The Russian writer Nikolay V. Gogol once said “Architecture is like a world’s chronicle: it speaks when songs and legends lapse into silence”. Mark Jarzombek, Professor of the History and Theory of Architecture, tried to find the connection between architecture and interdisciplinary historiography. In our essay, we tend to analyze his theory, juxtapose two main theses of his article, find confirmations or contradictions to his words in other scientific works devoted to this question.
The main problem considered in the article is the distinction between historiographic critique and interdisciplinary historiography. The author strictly outlines the discursive logic of the two principal ways architectural theory has been conceived: historiographic critique and interdisciplinary historiography (Jarzombek 1991 p.150). He considers the most burning moments learning by example scientific works of Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Marc-Antione Laugier, analyses different historical periods and cultural ages.
In his article Mark Jarzombek proposes us to understand historiographic critique as a “discourse of mystification” whose praxis (the architectural work) appeared within a “trajectory through time”. Describing the story of Cola di Rienzo he finds the links between the future events as the result of past-making efforts via knowledge of history with the knowledge of praxis (p.151). Citing Augustine Thierry, the author says: “Human societies must know where they come from in order to see where they are going” (p.150).
Then he proves this point of view taking into account the Renaissance epoch and architectural artifacts of that prominent period. In his work, he stresses that Renaissance architectural theorists were among the first to develop operative conceptions of the past (p.151). He gives, for instance, an opinion of Leon Batista Alberti. According to the ideas of this theorist, and I consider them to be logically reasonable, architectural elements such as columns, walls, apertures and roofs were developed at the same time primitive society first began to differentiate public from private, and religious from secular. Though, according to Rasmussen (1964, p.10), the architect is a sort of theatrical producer, the man who plans the setting for our lives. Innumerable circumstances are dependent on the way he arranges this setting for us. Subsequent developments in architecture paralleled society’s own development towards increasingly complex forms (Gelernter, 1995, p.8).
Each of the phases of the problem offers its own possibilities and difficulties rooted in natural conditions and universal human traits, and thus to a certain degree constant (Kimball, Edgel, 2002, p.1). This idea coincides with the third architectural theory proclaiming that architectural form is shaped by the prevailing spirit of the age (p.8). The theory implies the existence of a certain cultural spirit in every epoch that absorbs cultural essence and attitudes of mind and then transforms those into particular artistic creations. Though the spirit mentioned above is not identified as the stable factor, we can be sure, of the results of its influence. The architect is an artist whose work is supposed to exist for a long time in the future. Thus, every his creation should be adaptable for unpredictable desires and improvisations of future generations of people.
The absence of precise moment of fruition, absolute closure, and ultimately the absence of privileging of praxis by virtue of a fully visible philosophical system is illustrated by Mark Jarzombek further. If we remember from history the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment began to generate new conceptions of life and behavior, those new theories began to be embodied into architectural patterns. The theorist Mies van der Rohe was the first scientist who recognized that historians, philosophers, and theorists of architecture can influence the sphere of praxis almost equipotent. The methodological connections created by Mies gave him the opportunity to rely on ideas that were firstly borrowed and later purposefully shared with other historians and philosophers.
The difference between two theories depicted in the article can be seen through the prism of their essence. Historiographic critique is the phenomenon which logic depended on the particular historical period. All events, changes, progress, cultural innovations and discoveries were considered as the sequences of definite historical period of time.
fully agree that interdisciplinary historiography has a different impact on world viewing and understanding. The person perceives the world through the history, culture, people around. In the course of time, all those factors change, and such changes reflect on the architecture.
As the author underlines, there are no strict definitions in theory points. He says that in analyzing such connections between philosophy and praxis, one will find purposeful misreading, accidental misunderstandings, blind oversights, oversimplifications, strained reasoning, ingenious connections, and bizarre misplacements (p.153). This, in my opinion, is the defined absence of privileging of praxis by virtue of a fully visible philosophical system. There is no single opinion and theory. But there is a lot of texts and subtexts.
The problem of European architecture during the years 1880-1900 was one of identity and self-representation. The modern era was almost a century old, but its built form had yet to be decided. Experimental forms drawing on new architectural typologies, historical precedent as well as simple technological innovation represented a fundamental redetermination of the role of ornament in architecture and meaning in design (2003, p.178). And as Jarzombek (p.152) points out, because of the modernist ambivalence about history, however, the historian has pushed aside. The confirmation of this opinion is found in the scientific work of Mitias. In his book, the author (1994, p.109) emphasizes that with the rise of the kaleidoscope of architectural styles since the decline of architectural modernism, the debate about the “meaning of architecture” has recently enjoyed renewed popularity. One of the claims frequently heard in this discourse is that the alleged crisis of Modern Architecture resulted partially from the movement’s lack of a vocabulary of meaningful forms. This claim was traditionally connected with the tendency to return to the elements of classical architecture.
The phenomenon of history that contributed to the architecture is observed in the XXth century as well. No precise moment of fruition can be observed because of the difference in translation between such sciences as theory, history and philosophy. Architecture has felt the impact of Hegelianism in the 1940s. This idea changed greatly politics, art, religion. The author (p.154) notices that the philosophy of Vico and Hegel began to find its architectural “praxis” one hundred and fifty years after its initial formulation just in a lowly realm of architecture. He also adds that the meta-history of architectural theory must recognize the imperfect ways in which architectural thought manifests itself kaleidoscopically in society. This fact makes the theory impossible as it is impossible to define any independence in the discourse of architectural theory.
It is important to situate modern architecture and its aftermath within the wider process of modernization in society. That process reached a culmination in the last hundred years. Modernization’s central achievement was the creation of relatively free (because they were formal and abstract) social processes inhabited by relatively free-floating individuals. Modern people are less attached to the naturally or culturally determined details of their identity than were people in more traditional societies, who identified more closely with their social roles and values (Kolb, 1992, p. 94).
In conclusion, the author unites all his thoughts and theories in three lessons that include all the main disputable burning questions.
The first mentioned lesson is the following: the philosophy is not able to generate the praxis contemporary to it. This means that any philosophical thought must undergo all possible trials such as infiltration, adjustment, etc. until it would obtain the real power to impact the architecture as its goal.
The second lesson as the outcome consists of the idea that the architectural theory of the twentieth century tries to reject in all possible and impossible ways the so-called ghost of history in order to distinguish theories that have a direct impact on the architecture and avoid naive worldview.
The last and the most important lesson to be pointed out teaches that as far as all philosophical texts become almost invisible in the course of time, praxis is independent of their influence. Though the separation of theory from history flows quite slowly, it becomes evident and the author (p.154) emphasizes that these theories of architecture are today more historically determined than ever before, yet never have they been more incapable of addressing the syllables of time.
Reference list
Gelernter, M., 1995. Sources of architectural form, a critical history of western design theory. Manchester University Press.
Jarzombek, M., The crisis of interdisciplinary historiography, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol.44, No.3 (1991), pp 150-155.
Kimball, F., Edgel, G.H., 2001. History of architecture. Research & Education Assoc.
Kolb D., 1992. Postmodern sophistications: philosophy, architecture, and tradition. University of Chicago Press.
Mitias, Michael H., 1994. Philosophy and architecture. Rodopi.
Perez-Gomez A., Parcell S., 2003. Chora: intervals in the philosophy of architecture. McGill-Queen’s Press – MQUP.
Rasmussen, St. E., 1964. Experiencing architecture. 2nd ed. MIT Press.