WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, KENNETH?

  • Retrospecta, the Yale School
    of Architecture's annual review
    of its student design, published
    in its 2003/04 issue an exchange
    that took place that year between Columbia architectural historian Kenneth Frampton and architect/
    theorist Demetri Porphyrios.
    Both had been guests of Yale — Porphyrious as a visiting professor, Frampton as a guest juror of the
    work of Porphyrios's students. In
    this excerpt from a conversation
    that developed in the course of a student jury, Frampton was talking about architecture. He might as well have been talking about the culture
    in general:

    Kenneth Frampton There is an aphorism by Adolf Loos that goes as follows: “There's no point in inventing anything unless it's an improvement.” It’s an ironic remark, but also a challenge to this moment in time, where everyone seems to be losing it.

    Commerce will tell you that this is ridiculous from the point of view
    of architecture. Now you can say,
    "Well I don't give a damn about
    commerce, this is an artistic work!"
    But Architecture is not...Fine Art in that sense. [Architecture] is a modus, which has to deal with certain kinds
    of reality. Its poetic comes through
    its transformation of reality....

    The question is, What are the limits in which this transformation can take place? You have to talk to society in some way — in a way in which you can appeal to some kind of evident values. It can be money values, but also can, at the same time, can it be other values?

    Otherwise it's like a conversation between the deaf and the dumb! There's no reason why we're to do anything! I could tell you to cut six more slots into this thing, and it wouldn't make a difference. It's a negative critique of the project, but
    it's also a critique of the whole
    goddamn situation.

    You have to have a principle; otherwise you cannot communicate anything to anybody. Why should I invest my money in this, as opposed to some other project? You have to have a reason! Otherwise the architects don't even talk to the society! Don't you see that predicament?

    These computer renderings produce aesthetic affects very well, seamless, very seductive, but they are not about anything. They are delusions! They are mirages! I'm sorry, it's very aggressive to say this, but aren't we going to start talking? It's just ridiculous to say,
    "OK — individual interpretations," so
    on and so forth. One has to talk about something fundamental; otherwise we're never going to talk about anything anymore!

    Demitri Porphyrios I'm not sure what you're talking about.

    KF I'm talking about the fact that there is a total degeneration in the capacity to discuss anything.

    DP Do you want some coffee?

    KF No, I don't. Sorry, I don't...

    DP Look, look, look. This is a disgusting situation. It's not right
    to get upset.

    KF It's something to get upset about! We always have polite discussions; we have to sometimes get upset, because otherwise we just don't talk about the things that matter.

IN ROTATION

  • Antony and the Johnsons
    I Am a Bird Now
  • Phil Kline
    Zippo Songs
  • Louis Philippe
    Azure
  • Ron Sexsmith
    Retriever

NOW POURING

  • Torrontes
    Plata, 2005

EAT THIS CHOCOLATE

06 March 2007

Box Is a Box Is a Box

Magritte_1
"The Treachery of Images" (1928-29), Rene Magritte

Is Philip Nobel, the "resident curmudgeon" of Metropolis magazine, going soft already? Probably too soon to tell, but historians of such things —€” do such people even exist
yet? —€” may well look back on this moment and say that this was when Philip Nobel started to lose it. Asked why, they will say that it was one part Nobel, one part never-ending crisis of Modernism, one part New York Times Building and, oh, 10 parts New York.

I'll get back to this momentarily, but we needn't wait for the verdict on Philip Nobel to know that, despite "getting one in" occasionally, large-scale Modernist architecture has spent most of the last 40 years on the ropes. Among the first to put it there were architect-scholars Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour, with their pithy and generously illustrated 1972 study Learning from Las Vegas. Whether or not you've already read Las Vegas, you should read it now to see how right —€” and how much more wrong —€” the authors turned out to be.

What Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour mostly saw when they surveyed the Modernist built landscape of the late 1960s was "heroic and original" architecture that was irrelevant, they said, because it did not speak with explicit symbols
that most people could understand.

As Experts with Ideals...[Modern architects] build for Man rather than for people —€” this means, to suit themselves, that is, to suit their own particular middle-class values, which they assign to everyone...Developers build for markets rather than for Man and probably do less harm than authoritarian architects would do if they had the developers' power.

One does not have to agree with hard-hat politics to support the rights of the middle-
middle class to their own architectural aesthetics, and we have found that Levittown-
type aesthetics are shared by most members
of the middle-middle class, b