II. The Inquiry
2. The Architects Theory and Reflections
or „extradiagetic‟ narrator, is often separate and distinguished from the author. This distinction is apparently clear in fiction, novels, and films.
Moreover, there is a considerable distinction between author and implied author. The author, as a real person, is the individual who writes the work, but the reader/audience does not necessarily perceive the true and real author, and imagines him/her in the mind.
Thus, the imagined one is the implied author and is somewhat or completely different from the author.
Although narratives are often used in literature, they could be easily applied in other fields and disciplines such as film, visual arts, and also architecture. For instance, in the field of visual art, the question is how an image is able to narrate a story through its codes.
2-1-2 Narrative, metanarrative and little narrative in Lyotard
Jean-Francois Lyotard, a central figure of the postmodern movement, presents a certain definition about narrative. In his book „The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge‟ he tries to explain the altered condition of knowledge as societies enter the so-called postindustrial age and cultures enter the postmodern age (Lyotard, 1984, p.3).
In this book, he explains the current crisis in legitimation of knowledge in the second half of the 20th century.
Lyotard recounts Wittgenstein‟s concept of „language games‟ by which he means “that each of the various categories of utterance can be defined in terms of rules specifying their properties and the uses to which they can be put” (Ibid., p.10). Like in the game of chess, in fact, a set of rules define the properties of the pieces, and the proper way of moving them. What is more interesting for Lyotard is this matter that, according to Wittgenstein‟s theory, there is no grand statement of philosophical truth, but various particular language games that allow for various „moves‟.
In the tribal times, myths and legends used to form a narrative knowledge. In this way, the trueness of an event or an object refers to the narrative itself. In other words, a narrative not only explains, but also legitimates its criteria and content. Moreover, “the narrator‟s only claim to competence for telling the story is the fact that he has heard it himself. The current narrate gains potential access to the same authority simply by listening. It is claimed that the narrative …has been told „forever‟” (Ibid., p.20).
According to Lyotard, a „metanarrative‟ or „grand narrative‟ is a narrative about narrative, an over-arching story, which can explain, describe and comment on the validity of all other stories. That is, it is a universal or absolute set of truths which overwhelm other subjects, institutions and ideas. For example, the Enlightenment narrative of the emancipation of the man, in the guise of Marxism, acted as a metanarrative in the modern period (Ibid., p.36).
Lyotard believes that in contemporary postindustrial society and postmodern culture,
“the grand narrative has lost its credibility, regardless of what mode of unification it uses, regardless of whether it is a speculative narrative or a narrative of emancipation”
(Ibid., p.37). In fact, in the postmodern period of „incredulity toward metanarratives‟, all the great „-isms‟ have been discredited, and don‟t the power of legitimating knowledge.
Thus, in the postmodern era, metanarratives are replaced by focusing on local and little narrative.
2-1-3 Architectural metanarratives
Using Lyotard‟s terms, it can be said that the entire history of architecture suffers from dominant metanarratives up to the so-called postmodern era. Architecturally dominant styles, owning a special kind of order, configuration, composition, articulation, and structure, are expressions of architectural metanarratives. These metanarratives dominated the current architectural discourses and made them treat within a drawn framework and formation and create their own buildings in relation to them. Although architectural metanaratives used to employ a supposed structure and formation, they were emanated from the ruling social, philosophical, and cultural organization, so that studying an architectural work could lead us to the hidden and dormant notions within it.
Metanarratives gave rise to uniformity, monotony, and integration in the architectural products and creations. All the architectural discourse used to obey these rules and norms, and the trueness and falseness was evaluated through them.
Although declension of metanarratives appeared since the emergence of Mannerism in the architectural discourse, reproduction of them could also be seen in Modern architecture as well. In fact, Mannerism intended to concentrate on the individual images and thought, and everybody proposed to transgress current norms, but this transgression was not too radical and basic to transform into a language with new ruling grammar and
vocabulary, and remained as an accent and speech. In other words, Mannerism was a speech within the current architectural language.
However, the reign of architectural metanarratives continued and trapped the Modern Movement. To understand how the Modern Movement acted as a metanaartive, and to distinguish its elements and components, we have to review one of its founders, Le Corbusier, and pay attention to his words reflected in „Towards A New Architecture‟
which is considered as the manifest of modern architecture. Slogans and ideals presented in this text clearly portray its rules, norms, and also ambitions. Let‟s listen to some of them:
- Primary forms are beautiful forms because they can be clearly appreciated (Corbusier, 2001, p.2).
- The great problems of modern construction must have a geometrical solution (Ibid.).
- A great epoch has begun. There exists a new spirit. „Styles‟ are a lie (Ibid., p.3).
- The house is a machine for living in (Ibid., p.4).
- We must aim at the fixing of standards in order to face the problem of perfection…. Architecture operates in accordance with standards. Standards are a matter of logic (Ibid., p.4).
- Architecture deals with quantities (Ibid., p.5).
- We must create the production spirit. The spirit of constructing mass-production houses. The spirit of living in mass-mass-production houses (Ibid., p.6).
These expressions show that concepts such as primary forms, international style, standardization, mass production, and so on, which all intend to dominate architectural discourse as distinct, true and determined rules, standards, and norms, constructed metanarratives of modern architecture. In fact, leaders of Modern Architecture were so sure about their principals and axioms that Mies van der Rohe claimed all the human problems could be solved by the realization of just one of the principals of modern architecture: “I see in industrialisation the central problem of building in our time. If we succeed in carrying out this industrialisation, the social, economic, technical and also artistic problems will be readily solved” (Jencks, 1991, p.28). These distinct standards governed architectural discourse for several years and led to some fundamental crises
and dilemmas in social and cultural domains. These dogged standards were finally rejected by some theoreticians and architects, and led to a condition called the postmodern era.
The first important book which criticized the Modern Movement was Robert Venturi‟s
„Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture‟ in 1966 which condemned the current architecture of the 1960s which “had been reduced to formulaic repetition of canonical works of the Modern Movement, to technological utopias, and to expressionist fantasies”
(Nesbitt, 1996, p.12). His inclusive proposal to the „either/or‟ attitude of the Modern Architecture which led to the one-dimensional buildings was „both/and‟ which
“recognizes explicit and implicit functions literal and symbolic, and allows for multiple interpretations” (Ibid., p.25). Thus, he prescribes a pluralistic and multi-dimensional approach to architecture and avoids reductionistic aspects of modern architecture, declaring that „less is bore‟.
Charles Jencks observed that the demolition of the infamous Pruitt-Igoe building in St.
Louis, Missouri on July 15, 1972 at 3.32 Pm was actually death of Modern Architecture.
This building was constructed based on the ideals of CIAM and won an award from the American Institute of Architects by the time of it construction in 1951, and was a good example for realization of doctrines of Modern Architecture in which „good form was to lead good context‟ (Jencks, 1991, p.24). However, before demolition it had been vandalized and defaced by its black inhabitants, so that spending a lot of money for its maintenance and restoration could not solve its serious problems. Taking this event as a symbol, he announced the appearance of a new period and tried to explain its common characteristics and properties.
He argues that in the pre-industrial past, traditional culture was the prevalent thought, during the industrial age, Modernism was the most important episteme, while in the post-industrial era, none of these competing cultures – High, Low, Traditional, Mass, Pop, Ethnic, or other – were the most significant one. Thus, he claims that “if anything reigns it is pluralism … We live in a post-modern era, the information age where plural cultures compete and there is simply no dominant cultural style or ethos” (Ibid., p.10).
In other words, referring to Lyotards‟ words, metanarratives have been replaced by little narratives and their hegemony has failed.
He summarizes the basic concepts and themes of Post-Modern architecture as „double-coding‟, which means mixing double tastes, layers, and codes, and „radical eclecticism‟
which denotes to multiple coding and could be subdivided to historicism, contextualism, the new complex post-modern space, metaphor, and abstract representation. Thus, “we are entering a new period of world communications where literally hundred of styles and ways of life will thrive simultaneously, cheek-by-jow! They may not appreciate or understand each other. But tolerance, a respect for difference, an enjoyment of variety is the attitudes suited to the information age, and pluralism is its philosophy” (Ibid., p.19).
2-1-4 Architecture as a narrative
Architecture is full of statements. Every window, every stone, every wall and all the elements of a building tell us a story. As Baillie-Scott puts “few things are indeed so strange as this thaumaturgic art of the builder, he places stones in certain positions – cuts them in certain ways, and behold, they begin to speak with tongues – a language of their own, with meanings too deep for words” (Baillie-Scott, M.H., 1906, quoted in Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p.111). Thus, the buildings speak. “Over and over again those who have been open to listen, have beheld the „saying‟ of works of architecture”
(Norberg-Schulz, 1985, p.111). If we open ourselves to them, and listen to them carefully, we will hear their sayings. A building is an honest narration. If we open ourselves to it, it will communicate to us. As Mark Rakatansky says “There is no mute architecture. All architects, all buildings „tell stories‟ with varying degrees of consciousness. Architecture is permeated with narratives because it is constituted within a field of discourses and economics (formal, psychological, and ideological), to any one aspect of which it cannot be reduced, from any one of which it cannot be removed”
(Rakatansky, 1992, p.199).
Thus, a work of architecture tells us both structural and spiritual stories. For example, a traditional house not only tells us how it has been built (tectonics, structure, methods of construction, etc.), but it also narrates about the world inside (the relationship between the occupants, their mentalities, private realms, etc.) as well as the world outside (it means the social, economical, and cultural characteristics of the society). In sum, architecture is always rhetorical and story-telling.
However, is it actually a building and its elements that speak to us or is it the architect who narrates through the building and architectural elements? In other words, where is the source of what the buildings say? Do they speak by their own, or do they just reflect their architect‟s voices to us?
If we refer to the threefold of a narrative, i.e. narrator, action/event, and audience/receiver, we can say that architectural narrative is based on the threefold of architect as the narrator, architectural work as the action/event, and at last, the user, visitor, traveler, or reader as audience/receiver. In fact, an architect tells his/her story through written texts, drawings, sketches, and buildings to the people. Here, it will be useful to review all three elements and their functions and relationships within that triad more precisely.
Every architect has an idea, notion, feeling, imagination, concept, opinion, or in a word, a story in his/her mind which all together constitute his/her narrative. When he/she thinks about architecture and wants to put his/her words and narrative in an architectural work, indeed, he/she intends to tell his/her own story about the given program and site, and concretize his/her narrative. Thus, an architect becomes a narrator. Therefore, in architectural discourse, we do not confront with a narrative, but various narratives narrated by different architects. Every architect narrates something different and unique.
That is, everyone narrates his/her personal narrative. In this connection we can say that, for example, Palladio was the narrator of symmetry, Piranesi was the narrator of dreams, Carlo Scarpa is the narrator of details, Eisenman is the narrator of oppositions and paradoxes, and so on.
In brief, the narrative which an architect tries to narrate is, in fact, the general theme and understanding drawn in architect‟s mind. However, it happens that architects change their narrative during their career, so that we can clearly perceive some fundamental and essential changes in an architect‟s opinion. For instance, it is obvious that Le Corbusier changed his narrative once in 1920 declaring his thought through some written texts entitled „Towards A New Architecture‟ and again in his latest works, in which we could easily see alterations manifested in Ronchamp (1950-55) and Jaoul Houses (1954-56).
Accordingly, Le Corbusier narrated different narratives during his career. As another prominent example we can consider Phillip Johnson who had strict turns, from modern architecture to Postmodernism to Deconstruction to Folding.
The second element of an architectural narrative is architectural work. I want to confess that „architectural work‟ could be a written text, drawing, sketch or a realized building.
