beyond lack and excess: other architectures/other landscapes

8/10/2019 Beyond Lack and Excess: Other Architectures/Other Landscapes.

1/9

Beyond Lack and Excess: Other Architectures/Other LandscapesAuthor(s): Glsm Baydar NalbantoluSource: Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 54, No. 1 (Sep., 2000), pp. 20-27Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools ofArchitecture, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1425644 .

Accessed: 06/12/2014 23:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Architectural Education (1984-).

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1425644?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1425644?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=acsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/9

Beyond Lack and Excess:Other Architectures/Other Landscapes*

GOLSOM BAYDAR ALBANTOGLU, ilkent University, urkey

Familiar inary ategories of architecture uch as Western/regional, ighstyle/vernacular nd modern/primitive re crucial n guarding ts disciplin-ary boundaries. n he first part of my article, by analyzing number fparadigmatic rchitectural exts, I argue hat notions f lack and excess areinstrumental n maintaining he largely uperimposed inary onstructions fWest/non-West nd architecture/nonarchitecture. hen, hrough particularreading f a non-Western ite, I explore ways of rethinking he categories ofarchitecture nd non-Western eyond uch binary ppositions.

I WANT TO START BY ADDRESSING A TIRED QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN RE-

peatedly asked by the theorists, practitioners, nd educators f thearchitectural discipline: What is architecture? Like any identityquestion, What is architecture? mplies boundaries, .e., inclusionsand exclusions. t indicates a desire o carve a space for "architec-ture" from an undecipherable plenitude that includes "non-architecture." his is a desire o delineate, o control, o judge. The

binary ogic that separates rchitecture rom nonarchitecture ets upa series of categories hat have been critical n addressing my origi-nal question. Architecture can only be identified whennonarchitecture s properly amed. A series of oppositions hat havebeen constructed ince the eighteenth entury, uch as architecture/

building, high-style/vernacular, modern/primitive, and Westernarchitecture/non-Western rchitecture, erve precisely hat purpose.

The first term of each pair unquestionably alls into the acceptedparameters f the architectural discipline. The second erms, on theother hand, have been a continuous burden on it. These are theterms hat do not clearly all nside or outside of architecture. heylie at its constitutive edges.

A number of theorists have recently addressed he issue of

disciplinary boundaries n the context of Western architectural

thought. Karen Burns, for example, argues hat "building" s theexcluded erm hat enables he category f architecture; t is "a spacecontinually nvoked as outside architecture's wn internal space."'She thinks of architecture s an identity category and significationrather han a stable and autonomous ntity. Elizabeth Grosz, on theother hand, questions whether t is possible or architecture o ask

what is different rom and beyond t.2 Here I want to address herelationship etween Western architecture nd the categories f thenon-West and the vernacular. am interested n the former's on-tinual nvocation of the latter as its constitutive edges. I argue hat,at one level the non-West and the vernacular erve he purpose of

reinforcing Western architecture's upposed centrality. These pro-vide the sites to which Western architecture an penetrate. They

Journal ofArchitectural ducation, p. 20-27? 2000 ACSA, Inc.

signify architecture y being ts other, ts lack. As such, architectureneeds to make them appear as such.3 am interested n the mecha-nisms by which the construction f this appearance orks and alsoin possible ways of thinking about architecture ifferently.

Following Burns and others, my argument s structured nthe premise hat architecture, s an identity category, an only bedefined n relation o an entire network of other dentity categories.It is not an autonomous disciplinary nclosure hat controls privi-leged access. Hence, any answer o the question What is architec-ture? s bound to point to a meconnaisance ased on a number of

premises ther than mine. The latter orm the foundational mythsof the discipline, which had been firmly established n the West bythe nineteenth century. These can arguably be summarized s the

primacy f vision, the autonomy of architectural orm, and the lin-ear history of the master subject.4 Any answer o What is architec-ture? in the Western theoretical heritage is guarded by these

premises. The latter become particularly ignificant and critical n

considering he primal scene when Western architecture ncoun-tered, and cast ts gaze on, other, that s, non-Western rchitecturaltraditions. That is the historical moment not only when Westernarchitecture dentified itself as such but also when non-Westernarchitectural cenes were placed n the position of being looked at.I use the term gaze in the Lacanian ense here. "In the scopic re-

gime," contends Jacques Lacan, "the gaze s outside, I am looked at,that is to say, I am a picture .... What determines me, at the most

profound level, in the visible, is the gaze that is outside."' In hismodel, from the moment the subject s looked at, s/he tries o adaptto the gaze. The gaze s everywhere nd nowhere. t is apprehendedmore by its effects than by its source. When a certain body of

knowledge, which had identified and established tself as architec-ture in the Western world prior to colonization, encountered another, the two terms, "architecture" nd "the West," coalesced n

unprecedented ways. I would argue that the encounter betweenWestern architecture nd its outside is also an encounter betweenarchitecture nd its outside. It marks he moment when the archi-tectural

gazeis cast on other territories han the West and when

other architectures ecame uncomfortably isible. If, as Lacan on-tends, desire s bound up with the desire of the other, it is set intomotion in the architectural ield n unprecedented ays. How then,does a particular rchitectural dentification hat is based on theexclusion of desire from its constitutive boundaries perpetuate ts

seemingly elf-grounded utonomy?By way of addressing his question I will focus on two para-

digmatic architectural exts: Sir Banister Fletcher's A History fAr-chitecture n the Comparative Method or the Student Craftsman,

September 000 JAE 54/1 20

This content downloaded from 18 9.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 20 14 23:10:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

and Amateur, and Bernard Rudofsky's Architecture without Archi-tects: A Short Introduction to Non-pedigreed Architecture.6 The firstone is a canonical text that marks one of the earliest introductionsof non-Western architectural cultures in a historical survey.7 Thesecond one pioneers the celebration of vernacular buildings by thearchitectural discipline. My reading of these texts will be intention-

ally selective and partial. I will focus only on certain aspects of eachand ignore others in a search for ways of undoing the architectural

gaze that produces the binary pairs of West/non-West and architec-ture/nonarchitecture.

Self/Other: Desiring History

One of the earliest Western architectural surveys to address non-Western architectural cultures is written by Sir Banister Fletcher.The 1901 edition of his monumental survey A History ofArchitec-ture on the Comparative Method for the Student Craftsman, andAma-teur includes Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Central American, andSaracenic architectural cultures as well as the standard survey of

European styles that had been included in the earlier editions.Fletcher curiously gathers the new additions under a section entitled,"non-historical styles." The prefix "non"

signifieslack. It seems that,

to be constituted as the guarantor of architecture's autonomy, non-Western architectures have to be what Western architecture is not.Fletcher explains: "These non-historical styles can scarcely be as in-

teresting from an architect's point of view as those of Europe, whichhave progressed by the successive solution of construction problems,resolutely met and overcome; for in the East decorative schemesseem generally to have outweighed all other considerations.'"8

Fletcher was certainly not alone in his concern with decora-tive schemes. The relationship between construction and ornamenthad been a continuous preoccupation of Western architectural

scholarship since the previous century. In an architectural histori-cal context, Fletcher's reknowned predecessor James Fergusson had

argued that "a building may be said to be an object of architecturalart in the proportion in which the artistic or ornamental purposesare allowed to prevail over the mechanical; and an object of engi-neering skill, where the utilitarian exigencies of the design are al-lowed to supersede the artistic."' As a typical nineteenth-centuryarchitect, Fergusson uses the figure of ornament in defense of archi-tecture against engineering. Even so, following an analysis of theParthenon, Cistercian monasteries, and the Stonehenge, he arguesthat when the "ornament is elegant itself, and appropriate to theconstruction and to the purposes of the building..,. the temple or

::

?.. . ..

... ..... .. ......

. .. . .. , . . . .?.. .. .. ....

..

... . .... .

.

?~ ~ ~ ;

: . . : .

?...:- ?"??: . .. ,: :,

= . .

1. Fletcher's llustrations f ornamental etails rom ndianSaracenic rchitecture. rom ir Banister letcher, A History fArchitecture n the Comparative ethod or he Student,Craftsman nd Amateur London: . T. Batsford Ltd., 1954).

the cathedral ranks among the highest objects of the art, and be-comes one of the noblest works of man." Like Fletcher, construc-tion and function are two of his primary concerns in renderingornamentation acceptable. Unlike Fletcher, however, Fergussondoes not refrain from classifying Egyptian, Greek, and Gothic ar-chitectures with the buildings of "half-civilized nhabitants of India,the stolid Tartars of Thibet and China, and the savage Mexicans,"all of which "succeeded in erecting great and beautiful buildings."'oBesides his colonial cultural biases,

Fergussonhas a relativist

per-spective that does not superimpose architectural and cultural iden-tities as easily as his successor would do.

According to Fletcher, however, non-Western styles are dis-

tinctly different from Western ones in that they lack history and aremarked with ornamental excess (Figure 1). "Lack" and "excess" areterms that mark the exclusions in the Albertian definition of

beauty." If non-Western architectures can only be described on thebasis of lack and excess, they should not be worthy of considerationas architecture. In this respect, Fletcher's use of such derogatoryterms as "tortured," "bizzare," "striving after excess," and "gro-tesque" in describing non-Western buildings is hardly surprising.12Besides these, however, he uses other qualifications like "bewilder-

ing richness," "grandeur," and "majestic beauty," which indicateintrigue rather than contempt.

Ambivalence of opinion on other cultures may be seen com-

monplace for a Western historian coming from a long heritage of co-lonial scholarship. Fergusson, too, expresses such ambivalence in hiswork on Indian architecture, when he says: "It cannot, of course, befor one moment contended that India ever reached the intellectual

supremacy of Greece, or the moral greatness of Rome; but, though ona lower step of the ladder, her arts are more original and more varied,and her forms of civilisation present an ever-changing variety, such as

21 Nalbantoilu



4/9

are nowhere else to be found."'' In his evaluation, Fergusson separatesarchitectural from cultural identity and favors the former while de-

grading the latter. Fletcher's ambivalence lies in his evaluation of ar-chitecture itself as a source of both degradation and praise.

