aml, just read your post on adorno and greenberg. ah i see. those are claims to formal autonomy, no? like the eradication of symbols and representation?

as for fragmentation: the impulse that derives from looking at the world in an instrumental manner has led to habits of mind which insist generally on knowing more and more about less and less. whereas the old habit of mind was to value seeing the connections and interrelations of a meaningful and communicable whole. in otherwords knowing less and less about more and more until you know nothing about everything.

when the claims of one culture are as valid as the claims of another, entire fields of pursuit tend to claim isolation.

did you initially understand i was talking about fragmentation, or are you? i didn't mean to and would not claim fragmentation as defining modernism.

backtracking to your original post: yes posmodernism is more rudimentary in architecture, i agree, but the reproduction of older forms and styles is only a part of posmodernism- i'd rather call it 'historicist posmodernism' so it's less confusing. this starts with the five architects publication, and colin rowe's comment on the separation between 'word' and 'form' [not his exact words i think].

posmodernism -for lack of a better word, i think we all agree there is no division line but a blur and overlap that still continues] -in architecture- i understand as the use of referents- sometimes historical referents, sometimes -as cindy sherman- media referents, self referents, or in eisenman's case, linguistical references in his -ironically- pursuit of modernism as autonomy as i've argued above.

in this sense, some of frampton's boys might be considered as prolonguing the modernity effort, as i agree with him [and if i'm understanding correctly, with you] that the search for the tectonic resists the fungibility of the world [paraphrasing frampton]. you can see overtones of adorno here, resistance to fetishization and consumption.

aml, no i understand now more clearly what the autonomy claim means.

what i meant to say at the end of my original post is only that i believe the challenge of making authentic and meaningful architecture today might still pertain to ancient claims on the knowability of the public realm. the pastiche of historicism, in otherwords, is not enough. nor are investigations into form divorced from symbols. deep structure and theories regarding the non transparency of language seem to me not enough fro architecture. i firmly firmly believe this.

as such a reconstruction of the belief in the knowabilty and communicability of the public realm (as well as notions of good, or the beautiful, or the just) can be an authentically modern undertaking. for me this is the bold claim of the habermas project.

defining the modern condition or the postmodern condition are truly valid and useful exercises, but aml, when you say that autonomy was eisenman's claim and you concur that that goal was not accomplished by him, what in your mind is missing about his efforts? are they at base merely interesting investigations without true import. this is what i would argue.

to abstract the question even further, is the desire to formulate dwelling as a meaningful communicative act something that is nostalgic? are things inotherwords really so different for us today than for, say, italians in the 16th century? and if so is ridding the form of our output of symbolism the only act thats needed to define our distinction as a unique culture of a unique time?

i think eisenman's efforts were doomed from the start, because by isolating form as the 'essence' of architecture, the essence that would lead him to autonomy, he confuses architecture with sculpture. although his research is valid, his efforts were misguided.

my reading of this comes via tafuri's the architecture dans le boudoir, which i understand as pushing the argument that posmodernism [without saying that word, since it's tafuri] has consisted on the play of empty signs and autoreferentiality, and the way out is through 'the author as producer' [walter benjamin], that is, through the means of production, which i understand in this case as frampton.

i actually have a whole diagram on the tafuri reading... a klein diagram structuring the polarities in his argument and i've thought the 'author as producer' has been reinterpreted into production and programming in more contemporary architecture. that is, to put it bluntly, frampton as production and koolhaas as programming.

on to dwelling...

right now i'm at the end of heynen's chapter at the start of her book, where she qualifies the modern as the absence of dwelling, or dwelling fading in the distance.

i don't want to get those ideas confused- heynen is talking about the idea of dwelling receding in the distance in the modern PERIOD.

certainly, frampton, via heidegger, considers dwelling as part of the search for the tectonic [critical regionalism] and therefore as part of the modern PROJECT.

i think there are nostalgic and non-nostalgic components to dwelling. they're mixed up. it's part of our human nature, but at the same time since it has been our nature there's a nostalgia imbued into the activity.

ridding our culture of symbolism- would this be the modern undertaking of habermas? habermas has always claimed the continuity of the modern project of course, and time has proved him right [in my opinion, meaning hopefullly we're not just revamping the modern as post post mod now, but rather returning after a detour].

how do you relate/opposed dwelling and symbolism?

rereading this post is really confusing, i apologize... i actually have to get back to work, but i'll check in on this discussion later on.

Maybe I am compimenting previous posts, but I see modernism attempting to find universality in architecture. It tried, and tries to find some expression that would transcend ones nationality and other traits. And I think that there are modernists out there who still believe in that ideal to varying degrees.
But modernism failed. It failed precisely in its attempt to find universality. The reality is that people are different, and to get everyone to be in the same mold just doesn't work. So now, in the age of post-modernism this reality is embraced. The reality of independence and freedom. But what we'll find is a fractured and confused society, and I think the buildings are an expression of that.

I think the question that started the thread is a legitimate question which unfortunately though brings back all the old cliches about modernity vs post modernity.

The first thing we are able to notice, given the greater historical distance we can enjoy from certain events in the evolution of the modern paradigm, is that there never was a post-modern condition. Not yet at least.

As I have argued in few articles the most recent one published by NAAR (Nordic Association of Architectural Research) the modern worldview is still actively dominating the discipline of architecture, despite some adversity towards the modern movement which might be misleading.

The idea of modernity changes depending on the context that frames it. In architecture (as I have tried to demonstrate by referring to architectural literature of this and the past century) the idea of modernity is mainly based of what I call the "zeitgeist gap", the idea, that is, that there is a distance between our epoch's true spirit and architecture, and the belief that the role of the architect is to erase that distance.

In this light the works of early modernists and of today's avantguardists seem to have a lot in common.

As someone who actively and intentionally works on the definition of a different paradigm, I belive modernity has become sterile because the idea of the "zeitgeist gap" has become sterile. A non-modern paradigm needs to get rid of this idea of "expressing the spirit of the time". If we examine the works and the writing of prominent architects of today we see how deeply modern they really are (i.e. Koolhaas).

There are plenty of issues that could and should be discussed, but to keep it to the intial question of this post, I think this answers it: there was no ship but only a transition from a period of "normal science" (early modernism) to a period of crises which was marked by Venturi's Complexity and Contraddiction but was already beginning in the mid 50s. Different stages in the evolution of the same paradigm, not different paradigms. Nowadays architecture is still working within the framework of the modern paradigm in a period of prolonged crisis that evolved to a stage of hyper-modernity ("hyper" because the role of fundamental idea which the paradigm is based on is taken to extreme consequences)

--

what is "modern"?

pasha, i think there needs to be a clarification on the use of the term universality. this might be useful for this discourse.

one distinguishing feature of modernity is the insistence on individual liberty as a value in and of itself. history as a discipline has provided a wealth of evidence which purports to devalue any claims toward universality. my view that eating with one's hands is ok can coexist with your view that utensils are a must, because we know empirically, irrefutably, that such and such nation back in such and such century concurred that eating with one's hand is a sign of sophistication and utensils were tantamount to amorality.

so by this fundamental development of a mistrust in claims to absolute knowability in the 19th century, the modern condition is one that embraces the validity of the perspective of the individual over the ancient claims of universal knowledge.

i think the above is a fairly consensus point.

now the distinction between modernity, or the modern condition, versus Modernism in architecture is one of purely historical import. that the positivism of the 1920s wuropean zeitgeist fueled the propaganda of international style claims to universal utility does not, to me, equate universality to modernity.

i think thats a very meaningful distinction to make. i don't know for sure what enrico means when he says the gap between the zeitgeist and architecture but my sense is that this is a historicist claim. in otherwords that architectural output at any given time ought to mirror the contingent world as it is as efficiently and accurately as possible.

i think its critical to understand that this approach is distinct from notions of universality as that which is by definition held under suspicion by the modern human condition.

as a matter of clarification if one is comfortable with the strict meaning of the term historicism, Modernism in architecture is a historicist movement.

What I mean by "zeitgeist gap" is the idea that he architectural production of a given era is inadeguate or insufficiently able to express its true "spirit". The convinction that "expressing the true spirit of an era" is an objective architecture should try to achieve is what defines modernity, and what defines architecture within the modern paradigm.

The moment this very basic and fundamental idea will cease to have a role in the discipline of architecture that's when modernity will come to an end. Until then modernity is the playground.

Now, the idea of the "zeitgeist gap" might seem simplistic but it has dramatic implications some of which explain why it has been so successful.

First of all the idea of "inadeguacy" promotes an effort to make things "adeguate", it's a positive, forward-moving idea (that explains tha positivist character of modernity).

Secondly, since the "spirit of the times" is an historical phenomen it is subject to change. It's like shooting at a moving target: much more difficult than aiming at something that doesn't move. This difficulty made it more ineteresting, and at teh same time the zeitgeist being an ever changing thing, any theory involving the zeitgeist would be very versatile... it would work for the first machine age, the second machine age and eventually for our information age.

So what's wrong with modernity? The problems with modernity have to do (as with any paradigm which enter its crisis) with its assumption and methods not being convincing anymore.

The early stages in the development of the modern paradigm were characterized by a strong deterministic attitude ( a <=> b). Determinism, implies causality (b because of a) etc. The criticism that first caused modernity to enter its crisis attacked it on these very points, as Venturi did. But what Venturi uses to prove Modernism (an expression of modernity and NOT modernity itself) is the very basic assumption of modernity: modernism failed because it was unable to close the gap with the zeitgeist.

Venturi's claim implied the idea of the zeitgeist gap, which itself implies the convinction that something like the "zeitgeist" actually exist, which is in fact a very deterministic, causal and positivistic idea. Because it means that there is something called "zeitgeist" that we can have knowledge of, that we can recognize and communicate, and that this "thing" is in fact object-ive.

This leads to another character of modernity: object-ivity. Modernity is object oriented. Which leads to another idea mentioned before in this thread: fragmentation: modernity sees the worls as fragments, objects.

These, mind you, are characteristics of modernity in the widest sense possible, not just limited to the specific disciplinary context of architecture.

Rita said,
"Ok, which is more ethereal then, a professional architectural photograph or a candid snapshot of a building?"

Neither is more ethereal.
However, the shadow the building casts is solid.

the word "modern" is a moving target, because it basically means "current", so i understand why there is tension when someone is trying to fix it in time.
however, i think that "modern" idea of the 20's is distinctively different in method but same in goal to the "modern" idea of today. that goal as i see is assimilation, whether its intentional or unintentional i am not sure. i think it was more intentional in the past then now.

the method of the teen years of last century was to unite people under some kind of charter, a doctrine. i would say that "utopia" was the inspiration and the goal. hence CIAM, USSR and many social experiments.
but consensus couldn't be reached, so people went their separate ways . and now we see a gamut of ideas and theories. however, as i said earlier, assimilation is the result. eventhough we live with such a wide array of ideas we still have one idea that unites everything, and its called "relativism".
i think we live in a time of such pressure for novelty, people hate cliches simply because they aren't original, because they don't stirr their senses. the amount of information that we take is numbing our reason, i would dare to suggest that ADD is the result of this. so to get attention we try to shock people with emotional tricks. but its like a drug that constantly needs to be increased in dose. so we have to yell louder, we have to fight harder, we have to show more skin, more blood, to awaken a beast inside a man.

the age to come, is neo-paganism.

i am not talking about architecture in particular. i am talking about the spirit of the age. it is something that permeates our thinking, it is something that's in the air that our minds breathe. i can't pinpoint to the historical events to show exactly when shifts happened as most of you can. but i think that i simmered down significant events of the past to isolate the spirit that influenced how people thought and therefore, what they did.

I think the age to come is post - man.
I'll coin it "Post Man Pat".
Pat being the post man who never delivered:)

i've never seen that movie with kevin costner, "the postman"?

enrrico, i think an unhappy side effect to discussions like this is the intital time and effort outlay required to make sure all terms are being portrayed and understood in the smae manner. otherwise we're talking apples to oranges.

to that end i feel compelled to distinguish Modernism from modernity (or one can call it the modern condition). when you say:

"The moment this very basic and fundamental idea [of an allegiance to expressing the zeitgeist] will cease to have a role in the discipline of architecture that's when modernity will come to an end. Until then modernity is the playground."

do you not mean Modernism (a tenet of beliefs) as opposed to modernity (an era)?

disclosure: what motivated me to enter this discussion was the desire to try to understands perspectives which are historicist in orientation in relation to a-historicist understandings of the the world. i don't know if its too useful to necessarily couch this discussion solely in the realm of the culture of artisitc output because, i bet you'd agree, there's such a bad signal to noise ratio.

in otherwords contingencies such as the political, the economic, fashion need to be sorted through before getting to the kernel of truly formative motivation behind a movement. removing contingency can really truly serve a purpose, no?

i do not wish to imply that handling all manner of contingency is precisely what an architect, historian, and art historian do, and it must be done seriously and well. or ya won't build, ya?

but the great ones (architects and architectural historians that is) heed the non-contingent issues which underscore the simple distinction between modern and pre-modern thought. if you agree, you might share my desire to delineate more precisely the worth of (1) defining the zeitgeist and (2) formulating architecture that mirrors it.

i grant the claim that the everrenewing desire to define and embrace the zeitgeist has been an object of Modernistic lust (how can that really be denied?) but whether this phenomenon is some essential or something contingent is something i really wish to discuss.

i might speculate that the zeitgeist is contingent on certain habits of thought as opposed to being a condition that is necessarily modern, for instance. in otherwords it might well be a necessary condition of Modernism but be a contingency within the framework of modernity.

sorry for the digression. back to the question:

enrrico, what is it about the zeitgeist that makes you believe mirroring it is a means of achieveing (architectural or otherwise) authenticity?

pasha, at the risk of sounding like i'm hoisting a slogan, 'the modern' is a condition of self doubt and alienation. these are root characterisitcs.

modernity (or the conditions of it) are not, from what i sense, a "moving target."

hegel's definition of the present pins down 'the present' as the instnantly evolving prelude to the thrilling, unknowable future. that might me where the confusion lay.

modernity is not a 'spirit' shifting from place to place from one decade to the next. it is a condition, definable succinctly if and when one considers the preconditons of its birth.

Modernism, on the other hand, is a coded set of beliefs. and like a laundry list of contingencies there are many, what like aaron betzky, that exsaustively ennumerate its miriad of characterisitcs. these chracterisitcs surely change form like mercury, i imagine yearly, if not monthly.

pedro...
"there is a part of everthing that is unexplored because we are accustomed
to using our eyes only in association with the memory of what people
before us have thought of the thing we are looking at.
Even the smallest thing has something in it which is unknown.
We must find it"
flaubert.
Pure semantics can not describe the sun, nor the son of god.
Perhaps it's less to do with the prescribed description of a
said concept and rather more to do with it's gestault aura/metaphor,
and of which, it is here that it is understood or manifested in society.

ie ...Chaplin c1930's Tatti c1958

white noise.
to pinpoint I say that the ideological paradigm were more to
do with the facts of War and the discords and discourse
that were vented from within and around them, before, during and after.

image kid, sometimes a handle says it all.

another way to formulate the fundamental question:

what is the value of architecture if its primary concern is to reflect the contingencies of the envioronment which broiught it to existence?