In other words, texts, and drawings on paper could be considered as a kind of architectural narration, especially when an architect is interested in writing and presenting his thought through words, or in introducing and depicting some visionary drawings, such as Piranesi, and Boulee, or even when a designed work remains unrealized as a project. All of these works are a kind of architectural work, however, it is obvious that the best one is a realized and built building, which could be physically experienced and seen by the visitors and users.
A building, as the real and tangible part of an architectural narrative, is the direct and concrete means by which an architect‟s narrative is introduced. A building, as we discussed before, is full of voices and stories, and all the components and details carry a concept, meaning, or image within themselves. However, the architectural narrative in which an architectural work functions as the event and action, is somewhat different compared to other disciplines. In other fields, an action or event has mostly happened in the past, and a narrator, as a mediator, tries to convey that happening to the receivers/audiences. In other words, the event is prior to the time of narrating.
Conversely, in the architectural narrative, architectural work as the event or action is a continuous occurrence which has been commenced in the past, is living now, and will continue to the future. That is, an architectural work or event is a permanent event which continues its life as long as the users/visitors come to use/visit it. In fact, an architectural event is an extended event and conveys a sense of eternity within itself.
The third element of architectural narrative is the user, visitor, or traveler. When the architectural work is a written text or some drawings, then the receiver is the reader. In this case, reader reads the words or looks at the lines and colors of the drawings and tries to perceive the idea and the narrative narrated through them, and constitutes his/her own feeling and comprehension about that narrative by means of imagination. On the other hand, if the architectural work is a real building, user, visitor, or, in the exact meaning, the traveler of the world of that building travels within the realm of that building, passes through the spaces, looks at the architectural elements, materials, details, and imagines his/her own perception on the narrated narrative in his/her mind. The traveler, as an investigator and explorer, tries to find the hidden presence of the architect and listen to the silent voice of narrator concealed in the body of architectural work. The more a
traveler is capable of perception and open to the work of architecture, the more he/she perceives the narrated narrative. Thus, the narrative of architecture is narrated based on the above mentioned elements.
2-1-5 Narrative, event and cinematic approach in Tschumi
According to Kate Nesbitt, Tschumi criticizes modern ideas of architecture for the
„honesty of materials‟ and also postmodern nostalgia for mass walls. He proposes an alternative with which architecture‟s spatial sequences, articulations, and collisions are concerned, and emphasizes on the „choreographic aspect of the body‟s experience of architecture‟ which is described “as „cinematic‟ in order to stress movement and its temporal dimension” (Nesbitt, 1996, p.156).
Tschumi confirms that space is not in fact a three-dimensional entity and product of mental representation, “but it is something that is heard, and is acted upon” (Tschumi, 1994a, p.111). In other words, he finds feelings and actions within the space as the true essence of the architecture. Moreover, he understands space as the productof the movements of individuals and states that, “Bodies not only move in, but generate spaces produced by and through their movements. Movements – of dance, sport, war- are the intrusion of events into architectural space” (Ibid.). In this connections, he proposes
„event‟ as a changeable and not stable condition for the program of architecture rather than function, which is permanent and not flexible. He confirms that, “a program is a determinate set of expected occurrences, a list of required utilities, often based on social behavior, habit, or custom. In contrast, events occur as an indeterminate set of unexpected outcomes” (Tschumi, 2000, p.13). In this sense, “Bodies construct space through movement. For example, pageants and spectacles involving large numbers of people clearly generate a changed spatial condition in urban street” (Nesbitt, 1996, p.156).
Tschumi uses the editing techniques of film, such as „dissolve‟ and „montage‟ to emphasize narrative possibilities of film and utilize it in architectural practice, “to present extraordinary relationships between events and space” (Ibid., p.169).
In this regard, Tschumi uses the cinematic device of montage in „de LA Villette‟ and argues that the world of cinema is based on the discontinuity in which every segment is independent, and at the same time allows for various combinations. He states that “In
film, each frame (or photogram) is placed in continuous movement. Inscribing movement through the rapid succession of photograms constitutes the cinegram. The Park is a series of cinegrams, each of which is based on a precise set of architectonic, spatial, or programmatic transformations. Contiguity and superimposition of cinegrams are two aspects of montage. Montage, as a technique, includes such other devices as repetition, inversion, substitution, and insertion. Theses devices suggest an art or rupture, whereby invention resides in contrast-even in contradiction” (Tschumi, 1994a, p.197).
Thus, Tschumi employs the concept of „Cinematic Promenade‟ as the key feature in the Parc de La Villette. As an analogy of a film strip, “the sound-track corresponds to the general walkway for visitors and the image-track corresponds to the successive frames of individual gardens”
(Tschumi, 2000, p.70). The frames, as the segments of the park, which are simultaneously complete and incomplete, follow each other in a linearity of sequences and create a cinematic promenade. The park “suggests secret maps and impossible fictions, rambling collections of events all strung along a collection of spaces, frame after
frame, garden after garden, episode after episode” (Ibid.). These sequences allow for the plurality of interpretation and multiplicity of perception.
Tschumi (1994) refers to this concept as architectural narrative. He states that like a film, in architecture “spaces are qualified by actions just as actions qualified by spaces. One does not trigger the other, they exist independently. Only when they intersect do they affect one another”(Tschumi, 1994b, p.XXVII).
2-1-6 Re-narratives and architectural discourse
An architect narrates a narrative through his/her architectural work. However, this is the first stage of a continuous and complex procedure. Following this first and primary narrative, we confront various re-narratives and re-readings. For example, visitors and travelers of an architectural work generally re-narrate it as the first narrative. Thus, the
47. Parc de La Villette by Bernard Tschumi, superimposition of lines, points, and surfaces
imagination and schema created in travelers‟ minds is the second narrative, or re-narration of the first narrative. This matter is well produced during architectural criticism. A critic criticizes narrated narrative of an architect. Firstly, the narrative is read and perceived by the critic, and at last, the critic makes his/her own narrative, a new narrative, or, in other words the second narrative. This is, in fact, a re-narrative of the narrative. Criticizing the critic is, as such, a re-narrative of re-narrative, or the third narrative. This may be continued indefinitely, and architectural discourse may be overwhelmed in the never-ended, infinite circle of narratives and re-narratives.
Thus, architectural discourse is the realm of interactions among narratives and re-narratives. Every architect narrates his/her narrative, and this narrative is re-narrated by the travelers and critics, and this infinite event forms a labyrinthine framework. In this way, the result is a virtual space established around the architectural work, which makes a dialectical dialogue and conversation among the several present elements and agents.
We can refer to this framework as „architectural discourse‟. Architectural discourse is produced by presenting and representing endless narratives, labyrinthine narratives, and at the end, the result is itself another narrative.
Consequently, in architecture, there is a labyrinth of narratives or labyrinthine narratives.
This labyrinth is an intertwined and interwoven structure of speeches, opinions, ideas, imaginations, and so on, in which architect, traveler, user, and critic are present, and takes place in the realm of architectural work. This labyrinth is an inter-subjective sphere, within which various speeches interact, reject, approve, or challenge each other.
At the end, none of them are dominant, and what is endlessly maintained is the dialogue.
Architectural work is the site of the dialogue and the realm of the manifestation of architectural discourse.
Then, if the labyrinth is the essence of architecture and is the „architecture of architecture‟, and its spiritual dimension is latent in an architectural work, we can say that architecture with a labyrinthine structure and form is closer to the „architecture of architecture‟. That is, works which recreate complexity within their inner spatial relations and have an ambiguous, mysterious, and intricate structure, or, in one word, produce a labyrinthine discourse, are supposed to be true architectural works. In this case, the labyrinthine aspect is in fact the true feature of architecture, because architectural discourse takes place in a labyrinthine and many-sided framework.