I am interested in Fletcher's simultaneous fascination andunease with what he pathologizes as lack and excess in nonhistorical

styles. It seems worthwhile to explore how these terms figure in hisdiscourse and in the construction of the West/non-West and archi-tecture/nonarchitecture binaries. I would argue that, in Fletcher's

discourse, lack serves for Western architecture's attributes to be

oppositionally articulated while excess renders non-Western archi-tectures adequate to the colonizer's desire."' After all, Europeanstyles were qualified as historical only when an oppositional rela-

tionship with non-European styles appeared on the agenda. West-ern architecture had to redefine its identity in positive terms inrelation to an other that lacks positivity. In other words, the label"historical styles" becomes possible only after naming non-Western

styles as nonhistorical. The attribution of lack to the other serves to

positively identify the self." In Fletcher's discourse, the lack of his-

toricity is complemented with an excess of ornamentation. Lackneeds to be masked. What is noted as excess in the other is also thecause of pleasure as its extravagance covers over the lack.

Fletcher does not dwell upon such notions in his book. He

quickly dispenses with his momentary pleasure by submitting non-Western architectures under the same framework of analysis as therest.16 The other enters the domain of architecture in terms thathave already been established prior to its appearance. Yet the sourceof Fletcher's pleasure ies in the excess that architecture-as-he-knowsis unable to represent. The architectural gaze that is cast over his

interpretation of the non-Western scene enables him to recognizeexcess but also to cover over his momentary pleasure.

As a final note, the tight connection between architectural

production and theory and historiography during the late nine-teenth and early twentieth centuries can hardly be overlooked. Both

Fergusson and Fletcher were actively involved with contemporary

practice.One

might arguethat their attitude towards non-Western

architectures was partially rooted in the orientalist practices of theirWestern contemporaries. Indeed such figures as George Aitchison,William Burges, and Thomas Ambler were prolific practicioners ofvarious Islamic traditions during the second half of the nineteenth

century. At that time Fergusson, who worked as general managerfor the Crystal Palace Company, was recommending his contempo-raries to take up the Renaissance style as sensible, strong, and du-

rable in both form and decoration."17 letcher, on the other hand,

praised Louis Sullivan's nonrevivalist Transportation building as

"the first rose of summer to the jaded European."18 There was

clearly no room for ambivalence in relation to the non-Western

styles when Western architectural practice was in question. Practicetook the form of either romanticized attachment or contemptuousdenial.

Other/Self: Desiring Architecture

The nineteenth-century colonial architectural gaze turned to the

non-West for its monumental gestures, i.e., palaces, temples, andmosques. Historically, Fletcher's career marked the highlight of thisinterest as an academic pursuit. I have explored how his work relatedto defining the boundaries of the architectural discipline. Two keynotions of his analysis-lack and excess-seem to reappear as perti-nent tools in problematizing the proper boundaries of architecture.I will make a historical leap now to analyze a different architecturalmoment that takes non-Western vernacular architectures, ratherthan monuments, as Western architecture's other. My focus herewill be a paradigmatic exhibition at the New York York Museum ofModern Art in 1964. Entitled "Architecture without Architects," theexhibition contained over 150 photographs of anonymous buildingsand settings taken by architect Bernard Rudofsky. This is not an iso-

lated moment of curiosity in the history of Western architecture.The story of the exhibition dates back to the 1940s, when Interna-tional Style modernism was taken to task even by its founding fa-

thers.'9 By the end of the 1960s, vernacular architecture wasestablished as an academic field of study on its own.20

Rudofsky's exhibition was staged in the manner of an archi-tectural manifesto. The architect was critical of Westernarchitecture's concern with "a few select cultures . .. a small part ofthe globe ... a who's who of architects who commemorated powerand wealth, and an anthology of buildings of, by and for the privi-leged."21 hrough his exemplary effort, the audience of the Museumof Modern Art was introduced to the other half of the built envi-ronment untouched

bythe master architects' intervention.

Recent scholarship reveals that Rudofsky's project exceeds thefield of architecture as such. In 1944, he organized an exhibition "AreClothes Modern?" n the same setting. By juxtaposing ethnographicand modern artifacts of similar appearance, he set out to illustrate hatmodernist ideals of rationality and functionalism were but myths.Felicity Scott argues that, other contemporary critics of modern ar-chitecture sought to integrate functionalism with transcendent beautybut, for Rudofsky, "a line of escape from the effects of the Interna-tional Style was the prospect to be opened up through eliciting that




5/9

irrational quality of desire underneath aesthetics nd utility.' 22Fol-lowing Scott's argument, Rudofsky's ppeal o vernacular rchitectureis apparently ied to his broader nterest n the erotic and the primi-tive as the suppressed spects of the International tyle. Shelter, ap-parel, and food for him were interrelated s the sources of "sensous

pleasure or which they were nvented n the first place."23 his lineof argument trangely ligns Rudofsky with Fletcher n the recogni-tion of the source of pleasure n the other. While Fletcher recognizesthis source only to suppress t, Rudofsky apitalizes n it as a meansto pervert the conformity to disciplinary regulation. If, indeed,Rudofsky's

projectwas to uncover an irreducable source of

"unsublimated etishism" n non-Western ernacular rchitectures, twas too easily recuperated nto the architectural anon that is struc-tured upon the denial of desire. Felicity Scott's article oncludes witha postscript n the recuperation f Rudofsky's andal designs by thefunctionalist rhetoric of Laszlo Moholy-Nagy. It seems thatRudofsky's earch or an "untransposable etish" was impossible asfetish, by definition, s the substitute or a perceived ack. The fetishis always lready ocated n the symbolic order.

It is difficult o disagree with Rudofsky's eaction against er-tain aspects of the architectural anon. In his haste to correct his"error," owever, Rudofsky verlooks he fact that the canon s alsobased on the privileging of the visual, notions of origin and

progress, nd a binary ystem of thinking. For Rudofsky's ystem,too, is structured round he binary opposites of high-style/vernacu-lar; authored/anonymous; ndividual/communal; he "architecturalblight in industrial ountries" ersus he "serenity f the architec-ture in so-called underdeveloped ountries." The powerful blackand white images in Architecture without Architects display ntri-cately sculpted buildings and settlements hat merge comfortablyinto their natural settings.

Rudofsky's haracteristically umanist approach nables himto homogenize ocal architectural raditions based on a naturalisticessence. In this architectural arrative, panish treets, and Syrianwater wheels, Anatolian carved dwellings, and African granariesexist side by side, all set against he notion of insensitive, ommer-

cialized, and ndustrialized qualities f a generalized otion of West-ern architecture. The photo captions emphasize sculptural andesthetic qualities, permanence, xceptional magination, and artis-tic insight. Rudofsky's genda becomes clear when he states "Thepresent xhibition s the vehicle of the idea that the philosophy andknow-how of the anonymous builders present he largest untappedsource of architectural inspiration or industrial man."'24

Rudofsky's heroic project then, makes him the living agentand witness for otherwise ost architectural raditions. But lost to

whom? At one important evel, his enterprise s but one instancewhereby a narrative f local traditions erves as a critique of West-ern architecture's elf-made rajectory. udofsky's ppositional nar-rative originates rom Western architecture's founding principlesbased on the aura of the autonomous architectural object. The ver-nacular s named and transformed, hrough he architectural gaze,into a standing reserve or the pleasure f the architect. think thatis precisely he reason or the widespread irculation f Architecturewithout Architects among practicing Western architects. Emphasiz-ing the experiential qualities, human scale, and visual richness ofvernacular

buildings,Rudofsky's

pproachwas

greatlycclaimed

ythe critics of the modernist vocabulary.25Rudofsky's approach o vernacular buildings has been sub-

stantially riticized by his successors s devoid of contextual analy-sis. Unsurprisingly erhaps, he underlying premises of his projectperpetuates n architectural iscourse. A leading cholar n the field,Paul Oliver, played a significant ole in shifting he focus from thesensual aesthetics f vernacular objects o their environmental, ma-terial, and cultural ontext.26 His is a commendable project n ques-tioning the autonomy of architectural orm. Yet the binary hinkingthat places he evils of capitalism nd industrialization n one side,and the potency of indigenous cultures on the other remains un-challenged. Oliver seems o echo Rudofsky's usversus hem" logic

when he states hat "by studying he qualities hat shape he dwell-ing of differing ocieties .. we may be more effective n assistingthem n gaining appropriate iving conditions-and in the process,learn more about our own [Emphases mine]."27 I would now like toreturn o the notions of lack and excess n the identification f in-digenous architectures s proper architecture's ther.

Rudofsky s one of the pioneering igures who included archi-tecture without architects i.e., architecture hat acks architects) nthe grand narrative f architecture with architects. The two termsthat structured Fletcher's discourse, ack and excess, can be readdifferently n Rudofsky's arrative. his time it is Western architec-ture that lacks he wisdom of anonymous builders and is in excessof industrialization. n a manner that is strikingly different thanFletcher's, Rudofsky's ource of pleasure, oo, is rooted n what heidentifies as excess, .e., his camera-a product of Western ndus-trial technology. For it is his dramatically hot black-and-whiteimages that render architecture without architects desirable o thearchitectural udience. Let me illustrate.

In one striking nstance n Architecture ithout Architects, ac-ing pages show two views of a Sudanese ribal ettlement: a bird's-eye view and a close-up (Figure 2). "What at first glance appears obe mere debris," Rudofsky discloses, houses a "highly ophisticated

23 Nalbantoilu



6/9

2. Rudofsky's llutrations f the Sudanese ribal ettlement.From Bernard udofsky, rchitecture ithout rchitects: ShortIntroduction o Non-pedigreed rchitecture NewYork:Doubleday, 964).

culture" known to produce some of the best examples of African

art.28 The eye of the camera illuminates the tribal settlement in themanner of a projector. In doing so it explicates secrets, restores den-tities, and corrects mistakes. In both cases, then, the illuminationthat lights up the tribal settlement has its origin elsewhere. Thecamera's double-move removes the viewer twice from the tribalsettlement. Rudofsky literally shows two possible ways of seeing it.His first shot shows what the Sudanese settlement is not, i.e.,nonarchitecture. The second one shows what it is, i.e., architecture.

Rudofsky's look enables him to project a different image on thescreen, of the same object that the gaze had denied architectural sta-tus. His camera enables him to return life (architecture) to the dead

(debris).But does it?I would argue that the architectural gaze that is cast over

Rudofsky's camera participates in a double-murder-double death.The Sudanese tribal settlement is killed once by analogy to debris andonce more by analogy to architecture. Both Roland Barthes and KajaSilverman dwell on death in relation to photography. Barthes con-tends that photography transforms subjects into objects. Being pho-tographed, he says, one is neither subject nor object, but a subject whofeels s/he is becoming an object. The moment of becoming a specter,to him, is an experience of a microversion of death.29 Silverman, onthe other hand, argues that both the camera and the gaze confer a

specular body on the subject, which concurs with the death of its ex-istential body.30 n both cases, death is associated with the silencing of

a speaking, feeling subject turned into a frozen image.I do not suggest, of course, that the Sudanese tribal settle-ment is marked by an essential identity that is murdered by thearchitect's camera. Even when we accept that identities are effectsof language, the Sudanese subjects who had occupied Rudofsky'ssettlement are inaccessable to us. What is important to me is thateach architectural recording inscribes another layer of meaning onthe site or building that is frozen by the camera. I refer to this in-

scription, which remains unproblematized by the recorder, in

claiming that rather than bestowing immortality, architectural re-

cording marks the death of buildings. It affirms architecture

through death. In using the photographs to name the Sudanese

buildings as either debris or architecture, Rudofsky forecloses other

possible identifications. His project aims at the legitimation of ver-nacular buildings through their identification as architecture. Assuch, the photographs of the Sudanese settlement are presented to

speak their photographer's language, i.e., the language of architec-ture. It is in that sense that I associate Rudofsky's gesture with si-

lencing and death. Yet such records are necessary to conferarchitectural identity on any building. It is through these recordsthat buildings are recognized as architecture. The inclusion then, ofthe Sudanese tribal settlement into the category of architecture in-volves a violent act of exclusion. Both the category of architectureand the Sudanese tribal settlement are thus deprived from other

possible interpretations and identifications that might have prolif-erated from the encounter between architecture and its outside, ar-chitecture and nonarchitecture.

Rudofsky is clearly capable of seeing other than what is givento be seen. Yet his look is governed by the imperative to return tothose images that provide fantasmatic origins for his own imaginaryidentification. The non-West, the primitive and the vernacular are

very often juxtaposed as the origin of an fetishized "natural" den-

titythat

precedesthe industrialized world of the modern

West.3'In

Rudofsky's discourse, the familiar binary pairs-Western and re-

gional, international and national, global and local-overlap withanother set of pairs consisting of disciplinary terms such as archi-tecture and building, high-style and vernacular, modern and primi-tive. If Fletcher privileges and idealizes one side of the equation,Rudofsky does the opposite. So far I explored the mechanisms bywhich these idealizations are constructed and argued that the termsof the equation are kept intact in both cases. The boundaries of thearchitectural discipline are reinforced by the naming of an other intwo different ways. Fletcher ascribes a positive identity to Westernarchitecture by identifying an absence in the other. Rudofsky, onthe other hand, incorporates the vernacular as the lost origin of the

modern West. Lack and excess organize their discourses in differ-ent but parallel ways.

Other Architectures/Other andscapes

Fletcher's "non" of the "nonhistorical," Rudofsky's "without" of"architecture without architects," and the "non" of the term "non-Western" overlap in interesting ways. All are based on a notion of

lack that juxtaposes architecture with the West and nonarchitecture




7/9

3. View rom he Rock Garden, Chandigarh, ndia. Photographyby author.)

with the non-West. The key terms that define non-Western archi-tecture-"non-West" and "architecture"--are loaded with a-priorisignifications. Non-Western architecture is an identification thatrestructures both sides of the equation between the West and thenon-West and architecture and nonarchitecture. A non-Westernessence that is implicated in the term non-Western architecture

(whether despised or idealized, for these are two sides of the same

coin) disappears the moment it is named as such. For it is alreadynamed in other terms, terms that are possible only in relation to

already established categories.My questions then are: Are there possibilities of identification

for (non-Western) architectures other than their idealized image?Can we conceive of non-Western architecture, nonarchitecture

without the categoriesof

surplus and lack?Can we attribute a

pro-ductive plenitude rather than lack to the prefix "non"? To whatextent is it possible to undo the architectural gaze? Is there any wayto look at architecture differently? In exploring how notions of lackand excess have been instrumental in the construction ofarchitecture's disciplinary boundaries, I looked at how non-West-ern and vernacular environments figured in two paradigmatic West-ern texts of international reputation. To address these questions Iwill turn to a non-Western architectural site that has not been

widely addressed by Western scholarship: the Rock Garden in

Chandigarh, India. It is one example, perhaps among numerousothers, that provides fertile grounds to unread the founding prin-ciples of the architectural discipline. Unlike the previous examples,

the Rock Garden is not and cannot be a paradigmatic case becauseit does not offer a frozen moment of (other) architectural truths anddoes not belong to any architectural type or category. I will exploreit as a ground of architectural possibilities-an inspiring momentto ask other questions of architecture beyond the discipline's self-constructed boundaries.

Located in a former site of industrial waste, the Rock Gardenis the laborious product of a road inspector, Sh. Nek Chand. Notionsof waste and excess reappear here, albeit different than in the case of

4. Figurines n he Rock Garden, Chandigarh, ndia. Photographby author.)

Rudofsky's Sudanese tribal settlement. The Rock Garden is literallymade of waste: pots, bottles, broken objects, and all kinds of ceramic,metal, and plastic trash. Its labyrinthian experience providesfantasmatic paths of discovery. Unusual objects, textures, and sur-faces bring about magical experiences (Figure 3).32 Pieces of broken

plates, spare parts of sanitary appliances, and defective earthenwareare transformed almost beyond recognition. The garden has its per-manent inhabitants in the form of numerous figurines, both humanand animal (Figure 4). Made of waste as well, and conspicuouslygenderless, these figurines are situated in miniature communities,

dancing, greeting their viewers, or just standing in peace. They aresilent witnesses of the possibility of seeing beauty in debris, life indeath. Permanence and immortality-obsessions of the architectural

discipline-takeon a different

meaningin the Rock Garden.

Here,rather than belonging to a finished form, the notion of permanencepoints to a continuing process of translations and transformations.The Rock Garden flees from architecture's structuring reflection of

cities, buildings, and open spaces. It bears testimony to the possibil-ity of looking differently, seeing other than what is given to be seen.As such, it marks an instance of fertility and procreation rather thana statement of impeccable architectural principles.

In the Rock Garden, Rudofsky's statement that the philoso-phy and know-how of anonymous builders present the largest un-

tapped source of architectural inspiration for industrial man isturned to its opposite. Here it is industry itself that has presentedan untapped source of architectural inspiration for the local builder.

Not only the proper categories of architecture but also those of in-dustrial production are effectively undermined. The Rock Garden

opens up a series of issues on the role of locality in architecture be-

yond regional(ist) and national(ist) constructs that are typical ofnon-Western architectural approaches. Here locality does not ad-dress any notion of cultural identity. There are no mandalas, notrace of "Indianness" as architectural convention would like to see,but an engagement with the immediacy of a given set of circum-stances. Located in close proximity to Le Corbusier's parliamentary

25 Nalbantoilu



8/9

complex, he Rock Garden does not participate n a complementaryor oppositional gesture. t is a silent interruption o the grand nar-rative of the masters-a silent refusal o participate.

The Rock Garden provides an architectural nstance hat ef-fectively undermines he categorical mperatives f the architecturalgaze n relation o non-Western rchitectures. t cannot be recuper-ated by the discourses hat I exemplified hrough Fletcher's andRudofsky's pproaches. The Rock Garden s neither non-Westernnor vernacular, s architectural iscourse would have t. In readingcanonical architectural exts, I explored he mechanisms hat per-

petuatehe structural oundations of the architectural

disciplinen

relation o its West/non-West division. The Rock garden s but oneexample hat demonstrates hat the binary categories f West andnon-West, beauty and waste, lack and excess can be undone. Iwould argue hen, that once conceptualized sa signification atherthan a finite disciplinary ield, architecture an be productively is-mantled. Other architectures, hen, do not exist n other places andother times. On the contrary, hey are captured n the immediacyof the present, n the spatial productions f historically nd psychi-cally constructed bodies; n their engagement with the materialityof space. Other architectures question architecture's ntolerance odifference, o the unthought, o its outside. Their imagination be-comes possible when one is ready to see beyond the disciplinary

borders whose regulations ely on notions of lack and excess.In conclusion, my own use of the terms "West," non-West,"

and particularly, "architecture" throughout this article calls forclarification. n criticizing uch identity categories, my aim is notto find others o replace hem. I am concerned ess about the namesthemselves han how they are mobilized o perpetuate hegemonicdiscourses nd practices. That the category of non-Western archi-tecture cannot simply be abandoned n favor of a different namedoes not mean that it needs to be redefined. Any such definitionhelps but to draw other boundaries hat will mark other nclusionsand exclusions. There is no pure and virtuous space outside ourpresent ategories.3" he idea, then, is to accept he porousness ndmalleability f boundaries nd identity categories nd be aware oftheir strategic ignificance.

Notes

Different versions of this article appeared n a number of earlier presentations ndpublications. I presented a shorter version at the Cultural Studies Association ofAustralia Conference, Adelaide, December 1998. Earlier ormulations of some ofthe ideas were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Architectual His-torians, Los Angeles, April 1998, and at Forum II: Architectural ducation or the

Third Millenium," Farmagusta, yprus, April 1998. "(Post)Colonial ArchitecturalEncounters" will appear n Asian Architects, . 2 (Singapore: elect, 1999). For aTurkish version of the latter, ee Toplum eBilim, n. 79, Winter 1998, pp. 66-78.

* "Lack" nd "excess" re erms hat I borrow rom psychoanalytical heory,which inspires his art icle. For a highly elaborated discussion of the architecturaldiscipline from this perspective, see: Mirjana Lozanovska, Excess:A Thesis on[Sexual] Difference ndArchitecture, npublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Deakin Uni-versity, 1994.

1. Karen Burns, "Architecture: hat fangerotrs Useless Supplement." nthe proceedings of the conference Accessory/Architecture, eld in Auckland, NewZealand, Jul. 1995, v. 2, pp. 49-56.

2. Elizabeth Grosz. "Architecture rom he Outside." n Space, Time, nd Per-version:Essays n the Politics of Bodies New York: Routledge, 1990), pp. 125-137.

3. Here I use Judith Butler's nalysis f sexual difference n an architecturalcontext. In the light of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Butler argues hat the feminine

position is not only the other of a masculine desire but also represents r reflectsthat desire. As such, it is the site of a masculine elf-elaboration. ee: Judith Butler,Gender Trouble: Feminism nd the Subversion of Identity New York: Routledge,1990), pp. 43-46.

4. Contemporary historians and theorists have addressed he constitutionof the architectural anon from a broad scope of theoretical positions. From a his-toricist position, Spiro Kostof argues hat all buildings should be included in thestudy of architecture nd explained n relation o their broader historical context.See: Spiro Kostof, A History fArchitecture: ettings nd Rituals New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1985), pp. 7-19. From a psychoanalytical eminist perspective,Mirjana Lozanovska ses the terms "autonomy," "metaphor," vision," and "thefathers" o expose the discipline's ounding assumptions. See: Lozanovska, xcess:A Thesis n [Sexual] Difference nd Architecture. Miriam Gusevich, on the otherhand, uses poststructuralist heory's premises o examine how the notion of au-tonomy is established by the institution of architectural riticism. See: MiriamGusevich, "The Architecture f Criticism: A Question of Autonomy," n Draw-

ing, Building, Text New York: Princeton Architectural ress, 1991), pp. 8-24.5. Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts f Psychoanalysis New

York: W. W. Norton, 1981), p. 106. I have largely benefited rom Kaja Silverman'sexplanation of this notion in The Threshold of the Visible World (New York:Routledge, 1996).

6. Sir Banister Fletcher, A History fArchitecture n the Comparative ethodfor the Student Craftsman, ndAmateur London: B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1954), 16thed.; Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture ithoutArchitects: Short ntroduction o Non-

pedigreed Architecture New York: Doubleday, 1964).7. The most prominent Western examples o study non-Western architec-

tures before Fletcher are Viennese architect Fischer von Erlach's EntwurffeinerHistorischen rchitecture f 1721 and James Fergusson's A History f Modern Stylesin Architecture f 1862 and A History of Architecture f 1865-76. The former sprimarily collection of plates, more in the manner of a portfolio than a historicalaccount. The accuracy f Erlach's drawings nd reconstructions ave been largelydisputed by contemporary cholars. See: Hanno-Walter Kruft, A History fArchi-tectural Theory om Vitruvius o the Present, Ronald Taylor, Elsie Callander, ndAntony Wood, trans. New York: Princeton Architectural ress, 1994), 183-185.Fergusson's work, on the other hand, has seen a number of reprints and is similarin scope to Fletcher's. What attracts me to the latter, as I shall elaborate below, isits self-conscious historical method. Besides Fletcher's nd Fergusson's work, non-Western architectural cultures attracted the attention primarily of their contempo-rary specialists who did field work in the colonized regions. For an extensive




9/9

account of early twentieth-century Western scholarship n Javanese rchitecture,for example, see: Stephen Cairns, "Re-Surfacing: rchitecture, Wayang, and the"Javanese House" in Giilsiim B. Nalbantoglu and Wong Chong Thai, eds.,Postcolonial Space(s) New York: Princeton Architectural ress, 1997), pp. 73-88.

8. Fletcher, A History ofArchitecture, . 888.9. James Fergusson, Encyclopedia f World rchitecture New Delhi: Aryan

Books International, 1998 reprint), p. 7.10. Ibid., p. 6. An anonymous reviewer f an earlier version of this article

has pointed out that nineteenth-century nglish historians were originally at a losswhen confronted with their own Gothic architecture s much as with other archi-tectural cultures, as it was also excessive and hard to categorize historically.Fergusson's ategorization f the Gothic with non-Western architectural ulturesis hardly urprising n this respect.

11. In one of the most quoted parts of Alberti's reatise, he refers o beautyas one of the fundamental ttributes f architecture nd describes t as the "harmonyof all the parts, n whatsoever subject t appears, itted together with such propor-tion and connection, that nothing could be added, diminished or altered, but forthe worse." See: Leone Batisti Alberti, The Ten BooksofArchitecture, eprint of the1755 Leoni edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1986), p. 113. For Alberti,beauty s a self-sufficient, mmaculate, and intact entity. The beautiful object nei-ther lacks, nor is in excess of any component.

12. Fletcher, A History ofArchitecture, pp. 888, 893, 961. I have arguedelsewhere hat Fletcher's ext can be read n other ways to suggest he recognitionof radical alterity n non-Western architectural ultures. Here I want to emphasizehis explicit references o notions of lack and excess. See my "Towards PostcolonialOpenings: Re-reading ir Banister Fletcher's History fArchitecture," ssemblage 5,Apr. 1998, pp. 6-17.

13. James Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture (New

Delhi: Sri Devendra Jain for Munshiram Manorharlal, 1972 [reprint of revised1910 edition; irst published n 1876]), p. 4.14. Here I reproduce Kaja Silverman's explanation f lack and plenitude n

terms of the identification of the female subject. See: Kaja Silverman, The Thresh-old of the Visible World New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 33.

15. A recent article by Paul Walker on Fletcher's work on the 1893 ChicagoWorld's Columbian Exposition supports my argument. Walker focuses on theomission of the Japanese Ho-o-den from Fletcher's analyses. He argues that forFletcher, he Ho-o-den was uncannily imilar o the architectures f the West and,if acknowledged, would blur the neat distinction between historical andnonhistorical tyles. See: Paul Walker, "The Invisible East': Fletcher and the Un-seen Ho-o-den," Self Place and Imagination: Cross-Cultural Thinking n Architec-ture, Proceedings of the Second Symposium by the Centre for Asian and MiddleEastern Architecture, The University of Adelaide, Australia, 1999, pp. 145-151.

16. Paul Walker offers an extensive analysis f the status of Asia and the Pa-cific in Fletcher's areer nd surfaces he

disruptionsnd ambivalences hat are

sup-pressed by the latter's ubmission of non-Western rchitectural ultures o the sameframework f analysis sWestern ones. See: Paul Walker, "Vagrancy: sia and thePacific n Sir Banister letcher'sA History fArchitecture, n Building, Dwelling, Drift-ing: Migrancy nd the Limits ofArchitecture, roceedings f the third Other Connec-tions Conference, University of Melbourne, un. 26-29, 1997, pp. 356-362.

17. Robin Middleton and David Watkin, Neoclassical nd 19th CenturyArchitecture New York: Rizzoli, 1987), p. 372.

18. Quoted in John Sweetman, The Oriental Obsession Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 238.

19. In 1941, Rudofsky was invited by the MoMA to propose an exhibitionto which he responded with a portfolio of his photographs f vernacular rchitec-ture. MoMA rejected he proposal and the photographs emained n the archivesuntil 1964. See: Bernard Rudofsky, The Prodigious uilders: otes Towards Natu-ral History fArchitecture New York: Harcourt Brace ovanovich, 1977), pp. 366-68. Both this account and the architectural ontext of Rudofsky's position areexplained in: Felicity Scott, "Underneath Aesthetics and Utility: TheUntransposable Fetish of Bernard Rudofsky," Assemblage, n. 38, Apr. 1999, pp.59-89. Hanno-Walter Kruft explains hat "dissatisfaction ith functionalist atti-tudes, indeed with planned architecture f any kind, showed itself in the interestthat was aroused by an exhibition mounted by the Museum of Modern Art in NewYork n 1964 under the title Architecture ithout Architects." ee: Kruft, A HistoryofArchitectural heory, . 439.

20. For a brief account of the history of architectural nterest n vernacularstudies, see: Eleftherios Pavlides, "Architectural Approaches and Concepts," inEncyclopedia f Vernacular rchitecture, aul Oliver, ed. (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997), v. 1, pp. 12-15.

21. Rudofsky, Architecture ithout Architects, . 1.22. Scott, "Underneath Aesthetics and Utility," p. 82.23. Quoted in Scott, ibid., p. 69.24. Rudofsky, Architecture ithout Architects, . 7.25. Pavlides, "Architectural Approaches nd Concepts," pp. 14-15.26. Oliver cites Shelter nd Society, n book edited by him and published n

1969, as an attempt to develop an alternative position to Rudofsky's. See: PaulOliver, "Preface," n Encyclopedia f Vernacular rchitecture, . 1, p. vii.

27. Paul Oliver, Dwellings: The House Across he World Austin: Universityof Texas Press, 1987), pp. 14-15. I would like to point to the alarming ease bywhich the term culture enables Oliver to unify different parts of the globe. He

emphasizes he differences etween societies and is clearly nterested n the expres-sion of these in built forms. What Oliver means by difference, however, urns outto be diversity. Homi Bhabha points to the distinction by explaining hat culturaldiversity s a category of comparative thics and aesthetics hat emphasizes iberalnotions of multiculturalism nd cultural exchange; ultural difference, n the otherhand, "focuses on the problem of the ambivalence of cultural authority-the at-tempt to dominate n the name of a cultural supremacy which is itself producedonly in the moment of differentiation." ee: Homi Bhabha, "The Commitment oTheory," n The Location of Culture London: Routledge, 1994), p. 34.

28. Rudofsky, Architecture ithout Architects, p. 40-41.29. Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, Richard Howard (London: Fontana

paperbacks, 984), pp. 10-15.30. Kaja Silverman, The Threshold of the Visible World (New York:

Routledge, 1996), pp. 196-202.31. This point is addressed n detail by James Clifford in an article on a

1984-85 MoMA exhibition entitled "'Primitivism' n 20th Century Art: Affinityof the Tribal and the Modern." See: James Clifford, The Predicament of Culture:Twentieth Century thnography, iterature ndArt (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1988), pp. 189-214.

32. At one level, my own photographic epresentations f the Rock Gardenbear the burden of architectural representation hat I argue n this paper. I mustemphasize that they are not meant to construct a finite architectural eality butshould be seen as what they are: photographic epresentations f partial cenes roma garden.

33. Stephen Cairns makes a similar argument n "Re-surfacing," . 88.

27 Nalbantoglu

This content downloaded from 18 9.217.158.42 on Sat, 6 Dec 20 14 23:10:19 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

beyond lack and excess: other architectures/other landscapes

Documents