Research Proposal Uoa.pdf

Research Proposal

Discursive Architecture. The Master Architect, The Legendary School, The Playful Hysteric, The Transgressive Analyst (working title). Despite the fact that all creation is necessarily a combination, society, by virtue of the old romantic myth of “inspiration” cannot stand being told so (Barthes, 1971).

General research area/hypothesis/literature/methods/previous work Lacan argues that a discourse is a “necessary structure” that “subsists in certain fundamental relations” and affects our speech, actions, behaviour in their totality (Bracher et al., 1994). Lacan insists that there are only four kinds of discourse, the discourse of the Master, the University, the Hysteric, the Analyst (Lacan, 1969-1970). This research proposal will attempt to demonstrate that these four discursive schemas can be implemented to analyse the theoretical and material output of F.L. Wright, the Bauhaus, W. Alsop, and B. Tschumi. The Lacanian approach has the merit that it does not exclude the subject whose consideration is vital for architecture. Additionally, this framework takes into account aspects which are ignored by other theories such as desire, jouissance, language, alienation, castration, fantasy to mention but few. Therefore, a fuller understanding of the architectural work of these four figures will be attained. Answers will be sought to the following questions: Is there a parallel between each discourse and type of architect, school? How does belonging to a certain discourse affects design decisions? Can general conclusions be drawn from such a correspondence? How is desire manifested in each discourse and what architectural expression does it take? The correlation between architecture and psychoanalysis seems now indisputable. Works such as “Space and Psyche” (Danze et al, 2012), “Psychoanalysis and Architecture” (Winer et al, 2006),” Architecture and Psychoanalysis: Fantasy and Construction” (Sideris, 2013) to mention but few confirm this assertion. Even works on architecture such as “The ABC’s of the bauhaus and design theory” (Lupton et al, 1993) include chapters that explore the subject from a psychoanalytic perspective. Lacan’s discursive system has been used in the past to interpret social, political phenomena and analyse works of art. Suffice here to mention Žižek’s approach to Hegelian philosophy in his work “The Most Sublime Hysteric: Hegel with Lacan” (Žižek, 2014). It is the first time, however, that the Lacanian theory of the four discourses is employed in the architectural field in the belief that it will provide a new insight into the design processes of four figures that have virtually defined the current form of the discipline of architecture. My intention is to investigate this hypothesis by relying heavily on existing literature (works of architectural historians, interviews of the aforementioned architects, seminars/interviews/ècrits by Lacan, works of Lacanian theory commentators, conferences

etc.). I will have to draw analogies from similar cases where this theory was applied. If required a survey will also be conducted. My fifth-year dissertation dealt with the varied meanings that the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities ascribe to the Buffer Zone that still divides them. The theoretical framework applied was that of architectural semiotics, the methodology of D. Preziosi in particular. Therefore, I possessed the theoretical background that somewhat alleviated my transition to the baroque, poetic, often inaccessible work of Lacan. Lacan was heavily influenced by Saussure’s theory of semiotics, a fact most apparent in his four discursive schemata. Four elements in each discourse In seminar XVII Lacan demonstrates that the four different discourses can be produced by the 90 degree clockwise “revolution” of the elements of the first discourse (Lacan, 19691970). The four crucial elements that revolve to generate the different discourses are the Master Signifier, the system of Knowledge, the object petit a, and the alienated, divided Subject. Master Signifier According to him, at the very beginning all signifiers have nearly equal status since they operate on a system of differences (ibid). A scattered, unstructured conglomeration of such signifiers is transubstantiated into a rational structure because of an irrational element, the Master Signifier which has no signified and which is essentially a scrap, the pure contingency and stupidity of the Real (Žižek,2014). Knowledge It is the linguistically articulated system of knowledge. Knowledge is essential for the constitution of the subject and its identity formation. Object petit a The letter (a) stands for the first letter of the word autre, the small other (Lacan, 1990). The object petit a is the object cause of desire, not the object of desire (Glowinski et al, 2001). Why is it that the symbolic mechanism should be attached to this piece of Real (a)? Lacan claims that the symbolic field is always crippled, porous, arranged around some impossibility (Žižek, 1991). The function of this little piece of Real (neither signifier, nor signified) is precisely, according to Žižek, “to fill out the place of this void that gapes in the very heart of the symbolic” (ibid). Object petit a is the remainder of the process of constitution of a being as a speaking being. It is through (a) that the split by language Subject may obtain some phantasmatic sense of fulfilment (Fink,1995). Divided Subject The intervention of language in the life of human beings has monumental consequences. The Subject becomes castrated, alienated (Fink, 1995). It is deprived of being because it has been absorbed by the Other, the Symbolic Order (ibid). The subject is the battleground where

