ON THE VICISSITUDES OF HISTORY, THEORY AND PRACTICE 3 On the Vicissitudes of History, Theory and Practice SARAH DEYONG Texas A&M University The session raises an important curricular ques- tion by reversing the typical relation of architec- tural history to the design studio. Instead of history supporting and enhancing the culture of the design studio, it asks: what is the relevance of the design studio to architectural history? It is clear what ar- chitectural history gives to studio: precedents or case studies; history provides examples that we can learn from. But how does the design studio, including contemporary practice, inform, as well as Figure 1. Moshe Safdie, Habitat ’67, Montreal. transform, our perception and interpretation of the history of architecture? Time/memory, as we know from Bergson, is not a static thing, but subject studio but contemporary practice] offer to archi- to change. There is a dialectical relation between tectural history?” the past, present and future, where one simulta- neously transforms the other, and vice versa. The The Megastructure is an important case study be- thesis that our experience of time, durée, is plas- cause of the role it has played in the vicissitudes of tic was a philosophical concept that inspired the architectural discourse, past and present. Gener- modern avant-garde. But can we say that history ally, the Megastructure refers to large-scale proj- is plastic, when some of the great philosophers of ects, which were proposed at a time when modern the twentieth century saw history as linear con- architects believed that it was their duty to con- structs authored by the victors, and were conse- struct buildings at the scale of entire communities, quently against History: Benjamin, Bataille, Berg- and even cities. The highpoint of such propositions son, Lacan, Deleuze… (Perhaps this problem is one came in the early 1960s, when Archigram popular- reason why architectural history is invariably tied ized this type of project with their fanciful, plug-in/ to theory, although, one should also point out that drive-in, mobile cities -- projects that, remarkably, this coupling, in its present formulation, has raised were then proposed with absolute seriousness. By a host of other historiographical and methodologi- the mid 1960s, Megastructures were dominant in cal issues.) architectural schools in America as well as on the Continent (Harvard, MIT, UPenn, the AA in London, As I am an historian, and since my own research Vienna University of Technology, and the École Na- focuses on the post-WWII period, the Megastruc- tionale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts in Paris), but in ture Movement will serve as a case study for ex- the course of just a few years it very quickly fell ploring the question raised by this session: “What out of favor, and the fi rst historian to document the pedagogical value does design education [which, passing of the movement was Archigram’s friend for our purposes, will include not only the design and champion, Peter Reyner Banham, who in 1974 4 THE VALUE OF DESIGN began writing Megastructure, Urban Futures of the an orientation that for some dominated discussions Recent Past (published in 1976). It is said that in in architectural academia in the 1980s, during the order for a subject to become history it must fi rst height of Tafuri’s infl uence and power in Italy and die, fade out of existence, but Banham’s account of on the northeast coast of the United States. Early the Megastructure was more of a eulogy for a phe- voices which spoke against critical theory include nomenon that had suffered an untimely death. For Sylvia Lavin and Michael Speaks, and more subtly, his motive in writing the book was a traumatic one, Robert Somol and Sarah Whiting, all of whom have and in his opening pages, he asked: How could we documented as well as contributed to the shift in have proposed projects of such vast dimension and academia away from critical theory towards prac- monumental folly? What were we thinking back tices engaged in and empowered by global capital- then?1 ism.2 Most drastically, Speaks has called for the end of theory tout court, and has heralded in an age of The Megastructure was also a topic of historical “post-theory,” although some of the practitioners interest for two of Banham’s eminent colleagues, he endorses, such as Rem Koolhaas of OMA, are Manfredo Tafuri and Colin Rowe. But if Banham’s to my mind fi rst-class theorists, though never to book was a eulogy in commemoration of an un- the detriment of the practice of their art. Indeed, timely death, Tafuri and Rowe made certain that as George Baird has observed, Koolhaas has long the Megastructure was indeed History. Their re- been wary of critical theory, and this wariness is spective accounts, Architecture and Utopia (1973) possibly leftover from his earlier reservations re- and Collage City (1978), were devastating critiques garding the utopian thinking of the sixties.3 intended to dispel any utopian stirrings in the ar- chitect once and for all. In Collage City, four fi fths As one can imagine, this debate over the status of of which is a diatribe against the excesses of mod- theory has elicited several responses, both positive ernism, the Megastructure is fi gured as the last and negative. While for some it has been neces- architectural utopia in a long succession of fanta- sary to remove the shackles of critical theory in sies since the Renaissance…. And similarly Archi- order to move forward, for others it is now more tecture and Utopia (based on Tafuri’s 1969 essay, than ever an imperative to retain theory as a site “Per una critica dell’ideologia architettonica”) trou- of refl exive criticality and political engagement.4 bled the utopian aspirations of modern architects, However, important as these questions are for con- though here the troubling was infl ected by a Marx- temporary practice, this debate also raises corre- ist critique of architecture as Capitalist ideology. sponding questions about our approach to history, This critique not only killed the Megastructure, it and compels us to ask not only how do we move also transformed the relation between history and forward, but how do we go back? If we can say theory on one hand and practice (as a projective that the shift away from critical theory was neces- enterprise) on the other. With Tafuri, for example, sary for practice to be projective again, then the history would no longer be so intimately tied to question applies equally to our retrospective read- practice, as it was for a slightly older generation ing of the past.5 A fog of disenchantment seems to of architectural historians (Giedion, Kaufmann, Pe- have lifted, and one suspects that its effects have vsner, but also his contemporary, Banham), whom worked in both directions, allowing other things to Tafuri famously labeled “operative critics” because come into view. they instrumentalized history in the service of con- temporary practices they themselves promoted. I mention this discursive shift in the relation be- tween history/theory and practice, because it, in turn, has become the subject of criticism and de- bate, and in the process, has opened up a space for the reassessment of the Megastructure, albeit indi- rectly. Over the past two decades, various histori- ans, theorists and critics have called into question, if Figure 2. Yona Friedman,“L’Urbanisme Comme Système not the divide between history, theory and practice, Compréhensible,” Techniques et Architecture (Sept. – than the privileging of critical theory over practice, Oct. 1964). ON THE VICISSITUDES OF HISTORY, THEORY AND PRACTICE 5 Figure 3. MVRDV, Space Fighter (Barcelona; New York: Actar, 2007), p. 140. Signifi cantly, coinciding with this debate at the turn of the millennium, we fi nd contemporary architects such as MVRDV and Kostas Terzidis proposing per- spectives on architecture that have their roots pre- cisely in the postwar period. In the preface of Ter- Figure 4. Scripting Assignment (class project by Vahid izidis’s new book on Algorithmic Architecture, the Vahdat Zad for ARCH 639 taught by Sarah Deyong in Fall historian and Harvard professor, Antoine Picon, duly 2008 at Texas A&M). notes the affi nities between Terzidis’s work on a computational theory of architecture and earlier ex- the design process and of the computational tools periments -- experiments that, not by chance, have we employ to conceive it.8 become research fodder for dissertations. In his MIT thesis, A.J. Magalhaes Rocha, for example, exam- At Texas A&M, I teach a seminar on contemporary ines research centers on architecture and comput- theories in architecture, and one of the premises ers, which emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, and has of the course is that some of the most recent ideas uncovered other theories of architecture tied not to in academia are repetitions of older ones. As such, literary criticism or psychoanalysis, but to science it looks at a nexus of ideas that emerged, or re- and mathematics.6 Similarly, in The Regionmaker emerged, in the post-WWII period on the problem (2002), Winy Maas refers to the Megastructures of of urban ‘growth and form,’ a problem that was ta- the 1960s as precedents for MVRDV’s own research bled by Team 10 in the 1950s and prompted many into computer applications of urban and regional exciting responses, including proposals that drew processes, and specifi cally mentions the work of inspiration from the nascent fi eld of cybernetics, Buckminster Fuller, Cedric Price, Constantinos Doxi- which brought biology into the purview of math- adis, Serge Chermayeff, Christopher Alexander and ematics and computer science.