Reflections from damaged modernity

The cliché about modern architecture being the fairy-tale fulfillment of every fantasy ceases to be a cliché only when it is accompanied by the fairy tale’s moral: that the fulfillment of the wishes rarely engenders goodness in the one doing the wishing (Adorno). Wishing for the right things in architecture and the city is the most difficult art of all: since the grim childhood-tales of the twentieth century we have been weaned from dreams and utopias, the stuff of modernism’s bad conscience. For Adorno writing in 1953, Hollywood cinema was a medium of “regression” based on infantile wish fulfillment manufactured by the industrial repetition (mimesis) of the filmic image that he called a modern “hieroglyphics,” like the archaic language of pictures in Ancient Egypt which guaranteed immortality after death in Egyptian burial rites. Arguably, today the iconic architecture industry is the executor of archaic images of modernity linked to rituals of death, promises of omnipotence and immortality. As I will argue in this symposium, such buildings are not a reflection of external ‘reality,’ but regression to an internal architectural polemic that secretly carries out the rituals of modernism’s death and seeks to make good on the liabilities of architectural history.

Reflections on damaged modernity: Lessons from the iconic architecture industry

For Adorno writing in 1953, Hollywood cinema was a medium of “regression” based on infantile wish fulfillment manufactured by the industrial repetition of the filmic image that he called a modern “hieroglyphics”—like the archaic language of pictures in Ancient Egypt, which guaranteed immortality after death in Egyptian burial rites. From that 1953 essay Prolog zum Fernsehen to Das Schema der Massenkultur in 1981, Adorno likened film frames to cultural ideograms: What he called the filmic “language of images” (Bildersprache) constituted a Hieroglyphenschrift that visualised forbidden sexual impulses and ideations of death and domination in the unconscious of the mass spectator. In his famous passage he writes, “As image, the image-writing (Bilderschrift) is a medium of regression, where the producer and consumer coincide; as writing, film resurrects the archaic images of modernity.” In other words, cinema takes the spectator on a journey into his unconscious in order to control him from within. It works, because the spectator begins to believe the film is speaking to him in his very own image-language (the unconscious), making him do and buy whatever capitalism demands. Modernity for Adorno is precisely the instrumentalisation of the collective unconscious through the mediatic images of the culture industry.