POCHÉ: January 2016

Turning Angelus Novus Around

Angelus Novus, Paul Klee, 1920

Israel Museum, Jerusalem

The concept of the avant-garde relies on the structuralist premise that in order for something to be cutting-edge, it must be engaged in an oppositional relationship that pits the present condition against that of the past. What is ironic about this dialectic is that the avant-garde, the antithesis, is defined by its proximity, however near or far, to the thesis that is the status quo. The avant-garde’s narrative is indebted to the mantra of historical materialism in that it operates on what Walter Benjamin described as a myth.[1] The belief of historical materialism’s infallibility helps to propel the myth that not only is there “Truth” in the system but that it will always beget “new” things. However in hindsight, those who have engaged with Benjamin’s critique know that Karl Marx’s theory of history is too formulaic and that in all actuality, it does not produce anything new, but rather just permits the past to fester. Therefore, if one is to strive to become truly avant-garde in the sense that he or she is producing work that is unique and unprecedented, he or she must be willing to divorce themselves from the bounds and onus of history. Such an act is akin to turning Angelus Novus, Paul Klee’s painting that Benjamin uses in his eloquent description of how the present condition is not a result of perfect acts of history but rather a cataclysmic accumulation of multiple events,[2] and turning him around, allowing him to take control of his own destiny. It is an act of becoming born again. In doing so, the protagonist is able to work in a situation that is free of the restraints of history and produce in an environment that sincerely encourages new and unparalleled work.

As a discipline, architecture champions historical referentiality. These references may avail themselves in the aesthetic sense where forms draw upon semantic structures that hope to elicit nostalgia (Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown are prime examples of this), whereas others are discoursing in syntactic discussions about formal relationships (Peter Eisenman and Greg Lynn come to mind). While these two branches of linguistically influenced architecture are opposed to one another, they both claim their legitimacy in engagements with the past. In Robert Somol’s essay, “Still Crazy After All These Years,”[3] he speaks of a damning dialectical system between teacher and student (particularly the responses of the students of Colin Rowe and Robert Venturi) and how, respectively, the thesis and antithesis constituents debate back and forth with one another. However, the antithetical partners here derive the core of their arguments from their dialectical opponents, and can only produce the synthesis, which contains trace amounts of both actors. However, what if the antithesis refuses to engage with the thesis? What sort of situation is the outcome?

Currently in discussions regarding contemporary art, there is debate over what sort of obedience artists should concede to the past. For a group of artists and theorists that has become active in the past ten years,[4] they have thrown referentiality and syntax into tumult. No longer does an object have to be read in relation to what was made before it. No longer does an artist need to be under the shadow of previous characters. Architecture can learn from this. If architecture were to disengage from the mantra of dialectical materialism – in other words, not take on the role of the antithesis – the discipline can become truly unique and produce new works and ideas. This should not be mistaken as being avant-garde as this new era operates in its own history. Semantic and syntactical relationships are cast aside as the parts that make the whole are no longer necessary to the discussion. Rather, architecture in this new history operates on systems that draw upon what can make it thrive all the while not being burdened by the collecting detritus of architecture’s past histories. In doing this, architecture is turning Angelus Novus around. He is now facing forward, able to take control of his own destiny. He can now do as he pleases.

[1] cf. Walter Benjamin’s “Theses on the Philosophy of History” in Illuminations, ed. by Hannah Arendt

[2] Walter Benjamin. "Theses on the Philosophy of History." In Illuminations, edited by Hannah Arendt, (New York: Schocken, 1969), 257-258.

[3] Robert Somol, “Still Crazy After All These Years,” In Assemblage, No. 41, (April 2000), 79-92.

[4] cf. the artist Matthew Day Jackson and his 2010 series In Search Of (Peter Blum Gallery), and the theorist Alexander Dumbadze and his 2007 lecture “Fuck It: 24 Preliminary Notes on the Art World, Complicity, and Lost Causes” (delivered at Elizabeth Dee Gallery). Their questioning of the boundaries and implementation of art history into artistic production has yielded thought provoking debates regarding an author’s relationship to the past and how to invert that symbiosis.

No comments

, by Unknown

The Indexical Past Versus the Indexical Future

The rejection of grand historical narratives in Postmodernism was surely a heavy sigh of relief for those tired by the politics of Modernism. In response to the lofty beliefs held by many Modernists that modern Western man was heading towards a determined telos, the criticality of historical thinking in Postmodernism questioned and set astray this path. But what came out of Postmodernism’s critique, one that sought to democratize culture from the high/low paradigm of Modernism, at least visually speaking, was the byproduct of the assemblage of historical elements as both indexical and trace without regard to grand narratives, or as what Fredric Jameson would describe, pastiche.[1] It is this implementation and didactic authoring of pastiche that would derail Modernism’s end game of purity,[2] and with the hyper-referential architecture of Postmodernism, would help to gain notoriety and critics. In the halcyon days of the movement, the architecture of Michael Graves and Peter Eisenman, to name a few, relied on the combination of elements and their iterative developments to make the whole. Drawing upon Classical architecture in an odd dance with Modernism’s formalism, these trace elements, elements that owe their presence to their genealogy, cue readers of the building into new historical conceptions of the built environment. In terms of the trace, this means that a viewer can see how the building’s logic evolved within a defined logic system. Invoking a Peircian line of thinking in regards to the Index,[3] where the imprint of an object is a lasting record of its existence (which in turn asks the reader of said object to evaluate their own relationship to the indexed[4]), these assemblages use Pragmatism’s semiotics as their modus operandi. In the early response to Modernity, this critique of how users could understand a building helped to blur the high/low paradigm that had come to define that epoch, but as we presumably transition into a new period, where new forms of technology and thinking give people the ability to be much more proactive, could there be an index that is anticipatory?

