Architecture and Modernity : A Critique

129

of life was the aim of Bloch’s utopian vision. Since every form of being is fundamen-

tally incomplete, this notion of fullness always refers to the future.

Bloch’s conception of modernity is clearly counterpastoral, in that he ac-

knowledges the actual cracks and fissures that constitute the “hollow space” of

capitalism. He contrasts this image of reality with the pastoral idea of a homeland-to-

come. The images with which he invests this figure of Heimat, of a Zu-Hause-sein,

are very eloquent. In Spuren(1930), for instance, he recalls an evening that he spent

in the house of a friend:

A delightful circular movement could be felt between inside and out-

side, between appearance and depth, energy and surface. “Listen,” my

friend said, “how good it is to feel the house at work.” And you could

hear the peace and how everything fitted precisely with everything

else—and you feel a self-evidence in this trusty comradeship with

things that every healthy human being is familiar with, the joy of life

around you and the world charged with tao.^140

Although he stresses that what he is talking about here is no more than a momen-

tary experience, it is clear that for Bloch this image of harmony and solidarity

expresses the very essence of Heimat: a condition where things lose their strange-

ness, and where reconciliation and identity prevail between subjects and objects.

This has less to do with the rural context—Bloch was careful to contrast his idea of

Heimatwith the Nazi Blut und Boden ideology^141 —than with the feeling of oneness

conjured up by both the atmosphere and the hour of the day. However that may be,

Heimatremains a utopian category for Bloch; true dwelling, really feeling oneself at

home, remains reserved for the future. Dwelling is not so much rooted in the past; it

reaches out toward the future. It is true that one can discern elements in the past in

which a utopian desire for dwelling take on a concrete form. These elements should

be preserved: the memory of their utopian potential must not be forgotten, but

should be made productive for the designing of a future society. That is the pro-

grammatic intent of his philosophy, which remains thoroughly connected with his

emphasis on the utopian.

The Venice School, or the Diagnosis of Negative Thought

In using the term “Venice School,” I am referring to a group of historians and theo-

reticians who were assembled in Venice around the figure of Manfredo Tafuri

(1935–1994). Tafuri himself acquired an international reputation with the publication

in 1968 of his first important book, Teorie e storia dell’architettura, in which he de-

veloped a critique of the “operative criticism” practiced by authors such as Giedion

and Zevi. In 1973 Progetto e utopia, the most provocative and condensed statement

of his views on modern architecture, was published in book form. Some years later

128