Yale University, School of Architecture

Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form

Author(s): K. Michael Hays
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Perspecta, Vol. 21 (1984), pp. 14-29
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567078 .
Accessed: 30/01/2013 04:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Yale University, School of Architecture and The MIT Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Perspecta.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 K. MichaelHays

CriticalArchitecture

BetweenCultureand Form

That architecture, as activityand

knowledge,is fundamentally a
culturalenterprise mayhardlyseema
contentiousproposition.And yet
questionsconcerningtheprecisenature
of the reciprocalinfluences between
cultureand architectural formbring
opposingtheoriesofarchitecture and its
interpretationintoforceful play.'

In thisessayI shall examinea critical

architecture,one resistant to theself-
confirming, conciliatory operationsofa
dominantcultureand yetirreducible to
a purelyformalstructure disengaged
fromthecontingencies ofplace and
time. A reinterpretation ofa few
projectsby Mies van derRohe will
provideexamplesofa criticalarchitecture
thatclaimsforitselfa place between the
efficient of
representation preexisting
culturalvaluesand thewhollydetached
autonomyofan abstractformalsystem.
The propositionofa criticalrealm
betweencultureand formis notso
muchan extensionofreceivedviews
as it is a challenge
of interpretation
to thoseviewsthatclaim to exhaust
architecturalmeaningin considerations
ofonlyone side or theother.It will be
helpful,therefore,to beginwitha brief
reviewof two prevalentinterpretive
perspectivesthatmakejustsucha claim.
Mies van der Rohe
Friedrichstrasse
project
charcoaldrawing
1919

15

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "- ii
/

I i
It,.

i; ? ?

!1
S p i

I,

? i
'i
. "

aS

?
i fi i
1
! .
to , , -

."
i
iil

'4

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 as an
Architecture Architecture
as
instrument
ofculture form
autonomous
The firstpositionemphasizesculture The temporalconventionof The oppositepositionbeginswiththe
as the cause and contentof built interpretation is, on this view, assumptionthattheonlyalternative to a
form;the taskof theinterpreter, then, retrospective. Architecture is seen as strict,factual recovery of theoriginating
becomesthestudyofobjectsand alreadycompleted;thecriticor historian situationis the renunciation ofa single
environments as signs,symptoms, attemptsto restorean architectural ?truth,>>and advocatesa proliferation of
and instruments of culturalvalues. object to its originalmeaning. interpretations based solelyon form.
On thisview architecture is essentially Misunderstanding is presumedto arise Interpretations made fromthissecond
an epiphenomenon, dependenton naturallybecauseof thechangesin positionare characterized by the
socioeconomic,political,and architecture, language,and worldview comparativeabsenceofhistorical
technologicalprocessesforits various thathave takenplace in thetime concernsin favorofattentionto the
statesand transformations. Moreover, separatingthearchitectural objectfrom autonomousarchitectural objectand its
as a functionalsupportforhuman the interpreter; themeaningmust formaloperations-howits partshave
institutions and as a reificationofa therefore be recoveredbya disciplined been put together,how it is a wholly
collectivevolition,architecture ennobles reconstruction of theculturalsituation integratedand equilibratedsystemthat
the culturethatproducesit; architecture in whichtheobjectoriginated.Starting can be understoodwithoutexternal
reconfirms the hegemonyofcultureand fromthedocuments,recordedactions, references, and as important, how it
helps to assureits continuity. and artifacts whichare thebase material maybe reused,how its constituent parts
Accordingly,theoptimumrelationship of thehistoricalworld,understanding is and processesmaybe recombined.
to be establishedbetweencultureand seen as essentiallya self-transposition or
formis one ofcorrespondence, thelatter imaginativeprojectionbackwardin The temporalconventionof
efficientlyrepresenting thevaluesof time. When thishistoricalmethodis of interpretation hereis thatofan ideal
the former. sufficientfidelity, an <<objectiveand momentin a purelyconceptualspace;
true,,explanationof theobjectin architectural operationsare imaginedto
question results. It is supposed that be spontaneous, internalized-that is,
the onlyalternative to thestrict outsidecircumstantial reality-and
methodologicalrecovery of thecultural assimilableas pure idea. Architectural
situationat the timeof theobject's formis understoodto be producedin a
origin is the denial of any historical particulartimeand place, ofcourse,but
and
objectivity capitulation to the idea theoriginof theobjectis notallowedto
thatall schemesof interpretation are constrainits meaning.The intentis
hopelesslysubjective.2 preciselyto dismissanyoftheworldly,
circumstantial, or sociallycontaminated
contentofhistory,becausesuchsubject
matterwould necessarily impingeupon
the intellectuallibertyofcriticismand
the availabilityof theformalstrategies
forreuse.Architectural formcan be
readand interpreted, ofcourse,yet
misreadingsand misunderstandings are
understoodto occurroutinely, and with
benefit.In anycase, thereis a conscious
avoidanceof anyhistoricalor material
factotherthanthoseofa dislodged
formalsystem.The wayin whicha
buildingas a culturalobjectin time
is possessed,rejected,or achievedis
not addressed.3

K. Michael Hays

i6

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The worldliness
ofarchitecture
Such an approachhas not been Moreover,thisformalist positionrisks The two positionssketchedabove are
entirelyunhealthyforarchitectural collapsingintoan interpretive scientism symptomatic ofa pervasivedichotomy
interpretation. It has done awaywith not unliketheone it seeksto criticize. in architectural theoryand criticism.
testimonialsrhetorically proclaiminga If attemptsto recover<<historyas it One side describesartifacts as
work'sgreatnessand humanisticworth reallyhappened,,displaya quiteovert instruments of the self-justifying,
self-
on thebasisofitsaccuraterepresentation emulationof the positivistmethodology of
perpetuatinghegemony culture;the
of thedominantculture.It has of the naturalsciences,theformalist otherside treatsarchitectural objectsin
a
developed specializedvocabulary attitude too oftenfallsunwittingly into theirmostdisinfected, pristinestate,as
enabling critics to talk seriously, its own scientism as formal categories containersofa privilegedprincipleof
technically,and preciselyabout the becomemorerigidlydefinedand internalcoherence.An alternative
architectural objectas distinctfrom entrenched.When priority is ascribedto interpretivepositionwhichcutsacross
otherkindsof objects. Furthermore, formalcategoriesand operationsthat thisdichotomywould bearnotonlya
so long as we construearchitecture claim to be freeofhistoryand morerobustdescriptionof theartifacts,
as essentiallydependenton or circumstance, interpretive analysisrisks but also the moreintricateanalysis
of
representative somethingelse, we simplyreaffirming what its formal demandedby artifacts situatedexplicitly
cannotsee whatit does itself;so long as categoriespredict.The supposed and criticallyin theworld-inculture,in
we expectto understand architecture in universalityofanyone kindofformal theoriesofculture,in theoriesof
termsof someanteriorprocess,we analysis obscures thefactthatcritical interpretation itself.
cannotsee an architecture thatis, methodsare formedthrough
paradoxically,boththeend of examinationofa necessarily limitedset A discussionofa fewprojectsby Mies
representation and the beginning of of exemplars, and that these paradigms van der Rohe will drawattentionto the
somethingquite its own. emanatefroma specificculture-they do factthatan architectural object,by
not come to us untainted.It also virtueof its situationin theworld,is an
Nevertheless,theabsoluteautonomy obscuresthefactthatthemethodsof object whoseinterpretation hasalready
of formand its superiority over studyof theseobjectsare themselves commenced but is nevercomplete. Historical
historicaland materialcontingencies is partofa largercomplexensembleof and
contingency circumstantiality, as
not
proclaimed, by virtue of its power relationships, are contaminated by their well as theartifact'spersistingsensuous
in theworld,but byvirtueofits own worldliness,and are legitimizedby particularity, mustall be consideredas
admittedpowerlessness. Reducedto some otherculturalauthority. A perhaps incorporated in thearchitectural object;
pureform, architecture has disarmed unforeseen consequence of this they saturate theveryessenceof the
itselffromthestart,maintainingits idealizationofobjectand methodis that work. Each architectural objectplaces
purityby accedingto socialand political architecture is deniedits specialstatus itselfin a specificsituationin theworld,
inefficacy. as a culturalobjectwitha causation, so to speak, and its mannerofdoing
presence,and durationofits own. thisconstrainswhatcan be donewithit
in interpretation. The particularworks
by Mies to be examinedare thoseI
would describeas critical.Theymight
also be called resistant
and oppositional.
This is an architecture thatcannot
be reducedeitherto a conciliatory
representation ofexternalforcesor to a
dogmatic,reproducible formalsystem.
If a criticalarchitecture is to be worldly
and self-aware simultaneously, its
definitionis in its difference fromother
culturalmanifestations and froma priori
categoriesor methods.

