ne) Arcdapectway Whoo Chicago Institute for Architecture and Urbanism, September 1988; published in As- sembiage 8 (February 1989) The hype and hysteria surrounding the 1988 “Deconstructivst Architecture” exhibi- tion at the Museum of Modern Art blurred an important distinction of terms in the relation of architecture and deconstruction. On the one hand was the ongoing prob- tematic of architectural representation or meaning, the legacy of the architectural the: ory of the 19708. - research of meaning ‘rom attempts ‘and controllable "architectural meanings, adequate to a broad cultural consensus, to attempts to di ‘pt and disperse meaning, to seize on the fragmentation of present culture and the impossibility of consensus. On the other hand were the facts that an architectural metaphor had dominated the history of philosophy from Plato to Kant to Heidegger to Derrida, and that Derida had declared nee EENCED to de-construct what has been but ea eaRT OTST _ nique itself, upon the suthority of the architectural metaphor and thereby constitutes its own architectural rhetoric... One could say that there is nothing more architec tural than deconstruction, but also nothing less architectural” If his curatorial and ‘editorial roles in the *Deconsiructivist Architecture” exhibition associated Mark Wig- ley with the former understanding of the architecture/deconstruction relation, his most important theoretical work places him squarely within the latter, in questions, of philosophy’s use of architecture as a figure of ts own practices of building and interrogating structures. Wigley turns the probing of the authority of the architectural metaphor back on the writings of Derrida, in an attempt to show that central (Heideg- gerian) notions of deconstruction like ground, structure, omament, domestication, tomb, and institution cannot but produce an “architecture,” and that architectural thinking — so implicated is it in the economy of translation of such notions —at once preserves and threatens philosophy. The translation of deconstruction in architecture, in fact, constitutes what it claims to simply reproduce. “The architectural transition of deconstruction, which appears to be the last-minute, last-gasp tums out to be part of the very production of deconstructive discourse from ‘an ongoing event organized by the terms of an ancient contract between architecture ‘and philosophy tht is inscribed within the structure of both discourses." “The Translation of Architecture” is one mark of an important ‘moment in architectural theory, a moment when architecture was understood as inter alia, a way of doing philosophy —not representing or illustrating philosophical cepts but rather thinking philosophical problems through o 5$_ One account of postmodernism associates forts to retrieve cultural memory through formal, historical allusions with seaconservative politics, white holding out the possi: bility, as Mary McLeod puts it in her essay here, that forms of “fragmentation, disper- sion, decentering, schizophrenia, and] disturbance" can imbue architecture with a “critical” power associated with poststructuralist theoretical practices. But another view understands both the pastiche of historical representations and the poststructur- alist critique of the same as secondary tothe accelerated culture of consumption that characterized the 19805. For something like the binary logic of an eartier, structural lin- gusstics: based formalesm still bleeds through the fabric of later theories that otherwise. Claim a more radically proiterated and destabilizing force. In most versions of so-called ceconstruct vist architecture, the negativity of modernism isrecon- - poststructuralist or deco i lently” opposed (such words were prevalent in the 1980s) to the context into which itis inserted. The strident freshness of the new architecture still seeks to perform an essentially modemist function of renewal of perception but substitutes for modern: ism's totalized socio-aesthetic.productive package a practice of signs that shares the same techniques of building production and delivery with another practice of signs that it opposes. And as the 980s came to an end, doubts arose about whether an ‘architecture that is nothing more than a practice of signs could ever escape the des: tiny of becoming one more degraded form of the commadifcation of information. The discourse of architectural postmodernism pushed into full view a deeply felt struggie in progressive architecture theory. The wholesale depreca- tion of postmodernism as a symptom of capitalism is as reductive as earlier leftist dis- rissals of modernism (Lukics's attack on expressionism in the 19305, for example, or ‘even Adorna’s writing off of jazz); vet one cannot deny that postmodern architecture, in all its forms, is solidly anchored in consumer culture: When even those experiments (whether cynical or sincere) allegedly aimed at undermining the system seem inevitably ta draw their life fcom the same kind of insatiable desire that Keeps