Image Credit: http://www.goldendrum.com/news/gd-column-20122/
In attempting to unpack the true workings of wholeness, people often run into several major mental roadblocks. This happens because, most of the time, they have never been exposed to this kind of thinking. The architecture schools of today do a very good job at teaching wordplay.
First, they hunger for definitions. A kind of dictionary that they can carry around in their pockets to 'fact-check' arguments and reshuffle the meanings. They have been trained to regurgitate these definitions rather than actually lay out their thoughts. They lose touch with reality, disparage unfamiliar ways of writing, and resort to complaints about how unclear the whole issue is.
Second, they think with a certain kind of logic. A logic that muzzles human intuition in a profound way. A logic that is somehow constructed so as to deny the valid and reliability of human feelings (and human life in general) and, therefore, the possibility of true connectedness. It is a modern logic that treats all life as a machine. All life.
It is very important to dissect two particular, disastrous strains of this logic: first, they say that if I look at a thing - a building, a plant, a painting, ect. - and call it whole, then I have destroyed that thing by projecting my own feelings (by calling it whole) on to it. The object no longer stands as a "thing in and of itself" - to go against this in architectural circles is a sin. But it gets even better, because the second thing these people say is that wholeness is distracting from other social arrangements. That it was pointless to talk about it from the outset. Wholeness is uncritical they say, lacking in rigor and meaningfulness for our profession.
So I can't call something whole because then I will destroy it, but calling something whole to begin with was a complete waste of energy. To these people, which sadly encompasses the majority of architectural discourse, you are better off just never opening your mouth. You are, literally, dammed if you do - do anything other than what they are doing.
The father of this movement was Jacques Derrida. He wanted no part of Hegel's dialect which he felt was full of contradictions. Allegedly, Michel Focualt told Derrida privately that his "text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is and when one criticizes it, the author says,You misunderstood me; you are an idiot" - this sounds like a familiar sentiment to me.
Yet, somehow, Derrida is the patron saint of deconstructivist architects or, at the very least, he is the patron saint of Peter Eisenman. Contemporary architects love to throw a quote of Derrida's around and revise it using one word. "There is nothing outside the text." (from Of Grammatology) Can you guess what that word is? Here's a hint: the word is building.
I have now arrived at, what I believe, to be the prevailing attitude of the times. And it goes like this: There is nothing outside the building. Because this is taken literally, we end with buildings, like those of Libeskind, Hadid, Mayne, Ghery, Koolhaus, that project this message out into the world. If there really is nothing outside of the building, then who are we building for? For just the building? Are there no people living in this deconstructivist world of buildings? This is the predominant worldview that allows professionals and designers to truly be "free" and do whatever the hell they want to in their heads, draw it up, and send it off to the factory.
The discussion of wholeness does not involve this kind of worldplay trash. It is something far more accessible, far simpler to understand when you open yourself up to it. It is the ontological aspect of wholeness - the nature of wholeness - that is still elusive and mysterious. Progress has been made in biology, mathematics, and other life sciences in this regard. But the group of people who are still resistant to it, the group that needs it the most, are architects.
I'm sure that this will be an unsatisfying explanation for certain people because it is not nearly as scientific or rational as they are hoping for. But either way, I still lose in their view because then the "science" that I provide will be seen as "not really science". Same goes for "defining wholeness".
The bottom line: if all you have are words, then everything around you are words. This is a limiting worldview. It may bother people to hear this, but it is the first step toward undoing the architecture that diminishes human life.
This document is a collection of thoughts, ideas, sketches, and observations of a young architecture student living in the 21st century. It is intended to serve as a resource and vehicle for personal connections that extend beyond virtual domains. The main subject of this blog is an inquiry into the elusive nature of wholeness. The purpose is to identify wholeness-making building methodologies and examples of 'whole architecture' throughout history.
15 Comments
you rebel you.
Here is a task for you
Name 5 buildings that are "whole" built within the last 50 years?
Why are they whole?
I don't think the negative reaction is so much from the idea you present, but rather from your complete lack of clarity and depth. Give examples or something dude.
perennial dont have any. the last 50 years was "un-whole"
except for maybe Krier, conveniently.
straight out of the 70's with this stuff:
Derrida is the patron saint of deconstructivist architects or, at the very least, he is the patron saint of Peter Eisenman. Contemporary architects love to throw a quote of Derrida's around and revise it using one word.
bro... the world has moved on...
you read like a conservative variant of Jacque Fresco.
…allows professionals and designers to truly be "free" and do whatever the hell they want to in their heads, draw it up, and send it off to the factory.
Architecture *almost* by definition requires clients. So it's not as if no one gave Morphosis the go-ahead to have the SF Federal Building become a reality. That building, probably more than most, went through an extensive approval process involving the voices of tens if not hundreds of individuals and the societal groups they represent. Do you think all those people have read Derrida?
I've been fascinated with your posts and the discussion it has fueled in the past few days. You, as well as and those commenting in the discussion bring up great points and ask valid questions. However, since your critique on the Morphosis building, I've been waiting to hear your direct responses to some of questions from fellow commenters. Waiting for you to convince me that the aesthetic that you consider to be "whole" is actually what the world needs and that there is no modern architecture that reaches that goal.
But I'm disappointed. With each new post you are repeating your words with little variation in example, this one included. You are defining whole-ness by the negation of "whole", the critique of "whole", the ignorance of "whole". But I still don't understand why the weighty looking buildings of the Stock Exchange, the Kimball, and the brick buildings of Nyhavn are considered whole but the lighter buildings are not (at least you have not given an example of one).
Also, in regards the image of Copenhagen's Nyhavn in the previous post, did you know that it is a tourist destination? Did you know that it was redone as an attraction to look as pedestrian friendly as it is now? Is it still wholeness if it's artificial?
Regardless, I would really like to agree with you architecture might need to bring about a notion of wholeness that is re-adapted to fit today's time. And I think it might be possible. But In order for me to believe that, I want to know what you think is the future of wholeness that isn't just a recreation of the past? And I challenge you to make a post that doesn't reference either wholeness or Christopher Alexander. Maybe then I can finally envision the future you're hoping for, one that is not the an imitation of the past. If the future of wholeness can only be found in the past, then.... well. I'd feel pretty hopeless.
Last but not least, the architects you've named in this particular post are widely known as monument creating architects. They are easy targets who already get backlash from the architecture community. How about addressing architects and buildings who do try to add life to urban environments? DS+R perhaps? or if you're a fan of Copenhagen, some of the Danish firms?
What you think is a whole might just be another brick on your colonial wall!
Derrida was really an extraordinadily clever and rich philosopher with the soul of a poet and poetry is an impossible thing to transliterate, to render pedanticically into another medium. When you talk Derrida, you don't really talk eisenman. Donna Sink has mentioned michael benedikt somewhere and i had, a long time ago, read his essay/book Deconstructing the Kimbell Musuem. Aside from tackling kahn's architecture, i recall that benedikt's point was also that insights gained retrospectively from Derreading (i'll copyright that) could be applied in/to places that one might not expect. unfortunately, architectural rhetoric can be largely forced and dilletante, prescriptive thick fraying ropes in short measures. sort of like the bullshit you, the perianal hole (now i'm being vitriolic) are working with. the best of french theory - with its ephemeral glistening, delicacy and precision- is the opposite, retrospective spinning of long strands of fine strong silk. one should not read derrida, bataille, much of foucault ..etc they way textbook manuals are read. apropos the architectural transliterations, i believe that the issue was (the world has moved on, as noted by someone in one of your other cloned posts) not of being too "mechanical/mechanistic" but of being literary when one pretends to be literal and literal when pretends to be literary...and this i felt in the two opposite cases of tschumi and eisenman, respectively. i think this has been passed on to the more contemporary avant garde, these self-centred blind spots of figuation.
I appreciate the atmosphere of debate in general and I applaud your efforts at providing counterpoint to some of the "starchitects" mentioned in your above post. However, there are points to be made that would strengthen your argument: 1) Please do not misspell the names of the architects you giving a critique of (ghery=/=GEHRY, koolhaus=/=KOOLHAAS). 2) I implore you to research current trends in the built context, such as the work of DS+R, UNStudio, MvRdv, etc. and 3) This goes for most critical/manifesto style writings, do not position yourself 100% one way or another, we do not live in an absolute world, so do not pretend it to be so.
As for your argument, I will not continue to beat the dead horses of previous criticisms about lack of rigor, clarity or precision. I will simply re-state the question(s) many have asked: What building exudes wholeness? (using your own definitions and not a quote from Alexander) and also, is this a purely phenomenal quality that results from process-based work or is the concept of wholeness something that a designer uses as a basis for an image. Meaning, is it integral or aesthetic?
I don't agree with your attitude of "us vs.them" in any context and while I don't side with you in this argument, I do believe it is good to keep the intellectual synapses firing. I am hoping for this to evolve beyond the debate of the 1970s, 1920s and renaissance though.
There is also a whole world outside of Archinect that doesn't buy into any of this tomfoolery. That world is the 95% of the construction industry that believes in building sound buildings. What do they (myself included) mean to this architectural discourse?
Stop it, please. Juhani Pallasmaa and Gaston Bachelard have said everything that needs to be said in this area, and have done a far more eloquent job than you. This is really just a re-hashing of past ideas, a skillful plagiarism of thought actually, in a pretty new dress.
Whats your problem with being precise? I like definitions, to paraphrase Nietzsche "If you can name it (the phenomena) you own it" . Naming and knowing the phenomena, "wholeness" helps me understand better.
I forwarded your blog to a friend, one of the founders of green architecture. He knows Chris Alexander ( I met him once). He agreed with the comment that Alexander' work is disappointing in person. Boring was the term used. Not at all sensual.
Me, I dont mind boring. Keep up your blog.
I responded to the earlier critique of the SF Federal Building but I think this still relates.
What if I happen to think that the SF Federal Building demonstrates wholeness? Is it not possible or correct for me to find it whole?
It's facinating that most of the responses on this thread seem to speak an identical language. The language of archispeak as understood by academics. Imagine spending your whole life studying architecture in the flesh and speaking about it's techtonic and sensual qualities. How it pulled a context together, or how it stood alone creating a beautiful moment in the fabric. Now imagine that person entering a discussion with architects raised on a diet of Nietzche, Derrida, and whoever those other names where dropped. That person would be laughed out of the room as incredibly unsophisticated, yet, presumably the discussion would be about architecture, something this person would be steeped in. This wall of obfuscation is exactly what the early modernists set up in the last century with their manifestos, a wall designed to keep the non-believers out much like the theoretical wall academics prop up to keep their relevance intact. Sure every once and a while the wall needs some re-pointing or even proping up with the latest philosopher in chief (...sooo 1970's!), but the idea remains intact, keep the rif-raf out. And if you dare to challenge this cool kid's clique, well, you remember how that went in highschool. Just remember, it get's better. Persue your building by listening to clients and everyday people as to what moves them and what alienates them. Don't worry about not being able to package it neatly in some dazzling word play, just do right by the people you build for and let history work the rest out.
more disinformation, saying contemporary architects don't listen to clients while you dumb down yours is big-time self-righteous.
it's ok bro let it die.
contemporary - 1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time.
If you're going to insist on trying to quiet dissenting views, at least use the language correctly.
precisely.
closely aligning derrida with modernism, nice try.
lump-it logic at it again