Subject of Architecture | 2018 | Architectural Association

The essay tries to establish a dialogue between Tschumi’s theoretical work The Architectural Paradox with his built project Parc de la Villette. This is done by analyzing the key concepts he presents through the Paradox relating to the apparent conflict of ideal and real space, of conceptualizing and experiencing architecture. His emphasis on space is illustrated by the influence of Henri Lefebvre and his book The Production of Space, as well as the essay Point de folie – Maintenant l’architecture by Jacques Derrida that supplemented his design proposal.

To define space means to make it distinct which is the preoccupation of art and architecture, alongside stating its nature which is the preoccupation of philosophy and science. In relation, historically space was ascribed to the subjective in ancient philosophy, to the material or the objective in post Cartesian philosophy and science as something absolute that encompasses subjects, and lastly with Kant in perception as a structure that forms experience. But in all those instances it was referred to as mental space whose nature was to be discerned. On the contrary, when discussed in an architectural context (since the 19th century German discourse) space had a more material character, even architectural history was regarded in relation to spatial concepts, either by how space is formed or how it is sensed – as August Schmarsow claimed, the history of architecture is a history of the sense of space. Space was defined by matter and it had to have determinate boundaries. What changed in the second half of the 20th century is that under the influence of linguistic theories space was perceived as something to be read in relation to social praxis. These two modes of thought resulted in a gap between ideal and real space, space as a mental construct and space as a social product, space as pure form and space as a mode of production.

Essay excerpt: The Architectural Paradox of The Pyramid and The Labyrinth

Tschumi introduces us to his Architectural Paradox by ascertaining that architecture’s essential element is space and that as a consequence of architecture closing upon itself, it cannot both question the nature of space and at the same time create experience as a spatial praxis. The Paradox is posed as a juxtaposition of The Pyramid – “those architectural trends that consider architecture as a thing of the mind, as a dematerialized or conceptual discipline, with its linguistic and morphological variations”; and The Labyrinth – “empirical research that concentrates on the senses, on the experience of space as well as on the relationship between space and praxis”.

[…] While Tschumi’s architectural paradox does convey a certain ambiguity when we try to analyse an actual project with it, there are correlations that can be established. Firstly, if we consider the conventional norms in architecture such as utility and the form-function paradigm, the project clearly speaks of something else and thus conveys Tschumi’s attempt of transgressing the conventional rules. The three conceptual layers of points, lines and surfaces independently form autonomous and self-referential systems with their own logic and at the same time, superimposed on each other they form a whole that establishes its contextual presence on the site. This layering creates conflicts, which I would argue can indeed perpetuate moments where ideal and real space can briefly meet. Due to its scale, the fragmented deconstructed program spread throughout the whole park and the necessary distances it creates – it is impossible to perceive the park as a whole, it is only possible to experience similar but differentiated elements. A wide open park is not the first image when we think of a Labyrinth, but in Tschumi’s system it plays the same role, there are no dark corners but also no clarity of the whole. Through the formal expressions there are evident influences of Constructivism, De Stijl, even Modernism and I would argue that they are intentional; the point of Tschumi’s transgression is not to create an absolute novum and destroy the old rules, but distort and write them in a new way. The points - Case Vide, literally meaning empty houses – devoid of fixed meanings and functions were meant to cause both formal and functional collisions.

To conclude, in his Architectural Paradox, Tschumi points out the necessity of transgression as a way of transcending the similar conclusion to Tafuri’s when he left architecture in the boudoir – as being a useless beautiful object isolated in its own language or being subjugated to the modes of production. But when tested in praxis with Parc de la Villete, with deconstructing form, content and meaning he comes close to exactly the abstract space that Lefebvre was criticizing – an empty space that is a container to receive contents, things, people and habits. The novelty Tschumi brings to architecture is that he is treating space neither as an abstract concept nor as a three dimensional lump of matter defined by boundaries, but as a possibility to construct events and transcend conventional rules. Even though his paradox is in substance mainly concerned with the relation of architecture and politics, my main critique would be directed toward how he relates concepts to experience. To illustrate the inherent interrelation between the two, it is best to observe Kant’s thought when he states that “in aesthetic judgement, the perception of what the mind finds pleasing occurs through its ability to recognize in the external world features that satisfy internal concepts of the mind”. In other words, concepts are crucial to how we experience things and therefore perhaps, shouldn’t be posed in a binary opposition to experience.