This text explores Giorgio Agamben’s archaeological critique of modern architecture, positing that its current crisis stems from the fundamental separation between the act of building (construction) and the experience of living (dwelling). By distinguishing between the physical house (aedes) and the socio-legal home (domus), and analyzing threshold concepts like the door and the Roman pomerium, the analysis argues for a new architectural practice.
This practice would use archaeology not to study the past, but to recover its “missed opportunities,” thereby re-centering architecture on the profound challenge of creating spaces where genuine human dwelling is once again possible.
The Role of Archaeology in Understanding Architecture
Agamben suggests that archaeological research, particularly over the last thirty years, offers a unique perspective on architecture. Archaeology is presented not as a study of the past separate from the present, but as a means to understand the present. This approach is seen as crucial today, especially when the future is designed to obscure understanding. The method of archaeology is closely tied to history, maintaining a connection with an unplaceable present.
Defining Archaeology and its Relation to History
Archaeology is defined as the gap between the emergence of a phenomenon and the tradition of knowledge that explains it. The speaker references prehistory as an example, noting the idea that there is more history in historical research. The distinction between historical research and archaeology lies in not forgetting this gap between transmitted knowledge and the phenomenon’s origin. This perspective is essential for understanding reflections on architecture.
The Distinction Between House and Dwelling
A critical point is made about the Western tendency to conflate “house” and “dwelling.” The Latin term “domus” refers to the house as a social space, the place of the family and its legal/social relations. In contrast, the Latin “aedes” refers to the building itself. While they can coincide, “domus” implies being within a specific legal and social context, not just a physical structure.
Construction and Dwelling as Conditions for Architecture
The relationship between construction and dwelling is not as straightforward as it is often assumed. The speaker references Heidegger’s idea that “to dwell” is the fundamental condition for building. Building derives its meaning from dwelling, and dwelling finds its sense in building. This interrelation suggests that architecture is an attempt to hold these two meanings together.
The Crisis of Modern Architecture and the Modern Condition
The speaker posits that modern architecture’s crisis stems from the problematic unity between dwelling and building. This disconnect, particularly in modern architecture since the 19th century, signifies an inability of modern humans and architects to truly dwell. This rupture in the relationship between art, construction, and society explains why, as architectural faculties emerged, people lost the capacity to build and dwell in their homes, feeling disconnected.
Architecture as a “Disabling Profession”
Architecture is characterized as a “disabling profession” that monopolizes an activity previously shared by everyone. By organizing and centralizing this capability, architecture can lead to a loss of individual capacity. This detachment from the natural ability to build and dwell contributes to the problem of architecture in modern society.
The Case of the Campus Project: Impossible Dwelling
The example of a campus project designed by architects is used to illustrate the problem of designing buildings where dwelling is impossible. Despite the architects’ intentions, the buildings failed to create a sense of “home.” This raises questions about how architects, even with good intentions, can create environments that preclude true dwelling.
The Door as a Threshold: Construction and Dwelling
The door is examined as a crucial architectural element that signifies the threshold between construction and dwelling. The word “door” itself carries multiple meanings, including an opening, a passage, and a frame that closes and separates. The door’s ability to be both open and closed highlights its role in mediating the separation between inside and outside, construction and dwelling.
The “Pomerium” and the Foundation of Cities
The concept of the “pomerium,” a sacred boundary for city foundation, is discussed as a significant archeological element. This circular furrow, where earth from the founding territory was placed, served as a communication link between the past and present, and the living and the dead. The “pomerium” represents an architectural act that binds different dimensions of existence and time.
The Past as a Source of Possibility for Architecture
Agamben argues that contemporary architecture should look to the past not just for historical precedent, but as a source of possibility. The past represents “missed opportunities” that can inform present and future projects. Engaging with the past allows architects to understand what could have been, and thereby create new possibilities for dwelling and building.
Rethinking Architecture and Dwelling in the Present
The lecture concludes by emphasizing the need to place the concept of the “pomerium” at the center of architectural thought. This requires a reorientation of architecture towards the past, not as a mere historical exercise, but as a way to identify and create spaces for dwelling. This approach acknowledges the complex relationship between building and dwelling as fundamental to architectural practice.
The Role of the Architect in Education and Ecology
The speaker addresses the question of the architect’s role in educating society about dwelling and ecological responsibility. Architects have a potential role in teaching people how to inhabit spaces, both new and inherited, and to imbue them with meaning. This responsibility extends to understanding ecology as the science of life on Earth, integrating it into architectural practice.
Dwelling as a Process of Becoming
The final reflections touch upon the idea of dwelling not just as occupying space, but as a process of becoming. This involves a dynamic relationship between having and being, where dwelling signifies creating, conserving, and intensifying modes of existence. This perspective highlights the ethical implications of dwelling and its connection to human existence.
