Associations of the Postmodern Movement and the Intellectual Consciousness
(M.Arch QUT; Contemporary Architectural Culture)
Introduction
Postmodernism has made itself known for its incorporation of classicism, neoclassicism and other historical elements, but few have come to the resolution of why. Till this day, many have merely accepted or condemned the supposed stunt of progression for architecture. However, is postmodernity – characterised by its adoption of historicist ornamentation, a projection onto impervious insights of its intellectuals, or is it really the beginning of the movement of the conscious architecture of memory and recognition – a medium for the intellectual imagination? Can postmodernity and consciousness be viewed as separate entities, or are they entities that are intertwined between each other whereby to neglect one is to neglect understanding the whole? Are semiotic experiences towards postmodernism influenced by memory, or are they a result of the perceived encounter?
In this essay, I look into understanding the liaison between postmodernity and its consciousness by reflecting on Venturi’s framework as the pioneer of the whole movement. Apart from this, I will be deconstructing critiques from the likes of Manfredo Tafuri, Fredric Jameson and Peter Eisenman to gain insight on the perceptions of the movement during its emergence. With these, attempting to understand theories of consciousness, particularly of experiential architecture will help bring together how consciousness has affected perceptions on the postmodern movement in the 1960s and of architecture in today’s era.
The Postmodern Movement
The emergence of the postmodern movement brought about attempts to diverge from the purist ideals of modernism, and has been associated with that of historicism given its heavy use of classical ornamentation, symbolism, and decorated facades. Postmodernism sought to break away from the austere, rationalist and orderly nature of the modern movement to represent ‘the constantly changing landscape of today’s modern world’ (Venturi, Brown and Izenour 1977). This revolution of semiotics in architecture saw the assertions of modernist architecture to be that of a social and artistic failure to which postmodernism was the remedy.
Robert Venturi, renowned for his title of the iconoclastic reluctant pioneer of postmodernism[1], presented his intention of his radical ideals to be that of a constitution of experiences which culminated into a whole new architectural style. The argument was that the concerns of modernity were solely on the visualities of architecture which disregarded the architect’s role in bringing forward political agendas, and that the emergence of postmodernism ‘brought about a shift in emphasis from object to subject’ (Bhatt 2000). Thus, Venturi sought to create architecture that would become a medium of the subject, not just a vessel for the viewing of the subject. This begs the question, whether postmodernism represented the turning point of a conscious architecture or the era of architecture that informed the intellectual consciousness.
Complexity in Postmodernism
Perhaps the most discernible theory Venturi introduced was his theory of complexity in postmodernism, directing a new focus onto design and semantics. In his book Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture[2], he mentions complexity and the tension between space and experience, material and form, and completely denigrates modernity and what the movement represents. His argument – if human life itself is so complex, why relegate architecture and force simplicity into it? Why not celebrate the tension and awkwardness of what human life and experiences bring?
In The Architecture of the Jumping Universe[3], Jencks states that there are in fact, two separate theories on complexity that are often misunderstood, architectural – the idea that the city is ‘a problem of organized complexity’, a theory introduce by Jane Jacobs[4], and scientific – the idea that complexity is a psychological and sociological advance over simplicity (Jencks 1995). Jencks describes Venturi’s theory on complexity an evolution of culture and urbanism to cope with contradictory problems. A system of architecture filled with conflicts that are meant to be faced, not suppressed.
It is interesting however, that though Venturi’s views go against the pursuit of the perfect form, many of his works that brought about this movement included borrowed forms of traditional architecture. Venturi stated in A Significance for A&P Parking Lots, or Learning from Las Vegas[5] that his perception on the defamation of the notion of debauched symbolism was that it flaunted the banalities of a decade ago, or as Jencks (1995) suggests, a ‘manipulation of classicism’. One would think that moving forward from modernism would have less to do with borrowing from the past than what instead constituted postmodernity. In saying this, we must not forget that part of the intentions of those eras, were to in fact strive for perfection, order and beauty in architecture, which in a way, align with the core idea of modernism. Though his works suggest an irreconcilable rift between the actual dynamics of the built environment, and the role of the architect presented by modernism, there exists a subterfuge where in an attempt to create some sort of normality with his designs, what resulted was anything but. If we were to take this into consideration, perhaps in his own way, Venturi strived for his own idea of perfection through complexity and juxtaposition. A pursuit of his own idea of perfection, disguised as an attempt to regain normalcy.
Postmodernity and its Critique
Postmodernity saw its own set of opposing critiques refusing any ‘periodisation of a postmodernism’ (Tafuri 1969), to which when diving deeper into the contexts of such critiques, could have largely been influenced by the era of the movement’s emergence. In Towards a Critique of Architectural Ideology[6], Tafuri takes on a pessimistic and negative dialectic with postmodernism, to which Jameson regards as a trap in the ideological asceticism[7]. Tafuri suggests rationalism reduced the urban structure through its obsessive repetition, and that postmodernists simply plagiarised the old modernist solutions with less vigour and ingenuity (Tafuri 1969). Thus, in an attempt to resolve all of its’ own contradictions, individual segments conflicted with themselves.
Fredric Jameson, a Marxist political theorist, mentions postmodernity on a few accounts in several of his works. In Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism[8], Jameson states that there are two sides to understanding postmodernism – the first being that the movement was an attempt to grasp the cultural dominance of late capitalism, and the second being that it was a conscious effort to attempt to think of our ‘present time in history’. It is this second thought we see how, yet again, consciousness of being and representation comes into play.
Contextually, both Tafuri and Jameson could have been heavily influenced by political agendas during their era. Tafuri’s critiques largely came about during the time of industrialization and late capitalism, and the historical implications leading to his works can possibly be regarded as purely political engrossment (Leach 2006). Their common view on postmodernism, however, both rest on the belief and pessimistic view that there was no moving forward from this within the existence of late capitalism.
In a symposium in 1988[9], on the subject of postmodernism, Eisenman made the statement that ‘we are all nostalgics’ and later reprimanded the movement’s reactionary inclination for adopting historicist fripperies. It is clear that what resulted towards the whole movement was a frenetically indecisive atmosphere. Here we have Eisenman almost contradicting himself. In a way, he charges nostalgic ideals, arguably undertaking Venturi’s view, then later depreciates the ‘theoretical practice energized by the ideas of history’ (Eisenman 1988).
It is possible that this inconsistency of the postmodern understanding amongst critics can be linked to the idea that opinions shift just as consciousness does. The more we can relate to a reality that helps us understand an ordeal, the more likely it is we form our own explanation of a certain phenomenon from this reality. And if new insights come into play providing another layer of understanding, what results is a shift, or in this case, a contradiction in one’s own words. Eisenman stated that the six houses he designed were ‘all governed by the intent to define the act of architecture as the dislocation and consequent reconstitution of an ever-accruing metaphysic of architecture’[10] (Eisenman, Krauss and Tafuri 1987), highlighting the metaphysics of not physical aspects, but rather the psychological associations with form. Ergo, given that he shunned the ideals of postmodernism, the theoretical implications of the movement itself seemed to seep into his works and what resulted somewhat carried the shadow of postmodernity.
Interestingly enough, one thing that most critiques have in common is that none seem to describe the postmodern movement in a way that ‘connotes an organized movement’ (Leffert 2010). It can be said that as Venturi’s theories exude a complex nature, the contradictions within each critique are for the reason that consciousness itself is a complex, ever-changing, and ever-evolving entity that is dictated by personal experiences. We believe something to be appropriate or implausible solely on our own perception of what is and isn’t. It may be conceivable to suggest that Tafuri’s harsh and pessimistic stance – perceivably disguised with the required neutrality of such a criticism, is heavily influenced by his personal negative experience with the movement. Perhaps Venturi did not consider much of this new movement he unexpectedly brought about, perhaps it is purely anarchy – that reintroducing the ornament was just a necessary provocation and an uncomplicated disobedience of order. However, I believe there is an underlying constituent that many have disregarded due to the inability to look beyond the deviance and perversion.
Consciousness and Architecture
The postmodern situation in society can be outlined by historical, cultural and social limitations (Oktay 2016), which would explain the differences in the variability of reflections on the movement. In the book Contemporary Psychoanalytic Foundations: Postmodernism, Complexity, And Neuroscience[11], Leffert (2010) states that issue with considering the nature of the ‘psychological space’ as the postmodern problem is that in trying to understand it, ‘we find that the space has contradictory properties whose mutual influence cannot be separated’. The problem with attempting to find an interrelationship between postmodernism and consciousness, is the contemporaneous between the two. These two entities intertwine in an almost contradictory way where one cannot perceive them altogether as a coherent entity, nor can they be anatomized individually without the other.
Welcome to Your World: How the Built Environment Shapes Our Lives[12], implies that this newly developing paradigm of cognition and consciousness reveals much of what we know is neither direct nor rational, and that this new narrative reveals how broadly our environments structure and provide the foundation for not only how we perceive things, but what constitutes our thoughts (Goldhagen 2017). If our experiences are shaped by the environment around us, it can then be said that our consciousness heavily dictate what we believe to be the best, or most appropriate form of architecture to produce. Be it complex, or as the modernists prefer, simple.
