on

u
I *r task in cc

A QUESTION OF QUALITIES
E S S A Y S IN A R C H I T E C T U R E

J EF F REY K I P N I S
L
tfr©j< :s, there simply was not enough intrinsic material nor were the
^ deh ;i 'i.Yg. All tjie most popular contrivan<^s thargTlhe irm’cLlit
her*. • : a Motphbsis" style: the mecho-tech fetish^ indulgent \
 THE M IT PRESS

C A M B R ID G E , M A S S A CH U S ET TS

LON D O N. ENGLAND

A QUESTION OF QUALITIES
ESSAYS IN ARCHITECTURE

JEFFREY KIPNIS
E D I T E D BY A L E X A N D E R M A Y M I N D
© 2013 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in
any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including
photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval)
without permission in writing from the publisher.

MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity

discounts for business or sales promotional use.
For information, please email speciaLsales@mitpress.mit.edu
or write to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press,
55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142.

This book was set in Filosofia and Trade Gothic by the MIT Press.
Printed and bound in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kipnis, Jeffrey
[Essays. Selections]
A question of qualities : essays in architecture / Jeffrey Kipnis;
edited by Alexander Maymind.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-262-51955-7 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Architecture, Modern—20th century—'Themes, motives.
2. Architecture, Modern—21st century—Themes, motives.
I. Maymind, Alexander, editor of compilation. II. Kipnis, Jeffrey.
A question of qualities. III. Title.
NA680.K518 2013
7246—dc23
2012046609

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 a
 CONTENTS

P R E F A CE ix

/
1 A QUESTION OF QUALITI ES 1
2 EXILE ON RI NGSTR ASS E;
EXCITATIONS ON MAI N STREET 35

3 . . . AND TH EN , SO M ET HI NG MAGICAL 53

4 THE C UN N I N G OF COS ME TI CS
(A PERSONAL REFLECTION ON THE
ARCHITECTURE OF HERZOG & DE MEU RO N) 99

5 RECENT KOOLHAAS 115

6 M ON EO ’S ANX I ET Y 147 %
7 TH R O WI N G ST ON ES — THE I NCI DENTAL
EFFECTS OF A GLASS HOUSE 165

8 A T I M E FOR FREEDOM 199

9 NOLO CONTENDERE 225

10 / T W I S T I N G THE SEPA RAT RI X/ 231

11 TOWARD A N EW A RCH I TEC TU RE 287

NOTES 323

INDEX 347
 TOWARD A NEW ARCHITECTURE

Well, I stand up next to a mountain,

and I chop it down with the edge of my hand.
Well, I pick up all the pieces and make an island,
might even make a little sand.
— Jim i H endrix, “V oodoo C hild”

Over the last few years, a few projects by a handful of architects

have broached discussions of a New Architecture. The themes of
this discussion are only now coming into sufficient focus to allow
for the preliminary efforts to articulate some of them in this vol
ume. Before we turn our attention to that specific task, however,
let us consider for a moment what is at stake in the endeavor.
“A New Architecture.” Today one whispers this phrase with
trepidation and embarrassment, perhaps for good reason. True
enough, most New Architectures are so ill-conceived that they
are stillborn or die a merciful death early in infancy. But the
prognosis is poor even for those with the strength to survive
their hatching, for the majority of these are killed by a well-co-
ordinated, two-pronged attack.
There are several variations, but the general schema of this
attack is well known: first, critics from the right deciy the de
stabilizing anarchism of New Architecture and the empty ego
tism of its architects; then, critics from the left rail against the
 architecture as irresponsible and immoral and the architects as
corrupt collaborationists. Sapped by this onslaught, the evis
cerated remainders are quickly mopped up by historians, with
their uncanny ability to convince us that the supposed New Ar
chitecture is actually not new at all, and was in fact explored with
greater depth and authenticity in Europe some time ago.1
Today, historians and critics alike sermonize upon the creed
that there is nothing new worthwhile in architecture, particu
larly no new form. Their doxology is relentless: “praise the past
from which all blessings flow.” Thus, we retreat from the new
and have become ashamed to look for it. 1 have colleagues who
comb drafts of their work before publication in order to replace
the word “new” as often as possible; I have done it myself. As a
result, PoMo, whose guiding first principle is its unabashed and
accurate claim to offer nothing new, has become the only archi
tecture to mature over the last twenty years.
“Nonsense!” it will be argued; “During the same period a
flourishing revival of the avant-garde has developed,” and fin
gers will point to the Museum of Modern Arts “Deconstructiv
ist Architecture” exhibition and to the buildings of Eisenman,
Gehiy, Libeskind, Tschumi, Koolhaas, Hadid, and others. Yet,
upon closer examination, is it not more accurate to say that these
works have been executed under the auspices of an implicit con
tract of disavowal? In other words, is it not the case that these
designs are celebrated as auratic, signature buildings of interest
only for their irreproducible singularity, rather than as sources
of new principles for a general architectural practice? In that
sense, the discipline of architecture has recognized them as
exotic, precisely so as to suppress their contribution to a New
4 Architecture.
Yet within these disparate works are insights that might well
contribute to formulating a framework for a New Architecture:
one that promises both formal vitality and political relevance.

288 CHAPTER 11
1

Consider the work of Daniel Libeskind, for example. From

Chamber Works to his recent projects in Germany and elsewhere,
one finds a sustained, penetrating critique of the axis and its
constellation of linear organizations. Considering the political,
social, and spatial history of the axis in architecture and urban
ism, this is no minor issue. Yet very little on this subject can be
found in the critical literature treating these projects. Instead,
Libeskind is configured as an avatar of the esoteric, and the sta
tus and power of the axis in quotidian architectural practice, so
thoroughly rethought in his projects, are left unquestioned.
On the surface, our retreat from the new seems both histori
cally and theoretically well informed. With its utopian aspira
tions, architectural modernism sought to overthrow obsolete
spatial hierarchies and establish a new and more democratic,
homogeneous space. However well-meaning this goal, insofar
as its search for the new was implicated in an Enlightenment-
derived, progressivist project, it was also implicated in the
tragedies that resulted. The instrumental logic of architectural
modernisms project of the new necessarily calls for erasure and
replacement; for example, Le Corbusier's proposal for old Paris.
In the name of heterogeneity, postmodern discourse has
mounted a critique of the project of the new along several fronts.
It has demonstrated both the impossibility of inventing a tabula
rasa and the necessity to celebrate the very differences modern
ism sought to erase. Its own version of the search for the new,
a giddy logic of play, of reiteration and recombination, of col
lage and montage, supplants modernism's sober, self-serious
search for the Brave New. In postmodernism’s play, history re
gains renewed respect, though on different terms. Rejected as a
linear, teleological process that underwrites its own erasure and
replacement, history is now understood as a shapeless well of re-
combinatorial material: always deep, always full, always open to
the public.

TOWARD A NEW ARCHITECTURE 289

^ l l l t l l i l h l l l l l l . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . !’ 11 ■! . .
 In postmodernism’s most virulent practices—those that use
reiteration and recombination to insinuate themselves into and
undermine received systems of power—a relationship to the new
is maintained that is optimistic and even progressive, albeit not
teleologically directed. In such postmodern practices as decon
struction, the project of the new is rejected. New intellectual,
aesthetic, and institutional forms, as well as forms of social ar
rangements, are generated not by proposition but by constantly
destabilizing existing forms. New forms result as temporary'
restabilizations, which are then destabilized. Accelerated evolu
tion replaces revolution, the mechanisms of empowerment are
disseminated, heterogeneous spaces that reject established cat
egorical hierarchies are sought, and a respect for diversity and
difference is encouraged. Far from being nihilistic, postmod
ernism in this conception is broadly affirmative.
Unfortunately, however, postmodernism’s critique of the
politics of erasure/replacement and emphasis on recombina
tion have also led to its greatest abuse, for it has enabled a reac
tionary discourse that reestablishes traditional hierarchies and
supports received systems of power, such as the discourse of the
nothing new employed by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher
for their political ends, and by Prince Charles, Roger Scruton,
and even Charles Jencks to prop up PoMo.
I believe, therefore, that it is not postmodernism itself but
another, more insidious pathology, a kind of cultural proge
ria, that underlies our current withdrawal from the new. The
symptoms of this disorder were first diagnosed by Friedrich
Nietzsche and more recently have been thoroughly analyzed
by neomodern social theorist Roberto Mangabeira Unger.2
1Manifested as a rationale, it holds that the catalog of possible
forms—institutional, social, political, and aesthetic—is virtually
complete and well known. We may debate the relative merits of
this form or that, but we will no longer discover nor invent any

290 CHAPTER 11
new forms. This position is far from the suppositions of post
modern combinatorics.
Is it possible that “Westemity” as a cultural experiment is fin
ished and, put simply, that we are old? Only in that context could
our current, excessive veneration for the received catalog of forms
be valid. Frankly, I cannot believe that in the short span of our his-
toiy we have experimented with and exhausted the possibilities of
form. It seems to me that every' indication today is to the contrary,
whether one considers the political transformation in Eastern
Europe or the technological transformations that characterize
today’s society. The building of the catalog of available aesthetic,
institutional, and social forms has only just begun.
If this New Architecture is not to repeat the mistakes of mod
ernism, it must continue to avoid the logic of erasure and re
placement by participating in recombinations. As far as possible,
it must seek to engender a heterogeneity that resists settling into
fixed hierarchies. Furthermore, it must be an architecture—that
is, a proposal of principles (though not prescriptions) for design.
Finally, it must experiment with and project new forms.
The first two of these criteria already belong to architectural
postmodernism. However, the last two criteria—the call for
principles and the projection of new forms—fundamentally de
tach the theorization of a New Architecture from postmodernism
proper, however much it draws upon the resources of the latter.
Indicative of that detachment is the degree to which some
New Architecture theorists, notably Sanford Kwinter and Greg
Lynn, have shifted their attention from poststructural semiot
ics to a consideration of recent developments in geometiy, sci
ence, and the transformations of political space, a shift that is
often marked as a move from a Derridean toward a Deleuzian
discourse.3
In these writings, the Deleuzian cast is reinforced with ref
erences to catastrophe theory—the geometiy of event space

