reasons for ever,gives development.He does not blame the failureof the fundamentalrelationof man to "being"for his inabilityto dwell. Rather,he understandsthe problemfrom an ethical point of view:concretely,he wonderswhetherman can feel at home in a worldwhereAuschwitz has been possible.He believes it is unbecoming to feel at ease in a worldwhere so many things go so essentially wrong.34 If true dwellingis no longer possiblein a worldsuch as ours, this undoubtedlyhas consequencesfor architecture.For, as I have said, the horizonof everyworkof architectureis determined by the aspirationto give shape to habitation.31 If the of modernityare dynamicsand the fleeting characteristics with the incompatible continuity, stability,and securitytralinked with ditionally dwelling,there emergesa wide gap between everymodern architectural realizationand the utoof This gap is not pian image feeling-at-home-in-the-world. so much the resultof a restrictionof possibilitiesand means as it is inherentto human existence in a condition characterized by an insatiablecravingfor growthand development. The gap between what we actuallybuild and the utopian objective of dwellingformsa constitutiveelement of modernity; and the recognitionof its existence is essentialto an architecture that wants to be modern. An architecturethat is adequateto modernitymust be twodimensional,a confrontationratherthan a symbiosis.It gives and inadequateway, shape to dwelling,albeit in a provisional

and, throughthat veryshape,it also gives an account of the impossibilityof dwellingin the propersense. The modernism of architectureis constituted preciselyby the way it expresses this tension between the formsof the habitableand the worldunfit for human inhabitation. In such a process,architectureformsthe materialframework of dwellingbut fails to expressdwellingexhaustively. A form of "nonsynchronicity" occursin the process,between actual dwelling,which is subject to rapidchangesand successive transformations typicalof the modern individual,and the arwhich chitecture, throughits materialityhas a more permanent character. Walter Benjaminhas alreadycapturedthis of dwelling. nonsynchronicity The original formof eachdwelling is not the being-in-a-house but the being-in-an-envelope. Thisenvelope of its bearsthe imprint In extremecasesthe housemightbecomesuchan inhabitant. The nineteenth waslongingfordwelling as no envelope. century othercentury was.It considered the housethe caseforthe human in the old this dwelling being.... The twentiethcentury brought senseto an end by its porosity, it transparency, its preference for freelightandfreeair. .The . hasprofoundly shaken Jugendstil the being-in-an-envelope. has Todayit hasdied anddwelling forthe livingonesthrough decreased: the hotel room,forthe dead ones through the crematoria.36 If continuous change and shiftingof identities are inherent to modernity,then an architecturethat wrapsand encases the individualis not adequate.The fitted coveringwill only too soon become a pinching straitjacket. Architecturethat attempts exhaustivelyto expressdwelling,in the old sense of the word,tracesa printof the occupant,but only for an impossiblemoment, not for a living process. Architectureand dwellingdo not merge;their common plane is so fractured that a unity is inconceivable.Adorno'sassertion that the whole cannot be composed by halvesthat have been torn apartalso appliesto the relationbetween architecture and dwelling.37 Modernismis a game of ambivalences and the way each workof architectureplaysthese ambivalences determinesits position:the more a worksucceeds in highlightingrelationsof tension, without reducingtheir inherent contradictionsin a reconciliatory synthesis,the better it will be able to remainon the boardof our contradictory relationshipwith reality.

89

assemblage 17

Notes
This article is based on my Ph.D. dissertation,written under the guidance of A. Loeckxand G. Bakaert and presented to the Faculty of Applied Sciences at the Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, under the title "Moderniteiten architectuur:Het moderniteitsbegripin het werkvan Loos, May, Giedion en Tafuri:Een kritischereflectie vanuit Adorno's An earlierverAesthetischeTheorie." sion in Dutch was published in Archis 1 (1990). 1. Cf. SigfriedGiedion, Space, Time and Architecture(Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress, 1980), Nicolas Pevsner,Pioneersof Modern Design (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1987), and JfirgenHabermas, "ModernityVersusPostmodernity," New GermanCritique22 (Winter 1981). 2. T. W. Adorno,Aesthetische am Main: Theorie(Frankfurt Suhrkamp,1970). The English translation,Aesthetic Theory (London:Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986), is notoriouslybad and has been withdrawnby the publisher.In the absence of a better translation,however,quotations and referencesare taken from this source. For a good English introduction, see LambertZuidervaart, The Adorno'sAestheticTheory: Redemptionof Illusion (Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press, 1991). 3. Whereas scholarssuch as Andreas Huyssen and FredricJamesontend to classifyAdorno as a modernist, MartinJayhighlights his "protodeconstructivist"position. Helga Gripp, Michael Ryan,and JeanFrancoisLyotardalso drawattention to parallelsbetween Adorno's thought and the workof Derrida. 4. For a detailed historyof the significance of the term modern,

especially in German, see H. U. Gumbrecht, "Modern,Modernitit, Moderne,"in O. Brunner,W. Conze, and R. Kosseleck,eds., Geschichtliche Grundbegriff' HistorischesLexikon zur politishsozialen Sprachein Deutschland,vol. 4 (Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta, 1978). For a terminologicalhistoryof modernity,see Matei Calinescu, Five Facesof Modernity: Modernism, Decadence,Kitsch, Avant-garde, Postmodern(Durham:Duke University Press, 1987). 5. Charles Baudelaire,"Le Peintre de la vie moderne,"in Oeuvres compldts(Paris:Seuil, n.d.), 553. See also Willem van Reijen, "Postscriptum,"in W. Hudson and W. van Reijen, eds., Modernenversus Postmodernen (Utrecht: HES, 1986), 9-49. 6. MarshallBerman,All That Is Solid Melts intoAir: TheExperience of Modernity(London:Verso, 1982), 15. 7. Martin Heidegger,"Building, Dwelling, Thinking,"in Poetry,Language, Thought (London:Harper and Row, 1971), 143-62. 8. FrancescoDal Co calls this the "nostalgicutopia of dwelling,"which pervadesmajortendencies in modern architecture.See his Figuresof and Thought (New Architecture York:Rizzoli, 1990), esp. chap. 1, "Dwellingand the 'Places'of Mooption dernity."This reconciliatory is not, however,specific to the modern movement alone. Christian Norberg-Schulz,for example, who is critical of functionalist architecture and the InternationalStyle, sharesthis basic belief that architecture can help man "learnto dwell." See his The Conceptof Dwelling (New York:Rizzoli, 1985). 9. Berman,All That Is Solid Melts into Air, 135.

10. Massimo Cacciari,"Eupalinosor Architecture,"Oppositions21 (1980): 107. 11. Cacciari,"Eupalinosor Architecture," 112. 12. T. W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer,Dialectic of Enlightenment (London:Verso, 1979), and T. W. Adorno,NegativeDialectics (New York:Continuum, 1983).

19. T. W. Adorno, "Oberden in der Musik und Fetischcharakter die Regressiondes H6rens,"in Dissonanzen,vol. 14 of Gesammelte am Main: Schriften (Frankfurt Suhrkamp,1973), 18-19. 20. Adorno,Aesthetic Theory,17, 161.

21. For the relevanttexts of this "debate,"see ErnstBloch et al., Aestheticsand Politics (London: 13. See Susan Buck-Morss,The OriThe Verso, 1977), and Buck-Morss, gins of NegativeDialectics (Brighton: Origins of Negative Dialectics. Harvester,1978). 22. T. W. Adorno, "Funktionalismus 14. Adorno,Aesthetic Theory,50. heute," in GesammelteSchriften 10 15. Benjaminintroduced his con(Frankfurtam Main: Suhrkamp, of mimesis the "Ober 1977), 375-95; translatedas "Funcin essay cept das mimetische Vermogen,"in tionalism Today,"Oppositions 17 GesammelteSchriften,vol. 2 (Frank- (1979): 31-41. furt am Main: Suhrkamp,1972-89), 23. Walter Benjamin,"Erfahrung 210-13. und Armut"(Experienceand pov16. Cf. the concept of imitation in erty), in Illuminationen(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp,1977), 291-26. Geert Bekaert,"Imitatieals levensbeschouwing:Over het omgaan met 24. Adorno,AestheticTheory,90. 10 oude teksten," Wonen-TA/BK 25. Adorno,"FunctionalismToday," (1983): 20-27. 41. 17. An antinomy is an apparentcon26. Claude Schnaidt, Hannes Meyer: tradictionbetween two theories or a Projectsand Writings Buildings, real discrepancybetween two appar(Teufen: Niggli, 1965). Michael Antinomies theories. ently proven Hays is critical of the reductive occur in a logical system if certain functionalist reception of Meyer in at the same time obtain propositions "Reproductionand Negation: The as their negation. Cognitive Projectof the Avant18. This point of view is probably garde,"in ArchitectuReproduction, related to the Jewishtradition of the ed. BeatrizColomina et al. (New ban on images:the one and only York:PrincetonArchitecturalPress, true God, Jahweh,cannot and must 1988). not be depicted, does not even have 27. Both projectsare documented in a real name, because no image or Hannes Meyer 1889-1954: Architekt, name could do justice to his infinity Urbanist,Lehrer,exhibition cataand truth. In a similarway,Adorno logue (Berlin:Ernst & Sohn, 1989), is convinced that utopia cannot be 78ff. directlynamed, described, or 28. "Art's should obtain If promessedu bonheur,then, depicted. utopia has an even more emphaticallycritia concrete appearance,it will immecal meaning: it not only expresses diately adopt dogmatic and totalithe idea that currentpraxisdenies tarianfeaturesand install a lack of freedom that is contraryto the unhappiness, but also carriesthe connotation that happiness is somereachableideal that it implies.

90

Heynen

thing beyond praxis.The chasm between praxisand happiness is surveyed and measuredby the power of negativityof the workof art" (Adorno,Aesthetic Theory,17-18). 29. As Massimo Cacciariand Beatriz Colomina, embroideringon Benjamin'sthemes, have observed, it is the rejection of total harmony in Loos's houses that makes room for real experience - an experience that, in a disintegratedworld, is "authentic" just because it is an experience of fragmentation.See Massimo Cacciari, "Interieuret experience," Critique 51, nos. 452-53 (JanuaryFebruary1985): 106-18, and Beatriz Colomina, "On Adolf Loos and Josef Hoffmann: Architecturein the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,"9H 6 (1983): 52-58. 30. "What guaranteesthe authentic quality of modern worksof art?It is the scarsof damage and disruption inflicted on the smooth surfaceof the immutable" (Adorno,Aesthetic Theory,34). 31. Adorno,Aesthetic Theory,221. 32. This is exactly the reasonwhy CacciariregardsLoos as the representative of "negativethinking."Cf. F. Amendolagine and M. Cacciari, Oikos da Loos a Wittgenstein (Roma:Officina Edizioni, 1975). 33. T. W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflectionsfrom DamagedLife (London: New Left Books, 1974), 38. 34. Adorno severelycriticized Heidegger, not only on this subject, but also with regardto the whole tenor of his philosophy. His criticism was particularly aimed at the archaizing element typical of Heidegger's views and the lack of sensibility for historical and social paradoxes.See T. W. Adorno, The Jargonof Authenticity,trans. Knut Tarnowski and FredricWill (London: New Left Books, 1973).

35. Cf. Geert Bekaert,"Mensen wonen," in Omtrentwonen (Deurne [Antwerp]:Kluwer,1975), 53-130. 36. Walter Benjamin,Das (Frankfurtam Main: Passagenwerk Suhrkamp, 1983), 291-92. 37. Adorno,Dissonanzen, 20, referring to the relation between popular and serious music.

FigureCredits
1. Heinrich Kulka,Adolf Loos (Vienna:VerlagAnton Schroll, 1931). 2, 3. Hannes Meyer1889-1954: Architekt,Urbanist,Lehrer,exhibition catalogue (Berlin:Ernst & Sohn, 1989).

91