Death of Architectural Utopianism - Coursework Example

 Elective Essay 4 - Architecture Death of Architectural Utopianism The following discourse deliberates on the premise of absence of utopia in architecture in the modern design, with assessments on whether it should be welcome or a cause for concern. The discourse is effectively opened by the two quotes below that assist to build a position on how welcome complete elimination of utopia in architecture should be today. “… one is led almost automatically to the discovery of what may well be the ‘drama’ of architecture today [1976]: that is, to see architecture obliged to return to pure architecture, to form without utopia; in the best cases, to sublime uselessness.”1 Tafuri and La Penta identify with the benefits of elimination of utopia particularly due the fact that architecture will be purified and devoid of worthlessness occasioned by utopia. The position of the authors is a celebration of elimination of utopia since there will be more contributions to wholesome and quality architecture. “It’s possible to argue over the appropriate terminology for this stuff. Some have floated Iconism, Neo-Modernism, and Bilbaoism. I prefer to call it Pseudomodernism, a modernism of concealment, a stylistic shell left after all the original social and moral ideas have been stripped out.”2 In the words of Hatherley, the architectural world ought to be saddened and grieved by the marked loss of vital content to design amid elimination of utopianism. The author laments of the emptiness of ideas that rather capture the society moral and social values in architectural style. Since antiquity, utopia has characterized art in almost every sphere, oral and verbal as well as literal and intellectual. A conglomeration of idealist design from various sectors of the human society for over two millennia now has replaced design with utopia. The description of something as utopian in ordinary language implies some level of impossibility. This is mainly because utopia is likened to unrealistic dream whose actualization remains remote. Over a considerable duration of time, utopian designs have been actualized due to desperation regarding urban space utilization. Calvino likens modern cities to actualized dreams that have evolved in the utopian perspective. The author labels the cities’ design as a fabrication of desires which usually gets accompaniment from unfounded fears. Imagination is the main power behind creativity in utopian designs, which has developed over time to constitute some form of an acceptable practice. Perhaps, the architectural fraternity ought to make merry on the disbandment of deceit from architectural mentality. By doing this, architecture will be free from the apparent bondage. “With cities, it is as with dreams: everything imaginable can be dreamed, but even the most unexpected dream is a rebus that conceals a desire, or it is reverse, a fear. Cities, like dreams, are made of desires and fears, even if the thread of their discourse is secret, their rules are absurd, their perspectives deceitful, and everything conceals something else.” Some form of confusion hijacks Thomas More’s interpretation of Utopia since there are elements of place identity and lack of it as well in the same interpretation. The dichotomous dissection of interpretation of utopia by More creates a perfect place for utopia on the one hand while on the other hand, place specificity is inexistent. In his deliberations of utopia, More adopts satire to perfectly introduce critique for the fiction filled imagination architecture. It clearly gets satirical since More had a rebellious political stance. Utopia has since been established as a vital pillar of foundation for architecture, thanks to having had analysts devoting their time to its development. From such a perspective, the ground for social interaction with utopia is clearly prepared. Complexities of a society cannot be measured without utopia since it acts as a yardstick for the past, current and later society design values. Radicalism is introduced by utopia so that it can achieve installation of complexity into the society. Eventual diversion of the meaning of utopia has changed to exclude application to fictional pieces. It has instead been accepted as an interpretation of practical experimentation where Utopian concepts come into play. It is through the concept of utopia that international communities are established. Ancient texts such as some of Plato’s depict utopia to be the resultant product of science where space usage is planned for in a practical. This usage of utopia in architecture can be traced back to the Ancient Greece civilization. Plato describe the act of planning a city’s buildings in a geometrical plan as pride generated from abstractness yet people agree to celebrate it. Strict democracy featured in the manner in which architectural designs would be formulated into the post Ancient Greece future. Over the historical existence of utopia since the fall