Syllabus: Architecture as Power, Politics, and Propaganda (original) (raw)
Related papers
Architecture, Politics and the Public Realm
Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1981
A prominent architectural theorist recently complained that contemporary architecture is now stymied for our lack of a credible political vision .' This judgment serves to underline the conjoining of these two realms even if the relation is one which, for the most part, has almost entirely escaped the notice of thinkers in both disciplines. Doubtless each will account for such past indifference in his own fashion, but it is my contention that it is no longer a desirable or tenable state ofaffairs. For the political theorist, in particular, the promise expected at the intersection ofthese two fields, first highlighted by the Goodmans' early pioneering work, still remains to be realized.2 Although animated by a somewhat different set of concerns than those of the Goodmans, I hope that this paper will help reawaken interest in the political theory of architecture. To grasp this kind of subject, we must look first at the "politics" of architecture in past societies. I do not mean the politics and quarrels of individual architects, doubtless the usual modern treatment of this theme .3 The "politics" of architecture here will concern rather the inherently political role which architecture seems invariably to perform in one polity or another. This emphasis will mean of course that we must depress for our purposes the importance of the aesthetic or technical faces of architecture-and certainly turn our backs upon the historically vacuous slogan, "art for art's sake." Indeed, I propose to turn this epithet on its head so that-at least for the art of architecture-it shall read "an art principally for the state's sake".' Those who find such a remark provocative might begin by examining the world's architectural remains. For, in whatever antique condition they come to us and from whatever time and place, these buildings almost all betray a political or "stately" character, easily recognisable whether in the palaces of Versailles or Schoenbrun, the tombs of the ancient Pharaohs, the temples of the Acropolis, or the Gothic cathedrals of mediaeval Europe. Indeed, because of this intimate connection between architecture and the state's order architects have themselves argued that in the buildings of past ages we have the most reliable guides to the "life" of each civilization. In fact, the art of architecture has virtually always served principally public interests-large state or quasi-state institutions. This "public" character of architecture, evident in any chronicle on world architecture, can be seen by the continuous string of monumental works of architectural art focussing almost exclusively on capitols, courts, palaces, tombs, temples, and churches. These,
Political architecture and relation between architecture and power
2018
Central aim of this paper is discussion about architectural manifestation, methods used in architecture to express aspirations andconnections of urban and architectural hierarchywith the social occurrences andpolitical context.It is familiar that the role of politics, authority and power of government, democracy and diplomacy are tightly connected with architecture, which means that architecturethrough its great communicational powers, can be used for political and social objectives. Since the relationship between the authority and architecture is being reviewed, the paper will focus on the buildings with purpose of serving the authority itself. Presence or absence of the social and political consciousness among architects reflect their status and role in a political system, making their influence equally significant. In that context, this paper will also reflect on their presence and contribution during architectural history. The research method of this paper is descriptive analyti...
Architecture and Politics: Dissecting the Pretense of Political Architecture
We must repudiate the false pretense of “political” or “critical” architecture. Instead we must grasp and act upon architecture's own specific competency and related criticality. The stance of parametricism is sharply critical of current architectural and urban design outcomes, and my stance is doubly critical as I am also critical of many of the shortcomings of “real existing” parametricism. However, my stance as architectural researcher and paractitioner (as well as parametricism’s stance in general) is implicitly affirmative with respect to the general societal (social, economic and political) trends that underlie the criticized current architectural and urban outcomes. This implicit affirmation of the social order is a necessary condition of professional engagement with social reality. Those you are feeling that current socio-economic and political conditions are to be fought and overthrown and who are unwilling to fulfil architecture’s institutionally allocated role should consequently shift their activity into the political arena proper because they see the political system as the bottleneck for architecture’s (and society’s) progress. They need to test and win their arguments within and against political groups rather than within architecture. The currently fashionable concept of a “critical” or “political” architecture as a supposed form of political activism must be repudiated as an implausible phantom.
Architecture as Cultural and Political Discourse
Routledge, 2016
This book is concerned with cultural and political discourses that affect the production of architecture. It examines how these discursive mechanisms and technologies combine to normalise and aestheticise everyday practices. It queries the means by which buildings are appropriated to give shape and form to political aspirations and values. Architecture is not overtly political. It does not coerce people to behave in certain ways. However, architecture is constructed within the same rules and practices whereby people and communities self-govern and regulate themselves to think and act in certain ways. This book seeks to examine these rules through various case studies, including the reconstructed Notre Dame Cathedral, the Nazi era Munich Königsplatz, the Auschwitz concentration camp and the Prora resort, Sydney's suburban race riots, and the Australian Immigration Detention Centre on Christmas Island.
Buildings as targets Comments about September 11 th have on several occasions proposed to relate this attack to a new type of conflicts characterized by their asymmetry, that is by the great difference of nature and of power existing between the parties involved: in this case, between a network of small groups and clandestine organizations on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a large state and the current military superpower. The question I want to address in this paper is what can be the relationship between this asymmetry and the choice of a landmark building as target. I will do so by drawing comparative examples from the history of wars, revolutions, and iconoclasm. Concentrating on the role of buildings does not mean downplaying or ignoring the role of human beings involved in such attacks as victims or survivors. It does imply, however, an assumption that buildings were not targeted solely as containers of human lives. Such an assumption cannot go unexamined. In the case of the World Trade Center, there is no doubt that a large number of casualties were part of the goal of the attack. The choice of timing makes this clear, as does the text of a fatwa by a Kuwaiti sheikh discovered in Kabul that justified the use of »modern methods« such as »crushing your plane into an important location that will cause your enemy to suffer colossal losses«. 1 Seen in this perspective, skyscrapers happen to be »natural« concentrators of large numbers of »enemies« and the main interest of colossal buildings as targets is to provide the possibility of inflicting »colossal losses«. 2 Meaningful structures
The Dark Side of Architecture. The Power Over Space and the Control of Society
space&FORM
Architecture goes along power. Power defines possible field of creation and materialization of architecture. This paper analyzes various aspects of relationship between architecture and power, and ponders social control as a central theme of architectural profession. From ancient history, through ages to contemporaneity architectural works were allowed to grow as long as they allowed powers to pursue their social and political agendas.
In India, architecture is not seen as a discipline possessing any serious transformative social agency or critique either by architects themselves or informed critics. The article attempts to interrogate this situation, tracing and situating the validity of architecture’s political claims, and offering possibilities through an increased engagement with architecture’s Other—the city