Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • AgrestD-GandelsonasM Semiotics Architecture

    Uploaded by

    inkognita
    16 views6 pages
    Semiotics Architecture

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Semiotics Architecture

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views6 pages

    AgrestD-GandelsonasM Semiotics Architecture

    Uploaded by

    inkognita
    Semiotics Architecture

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    INTRODUCTION Semioics ond Architecture: Ideological Consumption or Theoretical Work Diana Agrest and Mario Gandelsonas The postnedem period sow a revival of interest in meoning in archilecvre ond o selFconscious- ness about the fms in which the discipline wos described. These two issues coincided in the “Tnguistc analogy,” the ideo thot architecture could be seen as a visual language. It was rec ognized in he 1960s that this common assump: fon needed furher sontiny wih regard fo the following question: to wha exent is archilectre conventional, like longuage, ond ore its conver: ions so widely undessiood tht there exists @ “social coniroct visévis architecture? Both this ticle and the following, by Geoftey Broadbent ‘emphasize the problems and potentcl of opel ing the linguistic anclegy to architecture. Dona Agrest and Mario Gandelsonas’s essay condenses a longer ace published in Semictica entiled “Ciitcol Remarks on ‘ond Architecture." Appearing in 1973 in the fi ‘volume of Oppostions, the foun ofthe lr for Architecture ond Urban Sti, the version the essoy repined here set « high stondard for cilical dicourse. I evidences the influence of ‘Marxism ond of linguist Ferdinand de Scussues workin Agres! and Gandelzono's formulation «© theoretical poston. Educated in architects the University of Buenos Aites, the two studied stcturallingusics in Pars in the kate 1960s— {time of great sudent activism, Roland Bar influence is also evident in he: theoretcl {ch. 13); one example is he iden of “teod the ci, which Gandelsonos invesigates in The Urban Tet ‘gies! ond Gundelionas ore corel to (roughly syponyous wih semilogy is he science of the diferent ystems ofIngustc tis concemad with the note of sigs and ‘es governing thir bakevion wii a 509. Semiotics is hs invoked with signification. of production of meaning, which is accompli via the relation between the wo components of the sign: the signifier (such as a word) and the sigriled (he object dented}. In contas!, com muncoten hey deos wih te we ond act signs, with their function and reception pobeigiee pep nycabontin egal message. Agres! and Gondelsonas note that con fusion regarding this disinction hos led to some ‘quesionable applications of semitc theory by cerchitets ond ees, The authors see semiotics os 0 way 10 on te vdetoning che pion neon ing in ctchitecte. They sugges hat semiotics be ‘conceived cs par ofa larger projet, and not simply as on unmediaied impocation of concepts fom an oie dine. Ths, somites might ‘98 a weapon again! ideology, or “adaptive [orcitectural] theory,” which alows the perpetuation ofthe economic nd paieol stots ‘quo. Agtest ond Gandelsonas hope that critical theory, devoted 10 the production of knowledge (on architecture and to the criique of ideology, will place this adaptive norm. (The crtique of ideology creer a ents ny DIANA AGREST AND MARIO GANDELSONAS SEMIOTICS AND ARCHITECTURE IDEOLOGICAL CONSUMPTION OR THEORETICAL WORK operon ii a ce fanned hor ough th es A Jaan of vg when eg bs see formations, serving s the connection berween architeccure.* In this way architecture has demands; architecture thereby becoming assimilated to society through “theot ‘operations. The corresponding changes b tice serve to perpetiate the basic structure ofthe sociery and atthe sare time architecture itself 2s an institution within Western social formations.’ In apr a theoretical project which is aimed neither at adapting architecture t the “ne the social formations nor to maintaining the architect this junerure one is concerned with sheoryin a strict sense, a8 opposed tothe 2 “theory” which we call ideology ‘deology can be seen asa certain set political aesthetic—which refer to nature, to society, and to the ife and activities From Oppasitions1 (September 1973): 93-100. Courtesy ofthe authors bbeen modified to respond to changing: Introduced by “theory” into architectural vevious article? we established the process of production of knowl wal inticution as we know it of representations and beliefs—religious in relation to nature and society. Mdeslogy has the socal function of maintaining the overall struccare of society by inducing mento accept in their consciousness the place and role assigned to them by this structure. At the same time it works as an ebsiacle real knowledge by preventing both the constitution of theory and its development. Its function is not to produce knowledge but to actively st itself against such pro- duction. Ideology in a way alludes to reality, bu it only offers an illusion ofthis reali.’ ‘The summation of Western architectural “knowledge” in its entire range, from com ‘monplace intuition to sophisticated “theories” and histories of architecture, is to be rec- ‘ognized as ideology rather than as theory. This ideology has explicitly claimed to serve the practical needs of society, by ordering and conwolling the built environment. Nevertheless, we hold that the underlying function of this ideology isin fact the prag- ‘matic one of both serving and preserving the overall structure of society in Western social formations. It serves to perpetuate the capitalist mode of production, and architectural practice as part of it. Thus, even if ideology affords knowledge of the word, its acer. ‘ain kaowledge, which i limited and distorted by this overriding function. ‘We propose that there isa need for a theory, which should be clearly distinguished fiom the adaptive “theory” of, what we call here architectural ideology. In these terms jtectural theory is the process of production of knowledge which is built upon a tical lationship with architectural ideology that is, it grows out of this ideology at che same time isin radical opposition toi. Ie is this dialectical relationship which In opposition to ideology, we propose a theory of architecture, which is necessarily ‘outside ideology. This theory describes and explains the relationships berween ‘and the built environments of different cultures and modes of production ©The ical work uses as is raw material no real or concrete things but belief, notions concepts regarding these things. These notions are transformed by means of certain ceptual tools, he consequent product being knowledge of things” Architectural dogs. considered as part of a bourgeois sociery and culture, provides part of the raw terial on which the conceptual tools must be brought to work. The relationships berween theory and ideology might be viewed as a continuous fugale where ideology defends a type of knowledge whose major effec isthe prserva- of existing social systems and heir institutions, rather than the explanation of real- “There have been many examples in history of his relationship. Polemy’s theory of fe universe, which corroborated Biblical txts, was supported by the Church for ezn- es against any other models which could explain more accurately the same reality. In 1. Copernicus’ theory was the result of a conceptual mutation within such an cology. He literally destroyed Ptolemy/s notion of geocenrism, and he separated his ory ftom this ideology by “projecting the earth into the skies. In return, the con- raion of Copernicus by the Church through is attempt to suppres a new concept world where man was no longer the center of the world, and where the Cosmos sino longer ordered around him, shows another aspect of this struggle. The cheoreti- ideology, which originally opposed the Copernican conception, finally absorbed it to oft theoretical basis; che second is chat of methodological reproduction, when the theory is developed as an entity separated from idcology. In this sense, Copernicus studies corre spond to he frst sage, where the theoretical work consists essentially in the subversion of given ideology In architecture, we have yet to see a Copernicus to introduce the frst seage of the- cortical explanation, Indeed we have only recently begun to perccve the need to anabze the rationsips berween theory and ideology. Several architectural ideologies have had a more or less systematized appearance, which hasbeen emphasized through the ambiguous tile of “theory.” In recent yea this ambiguity has been accentuated by several pseudo-theoretical developments that wie ‘models from different fields, such as mathematics, logic, bhaviorism, oF philosophy. ‘When these model re applied, they introduce a superficial order while leaving the basi ideological strucute unchanged. This introduction of models from other fields isto be regarded a ideological consumption, and may be witnessed at temporary fshion atthe level of technique? But the consumption oftheorics, which can be considered in themes sok fr the development of teary on archtesure, ace