The belief that Peirce’s Pragmatism does not have to be a reactionary idea has been floating around for some time now. In his essay, “Trace Elements” from 2001, Stan Allen, critiques the self-referential indexing that Peter Eisenman employs in his design methodology, where the form of the building evolves out of an internal formal dialogue that engages, albeit briefly, with one or two architectural precedents. Hoping for a way forward for architecture from this schizophrenia and instead looking beyond the boundaries of the studio, Allen writes,

"If process is still important in architecture today, why not understand process as the

unfolding life of the building and its site over time? The arrow of time in this case

moves forward, not backward. Its origin is the moment when design is complete, the

building is occupied, and the architect no longer in control… It is a process that

unfolds in a complex interaction with the messy and unpredictable forces of life itself.

Less narrative, less history; more atmosphere, more effect."[5]

This advocacy for looking forward instead of backwards helps to mark a definitive break with Postmodernism’s historical rubbernecking. What Allen is describing is what K. Michael Hays posits as the “symptomatic.”[6] It is an architecture that not unlike Postmodernism seeks to engage directly with its viewers, but unlike Postmodernism, aims to not use historical references as its basis, but rather anticipates the uses the public will invent for the work as its fodder. The symptomatic is not an aura, but it is an enveloping environmental experience that can only function when a user is there to validate its actions. Exemplifying this new architecture is the work of the Chicago-based architect, Kyle Reynolds. His Symptomatic series from 2011-2012 looks at how indexical elements can arise if the architect creates the basic framework. Balloon Blanket (fig.1.) shows a general populace acting upon the existing architecture of downtown Cincinnati. This ephemeral work operates on the symbiotic relationship of the index and trace. First, the people who gather on this site respond to the existing conditions of the parking lot (a barren parcel that sits between two major league sport stadiums, a major Interstate, and the Ohio River) that influence how they arrange themselves, which in turn is a form of indexing said conditions. Secondly, the balloons perform as a form of trace of the whole event itself, lending a formal identity to the actions performed. This idea that the architect can only do so much in the role of the architect stands in opposition to the Postmodern conception of the architect, who is heavy-handed and didactic in the design. A work like this succeeds in creating an architecture that actively engages and participates with a given site’s conditions because of the involvement of a populace, which not only validates its presence, but also helps to integrate it into the larger cultural fabric.

If the discipline of architecture is to continue exploring the potentials of a symptomatic or a projective index, there will be a myriad of new synapses that designers can create with disparate elements that traditionally existed outside of the field. This is not to say that architecture is waving a flag of surrender as it yields a portion of its authorship. Rather, architecture wants to engage in a spirited game with the larger populace in creating new outcomes. We have to cast to the wayside the notion of the architect as genius. In its place, the architect must become an actor who engages, challenges, teases, and responds to culture. Setting the ground for an index that invites people to make new traces is one way to go about this.

fig. 1 Balloon Blanket, Kyle Reynolds 2012 http://www.is-office.us/symptomatic

[1] Fredric Jameson, "Postmodernism and Consumer Society," The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture (1983): 111-25.

[2] cf. Clement Greenberg’s “Modernist Painting” for a further explanation on the teleotic aspirations of painting in the 1950s. Greenberg’s assertions that painting’s purity can achieve an ultimate level parallels well with Modern architecture’s goals of creating a social responsible yet visually pleasing built environment. In Modernism with a Vengeance 1957-1969, Volume 4, ed. John O'Brian (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 5-10 [3] cf. Charles Sanders Peirce’s “Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs” in the Philosophy of Peirce, ed. Justus Buchler, (New York: Dover Publications, 1955), 98-119.

[4] However, while Peirce goes into detail explaining the differences between trace, index, sign, symbol, and other elements of semiotics, he closes his “Logic as Semiotic” essay with the disclaimer that “But it is seldom requisite to be very accurate; for if one does not locate the sign precisely, one will easily come near enough to its character for any ordinary purpose of logic” (119).

[5] Stan Allen, "Trace Elements," In Tracing Eisenman, edited by Cynthia C. Davidson, (London: Thames & Hudson, 2006), 64
[6] cf. K. Michael Hays’s lecture delivered October 22, 2012 at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

No comments

, by Poche Team

Pages

Turning Angelus Novus Around

The Indexical Past Versus the Indexical Future

About Us

Labels

Blog Archive

Popular Posts

Like us on Facebook