-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
/
structureheresies11-04.xml
110 lines (110 loc) · 8.35 KB
/
structureheresies11-04.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>The Heresies Project</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<p>A Bucknell Production</p>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<p>Information about the source</p>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text>
<body>
<p>________________</p>
<p>Architecture and Social Change</p>
<p>Nunzia Rondanini</p>
<p>As a movement uniting all women in a struggle against exploitation and
discrimination, feminism includes the goals of attaining our own identity and of
achieving a share of power. Yet, among ourselves, we may disagree on the meaning of
both identity and power. I, for instance, do not see feminism as independent of
class struggle, but rather as a stream that eventually flows into the larger
movement toward a new social organization. This explains why, in dealing with the
relationships between architecture and social change, I cannot identify an
exclusively feminist dimension of the problem.</p>
<p>Architecture, like feminism, is also a much debated term. The role of the architect
today is particularly uncertain and ambiguous. A coherent and solid foundation to
contemporary practice necessitates a theoretical framework if questions raised by
this practice are to be answered coherently. This rational foundation must be sought
in history, in the works that were built or only planned, as they appear in their
ultimate expression: form. History--whether man's or woman's-has never experienced
interruptions. Historical events--and architecture-may change or develop, but they
always originate in their precedents. Architecture is as old as people themselves.
Can we now "invent" it, starting from fanciful images of tomorrow's world or from
what we think a liberated feminine sensibility should be? We will not do anything
different unless we do something better. And this implies a knowledge of what we
will improve upon. It is only through history that we can learn about architecture.
The fact that history has been written and built mostly by men is a reality we
cannot wipe out in a single sweep.</p>
<p>The industrial and bourgeois revolutions in the 19th century brought to an end the
dialogue between the prince and the architect that had traditionally been the
generator of architecture. The unity of architectural theory and practice was thus
dissolved, opening the way to diverse, conflicting interpretations.</p>
<p>Three such interpretations in particular are currently trying to assert their
theoretical supremacy in competition with one another: functionalism, according to
which the form of any architectural work</p>
<p>is the direct offspring of its function, i.e., the material requirements that it is
meant to fulfill; the heteronomous theories, which derive form from the analyses and
conclusions of social and behavioral sciences; and formalism, which maintains that
architectural form comes into being through a unique and independent process.
Functionalism</p>
<p>In every city there are certain buildings, streets, and squares that last beyond
their time and stand out among other urban elements. We call them monuments. If form
really derives unequivocally from function, as functionalists claim, and given that
function relates to the needs of a specific age and society, monuments should have
disappeared along with the generation that created them. Instead, they have
survived, sometimes by serving a purpose different from that originally intended.
Indeed, one of their most interesting characteristics is precisely that they have
outlived the immediate needs for which they were constructed. Yet monuments continue
to impose their presence on the city and influence its development. The city
acquires its unique form through a continuous interaction between monuments, the
plan, and the smaller urban fabric. Such form is of great importance because it
conveys the architectural message of the city.</p>
<p>Surrounded by a wild tropical landscape, the Mayan ruins are an example of what form
by itself can mean. Although little is known about Mayan civilization and the
practical use of these spaces, they nevertheless provoke an overwhelming aesthetic
experience. Their function has been forgotten, but their form is still alive and one
can learn from it.</p>
<p>Together with the other arts, architecture is a cultural manifestation of society.
Functionalism ignores this reality. While function may play a role in defining
architectural form, the relationship between function and form is not
deterministic.</p>
<p>Heteronomous Theories</p>
<p>The heteronomous theories derive architectural form from the analyses and conclusions
of sciences such as anthropology, sociology, and economics. While these disciplines
unquestionably contribute to an understanding of architecture, especially of the
city, they should not interfere with its actual making. It is not possible to travel
backwards and deduce a more "human" or "just" architecture from the findings of
social sciences. There is no need for such sciences to mediate between architecture
and reality because architecture is already a direct expression of society. The
central and the longitudinal church plans, for example, show two different ways in
which society envisioned the relationships between people, priest, and God; these
views are expressed in the very configuration of the plans</p>
<p>Social sciences are not involved with the process of creating form; they only concern
themselves with it a posteriori. Those who wish to influence social behavior
directly through architecture imply that one can establish a static relationship
between some hypothetically desirable way of life and a corresponding architectural
form. As in functionalism, form is subordinated to specific external requirements
which supposedly generate it. Since these change continuously, it is bound to an
early obsolescence. Experience has shown that an architectural form, such as a
square, which at a given time fostered social interaction, may easily fail to do so
when revived for this purpose. Similarly, the architectural proposals of utopian
socialism or of German rationalism between the wars were products of careful social
studies. However, once executed, they often proved ineffectual as instruments of
social advancement and even became tools of oppression-an example being the concept
of existenz minimum as it was applied to workers' housing. Formalism</p>
<p>Formalism maintains that the real field of expression of architecture is form, which
finds its origin and definition through its own particular process, as the
fulfillment of independent cultural choices. In discussing this question, György
Lukacs refers to the town wall, among the very first examples of architecture. While
the primary function of the town wall was to keep the enemy out, the feeling of
security it gave to town dwellers soon ceased to be an accidental consequence and
became a necessary component of the structure. At a certain stage,</p>
<p>© 1981 Nunzia Rondanini</p>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>