TOW ARD A N EW A R C H IT E C T U R E 291

 transformations—and to the new biology. Geometry and science
are traditional sources par excellence of principles and form for
architecture, but within each of these areas of study the para
mount concern is morphogenesis, the generation of new form.
However provocative and invaluable these studies in philosophy
or science are as resources, neither provides the impetus for a
New Architecture nor the particulars of its terms and conditions.
Rather, these have grown entirely out of architectural projects
and developments within the discipline itself.
One contributing factor to the search for a New Architec
ture is the exhaustion of collage as the prevailing paradigm of
architectural heterogeneity. In order to oppose modernisms
destituting proclivity for erasure and replacement, postmod
ernism emphasized grafting as the recombinatorial instrument
of choice. The constellation of collage, in all its variations,4 of
fered the most effective model of grafting strategies. From Colin
Rowe to Robert Venturi to Peter Eisenman,5 from PoMo to the
deconstructivists, collage has served as the dominant mode of
the architectural graft. There are indications, however, to sug
gest that collage is unable to sustain the heterogeneity architec
ture aspires to achieve. In lieu of the meticulous study necessary
to support this claim, allow the suggestion of two of its themes,
the first historical and the second theoretical. First, postmodern
collage is an extensive practice wholly dependent on effecting
incoherent contradictions within and against a dominant frame.
As it becomes the prevailing institutional practice, it loses both
its contradictory7force and its affirmative incoherence. Rather
than destabilizing an existing context, it operates more and
more to inscribe its own institutional space. The only form col
lage produces, therefore, is the form of collage.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, collage is limited to
a particular order of semiotic recombinations. Each element in
a collage, even in the aleatoric process-collages of Dada, must

292 CHAPTER 11
be known and rosterable in its own right. Thus, although collage
may engender new compositions as well as shifts, slips, acci
dents, and other chimerical effects, the long-term effect of col
lage is to valorize a finite catalog of elements and/or processes.
Collage is only able to renew itself by constantly identifying
and tapping into previously unrostered material. Thus, col
lage can never be projective. The exhaustion of collage derives
from the conclusion that the desire to engender a broadly em
powering political space with respect to diversity and difference
cannot be accomplished by a detailed cataloguing and specific
enfranchisement of each of the species of differentiation that
operate within a space. Such a process is not only economically
and politically implausible but theoretically impossible.6 If col
lage is exhausted as a recombinatorial strategy—a matter still
debated1—then the problem becomes one of identifying grafts
other than collages. The key distinction from collage would be
that such grafts would seek to produce heterogeneity within an
intensive cohesion rather than out of extensive incoherence and
contradiction.8
In a lecture delivered in 1990 to the Anyone conference in Los
Angeles, Unger took issue with current postmodern practices in
architecture, primarily in terms of what he saw as the “ironic
distancing” effected by both P0M0 and deconstructivist archi
tecture. At the conclusion of his lecture, he outlined five criteria
for any New Architecture seeking to contribute to a nonhierar-
chical, heterogeneous political space.
Accordingto Unger, such architecture must be vast and blank; it
must point and be incongruous and incoherent.'* It is not clear from
the lecture how Unger intended his criteria to be interpreted, but
I was struck by the degree to which, with one exception, they lent
themselves to a discourse on grafting alternatives to collage. Par
ticularly interesting to me was how well these criteria read as gen
eralizations of the spatial/formal project of modernism outlined

TOWARD A NEW ARCHITECTURE 293

 in Le Corbusier s five points. While Le Corbusier’s points are
directed toward producing a broadly democratic space through
homogeneity, Unger’s are directed toward a similar political goal
through a spatial heterogeneity that does not settle into stable
alignments or hierarchies. I interpret and modify Unger’s crite
ria as follows: (i) Vastness—negotiates a middle ground between
the homogeneity of infinite or universal space and the fixed hi
erarchies of closely articulated space. Recognizing the necessity
of finitude for heterogeneity, vastness seeks sufficient spatial
extension to preclude the inscription of traditional, hierarchi
cal, and spatial patterns. Design implications: generalization of
free plan to include disjunction and discontinuity; extension
of free plan to “free section”; emphasis on residual and intersti
tial spaces, (ii) Blankness—extrapolates the modernist project of
formal abstraction, understood as the suppression of quotation
or reference through the erasure of decoration and ornament,
to include canonic form and type. Bv avoiding formal or figural
reference, architecture can engage in unexpected formal and se
miotic affiliations without entering into fixed alignments. Design
implications: generalization of free facade to free massing, (iii)
Pointing—architecture must be projective, that is, it must point
to the emergence of new social arrangements and the construc
tion of new institutional forms. In order to accomplish this, the
building must have a point, that is, project a transformation of
a prevailing political context. The notion of pointing should not
be confused with signifying; it is in fact a challenge to the deter
mined structure of the signifier/signified, whether monosemic
or polysemic. The indeterminacy of pointing shifts the emphasis
from the formation of stable alignments and/or allegiances to the
'formation of provisional affiliations, (iv) Incongruity—a require
ment to maintain yet subvert received data, including, for exam
ple, the existing site as a given condition and/or program brief.
Maintenance and subversion are equally important; neither alone

294 CHAPTER 11
leads inexorably to spatial hvpostatization. Design implications:
a repeat of the architectural postulates of harmony and propor
tion, structural perspicuity, and system coordination, for exam
ple among plan, section, and facade, or between detail and formal
organization, (v) Intensive coherence—Unger stresses the neces
sity for incoherence, understood as a repeat of the architectural
postulate of unity or wholeness. However, because incoherence
is the hallmark of postmodern collage, 1 suggest, as an alterna
tive, a coherence forged out of incongruity. Intensive coherence
implies that the properties of certain monolithic arrangements
enable the architecture to enter into multiple, even contradictory
relationships. This should not be confused with Venturi s notion
of the “difficult whole,” in which a collage of multiplicity is then
unified compositionally.
At the beginning of this essay, I noted that, a few recent proj
ects offer specific terms and conditions for a New Architecture.
While in general these projects show a shift away from a concern
for semiotics toward a concern for geometry, topology, space,
and events, in my view they subdivide broadly into two camps,
which I term DeFormation and InFormation. DeFormation
seeks to engender shifting affiliations that nevertheless resist
entering into stable alignments. It does so by grafting abstract
topologies that can neither be decomposed into simple, planar-
components nor analyzed by the received language of architec
tural formalism. On the other hand, the strategy of InFormation,
of which Rem Koolhaas’s Karlsruhe and Bernard Tschumi’s Le
Fresnoy are exemplary cases, is to form a collecting graft, usually
by encasing disparate formal and programmatic elements within
a neutral, modernist monolith. The resultant incongruous, re
sidual spaces are then activated with visual layering, program
matic innovation, technological effects, and events.
Although both evolve from the same problem, the architec
tures of DeFormation and InFormation are by no means simply

TO W A RD A NEW' A R C H IT E C T U R E 295
 11.1
Bernard Tschumi Architects, Le Fresnoy Art Center,
Tourcoing, France, 1991-1997. Peter Mauss © Esto.

296
collaborative. In general, both agree on certain architectural tac
tics that can be understood in terms of Ungers criteria (as modi
fied). Both, for example, rely on such devices as box-within-box
sections with an emphasis on interstitial and residual spaces
(vast, incongruous). They also deploy monolithic forms and
avoid any obvious applied ornament or figurative reference
(blank, intensive cohesion).
Yet the tensions between them are pronounced. While De-
Formation emphasizes the role of new aesthetic form and there
fore the visual in the engenderment of new spaces, InFormation
deemphasizes the role of aesthetic form in favor of new insti
tutional form, and therefore of program and events. The event
spaces of new geometries tend to drive the former, while the
event spaces of new technologies occupy the latter.
One of the pervasive characteristics of InFormation is its un-
apologetic use of the orthogonal language of modernism. When
postmodernist architecture first emerged, the formal language
of modernism was simply condemned as oppressive and mo
notonous-recall Venturis “Less is a bore.” Subsequently, that
critique was deepened as architects and theorists demonstrated
that, far from being essentialist, the language of modernism
constituted a sign system. Once the demonstration that archi
tecture was irreducibly semiotic was complete, the essentialist
justification for the austere language of modernism dissolved
and the door opened to the use of any and all architectural signs
in any and every arrangement.
InFormation posits that the exhaustion of collage is tanta
mount to rendering irrelevant all aesthetic gestures.10 The ar
chitectural contribution to the production of new forms and the
inflection of political space therefore can no longer be accom
plished by transformations of style. Furthermore, InFormation
argues that the collective architectural effect of modernisms
orthogonal forms is such that it persists in being blank, often

TO W A RD A NEW A R C H IT E C T U R E 297
 stressing that blankness by using the forms as screens for pro
jected images. Pointing is accomplished by transformations
of institutional programs and events. For DeFormation, on
the other hand, architectures most important contribution to
the production of new forms and the inflection of political space
continues to be aesthetic. Far from being blank, DeFormation
perceives the modernist language of In Formation as nothing
less than historical reference and the use of projected images as
no more than applied ornament. Instead, DeFormation searches
for blankness by extending modernisms exploration of mono
lithic form, while rejecting essentialist appeals to Platonic/Eu-
clidean/Cartesian geometries. Pointing is accomplished in the
aesthetics; the forms transform their context by entering into
undisciplined and incongruous formal relationships. InForma-
tion sees the gestured geometries of DeFormation as predomi
nantly a matter of ornament.
To examine the design consequences of these issues, let us
briefly compare Tschumi’s InFormation at the National Center of
Contemporary Arts at Le Fresnoy with Bahram ShirdeFs DeFor
mation at the Nara Convention Hall. Le Fresnoy offered a perfect
circumstance in which to reconsider the graft. In his description
of the problem, Tschumi was specific in outlining the various
possibilities. Since many of the existing structures were in dis
repair, a return to an erase-and-replace approach was perfectly
plausible. On the other hand, the quality of the historical forms
and spaces at Le Fresnoy also suggested a renovation/restoration
approach a la collage. Tschumi eschewed both, however, and en
veloped the entire complex within a partially enclosed modern
ist roof to create a cohesive graft. The graft does not produce a
collage; rather than creating a compositionally resolved collec
tion of fragments, the roof reorganizes and redefines each of the
elements into a blank, monolithic unity whose incongruity is in
ternalized. Tschumi sutures together the broad array of resulting

298 CHAPTER 11
11.2
Bernard Tschumi Architects, Le Fresnoy Art Center,
Tourcoing, France, 1991-1997. Courtesy Bernard
Tschumi Architects.

