The concept of utopia has been a prevalent one in art and architectural history. Artists, designers, architects, historians, philosophers all contributed to the discussion in many different forms. The discourse around this critical topic continues today, with the light of past opinions and fresh points of view. The most compelling quality of the use of utopia in architecture is its ability to be a critique of the current state of civilisation. It can be a handy tool in crafting the argument around modern society, trying to elevate it from its current state, or just making masses realize the situation they are in, as in a wake up call. Many architectural historians have developed thoughts in critiquing modernity. Hilda Heynen has brought the history of this discourse together in her very well developed book, Architecture and Modernity: A Critique (1999). She builds her argument referencing several key philosophers and historians, analysing their work, methods, ideas; comparing them, agreeing with and disputing them, to bring forward an informative and riveting read on architecture’s view of modernity. She does this mainly focusing on the movements of the avant-garde of the twentieth century, and how their conceptions are viewed by other thinkers. The main point of interest of this essay in this book regarding utopian thought is the fourth chapter, where Heynen delves into the ‘utopian’ city of New Babylon, and Theodor W. Adorno’s ideas.
The fourth chapter, ‘Architecture as Critique of Modernity’ (Heynen, 1999, p.148-219), is divided into sections, which explain the development of the Situationists International and New Babylon, followed by Adorno’s thoughts from his books Aesthetic Theory (1970) and Dialectics of Enlightenment (1944, with Max Horkheimer), the concepts of mimesis and negativity, and how mimesis is observed through architectural examples. If one was to create a mental map/sketch of the chapter, it would unfold like this: In the center is ‘architecture as critique of modernity’ as an orb in the hands of Heynen, the general concept of physical environment, urbanism, their current state and oppositions and reactions to them. Heynen views the orb from all angles, and makes pit stops around, beneath, and above the question. She looks at the theoretical debates from the points of Guy Debord, Constant Nieuwenhuys, Theodor W. Adorno; located close by but all at distinct places. She meanwhile peeks inside of it looking at the core, seeing other thinkers that created the base for the ideas of utopia, urbanism, consumerist and capitalist society; significantly in the likes of Henri Lefebvre, Walter Benjamin, Karl Marx and Manfredo Tafuri. She constructs the story of how this critique of modernity came to be, points out the clear differences of the ideas; then pans out above the entire construction of Adorno, throwing it to the two concrete examples of Daniel Libeskind and Rem Koolhaas. This essay will focus on the first half of this promenade, Heynen’s in-depth exploration of the ideas behind New Babylon, the contradictions within it, and the ones surrounding and stem from it, at the same time looking at how Heynen formulates the chapter.
In the chapter, Heynen starts off by setting the scene; how the Situationists International were formed. She introduces new people from opposite points of the debate and creates an all-round picture of the ideological setting of this time. She quotes Max Bill’s intentions for his new school, saying “...cooperative work on important problems of modern design is a major contribution to the most urgent task of the modern age: the humanising of our increasingly mechanistic civilisation.” (1993, cited in Heynen, 1999, p. 150). Asger Jorn’s objection to Max Bill’s insistence on functionality and rationality over imagination is put forward (1981, cited in Heynen, 1999, p. 151), “Our practical conclusion is the following: we are abandoning all effort at pedagogical action and moving toward experimental activity.” The use of these quotes at the initial stage of the chapter foreshadow the purpose of New Babylon, in separating the mechanisation completely from humans so they are free, from all the imposed responsibilities of a capitalist society, to play. They emphasise the experimental quality of life in New Babylon, how experience and imagination are of utmost importance. In choosing these precise thoughts of these artists, Heynen is describing how critical ideologies evolve; by being aware of the ongoing discussions, creating conflicts within it and pursuing inventive ways to offer better answers to the ceaseless problems of modern society. Her references to Marx’s theories, general capitalism and consumerist culture are of course in regard of the political views of the Situationists. As she concludes the introductory part of the chapter, she presents her critique of New Babylon in a direct manner, in a few sentences, and starts building her case while explaining Constant’s own critical thoughts and methods.
“New Babylon is the most fully developed counterpart of functionalist architecture.” (Heynen, 1999, p. 152)
“At the same time the project testifies to the paradoxes and contradictions inherent in visions of this kind. In New Babylon, therefore, the tragic character of utopia comes to the surface.” (Heynen, 1999, p. 153)
Initially originating from a few other established groups such as the Movement for an Imaginist Bauhaus and the Cobra Group, the Situationist International was formed in 1957 as an avant-garde collective, mainly opposing functionalism and placing emphasis on ‘form for fun’. Some of the key people in this organisation that are of interest are Guy Debord, who theorised psychogeography (fig.1), and Constant Nieuwenhuys, who would later leave the group to work on New Babylon. Henri Lefebvre (1997), who was a prominent influence on the group, looks back on his interactions with them, and the political climate of those years. Around 1956, Stalinism had ended, and the anarchist collectives abandoned regulated parties were mostly forming in the Netherlands and Paris. He also recalls the relationship between his theory of ‘moments’ and their theory of ‘situations’, which are essentially the improved version of the same thing (Lefebvre and Ross, 1997, p. 72).