incompatible signifiers clash (Bracher et al, 1994). The split is manifested in all those occasions where human beings fail to grasp themselves (ibid). The Master’s Discourse Each discourse borrows its name from the value occupying the position of the Agent. The primary discourse is the discourse of the Master. The Master Signifier here addresses the Slave- Lacan was influenced by the Hegelian Master/Slave dialectic- who occupies the position of the Other (Fink, 1995). The Slave in serving the Master acquires Knowledge while the Master barely lifts a finger (Lacan, 19691970). At the very moment when the Master Signifier intervenes in a system of pre-existing signifiers the split Subject emerges at the position of Truth (Bracher et al, 1994). Throughout this process there is always something that is lost, some disturbing surplus(a) (ibid). This plusde- jouir is suppressed under the bar (ibid). It is placed at the Slave’s side therefore the Master is oblivious of his/her object cause of desire(ibid). The University Discourse By revolving the positions in the discourse of the Master by an anticlockwise quarter turn the discourse of the University is produced. The position of mastery is occupied here by Knowledge (Lacan, 1969-1970). It is of a consistent, and systematic nature, a Knowledge that can be verified and justified (ibid). The (a) is here in a position of more or less tolerable exploitation (ibid). The surplus value (a) is the student who fills the hole and produces the split Subject at the bottom right position (ibid). The University discourse transforms the student into a subject by submitting it to the workings of Knowledge (Žižek, 1991). At the position of Truth there is the pure and simple commandment of the Master-keep on knowing-therefore any claim of or invocation for Truth is immediately crushed (Lacan, 1969-1970). The Master Signifier insidiously contrives to bring about afresh the order of the Master (ibid). The Hysteric’s Discourse This discourse implies a restitution of the values of Truth and Knowledge that hysteria generates and promotes (Wajcman, 2018). In the Hysteric’s discourse the split Subject occupies the prominent position of the Agent and her symptom is blatantly exposed (Bracher et al, 1994). The hysteric addresses the Other and poses a question. By activating the battery of signifiers knowledge is generated (Žižek, 1989). When the Other answers the question, the object of the Other’s statement is dropped as object petit a (Wajcman, 2018). In 1973 Lacan argues that the scientific discourse is similar to the Hysteric’s discourse and by 1975 he unreservedly admits that they coincide (Fink, 1995).

The Analyst’s Discourse The Analyst’s discourse completes the quarter circle displacements. The Analyst occupies the position of agency and represents what is rejected by the discourse, object petit a (Lacan, 1969-1970). The Analyst propels the barred Subject occupying the place of Other to produce those signifiers that constitute its unconscious (Bracher, 1994). Thus, the split is verbalised or otherwise externalised (parapraxes) (Fink, 1995). The Analyst in this discourse has Knowledge on his/her side (Lacan, 1969-1970). What is expected of him/her is to make this Knowledge function in terms of Truth (ibid). The analytic process incubates another discourse of the Master which, however, differs qualitatively since the Master Signifiers are produced by the subject and they are not externally imposed (Bracher, 1994). Creative Interpretation The Master Architect He is described by both critics and admirers as egotistical, intolerant, uncooperative, arrogant (Meehan, 1984). He scorns the mediocre, he abhors red tape, he pays no attention to details, he gets exasperated with the incompetent (ibid). He is an acknowledged authority in architecture but knows little about anything else to the point of embarrassment (ibid). F. L. Wright’s exceptional charisma, his contempt for others, his moral blindness epitomise the Master’s discourse. The serfs in this discourse are his apprentices at the Taliesin Fellowship, Wisconsin (1931). The students have to pay tuition fees and are expected to help around the institution (milking the cows, cultivate the land, chop wood, keep the boiler going etc.) (Winer et al, 2006). Critics suggest that with the Fellowship Wright not only gets cheap labour but also gets labourers to pay him for the privilege of slaving away for him (ibid). Eventually those completing the course practice architecture. However, the vast majority of them become second rate clones of the Master, mimicking his style, since in the Fellowship they only had to produce the object cause of his desire (ibid). The divided Subject in this discourse is the architect who elaborately conceals his weakness. J.W. Anderson suggests that human beings have two selves (ibid); An exalted self, governed by feelings of grandeur, and a denigrated self, doubtful, apprehensive of failure (ibid). The author argues that Wright during his lifetime seeks to live up to the idealised image he has for himself and at the same time sidestep the utter disappointment that his surrender to his denigrated self would engender (ibid). The Legendary University Lacan identifies the University discourse not only with education but also with the socialist regime in Russia and every other revolutionary venture (Lacan, 1969-1970). In order to demonstrate that the Bauhaus (1919-1933) exemplifies this discourse it is necessary to establish how the revolutionary ideology pervaded the school.

