Reformed Territory

In hindsight we see that many of the oversights of modernism stemmed from the genuine belief that everything observable could be reorganized and thus reconstituted. But this panopticism, this myopia, continues. In our current era of reconstructed visuality...<a name="more"></a><br>
&nbsp;<br>
Implicit in the term "modernity" is an acceptance of reality; what is "real" occupies a privileged status. If we consider that "the real is not representable, a multidimensional order cannot be made to coincide with a unidimensional order,"1 it seems we as architects emerge as modernity's lesser citizens. We as architects--as persistent modernists--presume that both visual and discursive representations are lesser forms of architecture than the products they at times generate. Herein rests the paradox: our task as architects is limited primarily to the realm of representation where we do not employ the real or tectonic aspects of our aspirations directly, yet we condemn intrusions upon our supposed prerogative to fashion the environment. This is evidenced by the relentless angst proceeding from the realization of our limited ability to effect real changes particularly in the urban environment. <br>
&nbsp;<br>
Our haunting suspicion that Modernism is at worst misguided, and is at best too effete a proposition to succeed either socially or aesthetically stretches back three decades now. And still, even when these considerations are recognized, most often the reality of our propositions--our representations--are conflated with action in the real environment. If we believe that our artifacts are made only to potentially serve as information guiding a one-to-one substitution--the representation for the reality--architecture¹s potential is thwarted at the hands of modernist ideology. Architecture¹s reality, under these circumstances, cannot win the day.