299
 spaces with a system of catwalks and stairs, visually interlacing
them with cuts, partial enclosures, ribbon windows, and broad
transparencies. Wherever one is in the complex, one sees partial,
disjointed views of several zones from inside to outside at the
same time.
Like the visual effects, the role of programming in this project
concerns the production of space as much as, if not more than, the
accommodation of function. Tschumi programs all the resultant
spaces, even treating the tiled roofs of the old building as a mezza
nine. Where direct programming is not possible, he elaborates the
differential activation in mate rial/events. In the structural trusses
of the new roof, he projects videos as an architectural material in
order to activate those residual spaces with events.
The resultant project promises a spatial heterogeneity that
defies any simple hierarchy: a collection of differentiated spaces
capable of supporting a wide variety of social encounters with
out privileging or subordinating any. Le Fresnoy undermines the
classical architectural/political dialectic between hierarchical
heterogeneity and homogeneity and points to a potentially new
institutional/architectural form.
Like Tschumi at Le Fresnoy, Shirdel also uses a collecting graft
to unify an incongruous, box-in-box section at Nara. Unlike
Tschumi, however, he shapes the form and internal structure of
the graft by folding a three-bar parti with two complex, regulat
ing line geometries. The first geometry involutes the exterior of
the building into an abstract, nonreferential monolith whose
form flows into the landscaping of the site. The second geometry
has a similar effect on the major structural piers that hold the
three theaters suspended in action, each one a box whose form is
(determined simply by exigent functional requirements.
The internal and external geometries connect in such a way
that the “major” spaces of the complex are entirely residual—al
leys, so to speak, rived in the provisional links between two

300 CHAPTER 11
invaginated geometries. The residual-space effect is reinforced
by the fact that all of the explicit program of the building is con
centrated in the theaters and lobbies that float as objects above
and away from the main space. In a sense, Shirdel’s attitude to
ward program is the opposite of Tschumi s. Although the build
ing functions according to its brief, there is no architectural
program other than the given function, neither informing cho
reography nor any use of technology to activate spaces. Shirdel’s
computer renderings of Japanese dancers performing in eerie
isolation in the emptied, residual space underline that point.
Spatial heterogeneity rests in the aesthetics of the form and in
the opposition between unprogrammed event and function.
In passing, it is worth noting that the risk of proposing that the
dominant (and most expensive) space of a building be nothing
other than residual space should not be underestimated.
I pursue the development of DeFormation in greater detail be
low and will return to Shirdel’s Nara project. However, 1 believe
that the brief comparison above is sufficient to indicate both the
similarities and divergences in the routes being mapped by In-
Formation and DeFormation toward a New Architecture.

DeFormation 11
As is always the case in architectural design theory, DeFormation
is an artifact, a construction of principles that have emerged after
the fact from projects by diverse architects that were originally
forged with different intentions and under different terms and
conditions. Thus, strictly speaking, there are no DeFormation-
ist architects (yet), just as there were no mannerist or baroque
architects. It is a minor point, perhaps too obvious to belabor;
yet as we move toward a development of principles and a techni
cal language with which to articulate them, we must be cautious
not to allow these to prematurely circumscribe and regulate a
motion in design whose fertility derives as much from its lack of

TOW ARD A NEW A R C H IT E C T U R E 301

 discipline as from its obedience to policy. If there is a Deforma
tion, it has only just, begun.
Much has been written and no doubt more will be written that
consigns the work of Deformation (and Information) to this
or that contemporary philosopher, particularly Gilles Deleuze.
It cannot be denied that a powerful consonance exists between
the field of effects sought by these architectures and various for
mulations of Deleuze and Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus or by
Deleuze in The Fold. The sheer number of terms that the archi
tectural literature has borrowed from the Deleuzian discourse
(affiliation, pliancy, smooth and striated space, etc.), not to
mention such fortuities as the shared thematization of folding,
testily to the value of this correspondence. However, for all of the
profitability of this dialog, there are costs to which we should be
attentive. Obligating any architecture to a philosophy or theory
maintains a powerful but suspect tradition in which architecture
is understood as an applied practice. In that tradition, the mea
sure of architectural design is the degree to which it exemplifies
a theoiy or philosophy, rather than the degree to which it con
tinuously produces new architectural effects; as a consequence,
the generative force of design effects in their own right is subor
dinated to the limited capacity of architecture to produce philo
sophical (or theoretical) effects.
In his reading of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in The Fold. De
leuze stages his meditation on the fold as part of an interpre
tation of the space of baroque architecture; thus, it might be
assumed that baroque architecture stands as a paradigm for the
architectural effects of the fold. Such an assumption, however
careless, would underwrite the configuration of Deformation as
nothing more than a neo-baroque.
Now, though Deleuze’s reading of baroque architecture is
adequate to exemplify his thought on the fold, it is by no means
an adequate reading of the architectural effects of the baroque.

302 CHAPTER 11
Baroque architecture is no more able to realize the contempo
rary architectural effects of the fold than Leibnizs philoso
phy is able to realize the contemporary philosophical effects of
Deleuze’s thought. In other words, Deleuze’s philosophy is no
more (merely) neo-Leibnizian than Deformation is (merely)
neo-baroque.
However much Deleuze’s philosophy profits from the gen
erative effects of Leibniz’s texts, its payoff, what it has new to
say, does not rest on the accuracy of its scholarly recapitulation
of Leibniz’s philosophy, but rather on the differences between
what Deleuze writes and what Leibniz writes. Similarly, the in
terest of Deformation does not rest on its recapitulation of ba
roque themes, but primarily on the difference it effects with the
baroque and its other predecessors.
But perhaps the dearest cost to which we must be attentive
is the degree to which formulating Deformation in terms of a
Deleuzian language belies the independent development of the
consonant, ideas within architecture. No doubt this development,
more a genealogy than a histoiy, lacks the grace and pedigree
that it would obtain from architecture conceived as applied phi
losophy. Yet the halting, circuitous pathways of Deformations
evolution—here lighting on cloth folds depicted in a painting by
Michelangelo, there on train tracks, here a desperate attempt to
win a competition, there a last-minute effort to satisfy a nervous
client, and always drawing upon the previous work of others—
not only bears a dignity all its own, but also materially augments
the substance of the philosophy.
Allow me, then, to retrace some of these paths, collecting my
effects along the way. Neither arbitrarily nor decisively, I begin
with three contemporaneous projects: Bahrain Shirdel and An
drew Zago’s .Alexandria Library competition entry, Peter Eisen-
man’s Columbus Convention Center, and Frank Gehiy’s Vitra
Design Museum.12

T 0 WA R D A N E W ARCHITECTURE 303
 For a number of years beginning in the early 1980s, Shirdel,
in association with Zago, pursued an architecture that he termed
black-stuff. Ironic as the term may first appear, black-stuff is
quite an accurate name for the effects Shirdel sought to achieve.
Rejecting the deconstructivist themes of fragments, signs, as
semblages, and accreted space, he pursued a new, abstract
monolithicity that broached neither reference nor resemblance.
Shirdel was interested in generating disciplined architectural
forms that were not easily decomposable into the dynamics of
point, line, plane, and volume of modern formalism. We will
come to refer to these forms in terms of anexact geometries and
nondevelopable surfaces, but ShirdeTs black-stuff set the stage
for the DeFormationist principle of nonreferential, monolithic
abstraction we have already discussed.
To generate these forms, Shirdel developed a technique in
which he would begin with one or more recognizable figures
whose underlying organization possessed the desired internal
complexity. Then, in a series of steps, he would map the archi
tectural geometry of these figures in meticulous detail, carefully
abstracting or erasing in each progressive step aspects of the
original figure that were referential or recognizable—a process I
termed disciplined relaxation at the time.
The culmination of the black-stuff investigations was the
ShirdeL/Zago entry premiated in the Alexandria Library com
petition, a design that evolved from a disciplined relaxation of
a painting of folded cloth by Michelangelo. In that figure of the
fold, Shirdel found precisely the formal qualities he sought. Al
though the final form shows no obvious traces of the original
painting, relationships among surface, form, and space are cap-
thred in the architecture.
Similar processes appeared in the work of Eisenman and
Gehiy. Shortly after the Alexandria competition, Eisenman en
tered a limited competition against Holt Hinshaw Pfau Jones

304 CHAPTER 11
w

11.3
AKS RUNO. The Library of Alexandria. 1989.
Photo: Tom Bonner.

305
and Michael Graves13to design a convention center for Colum
bus, Ohio. Because the City of Columbus framed the opening of
the center in terms of its quincentennial celebration of Chris
topher Columbus’s first voyage, Eisenman’s initial strategy was
to design a collage project based on the nautical architecture of
the Santa Maria. With only three weeks remaining in the twelve
week competition period, Eisenman learned that Graves, too,
was basing his design on a nautical theme. Anxious to win the
competition (he had only just opened his own office), Eisen
man took the extreme risk of abandoning nine weeks of work
and shifting to an entirely different scheme, taking a moment to
send Graves a postcard of a sinking ship en passant.
The new scheme was based on the notion of “weak form” Eisen
man had only just begun to formulate.14Working from two oddly
similar diagrams, one of a fiber optics cable cross-section and
the other of the train track switching system that once occupied
the site in Columbus, Eisenman produced the winning design: a
monolithic box knitted out of vermiform tendrils. The likeness
shared by the two diagrams is important to note, for in that weak
resemblance Eisenman first saw the potential of weak form.1'
Although similar in many respects, Eisenman’s weak-form
projects are different from Shirdel's black-stuff in one aspect
that is of fundamental significance to the principles of DeFor-
mation. Eisenman also attempts to achieve an abstract monolith
free of explicit reference. But while the black-stuff projects were
intended to be radically other, Eisenman’s notion of weakness
requires the form to retain a hint of resemblance so that it might
enter into unexpected relationships, like the one that connects
the two diagrams.
True enough, once alerted, one is quite able to read both the
train track and fiber optic diagrams in the convention center’s
form. However, the most surprising weak link occurs when the
scheme is placed on the site. As is to be expected, the design

TOWARD A NEW ARCHITECTURE 307

 addressed many traditional architectural relationships to the
site, such as reinforcing the street edge and negotiating a se
vere scale transition. On the other hand, almost as if it had been
planned from the beginning, the braided forms of Eisenmans
project connected the mundane three-storv commercial build
ings across the street from the center to the complex highway
system interchange behind it. Though entirely unplanned, this
connection had the effect of transforming the prevailing archi
tectural logic of the site.
Borrowing from Deleuze, DeFormation refers to these tenta
tive formal links with contingent influences as affiliations, and
engendering affiliations is the foremost mechanism by which
DeFormation attempts to point. Affiliations are distinct from
traditional site relations in that they are not predetermined re
lationships built into the design, but effects that flow from the
intrinsic formal, topological, or spatial character of the design.
Typically, one identifies important site influences such as
manifest or latent typological/morphological diagrams, prevail
ing architectural language, material, detailing, and the like, and
incorporates some or all of these influences into a design, often
by collage. Such relationships are not affiliations but alignments,
and serve to reinforce the dominant architectural modes gov
erning a context.
Affiliations, on the other hand, are provisional, ad hoc links
that are made with secondaiy contingencies that exist within the
site or extended context. Rather than reinforcing the dominant
modes of the site, affiliations amplify suppressed or minor orga
nizations that also operate within the site, thereby reconfiguring
the context into a new coherence.16 Because they link disjoint,
stratified organizations into a coherent heterogeneity, the effect
of such affiliations is termed “smoothing/’17
In order to complete our initial survey of affiliative effects, we
must pick up a few threads from Gehry’s Vitra Design Museum.

308 CHAPTER 11
Gehiy’s design process, not unrelated to Shirdel’s disciplined
relaxation and Eisenmans weakening, involves the incessant
modeling and remodeling of an initial figure or set of figures.
Though he distorts and deforms these figures toward architec
tural abstraction, Gehiy is even more concerned than Eisenman
to preserve a representational heritage in the design.
Gehiy’s Vitra commission called for a site master plan, a chair
assembly factory, and a museum for the furniture collection.
In the preliminary design, he simply aligned the new factory with
the factory buildings previously on the site, while his museum, a
geometers Medusa, stood in stark contrast. Though Gehiy re
duced the difference to some extent by surfacing the museum in
white plaster so as to relate to the factory buildings, nevertheless,
as a graft on the site, the form of the museum installed the fa
miliar disjunctive incoherence I have associated with collage. The
client, fearful of employees’ complaints that all of the design at
tention was being invested in the museum and none in the work
place, asked Gehry as an afterthought to enliven the new factory
building. In response, he appended some circulation elements
that reiterated the stretched and twisted tentacles of the museum
to the two corners of the new factory nearest the museum.
The architectural effect was dramatic; like Eisenmans con
vention center, the additions knit affiliative links between the
factory buildings and the museum, smoothing the site into a
heterogeneous but cohesive whole. However, unlike in the con
vention center, the staircases entered the site as a field rather
than as an object, pointing to the possibility of intensive coher
ence generating a smoothing effect at an urban scale. From this
perspective, the circulation additions contribute as much to the
architecture of DeFormation as the museum itself.
Because other genealogies tracing through other projects
can also be drawn, it cannot be said that DeFormation is born
from these three projects, though they exemplify two of its key

TOW ARD A NEW A R C H IT E C T U R E 309

Frank 0. Gehry, Vitra Design Museum. Weil am Rhein,
Germany. 1989. © Vitra.
principles. In summaiy, these are: (i) an emphasis on abstract,
monolithic architectural form that offers minimal direct refer
ences or resemblance and is alien to the dominant architectural
modes of a given site; (ii) the development of smoothing affili
ations with minor organizations operating within a context, en
gendered by the intrinsic geometric, topological, and/or spatial
qualities of the form. However, before we examine the discus
sions that have developed around these issues, the evolution of
one last principle must be traced.
In analyzing these and related projects, Bahrain Shirdel and 1
noticed that, for all of their other movements, they tend to leave
the classical congruity between massing and section largely in
tact. As a result, the skin of the building continues to be parti
tioned into the familiar program-driven hierarchies of major,
minor, and service spaces implied by the massing. The most
important issue, as we saw it, was to avoid both the continuous,
homogeneous space of the free plan and the finite, hierarchical
space of more traditional sectional strategies.
Several projects suggested different ways to approach the
problem of section. Among the more influential of these were
Eisenman’s Carnegie Mellon research institute, the Jean Nou-
vel/Philippe Starck entry for the Tokyo Opera House competi
tion, and Koolhaas’s Bibliotheque de France. In the Eisenman
scheme, essentially a chain of Boolean pods, a large sculptural
object whose form was congruent with the pod floated concen
trically within each unit, in effect rendering the primary space
of the building interstitial. The striking Nouvel/Starck opera
house was noteworthy for the way its theater was embedded as
an incongruent object into the urban object massing. In the Bi
bliotheque de France, a seminal example of InFormation, Kool
haas achieved an extreme detachment of sectional space from
the massing. Shirdel, Zago, and I formed a partnership in or
der to continue to develop methods for generating affiliative,

TOWARD A NEW ARCHITECTURE 311

 monolithic forms, as well as to develop these sectional ideas. Our
event structure entiy for the Place Jacques-Cartier competition
in Montreal, for example, called for a large deformed envelope
within which three independently deformed theaters floated
as sectional objects. As in Information, every surface, includ
ing the outside and inside of both the exterior envelope and the
floating theaters, was programmed. Our goal was to render all of
the spaces in the building interstitial and/or residual and to ac
tivate them as a nonhierarchical, differential structure. However,
the formal similarity between the two systems, the envelope and
the sectional object-theaters, resulted in spaces that were less
interstitial than homogeneous.18
Our subsequent design for the Scottish National Museum com
petition produced somewhat more interesting results. The typical
section of such museums partitions the space into well-defined
compartments determined by the categories of the different col
lections. In order to counter this alignment between form and
program, we devised a section and circulation system in which el
ements of differing collections would enter into various and shift
ing associations as one moved through the museum. The effect of
encouraging provisional, weak links among the items in the col
lection was further augmented with a series of windows calculated
to frame objects in the urban setting as if they were objects within
the collection. Finally, two of the major lobes of the building itself
stood as objects within the basement galleries.
This section/circulation system was embedded within a
three-lobed, articulated monolith. Though conspicuously alien
to the classical language and other dominant architectural influ
ences of the site, the geometry of the massing took good advan
tage of several subordinate organizations within both Edinburgh
and the larger context of Scotland to extend the production of af-
filiative effects. A catalog of over two dozen of these relationships
generated by Douglas Graf, an architectural theorist specializing

312 CHAPTER 11
11.6
Jeffrey Kipnis, Bahram Shirdel. Andrew Zago
(with Allan Murray), National Museum of Scotland,
Edinburgh, 1991.

313
 in formal relations, was included with the competition submis
sion. As we, and others, worked on similar problems, the two
major sectional themes of DeFormation began to emerge. First,
the section space of the building should not be congruent with
the internal space implied by the monolith. Second, residual, in
terstitial, and other artifactual spaces should be emphasized over
primary spaces wherever possible. Because the box-within-box
section is effective at producing both of these effects, it is often
the tactic of choice, though by no means the only one possible.
The impetus to programmatic saturation so central to Informa
tion plays a much less significant role in DeFormation.19
With these sectional themes, the last of the preliminary prin
ciples of DeFormation is in place. Yet we should not prema
turely draw the conclusion that. DeFormation is complete and a
prescription for its architecture written. Indeed, though para
digmatic building projects such as Eisenman’s Max Reinhardt
Haus20 or Shirdel’s Nara Convention Hall can be identified, the
internal debates among these and other related projects assure
us that there are principles and projects to follow. The most in
teresting of these debates revolve around design techniques for
producing smoothing affiliations.21 Because such affiliations re
quire that loose links be made among dominant and contingent
organizations operating within a context, some architects work
by identifying examples of both types of organization and then
driving the design toward their connection, while others rely
entirely on the intrinsic contextual affiliations, as engendered
by Eisenman’s convention center or the Shirdel, Zago, Kipnis
Scottish National Museum; in each case, most of the links were
unplanned and occurred only after grafting the project to the site.
'Shoei Yoh’s Odawara Sports Complex, on the other hand, is a
conspicuous case of the former. Yoh designed the complex’s roof
by mapping a detailed study of a variety of contingent forces con
fronting the roof, such as snow loads, into a structural diagram.

314 CHAPTER 11
He fine-tuned the mapping by abandoning the coarse, triangu
lated structural geometries that generalize force diagrams, using
instead computer-generated structural analysis to resolve force
differentials at an ultrasensitive scale and produce the unusual
undulating form of the roof. This process enabled Yoh to avoid
the pitfalls of stylistic necessities of the project. As computer-
aided manufacturing techniques proliferate, such approaches
that maximize efficient use of material will no doubt gain
popularity.
Undoubtedly, such an approach to contingency is attractive,
yet questions arise. At the very least, these processes threaten to
turn DeFormation into a single-theme architecture based on a
search for contingent influences, much as Arnold Schoenbergs
dodecaphonic theories of atonal music composition resulted in
a decade during which serious composers devoted all of their at
tention to finding new tone rows. As Lynn has quipped, “Soon
we’ll be designing form based on the air turbulence generated by
pedestrians walking near the building.’’ More significant, how
ever, is the degree to which such processes are actually aligning
rather than affiliative. It seems to me that by predetermining the
contingent influences to be addressed, the process simply rede
fines the dominant architectural influences on the site. The test
of whether or not the results are DeFormative, therefore, will de
pend not on the success of the project in embodying responses to
those influences, but on the other contingent effects it continu
ously generates.
If embodying effects into the design a priori is problematic,
then the central issue for DeFormation becomes the elucida
tion of methods that generate monolithic, nonrepresentational
forms that lend themselves well to affiliative relationships a
posteriori. If all that were required were gesture and articula
tion, then the problem would pose no particular difficulty and
could be solved by employing familiar expressionist techniques.

