La crítica poética como instrumento del proyecto de arquitectura

Vivimos en un tiempo de referencias múltiples, de inquietudes en todos los ámbitos -también en el de la arquitectura-, en el que se trata de superar el peso de la historia; donde los apegos sobran y lo que interesa son las posibilidades que nos depara el presente activo. El papel de la crítica de la arquitectura se cuestiona a diario. Los nuevos media son contenedores en actualización continua y el texto ha sido sustituido inevitablemente por la imagen y la acción. En este contexto, la tesis cuestiona por que el nuevo sentido de la crítica sea el de operador que acompaña al proceso del proyecto arquitectónico. Desde el proyecto, sobre el proyecto, para el proyecto, en el proyecto, hacia el proyecto, con el proyecto. Acometiendo la acción crítica desde la complejidad de lo arquitectónico, sobre la diversidad, para la pluralidad, en lo colectivo, hacia la simultaneidad en la síntesis. Para ello, la tesis se apoya en la noción de poética –como complejidad y síntesis interna- y en cinco sistemas arquitectónicos cuya interacción no puede ignorarse –campo, programa, materia, geometría y morfología- para renovar y actualizar la usabilidad de un método crítico –el método Mirregan-Todorov- que ha obtenido reconocidos resultados; pero cuya pesada estructura limita en gran medida su campo de acción y operativa. En este sentido, no se trata ni de una tesis meramente analítica, ni de determinar unos paradigmas arquitectónicos para este siglo. Esta investigación reformula el papel de la crítica de la arquitectura hoy, y parte del orden –como autoorganización- abierto de la crítica poética para proponer una línea de trabajo sobre la interacción de sistemas arquitectónicos de una manera sinérgica y a disposición del proceso de proyecto. Disposición que lleva, como proposición final, a plantear esta actitud como instrumento docente y pedagógico de la asignatura de proyectos arquitectónicos, ya que posibilita la obtención de una serie de cartografías abiertas reflejo de los múltiples agentes y factores de influencia del presente que propician una visión compleja, pero abordable, del proyecto como totalidad. ABSTRACT We live in a time of multiple references, of concerns in all areas -also in architecture-, which tries to overcome the burden of history. A time where the attachments remain and what matters are the possibilities active present lies. The role of criticism of architecture is questioned daily. New media are continuously updated containers, and the text has been inevitably replaced by the image and the action. In this context, the thesis questions that the new sense of criticism is to be the operator that accompanies the architectural design process. From the project, on the project, for the project, in the project, to the project, with the project. An operator which undertakes the critical work from the architectural complexity, on the diversity, plurality, in the collective, to the simultaneous synthesis. To do this, the thesis is based on the notion of poetic -as complexity and internal synthesis- and in five architectural systems whose interaction cannot be ignored -field, program, material, geometry and morphology- to renovate and upgrade the usability of a critical method –the Mirregan-Todorov method- which has obtained recognized results, but whose heavy structure limits greatly its scope and operational. In this sense, it is not a purely analytical thesis. It neither tries to identify any architectural paradigms for this century. This research reformulates the role of criticism of architecture today. It runs from the open orderliness –as self-organization- of the poetic criticism to propose a line of work on the interaction of architectural systems in a synergistic manner and available to the project process. Since this attitude enables the production of a series of open mapping which reflect multiple current factors and agents of influence, this arrangement leads, as a final proposition, to raise the poetic criticism as a teaching and educational instrument of the subject of architectural design, where those maps lead to a complex, but approachable, vision of the project as a whole.