the consumer sys- ter going in the first place. theory s confronted with the impossibility of even imagin: ing something else, of projecting a space outside the structures of commodification. ‘As what was for some the most radical architecture ofthe 1980s ‘was being disseminated through the publicity machine of Philip Johnson and the Mu- Seum of Modern Art, architecture theory had to wrestle with such problems. McLeod's close attention to the specific, historical dynamics of architecture in the age of univer- sal surrender to market ideology gives shape to an earnest call for architecture theory to shake itself out of its fixation on the critical or liberative power of form and to include considerations of commodity production and institutional constraints along with its formal analyses. Though her essay does not produce solutions (perhaps it Ould not have i 1989). it has the advantage of reminding us tha, lest they turn into mete moralism or desperate hancwringing, cttcal reflections on commodification ‘and consumption must hold out the possibility of projecting alternative interpretive systems to capitalism — must offer, that 1s, some utopian proposition — something that architecture theory in the 19803 was not generally accustomed to doing. G18AT vwece batinps and jags 19 this coune, and! moments of genuine quality and insight, the potenti! for opposition was soon exhausted By the time the ATAT bualding vas completed — he inal shoe uf ty historit forms dhsupaced—dhe bare wath modernism was largely wun, hur by that nme, to, postmodernism itself became _ subpect to the forces of consumption and commodification ‘This prdty nowhere clearer han in the architecture culture itself tis almet as ifthe populist has of the moversent invited new levee of public: ity dnd peornenin The peuliferanin of hooks and label tive different edsions of Jencks’ The Language ot Pst Mara Anhitatur. architecture drawings in the art market, ‘editions of the complete works of archttrets under Atty, architet designed teapots Jind doghouses. ghonsy omagarine articles, advertising endonerients for Dester shoes-—aigaled archutecture’s new popularay and marketability The tmage of the anclutect shifes from social crusader and aesthenc puritan 40 trendsemer and media sar Thus change an professional definssors had ramifications throughout architec: tural rassitations In the 1980s mont schonk stopped offering regular housing stu- dios, gemlemes'’ dubs, resort hotel, at ciusewas, and vacation bums becasne the standard pengrams Design awards and prntessonal magazsne coverage ave embod ted similar prinewes. Advoeacy architecture and pr buno work are almost dead, {fs leak picture of commodification threatens to over shadum postinederniaun’ coatnibutions—ats critique of modernization and is re- newest senve of the city and publhe space— prwes much broader problems about the power of acchotexcure counter the forces of capital indeed, os capacity to sus- fain aby critical mule at all Certainly, 36 the fist crits of the modern movement revealed. archutecture sole has been ibcrrakingly diminished by larger econ and soul provesses "But st oe also ampyitant 0 consider what role the theoretical aud formal sscumpenns of postrnedersiem may have played in these procesies. Com inodificativa suggests the mnpertaice of cultural signs: shat the condumpeion of ob- cs is as antegral to questions af power as their priducton. But it also suggests a fpeocess that automaticaly satates any sustained (HPQue, « fecycling of amages that eaves muterial forces untsuchedt Could w be that poxsmadernism, ty focusing exclu sively 06 tinage, by detaching meaning from oeher institutional issues, right ave lent abelf readily to commexbfiason, evem potentially sparring its development archutecrare? Poustracturalism, Deconstructiv ise Anew ats huevtutal ttle, ascated aownth postr icrurast theory and con so schol argon the sb crash jets and the Rubia aso recs its hastoricist imagery, ts complacent comtestu- alin, its concihatery and afhrmanve propemes, its humaniem, ots rejection af technological agers and ts epeemaa othe new.” This recent wave of cD and dessgners clits that postrnodern architecture does net confront the present and the Current imponshidey of cultural conwenstis (here, despite der reyetion of any ean ff hats, many psrocturai adhouates ali aig and peng ether) Eavtead of seeking cultural communication, architecture, in their view, should make explo its purported obiieratiin-Fragmentasion, dispersion, decen— tering. schizopliena, disturbance are the mew objectives, it from these qualities thor archuvetare bts gan wn “cena” edge But the question arises of wheter the political role of this mew: arcturecural avant yarde—this second tain of ~pentmodereser”—diters signi {antty from that of the firt movement Iedecomserucciensmp, with tts seamoclastic thet lonnx. its thataite defiance of structural anid enaferial conventions, amy tore potent that poxtmudermem ax countering the dominant comservatiam of che Reagan era? Or 8 ¢qJo