Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) has dwelled on the paradoxical aspects of the ideas of art and utopia. Heynen directly delves into his ideas on these subjects, and applies them to New Babylon. While referring to Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory, she reveals her method in analysing New Babylon as well, presenting the contradictions of the art that ‘must be and wants to be utopia’ (Adorno, 1970, cited in Heynen, 1999, p.176), but instead conveys its reality in its negativity and in its lack of harmony and consistency (Heynen, 1999, p. 176). This is exactly what she did in the previous section, compiling New Babylon’s relevant qualities and Constant’s intentions, in the end to expose its dystopian character due to the unpredictability and nuances of the human condition and progressions of modernity.
According to Heynen, Adorno’s prominent interest was in how the application of the ideals of Enlightenment fail tremendously, despite being rooted in reason, advancement and worldwide liberation (1999, p.176). She proceeds in describing his dual approach in searching for answers, and after this brief introduction, refers to Martin Jay’s constellation theory about Adorno, which consists of five points: neo-Marxism, aesthetic modernism, mandarin conservatism, Jewish self-identification, and deconstructionism (1984, cited in Heynen, 1999, p. 177). Heynen is introducing Adorno here in a way that is rather disconnected from the train of thought of the chapter, in order to explore his ideas and thought process on modernity. She refers to the past chapters in her book which deal with Walter Benjamin, and compares him to Adorno, due to the fact that parts of Adorno’s work refer to Benjamin’s ideas. Again, the reader is reminded of the cohesiveness of the book, with relations evident throughout. Also, while depicting Adorno and his approach on utopia, she subtly makes the reader think back on the problems in New Babylon’s conception of utopia, or the failure of it; if the reader agrees with Adorno’s ideas of course. She brings attention to Adorno’s dual understanding of truth, one being the reality ‘as it is’, and the other being unattainable ‘as it might be’ (1999, p. 178).
The Dialectic of Enlightenment is next as Heynen’s exploration of Adorno continues. She says that the theory of modernity conceived in this text emphasises the ‘self destructive’ quality of the Enlightenment, and quotes him: “We had set ourselves nothing less than the discovery of why mankind, instead of entering into a truly human condition, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism.” (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1972, cited in Heynen, 1999, p. 181). Her choice of this quote mainly serves as the gateway to explaining Adorno and Horkheimer’s understandings of the problem, but it also has an underlying reference to the tragedy of utopia. When Adorno questions the contradictions in Enlightenment, Heynen draws the parallel between this and the never fully functioning utopian ideas. Enlightenment was the new hope for civilisation, it was the rise of reason and scientific thought and new ways of production, but according to Adorno, it had gone awry. The reader is then presented for the reasoning of Adorno behind this argument. He and Horkheimer (his partner in writing the Dialectics of Enlightenment), present a clear differentiation between critical rationality and instrumental nationality, the former being genuine reason and the ability to question everything, and the latter thinking only for the means of value, to achieve an objective without questioning it, a lesser version of thinking (Heynen, 1999, p. 181). The dialectic then occurs when critical rationality is diminished to instrumental rationality, rendering Enlightenment the reverse of what it set out to be. This dialectic is what Horkheimer and Adorno discover within Enlightenment, but instead of discarding it, they still believe that there is no better alternative to it, that it’s the closest thing that society has as means to freedom (Heynen, 1999, p. 182). This depiction of the dialectic within Enlightenment, however serving to familiarise the reader with Adorno’s theories, also is throwing back to New Babylon. Although the utopia is not completely viable, with contradictions and inadequacies left and right, it is a manifestation of the reasonable search for the need to be in a system that is created or found using intellectual progression. Heynen ends this section of the chapter by generalising these theories of Adorno as his notion of modernity. Adorno’s theory is built upon contradictory features. Modernity in his eyes both dominate the individual and social life, and contains within it the possibility of another future, and supplies the tools to reach it (Heynen, 1999, p. 184).
Adorno’s ideas on utopia are clearly laid out on the next section. Heynen might have ordered the chapter this way in order to further justify the tragedy of New Babylon, and how although it fails, the argument still serves a purpose in critiquing modernity. On utopia, Adorno states that “Insofar as we are not allowed to cast the picture of utopia, insofar we do not know what the correct thing would be, we know exactly, to be sure, what the false thing is. That is actually the only form in which utopian thinking is given to us at all.” (1987, cited in Heynen, 1999, p. 188). Only a negative way can manifest within utopian thought, facing truth with what it is not (Heynen, 1999, p. 188). This relation between negativity and utopia is evident in art and architecture. According to Heynen, in Aesthetic Theory, Adorno argues that “the whole aim of modern art is to give concrete form to utopia, ...but on the other hand art is not in a position to actually become a utopia because if it did so, it would lose its efficaciousness and degenerate into an empty form of consolation. ...In its best moments art succeeds in referring to the utopian form while at the same time exposing its inaccessibility under present societal relations.” (1999, p. 191). In pointing this out, Heynen actually validates the tragic character of New Babylon. Without its contradictions, New Babylon might not have been as effective a critique as it is now. It contains within itself the ultimate way to advance the society past the restrictions of the current social and economical status, taking a shot at the prevailing functionalism and capitalist consumer culture. Meanwhile, there also lies in its core the negative direction this utopia entails, with an abundance of freedom and lack of direction. While it is a valuable attempt at commenting on modernity, the unattainability due to its conflicts is what makes it tragic.
Through this chapter, Heynen takes the reader further into the late stages of the avant-garde movement, explaining the foremost ideas and theories, emphasizing relations between them, at the same time offering her own views on the subject. She puts New Babylon and the arguments around achieving a utopian idea in the middle, and constructs a history of this stage in critiquing modernity. Heynen does not theorise herself in a way other historians do. She takes all the facts, puts them in a logical order, tells what the people in question proposed and created, how they approached the situation and how they critiqued the status quo. She clearly assembles her project with precision, she has settled on a specific subject that is architecture’s critical role, and presents fundamental information which complement each other. Only after she does this she gives her own critique of the event or theory. Her main style of writing in this chapter is like telling the story of how Constant and Adorno came to evolve their theories, and how they critique modernity by these means. Heynen’s way of shaping the chapter helps the reader make these connections, which make her style of writing an effective one. This is Heynen’s historiographical take of the conception of New Babylon, and the negative qualities of this utopia. Her approach to illuminating the relations between modernity and architectural discourse is mostly conventional. It gives examples of various angles on the discussions that surround the modernist movement and theories that diminish or praise it. The chapter advances in a chronological way, so Heynen handles the subject by portraying and analysing the progression of New Babylon and Adorno’s ideas on modernity.
Heynen has essentially put together a thorough history of architecture’s critical role in modernism in her book, and the final chapter focuses on the last avant-garde attempt at this critique, with the quest to propose a utopia. In the context of the whole book, Heynen does not ask of the reader to have any previous in-depth knowledge of the discussions that are mentioned, she presents her historiography in an approachable manner, rather than creating a dense text that is difficult to follow and requires further intensive research about the topics. Her project about understanding the progression of critical modernist architecture, presenting opposing views of the social and spatial situations to make sense of the whole discourse around modernity, and critiquing these various stances while telling this story led to this well crafted history of critical architectural theory.
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