K. Michael Hays
'7

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The criticalarchitecture
ofMies vanderRohe
Among the principalproblemsthe
intellectualfacedin the firsthalfof
the twentiethcenturywas theacute
anxietythatderivedfromthechaotic
metropolitan experience.In theessay
<<TheMetropolisand MentalLife,>>
the sociologistand philosopherGeorg
Simmeldescribedthisconditionas <the
intensification of nervousstimulation,,
resultingfromthe <the rapidcrowding
of changingimages,the sharp
discontinuity in thegraspof a single
glance, and the unexpectedness of
onrushingimpressions.These are the
psychologicalconditionswhichthe
metropoliscreates.,, The typical
consequenceof this nervenleben,
accordingto Simmel,is a blase
attitude-a bluntingof discrimination,
an indifference to value, a languid
collectivity.<<Inthisphenomenonthe
nervesfindin the refusalto reactto
theirstimulationthe last possibilityof
accommodatingto the contentsand
formsof metropolitanlife. The self-
preservation of certainpersonalitiesis
bought at the priceof devaluatingthe
wholeobjectiveworld,a devaluation
whichin the end unavoidablydrags
one's own personalitydown intoa
feelingof the same worthlessness.,>>
K. Michael Hays
18
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM
r .J-..
"
Kurt Schwitters
~l~tfi) ;i
view of the Mertzbau
Hanover
1920- 1936 r??
"'^
?t
~.~:'c
I
The problemforthe intellectual,then,
was how to oppose thisdebilitating L?
dismay,but firsthow to revealit-how
to providea cognitivemechanismwith
whichto registerthe intensechanges
continuallyexperiencedin themodern
city.Many of thecentury'searlyartistic
experiments, fromthe woodcutsof
EdvardMunch to the novelsof
FranzKafka,maybe seenas attemptsto
Edvard Munch
articulatethe abject despairof the
-The Scream,,
individualcaughtby impersonal
1895
and incomprehensible forces.The
reklamearchitektur(advertising
architecture)of Eric Mendelsohnand the
factoriesof Hans Poelzig made manifest,
as ifto pin down and contemplate,the
dynamism,the contradictions, and
the disjuncturesin the processesand
reasoningof commerceand industry.On
the otherhand Dada's ferociousnihilism .-
1..
...
was an explicitattemptto demonstrate
the futilityof conventionalmodesof
reasoningin thefaceof thechaoticcity.
As JeanArp put it, <<Dada wishedto
destroythe hoaxesof reasonand to
discoveran unreasonedorder.>>5And
Mondriannamedthe cityitselfas the
ultimateformtowardwhichde Stijl
tended. <<ThegenuinelyModernartist
sees the metropolisas Abstractliving
convertedinto form;it is nearerto
him thannature.>>6 It is againstthis
metropolitanpredicamentthatthe early
workofMies vanderRoheshouldbe seen.
Eric Mendelsohn
Schocken
E?e
Department Store
Stuttgart
1926-29
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JiS
Ifl ,
Georg Grosz

,Friedrichstrasse>
lithograph
1918
"~ L-~ f
;f\
`r,
i.1
`;k
9 i! c
A~

91 ~?'i
r I

tz~

The ratherstartlingimage of the 1922 i/

r ..,

skyscraper project,publishedin the

secondissue of G, comprisestwo
architectural
ofexperiments
propositions.One, a result
alreadybegun in Mies's
\~3~i)~i
Friedrichstrasse project,is a building
surfacequalifiedno longerby patternsof
shadowon an opaque materialbut by Mies van der Rohe
the reflections and refractions of lightby Friedrichstrasse
glass. The other,a radicaldeparture project, charcoal
fromeven the earlierskyscraper studies, drawing
is a buildingformconceivednot in
1919
termsof separate,articulatedmasses
relatedto one anotherbya geometrically
derivedcore, but as a complexunitary
volumethatdoes not permititselfto
be read in termsof an internalformal
logic. With thesetwo related
propositionsMies confronted the
of
problem physically and conceptually
relatingthe architectural object to the
city.The glass curtainwall-alternately
transparent, reflective,or refractive
dependingon lightconditionsand
viewingpositions-absorbs,mirrors,or
distortsthe immediateimagesofcity
life. The convex,facetedsurfacesare
perceptuallycontortedby the invasion
of circumstantial images,while the
reflection each concavityreceiveson
its surfaceis thatof its own shadow,
creatinggaps whichexacerbatethe
disarray.

K. Michael Hays

19

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mies van der Rohe Mies van der Rohe Thesesurface distortionsaccompany
Skyscraperprojectplan Skyscraperproject andaccentuate theformal inscrutability
1922 model ofthevolumetric configuration. In
1922 derivedform,theviewercan
classically
graspan antecedent logicoftheobject,
4[,.? deciphering therelationships between
'f' "ltl itspartsandconnecting everyparttoa
coherent formal theme;thealternative
r
1 .1
positedbyMiesis an objectintractable
li to decodingbyformal analysis.It is
impossible, example,to reducethe
for
(I-I
wholeto a number ofconstituent parts
relatedbysomeinternal armature or
transformed through some formal
operation;indeed,nosuchcompositional
relationshipsexist.Neitheris it possible
to explicatetheobjectas a deflection
fromsometype;Mieshasrejected the
meanings thatsuch classical
design
methods tendto promote.Insteadhe
hasinvested meaningin thesenseof
surfaceandvolumethatthebuilding
assumesin a particular timeandplace,
4f, in a contextuallyqualifiedmoment.
:1:1M
Miesinsiststhatan orderis immanent
itselfandthattheorderis
in thesurface
continuouswithanddependent upon
theworldin whichthevieweractually
moves.Thissenseofsurface and
volume,severed fromtheknowledge
orderora unifying
ofan internal logic,
is enoughto wrench thebuilding
fromtheatemporal, idealizedrealm
ofautonomous formandinstallit ina
in therealworld
situation
specific
ofexperiencedtime,opento the
chanceanduncertainty oflifein the
MieshereshareswithDada
metropolis.'
an antagonismagainsta prioriand
reasonedorder;he intothe
chaosofthenewcity andseeksanother
plunges,
orderwithinit through a systematic
useoftheunexpected, thealeatory, the
inexplicable."