of the Greek idealism, so much has taken place to the extent of the exact intended purpose in architecture. Modern criticism against utopianism therefore will not leave behind its retrogressive authoritarian notions. Such change is certainly a huge departure and exactly the opposite of a change agent into the human society. It therefore can be argued that with all the negativity that authoritarianism attracts from the modern generally liberalized society, every architecture lover would want to forget utopia inside its precincts. Its demise in artful practices of human development would be celebrated any day and in any form. The role of utopia to history of human social developments would rather elicit unwelcome feelings both from social and political scenes. On another perspective as to whether the death architectural utopianism should be reason for grief or happiness, a mixed reaction should be expected upon a thorough analysis of the interactions of the two. Utopia and architecture can be assessed within the confinements of the visions cities have had and their actualization. It would be estimated that some cities could have a good experience with utopianism while some would retreat to regret for having it guide future vision of expansion and growth. Building on the premise and observation that modern architecture seems to drop utopia is reason to explore why it so happens. In addition, it would be logical to interrogate the proposition of utopia by some design icons. To illustrate how opinion held by architecture lovers gets important in this discourse, we can use Tafuri and Hatherley positions regarding utopianism in architecture as observed form the beginning of this discourse. Nothing seems certain in that respect and the uncertainty seems like a threat to the future of architecture. According to the author, nothing is predictable anymore due to the complexities of infiltration of different views from various sources. Knowledge seems to be elusive yet advanced society avails information that is generally suspicious to cause possible harm. With all these facts, life stares and beckons with uncertainty of harm. Some predict that the end of utopia is a living reality as predicted by Francis Fukuyama.3 In this work, the author proposes that utopia has exceeded its elastic capacity and no more achievements can be reached under its perspective. There are some protagonists who are currently approaching the issue of utopia with agility that no other topic could arouse. Expression of marked anger concerning utopian cities of the future has been captured in the works of Aldous Huxley’s and Georges Orwell’s.4 Brave New World and 1984 respectively are characterized by a pure negative remark of utopianism in architecture mainly due to authoritarianism and other unpleasant experiences. Heavy criticism has persisted until the level of imagination and fiction lost ground. Huge changes have therefore been recorded in the 20th century history. Sociopolitical developments that were achieved then can be explained by the loss of utopianism; fading away of socialisl and the consequent Like mentioned before, may would welcome the decline of utopianism in architecture partly due to its contribution to their suffering under authoritarianism which is synonymous to it. In the period after mid 10th century, utopian movements rose to criticize and facilitate complete departure from the retrogressive concept in architecture.5 Some critics have welcomed the collapse of utopic forms of conception in architectural discourse, and argued that that it adds little or no value at all to the general discourse.6 Manfredo Tafuri in his work Architecture and Utopia challenged forms of untopic conceptualization of art as a tool for capitalistic control and fantasy which must be necessarily disabled. The aspect of utopia according to this thinking was basically a plot by the capitalistic forces to reduce ideology into utopia. The aspect of rationalism and ideologies of technocratic capitalism became the points of departure and convergence in this aspect of utopia. Engaging with utopia can only be meaningful if the respective aspects of utopia originate from actual ideologies as they may weigh on a specific discourse and any corresponding relationship to the logic of capitalism.7 The essential being of architecture represents its dramatic nature that evokes the obligation to revert to some form of pure architecture, and one that comes into being without utopia. This work concludes its analysis on a very critical note that offers the contention that seeks to reinforce the idea that the crisis of modern architecture is more an aspect of the ideological substance of the architecture itself rather than some form dissipation or even like some scholars have argued a product of tiredness. The argument presented by Tafuri provoked a radical shift from the traditional celebration of utopia, which was expressed in rather open ways. In terms of this shift in idelogies, the new forms of