Culture, Space and Architecture? [PART 2 of 3]

2.  ANTI-POLITICAL SPACE [Political Space]

 May 4, 2004

Political Space

            Fredric Jameson posed the question “Is Space Political?” in his short essay (Leach, p. 256). Both sides of this debate include many well-respected contemporary theorists who use their specific rationale for defending their opinions. Roland Barthes and Robert Venturi are among those whose researched thoughts and theories can be used to suggest that space is not political. Research into the opposition of this idea will be discussed and described here in the second part of this paper. “A second generation of Modern…architects’ preoccupation with space as the architectural quality caused them to read the buildings as forms, the piazzas as space, and the graphics and sculpture as color, texture, and scale” (Venturi, p. 104).

            Theoretical and philosophical writings on Structuralism and Semiotics address this concept of space not being political. Semiotics can be defined as “the theory of the different systems of signs” and “is considered to be only a first stage towards a future general theory of ideologies” (Nesbitt, p. 115). Semiotics is also associated with “studying all cultural phenomena as if they were systems of signs – on the hypothesis that all cultural phenomena are, in reality, systems of signs, or that culture can be understood as communication – then one of the fields in which it will undoubtedly find itself most challenged is that of architecture” (Gottdiener, p. 56). [The relationship of semiotics to architecture is fairly complex, but is broken down into a logical process in Barthes’ and Venturi’s readings from class].

The French literary critic Roland Barthes is dubbed the “founder of modern semiology” by Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon (p. 95). “Barthes is primarily known for his interpretative work on literature, but his multi-disciplinary ability – embracing photography, music, the novel and poetry, and popular culture – gives him a good field position…” (Riley, p. 56). Barthes wrote about Paris’ most well know sign: the Eiffel Tower. The semiotics of this structure have become “incorporated into daily life until you can no longer grant it any specific attribute…it is as literal as a phenomenon of nature whose meaning can be questioned to infinity but whose existence is incontestable” (Barthes in Leach, p. 172). Signs become symbols of daily life and specific to different cultures rather than relying on hidden political agendas. The Eiffel Tower is essentially a monument, “an utterly useless monument” (Barthes in Leach, p.173), which has no function other than to gain a great panoramic view of Paris.

Other examples of well-know signs in the twentieth century culture can be found in Las Vegas. Space created by architecture is intended to be “sacred” (Venturi, p. 7). The mixing and dilution of architectural styles throughout the city have created more of a series of signs that are further highlighted by the actual signs along the street. “This architecture of styles and signs is antispatial; it is an architecture of communication over space; communication dominates space as an element in the architecture and in the landscape” (Venturi, p. 8). Here, signage is primarily used for guiding and directing the passerby into the hotels and casinos. The spaces created by many of these structures are also monuments, or signs, themselves. This city is built upon the dream of “getting rich quick” rather than tying itself into the political arguments of space supported by Peter Eisenman and Bernard Tschumi. Colquhoun wrote that “form was merely the result of a logical process by which the operational needs and the operational techniques were brought together. Ultimately these would fuse in a kind of biological extension of life, and function and technology would become transparent” (Venturi, p. 133). This fusion appears to be merely between space and forms themselves with the people who use the spaces; this relationship does not appear to associate itself with postmodern thoughts of political space. As stated in class on April 6th: by itself space is not political – you have to apply something to it.

Works Cited

Banham, Reyner. Design by Choice. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1981.

Capon, David Smith. Architectural Theory Volume Two (Le Corbusier’s Legacy): Principles of Twentieth-century Architectural Theory Arranged by Category. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1999.

Diani, Marco and Catherine Ingraham. Restructuring Architectural Theory. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988.

Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1996.

Gottdiener, M. and Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos. The City and the Sign: An Introduction to Urban Semiotics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.

Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1991.

Leach, Neil. Rethinking Architecture: a Reader in Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Maasik, Sonia and Jack Solomon. Signs of Life in the U.S.A.: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1994.

Nesbitt, Kate. Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

Riley, Charles A. II. Color Codes: Modern Theories of Color in Philosophy, Painting and Architecture, Literature, Music, and Psychology. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1995.

Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour. Learning From Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1977.