By Mario Rosaldo
If we start to study seriously the recent theories and critiques of architecture, let us say, from the 1980’s to the present day, we shall see that the sophistication, which their methods, themes and terminologies have achieved with respect to their equals of the 1960’s and 1970’s, can be put down mostly to their interest in establishing themselves as scientific or multidisciplinary paradigms; or on the contrary, simply as theories and critiques founded on the forms of the so-called irrationalism, or antirationalism. Between these extremes we often find, as a general rule, the conciliatory attitudes: the solutions which, avoiding siding with radicals or reactionaries, prefer the comfort of neutrality, or even that of the eclecticism. We can agree to consider the conciliatory critique as morally beneficial and desirable, or the idea of a pluralistic critique, a critique opened to dialogue adopting no extreme or absolute positions, as very successful. But the fact is that the so-called pluralism not always includes all of the critics, it tends to leave out monists, and all those who do not accept the model of the liberal democracy. For, when pluralists say to respect rationalists or idealists, depending on the adversary in turn, they usually consider the others wrong. This pluralistic inclusion becomes the customs post where the supporters of liberalism receive a preferential treatment. Conciliation founded on such a pretended equality or inclusion of all the trends is not but a barely hidden imposition of the old cultural relativism of the academic anthropology.
The dialogue between critics as the dialogue in general is a reflection on our knowledge, on our study, but also on the knowledge of our interlocutors. It is this reflection caused by the encounter which enriches critic, which leaves him lessons sometimes unexpected. But improvisation cannot replace method, and its practice should be declared so that no one can take it too seriously. Such theories and critiques, worried as they are about establishing as the new paradigms, have neglected the thorough study of the sources on which they say they are based: critics have been content so far with third-party opinions. This has been so because, on the one hand, they assume that the theories on which they rest are the most advanced. And, on the other, they are victims of the rush and the practical exigencies of our times. They get rid of theories and critiques at the stroke of the pen, simply by adopting the latest fashionable theory. There are really a few critics who devote a serious study to the author in question, who take into account not only what has been said and written about this author, but above all what has been stated by he himself. That is why here we should like to invite the official theoreticians and critics of architecture to allow authors, to whom they usually praise or ridicule, to speak in his defence. To judge authors by the third-party interpretations of their thoughts or writings–being favourable or not–is not only morally unfair, but at the same time logically absurd.
As we cannot wait for things to happen, it should be advisable as well to invite the reader of theories and critiques to carry out his own studies and examinations, not depending exclusively on third-party opinions, even in the case of renowned interpreters of a certain author. It is not a question of setting aside the existent theories and critiques of architecture, but of confronting them and subjecting them to a study revealing their successes and failures, their scopes and limits. To rely on the excuse that theories and critiques are irrelevant and therefore an unnecessary study, because of the presumption that they are old or deal with old issues, is a paradoxical argument showing us at least that we think in accordance with the epoch, that we do not have ideas of our own, that we are not originals at all, that we are merely driven by the current and the inertia of tradition. A critical study of the classic sources, of the authors who are the necessary points of reference for architecture and in general for any critique, are useful in the first place to find out what was really said by these authors on a particular theme, and in the second place to outline our own approach to it, that is to say, to the third-party interpretations or to the thought itself of the mentioned traditional sources or points of reference. The only safe method of becoming an attentive and creative critic is to make study a daily practice by searching, exploring, comparing, but above all by not accepting to simply repeat what the others say, nor adopting or defending theories before studying them thoroughly.
If we start to study seriously the recent theories and critiques of architecture, let us say, from the 1980’s to the present day, we shall see that the sophistication, which their methods, themes and terminologies have achieved with respect to their equals of the 1960’s and 1970’s, can be put down mostly to their interest in establishing themselves as scientific or multidisciplinary paradigms; or on the contrary, simply as theories and critiques founded on the forms of the so-called irrationalism, or antirationalism. Between these extremes we often find, as a general rule, the conciliatory attitudes: the solutions which, avoiding siding with radicals or reactionaries, prefer the comfort of neutrality, or even that of the eclecticism. We can agree to consider the conciliatory critique as morally beneficial and desirable, or the idea of a pluralistic critique, a critique opened to dialogue adopting no extreme or absolute positions, as very successful. But the fact is that the so-called pluralism not always includes all of the critics, it tends to leave out monists, and all those who do not accept the model of the liberal democracy. For, when pluralists say to respect rationalists or idealists, depending on the adversary in turn, they usually consider the others wrong. This pluralistic inclusion becomes the customs post where the supporters of liberalism receive a preferential treatment. Conciliation founded on such a pretended equality or inclusion of all the trends is not but a barely hidden imposition of the old cultural relativism of the academic anthropology.
The dialogue between critics as the dialogue in general is a reflection on our knowledge, on our study, but also on the knowledge of our interlocutors. It is this reflection caused by the encounter which enriches critic, which leaves him lessons sometimes unexpected. But improvisation cannot replace method, and its practice should be declared so that no one can take it too seriously. Such theories and critiques, worried as they are about establishing as the new paradigms, have neglected the thorough study of the sources on which they say they are based: critics have been content so far with third-party opinions. This has been so because, on the one hand, they assume that the theories on which they rest are the most advanced. And, on the other, they are victims of the rush and the practical exigencies of our times. They get rid of theories and critiques at the stroke of the pen, simply by adopting the latest fashionable theory. There are really a few critics who devote a serious study to the author in question, who take into account not only what has been said and written about this author, but above all what has been stated by he himself. That is why here we should like to invite the official theoreticians and critics of architecture to allow authors, to whom they usually praise or ridicule, to speak in his defence. To judge authors by the third-party interpretations of their thoughts or writings–being favourable or not–is not only morally unfair, but at the same time logically absurd.
As we cannot wait for things to happen, it should be advisable as well to invite the reader of theories and critiques to carry out his own studies and examinations, not depending exclusively on third-party opinions, even in the case of renowned interpreters of a certain author. It is not a question of setting aside the existent theories and critiques of architecture, but of confronting them and subjecting them to a study revealing their successes and failures, their scopes and limits. To rely on the excuse that theories and critiques are irrelevant and therefore an unnecessary study, because of the presumption that they are old or deal with old issues, is a paradoxical argument showing us at least that we think in accordance with the epoch, that we do not have ideas of our own, that we are not originals at all, that we are merely driven by the current and the inertia of tradition. A critical study of the classic sources, of the authors who are the necessary points of reference for architecture and in general for any critique, are useful in the first place to find out what was really said by these authors on a particular theme, and in the second place to outline our own approach to it, that is to say, to the third-party interpretations or to the thought itself of the mentioned traditional sources or points of reference. The only safe method of becoming an attentive and creative critic is to make study a daily practice by searching, exploring, comparing, but above all by not accepting to simply repeat what the others say, nor adopting or defending theories before studying them thoroughly.
As we discussed in last month’s article, a critique is only an essay, an initial approach to the object of study. In addition, we cannot say it is not important to know who the author is, for the veracity of the critique–or the lack thereof–is determined by the author’s theoretical or political biases. Nevertheless, though it is true that critiques can be differentiated by the quality, the rigour or the seriousness with which they are carried out, this can be only contingently attributed to the author’s fame, in this case an architect, a historian, or a philosopher. Most of the time critiques come into fashion because they deal with themes–or use terms–surprising pleasantly a public avid for novelties and irreverent arguments against the rigidity of academy, and in general against the rigidity of all the institutions of State and society. It is until the ludic and, at the same time, reverent stage of the favourite critiques of the epoch ends when public realizes that those had been refuted by the adverse critique, even from the very beginning. Thus, in spite of the good intentions or because of a lack thereof, we can find many critiques–and many theories as well–that become a thick smoke curtain confusing and deviating readers to keep them away from the study of the classic sources, from the study of the necessary points of reference; to make them believe instead that study is a matter for initiates or selected people. Willingly or reluctantly, these critiques and theories turn into an obstacle to be overcome, in place of being a magnet attracting the general interest.
In other words, the architect or the student of architecture who wants to break inertia or needs to renew his critical attitude should start by confronting the theories and critiques they have taught him against the sources on which the authors are based: he should read and study thoroughly the original texts of such sources in order to be in a position to know whether the interpretation is faithful to them or not, whether it adds something else or not. Likewise, he should identify the authors’ theoretical and political affiliations in order to establish what coincidences and differences he shares with them. He may side with any of the current trends of the debate, or he may try to remain neutral. Indeed, the critical debate includes both the opinion that objectivity is possible only if no stand is taken, only if critic remains neutral and disinterested, and the opinion that there is no objectivity without recognising that subjectivity plays an active role during the knowledge process, without admitting that critic is always involved in the object of his study. The opposite extreme to these opinions is that of the consideration that only subjectivity can reach the intuition of the human nature and their creations. The only way we have to understand each critical trend of the debate is by putting oneself in its place. And that means to take sides, even though it is merely a temporary choice. Of course in practice we can take sides, or even choose an independent or neutral position, without having studied meticulously the opponent, but in critique and in theory knowledge is the base of reflection, thus it is necessary to study seriously each position of the critical debate.
The classic sources or references can be studied disjointedly according to our necessities, but in order to avoid misinterpreting their central thesis it is advisable to study them first in function of themselves. That is to say, it is preferable to follow first their own discourse until determining what thesis they uphold or what theory they intend to build up; so that we can make clear their meaning. Once this work is done, it is time to reflect on the material which has resulted from our study, always checking against the referential discourse. We may consider all this effort only as the first approach to an author’s theory and we may work for the moment with the first obtained conclusions, knowing that they can be changed after a second or a third new study. If we publish our conclusions, we may call attention to the fact that they are provisional, that they are subject to future corrections. It is very typical of us to assume that the architectural theories and critiques we have read are already definite conclusions and therefore unmovable points of view. Some authors, even considering their conclusions provisional, insist on defending them as if they were unbeatable or irrefutable, as if they were the last and the definite ones. It is obvious that a campaign to disseminate our conclusions is not going to convert them into more objective or scientific ones, but it certainly can stifle debate as a campaign like this makes people think that there is no other theory but the one promoted. Let us avoid doing this as well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment