2.3 On Reading Architecture ‘ Benacenal Residence Mario Gandelsonas and David Morton Reprinted from Progressive Architecture, March 1972 Working independently, architects Peter tisenman and ‘Michael Graves" zre exploring the application of theories of communication to the problem of generating architectural form. Presented here are their works and ideas, based on an analysis by architect’Mario Gandelsonas, and written in col laboration with Frogressive Architecture associate editor. David Morton. In recent years, there has been a reexamination of the func- tionalist tradition, in which two opposing tendencies can be recognized. The system's approach attempts to cope with to: day’s complex world by linking architecture to computer technology and to sophisticated mathematical models; it tends to shift architecture further toward the realm of engineering, In contrast, there is an emerging tendency that views the system of architecture as a system of cultural meaning: it attempts to explain the nature of form itself, through viewing the generation of form as a specific ‘manipulation of meaning within a culture, It is within this ap- proach that the work of Eisenman and Graves belongs. In the pages thet follow, the work of these two architects is presented for the first time. While they work independent. ly, their approaches are related (o certain shared concerns. Their work can be viewed as complementary possibilities within the general perspective of signification (meaning) in relation to architecture. ‘eter Eisenman i Drector of the Institute for Atchitecture and Ubon Studies in New York, Michael Graves le AsociateProlssor of Architecture and Director ofthe Vial Ants Progam, at Princeton University244 Systems of Signification ‘Meaning can be transmitted through language—a system of agreed-upon rules to communicate, It can be seen as the pro- duct of certain operations performed on language, or as the operation of language itself (Greimas, 1970). ‘Meaning becomes a problem only when access to its dif ficult. When one encounters an unfamiliar language, for in- stance, the first communication problem is that of meaning, For any message to acquire meaning translation. Meaning, then, is linked to language, to com- munication, and to message, But the term ‘meaning’, which is so evidently linked to language, can be extended to other cultural systems; for example, while there are certain paint- ings or music one may not ‘understand’, or which seem without meaning, they are recognized as cultural systems of signification; each is related, in a different way, through a specific form, to the problem of meaning in a given society or culture Architecture as a System of Signification Important investigation has been done in relatior to cultural systems as systems of si (LéviStrauss, 1967), but little has been done in relation to our ‘own culture—very little specifically in relation 10 architec: ture, which usually has been concerned with direct function rather than with the problem of meaning, That erchitecture is indeed a system of signification is suggested by the fact that function represents a relation between architectural products and their use, which is a recognized and under- stood cultural fact; in addition, the known set of archi- tectural forms is limited and has systematic characteristics Architecture has been implicitly concerned with the pro- blem of signification since the Renaissance when architects such as Alberti and Palladio resystematized Vitruvius’ Ten Books of Architecture, thus marking the constitution of architecture as a specific mode of organizing notions and concepts (a system of rules: prescriptions and irterdictions) related to the manipulation of significant forms in the design and construction of ‘buildings’. (Agtest and Gandelsonas, 1972), While in most architects’ work the systematic characteristics are implicit, they become necessarily explicit in Eisenman’s and Graves's exploration of architecture as a system of signification. By comparing their work to that of others dealing, apparently, with similar problems of mean- ing, their position can be clarified, Signs, Symbols and Architecture Figure 3 Graves: Benacerat Resdence— Adaivon(On Reading Architecture 245. Sau 4 senman House There are many buildings that cannot be explained in terms of a functionalist approach alone. For example, the new ‘Parthenons'—certain public buildings and cultural enters ~ might be defined as symbols in that they stand for, represent or denote something else, not by exact resemblance, but by suggestion. As Saussure notes, ‘one characteristic of the symbol is that it is never wholly a bitrary; it is not empty, for there is a rudiment of a natural ‘bond between the signifier (the building) and the signified its meaning) (Saussure, 1939). For these buildings to symbolize something else, such as a Greek temple, they must establish and maintain a relationship io the thing being symbolized Because some of their formal patterns strongly suggest the Greek stylobate, colonnade, and entablature, they can be read ‘as temples’ immediately. Usually, there is not a direct and obvious relationship between form and meaning in architecture because, in architecture, this relationship is much more complicated and systematized. {t is usually simplified however, when it appears as a direct relationship between architectural form and something that embodies conventional meaning. Because there is no direct relationship between form and ‘conventional meaning in Eisenman’s and Graves's work, it may appear unintelligible at first. Although they work within the system of architecture (as a system of notions ot a set of rules), they attempt to separate themselves from this system in order to view some aspects of it more objectively. Archi tecture can become, in their terms, a process of its own ‘examination, through which they hope to understand something of its intrinsic nature. Semantics and Syntactics Both Eisenman and Graves approach architecture as a system of signification. Within this general approach, Irowever, their works represent two completely divergent positions. While Graves indicates the