life in the metropolis 大都市的生活(4)

ThethreeepisodesabovepresentaprovisionaltriangulationofatrulyMetropolitanarchitecture.Iftheyappearextravagant,orevenunreal,thatisonlyasignofthenarrownessofourarchitecturalfocusandofourrefusaltoadmitthatafundamentalbreakhasoccurredbetweentraditionalandmodernUrbanisms.EBSCO Publishing - NetLibrary; printed on 10/11/2010 4:57:57 AM via University of Hong Kong LibrarieseISBN:9780262082617; Hays, K. Michael. : Architecture Theory Since 1968Account: -243728315

Copyright ? 1998. MIT Press All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except

fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.These“stories”describeatraditionofmodernitythatinsistsonsystematicallyexploitingallavailableapparatusandallthefreshinfrastructuresoftheagetoestablishfantasiesasrealitiesintheworld.Thecumulativee?ectofsuchscat-teredepisodes—andnodoubtthecauseoftheanxietiestheyinspire—isthattheydiscredittheideaofRealityasanimmutableandindestructiblepresence—ofrealityasanultimatesafetynetunderour?awedacrobaticperformances.Instead,the“hysterical”structuresoftheMetropolisrepresentafreefallinthespaceofhumanimagination,afallwithunpredictableoutcome,noteventhecertaintythatitwillendontheground.ThetrueambitionoftheMetropolisistocreateaworldtotallyfabricatedbyman,i.e.,toliveinsidefantasy.Theresponsibilitiesofaspeci?callyMet-ropolitanarchitecturehaveincreasedcorrespondingly:todesignthosehermeticen-claves—bloatedprivaterealms—thatcomprisetheMetropolis.Suchanarchitecturenotonlycreatesthe“sets”ofeverydaylife,butitalsode?nesitscontentswithallpossiblemeansanddisciplinessuchasliterature,psychology,etc.Throughthemagi-calarrangementofhumanactivitiesonallpossiblelevels,itwritesascenarioforthescriptlessMetropolitanextras.Ifthatappearsaformofmegalomania,suchamegalomaniaistemperedbythefactthatitsexpressionsarealwayslocalized,sincetheyaddress,byde?nition,onlyapartofthetotalaudience,neverthewhole.Metropolitanarchitec-tureismegalomaniaconamodestscale.Metropolitanarchitecturethusde?nedimpliesa2-foldpo-lemic:againstthosewhobelievethattheycanundothedamageoftheModernAge—i.e.,theMetropolisitself—throughthearti?cialrespirationandresuscitationof“tra-ditional”architectureofstreets,plazas,boulevards,etc.;emptyspacesfordigni?edanddecentformsofsocialintercourse,tobeenforcedinthenameofastoicgoodtaste...andagainstthatModernarchitecturewhich—withitsimplacableaversiontometaphor—hastriedtoexorciseitsfearofchaosthroughafetishfortheobjectiveandtoregaincontroloverthevolatilityoftheMetropolisbydispersingitsbulk,isolatingitscomponents,andquantifyingitsfunctions,andrenderitpredictableoncemore....BothsquanderthepotentialoftheCultureofCongestion.TheUrbanismofthe3episodeswassubconsciousandsponta-neous,nottheresultofanexplicitdoctrine.ItwasfollowedbyanintervalinwhichthearchitectureoftheMetropolishasregressed,oratleastfallenunderthedomina-tionofo?cialarchitecture.

EBSCO Publishing - NetLibrary; printed on 10/11/2010 4:57:57 AM via University of Hong Kong LibrarieseISBN:9780262082617; Hays, K. Michael. : Architecture Theory Since 1968Account: -243728315

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Copyright ? 1998. MIT Press All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except

fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

EBSCO Publishing - NetLibrary; printed on 10/11/2010 4:57:57 AM via University of Hong Kong LibrarieseISBN:9780262082617; Hays, K. Michael. : Architecture Theory Since 1968

Account: -243728315

1978

AlanColquhoun“FromBricolagetoMyth,orHowtoPutHumpty-DumptyTogetherAgain”

Oppositions12(Spring1978)

see284–286;

compare

262–264Inhisearlyessay“TypologyandDesignMethod,”writtenin1966andpublishedinthe1967ArenaeditedbyGeorgeBaird,AlanColquhounhadalreadytakenupaposi-tionakintoRolandBarthes’s“mythologist”:hesetaboutdissolvingpurportedly“ob-jective”designdecisionsintotheirhistoricalandideologicalconceptswiththeseeminglysimpleandimplicitlysemioticrecognitionthat“aplasticsystemofrepre-

sentationsuchasarchitecturehastopresupposetheexistenceofagivensystemofrepresentation.”1In1972,Colquhounpublishedthe?rstofhismanyexplicitmedita-tionsonsemiology,structuralism,andarchitecture,“HistoricismandtheLimitsofSemiology,”whereheagaininsistedonthefundamentalandinescapabledilemmaofarchitecturalpractice:tobemeaningful,architecturemustrecombineelementsal-readyinvestedwithconventionalmeanings,yetthatsamerecombinatoryactcanit-selfbeneithernormativenorneutral;itisavaluejudgmentoftheindividualdesignerwithtractableideologicaleffects.2

SeveralotherthreadsofarchitecturaldiscourseconvergeinCol-

quhoun’sessayontheworkofMichaelGraves,reprintedhere.In1972MarioGandel-sonashadtheorized,forthe?rsttime,theworkofGravesasasemioticsystem,opposingGraves’sconcernwiththe“semanticdimension”ofarchitecturetoPeterEisenman’sexclusively“syntactic”operations.3By1978,ColinRowe’sunderminingofanycriticalclaimsofAmericanpost-CorbusianismandManfredoTafuri’srelegationofthesametothecon?nesoftheboudoirhadfurtherpolemicizedtheterrainonwhichGraves’sworkwastobeinterpreted.Andthewidelyacceptedpartitioningofcriticalcategorieslikeneorationalismandneorealismforcedmostcommentatorsoncontem-poraneousdesignproductiontosteerthroughthatterrainaccordingly.Finally,1978markedaninternalturningpointforGraves’swork,fromapost-Corbusianexperimen-tationtoanovertlyanthropomorphicandclassicizingcollageofforms.

Colquhoun’sessayonGravesshouldfurtherbeseeninrelation

tohis“FormandFigure,”writtenatthesametimeandpublishedtogetherwiththeformerinOppositions12.In“FormandFigure,”Colquhounmakeshisuneasinessfeltabouttheneorealists’cynicaltechnicalandeconomicexploitationofgraphicfrag-mentsfromthemass-mediasignsystem(CharlesMooreandRobertVenturiareex-amples),andtheneorationalists’abnegationofcertaintechnologicalimperativesinordertoachievetheirarchetypal?gures(AldoRossietal.).

WhenheturnstotheworkofGraves,Colquhounthrowsthese

twopositionsintodialecticalrelationship,situatingGraves’sworknotexactlyastheresolutionofthecon?ictbetweenthearchitecturalsignandtechnicalstructurebutasthemythi?cationofthetermsofcon?ict.GravesexploitsthetechnicalopennessoftheAmericanballoonframeandstrivestoachieveanahistorical,archetypalrepre-sentation,butbyreducingallfunctional,constructional,andrepresentationalele-mentstotheconditionoftautology:architecturerepresentsarchitecture.Itisnolongerpossibletodistinguishbetweenelementsthatderivefromfunctionalorstruc-turalconsiderations—walls,windows,columns,frames—andthosemorepurelycompositionalelementsliftedfromcubistandpuristpainting.Imagesfromtheland-scape—clouds,trees,hedges—existonthesamelevelasimagesfrombuilding—Copyright ? 1998. MIT Press All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, exceptfair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.

EBSCO Publishing - NetLibrary; printed on 10/11/2010 4:57:57 AM via University of Hong Kong LibrarieseISBN:9780262082617; Hays, K. Michael. : Architecture Theory Since 1968Account: -243728315

Copyright ? 1998. MIT Press All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except

fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.sof?ts,stairs,doorframes,handrails.SpatialtypologiesfromacademicBeaux-Artsplansystemsarecombinedwith?guralfragmentsfromtheCorbusianrepertoire,allbleachedoftheiroriginalhistoricalreferenceandrecon?guredinnewconstellations.Then,Colquhounobserves,Gravesseekstocoordinatethere-sultingseriesofisolated,fragmentedelementsinanarrativeorritualofcontrolled“anecdotalandepisodic”encounters.Clustersofcontiguouselementsaresortedintothematicoppositions—zonesofinterstitialpassageandtransitionversuszonesofarrivalandstasis;perspectival“real”spaceversus“virtual”spaceslayeredor?at-tenedintomurals;metaphoricalrealmscounterposinga“sacred”interiortoa“pro-fane”exterior.Sequencesofarchitecturalframesmomentarily?xcertainlocationsasthresholdsdistinguishingandconjoiningthedifferentthemes.Thusdoarchitecturalelements,organizationalpartis,andritualizedexchangesbetweenthebodyandar-chitecturalformallmovefroma“bricolagemadefrom?guralfragmentswhicharestillrecognizable”4tobecomeprimeexamplesofwhatBarthescalled“theprivationofhistory”:“In[myth],historyevaporates.Itisakindofidealservant:itpreparesallthings,bringsthem,laysthemout,themasterarrives,itsilentlydisappears:allthatisleftforonetodoistoenjoythisbeautifulobjectwithoutwonderingwhereitcomesfrom.”5InapostscripttoColquhoun’sessay,PeterEisenmanaccuseshimofuncriticallyfollowingRowe’ssplitbetweenformandcontent,tooeasilyac-ceptinganonideologicalmethodofanalysis,andoverlookingGraves’sshiftawayfromamodernist“workonthelanguage.”But,thoughcharacteristicallyuncensori-ous,Colquhoun’sstructuralistuseofthetitle“frombricolagetomyth”alreadypinsGraves’sworkto,precisely,ideology.Forwhatconstitutesmythisnotitscontentbutitsform;andmythisnotjustamessage,butamessagethatispoliticalbyvirtueofitsowndepoliticizing.Mythturnscultureintonature,historyintoessence,andob-scuresjustthosesocioeconomicforcesthatlegitimateitsbeing.Notes“FromBricolagetoMyth”wasreprintedinAlanColquhoun,EssaysinArchitecturalCriticism:ModernArchitectureandHistoricalChange(Cambridge:MITPress,1981).1.AlanColquhoun,“TypologyandDesignMethod,”Arena33(June1967),reprintedinCol-quhoun,EssaysinArchitecturalCriticism,p.49.Aspartofhismythologicalanalyses,Barthesformulatedamultitieredsemioticsthatseizesontheinherentreiterabilityofthesigni?er/signi?edunit.Inmyth,the?rst-ordersign,operatingatwhatBarthescallsthelevelofdenotation,becomes,inturn,theformorsigni?erofthesecond-level,connotativesign,whichproducesanewandmoreinsidiousmessage.Heidenti?esthelevelofconnotationwiththeoperationofideologyormyth,whichconsistsofthedeploymentofpreformedsignsfromthelevelofdenotationforthepurposeofex-

bbs.99jianzhu.com内容：建筑图纸、PDF/word 流程，表格，案例，最新,施工方案、工程书籍、建筑论文、合同表格、标准规范、CAD图纸等内容。