Sorted by date | |||
page193from Building IdeasThe Marxist Critique in Architecture – Tafuri and Jameson
The various modes of resistance that we
have discussed so far towards the dominant power structures and institutions of
society would not necessarily be ones that all architects would agree with –
even, paradoxically, the ones most politically engaged. The Italian historian,
Manfredo Tafuri, who was deeply influenced by Marxist ideas, doubted that
architects on their own could achieve very much in the absence of a general revolution
in society. As he wrote in an essay from 1969 which was later expanded into the
book Architecture and Utopia, he felt that the social intentions of
architecture seen in the Utopian projects of early modernism had been co-opted
by the all pervading machinery of capitalism. He blamed this on the ideology of
instrumental rationality, much as Adorno and Horkheimer had previously done, as
this was part of the enlightenment origin of modernism that had “naturalized”
the basic principles of capitalism. Architectural practice today could not
escape this hegemony, and would always end up colluding with the progress of
the capitalist project, therefore the only positive role for an architecture
that was opposed to this ideology was not in the world of practice but in the
realm of critique:
It
may even be that many marginal roles exist for architecture and planning. Of
primary interest to us however, is the question of why, until now,
Marxist-oriented culture has very carefully, and with an obstinacy worthy of
better causes, denied or concealed the simple truth that, just as there can be
no such thing as a political economics of class, but only a class critique of
political economics, likewise there can never be an aesthetics, art or
architecture of class, but only a class critique of aesthetics, art,
architecture and the city.27
On
a more positive note, Tafuri does recognize the potential of the “critical”
architectural project to point to an alternative mode
|
|||
|
|||
|