This solicitationofexperienceis
intrinsicto the meaningofthework;it
servesto identifyand individuatethe
workitselfas an eventhavingsensuous
particularityand temporalduration,
bothof whichare infrangible to its
for
capacity producing and conveying
meaning.Nevertheless,Mies's
skyscraper projectis not conciliatory to
thecircumstances of its context.It is a
criticalinterpretationof its worldly
situation.

Mies van der Rohe

Skyscraper
project
charcoaldrawing
1922

K. MichaelHays
20

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In the skyscraperproject of I922 Mies Mies van der Rohe
StuttgartBank project
approacheda radicallynew conception
of reciprocitybetweenthe corporeality collage
1928
object and the
of the architectural
imagesof culturethatsurroundit;
by 1928-in projects like the Adam
in ! SC~ i. 1& Z
buildingon the Leipzigerstrasse
Berlin,the bank in Stuttgart,and the
competitionforthe Alexanderplatz in

I4,,
Berlin-he seems to have diverted his
efforts.These projectsabstainfrom
any dialogue with the physical
-u

particularitiesof theircontexts;as
peremptorily demonstrated in the
the
drawings, glass-walled blocks could
be reproducedon anysite withno
significant manipulationof theirform.
Though each buildingunit has been
adapted to the shape and size of its own
..''' Mies van der Rohe
lot (forexample,the Alexanderplatz ..
;;;
Alexanderplatzproject
project),the relentlesssamenessof the
unitsand theirundifferentiated order 1928

tendto denythe possibilityofattaching

""
to the placementor
i
significance
of theforms.But the
Ii
arrangement
repudiation a prioriformallogic as
of 1;

theprimarylocus of meaningis i?

preciselywhat is at issue; it is this i':

repudiationthatlinksthe projectsof
i
*?
1928 to the research of I922. Meaning
:I
t'

is made a functionof impersonal ~~,,,...,?r:?

productivesystemsratherthanof formal -?9

devices.
operationsor of representational

MiesvanderRohe
Alexanderplatz
project
collage
1928

6 0

-
,S ... ..,..-:

-
46'LT -

rs r%
4p if 1A--
Y~~~'?~~?~I*;
. ..

:-?
JiA4
"'

