MASS APPEAL IN ARCHITECTURE
If architecture is a system of rhetorical formulas producing just those messages the
community of users has come to expect (seasoned with a judicious measure of the
unexpected), what then distinguishes it from various forms of mass culture? The notion
that architecture is a form of mass culture has become rather popular,^18 and as a
communicative operation directed toward large groups of people and confirming certain
widely subscribed to attitudes and ways of life while meeting their expectations, it could
certainly be called mass communication loosely, without bothering about any detailed
criteria.
But even under more careful consideration,^19 architectural objects seem to have
characteristics in common with the messages of mass communication. To mention a few:
- Architectural ‘discourse’ generally aims at mass appeal: it starts with accepted
premises, builds upon them well-known or readily acceptable ‘arguments’, and
thereby elicits a certain type of consent. (‘This proposition is to our liking; it is in most
respects something we are already familiar with, and the differences involved only
represent a welcome improvement or variation of some kind.’) - Architectural discourse is psychologically persuasive: with a gentle hand (even if one is
not aware of this as a form of manipulation) one is prompted to follow the
‘instructions’ implicit in the architectural message; functions are not only signified but
also promoted and induced, just as certain products and attitudes are promoted through
‘hidden persuasion’, sexual associations, etc. - Architectural discourse is experienced inattentively, in the same way in which we
experience the discourse of movies and television, the comics or advertising—not, that
is, in the way in which one is meant to experience works of art and other more
demanding messages, which call for concentration, absorption, wholehearted interest
in interpreting the message, interest in the intentions of the ‘addresser.’^20 - Architectural messages can never be interpreted in an aberrant way, and without the
‘addressee’ being aware of thereby perverting them. Most of us would have some
sense of being engaged in a perversion of the object if we were to use the Venus de
Milo for erotic purposes or religious vestments as dustcloths, but we use the cover of
an elevated roadway for getting out of the rain or hang laundry out to dry over a
railing and see no perversion in this. - Thus architecture fluctuates between being rather coercive, implying that you will live
in such and such a way with it, and rather indifferent, letting you use it as you see fit. - Architecture belongs to the realm of everyday life, just like pop music and most ready-
to-wear clothing, instead of being set apart like ‘serious’ music and high fashion. - Architecture is a business.^21 It is produced under economic conditions very similar to
the ones governing much of mass culture, and in this too differs from other forms of
culture. Painters may deal with galleries, and writers with publishers, but for the most
part that has to do with their livelihood and need not have anything to do with what
they find themselves painting and writing; the painter can always pursue painting
independently, perhaps while making a living in some other way, and the writer can
produce works for which there is no market, perhaps with no thought of having them
published, but the architect cannot be engaged in the practice of architecture without
Umberto Eco 187