259bien sûr, la souffrance due à la langue. On n’habite la mégapole qu’autant qu’on la désigne
inhabitable. Sinon, on y est seulement domicilié.” (L’inhumain, p. 212.)
7 Lyotard, ibid., in an explicit reference to Adorno.
8 Sigmund Freud, “The Uncanny’’ (1919), in Freud, Art and Literature,The Pelican Freud Li-
brary, vol. 14 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985), pp. 335–376; translated from “Das un-
heimliche,” in Freud, Gesammelte Werke, vol. 12 (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1947), pp. 229–268.
See also Anthony Vidler, introduction to The Architectural Uncanny: Essays in the Modern
Unhomely(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), pp. 3–14.
9 Christian Norberg-Schulz, The Concept of Dwelling (New York: Electa/Rizzoli, 1985).
10 Loos might be right insofar as that it is not correct for architecture to deliberately posit the
unheimlicheas its theme. I am afraid that an architecture explicitly set up to generate un-
canny effects often overshoots its mark. For everyday life tends to neutralize any such ef-
fect by declaring it the result of a would-be “originality” of the architect and thus ignoring
its possibly disturbing influence. Such a gesture relegates such intended “deconstructive”
architecture to a reservation of recognized art and deprives it of any genuine social impact.
This could, for instance, be the fate of Libeskind’s museum, if it were not for the congru-
ency that exists between its program and its form. Since it is a museum, one might expect
that everyday reflexes would weaken and that visitors would be open toward new and un-
known experiences.
11 Theodor W. Adorno, “Functionalism Today,” Oppositions, no. 17 (1979), p. 41; translated
from “Funktionalismus heute,” in Adorno, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 10, pt. 1 (Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp, 1977), p. 395: “Schönheit heute hat kein anderes Mass als die Tiefe in der die
Gebilde die Widersprüche austragen, die sie durchfuhren und die sie bewältigen einzig, in
dem sie ihnen folgen, nicht, indem sie sie verdecken.”258