K. Michael Hays
21

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Both conceptionsofthearchitectural
object-as the efficient embodimentof
a dominantsystemofvalues,and as
the uncircumstanced existenceof
autonomousform-areseriously
challenged,ifnotdefeated,by theway
in whichthissilentclearingclaimsa
place in theworld.Firstthereis the
recognitionof thereciprocity between
the culturallyqualified,empirical
conditionsof buildingproductionand
thepracticeofarchitecture. Mies's
obduraterefusalto manipulatehis
Here we musttakeMies at his word. objectsto conformto anya prioriformal Our observations canbe verified
to
<<We refuse recognizeproblems of logic has the effect of repudiating against the masterwork ofMies's early
form,but onlyproblemsofbuilding. internal formal operations as a source career, the 1929 German Pavilionin
Formis not the aim ofour work, but of the objects'meaning.Second, Barcelona. With respect ouranalysis
to
onlythe result. Form by does
itself not though Mies succeeds in directing the thus far,this projectinitiallyappears
exist. Formas an aim is formalism; and architectural meaningto theoutside- polemicaland self-critical. The Pavilion
'
thatwe reject. As hypothesized by to what might be called cultural has been widelyregarded themost
as
Mies, modernbuildingproduction space-there is the insistence that immaculate transcription ofthemodern
requiresthateach buildingunitbe architecture does not <<honestly a
spatialconception: synthesis of
completein itselfyetidenticalto all the
represent technical,social, or Wright's horizontal planes and
others,disallowingeitherhierarchical economicconditionsthatproducedit. the abstractcompositionsof the
relationships amongunitsor Indeed, Mies's architecture concealsthe Suprematist-Elementarists; with
predetermined pointsoffocusor <<real?originsof its formation by honorific nods to the walls of Berlage
termination.Rejectingthespecifications displacingthemwitha material (<<letalone fromfloorto cornice?),the
of theAlexanderplatz competition,for substitute-anirreducibly architectural materialsof Loos, and thepodiumand
instance-whichfavoreda curved, object. It effectively cancelsthecomplex columnsofSchinkel;all processed
peripheralbuildingthatwould enclose networkofcollidingforcesin which throughthe spatialconceptionsof
and centralizethespace ofthe architecture originatesto presentus de Stijl. This seemsto claimforthe
preexistingtraffic circle-Mies'sobjects withthe silentfactofits existence. Paviliona rarefied spatialorderthat
are disposedin sucha waythatno <<Sincethe factshavethe floor,let anyone presentsitselfas an a priorimental
resolutecentercan be found.Acrossthe who has anythingto saycomeforward constructratherthana palpable
Platz or acrossthe intervalsofspace and keep his mouthshut,,,wrote worldlyobject.
betweenthe serialbuildingunits,each Karl Kraus.1oMies's silentarchitecture,
glass-walledblock confronts and followingKraus'sdictum,comes However,thisis preciselynottheorder
recognizesnothingbut its double. forwardto occupyits culturalspace ofMies: <<The idealisticprincipleof
Like two parallelmirrors, each infinitely actively;it displaceswhatwould have order. . . withits over-emphasis on the
repeats the other's emptiness. The space been in its place. Critical architecture ideal and formal, satisfies neither our
is duplicitous,but themotivationis pushesaside otherkindsofdiscourseor interestin simplerealitynorour
inescapable. Mies's achievement was to communication in order to place before practical commonsense. >>"
open up a clearingof implacablesilence the worlda culturallyinformed product,
in the chaosof thenervousmetropolis; partofwhoseself-definition includesthe The BarcelonaPavilionbeginswitha
thisclearingis a radicalcritique,not implicationof discontinuity and differencehorizontally extendedspace whichis
only of the established spatial order of from other cultural activities. described by the uninterrupted roof
thecityand the establishedlogic of slab, its relationto thecolumnsand
classicalcomposition,but also ofthe Distinguishingarchitecture fromthe walls, and the corresponding constancy
inhabiting nervenleben. It is the extreme forces that influence architecture-the of section and volume implied by the
depth of silence in this clearing-silence conditions established by the market floor plane. Space is, quite literally,
as an architectural formall its own- and by taste,thepersonalaspirations of continuousbetweenthe Pavilionand the
thatis the architectural meaningof its author,its technicalorigins,even plaza in frontof the Palace Alfonso
thisproject. its purposeas definedby its own XIII. The Pavilionmorespecifically
tradition-becametheobjectiveof engagesits site throughthe careful
Mies. To achievethis,he placed his contrastbetweenthelong travertine
architecture in a criticalposition walls, the roofslab, and theunbroken
betweencultureas a massivebody palace wall. All thissolicitstheviewer
of self-perpetuating ideas and form to walk throughthe building,but the
supposedly free of circumstance. limpid harmonyof theexterioris
confoundedin the experienceofthe
spatialsuccessionof the interior.

K. Michael Hays
22

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mies van der Rohe
GermanPavilion
in Barcelona
1929

MIR..--..

WAWAMUMEM .
?; ? ,o..
.,
, ..... r. * ....
' -mo-w-
?- . ..
9

GermanPavilion
in Barcelona
interior

?'

. . ..

GermanPavilion
in Barcelona
interior

?'-??
.. .ij
~3i'?: .',? ..... ... ,,,
......... ] .
.. . .. .. . ... .. - ,
..- .

. ..
..:
.. .::.; :i? .......
'
.i': ur,>;:
*'fi.....
. io !;ii'i:]
B: ,: ":; i ;?
i
?l*":: . ... ...
,:..... .. i: . :
..... ..... .
,.
.! 0,. ..,
': i i ;i N.! ..
::Y:... _':'
ib? , w
....1.. g
,. S i i~~. ...;J3 " ....
U
f".
.... ,*l ,.?4 ::; E". ;r.:(-~ , ,,,.,r.
:31 'A

:
",P'
/ .,. ..

..??

?
,r15~ ,,
..,

Jr?~
,~~~r? ? -
.
'

-?~~~. " :'

!,.j.

K. Michael Hays
23

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
There is no prescribedlogic ofpassage;
the compositionis neithera relational
hierarchy of componentpartsnora
seriesof identicalunitsrepeatedin a
potentiallyendlesschain. What is
presentedinsteadis an assemblageof .

differentpartsofdisparatematerials:
the travertinepavementand walls
surrounding largepool, themarble
the
walls facingthe court,tintedglass
diaphragms,the onyxslab and light
wall, the chromiumcolumnsand !
glazing bars. The relationshipsamong
thesepartsare in constantfluxas one
movesthroughthe building. Because
thereis no conceptualcenterto organize .. ..,.:
: ? .-.
.
. ..
.

thepartsor transcendour perceptionof ?