Heynen focuses on the idea of unitary urbanism in the chapter, which is developed as a response to the current urban circumstances, and would form the base of the ideas behind New Babylon (1999, p. 151). As Lefebvre puts it, “Unitary Urbanism consisted of making different parts of the city communicate with one another.” (Lefebvre and Ross, 1997, p.74). Although one might think that expression of individuality should be a key aspect of this proposal, the opposite is the case. Unitary urbanism is created communally: “it cannot be produced by the activity of individual artists, but calls for the combined efforts of all creative personalities.” (Heynen, 1999, p. 154). At this point, Constant became more interested in the physical conception of New Babylon and unitary urbanism rather than the theoretical aspects of it, as Debord and the rest of the Situationists were more keen on (Heynen, 1999, p. 154). Although Debord was optimistic about an imminent social revolution, Constant was not sharing this view. Heynen’s emphasis on these differences between Constant’s and Debord’s (Situationists’) approaches to critique urbanism is significant. While the former admits that the idea is only a conception, that the social revolution will not happen immediately in the current social state; the latter believes his/their thoughts will have a sudden impact on the evolution of society, people and the masses will revolt to live in unitary urbanism, and that this will occur rapidly. Heynen wants to draw attention to this key divergence in their ideas, which also points to the different ways in which they critique modernity; Constant’s physical representations of New Babylon through drawings, maps, models, paintings, and Debord’s approach with critical writings and theorising about change. While explaining Debord’s stance, Heynen goes back to the grounds on which he built his arguments; in this case Lefebvre’s thoughts from his 1947 book; then connects this to the revolutionary movements that culminated in student uprisings of 1968, all of it coming in response to capitalism (1999, p. 157).
The whole idea is a reaction against utilitarianism in urbanism, the monotonous environment, the reality of spaces looking alike and repetitive, no place for imagination, many restrictions created by the designs and forced by the people in charge. The propositions occur from a need to break away from these defined environments, set ways of living, doing the same actions in the same order every day. They allow the creation of spaces full of character, which can be modified according to need and desire of people, allowing fun, participation and input from the users, in a way created by the users. “Houses should be flexible, their walls adjustable, vegetation should enter life” Heynen lists the key physical aspects of Chtcheglov’s essay on unitary urbanism (1999, p. 153). It is like giving a blank canvas to the ‘homo ludens’ (a term that will be coined by Constant later on), which will become homo ludens only in this city of the future, and setting them free in the space to behave as they wish. Finding and trying new ways of behaviour is one of the main aims of future cities. Unitary urbanism wants people and society to break out from under the forced system of capitalism, be completely free to experiment in different experiences and behaviour, free of manipulated responsibilities and restrictions of temporality and spatiality, instead existing in a playground where anything goes. At this point, one can sense Heynen taking a step back from analysing the thoughts to illuminating the social and political scene of the time, the movements in which the situationists played an important role in, and again pointing out that all these criticisms in architecture are aimed at the current social state, mainly in capitalist countries, in order to display where these avant-garde thoughts stem from to mold the world into a more livable place in the eyes of the Situationists. After going over the Situationists’ stance, she then starts to focus on Constant and how he developed New Babylon, what his ideas were, and how he constructed them.
Bibliography:
Debord, G. (1957). Psychogeographic Guide of Paris. Denmark: Permild & Rosengreen. Available at: http://imaginarymuseum.org/LPG/debordpsychogeo.jpg[Accessed: 19 February 2016]
Heynen, H., (1999). ‘Reflections In A Mirror’ and ‘Architecture as Critique of Modernity’, from Heynen, H., (1999). Architecture and Modernity: A Critique. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p.128-148, p.148-193.
Lefebvre, H and Ross, K., (1997). Lefebvre on the Situationists: An Interview. October, n.79. p. 69-83. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778839. [Accessed: 17 February 2016].
Nieuwenhuys, C. (1974). Exhibition Catalogue. The Hague: Haags Gemeetenmuseum. Available at: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic709752.files/WEEK%207/CNieuwenhuis_New%20Babylon.pdf. [Accessed: 14 February 2016]
This paper was originally written for the module Critical Methodologies in Architectural History.
Comments