Contradictio in terminis: dialéctica de la ambigüedad en la arquitectura contemporánea

The twentieth century brought a new sensibility characterized by the discredit of cartesian rationality and the weakening of universal truths, related with aesthetic values as order, proportion and harmony. In the middle of the century, theorists such as Theodor Adorno, Rudolf Arnheim and Anton Ehrenzweig warned about the transformation developed by the artistic field. Contemporary aesthetics seemed to have a new goal: to deny the idea of art as an organized, finished and coherent structure. The order had lost its privileged position. Disorder, probability, arbitrariness, accidentality, randomness, chaos, fragmentation, indeterminacy... Gradually new terms were coined by aesthetic criticism to explain what had been happening since the beginning of the century. The first essays on the matter sought to provide new interpretative models based on, among other arguments, the phenomenology of perception, the recent discoveries of quantum mechanics, the deeper layers of the psyche or the information theories. Overall, were worthy attempts to give theoretical content to a situation as obvious as devoid of founding charter. Finally, in 1962, Umberto Eco brought together all this efforts by proposing a single theoretical frame in his book Opera Aperta. According to his point of view, all of the aesthetic production of twentieth century had a characteristic in common: its capacity to express multiplicity. For this reason, he considered that the nature of contemporary art was, above all, ambiguous. The aim of this research is to clarify the consequences of the incorporation of ambiguity in architectural theoretical discourse. We should start making an accurate analysis of this concept. However, this task is quite difficult because ambiguity does not allow itself to be clearly defined. This concept has the disadvantage that its signifier is as imprecise as its signified. In addition, the negative connotations that ambiguity still has outside the aesthetic field, stigmatizes this term and makes its use problematic. Another problem of ambiguity is that the contemporary subject is able to locate it in all situations. This means that in addition to distinguish ambiguity in contemporary productions, so does in works belonging to remote ages and styles. For that reason, it could be said that everything is ambiguous. And that’s correct, because somehow ambiguity is present in any creation of the imperfect human being. However, as Eco, Arnheim and Ehrenzweig pointed out, there are two major differences between current and past contexts. One affects the subject and the other the object. First, it’s the contemporary subject, and no other, who has acquired the ability to value and assimilate ambiguity. Secondly, ambiguity was an unexpected aesthetic result in former periods, while in contemporary object it has been codified and is deliberately present. In any case, as Eco did, we consider appropriate the use of the term ambiguity to refer to the contemporary aesthetic field. Any other term with more specific meaning would only show partial and limited aspects of a situation quite complex and difficult to diagnose. Opposed to what normally might be expected, in this case ambiguity is the term that fits better due to its particular lack of specificity. In fact, this lack of specificity is what allows to assign a dynamic condition to the idea of ambiguity that in other terms would hardly be operative. Thus, instead of trying to define the idea of ambiguity, we will analyze how it has evolved and its consequences in architectural discipline. Instead of trying to define what it is, we will examine what its presence has supposed in each moment. We will deal with ambiguity as a constant presence that has always been latent in architectural production but whose nature has been modified over time. Eco, in the mid-twentieth century, discerned between classical ambiguity and contemporary ambiguity. Currently, half a century later, the challenge is to discern whether the idea of ambiguity has remained unchanged or have suffered a new transformation. What this research will demonstrate is that it’s possible to detect a new transformation that has much to do with the cultural and aesthetic context of last decades: the transition from modernism to postmodernism. This assumption leads us to establish two different levels of contemporary ambiguity: each one related to one these periods. The first level of ambiguity is widely well-known since many years. Its main characteristics are a codified multiplicity, an interpretative freedom and an active subject who gives conclusion to an object that is incomplete or indefinite. This level of ambiguity is related to the idea of indeterminacy, concept successfully introduced into contemporary aesthetic language. The second level of ambiguity has been almost unnoticed for architectural criticism, although it has been identified and studied in other theoretical disciplines. Much of the work of Fredric Jameson and François Lyotard shows reasonable evidences that the aesthetic production of postmodernism has transcended modern ambiguity to reach a new level in which, despite of the existence of multiplicity, the interpretative freedom and the active subject have been questioned, and at last denied. In this period ambiguity seems to have reached a new level in which it’s no longer possible to obtain a conclusive and complete interpretation of the object because it has became an unreadable device. The postmodern production offers a kind of inaccessible multiplicity and its nature is deeply contradictory. This hypothetical transformation of the idea of ambiguity has an outstanding analogy with that shown in the poetic analysis made by William Empson, published in 1936 in his Seven Types of Ambiguity. Empson established different levels of ambiguity and classified them according to their poetic effect. This layout had an ascendant logic towards incoherence. In seventh level, where ambiguity is higher, he located the contradiction between irreconcilable opposites. It could be said that contradiction, once it undermines the coherence of the object, was the better way that contemporary aesthetics found to confirm the Hegelian judgment, according to which art would ultimately reject its capacity to express truth. Much of the transformation of architecture throughout last century is related to the active involvement of ambiguity in its theoretical discourse. In modern architecture ambiguity is present afterwards, in its critical review made by theoreticians like Colin Rowe, Manfredo Tafuri and Bruno Zevi. The publication of several studies about Mannerism in the forties and fifties rescued certain virtues of an historical style that had been undervalued due to its deviation from Renacentist canon. Rowe, Tafuri and Zevi, among others, pointed out the similarities between Mannerism and certain qualities of modern architecture, both devoted to break previous dogmas. The recovery of Mannerism allowed joining ambiguity and modernity for first time in the same sentence. In postmodernism, on the other hand, ambiguity is present ex-professo, developing a prominent role in the theoretical discourse of this period. The distance between its analytical identification and its operational use quickly disappeared because of structuralism, an analytical methodology with the aspiration of becoming a modus operandi. Under its influence, architecture began to be identified and studied as a language. Thus, postmodern theoretical project discerned between the components of architectural language and developed them separately. Consequently, there is not only one, but three projects related to postmodern contradiction: semantic project, syntactic project and pragmatic project. Leading these projects are those prominent architects whose work manifested an especial interest in exploring and developing the potential of the use of contradiction in architecture. Thus, Robert Venturi, Peter Eisenman and Rem Koolhaas were who established the main features through which architecture developed the dialectics of ambiguity, in its last and extreme level, as a theoretical project in each component of architectural language. Robert Venturi developed a new interpretation of architecture based on its semantic component, Peter Eisenman did the same with its syntactic component, and also did Rem Koolhaas with its pragmatic component. With this approach this research aims to establish a new reflection on the architectural transformation from modernity to postmodernity. Also, it can serve to light certain aspects still unaware that have shaped the architectural heritage of past decades, consequence of a fruitful relationship between architecture and ambiguity and its provocative consummation in a contradictio in terminis. Esta investigación centra su atención fundamentalmente sobre las repercusiones de la incorporación de la ambigüedad en forma de contradicción en el discurso arquitectónico postmoderno, a través de cada uno de sus tres proyectos teóricos. Está estructurada, por tanto, en torno a un capítulo principal titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad como proyecto teórico postmoderno, que se desglosa en tres, de títulos: Proyecto semántico. Robert Venturi; Proyecto sintáctico. Peter Eisenman; y Proyecto pragmático. Rem Koolhaas. El capítulo central se complementa con otros dos situados al inicio. El primero, titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad contemporánea. Una aproximación realiza un análisis cronológico de la evolución que ha experimentado la idea de la ambigüedad en la teoría estética del siglo XX, sin entrar aún en cuestiones arquitectónicas. El segundo, titulado Dialéctica de la ambigüedad como crítica del proyecto moderno se ocupa de examinar la paulatina incorporación de la ambigüedad en la revisión crítica de la modernidad, que sería de vital importancia para posibilitar su posterior introducción operativa en la postmodernidad. Un último capítulo, situado al final del texto, propone una serie de Proyecciones que, a tenor de lo analizado en los capítulos anteriores, tratan de establecer una relectura del contexto arquitectónico actual y su evolución posible, considerando, en todo momento, que la reflexión en torno a la ambigüedad todavía hoy permite vislumbrar nuevos horizontes discursivos. Cada doble página de la Tesis sintetiza la estructura tripartita del capítulo central y, a grandes rasgos, la principal herramienta metodológica utilizada en la investigación. De este modo, la triple vertiente semántica, sintáctica y pragmática con que se ha identificado al proyecto teórico postmoderno se reproduce aquí en una distribución específica de imágenes, notas a pie de página y cuerpo principal del texto. En la columna de la izquierda están colocadas las imágenes que acompañan al texto principal. Su distribución atiende a criterios estéticos y compositivos, cualificando, en la medida de lo posible, su condición semántica. A continuación, a su derecha, están colocadas las notas a pie de página. Su disposición es en columna y cada nota está colocada a la misma altura que su correspondiente llamada en el texto principal. Su distribución reglada, su valor como notación y su posible equiparación con una estructura profunda aluden a su condición sintáctica. Finalmente, el cuerpo principal del texto ocupa por completo la mitad derecha de cada doble página. Concebido como un relato continuo, sin apenas interrupciones, su papel como responsable de satisfacer las demandas discursivas que plantea una investigación doctoral está en correspondencia con su condición pragmática.

Web Classroom Application. Digital technologies to study theory, history and criticism of architecture at Escuela Superior de Arquitectura UPMadrid. The search for some guides to direct the inquiry learning

xxx

La ciudad editada: de Las Vegas a Nueva York (1972-1978): Venturi / Scott Brown / Koolhaas

Si hubiese un denominador común entre todas las artes en lo que ha venido llamándose postmodernidad, éste tendría mucho que ver con el final del origen de la obra. Desde la literatura y la música hasta las artes plásticas y la arquitectura, la superación de la modernidad ha estado caracterizada por la sustitución del concepto de creación por el de intervención artística, o lo que es lo mismo, la interpretación de lo que ya existe. A principios del siglo XX los conceptos modernos de creación y origen implicaban tener que desaprender y olvidar todo lo anterior con el ánimo de partir desde cero; incluso en un sentido material Mies sugería la construcción literal de la materia y su movimiento de acuerdo a unas leyes. A partir de la segunda mitad de siglo los planteamientos historicistas empezaron a surgir como reacción ante la amnesia y la supuesta originalidad de los modernos. En este contexto surgen los libros Learning from Las Vegas, 1972 y Delirious New York, 1978, ambos deudores en muchos aspectos con el anterior libro de Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1966. Estos dos libros sobre ciudades, alejándose decididamente de las tendencias historicistas de la época, proponían utilizar el análisis crítico de la realidad existente como vehículo para la teoría y el proyecto de manera simultánea, convirtiéndose indirectamente en Manifiestos. Si en un primer momento Venturi, Rossi y otros planteaban acabar con los límites formales establecidos por la modernidad, así como por cualquiera de los cánones anteriores, tomando la totalidad de la obra construida como sistema de referencia, - al igual que hiciera Eliot en literatura, - los libros de Las Vegas y Nueva York sugerían directamente borrar los límites de la propia disciplina, llegando a poner en duda ¿Qué puede ser considerado arquitectura? Sin embargo, debido precisamente a la ausencia total de límites y a la inmensidad del sistema referencial planteado, “todo puede ser arquitectura”, como apuntaba Hans Hollein en 1968, los libros proponen al mismo tiempo definir el campo de actuación de cada cual de manera individual. Los escritos sobre Las Vegas y Nueva York suponen por un lado la eliminación de los limites disciplinares y por otro, la delimitación de ámbitos de trabajo concretos para sus autores: los propios de cada una de las ciudades interpretadas. La primera parte de la Tesis, Lecciones, se ocupa del necesario proceso de aprendizaje y experimentación previo a la acción crítica propiamente dicha. Los arquitectos contemporáneos necesitan acumular material, conocimiento, documentación, experiencias... antes de lanzarse a proponer mediante la crítica y la edición; y al contrario que ocurría con los modernos, cuanto más abundante sea ese bagaje previo más rica será la interpretación. Las ciudades de Roma, Londres y Berlín se entienden por tanto como experiencias capaces de proporcionar a Venturi, Scott Brown y Koolhaas respectivamente, sus “personales diccionarios”, unas interminables imaginerías con las que posteriormente se enfrentarían a los análisis de Las Vegas y Nueva York. La segunda parte, Críticas, se centra en la producción teórica en sí: los dos libros de ciudades analizados en estrecha relación con el Complexity and Contradiction. El razonamiento analógico característico de estos libros ha servido de guía metodológica para la investigación, estableciéndose relaciones, no entre los propios escritos directamente, sino a través de trabajos pertenecientes a otras disciplinas. En primer lugar se plantea un importante paralelismo entre los métodos de análisis desarrollados en estos libros y los utilizados por la crítica literaria, observando que si el new criticism y el nuevo periodismo sirvieron de guía en los escritos de Venturi y Scott Brown, la nouvelle critique y su propuesta de identificación poética fueron el claro referente de Koolhaas al abordar Nueva York. Por otro lado, la relevancia ganada por la actividad de comisariado artístico y la aparición de la figura del curator, como autoridad capaz de utilizar la obra de arte por encima de las intenciones de su propio autor, sirve, al igual que la figura del editor, como reflejo de la acción transformadora y de apropiación llevada a cabo tanto en Learning from Las Vegas, como en Delirious New York. Por último y a lo largo de toda la investigación las figuras de Bergson y Baudelaire han servido como apoyo teórico. A través de la utilización que de sus ideas hicieron Venturi y Koolhaas respectivamente, se ha tratado de mostrar la proximidad de ambos planteamientos desde un punto de vista ideológico. La Inclusión propuesta por Venturi y la ironía utilizada por Koolhaas, la contradicción y la paradoja, no son sino el reflejo de lógicas que en ambos casos reaccionan al mismo tiempo contra idealismo y materialismo, contra modernidad y antimodernidad, en un continuo intento de ser lo uno y lo otro simultáneamente. ABSTRACT If there was a common denominator among all the arts in what has been called postmodernism, it would have much to do with the end of the origin of the artwork. From literature and music to fine arts and architecture, overcoming modernity has been characterized by replacing the concept of artistic creation by the one of intervention, in other words, the interpretation of what already exists. In the early twentieth century modern concepts of creation and origin involved unlearning and forgetting everything before with the firm intention of starting from scratch. Even in a material sense Mies suggested the literal construction of matter and its motion according to laws. From the mid-century historicist approaches began to emerge in response to the amnesia and originality alleged by moderns. In this context appeared the books Learning from Las Vegas, 1972 and Delirious New York, 1978, both debtors in many respects to the previous book by Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1966. These two books on cities, which broke away decidedly with the historicist trends of the time, proposed using critical analysis of the existing reality as a vehicle for theory and projecting at the same time, indirectly becoming manifests. If at first Venturi, Rossi and others pose to erase the formal limits set by modernity, as well as any of the canons before, taking the entire work built as a reference system, - as did Eliot in literature - the books on Las Vegas and New York proposed directly erasing the boundaries of the discipline itself, coming to question what could be considered architecture? However, and precisely because of the absence of limits and the immensity of the established framework, - “everything could be architecture” as Hans Hollein pointed in 1968, - the books suggested at the same time the definition of a field of action for each one individually. The cities of Las Vegas and New York represented on the one hand the elimination of disciplinary limits and on the other, the delimitation of specific areas of work to its authors: Those on each of the cities interpreted. The first part of the thesis, Lessons, attend to the necessary process of learning and experimentation before the critical action itself. Contemporary architects need to accumulate material, knowledge, information, experiences... before proposing through criticism and editing; and unlike happened with moderns, the most abundant this prior baggage is, the richest will be the interpretation. Rome, London and Berlin are therefore understood as experiences capable of providing Venturi, Scott Brown and Koolhaas respectively, their “personal dictionaries”, interminable imageries with which they would later face the analysis of Las Vegas and New York. The second part, Critiques, focuses on the theoretical production itself: the two books on both cities analyzed closely with the Complexity and Contradiction. The analogical reasoning characteristic of these books has served as a methodological guide for the research, establishing relationships, not directly between the writings themselves, but through works belonging to other disciplines. First, an important parallel is set between the methods of analysis developed in these books and those used by literary criticism, noting that if the new criticism and new journalism guided Venturi and Scott Brown´s writings, the nouvelle critique and its poetic identification were clear references for Koolhaas when addressing New York. On the other hand, the relevance gained by curating and the understanding of the figure of the curator as an authority capable to use artworks above the intentions of their authors, like the one of the Editor, reflects the appropriation and processing actions carried out both in Learning from Las Vegas, and Delirious New York. Finally and over all the research Bergson and Baudelaire figures resonate continuously. Through the use of their ideas done by Venturi and Koolhaas respectively, the research has tried to show the proximity of both approaches from an ideological point of view. Inclusion, as posed by Venturi and irony, as used by Koolhaas, contradiction and paradox are reflections of the logic that in both cases allow them to react simultaneously against idealism and materialism, against modernism and anti-modernism.