Architecture and Modernity : A Critique

158
is entirely free of oppression and which they have full control of. By pressing a button
they can adjust the temperature, the degree of humidity, the density of smells,
and the intensity of light; with a few simple operations they can change the shape of
a room and decide whether it is to be closed or open. They have a choice between a
large number of “atmospheres” (light or dark, warm or cool, stiflingly small or frighteningly
large) that can constantly be altered or manipulated. There are specific areas
for erotic games, for experiments in filmmaking or radio, and for scientific tests;
there are other areas set aside for seclusion and rest. New Babylon is a dynamic
labyrinth that is continually being restructured by the spontaneity and creativity of its
inhabitants. These people lead a nomadic existence based on a continual rejection of
convention and any form of permanence: “The sectors change through all the activities
within them, they are constantly evolving in form and atmosphere. Nobody
therefore will ever be able to return to a place that he visited previously, nobody will
ever recognize an image that exists in his memory. This means that nobody will ever
lapse into fixed habits.” 27
“It is a matter of achieving the unknown by a derangement of the senses.” It
is no coincidence that Constant chooses this sentence of Rimbaud as a motto for
his description of “The New Babylonian Culture.” 28 He deliberately situates himself
in the lineage of the avant-garde that links upheavals in art with social and political
revolution. The distinctive feature of the avant-garde, in his view, is its critical struggle
against existing society and culture. 29 This programmatic aim, he states, was
typical of prewar groups such as the Arbeitsrat für Kunst. It was, however, revised
by some artists and groups that ended up being involved in reactionary or conservative
practices. The urgency with which these artists endeavor to bring about a direct
relation between art and “reality” meant that they were seduced into accepting
commercial society. This was what happened to functionalism, which, according to
Constant, implied the surrender of the artist to the demands of a utilitarian society.
Artists have to understand that this can never be their role. Reconciliation with existing
society can never be their aim; instead they must keep alive the awareness
of another possible world. Art is dead—its social role is finished—but if one gives
up the struggle, one is giving up on everything, including the future. For the time being,
a genuinely new culture is unattainable; for this reason one should opt for experiment
as a delaying tactic. It was with this strategy, Constant comments, that
Cobra picked up the threads of the avant-garde once more. The experiments of Cobra,
however, also turned out to be prone to commercialization, and therefore unitary
urbanism was developed. And so the last episode of individualistic culture was
brought to a close. Zero point was arrived at. Art is dead, but creative man—homo
ludens—rises up. Now that economic development has reached a point where a potential
for virtually unlimited production makes compulsory work superfluous, the
prospect of a new, playful culture begins to emerge. The last artists, in Constant’s
view, have the task of paving the way for this culture of the future and of giving a
lead to the revolt of homo ludens.
159