, :..I ? .' ..... ..
.:. jr it:
mm
them,the particularqualityofeach
. ... . ..,. . ..? .-.

materialis registeredas a kind of

absolute;space itselfbecomesa function Am
of the specificities
of the materials.
........
.. ......
... .......
t, . ..
,T7
..
The normalsystemof expectations
about materials,however,is quickly ?.~4; ~ --: ;;

shatteredas materialsbeginto contradict

theirown nature.Supportingcolumns
dissolvein an invasionof lighton their
surfaces;the highlypolishedgreen
Tinian marblereflects the highlightsof
the chromiumglazing barsand seemsto
K.To
becometransparent, as does the onyx
slab; thegreen-tinted glass, in turn, .
,
becomesan insuperablemirrored screen;
the pool in the small court-shielded 5m
fromthe wind and lined in black
glass-is a perfectmirror,in which
standsGeorgeKolbe's <<Dancer.> The " rn

fragmentation and distortionof the B

".~r~
.??ll~+ L

is total. It4 I
space Any transcendent orderof N. .,.,?"
i
space and time thatwould confer an ,'r
.i ,
.
i

overarchingunity onto thisassemblage

is systematically and utterlydispersed.
Mies has constructeda labyrinththat
deniesus access to the ideal moment
of organizationlyingbeyondthe
actual experienceof thismontageof
contradictory, perceptualfacts.The
workitselfis an eventwithtemporal
duration,whoseactual existenceis
continuallybeing produced.

K. Michael Hays
24

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ii
What shouldstrikeus forcibly, then,is
thatthe artifactis nothingless thana
winning ofreality.12Though it exists
to a considerableextentby virtueof its

0000"
own formalstructures, it cannotbe
apprehendedonlyformally.Nor does it
simplyrepresent a preexistingreality.
The architectural realitytakesits place
alongsidethe real world, explicitly
sharingtemporaland spatialconditions
of thatworld,but obstructingtheir
absoluteauthoritywithan alternative
of material,technical,and theoretical
precision.A participantin theworld
and yetdisjunctivewith it, the
BarcelonaPaviliontearsa cleftin the
mm,.. continuoussurfaceof reality.

ir

..,.I

?
?f

.X

'"

, .,ii
".

r* it t 66

to
if.. a d, e
-ij Mies van der Robe GeorgeKolbe
GermanPavilion <Dancer*
in Barcelona GermanPavilion
1929 in Barcelona
drawingof 1929
interior
b c
GermanPavilion
in Barcelona
interior

1)

K. Michael Hays
25

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Max Ernst
<<Tous les vendredis, les
Titans parcourrant nos
buanderies? from
La Femme 1 oo Tetes

i s

A briefanalogywill perhapsafford these

lli
fi
1.--..?
I 4j ?

points added In
clarity. 1929 Max Ernst
publishedhis pictorialnovel,La Femme
Ioo Thtes (The HundredHeadless
=a=__
Woman), a purelymetropolitan
inspirationcomprisinga seriesof
collagesmade fromscenesgatheredfrom
._.
--...
popularnineteenth-century illustrated
books and magazinesonto whichErnst
graftedobjectsor occupantsforeignto
them.What resultsin such collages
as <<Tous les vendredis,les Titans
parcourront nos buanderie> (Every
Friday,the Titans will invadeour
laundry)is a laconicdisplayof
two incommensurable experiences
interlockedacrossthesurfaceof the
work.Like Ernst,Mies was able to see
his constructions as theplace in which
the motivated,the planned,and the
rationalare broughttogetherwiththe
contingent,the unpredictable,and the
inexplicable.This visionpersistedeven
in Mies's laterworks.The campusof
IIT, forexample,can be construedas a
redistribution of some of thedesign
strategies of the Alexanderplatzproject
and the BarcelonaPavilion-a subtle
graftingof an alternativerealityonto
the chaos of Chicago'sSouthSide.

Irar

Irv? top
10 0
Mies van der Rohe
I to"
Illinois Institute of

.00e.: Technology (IIT)

1939

K. Michael Hays
26

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The contingentauthority of the
individualarchitectexistsat a
sensitivenodal point. The individual
consciousnessis a partofand is aware
of thecollectivehistoricaland social
situation.Because of thisawareness,the
individualis not a mereproductofthe
situationbut is an historicaland social
Authorship as Criticalarchitecture actorin it. Thereis choiceand,
therefore,the responsibilityofa critical
a resistant
authority criticism
andarchitectural architecture.