TOW ARD A NEW ARCH iTEC TU R E 315

 Yet the DeFormationist principle of minimal representation also
prohibits explicit reference to expressionist architecture, much
as it criticizes InFormation for its explicit reference to formalist
modernism. 1 have already mentioned a group of related tech
niques that start with a complex figure or set of figures and then
move these toward nonrepresentational abstraction while pre
serving intrinsic complexity. These techniques have stimulated
investigations into a variety of methods for accomplishing that
movement toward nonrepresentation; for example, the study of
camouflage methods, experimenting with computer “morph
ing*’ programs that smoothly transform one figure into another,
or employing topological meshing techniques such as splines,
NURBS (nonuniform rational B-splines), etc., that join surfaces
delimited by the perimeters of disjoint two-dimensional figures
into a smoothed solid. Because these methods often yield anexact
geometries—forms not describable by an algebraic expression
yet which show a high degree of internal self-consistency—and
nondevelopable surfaces—surfaces that cannot be flattened into
a plane—other architects have turned their attention to these ar
eas of study.
As far as 1 am concerned, it is in the context of the develop
ment of architectural technique rather than as applied philoso
phy that the issue of the fold in DeFormation is best understood.
Clearly, the initial figure and transforming process in any De-
Forming technique does not in itself guarantee the results.
Nevertheless, both of these mainly contribute to the effective
properties of the results. Long before any of them even heard of
The Fold or paid any attention to the diagrammatic folds found in
Jacques Lacan or Rene Thoms catastrophe theoiy, it occurred to
m&ny architects that the fold as a figure and folding as a transfor
mative process offer many advantages.
Neither pure figure nor pure organization, folds link the two;
they are monolithic and often nonrepresentational, replete with

316 CHAPTER 11
interstitial and residual spaces, and intrinsic to nondevelopable
surfaces. As a process exercised in a matrix such as the urban
site, folding holds out the possibility of generating field organi
zations that negotiate between the infinite homogeneity of the
grid and the hierarchical heterogeneity of finite geometric pat
terns, an effect which Eisenman employs in the Rebstock Park
housing and office project in Germany.22Finally, when exercised
as a process on two or more organizations simultaneously, fold
ing is a potential smoothing strategy.
All of these aspects of the fold are related to architectural ef
fects. Although they may be attracted to the underlying work,
none of the architects who make use of Thom’s fold diagrams,
for example, make any claim, as far as I know, to inscribing
the four-dimensional event space that the diagrams depict for
mathematicians in the resultant architecture, any more than
any architect claims to be inscribing the effects of Rene Des
cartes’s philosophy when employing a Cartesian grid. Fortu
nately, there do not seem to be too many people suffering from
a radical mind/body split walking around midtown Manhattan.
In both cases, architects employ these diagrams for the archi
tectural effects they engender.
As is typical of Eisenman, both Rebstock Park and the Al-
teka Tower are driven more by folding as a process than by any
particular fold as a diagram or spatial organization. In the for
mer, Eisenman inscribes an initial parti derived from the mod
ern housing scheme by Ernst May on the site. Then, operating
strictly in the representational field of drawing, he projects both
extended site and parti into the respective figures formed by
the boundaries of these two sites. The resulting drawings create
the representational illusion that these two organizations have
been folded. This drawing, neither axonometric nor perspec
tive or fold, is then massed as the project. Through this pro
cess, he attempts to transform the modern, axonometric space

TOWARD A NEW A RC H I T E C T I R F. 317

 characteristic of the original scheme into a visual space that
hovers between an axonometric and a perspectival space with
multiple vanishing points. The figure of the fold, a quotation of
sections cut through a Thomian diagram, appears on the tops
of the building to effect the weak, cross-disciplinary links of
which Eisenman is so fond.23Similarly, the Alteka Tower begins
with the high-rise type and folds it in a process reminiscent of
origami in order to deform the type and to produce multiple re
sidual spaces.
Many diagrams, such as those depicting Lacans "mirror
stage” or the parabolic and hyperbolic umbilic folds associated
with Thom’s catastrophe theory, have attracted architectural
interest for several reasons. They offer a level of discipline
to the work and avoid the pitfalls of expressionist processes.
Using these diagrams as a source of regulating lines, so to speak,
allows the architect to design with greater rigor. As Le Corbu
sier writes, "The regulating line is a guarantee against willful
ness.” Moreover, such diagrams are neither purely figural nor
purely abstract, and therefore hold the potential to generate
weak, resemblance effects. Finally, the multiple and disjoint
formal organizations that compose these compound diagrams
themselves have many of the desired spatial characteristics in
section described previously.
A more sophisticated use of these diagrams as regulating lines
can be found, again, in Shirdel’s Nara Convention Hall. Rather
than beginning with a typological or formal parti, Shirdel ini
tiated the design for the hall by grafting a carefully excerpted
portion of the Scottish National Museum project to the site. He
chose a portion of the museum where two independent lobes of
the4museum joined obliquely and subtended a constricted, in
terstitial space. Transferred to Nara, this graft had the advan
tage of already being incongruent but coherent, an aftereffect
of excerpting the connection between the two disjointed lobes.

318 CHAPTER 11
Shirdel reinforced this effect by using the resultant interstitial
space as the main entiyway into the new building.
Studying the famous Todaiji temple in Nara, Shirdel found
the temple space dominated by three figures: a giant central
Buddha and two smaller flanking attendant figures. Stimulated
by this analysis, he decided to encase each of the hall’s three the
aters in objects that would float in section. The forms of these
theater-objects were determined simply by functional exigen
cies. Other than their patinated copper cladding, chosen to link
the sectional objects to the figures in the temple, the theaters
were entirely undesigned.
Visitors to the Todaiji temple encounter the Buddha figures
frontally, a classical arrangement that emphasizes the subject/
object relationship between the two. Shirdel, on the other hand,
arranged his three sectional objects axially. Visitors entering
the convention hall confront nothing but empty space—the
enormous mass of the three theaters hovering off to the side.
In order to design the envelope of the hall and to configure the
main entry as residual space, Shirdel used two folds. First, he
reconfigured the massing of the original graft with a Thomian
diagram of a hyperbolic umbilic fold, extending this fold into
the surrounding landscape so as to smooth the connection of
the building with its immediate site. Then he shaped the con
crete piers holding up the three theaters and the lobby of the
small music theater according to the parabolic umbilic fold. As
a result, the main space of the hall is the residual space between
the topology of these two folds, an effect that the constricted en
tiyway again reinforces. Shirdel’s scheme introduces into Nara
an entirely new form in both the architectural and institutional
sense. More interestingly, it effects its affiliations spatially as
well as formally. At the level of the building, it accomplishes the
effects that the preliminary principles of DeFormation seek to
engender. J also believe that it meets the five criteria for a New

TOWARD A NEW ARCHITECTURE 319

 Architecture: it points, and is blank, vast, incongruent, and in
tensively coherent.
Whether or not DeFormation and/or InFormation mature
into a New Architecture remains to be seen. Certainly, the rate
of realization for DeFormation is not yet as promising as it is for
InFormation. Yet I believe it can be said with some confidence
that these architectures have at least broached the problem of
the New and thus offer a measure of optimism, while the critics
and historians have not begun to circle them in earnest. Yet.

320 CHAPTER 11
 p r o j e c t i n t h e A A F ile s f o li o L a C a se V id e , w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e e s s a y b y D e r r i d a c i t e d

e a r l i e r . C a se v id e , F r e n c h f o r “e m p t y b o x .” c a n b e t a k e n a s a n o b v i o u s i f s o m e w h a t

c o a rs e m e ta p h o r f o r ch o ra . T h u s , in a s e n s e , b e f o r e E is e n m a n a n d D e rrid a b e c a m e

th e f ir s t a r c h i te c t/p h i lo s o p h e r p a ir to c o lla b o r a te o n c h o ra , T s c h u m i a n d D e r r id a

h a d a lre a d y d o n e so .

49. “ I n t h e f i n a l I, c h o r a l , c h o r a b e c o m e s m o r e l i q u i d , m o r e a e r i a l , I d o n o t d a r e t o s a y

m o r e f e m i n i n e , ” p l a y i n g o n t h e F r e n c h e lle . D e r r i d a , “W h y E i s e n m a n . . . 101

( tr a n s la tio n m o d ifie d ).

50. A s i s w e l l k n o w n , b e a u ty i s o n e o f t h e t h r e e c a n o n i c c o n j u g a t e s o f P l a t o n i c p e r f e c

t i o n : t h e T r u e , t h e G o o d , a n d t h e B e a u tif u l . F o r m a n y r e a s o n s t o u c h e d u p o n h e r e i n ,

n o t l e a s t o f w h i c h is t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n ’s i n t e r e s t i n s h a k i n g ( s o l i c i t i n g ) t h e P l a t o n i c

f o u n d a t i o n o f a r c h i t e c t u r e t h a t c o n t i n u e s t o o p e r a t e e v e n t o d a y , b e a u ty , t h o u g h n o t

e x c lu d e d a s s u c h , c a n n o t b e a m e a s u r e o f t h e r e s u l t s . I n t h i s r e g a r d , it is n o t e w o r

th y to f in d E is e n m a n a n d D e r r id a i n th e s ix th m e e tin g b e g in n in g t h e i r a s s e s s m e n t

o f t h e f i n a l d e s i g n w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n o f it s b e a u ty . I e x a m i n e t h i s m o m e n t a n d t h e

q u e s tio n o f b e a u ty in f u r th e r d e ta il in a n u n p u b lis h e d e s s a y e n title d “ T h e I r r e l

e v a n c e o f B e a u ty ."

51. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h i s m o v e m e n t o f g o ld i n E i s e n -

m a n ’s w o r k f r o m m o t iv a t e d s y m b o l t o t h e ( a l m o s t ) a r b i t r a r y s ig n o f a s i g n a t u r e , a

p r o p e r n a m e , a n d D e r r i d a 's i n t e r e s t i n t h i s s a m e m o v e m e n t . S e e n o t e 254.

52. E is e n m a n a n d D e rrid a h a v e c o n tin u e d th e ir d is c u s s io n s o n th e s e m a tte r s in a n

o p e n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e p u b l i s h e d i n A s s e m b la g e 12 ( A u g u s t 1 9 9 0 ) . W h i l e t a k i n g

is s u e w i t h s o m e o f D e r r i d a ’s i n f e r e n c e s a b o u t t h e p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e

p h i l o s o p h e r ’s w o r k f o r a r c h i t e c t u r e , E i s e n m a n t a c it ly a c k n o w l e d g e s D e r r i d a ’s c r i

t i q u e o f t h e a r c h i t e c t ’s s c a l i n g w o r k a n d b e g i n s t o o u t l i n e a n e w d e s i g n r e s p o n s e ,

a b e l a t e d “c o l l a b o r a t i o n , ” w h i c h h e t e r m s “w e a k f o r m . ’’ F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f w e a k

f o r m , s e e J e f f r e y K i p n i s . "A M a t t e r o f R e s p e c t * A + U 2 3 2 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 9 0 ) , 1 3 4 - 1 3 7 .

11 TOWARD A NEW ARCHITECTURE

T h i s e s s a y f i r s t a p p e a r e d i n A D P ro file 1 0 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) .

1. H i s t o r i a n s m a y n o t e s i m i l a r i t i e s i n t h e w o r k d i s c u s s e d h e r e t o t h e s p a ti a l c h a r a c t e r

o f b a ro q u e a r c h ite c tu re a n d / o r to th e fo rm a l c h a ra c te r o f G e rm a n e x p re s s io n is m . I

p r e d i c t t h e i r o b s e r v a t io n s w ill c o n c lu d e t h a t n o n e o f t h e a r c h i t e c t s o r t h e o r i s t s w o r k

in g i n t h i s a r e a a r e a w a r e o f t h e s e s i m i l a r i t i e s . B e c a u s e t h e w r i t i n g a n d p r o j e c t s a r c

n o t s a lt e d w ith a n a ly s e s o f F r a n c e s c o B o r r o m i n i. C a m i l l o - G u a r i n o G u a r in i , a n d G ia n

L o r e n z o B e r n i n i, o r r e f e r e n c e s t o H e r m a n n F i n s t e r l i n , B r u n o a n d M ax T a u t, H a n s

P o e lz ig . H u g o H i r i n g , E r i c h M e n d e l s o h n , H a n s S c h a r o u n , R u d o lf S t e i n e r , e tc ., it w ill

b e a s s iu n e d t h a t t h e w o r k w a s c o n d u c t e d i n b li s s f u l ig n o r a n c e o f t h e s e s i m i l a r i t i e s .

T h i s f i r s t c o n c l u s i o n is n e c e s s a i y t o s u p p o r t t h e s e c o n d , n a m e ly , t h a t t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s

a r e f a r m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s . T h u s , r e c a lli n g M a rx , t h e y w ill a r g u e th a t

342 NOTES TO PAGES 2 7 4 - 2 8 8

III
 I

t h e s e c o n d i n s t a n c e is b u t a p a r o d y o f t h e tr a g ic p r o f u n d i t y o f t h e f i r s t ( a ta u to lo g ic a l

a rg u m e n t, s in c e th e fir s t in s ta n c e e s ta b lis h e s th e te r m s a n d c o n d itio n s o f s im i la r

ity ; b y c o i n c i d e n c e , t h i s a r g u m e n t a l s o h a p p e n s t o s u p p o r t t h e c a p ita l iz a tio n o f t h e i r

p r o f e s s io n a l a c tiv i tie s ) . H o w e v e r i n t e r e s t i n g a n d w o r th y o f s tu d y t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s a r e ,

g r e a t e r s ta k e s a r e f o u n d i n t h e d if f e r e n c e s : h i s t o r i a n s w ill a g a in m i s s t h e p o in t .

2. S e e R o b e r t o M a n g a b e i r a U n g e r , K n o w le d g e a n d P o litic s ( N e w Y o rk : F r e e P r e s s .

1 9 7 5 ). S e e a l s o U n g e r ’s -Social T h e o ry : Its S i t u a t i o n a n d I ts T a sk s ( C a m b r i d g e , U K:

C a m b r i d g e U n iv e r s it y P r e s s , 1 9 8 7 ).

3. O t h e r p o s t s t r u c t u r a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l t h e o r i s t s , n o ta b ly J e n n i f e r B lo o m e r a n d R o b e r t S o -

m o l, h a v e a p p e a l e d t o t h e w r i t i n g s o f D e le u z e a n d G u a tt a r i, t h o u g h to d i f f e r e n t e n d s .

4. “ C o lla g e ” i s u s e d h e r e a s a c o n v e n i e n t , i f c o a r s e , u m b r e l l a t e r m f o r a n e n t i r e c o n

s t e l l a t i o n o f p r a c t i c e s , f o r e x a m p l e b r i c o l a g e , a s s e m b l a g e , a n d a h i s t o r y o f c o lla g e

w i t h m a n y i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t s . T h i s a r g u m e n t is s t r e n g t h

c n c d b y a s t u d y o f t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l t r a n s l a t i o n s o f t h e v a r i o u s m o d e l s o f c o lla g e

a n d i t s a s s o c i a t e d p r a c t i c e s . A s w e p r o c e e d i n t o a d i s c u s s i o n o f a f f i l i a t i v e e f f e c ts

b e l o w , o n e m i g h t b e i n c l i n e d t o a r g u e t h a t s u r r e a l i s t c o l la g e , w i t h it s e m p h a s i s o n

s m o o t h i n g t h e s e a m s o f t b e g r a f t , m i g h t p r o v i d e a n a p t m o d e l . T h o u g h t h e r e is

m e r it in th i s p o s itio n , it s e e m s to m e th a t th e s o - c a lle d s e a m le s s n e s s o f s u r r e a lis t

c o l la g e , li k e a ll c o l la g e s , a c t s t o e m p h a s i z e b y i r o n y t h e d i s t i n c t n a t u r e o f t h e e l e

m e n t s o f t h e c o lla g e a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e i n c o h e r e n t d i s j u n c t i o n s a t w o r k .

A b e t t e r m o d e l m i g h t b e J a s p e r J o h n s ’s c r o s s h a t c h p a i n t i n g s , p r i n t s , a n d d r a w

in g s . T h o u g h th e s e w o rk s c e rta in ly e m p lo y m a n y te c h n iq u e s a s s o c ia te d w ith

c o l la g e , t h e i r e f f e c t i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . I n t h e m , n o n i d e a l , g r i d l i k e o r g a n i z a t i o n s

a r e m a te r ia liz e d b y g r a f tin g e le m e n ts w h o s e f o r m is d is jo in t f r o m th e o v e ra ll o r

g a n iz a tio n . M o re o v e r, in s o m e o f th e s e w o rk s , c lo u d lik e s h a p e s e n tir e ly o u ts id e

o f th e d o m i n a n t f o r m a l/to n a l la n g u a g e a r e b u ilt u p f r o m th e m e d iu m its e lf a n d

c a m o u fla g e d w ith i n th e w o rk . F o r m e , th e s e p a in tin g s a r e g o o d e x a m p le s o f a c o

h e s iv e h e te ro g e n e ity ' e n g e n d e r e d o u t o f a n in te n s iv e c o h e re n c e in th e e le m e n ts

th e m s e lv e s .

5. S e e E i s e n m a n ’s W c x n e r C e n t e r f o r t h e V is u a l A r t s a n d h i s “s c a l i n g ” p r o j e c t s , f o r

e x a m p l e R o m e o a n d J u l i e t f o r t h e 1 9 8 6 V e n ic e B ie n n a le .

6. C le a rly , t h e e c o n o m i c a n d p o li tic a l d if f i c u lt ie s t h a t r e s u l t f r o m a m o d e l o f h e t e r o g e n e

ity b a s e d o n r o s t e r i n g d e f i n a b l e s p e c i e s o f d i f f e r e n c e I h a v e a s s o c ia te d w i t h c o lla g e

h a v e b r o a d im p l i c a t i o n s a c r o s s m a n y i n s t i t u t i o n a l f r o n t i e r s . In t h e 1 9 9 3 U .S. p r e s i

d e n t i a l e l e c ti o n , f o r e x a m p le , a k e y is s u e w a s t h e w id e ly f e lt f r u s t r a t i o n o v e r t h e n u m

b e r o f o ffic ia lly r e c o g n i z e d s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t g r o u p s ( n o w n u m b e r i n g i n t h e t h o u s a n d s )

s e e k i n g to in f l u e n c e d e c i s i o n s m a d e b y t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t . H o w e v e r c y n ic a l o n e

m a y b e a b o u t t h i s s i t u a t i o n , it i s a n i n e v ita b le c o n s e q u e n c e o f a s o c ia l a r r a n g e m e n t

t h a t a t t e m p t s to n e g o t ia t e t h e c la s s ic a l c o n f l ic t b e t w e e n i n d i v id u a l a n d c o m m u n it y ,

a n d t o a c h ie v e a d e m o c r a c y b y o f f e r i n g t h e r i g h t to a d e q u a t e v o ic e a n d r e c o g n i t i o n o f

