125When architecture develops without any consideration of the social conditions
within which it operates, it is inevitable that the “purity” it aims for is no more than
an illusion. In the end this “purity” is no more than an alibi for a lack of imagination.
Dualism, however, is also typical of this evolution, so that purely functional architec-
ture still has a counterpart—in the exuberant expressionism of Bruno Taut and
others. Bloch refers to Vitruvius, who taught that the three principles of archi-
tecture—utilitas, firmitas, venustas—should converge in the design. Here, however,
they no longer cohere: utilitasand firmitasare aspects of functionalism, while venus-
tasis allotted to expressionism, with the result that the essence of architecture is
glossed over. Given the circumstances, however, this state of affairs is inevitable:
“Precisely because [architecture], far more than the other pictorial arts, is and re-
mains a social creation, it cannot blossom at all in the hollow space of late capitalism.
Only the beginnings of another society will make genuine architecture possible
again, one both constructively and ornamentally permeated on the basis of its own
artistic aspiration.”^129
In 1965, when Bloch, together with Adorno, was invited by the Deutsche
Werkbund to contribute to a seminar on “Bildung durch Gestalt” (Education by De-
sign), he again returned to these arguments. His explicit question to the partici-
pants—whom, one may assume, were convinced functionalists—was whether the
“honesty” that was the aim of functionalist architecture made any sense in a social
situation that was by no means characterized by honesty: “The question remains
unanswered as to whether the social forms that provided the context for the false
enchantment of the Gründerzeithas in fact become that much more honest;
whether the unornamented honesty of pure functional form might not itself turn out
to be a fig leaf behind which a lack of honesty in the remaining relations lies
concealed.”^130
It is possible that, because the social situation has evolved in the contrary di-
rection, architecture cannot succeed in creating genuinely humane environments.
Bloch does not doubt the integrity of the founders of functionalism or, for that mat-
ter, the legitimacy of their protest against nineteenth-century architecture with its or-
nament and kitsch; however, he considers that social developments have by now
made this criticism superfluous, while the ruling class continues to exploit it for their
own ends: “In Maria Stuartwe read the words ‘Count, the death of Mortimer came
not untimely.’ Something similar could be said, mutatis mutandis,of the death of or-
nament, which continues to be celebrated, and of the lack of fantasy, still being arti-
ficially produced.”^131 For this reason, Bloch makes a case for a revival of fantasy in
architecture. He draws a comparison between the current situation in architecture
“which calls for wings,” and in painting and sculpture “that should have shoes of
lead.”^132 This dualism, according to Bloch, has to be transcended. The functionalist
architecture that has got rid of the legacy of the nineteenth century should now serve
as a springboard for an architecture that could serve as Stadtkronefor all the arts.124