Dazed and Confused

Author(s): Stan Allen

Source: Assemblage, No. 27, Tulane Papers: The Politics of Contemporary Architectural
Discourse (Aug., 1995), pp. 47-54
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171429 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 14:21

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

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Stan Allen
Dazed and Confused

Stan Allen is an architect and an assistantprofessorof architecture
at Columbia UniversityGraduate School of Architecture,
Planning, and Preservation.
I have some images that I'd like to put up right at the begin-
ning that don't so much illustrate specific points as set a tone
for the piece, which seems to be quite consistent with the
emergent subtext of cinematic models in the presentations of
MarkRakatanskyand SanfordKwinter.
I want to begin with a famous remark made by the sculptor
Tony Smith in an interview conducted in the mid-1960s:
When I was teaching at Cooper Union in the first year or two of
the fifties, someone told me how I could get on to the unfinished
New JerseyTurnpike. I took three students and drove from some-
where in the Meadows to New Brunswick. It was a dark night and
there were no lights or shoulder markers,lines, railings, or any-
thing at all except the darkpavement moving through the land-
scape of the flats, rimmed by hills in the distance, but punctuated
by stacks, towers, fumes, and colored lights. This drive was a re-
vealing experience. The road and much of the landscape was
artificial, and yet it couldn't be called a work of art. On the other
hand, it did something for me that art had never done. ... The
experience on the road was something mapped out but not socially
recognized. I thought to myself, it ought to be pretty clear that's
the end of art. Most painting looks pretty pictorial after that. There
is no way you can frame it, you just have to experience it.1

The road - the experience of the road - is not a place itself

but a passage, a vector, a space between. Smith translates this
into a critique of the work of art, expressing his dissatisfaction
with its intrinsic limits and object character. Artists of the
1960s and 1970s increasingly became interested not in discrete
pictorial artifacts, but in the passage from one thing to another.
Assemblage 27: 47-54 ? 1995 by the
In minimalism, in land art, installationart, or performanceart,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology the subjectiveexperience of the viewer, as played out in the

47

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

spatialfield encompassingthe work,is more importantthan
the workitself as an object. Now interestingenough from
our point of view, what Smith describesis an architectural
condition, a shift from object to field. What is at stakehere is
more than a stylisticshift within the delimited disciplinary
boundariesof artpractices,it is a broadershift in paradigms
of looking, attention,and subjectivity.
With an obvious debt to WalterBenjamin, I want to describe
this condition as "receptionin a state of distraction."Distrac-
tion, I will argue, is not a simple lack of attention,rather,it
is a particularform of attention,simultaneouslydirectedand
dispersed.Freewaydrivingis good model: you can concen-
trateand performactivitiesnecessaryto keep the car on the
roadand, at the same time, think of and actuallydo all kinds
of differentthings. So, at the verybeginning, it is perhaps
necessaryto distinguishbetween distractionas a state of
mind, absent-mindedness,a negativeand passivecondition,
and distractionas active force, something that happensto
the spectator(or the readeror the architecturalsubject).
Distractionas a kind of active force was seen to have a radi-
cal political possibilityby earlytheoristsof modernism,while
distractionas a passivecondition has been classed as one of
the symptomsof a general postmodernindifference. Is it
inevitablethat the passagefrom modern to postmodern
would deflate the criticalforce of distraction,as with so
many of the other devices of modern aesthetic practice,or
can a special case be made for distraction?
I will skip over the early historyof the concept of distrac-
tion, only to note the tone of nineteenth-centurycommen-
tatorslike Max Nordau, who predicted in 1892 that it
would take a hundred yearsbefore people would be able to
"reada dozen squareyardsof newspapersdaily, to be con-
stantlycalled to the telephone, to be thinking simulta-
neously of the five continents of the world"without injury
to the nerves.2For these pessimistic critics of modernity,
the capacity of the body is fixed, its adjustmentslimited.
It was Walter Benjamin and SiegfriedKracauerin the 1920s
and 1930s who most decisively identified distractionwith
modernityand technical reproduction.In the case of
Kracauer,distractionretaineda negative charge.'Only Ben-
jamin was capable of the dialectical constructionthat would
see a positivepotential in mechanized distraction.In the
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
assemblage 27
well-knownessay"The Workof Artin the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction,"distractionis examined not as a pathological
symptom,but as a new form of subjectivitythat could overturn
exhaustedmodels of reception. Significantly,Benjamin de-
fines distractionas active force, not passivereaction:in dadaist
worksof art,distraction"hit the spectatorlike a bullet."4
Now I don't want to spend too much time on the historical
background,but I do want to make two key points about
Benjamin's model of distraction,which are related, in turn, to
the two models Benjamin employs: the firstmodel is architec-
ture and the second is cinema.
"Architecture,"he writes, "hasalwaysrepresentedthe proto-
type of a workof art the reception of which is consummated
by a collectivity in a state of distraction."'For Benjamin,
architectureis to serve as a paradigm,not as a practice whose
conditions of reception have been transformedas a conse-
quence of mechanical reproduction,but as a long-standing
and alwaysavailable model of simultaneous collective experi-
ence. "Architecturehas never been idle. Its historyis more
ancient than that of any other art, and its claim to being a
living force has significance in every attempt to comprehend
the relationshipof the masses to art."6In other words,
architecture'shistoricalcondition of reception in a state of
distractionanticipatesthe collective apperceptionof worksof
art after mechanical reproduction.But architectureitself is,
for Benjamin, a kind of cipher of stability.It is curious to note
that Benjamin, in this context at least, does not see architec-
ture itself as transformedby technical reproducibility.
What the architecturalmodel allows Benjamin to do is to
disengage perception from the realm of the exclusively visual:
"Buildingsare appropriatedin a twofold manner:by use and
by perception - or rather,by touch and sight .... Tactile
appropriationis accomplished not so much by attention as by
Now tactilityhas a bad reputation(in certain circles
habit."'7
at least) and I think it is importantto note that when Ben-
jamin talksabout tactilityhe's not talking about a kind of
close, attentive,phenomenological connoisseurshipof materi-
als (which is entirely inconsistent with the absent-mindedness
of distraction),he's talking, instead, about a kind of uncon-
scious intimacy that we can assume with regardto buildings
- the way an escalatoror handraildirects movement through
space or the way the body loses itself in the rush of an
48
 Allen

1. Still from Stanley Kubrick,2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968

49

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

elevator'sdrop. It is also here that the paradoxicalnature of
Benjamin's concept becomes evident: in architecture,the
tactile is a model for the optical, and not vice versa. "As
regardsto architecture,habit determines to a large extent
even optical reception."'It should not be assumed, how-
ever, that habit has the automatic effect of dulling the
senses, making the public into passivesubjects for the exer-
cise of a dominant power. A careful reading of "The Work
of Art"suggestsjust the opposite. Benjamin writes that "it is
inherent in the technique of the film as well as that of
sportsthat everyonewho witnesses its accomplishments is
somewhat of an expert."'Now, as architects,we know all
too well that everybodyfeels qualified to be an architectural
critic; but this idea of the public being expertsin these
popular artsis, I think, importanthere. Habitual use trains
the public to become intelligent users of space, adept in
reading - and misreading,if tactically necessary - its
clues to behavior.When Michel de Certeau, for example,
assertsthat "space is practiced place," he signals the ability
of users to workover and againstthe codes and prohibitions
put in place by hegemonic powers."'Which, of course,
includes architects.Therefore, in responseto Mark
Rakatansky,I would say that users manage architecture
much more than architecturemanages users.
The second point: We can refine the definition of distrac-
tion by looking at Benjamin'sdiscussion of film: "Recep-
tion in a state of distraction,which is increasingly
noticeable in all fields of art, . . . finds in the film its true
means of exercise.""In the viewing of a film, attention is
focused, directed forwardin a darkenedroom. But concen-
tration here is not individual, private.Distraction moves in
the direction of exteriority.The filmic spectatoris one in an
audience of many. Moreover,the "place"of the film is
indeterminate:"In the theater one is well awareof the
place from which the play cannot immediately be detected
as illusionary.There is no such place for the movie scene
that is being shot.""2The paradoxicalpresence of an "else-
where" in the here and now is, for Benjamin, evidence of
the dialectical nature of distraction.Film is more than
simply an example of distraction;its internal structurereca-
pitulates the paradoxof reception in a state of distraction.
The film viewer has internalized the inherently artificial
rules of cinematic structure;this, in turn, has the capacity
to produce new aesthetic effects. In Benjamin's lyrical
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
assemblage 27
image, "the equipment-freeaspect of realityhere has become
the height of artifice;the sight of immediate realityhas be-
come an orchid in the land of technology.""7
Benjamin'sdialectical organizationwould seem implicitly to
open towardthe fuiture.But is it adequate to describe the
condition of the present as simply an escalation of the effects
of modernisttechnology? Distraction in the arcades is not the
same as distractionin the mall. Space and time today are
dislocated through technologies of the virtual,which them-
selves impinge on the subjective construction of "real"space.
Technologies of distractionunimaginable in the 1930s have
become partof everydaylife. Distraction may have become so
generalized in the present as to bleach out the political effect
seen by Benjamin.
And what is at stake for architecturein the question of distrac-
tion? The analysisof buildings and spaces in the city often
proceeds without questioning the mechanisms of their recep-
tion. Models borrowedfrom the languages of art historyas-
sume the attitude of the architecturalspectatorto be similar
to that of the viewer before a sculpture or a painting. But
reception in a state of distraction,according to Benjamin,
"cannotbe understoodin terms of the attentive concentration
of a touristbefore a famous building." Spatial practicesare
not discursivepractices, I would add. Changing models of
reception require rethinkingcurrent debates over privateand
public spaces. While chartingthe concrete manifestationsof
the privatizationof public space (suburbanmalls, urbanatri-
ums, and so on), most recent descriptionsdo not adequately
account for the shades of subjectivityput into play within
these new sites. Reception today is mediated by the pulse of
the crowd, the windshield of the car, by broadcasttransmis-
sions, and by a whole series of collective codes and expecta-
tions. Touristsvisit cities only to confirm impressionsalready
formed from postcardsor movies.
In orderto get at some of these questions, I want to refer
brieflyto certain points made by MargaretMorse in her essay
"AnOntology of EverydayDistraction:The Freeway,the
Mall and Television." Morse'scentral thesis is that as the real
is distanced and reconfiguredin postmodernhybridprivate/
public spaces, the forms of subjectivityare reconfiguredas
well. "Freeways,malls and television,"she writes, "arethe
locus of an attenuatedfiction effect, that is, a partialloss of
touch with the here and now, dubbed here as distraction."'4
50

But, for Morse, distractionno longer carriesa radicalor
progressivepolitical force. Today, she argues, these simulta-
neous temporalitiesare alreadybuilt into the dominant
structuresof space and time in the form of intentionally
"derealized"spaces, spatial forms that anticipate reception
in a state of distraction."The late twentieth century has
witnessed the growing dominance of a differentlyconsti-
tuted kind of space, a nonspace of both experience and
representation,an elsewherewhich inhabits the everyday."''
Like Benjamin, she relates distractionto habit, but her
interpretationis distinct: "Nonspace is not mysteriousor
strangeto us, but ratherthe haunt for creaturesof habit.
Practices and skills that can be performedsemiautomati-
cally in a distractedstate - such as driving, shopping, or
television watching - are the barelyacknowledged ground
of everydayexperience."1'For Morse, the effect of distrac-
tion is a relentless leveling of everydayexperience. This
contraststo Benjamin, for whom distractionis an eruption
of difference within the everyday.And I want to insist on
this distinction because it then conditions the valuations
each gives to distraction:Morse'sfundamentallypessimistic
account versusBenjamin's more optimistic one.
Perhapsmost significantly,in Morse'saccount, television
displaces film as a model for reception in a state of distrac-
tion. In television, the dislocationsmapped by Benjamin in
the filmic experience escalate in quantity,but atrophyin
force. Remote control, the proliferationof cable channels,
the complex nesting of real and fictional informationall
increase the partialityof television and its consequent "fic-
tion effect."The scanned televisual image is significantly
more ineffable than the film image. The iconic relation
preservedfrom camerato negative to screen through the
optics of projection(where the figuralimprintof the image
itself is alwaysmaintained) is lost in television at the mo-
ment when the image is translatedinto digital information
on a magnetic tape or a broadcastsignal. Television, unlike
film, cannot offerthe lyricalpossibilityof an "equipment-
free reality."Television is indifferentlyand deceptively fa-
miliar;its realityis banal yet technically inaccessible. In
film, spatialdislocation is still understoodagainstthe ground
of (tactile) bodily experience. Benjamin writesthat "the
distractingelement of film is also primarilytactile, being
based on changes of place and focus which periodically
assail the spectator.""In television this ground itself is can-
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Allen
celed out. The body fadesawayand the virtualbecomes a
model for the real:"The Mall is TV you walk around in."'8
Among architectswho have addressedthe pervasiverole of
media in culture today,two ostensiblyopposedpositionshave
emerged. One assertsthat architecturewill fade awayunderthe
advancingimperativesof technology:thatunder the domain of
distraction,technologythreatensarchitecturewith its own obso-
lescence. Alternatively,architectshave attemptedto reassert
architecture'straditionalcapacityto represent(formallyor meta-
phorically)the condition of distractionthrougha fragmentedor
"dislocated"architecture.I want to be criticalof the negative
cast of both responses,in the hope of producinga third,and I
believe, more productivepossibility.
The two prevailingmodels might be elaboratedas follows.The
firstalternative,apparentlycontinuous with the conditions of a
mediated realityunder advancedpostindustrialtechnologies,
offersa modernisteconomy of support- regularand orthogo-
nal - where a densityof applied or projectedinformation(not
to say, ornament)compensatesfor the banalityof the underly-
ing form.Assuminga distractedsubject, this architectureoper-
ates accordingto the logics of advertisingand publicity.This is
a semiotic architecturethat has no problemwith the idea of
signs without depth. It is a fundamentallyinteriorizedarchitec-
ture. If, as BeatrizColomina has suggested,"the public do-
main has been displacedindoors"(that is to say, projectedby
the media into a domestic space), the public domain, in turn,
attemptsto simulate the comfortableinterioritiesof the domes-
tic.'9 Intimacyand informationcoexist in the hybridpublic/
privatespaces of the new city. In the mall, "inside"and "out-
side" are both subject to climactic control. The inclemencies
of the world outside, like the other uncontrollableaspectsof
public space, have been excised.
Turning the logic of Venturi's"decoratedshed"inside out,
these banalstructuresprovidea neutralarchitecturalframefor
an active technologicalimage. I am thinkinghere of recent
projectsby JeanNouvel, some of the recentworkby Herzogand
de Meuron,and also of certainprojectsby OMA or Bernard
Tschumi, as well as of a greatdeal of commercialarchitecture.
The occasionalreferenceto traditionalarchitectureonly serves
to reinforcethe premise:the image of the pastand the image of
the futurecan coexistwithoutconflict in the realmof the
hyperreal.Taken to its logical ends, this propositionsuggests
two equallyunacceptablechoices: either the architectbecomes
51

the programmerof the spacesof simulation(this is the giddy
claim of cyberspaceenthusiasts)or the architectis reducedto
the technician of a barelynecessaryframe(a sortof
hyperattenuatedNorman Foster,for example).
Other architects,for whom Peter Eisenman might be taken
as representative,argue for a disruptionof architecture's
formalground - a recognitionthat distractiondestabilizes
both subjectsand objects. "Architecture,"Eisenman writes,
"can no longer be bound by the static conditions of space
and place, here and now. In a mediatedworld, there are no
longer places in the sense we once knew them."'2 He argues
that architectureneeds to respondto these new conditions
with new relationsof form. "Whatis needed is the possibility
of readingfigure/objectand groundwithin anotherframeof
reference.""Now if we agree that distractiondestabilizes
artifactsby calling into question the autonomyof
architecture'ssubjects,then, in fact, something like what
Eisenman describescould be a productivestrategy."The
new," he writes,"ratherthan being understoodas fundamen-
tally differentfrom the old, would insteadbe seen as slightly
out of focus in relationto what exists."As much as I like this
formulation,calling to mind as it does the workof painter
GerhardRichter,22I would say that, in practice,Eisenman's
objects function accordingto a logic of defamiliarization,
declaringtheir differencefrom what existsand soliciting a
hermeneutic readingwherebythe formaloperationsof de-
sign (the operationsof the designeras author) - the shears,
superpositions,or foldings - are intended to be readback
from the final state of the artifact.And while this architec-
ture may desire a hermeneutic subject, under a mediated
reality,what it gets is a distractedsubject who readsthe ar-
chitecture as a sign, not verymuch differentlythan the pro-
jected informationon a Jean Nouvel faqade.
Certainly, one profound effect of distractionis to render
stylisticdebates irrelevant.Deconstructivism (early Frank
Gehry, the work of Coop Himmelblau, for example) might
be seen as an attempt to tear through the veil of distraction
by appealing to a logic of violent disjunction;but this very
effect will necessarilybe muted, even trivialized,under the
effect of habitual use and reception in a state of distraction.
Both positions, I would argue, fail to fully recognize the
consequences of reception in a state of distraction.Recall
This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
assemblage 27
that Benjamin'sdefinition of distractionoscillatesbetween an
active form - distractionas deviationfrom habitualbehavior
- and a passiveform - a stateof absent-mindednessenforced
by habit and repetition.Eisenman, we might say, operates
exclusivelyaccordingto the logic of the former,while Nouvel
(and Morse) appeal to the latter.But the power of distraction
as an operativeconcept is preciselyits irreducibility.
Distraction'sdouble valence inscribesa figure of
undecidabilityin any speculation todayabout spaces, pro-
grams,and their formsunder an increasinglymediatedreality.
To briefly explain the images:two projects in postwarBerlin
markthese polarities,but also complicate them: Mies van der
Rohe's National Gallery and, across the road, Hans
Scharoun'sState Library.Now these two objects apparently
representdistinct sensibilities:unity and wholeness versus
fragmentation,centered versushighly differentiated,and so
on. And, incidentally, Mies is sometimes seen as the precur-
sor of the firstmodel I described, that is to say, architectureas
a kind of blank screen for the projection of information,
whereas Scharoun correspondssuperficiallyto the categoryof
fragmentedand dislocated architecture.But what I want to
suggest with these images in particularis that an analysisas
objects is insufficient. An analysisof use, habit, time, and
reception is requiredto get at not only meaningful differ-
ences, but beyond to the uncanny similarities.In Mies, for
example, the supposedlycentered, unified building sets up a
very complex and highly disjunctive series of reframingsof
the city and the site around it; whereas in Scharoun, within
the supposedlydifferentiatedand fragmentedfield, a new
kind of figure, an orderwith its own clarity,which seems to
be about continuity and connection, emerges through ha-
bitual use over time.
I want to end by recognizing the need - under the imposing
title of "The Politics of ContemporaryArchitecturalDis-
course" - to offer something positive, something program-
matic. So I am going to close with a series of propositionsthat
I believe follow loosely (and I underline loosely) from a rec-
ognition that perception in a state of distractionis a funda-
mental architecturalcondition.
First, I want to argue for a shift away from prevailinglinguis-
tic models of reception and a related emphasis on visuality.I
would even go furtherhere, in speaking to Michael, to say
52
 Allen

that perhaps meaning is no longer the problem today.Ar-

chitectural subjects are users as well as spectators,partici-
pants more than readers.In practice, this implies close
attention to program,but also an elastic yet precise relation
between spatial accommodation and formal invention; an
anexact fit between event and structure.
Given the evident ineffectiveness of strategiesof unmask-
ing, disavowal,or defamiliarizationunder conditions of
reception in a state of distraction,* I would propose instead
the appropriationand redirection of the very technologies
of distractionenforced by dominant culture. We can't sim-
ply criticize distractionin the hope of recoveringsome
notion of authentic experience, which is what I believe
MargaretMorse does. As Brian Massumi has remarked,the
radical gesture today is not to unmask the simulacrum as a 2. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, National Gallery, Berlin, 1962-68
lie, but ratherto require the simulacrum, against expecta-
tion, to function as the real.23Hence, camouflage, mimicry,
wit, guileful ruse, deception, and stealth - forms of quali-
fied surrender- enter the lexicon of architecturalmeans
to reprogramthe dominant logics of space in the city.
In the urbanrealm, this implies the resolutionof site condi-
tions throughsupple and cunning accommodation, not
conflict, juxtaposition,and fragmentation(to borrowa for-
mulation from SanfordKwinter:buildingswhich are
evolved, not designed). Workingbeyond the semiotic, new
geometric models suggestflexible contextualtactics. Form
matters,but not so much the formsof things as the forms
betweenthings.

Finally, distractionmight be linked to a post-collageaes-

thetic. And again, I would argue slightlywith Michael. I
think that practicesof intertextualityare still linked to col-
lage aesthetics. Collage and montage acquiredforce through
the collision of distinct ordersand the generationof tension 3. HansScharoun, State Library,Berlin,competition, 1963-64;
acrossseams of difference. Previously,stable subjectivities completed 1978
were fragmented.But today,mobile subjectivitiescan be put
into play both with and againstexistingspatialorders.The
disjunctiveplay of difference has lost the power to shock.
Hence, fluid models of exchange, differentialunities, and
free-floatingintensities replace the critical model of recuper-
ating difference through ever-escalatingfragmentation.

53

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 assemblage 27

*It seemed obviousto me at the time of the conference,but perhapsthis longer individualgirls,but indissol- of EverydayDistraction:The Free-
point deservesto be clarified.In the crudestpossibleterms,what I mean to uble female units whose movements way, the Mall and Television," in
suggestis this:that the availableconceptualmodels for the projectof resis- are mathematicaldemonstrations" The Logics of Television:Essays in
tance - from FrankfurtSchool Marxismto deconstruction- depend in one (SiegfriedKracauer,"The MassOr- Cultural Criticism,ed. Patricia
formor anotheron a modernistidea of makingdifferencevisible throughop- nament,"trans.BarbaraCorrelland Mellencamp (Bloomington: Indi-
erationsof unmasking(or relatedstrategiesof demythification,deferral,or ne- JackZipes, New GermanCritique5 ana UniversityPress, 1990), 202.
gation).For all theirsignificantdifferences,they sharethe assumptionthat the [Spring19755]:59). See also 15. Ibid.,196.
taskof criticalworkis to uncoverthe artificein that assumedto be natural.(I Kracauer's"The Cult of
referhere to Slavoj2iiek's observationthat "deconstructionismis a modern- Distraction,"NewGermanCritque40 16. Ibid.
ist procedurepar excellence; it presentsitself as the most radicalversionof (Winter 1987). 17. Benjamin, "The Work of Art,"
the logic of 'unmasking'wherebythe veryunity of meaning is conceived as 4. WalterBenjamin, "The Workof 238.
the effect of signifyingmechanisms,an effect that can takeplace only insofar Art in the Age of Mechanical Repro- 18. Morse, "AnOntology of Every-
as it ignoresthe textualmovementthat producedit" [LookingAwy,:An Intro-
duction,"in Illuminations,ed. day Distraction," 197.
ductionto JacquesLacan throughPopularCulture(Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Hannah Arendt,trans.HarryZohn
Press,1991), 1421.)Now, with regardto architectureand the experienceof 19. Beatriz Colomina, "Domestic-
(New York:Schocken, 1968), 238.
lurbanspace, if we firststipulatethe predominanceof distractionand, second, "Distraction"translatesthe German ity at War,"Assemblage 16 (Decem-
recognizethat this implies a model of receptionother than the linguistic (for ber 1991): 22.
term zerstreuung.In additionto "dis-
the attentivereader,substitutethe distracteduser), it seems to me self-evident
traction,"the English equivalents 20. Peter Eisenman "Unfolding
that unmaskingoperations,which assumea degree of criticalconsciousness
would be "scattering,""dispersal," Events,"Zone 6, Incorporations
on the partof the spectator,will be of limited effectiveness.
and "dispersion."This supportsa (1992): 423.
Beyond these doubtsabout the efficacyof resistanceunder the domain of spatialconnotation, confirminga 21. Ibid., 424.
distraction,it seems worthaddingthat my point of view arisesfrom an impa- readingof distractionas a scattering
tience with a modernistnegativitythat has exhaustedwhatevercreativeim- or dispersalof attentionratherthan 22. About Richter'scharacteristic
pulse once motivatedit and has degeneratedinto a set of well-rehearsedandl the simple absence of attention. "blur,"critic Dave Hickey has noted
that it has the effect of "investing
overcodifiedstrategies.The question is badlyformulatedif it simplyopposes 5. Ibid., 239. both the timeless eternityevoked by
delay to acceleration,resistanceto acquiescence. More urgent,in my mind,
is the need to define a sustainableprojectof creativework,capableof per- 6. Ibid., 240. abstractionand the timeless instant
turbingexistingcategoriesby the productionof something unrecognizable 7. Ibid. implied by the snapshotwith the
out of that which is all too familiar.Hence the passage,by way of a consider- smear of temporality."The introduc-
8. Ibid. tion of time into the painterlyarena
ation of reception in a stateof distraction,to a legitimatesuspicion of strate-
9. Ibid., 231. here moves the discussion beyond
gies of resistance,to the effortto map out an alternativeterritory;more
Eisenman's still strictlyformal con-
positive,more creative,more productive:a "vague"affirmativeproject,but a 10. "In short,space is practiced siderations.See Dave Hickey, "Rich-
projectabout which I can be all the more optimisticpreciselybecause it is place. Thus the street geometrically
not vet fullycl
defined. ter in Tahiti,"Parkett35 (1993): 86.
defined by urbanplanning is trans-
formed into a space by walkers" 23. Brian Massumi, "Realerthan
(Michel de Certeau, The Practiceof Real: The Simulacrum According
to Deleuze and Guattari,"Copy-
EverydayLife, trans. Steven Rendall
Notes with Tony Smith,"Artforum(De- [Berkeley:Universityof California right 1 (1987): 90-97.
This is taken from a longer essay-in- cember 1966): 19. Press, 1984], 117).
progress,the first section of which is 2. Stephen Kern,The Cultureof 11. Benjamin, "The Work of Art,"
entitled "Dazed and Confused." Time and Space (Cambridge, 240.
See Stan Allen, "In a State of Dis- Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,
traction,"Via 12, Simultaneous Cit- 1983), 124.
12. Ibid., 233. Figure Credits
ies (1996). 13. Ibid. 1. Courtesy of MGM.
3. "Theseproductsof the Ameri-
1. Samuel Wagstaff,Jr., "Talking can 'distractionfactories'are no 14. MargaretMorse, "AnOntology 2, 3. Photographsby Stan Allen.

54

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:21:41 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions