Architecture as Signs and Systems For a Mannerist TIme Robert Venturi & Denise Scott Brown THE BELKNAP PRESS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS· CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS· LONDON, ENGLAND· 2004 Art & Arch e'J' ,) re Library RV: Washington u:'li \/(H'si ty Campus Box 1·,):51 One Brookin18 Dr. st. Lg\li,s, !.:0 &:n:W-4S99 DSB: RV, DSB: Copyright e 2004 by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown All rights reserved Printed in Italy Book Design by Peter Holm, Sterling Hill Productions Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Venturi, Robert. Architecture as and systems: for a mannerist time I Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown. p. em. - (The William E. Massey, Sr. lectures in the history of American civilization) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-674-01571-1 (alk. paper) 1. Symbolism in architecture. 2. Communication in architectural design. I. Scott Brown, Denise, 1931- II. Title. ill. Series. NA2500.V45 2004 nO'.I-dc22 200404{)313 ttext," for show his l them in lied "that le most of 'espitemy to be an me of our 19 studies, mth these Architecture as Sign rather than Space ecause if I New Mannerism rather than Old Expressionism 1geswon't ROBERT VENTURI ,the com­ :tronger­ ::ople who . work and lity to the _~.'n.•. ~~~,'~'"'.".'."_~ ____'_''''"'«'''.'''''',_",_.""",~",-,-" ".,-=--_""~ __ , ..... """'_.~~"',.._'''''_..._,,__ *' ...,',.,..,..... __ ,u~.,_~ ...­ mghai, China. 2003 -4­ -and for Shanghai, the mul­ A New Mannerism, for Architecture as Sign . today, and tomorrow! This of LED media, juxtaposing nbolic, and graphic images at So here is complexity and contradiction as mannerism, or mannerism as ing. Each is a loft ami. a tower the complexity and contradiction oftoday-in either case, today it's man­ ibility where dramatic fanfare nerism, not Modernism. hy rather than from formal At the beginning of the twentieth century, an aesthetic revolution made sense via a Modern architectUre that was a stylistic adaptation of a current vernacular/industrial way of building-just as in the mid-fif­ teenth century an aesthetic revolution made sense via a Renaissance architectUre that was a stylistic revival of an ancient vocabulary, that of Roman architecture. At the same time, in the Modernist style an indus­ trial vocabulary was paradoxically accommodated within an abstract aes­ thetic, just as in the Renaissance style a pagan/Classical vocabulary was paradoxically accommodated within an explicitly Christian culture. And can it now be said that an aesthetic evolution makes sense at the begin­ ning of the twenty-first century, engaging a mannerist architecture evolved from the preceeding style, that ofclassic Modernism-just as an aesthetic evolution made sense in the mid-sixteenth century engaging a mannerist architectUre evolved from the preceeding style, that of High Renaissance? In Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture I referred to 1f:,!""mX~i!'/!II1oil!lll!l'!l.I-A-Ii.X -== ",. a complex architecture, with its attendant contradictions, [as] not only ':',\tW /«;"3 m$f'f',U:; :Ii:: =,\\7 ::!;:lL.t.1D"'?:'f-,n:::::i':::-1'" ~==== a reaction to the banality or prettiness of current architecture. It [can also represent an] attitude common in ... mannerist periods [and can also be] a continuous strain among diverse architects [in history]. Today this attitude is again relevant to both the medium of architec­ ture and the program in architecture. First, the medium of architec­ ture must be re-examined ifthe increased scope of our architecture as well as the complexity ofits goals is to be expressed. Simplified forms or superficially complex forms will not work. Instead, the variety inherent in the ambiguity of visual perception must once more be A New Mannerism, for Architecture as Sign I ]3 Jj acknowledged and exploited. Second, the growing complexities of acknowledge unru our functional programs must be acknowledged. l plenty and conm In that work, I described, through comparative analysis, historical acknowledging a examples of mannerist architecture, explicit and implicit, that ac1mowl­ order so as to be ( edge complexity and contradiction in their composition, but I did not These characteristics prescribe a resultant architecture for the time. This lack of prescription appropriate for toda) was noted by Alan Chimacoff and Alan Plattus as positive in their essay convention as ordinar in The Architectural Record of September 1983.2 But here and now, So convention, syst through a reconsideration ofcomplexity and contradiction as it currently the first place before evolves, I wish to prescribe a specific direction, if not a style-that of racy's tendency to br<: Architecture as Sign-and describe a specific manner, that ofmannerism, dence about knowing explicitly appropriate for our time. I shall rely again here on analyses of them consistently. Lat historical examples of mannerist architecture and urbanism-plus one nerist trend in British example of our own work-to verify and clarify the evolutionary idea of It is certainly signif mannerism and the complexity and contradiction it inherently embraces. nerism occurs immedi WHAT IS MANNERISM? tion as a style was mos here is a definition of Mannerism-not discovered or ac1mowledged as a style until the mid­ times given up on an< nineteenth century-is, according to Nikolaus Pevsner, "indeed full of definition that does n. mannerisms.") And it is by definition hard to define: Arnold Hauser has our time a bore. Here written, "It can be rightly complained that there is no such thing as a that acknowledges and clear and exhaustive definition ofmannerism.''4 Is not that an appropriate of today (appropriatel) acknowledgment for our own era-exemplified by multiculUIralism and by technologies evolving by leaps and bounds? But here is my attempt at Accommodation a definition of mannerism in architecture appropriate for now: Ambiguity Boredom Mannerism as Convention Tweaked-or as Modified Convention Both-and Acknowledging Ambiguity. Mannerism for architecture of our time Breaks that acknowledges conventional order rather than original expres­ Chaos sion but breaks the conventional order to accommodate complexity Complexity and contradiction and thereby engages atnbiguity-engages atnbi­ Contradiction guity unatnbiguously. Mannerism as complexity and contradiction Contrast applied to convention-as acknowledging a conventional order that Convention broken is then modified or broken to accommodate valid exceptions and Deviations 74 I Robert Venturi .~ ~ growing complexities of acknowledge unambiguous ambiguities for an evolving era 'of com­ edged.l plexity and contradiction-rather than acknowledging no order or acknowledging a totality of exceptions or acknowledging a new nparative analysis, historical order so as to be original. t and implicit, that acknowl­ r composition, but I did not These characteristics are what can distinguish a mannerist approach me. This lack of prescription appropriate for today from a N eomodernist . approach, which abhors Ittus as positive in their essay convention as ordinary and adores originality as anything to be different. 1983.2 But here and now, So convention, system, order, genericness, manners must be there in d contradiction as it currendy the first place before they can be broken-think of the British aristoc­ :ction, if not a style-that of racy's tendency to break the rules of etiquette in order to imply confi­ lC manner, that ofmannerism, dence about knowing them so well and therefore ease in not following ~ely again here on analyses of them consistendy. Later I shall describe what I consider a parallel man­ me and urbanism-plus one nerist trend in British architecture throughout its history. larify the evolutionary idea of It is certainly significant that the most vivid manifestation of man­ liction it inherendy embraces. nerism occurs immediately after the High Renaissance, where conven­ tion as a style was most explicit and therefore most vividly breakable. So ISM? here is a definition of mannerism where convention is inherent but at Iged as a style until the mid­ rimes given up on and made thereby exceptionally unconventional-a )laus Pevsner, "indeed full of definition that does not involve originality or revolution, which is for to define: Arnold Hauser has our rime a bore. Here is a list of elements of a mannerist architecture 'it there is no such thing as a that acknowledges and accommodates the complexity and contradiction m.»4 Is not that an appropriate of today (appropriately, in no order except alphabetical): Hfied by multicn1turalism and :lds? But here is my attempt at Accommodation Ambiguity appropriate for now: Boredom' Ir as Modified Convention Both-and for architecture of our time Breaks -ather than original expres­ Chaos o accommodate complexity Complexity ambiguity-engages ambi­ Contradiction mplexity and contradiction Contrast Ig a conventional order that Convention broken Iodate valid exceptions and Deviations A New Mannerism, for Architecture as Sign I 15 .. ...- ..•.•.-..-~......--~. -....•-.-"~--...---..- ..---...-.---.- . ..,.:;- Difficult whole Terribilitli Discontinuity Vernacular Disorder Wit Dissonance Wrestling Distortion I refer here not to tln Diversity ture, for example, which Dualities matique inconsistency of Dumbness which ends up as abstra Eclectic concerning what mannel Everyday Exceptions Contorted Generic broken Excessive Imbalance Ideological Inconsistency Mannered Incorrect Minimalist Inflection Picturesque Irony Polite Jumps in scale Willful Juxtapositions Layering There are two kinds Meaning