Fromthe skyscraper projectof 1922 One crucialissue remainsunclear: But what,then,is the responsibility of
to the BarcelonaPavilion,Mies's whatis thepreciserealmof theoretical architectural criticismor of critical
architectural programwas a persistent interestin a criticalarchitecture? How historiography? Is it to teachand to
rewriting of a few themes. Beginning does one define or demarcate the spatial disseminate information about the
witha set of arbitrary propositions, or temporal interval that is the focus of monuments of culture? Is it to deliver
Mies rationalizedhis initialchoiceof a criticalexaminationof architecture? technicalinsightsand opinionsabout
themesby demonstrating the rangeof This discussionofMies suggeststhat the capabilitiesof the architector the
theirapplicability.He reusedthemin the realmof interestis in thedistance formof the building?Or is it, as has
changingcircumstances; he modified establishedbetweenarchitecture and been suggestedhere,to concentrate on
and refinedthemovertime. This sortof thatwhichis otherthanarchitecture. the intrinsicconditionsthroughwhich
repetitionrendersthe issueoforiginsor architecture is made possible?In order
one
firstcauses unproblematic, arbitrary No singlebuilding-neither the most to know all we can about architecture
cantus firmus being imitated and repeated distinguished nor the most pedestrian- we must be able to understandeach
its
so manytimesas to lose primacy. can reflect a preexistent cultural reality instance of architecture, not as a passive
withperfectfidelity.To theextentthat agentof culturein its dominant
Though the beginningof his authorship a workis architecture, it differs ideological,institutional,and historical
is arbitrary, repetitiondemonstrates qualitatively both from a representation forms,noras a detached,disinfected
the consistency ofMies's authorial of realityand from a reduplicationof object. Ratherwe mustunderstandit
motivation;it establishesthe other cultural activities. But the as activelyand continuallyoccupying
constancyof his intent.A persistently difference carries ideologicalmotivation; a culturalplace-as an architectural
rearticulated intentaccumulates it producesknowledgebothabout intentionwithascertainablepolitical
knowledge-morespecificand more culture and about architecture. It should and intellectualconsequences.Criticism
to
be possible recognize both the means delimits a fieldofvalues withinwhich
precise-ofthegeneralarchitectural
by whicharchitecture maintains its architecture can developcultural
programand allows thegrowthof that
knowledgeaccordingto its own special distancefromall that is outside knowledge.
beginningsand conventionsrather architecture and the conditionsthat
thanaccordingto thosederivedfrom permitthe existenceof thatdistance. Architectural criticismand critical
somepriorauthority.Mies does not historiography are activitiescontinuous
accepta preexistingframeof The kindof theoreticalstudysuggested with architectural design; bothcriticism
reference; he represents neitheran heredoes not assumetheprior existence and design are forms of knowledge.If
authoritative culturenoran of unchangingprinciplesfor criticalarchitectural designis resistant
authoritative formalsystem. interpreting architecture. Instead what and oppositional, then architectural
is assumedis a specificsituationfrom criticism-asactivityand knowledge-
Repetition thus demonstrates how which came the decision to make should be openlycontentiousand
architecture can resist,ratherthan architecture. This meansthateach oppositional,as well. We mustseek
reflect,an externalculturalreality.In architectural object places restraints alternatives to entrenched modesof
thisway authorshipachievesa resistant upon interpretation, not becausethe operationand canonicalforms.We must
authority-an abilityto initiate or situation is hidden within the object as striveto investcriticaldiscoursewith
developculturalknowledgewhose a puzzle, but ratherbecausecontingent somethingmorethancompensatory,
is
absoluteauthority radically nil but and worldlycircumstances existat the appreciativereflections or methodsof
whosecontingentauthority quite is a same level of surface particularity as the formal analysis for objects whose
persuasive,iftransitory, alternative to object itself. Interpretive inquiry lies in culturalmeaning is thought to be
thedominantculture.Authorshipcan an irreducibly architectural realm undecidable.It is preciselythe
resisttheauthorityof culture,stand betweenthoseconditionsthatseem to responsibility ofcriticismthatthis
againstthegenerality of habit and the generate or enable the architect's culturalmeaning be continually
of nostalgicmemory, and intention to make architecture and those decided.
particularity
still have a verypreciseintention. formsin whichthe intentionis
transcribed. 3

K. Michael Hays
27

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ii

;~~X:lc
~1-

t~

- \~"li-d
a
-)i-

'z:

a
e
I have benefitedfrom the
questions and criticisms
of RISD studentswho
participated in
my seminar,
<<Interpretations
of
;:1 Modern Architecture,
,
where many of the ideas
presented here were
~?
formulated; and from
the responsesof
colleagues who read

?i earlier versionsof this

paper. I especially wish
i' i
to thank Stanford
B`r
Anderson and Rodolfo
?a:: Machado for their
u-
k continued supportand
!i encouragement.

