quondam @ archinect/79/7915e.htm
Koolhaas versus the Actor
aml 2005.05.05 21:33
you're right. tafuri only mentions piranesi twice in the essay and only in passing, because l'architecture dans le boudoir is at the end of 'the sphere and the labyrinth' book, where he dedicates piranesi the first chapter with a title you would probably disagree with ['the crazy architect'].
however, it's in the boudoir chapter where tafuri outlines his argument. that is why i referenced that one. i actually forgot by then he has put piranesi aside. that is why i argued his analysis of piranesi is not key to the argument.
bou[doir 7b1 dw9r$, b14dw9r#8
n.
5Fr, lit., pouting room < bouder, to pout, sulk + 3oir, as in parloir6 a woman‘s bedroom, dressing room, or private sitting room
tafuri explains the title halfway through the essay i think. i'm afraid i can't reference pages since my edition is in spanish and i'm guessing yours isn't. basically architecture in postmodernism [i know he won't say it] is in the boudoir, pouting in its own little room -referencing the marquis de sade-, referencing itself, looking at itself, playing its own private games, etc. i'm not familiar with sade's writing so i'm not sure of the exact relation, but the overall relation is explained clearly.
hmmm this might take you away from piranesi and if i've mislead you i'm sorry. however, i think the concept of reenactment -if i'm understanding your definition correctly- is present throughout the essay. but to argue this seriously i would have to reread tafuri again and review your concept of reenactment much more carefully and i'm afraid right now i've other reading to do right now...
tafuri interests me because i used him to structure the development of postmodern architecture. i use that reading as a map to postmodernist production in my contemporary theory class. of course i also find holes in tafuri's argument, but that's another conversation.
Koolhaas versus the Actor
Rita Novel 2005.05.05 23:19
aml, I just realized that there are (at least) two English "l'architecture dans le boudoir" texts by Tafuri. The 'first' was published in OPPOSITIONS 3 (May 1974), the 'second' is chapter 8 of THE SPHERE AND THE LABYRINTH (1980). The text I starting reading today is the one from OPPOSITIONS, and I've now compared the two texts and they are not at all identical. For example, Piranesi is not referenced at all in the first text. Overall, much has been added to the second text to 'fill it out' and update it, but there are also some changes (although some of the changes may be due to different translators).
Yes, the concept of reenactment is there within "l'architecture dans le boudoir," but nowhere does Tafuri explain or even recognize it as such. Tafuri mentions that a "code" has been lost, and thus the language architects use is devoid of meaning, implying that if the code were still known, then the meaning would be known as well. For me, reenactionary architecturism is the code and the provider of meaning.
In English, the first chapter of THE SPHERE AND THE LABYRINTH is "The Wicked Architect," and this chapter too was published earlier and separately, (or maybe I'm thinking of the first chapter of ARCHITECTURE AND UTOPIA).
Anyway, it looks to me like THE SPHERE AND THE LABYRINTH is itself a bricolage, composed of disparate pieces that were ultimately brought together, which perhaps explains the very first paragraph (which I responded to with "How Ironic!"
|