asa special form of ieolegical be: ce, which we call theoretical blechade ‘peal fom Sidi ‘Many theories pretending to be theory in astic sense ae in fact the precise oppo site. They Function as an obstacle to theoretical production. But the many “s theories of architecure” which have been produced in recent eats, serve only to sume a theory of semiotics—that in our opinion might provide a range of cools for th production of knowledge on architecture. They constitute the essence of a blockade. This transposition of linguistic and semiotic concepts to the field of archi only maintains architectural ideology. Such « procedure cannot be confused with ath ‘retical process which must be based on the critique and subversion of the idol notions. In our opinion, semiotics can help in this critical task, as an imporean vo! the production of knowledge. ooly if we understand the semiotic concepts in relation to ‘general semiotic theory and not as isolated formulas. This implies that semiotic related to asemiotic theory must be distinguished from similar concept related to! theoretical fields. For example, while the concept of “code” belongs both tose and communication theory, ie performs a different cole in each theory. Most present of semiotics fal to develop explicily the distinction berwcen notions belonging tod ferent theoretical felds—semiotis, communication theory, and traditional semantics ‘which they use in a random and arbitrary fashion (One aspect of theoretical blockade seems to us to arse in a situation when responsible for developing “theory” neither distinguish nor rate with sufficient sion distiney different discourses whose epistemological base and orientation isp ly divergent. Mis canbe sen in the existing confusion in the use ofthe novion a. ‘munication and signification. To understand more clearly the nature of this on fone can look at George Baird’ “La Dimension Amoureuse in Architectue."® rites, for ecample, “In the most modem sense of the distinction, the langue of phenomenon is considered tobe its ‘code.’ and the parole its ‘message’ In some this distinction is the most interesting because it introduces into semiology ‘of precise mathematical techniques of analysis, commonly grouped under the “information theory." The confusion here is chat langue and parole are related to the notion of signification, and code and mesjage tothe notion of communication. Langue- parole and code-message can only be cross-linked in very few and exceptional cases. The Confusion between these two notions produces situation where there is no lear dfin- ition and distinction made berween communications theory and semiotics considered as ‘theory of signification, This problem can be seen in another sarement by Baird where these ewo theoretical fields are agnin considered to be interchangeable: “Taking is cue fiom [Claude] Lévi-Strauss structural anthropology, moder sermialogy looks on all social phenomena as communication systems; not only the obvious oncs..but also. architecure."™ If semiotics is to become an important tool for the development of architectural theory, it would seem important to clarify the distinction berween the notion of com- ‘municationand the notion of signification, and theie particular relevance For architecture. ‘Semiotics, the theory of the differen systems of sigs, is considered ro be only a ist sage towards a future general theory of ideologies” In this present stage semiotics not nly can provide models, bu it can also suggest theoretical strategies in our battle against 1 specific ideology, architectural ideology Tn the definition of semiotics as given by (Ferdinand de] Saussure, the notion of communication does not appear forthe precise reason that it isa different and distinct Doenomenon from signification. The study of the phenomenon of communication, analyzes how signs ae sent and received, differs from and cannot be confused with seady which analyzes “what the signs consist of” or “what laws determine them.” “The notion of communication in fct is related to characteristic chat is common al systems of sign; namely hat they provide a means for communicating berween Tdiiduals. In contrast, the notion of signification depends on the particular internal within a given cultural system, such as that appointed to architecture, cinema literature. The particular structure of such cultural phenomena stems from their exi- eas social institutions and not from their we by individuals. In architeccue, for ple, the particular signification of Japanese buildings is related to the internal strue- se