NOTES TO PAGES 2 9 0 - 2 9 3 343

 d i f f e r e n c e s , th a t is . a d e m o c r a c y t h r o u g h e x t e n s iv e in c o h e r e n c e . M o d e ls o f h e t e r o g e

n e i ty a c h ie v e d t h r o u g h i n t e n s iv e c o h e r e n c e w o u ld n o t o n ly n e e d t o r e t h i n k t h e i n d i -

v i d u a l / c o m m u n i t y c o n f l ic t , b u t t h e e n t i r e n o t i o n o f a d e m o c r a c y a c h ie v e d b y s y s t e m s

o f r ig h t s .
7. S e e R o b e r t S o x n o l, “ S p e c i a t i n g S i t e s ,” i n Anywhere, e d . C y n th i a D a v i d s o n (N e w

Y o rk : R iz z o li, 1 9 9 2 ) , 9 2 - 9 7 .
8. T o b e s u r e , w e h a v e a lre a d y s e e n p o s s ib ilitie s f o r s u c h g r a f ts , f o r e x a m p le in th e

w o r k o f J o h n H e j d u k o r A ld o R o s s i . It i s e n t i r e l y u n p e r s u a s i v e t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e

e f f e c t s o f R o s s i ’s i n c o n g r u o u s g r a f t s o f r e c e i v e d i n s t i t u t i o n s w i t h h i s c a t a l o g o f a u

t o n o m o u s a r c h i t e c t u r a l f o r m s , o r f o r t h e e f f e c ts o f H e j d u k ’s m y t h o - p o e t i c , s c e n o -

g r a p h i c u r b a n g r a f t s w i t h t h e lo g i c o f c o lla g e .

9. S e e R o b e rto M a n g a b e ira U n g e r. “T h e B e tte r F u tu r e s o f A r c h ite c tu r e .” in Anyone,

e d . C y n t h i a D a v id s o n (N e w Y o rk : R iz z o li, 1 9 9 1 ), 2 8 - 3 6 .

10. R e m K o o lh a a s s t r e s s e s t h i s p o i n t i n h i s s h o r t p r o g r a m f o r t h e 1 9 9 2 S h i n k c n c h i k u
H o u s i n g c o m p e t i t i o n , “ H o u s e w i t h N o S ty le ." S e e J a p a n A r c h ite c t 9 ( S p r i n g 1 9 9 3 ) .

11. M a n y o f t h e id e a s in t r o d u c e d i n t h e s e c o n d p a n o f t h i s te x t g r e w o u t o f d i s c u s s i o n s I
h a v e e n j o y e d w i t h G r e g L y n n a n d S a n f o r d K w i n te r a s w e ll a s f r o m t h e i r w r iti n g . T h a t

I d o n o t c i te t h e s e w r i t i n g s i n p a r t i c u l a r i n t h i s te x t is m e r e ly a t e s t i m o n y t o h o w t h o r

o u g h ly it i s s u f f u s e d w i t h t h e i r in f l u e n c e . S e e G r e g L y n n ’s " M u lti p lic ito u s a n d I n o r

g a n i c B o d ie s ," A s s e m b la g e 19 ( D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 2 ) . 3 2 - 4 9 , o r S a n f o r d K w i n te r ’s ’“ Q u e lli

c h e p a n o n o ’ a s a G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f M o d e ls ." i n A rc h ite c tu re , S p a ce . P a in tin g : J o u r n a l

o f P h ilo s o p h y a n d th e V is u a l> b ts, e d . A n d r e w B e n j a m i n ( L o n d o n : A c a d e m y E d itio n s ,

1 9 9 2 ) , 3 6 - 4 4 . F o r r e l a t e d is s u e s , s e e In c o rp o r a tio n s , e d . J o n a t h a n C r a i y a n d S a n f o r d

K w i n te r (N e w Y o rk : Z o n e B o o k s . 1 9 9 2 ).
12. In t h i s a c c o u n t, I s t r e s s D e F o r m a t io n p r i m a r i l y a s a m a t t e r o f b u i l d i n g d e s i g n a n d
t o u c h o n u r b a n is s u e s o n ly a s th e y a r i s e i n t h a t c o n t e x t. S e v e r a l p r o j e c t s h a v e a t

t e m p t e d t o e x t e n d t h e t h e m e s I h e r e id e n tif y w ith D e F o r m a t io n t o u r b a n d e s ig n , s u c h

a s E i s e n r n a n 's R e b s to c k P a r k a n d t h e S h ir d c l . Z a g o , K ip n is c o m p e t i t i o n e n t r y f o r t h e

P la c e J a c q u e s - C a r t i e r i n M o n tr e a l. T h e r e a r e a ls o p r o j e c t s i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e t h e m e s

o f I n f o r m a t i o n , s u c h a s K o o lh a a s ’s L ille a n d L a D e f e n s e o r T s c h u m i’s C h a r t r e s .

13. F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e s e t h r e e p r o j e c t s , s e e J e f f r e y K ip n i s , “ F r e u d i a n S l i p p e r s , o r
W h a t W e r e W e t o M a k e o f t h e F e ti s h ," i n F e tish , P r in c e to n P apers o n A r c h ite c tu r e , e d .

S a r a h W h i t i n g , E d w a r d M itc h e ll , a n d G r e g L y n n ( P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n A r c h i t e c

t u r a l P r e s s . 1 9 9 2 )-
14. F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f E i s e n r n a n ’s w e a k - f o r m p r o j e c t s , s e e J e f f r e y K i p n i s . “A M a t t e r

o f R e s p e d ,">4 * 1 /2 3 2 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 9 0 ) . 1 3 4 - 1 3 7 .

15. O n e o f t h e m o s t f a s c i n a t i n g a s p e c t s o f E i s e n r n a n ’s d e s i g n c a r e e r is h i s u n c a n n y

a b i l i t y to d e r i v e a n e n t i r e a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n t h e s i s f r o m a k e y w o r d o r p h r a s e

h a p p e n e d u p o n i n h is r e a d in g o f c r itic is m o r p h ilo s o p h y . W h ile n o t u n d e r e s t im a t -

in g t h e s ig n if ic a n c e o f h is e v e n tu a l a r r iv a l a t s o m e u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e s o u r c e o f

344 NOTES TQ PAGES 2 9 3 - 3 0 7

 t h e t e r m i n q u e s t i o n , t h e f a c t o f t h e m a t t e r is t h a t E i s e n m a n ’s d e s i g n i n v e n t i o n s

v ir t u a l l y a lw a y s e v o lv e f r o m h i s i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n t o w h a t h e s e e s a s t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l

im p lic a tio n o f th e t e r m o r p h r a s e , lo o s e n e d f r o m its o r ig in a l d is c u r s iv e c o n te x t.

W h e t h e r N o a m C h o m s k y ’s " d e e p s t r u c t u r e . ” J a c q u e s D e r r i d a s “ tr a c e ," B e n o i t

M a n d e l b r o t ’s “f r a c t a l s c a l in g ,” o r G i a n n i V a tt im o ’s “ w e a k t h o u g h t , ” E i s e n m a n 's

a r c h ite c tu r a l d e r iv a tio n s h a v e m u c h m o r e to d o w ith h is s tim u la te d in t u iti o n o f

p o t e n t i a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l e f f e c t s t h a n w i t h a n a t t e m p t to e m b o d y t h e o r i g i n a l p h i l o

s o p h i c a l e f f e c t i n q u e s t i o n . E i s e n m a n ’s “d e e p s t r u c t u r e . ” “t r a c e , ” “s c a l in g ,” a n d

“ w e a k f o r m ” th e r e f o r e h a v e little to d o w ith p h ilo s o p h y , b u t m u c h to d o w ith a r

c h i t e c t u r e . T h i s c o m m e n t is b y n o m e a n s m e a n t t o d i s p a r a g e . I n d e e d , t o t h e c o n

t r a r y —t h e w a y in w h ic h E i s e n m a n ’s w o r k h a s a t o n e a n d t h e s a m e t i m e m a i n t a i n e d

a d ia lo g w ith p h ilo s o p h ic a l d is c o u r s e w h ile lo o s e n in g t h e d o m a in o f a r c h ite c tu r a l

e f f e c ts f r o m a n d e x e m p l i f y i n g / e m b o d y i n g o b l i g a t i o n t o p h i l o s o p h i c a l e f f e c t s m a y
b e its m o s t im p o r ta n t c o n tr ib u tio n . T h e c o n s p ic u o u s a b s e n c e o f t h i s is s u e f ro m

t h e c r i t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e o n E i s e n m a n ’s w o r k —i n c l u d i n g m y o w n —te s t i f i e s t o a n i n

s titu tio n a l n e e d fo r c ritic a l lite r a tu r e to m a in ta in a m e ta p h y s ic o f e m b o d im e n t at

a n y c o s t, e v e n a t t h e c o s t o f p a v i n g a t t e n t i o n t o t h e a r c h i t e c t u r e .

16. T h o u g h t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f a f f i lia t io n t o t h i s p o i n t e m p h a s i z e s f o r m - t o - f o r m e f f e c ts , a

m e d i t a t i o n o n t h e w e a k l i n k s o f a f f ilia tiv e e f f e c ts a ls o u n d e r m i n e s t h e m o s t p r e e m i

n e n t o f s tr o n g ly a l ig n e d r e l a t i o n s i n a r c h i t e c t u r e : t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n f o r m a n d

p r o g r a m . “ F o r m fo llo w s f u n c t i o n ” is . o f c o u r s e , t h e d e c la r a t io n p a r e x c e lle n c e o f a n

a l i g n m e n t b e t w e e n a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s ig n a n d p r o g r a m . Y et d o e s a c l o s e a t t e n t i o n t o t h e

h i s t o r y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e a c tu a lly s u s t a i n t h a t p o s i t i o n ? I b e l ie v e a c a r e f u l r e a d i n g o f t h a t

h i s t o r y w o u ld r e q u i r e a n e g a tiv e a n s w e r to t h i s q u e s t i o n .