perception were alligned along the systems of postmodernism which reflected through the emergence of megastructures. In retrospect, it becomes important to review the terms that governed the rejection or the dismissal of utopia. I have argued before that exclusive over-reliance on utopia as a system of though can be dangerous in the sense in which it encaurages totalitarian aspects of reality, otherwise known as dystopia.8 Caution must, however, be exercised in the evaluation of the utopia in architecture and its presumed decreasing relevance in modern architecture. It might be argued that utopian thinkng may have been triumphantly replaced by alternative ideologies like pragmatism, rationalism, profitability or realism. Nevertheless utopia still rules as a vital force that conditions many aspects of reality and art. It works in political systems that eventually interract with artistic realities through the concentric that correlate realities between diverse discourses. Utopia also contributes towards the reshaping of ideologies so that alternative forms of architecture can be imagined. The alternative essence that emanates from challenges of utopia becomes the central pont of importance which necessarily highlights the vital nature of utopia. This was part of the structural importance of the experiments of utopia as practiced in the 60s. Even though few studies have celebtraed the optimism of these forms of utopia, it does not subsract from their almost foundational importance that might be considered in other respects as pioneering. There however remains challenges in the art of re-conceptualizing utopia and giving it new life forms that might situate into new levels of meaning. The period of time beginning from the 1980s has been regarded as the New Urbanism movement9 because for its active campaign for the reestablishment of what has commonly been regarded as ‘urban villages’ or traditional communities. The implied meaning in these campaigns is that utopia is not impossibility but rather an alternative that societies are only not willing to embrace. Another group known as the neo-urbanisms sought to design the city along systems that encouraged environmental health and economic sustainability that appeared at a time similar to the emergence of the commonly known ideal, ‘eco-village vision.’ This vision transcended from the basics of celebrating communal forms of living into the adoption for new, and alternative philosophies of living. The imagination of cities as forms of ecosystems effectively captures the new idea along the aspects of cosmic order almost similar to what might have been explored by naturalists as represented through harmony and peace. There is also a form of pragmatism in this new aspect of the imagined cities so that the real hurdles are equally addressed. The ideologies that condition the new images of cities have, in the recent decades, departed from the anchorage of political priorities towards more emphasis on the dynamics of landscaping. New urbanism differs from from fragmented postmodern cityscapes in the sense in which it proposes holistic architecture that are founded on small towns as well as organic urban villages. image taken from http://lucasstaib.blogspot.com/ One of the most vivid illustrations of the utopian project is the Community of Christiana that is found in Copenhagen, which attempts to connect global ecosystems and local ones10. Arcosanti is a part of the eco-village work, and is basically a project in the town of Arizona which has been designed in line with the concept of arcology, a principle that unites architecture and ecology. An Italian architect, Paolo Soleri developed this design in 1969. The essence was to create a common residence for the harmonious interactions among the living to resemble the harmony of organs in a higly evolved being. People, resources, buildings and energy were supposed to exists side by side in a harmonious non-disruptive unity. Accessibility and privacy are the two most important factors that condition the system of interaction between the different organs of this artificial being. Gardening is sufficiently provided for through greenhouses. Other aspects of the society such as industry and houses are catered for in one massive complex designed to be updated as frequently as the society might demand of it according to arising needs.11 It is possible to meet different kinds of projects outside the eco-village which reflect forms of dissatisfaction on the organizational structure of human affairs and which call for the inclusion of the revised aspects and structures that align with the concepts of utopian space. 12 The New Utopian projects and Lefebvre, ‘partisan of responsibilities’, share something in common in that they derive some inspiration from Situationist’s Orientation and the open-ended urban lived space ludic aspects.13 ‘Utopian’ often implies something that is visionary and one that belongs to avant-garde. Hence, when Utopia is applied in the architectural realm, it represents constructive and critical attitudes that are put into practice in projects. For instance, most people consider Le Corbusier among the utopists because he once attempted to formalize and imagine a city of ‘his future’ would be. The below image represents the visualized city by Le Corbuisier: However, there are some people who are still in disapproval of Le Corbusier city vision. This is because utopian vision is inconceivable as an ex cathedra and cannot be imposed from above. In David Harvey book, ‘Space of Hope’, he points that once the spatial utopias are materialized, they end up failing because the social processes that are mobilized to build the spatial utopias can never be fully controlled. Hence, the ideal transformation that takes place ends up shattering the realization of the spatial utopia promises. He further states that even though it might be possible to envision or realize utopia perfection, then, this contradicts the idea that utopia can take a concrete form. The impact or effect of the detailed utopia description is that it freezes life and hence prohibits the freedom that it sets out to establish.14 However, the modern urbanist’s and architects have greatly contributed to the utopian thinking and helped build up its capacity by encouraging utopians to envision a better world and start building it. In simple terms, they have positively criticized the utopia status quo. Rather than condemn them for their positive critiques, we should embrace them and appreciate their efforts in trying to integrate their architectural beliefs, political dimension with architectural utopianism. Initially, architectural utopianisms were dependent on one’s critical attitude and drive to change our world. Just like the modern urbanist’s and architects, we should change the dimension but rather re-evaluate it optimistically and pessimistically. Architectural utopianism debate can be transformed into a political tool that can be used to construct the common space; ‘stage for imagination’ that can benefit all.15 This implies that we should never celebrate the downfall of architectural utopianism; we would be denying the Ideal City that we want and the pure space that we all fantasize about. This will hinder us from imagining and reliving the different lives that we want to live. As Lewis Mumford states “a map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at.”16 Bibliography Primary Sources: Calvino, Italo.1972. Invisible Cities. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Secondary Sources: Aslet, C.1993. Architecture in Arcadia. London: Academy Editions. Manden, J. 2006. Auroville Architecture: Towards New Forms for a New Consciousness: London: PRISMA Christian, D. 2003. Creating a Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional Communities. New York: New Society Publishers Eaton, R.2007. Ideal Cities: Utopianism and the (Un) built environment. New York: Thames & Hudson. Fishman, R. 1982. Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd, Wright, Le Corbusier. Cambridge: The MIT Press Grosz, E. 2001.Architecture from the outside: essays on virtual and real space. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Harvey, D. 2000. Space of Hope .California: University of California Press. Jacoby, R. 1999. The End of Utopia: politics and culture in an age of apathy. New York: Basic Books. Mannheim, K. 1946. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Harcourt, Brace Palleroni, S.et al. 2004. Studio at Large: Architecture in Service of Global Communities. Seattle: UW Press. Pinder, D.2005. Visions of the city: utopianism, power and politics in twentieth-century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Van Schaik, M. & Macel, O. 2005.Exit Utopia: Architectural Provocations 1956-76.London: Prestel Publishing. Shklar, Judith. 2011. “After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith: The Political Theory of Utopia From Melancholy to Nostalgia.” Utopias & Utopian Thought. London: Princeton University Mumford, L. 1967. ‘Utopia, The City and The Machine’. Utopias and Utopian Thought. Boston: Beacon. Internet Sources: Arcosanti. 2010. Utopian project history. Retrieved on 19th Feb, 2011 from: http://www.arcosanti.org/project/background/soleri/timeline.html Auroville. 2010. A universal city in the making: Retrieved on 19th Feb, 2011 from http://www.auroville.org/ Davis M. 2008. Who Will Build the Ark? The Utopian Imperative in an Age of Catastrophe. Retrieved on 19th Feb, 2010 from: http://brechtforum.org/who-will-build-ark-utopian-imperative-age-catastrophe?bc Duany Plater-Zyberk Company. 2010.Utopia. Retrieved on 19th Feb, 2011 from : http://www.dpz.com/ Olssen, M. 2003. ‘Totalitarism and the ‘Repressed’ Utopia of the Present: moving beyond Hayek, Popper and Foucault’. Policy Future in Education. Vol.1 (3), 61-78 Times of India Online. 2001. Auroville: The City of Dawn. Retrieved on 10th Dec, 2010 from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/41644891.cms Read More