ofan architectural system of signs which is determined by the socal and cultural vex and not by their Functional use, which is similar co the use of buildings in other tues, ie shelter, gathering, ec. In other words, the notion of communication is tothe function and use ofa system whereas the notion of signification indicates smal relation within a system. Communication is concerned with the ase and efees while signification is concerned with the nature of signs and the rues governing "8 This difference implies, first, that even if we understand the factors which are ofthe process of communication, we may sill not know anything about the nature rrificaton isl secondly, chat since signification depends on the specific nature of diferent systems of signs, it has ro be redefined for each different semiotic sytem 1g to the way its internal structure works and according to what makes each eal suucure different. Tis, then, is precisely che subject matter of semiotice—co der the diferent semiotic systems as devices which produce signification, and co ine how this signification is produced. Soussures procedure for defining semiotics, linguistics, and linguistic signification punds examination both asa device forthe discusion of ideological notions and to constant struggle with ideology. The production of knowledge can only be done by dis- assembling not only ideological notions but also through methodically erasing the boundaries separating differen practices within a culture and through looking towards other cultures and siruated at other points in time, Theoretical work cannot be realized from inside architectural ideology, but from a cheoretical “outside” separated from and against that ideology. This must be the ist step in the construction of a materialist dialectic theory of architecture as part of a more general theory of ideology. Bnes SRaE ® rEES ‘Social formation mation sce) Marci concept denoting “ace” “Soca fSmaron the concrete complex whole comping economic pace, polka pracke, tnd ienogeal pte ocean lace ad sage of development" Louis Aker, Tor Mo tNew York: Ft Vinge Book, 370), 21 “Thee athe fancons of actecate nd dtgntheoreto which we do no sera “Ric Les dhe theory Ba has the faneion of bling erin odesing of design pedons vidi ache prac. “Titatrmacon in sec inoace reforms that allow the exiting tem 0 survive. However thee ar never el changer—snce the rut reaonsip are no being touched bute wer wansformations of ht system. or crampl, the development the captain mode of roducion dough varios differen soger-meranlis, Caplalam, iperaony x-—-hus bon bud on ei of trnsfonmatonsachired in ‘Fiver domme which did notin anyway modify the ondamental das sacar Diana Ager and Mario Gandsuons, “aqitecir/Arquitec” Mater, Cuadees de Tbe acne Ais 72) ‘Tobe more pecse we should say ideologies (phra even ifn this ale we refer wa decogy, bourgels ology Jn us prc dln ell w che speci ajo of thai: te at tenes ter an rciecaraideclogy. Thi patil character ems from the fz that the lmpoant hrc problem ofthe ation existing between achitecurl practice the “unconmiou ed) hasnt been considered inti are ‘We ery fellow here the chat “Methodology” in Kal Mars, nreducion Poli “Eononi rece cborted upon by Aus in For Mar. We consider te work Fandamencl bs fr any dalesicraseal specah o theory a opposed wary idee conception of theory. Sx Altnusersquaifation of ies theory under Steere of erp’ and Yormalam.” We wie the wer theory, howe. in sch a ‘Secon ie mith what mas ow be considered only the Weer conception of advo emphasne ts prsen proviso character a oly agen the development of « trot pasa theory of eslogis. ‘Nesatet Kone, Le Revelation Aatronaniqne (Pi: Herma, 196), 16 Diane Apes “Epiacmalogial Remarks on Uiban Panning Model,” leur, IAUS, New Yok ia. j {Che Jencks td George Baird, Meaning in Artec (New York: Brae, 970 ids te bid, Jala Keer “Le Lieu Semiotiqu”in J: Krier, J. Rey Devoe, and J-K. Unie “Burin Soman (The Hague and Pais Mouton, 97), Se bo Else Veron, “Condon de produccion mero enestiory maieacon ideological Idole (Buenos Ares Ed. Tempo Contemporanen 1972) ‘endtand de Saussure, Cure fn Gra ing (New York: McGraw-Hill 960) Ibid Toe Vili, “Toward Sadly ofthe Natur of Signe” Some, 3 (7): bo Jobe Lyons, Teredution to Tea Lingus (Cambridge, UK: Cambge a eel os. Osrald Ducrot and Treen Todor Disionare Engcopigne de Since da Langage (Pai Sui gr) 3-6 5 olin Bare, Blow of Smiley Non Yrs Hl and Wag 9650 Jencks and Baird Messing in Arie op ce 1 This compan does no to te simiaies of fom: functon pis and signs but

    You might also like