In April 1919 when Gropius issues the Bauhaus Manifesto the class struggle in Germany is keenly felt (Davis, 2010). In a Marxist language Gropius calls for the creation of a classless guild where the barrier between craftsmen and artists will be completely subdued (ibid). The Bauhaus Manifesto does not, however, reflect the democratic aspirations of the era. The director of the school is provided with extensive powers and the right of the faculty to vote is soon discarded (Bayer et al, 1938). This attests to Lacan’s remark that the University discourse promotes the Master’s discourse. The irreconcilable oppositions between capital and labour, right and left, conservativism and progress are transferred in the field of design at the Bauhaus (Davis, 2010). After all, the antagonism between fine and applied art, high art and practicality, bespoke design and standardisation is much easier to resolve (ibid). Despite Bauhaus exemplifying radical thinking, the reverence of its teachers to the capital Other, to tradition is explicitly manifested. Kandinsky, for instance, attempts to establish a link to the long Western tradition of geometry and colour studies (Lupton et al, 1993). The Playful Hysteric Will Alsop creates iconic buildings through a process that actively engages the affected local communities (Porter, 2011). When the intensive consultation process begins, he does not address the community as the master architect, the ultimate form giver. He exposes instead his division as a Subject, a Subject which consists of “a something” and “a nothing” (Žižek, 2016). He is the artist(something) who when initiating a project offloads himself of precedents, ideas etc.(nothing) (Porter, 2011). The Other in this schema is the community that occupies the position of Knowledge. Alsop readily admits that the local people’s contribution represents 70% of the whole effort (Powell, 2001). The Knowledge produced in the beginning is “sacrificial” (Porter, 2011). The hysterical architect has (a) on his side, therefore he is unwilling to be satisfied by the initial responses which he consequently revises (ibid). If (a) occupies the position of Truth and if it is dropped as lacking, then what is the Hysteric’s Truth? Tom Porter (ibid) argues that Alsop seeks to uncover the intangible qualities of the city which escape definition, description, quantification. Since these qualities are elusive and since the Hysteric prefers to experience desire as unsatisfied, Alsop relentlessly perseveres in his queries. Each new project is the riddle that the architect poses to the Other and demands a solution. The Transgressive Analyst In the discourse of the Analyst the architect occupies interchangeably the position of the Agent and that of the Other (Migayrou, 2014). Tschumi admits that in the building process he assumes either the role of the Agent since he conceives and designs buildings or that of the patient/split Subject because the building desires him and needs him for its prolongation (ibid).