T h r o u g h o u t its h is to ry , th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n f o r m a n d p r o g r a m h a s b e e n

f a r m o r e a f f i l i a t i v e t h a n a l i g n e d , a f a c t to w h i c h t h e e n d l e s s n u m b e r s o f r e p r o

g r a m m in g s m o r e t h a n te s tify ( h o u s e s to m u s e u m s , fa s c is t h e a d q u a r te r s to s ta te

t r e a s u r y f a c i l i t i e s , f i r e s t a t i o n s t o G h o s t b u s t e r s ' o f f ic e s , e t c . ) . T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t

t h e r e is n o r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n f o r m a n d f u n c t i o n , b u t t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p is

i n i t s e s s e n c e w e a k . It i s t h e a f f i l i a t i v e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e f o r m / p r o g r a m r e l a t i o n

s h i p t h a t a l lo w s R o s s i t o p r o d u c e h i s ty p o l o g ic a l g r a f t s a n d T s c h u m i t o t h e o r i z e

a b o u t d i s - c r o s s a n d t r a n s - p r o g r a m m i n g . .A fte r a l l, h a s t h e d e s i g n o f a n y b u i l d i n g

s i g n i f i c a n t t o a r c h i t e c t u r a l h i s t o r y e v e r a c h i e v e d i t s s t a t u s d u e t o how- w e ll i t f u n c

ti o n e d ? B ut th e m o s t g la r in g c a s e o f f o r m /p r o g r a m a f f ilia tio n i s to b e fo u n d in th e

h o u s e , f o r n o o n e e v e r l i v e s i n a h o u s e a c c o r d i n g to i t s a r c h i t e c t u r a l p r o g r a m . C a n

a t h e o r y o f s t r o n g a l i g n m e n t b e tw e e n f o r m a n d p r o g r a m a c c o u n t f o r r e a d i n g i n t h e

b a t h r o o m o r e a t i n g i n t h e l i v in g r o o m , o r f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r p l e a s u r e s o f h a v i n g s e x

a n y w h e r e b u t t h e b e d r o o m ? N o d o u b t it w a s o u t o f a f r u s t r a t i o n o v e r t h e f a i l u r e o f

a f f i l i a t i o n s t o c o n g e a l i n t o a l i g n m e n t s t h a t d r o v e M ie s v a n d e r R o h e t o n a i l d o w n

th e f u r n it u r e . T h e a ffilia tiv e n a t u r e o f th e r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n f o rm a n d p r o g r a m

N O TE S TO PAGE 3 0 8 345
 l a r g e ly a c c o u n t s f o r D e f o r m a t i o n s r e l a t i v e c o m p l a c e n c y v i s - a - v i s I n F o r m a t i o n

o n th e is s u e o f p ro g ra m .
17. C a m o u f la g e i s o f t e n c i t e d a s a p a r a d i g m o f a f f i l i a t i o n s t h a t s m o o t h . E f f e c tiv e c a m
o u f la g e s u c h a s “d a z z le p a i n t i n g " is o f t e n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e p r e v a i l i n g i n

f l u e n c e s o f t h e o p e r a t i v e c o n t e x t a n d a l m o s t a lw a y s o u t s i d e o f t h e d o m i n a n t m o d e s

o f t h e p r im a r y d is c ip lin e ( th a t is . o f c lo th in g d e s ig n o r th e s u r f a c e tr e a tm e n t o f

s h i p s o r p l a n e s ) . Y et t h e e f f e c t o f c a m o u f l a g e i s t o s m o o t h t h e d i s j o i n t r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e tw e e n s ite a n d in t e r lo p e r in to a n o t h e r c o n te x t.

18. F o r a d d i t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e J a c q u e s - C a r t i e r e v e n t s t r u c t u r e p r o j e c t , s e e B ah
r a m S h i r d e l , A n d r e w Z a g o , a n d J e f f r e y K ip n i s , " A n U r b a n P la c e : P la c e J a c q u e s -

C a r t i e r , M o n tr e a l." L A r c a 5 5 ( D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 1 ), 3 5 5 -4 1 .

19. F o r a d d i t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e S h i r d e l , Z a g o , K ip n is p r o j e c t f o r t h e S c o t t i s h N a
tio n a l M u s e u m , s e e J e ffre y K ip n is , “ F o u r P r e d ic a m e n ts ," in D a v id s o n , A n y w h e re ,

1 2 4 -1 3 1 .

20. S e e P e t e r E i s e n m a n , " K N o w h e r e 2 F o ld ," i n D a v i d s o n . A n y w h e r e , 2 1 8 - 2 2 7 .

21. T o s t a t e t h a t t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g d i s c u s s i o n s i n a r c h i t e c t u r e r e v o l v e a r o u n d d e
s i g n t e c h n i q u e is , t o m e , v i r t u a l l y a tautology*. T h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g a s p e c t o f a n y

a n d e v e r y s t u d y o f a r c h i t e c t u r e —h i s t o r i c a l , t h e o r e t i c a l , o r o t h e r w i s e — is i t s c o n s e

q u e n c e f o r c u r r e n t d e s ig n te c h n iq u e .

22. F o r m o r e o n t h e R e b s to c k p r o j e c t , s e e R o b e r t S o m o l. “A c c i d e n t s W ill H a p p e n ."

A - r U 2 5 2 ( S e p t e m b e r 1 9 9 1 ), 4 - 7 , a n d J o h n R a j c h m a n , “ P e r p l i c a t i o n s : O n t h e S p a c e

a n d T i m e o f R e b s t o c k P a r k ,” i n U n fo ld in g F r a n k fu r t ( B e r l i n : E r n s t & S o h n , 1 9 9 1 ).

F o r E i s e m n a n o n f o l d i n g , s e e “V i s i o n s ' U n f o ld in g : A r c h i t e c t u r e i n t h e A g e o f E l e c

t r o n i c M e d ia .” D o m u s 7 3 4 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 9 2 ) , 1 7 - 2 4 , r e p r i n t e d i n C r a r y a n d K v v in te r.

In c o r p o r a tio n s .

23. I n h i s s t u d i o a t T h e O h i o S ta t e U n iv e r s it y , E i s e n m a n a n d h i s s t u d e n t s b e g a n t o d e
v e lo p th e im p lic a tio n s o f th e in itia l R e b s to c k f o ld in g fo r th e b u ild in g s e c tio n s a n d

to s tu d y its c a p a c ity to in te r la c e d is jo in t o r g a n iz a tio n s .

346 NOTES TO PAGES 3 0 8 - 3 1 8

I NDEX
Abakanowicz, Magdalena, 70
Albers, Josef, 327n4
Ando, Tadao, 112
Arbeitsgruppe 4, 35, 324nl
Archigram, 35, 39
Arneson, Robert, 81
Auden, W. H., 26
Balmond, Cecil, 331nl3
Barr, Alfred, Jr., 181
Bataille, Georges, 117, 207
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 5
Bergren, Ann, 336n9
Bergson, Henri, 93
Bernier, Rosamond, 169, 193
Bloom, Harold, 224
Borradori, Giovanna, 337nl0
Boull^e, (itienne-Louis, 195
Breuer, Marcel, 61-62
Bruggen, Coosje van, 62, 63
Bruno, Giordano, 282
Brus, Gunter, 324n4
Burton, Decimus, 170
Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi),
53-55, 59
Cezanne, Paul, 14, 47
Chagall, Marc, 132
Chamberlain, John, 72, 80
Charcot, Jean-Martin, 26
Charles, Prince of Wales. 290
Choisy, Auguste, 167, 183
Claudius-Petit, Eugene, 210
Coop Himmelb(l)au, 35-52
BMW Welt, 47, 51
Cincinnati Milacron pavilion, 39
The Cloud, 37. 42, 45, 48
Falkestrasse rooftop, 48
Forum Arteplage, Expo.02, 45, 47,49
Gasometer redevelopment, 47
Groniger Museum, 42, 44, 45, 47
Melun-S6nart, urban plan for, 52
Mus§e des Confluences, 42, 45,
46, 47
Open House, 42, 43, 45, 47
UFA Cinema Center, 51
Zukunftsakademie (ZAK), 45
Cornford, Francis, 261
Cragg, Tony, 85-89
Crary, Jonathan, 115-116
Cunningham, Merce, 68
Dal Co, Francesco, 195, 197
De Kooning, Willem, 80
Deleuze, Gilles, 28, 33, 291,
302-303, 308, 316
De Maria, Walter, 60, 65, 66-67,
69, 70
De Meuron, Pierre. See Herzog & de
Meuron
Derrida, Jacques, 231-286, 291,
334nl, 335n7
Descartes, Ren6, 317
Devonshire, William Cavendish, sixth
Duke of, 170
Diderot, Denis, 2
 fa!£d by wtrks, wfi]
►uilding, scene of 1
sasure of certain coi^
: this role of the buil
tanW^ork T1 cp3|
Ve are ouuntless instance
I Pard
I (oi busi erD<J
realization would i
Axon

promiscuous k
Mice 1 |mprovisatic
p erm 1 I » r t« an1

ARCHITECTURE

“In this collection of seminal texts, Kipnis rem inds us once again why his unique ability
to focus our close attention to the specifically architectural qualities of buildings and
the intellection that produces them makes him the most im portant architectural critic
practicing today. His utterly distinctive voice pulses with the vitality of contemporary
culture until the language of each essay constructs architectural qualities of its own.”
Sylvia Lavin, Director of Critical Studies and MA/PhD Programs, UCLA Architecture

“Like all great critics, Kipnis does not describe things as they are, or have been understood,
but as they could be, reconstituting the m atter into something: more; powerful. W ithin
these texts disciplinary concerns and cultural logics (proper to architecture, but in
proximity to other discourses) are of param ount importance, and beauty (or the like)
reigns supreme. With so intoxicating a description of possibility, who cares if it is true or
not? These writings challenge architecture to relevance, to im portance, and to make the
world again and again, as necessary and desired.”
John McMorrough, Architecture Program Chair, Taubman College of Architecture
and Urban Planning, University of Michigan

978-0-262-51955-7
THE MIT PRESS
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142
http://mitpress.mit.edu