INTRODUCTION
This volume brings together for the first time a series of well-known essays on
architecture by key thinkers of the twentieth century supported by a number of hitherto
lesser known pieces, some of which have not previously appeared in English. In so doing
the volume attempts to show that there is a consistent body of critical thought on
architecture that exists outside of mainstream architectural discourse; such a body, it is
argued, offers an effective means of rethinking architectural theory.
It is perhaps no coincidence that this volume appears at the end of the twentieth
century, a period that seems to be marked by a moment of recuperation. Whereas the
twentieth century began on a note of optimism with visions of a futuristic utopia, it ends
on a note of reflection. Whereas it opened with slogans such as ‘Towards a New
Architecture’, it closes with a ‘rethinking’ of architecture. This is in line with a general
tendency that Fredric Jameson has detected within culture at large which he has described
as an ‘inverted millenarianism’.^1 Premonitions of the future, typical of traditional
millenarianism, have been replaced by analysis of the past, and by reflection, in
particular, on the collapse of various concepts on which contemporary society has been
grounded. In this ‘inverted millenarianism’ attention is directed not forwards, but
backwards. It is as though the very foundations of contemporary culture have themselves
been undermined. Culture is going through a crisis—‘a crisis’, as Jürgen Habermas
describes it, ‘of legitimation’—a crisis that might loosely be termed ‘post-modernity’.
This situation is particularly evident in architecture. One of the themes that has
dominated recent discussion about architecture at the end of the twentieth century and
that informs many of the essays in this collection is the collapse of confidence in the
Modern Movement. Modernism has been called into question. The ‘soulless container
architecture’ of much contemporary construction is universally despised, yet not all
would agree as to what should be the alternative. Habermas detects two broad strains that
appear as polar opposites but that share a common platform in their opposition to
modernism as it has evolved. On the one hand, as Habermas notes, there are those who
champion a historical revivalism, a Neo-Historicism, which claims to reject outright all
tenets of modernism; similarly there are those who espouse a postmodern stage-set
architecture, which likewise rejects modernism while nonetheless remaining within its
orbit. On the other hand, there are those who seek to rework and reinvigorate the Modern
Movement, and who would support a critical continuation of modernism. Hal Foster has
described the two radically different strains of this curious alliance as a ‘postmodernism
of reaction’ and a ‘postmodernism of resistance’.^2 The former, according to Foster,
‘repudiates’ modernism and seeks refuge in the forms of the past. The latter remains
committed to the project of modernism and seeks to rework it through a process of
critical re-evaluation.
Within the realm of music, Theodor Adorno has noted, ‘Logically, the ageing of
modern music should not drive composers back to obsolete forms, but should lead them