Architecture and Modernity : A Critique
Architecture and Modernity : A Critique
Architecture and Modernity : A Critique
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
140<br />
141<br />
In Cacciari’s opinion, Benjamin uses this comparison with scientific rationality<br />
to show to what extent Kafka’s work is impregnated with the negative logic of the<br />
devaluation of all values. But even Benjamin does not take the final step by drawing<br />
the conclusions that should logically follow from his lucid perceptions. It is true that<br />
he exposes the essence of the Metropolis as a complex constellation of functions,<br />
interpretations, <strong>and</strong> machinations that regulate the entire system, including the domain<br />
of culture. But he does not succeed in grasping the function of the negative: he<br />
does not underst<strong>and</strong> that the Metropolis is founded on negation.<br />
It is difficult to avoid the feeling that Cacciari is carrying out a somewhat curious<br />
operation with his postulate of negative thought. Tomás Llorens points out that<br />
a certain petitio principii, a self-fulfilling premise, plays a role here:<br />
Cacciari seems to have set out to analyze the concept of metropolis as<br />
ideology—i.e. “as false consciousness”—<strong>and</strong> then, having found at its<br />
core the schema of “negative thought,” he concludes that there is no<br />
true alternative, <strong>and</strong> therefore places his own search for truth under the<br />
aegis of the same schema. There is an element of self-contradiction<br />
here which cannot but affect the conclusion drawn from the analysis. 172<br />
It would indeed seem as though Cacciari is using his analysis of negative thought to<br />
provide arguments for a monolithic vision of modernity. <strong>Modernity</strong>—inseparably<br />
linked as it is with capitalist civilization—is described in his work as a phenomenon<br />
whose course is not in any way meaningfully affected by individual contributions in<br />
the form of theoretical or artistic currents. Cacciari seems to treat every intellectual<br />
interpretation, no matter how progressive, as in the end serving the evolution of a society<br />
whose less acceptable aspects it had set out to criticize. Less progressive theories<br />
are dismissed by him as “nostalgic” or “beside the point.” Apparently he<br />
excludes the possibility that any form of critical thought could emerge that would do<br />
anything other than confirm the system it claims to condemn.<br />
And yet this is not an adequate picture of Cacciari’s work. In his concrete<br />
analyses he detects positions <strong>and</strong> strategies that do not entirely fit into a monolithic<br />
scheme like this. In the epilogue to <strong>Architecture</strong> <strong>and</strong> Nihilism, for instance, he distinguishes<br />
three possible ways of dealing with the condition of “nihilism fulfilled”<br />
that is his definition of modernity. In the first instance there is the absurd position of<br />
those who still aim at distilling a “culture” out of this nihilism—a position that he discerns<br />
in the nostalgic pathos of the Werkbund that remains determined to dress up<br />
the products of generalized rootlessness with quality <strong>and</strong> value. In the second instance<br />
there are those who aim to express the universal mobilization of the epoch in<br />
a symbol: while the specific character of the different places of the world disappears<br />
as the result of the leveling influence of modernity, they treat the whole world as a<br />
single specific place. This is typical, for instance, of the work of Paul Scheerbart or<br />
Bruno Taut in his expressionist phase. Finally, there are people like Loos who belong