relationships between architecture and conten, as shown through his interest inthe history of architecture and painting and his concern with architecture and nature, Eisenman disregards all relation- ships between architecture and any cultural meaning, The position of each is concentrated on one of the main and specific aspects particular to architecture as a system of signification, Although Charles Morris indicates that every system of signification has three characteristic dimen- sions~semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic—it is only the first two that are of primary concern to Eisenman and Graves. ‘Semantics’, according to Moris, ‘deals with the rela- tion of signs (something that refers to something), to theie 3!246 Signs, Symbols and Architecture esignata (what is taken account of) and so to the objects Which they may or may aot denote... Syntactics (is) the study of the... relations of signs to one another in abstrac- tion from the relation of signs to objects or to interpreters’ (Mortis, 1970), The general distinction between semantic and syntactic can be seen in architecture. Architectural form, as conceived by the architect through internalized thought, has always been related to an external problem. Because of this, arch tecture has developed essentially along semantic lines. However, since the basis of architecture lies within its func tion as a system of problem solving, it would seem important for architecture to construct a body of syntactic concepts to guide it in this activity. While there are certain prescriptions for possible relationships among different architectural ‘elements, or combinations of groups of elements, these prescriptions relate mainly to the solution of external pro- blems, and ultimately only reinforce dependence upon ex ternal requirements The unique characteristic of Eisenman’s work les in the at- tempt to separate his work from this general attitude. In his houses, the semantic aspects have been absorbed in ‘marks” that interrelate without dependence on external references: they are not substitutions of something absent. Consequent- ly, his work exists primarily within the syntactic dimension of architecture. Although Graves's work remains within the semantic level of architecture, itis distinct from architecture that relates forms to external requirements, because his main ‘concern is to show the linkages that exist between the actual form and the complex system of architectural notions or ideas that generate it Their work is not fully explained, however, by comparing their similarities and differences. Therefore, a different com munication model is used to analyze the work of each. For Graves, a first model is used to show the differences between direct communication (function or use in architec- ture} and the system of signification (the system of notions that allows that communication). A second model shows the specific nature of signification through the two aspects of the semantic dimension For Eisenman, his own general model of the syntactic dimension is enlarged and considered within a dialectic rela- tion between the ‘writing’ of architectural form (as the generation oF transformation of form), and the ‘reading’ of architectural form (for relating implicit and explicit relation ships) through the design as a device allowing these readings. Following these modes, Graves's work is presented through various aspects, ot parts, of several buildings, while Eisen: man’s work is presented as one complete building, 32 B(On Reading Architecture 247 Michael Graves: The Semantic Dimension In analyzing some of Graves's buildings realized between 1966 and 1971, it will be helpful to consider the ways he organizes slide lectures in which he discusses aspects of his work, His lectures are divided into segments dealing with pairs of contradictory notions illustrated by paired images representing natural landscapes, Classical art and architec- ture, and Cubist painting, and concluding with the presenta: tion of various aspects of his own work. In shifting from ex- ternal forms to his own architectural forms, he never shows buildings as whole units, but only as fragmented elements or focused parts taken out of context, with meaning concen- trated solely in intersecting or in dominant elements. Order emerges though, when his organization is seen as reflecting essential characteristics within his work that are considered as messages within the semantic dimension of architecture. Communication and Signification {f architectural form is considered as a message, then what is the role of this message? In language, its role is to transmit signification (meaning). However, any individual act of com- ‘munication, whether language or not, is defined by a set of factors comprising sender, receiver, channel, code, referent, and the message itself. The presence of these factors is in- dispensable to any communication, whether it be language fr another system of signification, such as painting, music, film, or architecture. With this definition, any object, architectural or not, has the possibility of communicating a message, as Umberto Eco suggests (Eco, 1968). For example, the use of a door as a movable barrier to open or close a passage both allows this function and promotes it. To state that a device promotes a function indicates that the device performs the function of ‘communication, or that the device itself communicates its ‘own function. Indeed, the dictionary usually defines an ob- ject (signifier) by describing it, as well as by indicating its function (signified), Primary Meaning and Secondary Meaning To consider an object in its direct communicational aspect results in its definition only in terms of its primary meaning. that is, in terms of its function, In this context, architectural form can be analyzed as a message referring only to the reterent (use) and to the channel (physical support). But, as 33248 Signs, Symbols and Architecture noted above, the complete communicational circuit also in- cludes the sender, receiver, and code. These six communica- tional factors are, according to Roman Jakobson’s model of the communicational act (Jakobson, 1962), related to six complementary areas of signification within any system of signification—for instance, within the system of architec- ture. Although this model only classifies areas of significa- tion without explaining them, its application allows one to isolate areas related to the primary meaning in architecture, ‘or the notion of function, from other areas related to secon- dary meanings. The primary meaning in architectural messages is ‘buildings’ (as messages) ‘representing’ their use (referents) or their physical structure (channels). Secondary meanings ‘represent’ and emphasize the areas related to sender, receiver, and code—rarely conscient and explicit parts of architectural design. ‘The concern of modern architecture has been mainly within the area of primary meaning, the functional area. And important to the functionalists’ concern within this area was the replacement of one set of rules with another set of rules—with the replacement, for example, of Classical, sym- ‘metrical, architectonic compositions by asymmetrical com- positions determined by the building's use, as in Le Corbusier's Pavillon Suisse. Graves’s mainconcern lies in the area of secondary meanings: his interest is not in replacing rules, but in showing the rules, that is, as prescriptions or pro- hibitions. He does this by paraphrasing or quoting the vocabulary of modern architecture, For example, his ‘idealiz- ed window’, a quotation drawn from Corbu’s garden in the Petite Maison, indicates a series of opposite architectonic notions, such as architecture/nature, idealreal, infout, which are within the area of secondary meaning that is related to the code (the system that interrelates elements to make 2 message understandable) In Graves’s work, each of the areas of secondary meaning is structured in the same way. Pairs of notions are related to each other according to their similarities and differences. A horizontal plane, read as ‘romantic’ or perceptual, is oppos- ed to a vertical plane, read as abstract or conceptual. By postulating these pairs of oppositions, Graves i) demonstrating the principle that anything acquires meaning, when opposed to something else, since oppositions represent, the basis of any meaning (Figure 5)(Greimas, 1970) — Some characteristic oppositions can be abstracted from Graves's work to demonstrate their ability to indicate signification, The opposition between horizontal plane and vertical plane represents the opposition of architect versus user. Itisa ‘double program’ that comprises the architectural rules plus the user's requirements. These are not only dif- ferent, but contradictory to each other. Within an architec P t: Figure 5 Benacerat Residenceape nm ee SBP wee ee eRe eee ee eee On Reading Architecture 249 tural rule system, however, the means of resolving the con- tradiction may be provided. The opposition between in and ‘out represents the opposition ofthe real use of the building as a scene for one’s action versus the symbolic use, or the reading and interpretation of the building by others. The op- position of plan to internal elevation represents the opposi tion between the plan as designed and the elevation as read. The idealized window or the sky supported by a column represents the opposition of nature versus architecture. Graves emphasizes areas related to secondary meanings conly to show that secondary meanings exist. But to show their function as areas of signification in architecture, other elements of his work should be considered. Signification in Architecture fecture, signification might be described in terms of two interrelated aspects; the first, a set of possibilities for structuring the components, subcomponents, systems, and subsystems of a building; the second, a repertory of ideas, images, and notions from an architectural repository. With this model, the semantic dimensions of the architectural system can be seen as a synthesis between the first, specifically architectonic aspect, and the second, repository aspect, which can draw its formal patterns from architecture itself of from anywhere else, such as painting, music, etc. The architectonic aspect does not provide form but only the Possibility for structuring form; the repository aspect Pro- vides the sources of actual formal patterns. The Architectonie Aspect The architectonic aspect could be described as composed of codes (organized architectonic ideas or set of rules for their ‘organization and the operations of metaphor and metonymy, which enable selection and combination of architectosic ideas or rules to form complex architectonic units The notion of code refers '0 the organization, oF system, that interelates the elements, or units, of any message and makes possible its understanding (Jakobson, 1962) The basic ‘elements of a code should not be seen as singular elements,” but as pairs of oppositions interelated in infinitely complex: , ways. Each pair embodies two notions that have something ¢-"' ~” in common in conjunction with something that separates © them, such as in and out (Figure 6). Inarchitectire, code has traditionally been seen as a body Figure 6 of architectonic ideas structured within a fixed framework. enact Residence This understanding of architectural code, however, is restic- a250 Signs, Symbols and Architecture ting, « does not explain the complexity of architecture, To suggest this complexity, architectonic code could be seen father asa field of dynamic tensions, based on oppositions, which only provide an empty framework of possible archi tectonic relationships. It is through this framework that the sets of ideas, images, and notions of buildings érawn from the architectural repository must pass, in order to create the synthesis that underlies architectural form (Figure 7). Metaphor refers to an operation that links a message, by the selection or substitution of its elements, toa code. Italso flue?“ establishes, by relating elements through a code, a connec: Pter’s Residence tion between elements present in the message and elements absent from the message, which could be substituted for them. Metonymy refets, on the other hand, to an operation