[Article by Stan Allen]

Author(s): Stan Allen

Source: Assemblage, No. 41 (Apr., 2000), p. 8
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3171268 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 20:46

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.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Assemblage.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.128 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:46:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
after theory
More than one criticarguesthat todaywe are living a momentthat could be
characterizedas "aftertheory."Ben van Berkelhas used thesewords;also
Michael Speaksin Americaand JosepQuetglasin Spain have maintaineda very
cautionaryand sometimesopenlyconfrontationalpositionwith respectto the role
of theory.What is yourdefinitionof these terms?
Personally,I find much more interestingan architectlike Enric
Miralles, who has, you could say, conservativetheoreticalambitions
but a radicalpractice.Think of the way in which Mirallesrelateshis
workto a sense of place, to tectonics and construction,his affinityfor
the workof Alison and Peter Smithson - all of these apparently"con-
servative"themes in today'sdiscourse.Yet for all that (or perhapsbe-
cause of that), his architectureis highly experimental,radical,and
original. I find this a healthy contrastto what is often seen, especially
here in the United States;that is to say, ambitioustheorythat results
in workthat is ratherconventionaland often highly derivative.You
can take this as a statementof my own sensibilityin relationto the
"post-theory" problem.
But you also have to put this in context. In artcriticismor film studies,
for example,afterthe wide-eyeddiscoveryof criticaltheoryin the
1970s by the generationwho are now establishedin the academy,we
find a youngergenerationwho absorbedtheorywithoutmystifyingit.
They considerit partof their workingequipmentand move seamlessly
from high theoryto popularculture, or fromtheoryto post-theory,if
you prefer.In architecture,veryfew people have managedthis transi-
tion. The theoryof the 1970swasan importanttool to disengagearchi-
tecturalpracticefrom its postwarstagnation.But that battlehas already
been foughtand won. The idea is not to be drivenby theory,or to sim-
ply reject it, but rather,to be secure enough to leave it behind, which
implies a deep knowledgeof theory'slimits.
material practices
Youhave betweentwokindsof practice,referring
to "hermeneutic
distinguished
practices and materialpractices"and locatingarchitecture in the terrainof the his work,these artistsare involvedwith materialsthat are scattered,or
material.Can you explainhowthismaterialconditiondiffersfromthe traditional
materialityof architecture?
And howmaterialpracticediffersfromskillor know-how? trols over the processof the
First,let me clarifythe distinction between what I call materialprac-
tices and hermeneutic, or discursive,practices.Hermeneuticpractices workthroughdistribution,followingthe logic of the field.
are devoted to the analysisand critique of existingtexts.They privilege I have not pursueda purely,or even properly,theoreticaldefinition of
language and commentary.Now, my argumentwith someone like
MarkWigley - who has said that architectureis "builtdiscourse"-
is that if you understandarchitectureexclusivelyas a form of dis-
course, it is veryeasy to forgetabout the specificityof building and be- amples of the Mosque of Cordoba,the Smithsons'idea of "MatBuild-
gin to comparearchitectureto other discursivepractices:writing,film, ings,"Le Corbusierin Venice, the postminimalistsculptors,or Iannis
new media, computers,and so on. And if you do this, you begin to no- Xenakisand his "clouds"of sounds. Differentexamples,but similarin
tice that, comparedto these other practices,architectureis relatively
inert as discourse.It cannot approachthe transparencyof these other
media. And so there is a greattemptationto leave architecturebehind
and to move towardthese other practices.If you tryto make architec-
ture do something that it does not fundamentallydo verywell, you are
likely to end by giving it up. In contrastto this attitude,which sees
architecture'smaterialityas an impediment to be overcome - some-
thing that is slowing it down in this world of speed and communica-
tion - I have tried to look more openly at the specific opportunities
presentedby architecture'smaterialand instrumentalproperties.This
is not, in fact, so farawayfrom thinkingabout architectureas know-
how, as a specialized knowledgeor skill.
Your second question is more provocative.Is this the same as the tra-
ditional materialityof architecture?I would say, yes and no. On the
one hand, I agree with Kenneth Frampton,when he insistson a dis-
tinction between the representational(or scenographic)model and
the tectonic model. But, even if I agree with his rejection of the rep-
resentational,I don't think that the only responseis to move toward
an "ontologyof construction,"or to returnto an uncontaminatedno-
tion of the tectonic. I think materialpracticeimplies a more open
field. Tectonics is a materialpractice,but so is topology,so is the art
of decoratingsurfaces- many things that Framptonis not so com-
fortablewith.
field conditions
One of the keypointsof yourworkis the notionof the field, and the analysisof
differentfield conditionssuch as the moire,the flock,or the mat. Howhas this
interestin fieldsbeen influencedby yourstudiesof minimalartof the late 1960s
and early 1970sin America?Howmuchdo you borrowfromotherdisciplines
that haveconstructedthisnotion,such as mathematics,sociology,geography,
or informationtheory?
Strictlyspeaking,the field is aboutforcesand not material.This is the
way in which SanfordKwinter,amongothers,uses the concept;that is
to say,in its properlymathematicalsense, as an abstractand immaterial
calculation.I have been interestedin a more empiricalidea of the field,
and specificallyin lookingat those artistsor architectswho haveworked
experimentallyon the potentialsof this abstractidea of the field.
So ratherthan beginning with pure concept, I have triedto derive
some workingprinciplesfrom examplesI find interesting.I have
startedwith the literalsense of the field as the horizontalplane on
which programand eventsare playedout. This connects the field to
landscape,to ecology, and to urbanism.One importantissue here is
the implicit problemof the limits to control. I have talkedabout cer-
tain postminimalistartistsin this context,contrastingthe workof
Bruce Nauman, LyndaBenglis, or BarryLe Va to that of Donald
Judd,for example.Where Judd(like a conventionalarchitect)exer-
cises a tight controlover all the formaland constructionalaspectsof
flow, all over the floor. Whatthey do is to establisha loose set of con-
scatteringor the spreadingout of the ma-
terial.Their workdiffersfromthat of minimalistslike Juddor Carl
Andrebecause they emphasizelocal relationsover unitaryform.They
the field. I am more interestedin concrete examples,some from archi-
tecture, some from relatedfields, which I hope have some practical
impact workingin the city today.It is in this sense that I pose the ex-
that they all behave in many wayslike the contemporarycity: open to
action and manipulation,yet coherent enough to supportdifference
and transformation.
postscript
I had thoughtto makea diagramfor the last issue of Assemblage,
somethingthat could encapsulatethe last fifteen yearsof theoryand
point towardfuturepractices.Needless to say,that provedimpossible.
I have insteadextracteda few key paragraphsfroman interviewcon-
ducted last yearby FernandoQuesadain Metalocus.I hope that the
conversationaltone and the willingnessto name names might offera
counterpointto othertextspublishedhere.

8 Stan Allen

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.128 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:46:59 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions