the design process at which an architect is purely and simply occupied with archi-
tecture—with giving form to space.
In the few texts that Adorno wrote about architecture,^110 he does in fact link its
critical content with the degree to which it does justice to this autonomous, mimetic
moment. He argues, for example, that the matter-of-fact approach of functionalism
implies a correct understanding of the social situation, but states that its truth value
is primarily dependent on the way that it treats function mimetically. The danger is
not inconceivable that this mimetic element will be lost, so that the architecture does
not have any critical bite: when Mimesis an Funktionalitätis reduced to Funktiona-
litätpure and simple, every critical distance from the dominant social reality disap-
pears and functional architecture no longer plays anything but an affirmative role.^111
In functionalism Adorno recognizes the effects of the dialectics of the
Enlightenment. That movement, too, was characterized by an intertwining of pro-
gressive and regressive moments. By giving reason priority over myth, the Enlight-
enment aspired toward emancipation and liberation, but this very aspiration reverts
to myth when its goal is forgotten and “reason” is reduced to pure instrumental ra-
tionality. The same dialectics plays a part in functionalism: inasmuch as its aim was
to fulfill genuine “objective” human needs, one can only see it as a progressive mo-
ment, one, moreover, that contains a critique of a social situation whose whole ef-
fect is to deny these genuine needs; when, however, functionalism is integrated in
a social dynamic that employs “functionalism” as an end in itself, with an absence
of every reference to any goal beyond it, it represents a regressive position: “The an-
tinomies of Sachlichkeitconfirm the dialectic of enlightenment: That progress and re-
gression are entwined. The literal is barbaric. Totally objectified, by virtue of its
rigorous legality, the artwork becomes a mere fact and is annulled as art. The alter-
native that opens up in this crisis is: Either to leave art behind or to transform its very
concept.”^112 The latter alternative—the renunciation of every claim to be art—is pre-
cisely the charge that Adorno levels at functionalism in practice. This can clearly be
seen in “Functionalism Today,” an essay in which he is unsparing in his critique of
the renunciation of the autonomous moment. In his view, it is precisely this reduc-
tion that is responsible for the dullness and superficiality of so much postwar
architecture.
Today it is no longer functionalism that is at stake. Nor is there any longer any
dispute over the existence of an “autonomous moment” in architecture. The ques-
tion remains, however, of whether the critical content of architecture coincideswith
this autonomous moment. It is perhaps necessary to qualify Adorno’s claims on this
point. The autonomous moment in architecture certainly can be applied critically, but
the critical character is by no means inherent in the autonomous moment. In order
to genuinely take on the challenge of criticalarchitecture, the critical content cannot
purely and simply act as a noncommittal commentary that only concerns the pack-
aging of the building while not paying any heed to program or content. As Diane Ghi-
rardo points out, we should not be blind to the fact that the notion of architecture as
4
Architecture as Critique of Modernity