Серыю публікацый бакалаўрскіх і магістарскіх прац выпускнікоў Еўрапейскага гуманітарнага ўніверсітэта мы працягваем артыкулам Паўла Цыганкова, выпускніка бакалаўрскай праграмы "Тэорыя і практыкі сучаснага мастацтва" ЕГУ, падрыхтаваным на аснове дыпломнай працы аўтара. Адзначым, што праца была выканана на ангельскай мове.

Прадметам майго бакалаўрскага даследавання ёсць мадэрная і постмадэрная збудаваная прастора (built space). У прыватнасці, маёй мэтаю было стварэнне мадэлі, якая б тлумачыла мадэрнісцкую архітэктуру і яе пераход да стану постмадэрнасці (postmodernity). Гэта было здзейснена ў адпаведнасці з сацыяльнай, эстэтычнай і культурнай праблематыкай і яе фармальнай артыкуляцыяй у пэўных архітэктурных прасторах, урбаністычных і архітэктурных практыках. Тое дапамагло мне, з аднаго боку, пазбегнуць залішняй інтэлектуалізацыі, а з іншага – не абрынуцца ў тыповую эмпірычную дэскрыпцыю. Такім чынам, было праведзена арганічнае даследаванне перадумоў утварэння збудаванай прасторы ў сувязі з пэўным архітэктурным кантэкстам і з’явамі.

Pavel Tsygankov. MODERNIST ORIGINS OF POSTMODERN BUILT SPACE

Summary on the Bachelor’s thesis “Modern and Postmodern Built Space: Social and Aesthetic Issues”. Thesis Supervisor: Staffan Schmidt, PhD, the Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performative Arts, University of Gothenburg

The subject of my bachelor’s research is modern and postmodern built space. In particular my aim is to establish the model which will describe modernist architecture and its transition to the state of postmodernity. This was done in accordance with social, aesthetic and cultural issues and its formal articulation within particular architectural spaces, urban and built practices. It helped me from the one side avoid excessive intellectualization and from the other not to slide down to the common empirical formal description. Thus, organic research of spaces’ prerequisites was made, combining it with particular architectural context and appearance.

Methodological approaches

The notion of modernist built space in this research is partly based on the formal analysis of particular architectural spaces and urban development of those times. It helped me to do the first step to take the first step towards developing the model. The main point of this approach was to see architectural practices and their physical results expressed in building and urban formations as general reflection and natural consequence of socio-cultural logic and context of the considered epoch. Architecture within such an assumption is endowed with discursive character, which means that particular built space becomes practical expression or even the local fragment of global discursive field of socio-cultural context. This view is similar to structuralistic approach established in linguistics by Ferdinand de Saussure (Cours de linguistique general), where local languages and dialects are discovered as consequential and interdependent parts of the one global system.

But in order to save “the thing” behind any conceptional constructions and provide the reader with an adequate demonstration of formal appearance of the model I made an excurse to the aesthetical problematics of the beginning of the 20th century applied in connection with architecture and position of man within different dwelling practices and their modes of perception.

However, in spite of ‘aesthetic’ orientation of the discovering subject, at first this research aims to provide the reader with general description and analysis of philosophical thought at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries. I examined the subject-object dichotomy of gaining the knowledge within dominated philosophical views and traditions of those times. Thus a critical assumption was made: that knowledge becomes practical and useful, which stands on the border of new ideas, methods and discoveries in order to provide industrial civilization with useful means of scientific investigation and economical production. This tendency for example became applicable in the pragmatic and positivists thought. Its inner logic, social and economical consequences were articulated in Marxists philosophy and further in the critical theory. Such changes in scientific thought and that of humanities are reasonable to describe as necessary for application. It became realizable in the architecture of modernity which calls for functional built space and according forms of its spatial-aesthetic appearance.

Formal articulation of discovering subject

Aesthetically, architecture could be seen in the comparative frame of the other art layers of the dominated style. Therefore it is reasonable to connect formal appearance of modernist buildings with an abstract art.

In their analytical cubist period Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque refused to imitate nature in order to discover objective patterns and truths of the painted objects behind their mere appearances. They moved around an object making notes about their dimensions and underlying geometrical forms, trying to extract objective data from visible reality. “Like an architect’s ground plans, sections and elevations, the Cubist painting analytically describes an ideal mental picture of an object, a conceptual picture which cannot be seen from any one viewpoint yet which embodies that which is seen from all viewpoints” [1].

Modernist architects worked in similar manner to these abstract artists. They freed their buildings from single viewpoint of decorated façade which signified ‘the main entrance’, trying to design an architecture which consists of separate volumes and intersecting planes, without any symbolic trappings and significations, codes and therefore clear meanings. It leaves the things in-between and behind actualized space, which they belong to, providing the recipient with wide and overall appearance of form and precise feeling of light and color. Briefly speaking, modernist architectural structures are avant-garde paintings applied in three-dimensional manner.

For example, if we look at Le Corbusier’s architecture (Villa Savoye, Philips Pavilion, Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, Cartesian Skyscraper and so on), we see the space which is modeled with the help of concrete flat surfaces, reinforced by pilotis and organized in order to provide the building with functional built space (5 points of new architecture). Walter Gropius in his architecture uses pure steel grid frames to develop the space out of light and organized in accordance of repeated motif of right-angled geometry (Bauhaus Dessau building). Mies Van der Rohe also preferred purity and spaciousness of the tall office buildings, but at the same time he developed his own ‘univalent’ [2] language of the glass and steel unity, which actualized clearness of such spaces. Therefore, looking at the formal appearance of the modernist built space, we can definitely say that it is the space of actualized spaciousness, which tends to be functional and homogenized for the purpose of social demands and new kind of economical and industrial development of the western capitalism. Everything, which gives a good organization, easy installment and quantity of mass production, was aesthetically expressed as a pure kind of spaciousness providing built space with keeping and containing of things, means of production, people’s dwelling and working place distribution. The first part of the research aims to introduce the reader to formal appearance of such space and give him an understanding of modernist architectural spaciousness. In order to so, the notion of spacious space will be developed. In our model it possesses the qualities of homogeneity, clearness, transparency and uniformity. Such characteristics are based on the analysis of 5 points of new architecture by Le Corbusier, means of industrial design introduced in Bauhaus and analysis of the ‘great primary forms’ [3] as means of gaining modernist architectural form. It gave me practical explication of pragmatic and positivist thought of the beginning of the 20th century.

Main notions

Spacious space. It’s clear that this term seems to be quite abstract and therefore unclear and unproved. Let’s examine its first part – ‘spacious’. Spaciousness, what does it say to us? Generally, it simply means that things are placed inside space and surrounded by it. The way how things appear to us has to be attached to the spaciousness. Development of any movement happens in space as well as any impermanence of all phenomena can only be observed against the background of space and with the help of it. Therefore changes are not only happen in time; here the space is essential as any temporaries could only be mentioned through it. Spaciousness is the field of our perception, this is the means of how phenomena appears ‘out there’. However, the provided description tends to be more cosmological than architectural. But this general principle seems to be common for all spaces, and if one examines well, even those of electronic media. Therefore, it is true for both: two-dimensional and tree-dimensional spaces. Organization of space is equally required for all of them. Be it interior spacious design, organization of the newspaper page, that of web-site, space of a painting, application of the laws of composition is considered to be demandable anywhere. Space in this sense appears to be the primary to all the things, some kind of absolute, which however has no power and influence on its content. Such understanding of spaciousness and space in particular we will extrapolate on that of modernist architecture, because for our concern it is of all built space closely related to spacious space, in its capacity of quantified localization of the things and that’s why of clear appearance of its spatiality by not assigning a traditional or particularistic use of space.

Functionality of such spacious built space is related to its context, and does not connected with its content. It means that the famous law introduced by Louis Sullivan to the architectural discourse - ‘form ever fallows function’ [4] is mainly related to technician and industrial understanding of spaces’ usability, which it its order connected with the social context and its relations to built space. To discover this social context and its methods of architectural application is one of the essential steps on building up the model of modernist built space. In my research it was be done by means of analytical explication of capitalist understanding of society introduced by Karl Marx and description of the urban space by Michel de Certeau (The Practice of Everyday Life).

Now it is essential and reasonable to compare spacious space of modernist architecture with the social abstract space introduced by Henri Lefebvre. His book ‘The Production of Space’ (1991) takes into account the possibilities of social space to be closely related to the architectural and urban spaces, to be the conductor of power. Philosopher analyses the manifestation of such power in the form of abstract space, which by its qualities is similar to what we have discovered about spacious space of modernist movement in architecture. Generally he describes it through three formants (appearances). Let’s first analyze geometrical formant, as it is suitable for our architectural subject.

Lefebvre analyses geometrical formant in connection with Euclidean space as a ‘space of reference’. Euclidean space is defined as ‘absolute’ and by its homogeneity, “a property which guarantees its social and political unity” [5]. Lefebvre talks about simple reduction of such Euclidean space, for instance from three-dimensional realities to two dimensions of a plan or a map where everything can be expressed by quantified reference, without an indication of any quality. Thus abstract space could be easily represented. The subject of representation due to its simplicity and reductivity is power.

Therefore, spacious space coincides with abstract space in terms of Lefebvre’s geometrical formant. Modernist architecture in a shape of spacious space becomes the manifestation of abstract space on a social level. They correlate to each other as different parts of the same totality, where context of the social formation determine an architectural usability by prescribing to its forms different points of references to particular buildings’ functions.

Aesthetical problematics

Aesthetical orientation of spacious space in this work derives from the transformation of the status of a work of art at the beginning of the 20th century. At first we are to show an understanding of the aesthetic object within Romanticism tradition in connection with the work of Immanuel Kant Critique of Judgement. It gives us an opposition to Bauhaus and Le Corbusier’s explication of art. For instance, that of objective orientation of artistic practice opposed to subjective Kantian explication of aesthetics.

Before Benjamin a work of art was often understood as something inaccessible and sublime for general daily life. The discipline of aesthetics has restricted itself for the questions concerning only art. This tendency began from Kant’s Critique of Judgement and after him was completely established in Hegel’s Lectures on Aesthetics. As Wolfgang Welsch has pointed out “aesthetics” was understood at that times as “artistics”, because it didn’t have aesthetic at its point of reference, but only art [6]. In fact from the Greek word aisthetikos (sensuous) we know that aesthetics designate perception and sensation of all sensuous objects, and not just that of works of art. So, the discipline of aesthetics should be understood in much wider sense, than it is considered to be in classical History of Art. Together with Welsh’s allusion [7] to Wittgenstein we could say: “And we cannot get outside the picture, for it lies in our discipline and this discipline seems to repeat it to us inexorably” [8].

The notion of ‘aura’ introduced by Walter Benjamin tries to tell us more or less the same. To experience an ‘aura’ of a work of art as “the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be” [9] means impossibility to get outside the picture. Such phenomenological captureness occurs in recipient’s mind (or most likely soul) due exalted context of the ‘artistics’ perception. As Benjamin stated it: “The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition” [10]. The inability to reproduce the picture creates this distance, which comes from unrealized desire to possess the object of cult. Such status was behind a work of art for centuries. It was cult and only social reaction on the cult stimulated people to perceive art in such a ritual way. To possess art and to be inside the art sphere, to reproduce oneself on the portrait meant to have a special status in order to take once own place within the history.

Initially aesthetics implied perception as it is, and not only that of a work of art. Walter Benjamin singles out two modes of its perception: concentrative and distractive. «Distraction and concentration form polar opposites which may be stated as follows: A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it. He enters into this work of art the way legend tells of the Chinese painter when he viewed his finished painting. In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art. This is most obvious with regard to buildings. Architecture has always represented the prototype of a work of art the reception of which is consummated by a collectivity in a state of distraction. The laws of its reception are most instructive» [11].

Architecture as one of the oldest ‘fallows’ of a man has always been habitual object, standing on the very background of everyday life. Dwelling is fully connected with being as such. Usually we don’t even mention that we ‘are’, being fully absorbed by a common daily routine. That’s That is why architecture is perceived as some kind of an unapparent tactile sensing. We really perceive it in the state of distraction, while concentration stays with tradition and cult, or at the rare moments of tourists’ gazes impressed by foreign culture.

There are of course a little bit more progressive users of urban spaces: they are flâneurs. Their main goal is as blind as the ‘reading’ of the city-walkers described by Michel de Certeau [12]. The Distracted drifting of a man lost in the cold ocean of an alien city, whose aim is perception, synchronizes oneself with the spacious space of new architecture of modernity, i.e. with the field of one’s perception. The Modernist space does not give anything, which one could concentrate on longer than the passing moment of a step. International style liberates the space, provides it with the clearness of the straight line, checked perfection of the proportions and scrupulosity of the planning, i.e. it does not give anything which one could easily grasp. The same does the flâneur. One gives nothing to perceived space: zero of emotional response to the ‘zero-like’ space. The flâneur’s attention is focused on the content of space, which is perceived in a remote manner and that is why in isolation from deep absorption of total experience. Similar to space, which bonds things, one surrounds them by a passing perception and tries to embrace the vast quantity of observable images. The Qualities of a flâneur’s perception are very close to the qualities of space – to keep and to contain. Thus, distraction muffles up perceived objects and synchronizes flâneur not only with field, but also with the mode of his/her perception.

Explication of the model

Thus, the aesthetically discharged space started to correspond to aesthetically discharged perception; i.e. classical ‘sublime’ concentrative aesthetical perception was not applicable anymore while at the same time architecture was freed from any aesthetical particles in its functional and technological development. Globalization of aesthetic sphere demolished the borders between art in its classical understanding and aesthetical in daily things, earlier not considered as art (and aesthetic) at all. Before the total spread of aesthetically attracted objects, in some degree appeared a huge gap, which in its order liberated spacious space in its modernist aesthetically discharged state. As one could suggest, discharged space, as an empty vacuum has to freely fill up with particles in correspondence to degree of a globalization of aesthetics. This feature ‘to fill up’ could be prescribed to postmodernist architecture, where forms gain a lot more expressive and varied motives. Thus space liberates itself from single function and clearness of uniformity and tends to be manifold and be able to communicate in accordance with varied quantity of new meanings. Probably the best name to express such qualities is spacey space. The foundations of this notion come from the already mentioned globalization of aesthetic sphere. But in the research performed I explained this term in accordance with transformation of dwelling practices, its origins and ontology, articulated in the essay of Martin Heidegger ‘Being, dwelling, thinking’. On the level of particular architectural forms this process manifests itself as arise of neo-vernacular, adhocism and contextualism, which I analyzed on particular examples of architecture and on the basis of the Charles Jencks’ work ‘Language of Postmodern Architecture’.

Thus, I came to the following conclusion: space develops its overall forms fitting them to the urban context, and according to participative design develops the visual shapes due partial reviving of the traditions and natural forms. In other words, the global aestheticization ‘overfills’ gradual saturation of spacious space in its transition to the postmodern spacey space. The deconstruction of smooth and clear surfaces of the modernist space takes place, which emphasizes its strict ‘three-dimensional’ structure. Spacey space develops and complicates the form, stylizing it to the particular urban contexts and architectural structures. The Appearance of new functions, which never stands before architecture, individualizes built space and makes it to quote other forms, stimulates space to be textual in order to make recipient to ‘read’ appearing eclectics of mixed forms in the mode of communicative mediation.

In this respect in order to continue the discoveries of aesthetic origins of the postmodern built space I examined formal appearance of deconstructivism, radical eclecticism [13] and new architecture of communicative orientation in connection with the new paradigm of architecture introduced by Charles Jencks. In order to give an analytical perspective to this frame I analyzed the structuralistic approach of gaining the knowledge, suitable for communicative architecture, and on the other hand opposed to the structuralistic view the deconstructive approach to architecture developed by Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman.

Resume

Therefore, in concluding part of the research the whole model was displayed. Social, aesthetic and a few ontological origins in connection to spacious and spacey modern and postmodern built spaces were discovered. In spite of the already displayed corpus of texts, different analytical sources and methodology, it is to some degree impossible to give the whole range of discovered architectural, social and philosophical works (especially in connection with postmodernity). That’s why this summary may seem to be incomplete. However, I consider it useful for those who are interested in raised problematic and ready to ask critical questions.

References:

[1] Mark Gelernter. Sources of architectural form: critical history of Western design theory: Manchester University Press, 1995. – pp. 233-234

[2] Charles Jencks. The new paradigm in architecture, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2002 – p. 12

[3] Le Corbusier ([1923] 1987) Towards a New Architecture (Vers une architecture) translated by F, Etchells, London: The Architectural Press – p. 32

[4] Sullivan, Louis H. The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott's Magazine, March 1896

[5] Henri Lefebvre. The production of space, Blackwell, Oxford 1999 – p. 285

[6] Welsch, W. (2003). Aesthetics beyond aesthetics. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education. Vol. 2, #2 (December 2003). – p. 2. http://mas.siue.edu/ACT/v2/Welsch03A.pdf

[7] Welsch, W. (2003). Aesthetics beyond aesthetics. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education.

Vol. 2, #2 (December 2003). – p.4. http://mas.siue.edu/ACT/v2/Welsch03A.pdf

[8] Wittgenstein said: "A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably" (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe, New York: Macmillan 1968, p. 48e

[9] Benjamin, Walter ([1936] 1973) ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, 219-54 in Illuminations, edited and with the introduction of Hannah Arendt, translated by Harry Zohn, London: Fontana/Collins. – 2nd passage

[10] Benjamin, Walter ([1936] 1973) ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, 219-54 in Illuminations, edited and with the introduction of Hannah Arendt, translated by Harry Zohn, London: Fontana/Collins. – 4th passage

[11] Benjamin, Walter ([1936] 1973) ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, 219-54 in Illuminations, edited and with the introduction of Hannah Arendt, translated by Harry Zohn, London: Fontana/Collins. – 5th passage

[12] Certeau, Michel de. The practice of everyday life. University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1984, p. 93

[13] Charles Jencks. The new paradigm in architecture, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2002