In many ways, I would argue that conscious architecture began during the era of postmodernism as this particular movement was what I believe to be the birth of a new conscious thought in the way we live. In reference to Kant[13] (1781), we do not experience an object as it is, but only within our own representations of the object’s appearance. The actual events take place in this consciousness, and what we learn from nature depends on the way nature is represented in our minds. This understanding of nature is grasped through interactions with bodily experience of the physical and metaphysical, and is transformed in our minds, informing our own conscious. This consciousness then informs the way we live, and as architects, the way we want buildings to be perceived.
If we take all these into consideration, we could say that Venturi’s notion of complexity and contradiction was in fact a culmination of his experiences prior to the movement, a representation of himself, to which he subconsciously derived from and brought about in a whole new way of perceiving architecture and the architectural experience. A conscious type of architecture driven by subconscious thought.
Conclusion
Venturi (1966, 13) once stated, ‘As an architect, I try to be guided not by habit but by a conscious sense of the past – by precedent, thoughtfully considered’. In response to my proposed questions, through attempting to understand Venturi’s approach, I believe that postmodernism is possibly, the start of a more conscious-driven architecture – a medium for the intellectual’s imagination and culmination of experiences. A tangible representation of the intangible where postmodernism is a result of consciousness and consciousness itself can be a result of postmodernism. Perhaps it is presumptuous to assume consciousness in the case of postmodernity as a dependant instrument reliant on the ideals of the movement itself. We cannot be certain that consciousness and postmodernism relate to one another mutually for all accounts of architecture that erected in the 1960s. They are, in a sense, an amalgamation of entities that is a result of the continued attempt to seek an understanding of life, the human experience, and the environment we live in – a sort of symbiosis at play.
Most will say that postmodernism is a disjointed and incoherent movement – an era of architecture that, as its characteristics, went back in time. What has often been neglected is the fact that while its predecessors had both eyes on the future, the intellectuals of its time revived an awareness of the past. It may be that postmodernity’s inclination to semiotic historicism is in fact a coincidental result of this psychoanalytical phenomenon of past encounters. After all, as architects and designers, inspiration comes best through reliving memories and experiences. Whether it is merely a style or a frame of mind, postmodernism essentially freed the architects of its era from the constraints of devout modernism, creating a new avenue of in-depth consciousness for architecture and people – an avenue that is still being unravelled today.
[1] In 2001, Robert Venturi proclaimed “I am not now and never have been a Postmodernist”, stating that he had no intentions of ever starting an architectural movement. [2] Robert Venturi, “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture: Selections from a Forthcoming Book.” (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966). [3] Charles Jencks, “The Architecture of the Jumping Universe” (Great Britain, 1995). [4] Jencks noted the ‘architectural’ theory of postmodernism in association with Jane Jacobs’, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” (New York: Random House Inc., 1961). [5] Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour, “A Significance for A&P Parking Lots, or Learning from Las Vegas” in Learning from Las Vegas: the forgotten symbolism of architectural form (Cambridge: MIT, 1977). [6] Manfredo Tafuri, “Per una critica dell’ideologia architettonica,” Contropiano 1 (1969): trans. as “Towards a Critique of Architectural Ideology,” in K. Michael Hays, ed., Architectural Theory Since 1968 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). [7] Fredric Jameson, “Architecture and the Critique of Ideology” (1982), in Michael Hays (ed.) Architecture Theory Since 1968 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998). [8] Fredric Jameson, “Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism” (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998) [9] Peter Eisenman, “Architecture and Education: The Past Twenty-Five Years and Assumptions for the Future” (Princeton, 1988), was a day-long symposium convened to honour Princeton’s premier postmodernist architect, Michael Graves. [10] Peter Eisenman, Rosalind Krauss and Manfredo Tafuri “Houses of Cards” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). This book features six houses designed by Eisenman, documenting the changes in discourse of each design. [11] Mark Leffert, “Contemporary Psychoanalytic Foundations: Postmodernism, Complexity, And Neuroscience” (New York: Taylor and Francis Group, 2010.) [12] Sarah Williams Goldhagen, “Welcome To Your World: How The Built Environment Shapes Our Lives” (New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2017). [13] Immanuel Kant, “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” (1781): trans. as “Critique of Pure Reason” in Paul Guyer and Allen Wood’s ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who introduced transcendental idealism. This theory is based on the idea that the conscious subject recognizes objects not as they are, but in the way they appear to us.