K. M. H.
~I

i;

?"';

: rx*.-~ "

1~"
~;?? a~;~
ir
Mies van der Rohe
t
Minerals and Research
~tt. Building, IIT
1939

K. Michael Hays
28

This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes
I 2
By culture, as I shall use The historicismof this
the termhere, I position has been
understand a conceptual criticized by numerous
unity comprising, authors, mostnotably
on the one hand, Stanford Anderson,
thosetheoreticaland Colin Rowe, and David
practical systemswhich Watkin. Watkin uses a
authorize, promote,or Popperian argument
constrain the production against historicism
and use of ideas and without noting
objectsand by which a Anderson's earlier study
societyor a place <Architecture and
differentiatesitselfand in
Tradition,
maintains its hegemony; History,Theory,
,The
and on the otherhand, and Criticism of
the artifactsand Architecture*
environmentswhich Marcus Whiffen,ed.
endure as resourceful Cambridge, MIT Press
physical precedentsor 1965.
exemplars of systemsof Watkin does mentionin
production and become a differentcontext
transmittersof culture. Anderson's review of
Thus, it is in the Pevsner's <Sources ...
purview of culture that in
,Arts Bulletin,
the production of vol. 53 Sept. 1971
architectureis overseen PP274-275.
from above by a I shall not rehearsethese
dominant systemof criticismshere. For a
values saturating recentdiscussion of
downward, and interpretationsthat
generated or validated at emphasize the
its base by normative object's origins
standards ofpractice see S. Anderson
and methodologieswhich Presentnessof
,A
may themselvesbecome Interpretationand of
cultural agents. Artifacts:Toward a
Historyfor the Duration
and Change of
in
Artifacts,
wHistoryin, of, and
for Architecture,,
John E. Hancock, ed.
Cincinnati
Universityof Cincinnati
1981.
This content downloaded on Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:53:05 AM
3 4 8 12
The unfortunate Metropolisand Mies's well-known StanfordAnderson uses
,The
oversimplification, Mental Life, friendship with the phrase <<winning of
packaging, and (English translation of the Dadaists reality, to emphasize the
consumptionof Colin Grosstadt und das Kurt Schwittersand reciprocitybetween an
,Die
Rowe's <<collage city* Hans Richterand his object, its creation, and
Geistesleben,
approach by various Dresden 903) in collaboration with the its interpretation.The
epigones is indicative of Sociologyof editorsof support phrase captures the
,The <G,
theprevalence of this Georg Simmel, this reading of the 1922 notion that the
attitude. Though Rowe Kurt H. Wolff, skyscraper.The understanding ofa
could not be fittedeasily trans. and ed. implications of Mies's building unfoldsand
into the architecture-as- New York, Free Press affiliationwith the may change in time.
autonomous-formmould, 1950 P415 Dadaists have yet to be See Anderson,
such statementsas the fully explored. <A Presentnessof
following are often 5 Interpretationand of
misleading to those Jean Arp 9 ...
Artifacts
inclined toward o<On My Way: In Philip Johnson
uncritical consumption Poetryand Essays van der Rohe* 13
,Mies
of images of thepast: New York, Museum of I owe my understanding
1912-I9i6,,
4It should be obvious by New York, Wittenborn Modern Art 1947 of intention-as all that
this point that present 1948 whichfollowsfroma
P91
arguments have little Io special beginning-to
to do with <history., 6 Karl Kraus quoted by Edward Said
<History,> sofar as we Piet Mondrian Walter Benjamin Intention
,Beginnings,
are aware, relates to oDe Stiflf in <Reflections, and
Method,
concatenationof events EdmundJephcott,trans. Baltimore
and their stylistic 7 New York, Harcourt John Hopkins University
profile.In the Rosalind Krauss makes Brace Jovanovich Press 1975
framework of this a distinction between 1978 p243
discussion it can only what she calls analytic
interestus verylittle; or narrative time-in II
and, if we are interested which the viewer can Johnson p 94
in the usefulnessof grasp the a priori Also see Mies's
particular morphologies, transcendentstructureof disavowal of
we are correspondingly the object-and real de Stijl in Peter Blake
unconcernedwith the time-in which the ,A Conversation
provenance of specific viewer encountersform with
Mies,
models.* open to change and in <Four Great Makers
Fred Koetterand circumstance. The of Architecture*
Colin Rowe developmentof each in G. M. Kallman, ed.
<<The Crisis of the Object: modernsculpture is New York
The Predicament discussed in DaCapo Press
of <Passages in 1970 PP93ff
Texture,
<Perspecta 16 ig98o Modern
Sculpture,
P135 and n 5 New York, Viking Press
1977
K. Michael Hays
29
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions