the utopia that never was
"Architecture or Revolution. Revolution can be avoided." (Le Corbusier)
The proclamation of Modernism in architecture was underscored by a strong ideological stance. Perhaps this is where Modernism became out of touch with the realities of capitalist economy. This highlights the crux of one of the main criticisms on Modernism by Manfredo Tafuri in Architecture and Utopia. For Tafuri, modern architecture was an instrument of the capitalist reorganization of the world economy, "a participant in the overall plan", and was responsible in assimilating the tension between chaos and order so apparent in modern civilization. But he pointed out that architecture could no longer offer this 'salvation' anymore, and that the architect's role as ideologists and professionals are also no longer relevant. So what of architecture then? Tafuri proposes that the architect strips off his avant-gardism, and instead takes on specified roles as a 'technician', 'organizer' and 'planner'. While it is certainly fair to assume that architects should be more in touch with the new world order, one has wonder what repercussions would entail if this model was implemented? Reducing architects into production-line workers would in effect strip off any critical sensibility left of them. For Tafuri to assume that architecture failed on its sensibilities presumes all architecture to embody some sort of ideological significance. This is clearly not true. What would remain is something that merely aims for functionalism and efficiency, and even so only in its strictest sense that favours the economy.
Architecture thus lands itself in a dilemma. It operates in the realm of both capitalism and soceity's needs, and hence is consequently carried deeper into the myth of functionalism. Most misconceptions on modern architecture lies here: that it is a formal exercise of practicality, efficiency and mass production. However, there is no common consesus as to what constitutes the 'functional'. It is precisely this uncertainty that renders functionalism as something intangible and therefore open to exploitation. Perhaps functionalism veiled itself to embody modernity, but really in fact represented a vision of extreme rationality: the idealized reality we sought for, the utopia that never was.
"Functionalism suggests a false idea, as architecture since the Classical period had always endeavoured to express some idea of function" (Jurgen Habermas)
.
The proclamation of Modernism in architecture was underscored by a strong ideological stance. Perhaps this is where Modernism became out of touch with the realities of capitalist economy. This highlights the crux of one of the main criticisms on Modernism by Manfredo Tafuri in Architecture and Utopia. For Tafuri, modern architecture was an instrument of the capitalist reorganization of the world economy, "a participant in the overall plan", and was responsible in assimilating the tension between chaos and order so apparent in modern civilization. But he pointed out that architecture could no longer offer this 'salvation' anymore, and that the architect's role as ideologists and professionals are also no longer relevant. So what of architecture then? Tafuri proposes that the architect strips off his avant-gardism, and instead takes on specified roles as a 'technician', 'organizer' and 'planner'. While it is certainly fair to assume that architects should be more in touch with the new world order, one has wonder what repercussions would entail if this model was implemented? Reducing architects into production-line workers would in effect strip off any critical sensibility left of them. For Tafuri to assume that architecture failed on its sensibilities presumes all architecture to embody some sort of ideological significance. This is clearly not true. What would remain is something that merely aims for functionalism and efficiency, and even so only in its strictest sense that favours the economy.
Architecture thus lands itself in a dilemma. It operates in the realm of both capitalism and soceity's needs, and hence is consequently carried deeper into the myth of functionalism. Most misconceptions on modern architecture lies here: that it is a formal exercise of practicality, efficiency and mass production. However, there is no common consesus as to what constitutes the 'functional'. It is precisely this uncertainty that renders functionalism as something intangible and therefore open to exploitation. Perhaps functionalism veiled itself to embody modernity, but really in fact represented a vision of extreme rationality: the idealized reality we sought for, the utopia that never was.
"Functionalism suggests a false idea, as architecture since the Classical period had always endeavoured to express some idea of function" (Jurgen Habermas)
.
Labels: modernism
posted by (nothingness) at 02:11
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home