53, “Reflections in a Mirror,” which discusses positions developed outside of and in
opposition to the modern movement. Chapter 4, “Architecture as Critique of Moder-
nity,” can be considered the synthesis, in which reconsiderations of thesis and an-
tithesis, combined with other material, lead to a more balanced answer on the
problem stated in the beginning. The synthesis aimed at, however, is by no means a
completely integrated or definitive outlook on the relationship between architecture
and modernity, but rather a provisional formulation of a complex and multilayered un-
derstanding of that intricate relationship.
Second, the book is also meant to be read as an introduction for architectural
students to the discourse of critical theory. The subchapters on Benjamin, Bloch, and
Adorno can be studied independently from the rest. It is my hope that the subchap-
ter on the Venice School will fill a similar role and facilitate access to texts that are
renowned for their difficulty.
I chose an approach that links a broadly conceived theme—the relation be-
tween architecture, modernity, and dwelling—to a detailed discussion of specific
case studies. This approach implies that the book’s coverage may be neither repre-
sentative nor complete. Nevertheless for me the decisive consideration was that
only an in-depth treatment of specific cases can really provide a thorough under-
standing of the issues at hand. The book therefore is not exhaustive in its discussions
of relevant authors and architects. Major personalities such as Le Corbusier and Mies
van der Rohe will only appear in a casual way. There are nevertheless good reasons
for the choices that were made.
Apart from the first chapter, which refers to a whole range of authors, the
other chapters are mostly built around some key figures. The second chapter fo-
cuses on Sigfried Giedion and Ernst May. Giedion is chosen first of all because the
author of Space, Time and Architecture (1941) can be considered the ghostwriter of
the modern movement. As secretary to CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architec-
ture Moderne) he was involved with modern architecture on a personal level, know-
ing all the protagonists and interacting with them on a regular basis. It was partly due
to his work that the movement was seen as a whole, because in his writings he
brought its different tendencies together under the banner of the new space-time
concept. Dealing with Ernst May and Das Neue Frankfurt brings complementary is-
sues into the discussion: modern architecture’s social aims, its involvement with
housing, and its quest for a new lifestyle.^3 Frankfurt, where May and his team built
some 15,000 housing units between 1925 and 1930, was the scene of one of the
most successful achievements that the still youthful modern movement could claim
to its credit. It was because of this that the second CIAM congress, focusing on the
theme of the Existenzminimum, was organized in Frankfurt in 1929.
Together these two cases give a good picture of the notions and approaches
that were typical of the discourse of modern architecture in its initial phase. They
show the ambiguities of a position that wants to face the challenge of modernity by
lining up with the avant-garde in art and literature while at the same time clinging to4