In the Analyst’s discourse existing signifiers are flouted and the split Subject is compelled to produce new ones. Tschumi introduces the term deconstruction, vector, movement etc. (ibid). The Agent has in this discourse knowledge on their side and the Analyst-architect is expected to make this knowledge work in terms of Truth. Knowledge in the position of Truth is myth Lacan insists (Lacan, 1969-1970). Myth accentuates relationships and Truth arises in the juxtaposition of concepts (ibid). Tschumi opposes space-event, private-public, vectorenvelope, context-content-concept etc. (Walker, 2006). In “Architecture and Disjunction” the architect differentiates between the pleasure of the space, that of its immediate experience, and the pleasure of the concept, the one derived from the ingenious articulation of architectural ideas (Tschumi, 1996). The conflict between the two is resolved at a point of tangency, the ROTten point (ibid). This point is the object petit a in this discourse since it is the object cause of desire. In Marxism Lacan identifies surplus value with object a (Lacan, 1969-1970). Tschumi asserts that architecture is pure surplus value with no exchange value (Tschumi, 1996). This conviction elucidates the architect’s attempts at La Villette and elsewhere to produce structures that resist programmatic definition. Sources The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XVII: Psychoanalysis Upside Down/The Reverse Side of Psychoanalysis (1969-1970). This is a transcription of Lacan’s yearlong seminar where he analyses in detail his theory of the four discourses. This work is fraught with difficulty for the uninitiated. Apart from references to an extensive literature that the reader must be familiar with, including Freud, Hegel, Marx, Lacan’s style is highly poetic. This work is of great value, nonetheless, because Lacan, apart from entrenching his theory, provides for each schema concrete examples. Lacanian Theory of Discourse Subject Structure and Society (Bracher et al,1994). This is a collection of essays that attempts to explicate the transformative effects of the Lacanian theory of discourse. Not only are the four schemata diligently analysed, but also the authors demonstrate first how these elaborations affect the psychoanalytic act and secondly how they apply to elucidate contemporary social and cultural phenomena. Thus, Lacan’s theory is proved to be an invaluable tool rather than an outmoded construct, pure theory, dead letter. The Lacanian Subject Between Language and Jouissance (Fink, 1995). This work provides a comprehensive introduction to Lacanian theory and terminology for the uninitiated. Any other lay attempt to delve into Lacan’s work unsystematically is bound to fail, since, amongst else, his theories constantly evolve and are at times contradictory. This book successfully tackles similar setbacks. For the initiated on the other hand, it provides an overview of Lacan’s work and it’s the first book in English that demonstrates a thorough

understanding of psychoanalytic theory since its author is one of the few American practitioners to have undergone full training with Lacan’s school in Paris. The Hysteric’s Discourse (Wajcman,2018). The current article analyses hysteria and determines its decisive role in the development of psychoanalysis and art. According to the author, Lacan has provided a short definition of hysteria as the state where a localised body function is distraught. In his 1969-1970 seminar not only does Lacan return to the truth of hysteria, but also establishes the Hysteric’s discourse. The author of this article schematically analyses the three other discourses and demonstrates that the Hysteric’s discourse pertains to the essence of every speaking being. Psychoanalysis and Architecture (Winer et al, 2006). This is a collection of essays that presents a variety of modern perspectives on psychoanalysis, architecture, and their interrelationship. It is through this work that the intuition of their association is confirmed. Three essays on F. L. Wright are included which analyse his personality and his work. An essay on Bauhaus is a concise work on the history of the school and its unique pedagogy. The Master Architect Conversations with Frank Lloyd Wright (Meehan,1984). Eighteen previously unpublished conversations of Wright with renowned personalities are included here. What makes this work unique is that through these talks his portrait is sketched. His inconsistencies, his contradictions, his relationship with his apprentices strongly suggest that Wright exemplifies the discourse of the Master. The ABC’s of the Bauhaus and design theory (Lupton et al, 1993). In 1923 Kandinsky proposes a universal correspondence between elementary colours and shapes. This concept kindled a series of essays on the Bauhaus and its design theory. Instead of sanctifying the movement and its initiators, a sober analysis of both its accomplishments and failures is provided. The most important contribution of this work, however, is that the Bauhaus phenomenon and its influential history are addressed by eminent intellectuals of varied disciplines (psychoanalysis included) providing thus a multifaceted approach. Will Alsop -The Noise (Porter,2011). This volume illuminates the unique design process of one of the most famous contemporary architects. Alsop believes that decisions affecting the lives of users can and should be taken after consultation. This method proves creative as the public ingeniously contributes ideas. Alsop’s work is a proof that taking the dreams and aspirations of the public into account can produce the most exciting outcomes. Bernard Tschumi Architecture: concept and notation (Migayrou, 2014) This is a comprehensive approach to the theoretical undertakings and built projects of the architect. The historical, architectural, and ideological context that led him to question the givens of the profession and respond with solid theoretical models is investigated. The volume also contains a series of yet unpublished designs accompanied by plans, sketches, and models.

Tschumi on Architecture Conversations with Enrique Walker (Walker, 2006). This book contains a series of ten conversations between B. Tschumi and critic Enrique Walker that developed intermittently over a period of six years. These interviews provide much desired additional information to that of the previous volume. Projects and their theoretical framework are analysed in depth by the architect in his responses to pertinent questions. Both books corroborated the idea that Tschumi conceptualises and practices architecture from the vantage discursive point of the Analyst. Reference List Barthes, R. (1971) Sade Fourier Loyola. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bayer, H., Gropius, I., Gropius, W. (eds.) (1938) Bauhaus 1919-1928. New York: Museum of Modern Art Bracher, M., Alcorn, M.W., Jr., Corthell, R. J., Massardier-Kenney, F.(eds.) (1994) Lacanian Theory of Discourse Subject Structure and Society. New York and London: New York University Press. Danze, E., Sonnemberg, S. (eds.) (2012) Space and Psyche. Canada: Friesens Corporation, Ltd. Davis, B. (2010) The Bauhaus in History. [online] Available from: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/davis/bauhaus1-28-10.asp [Accessed 6 May 2018]. Fink, B. (1995) The Lacanian Subject Between Language and Jouissance. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Glowinski, H., Marks, Z.M., Murphy, S. (eds.) (2001) A Compendium of Lacanian Terms. London: Free Association Books. Lacan, J. (1969-1970) The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XVII: Psychoanalysis Upside Down/The Reverse Side of Psychoanalysis. [online] Available from: https://www.valas.fr/IMG/pdf/THE-SEMINAR-OF-JACQUES-LACANXVII_l_envers_de_la_P.pdf [Accessed 5 May 2018]. Lacan, J. (1990) TELEVISION A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment. New York, London: WW Norton & Company. Lupton, E., Miller, J.A. (eds.) (1993) The ABC’s of the Bauhaus and design theory. United Kingdom: Thames & Hudson Ltd. Meehan, P.J. (ed.) (1984) The Master Architect Conversations with Frank Lloyd Wright. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Migayrou, F. (ed.) (2014) Bernard Tschumi Architecture: concept and notation. Paris: Editions Centre Pompidou. Porter, T. (2011) Will Alsop -The Noise. Abingdon: Routledge.

Powell, K. (2001) Will Alsop Book 1. London: Laurence King Publishing. Sideris, N. (2013) Architecture and Psychoanalysis: Fantasy and Construction. [Kindle] Athens:Futura. Tschumi, B. (1996) Architecture and Disjunction. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Wajcman, G. The hysteric’s Discourse. [online] http://www.lacan.com/hystericdiscf.htm [Accessed 5 May 2018].

Available

from:

Walker, E. (2006) Tschumi on Architecture Conversations with Enrique Walker. New York: The Monacelli Press, Inc. Winer, J.A., Anderson, J.W., Danze, E. A. (eds.) (2006) Psychoanalysis and Architecture. New York: Mental Health Resources. Žižek, S. (1989) The Sublime Object of Ideology. [online] London, New York: Verso Available from : https://altexploit.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/slavoj-zizek-the-sublime-object-ofideology-second-edition-the-essential-zizek-2009.pdf [Accessed 5 May 2018]. Žižek, S. (1991) Looking Awry An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Žižek, S. (2014) The Most Sublime Hysteric Hegel With Lacan. [online] Cambridge: Polity Press Available from: https://leseprobe.buch.de/images-adb/10/93/1093f3c7-c375-4def-84bb602ee3c5fe34.pdf [Accessed 5 May 2018]. Žižek, S. (2016) Pervert’s guide to Europe. [lecture][online] Available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkyq9l8Pkw [Accessed 6 May 2018].

from: