monument:
-ritual
-time, perpetuity
-authority
-shared values
icon:
-anything symbolic
This is clear when one considers that monuments exist in many forms other than architecture: music, murals, sculpture, literature, film, etc. Architecturally, the monument employs the techniques discussed out above to "mean." Traditionally, premodernist monumentality relied on shared historical references a shared symbolic aesthetic culture to create a collective expression, as can be seen in the Egyptian pyramids, the imperialist Chinese monuments, and in the design of Washington DC, and Speer's Berlin. Initially, as exemplified by utopic works such as Sant'Elia, (as well as in Le Corbusier's Radiant City and Hilberseimer's Vertical City), the early modern movement was interested in distancing itself from historicism, championing the monumentality of pure functionalism as the embodiment of a new age, in a sense replacing traditional beliefs with a new consensus faith. In reaction to the this functionalist modern approach, Giddeon, Sert, Leger's polemic "Nine Points on Monumentality" called on modern architecture to embrace the symbolic power of architecture as an expression of the collective identity of a people, and represented an evolution in modernist discourse. Certain tactics of metapohor, scale, elevation (raised dais), frontality / centrality / axiality, and materiality, as discussed above, were employed to create monuments. The modernist icon relied on the structuration of the city and spatial and iconic relationships of the built form to convey meaning, as can be seen in Ankara, Brasilia, Chandigahr, and the UN building, which, encouraged by the advent of postcolonialism, articulated what could be described as a consensus progressive global culture.
Charles Jencks points out, however, that there has been an important shift in monumentality, in which the traditional, or even modernist modes of monumentality have devolved due the breakdown of strong belief in any metanarrative, ideology, or religion, and the resulting decline of religious and historical iconographies. This shift is the consequence and confluence of two major factors: the egoistic commercialization of global culture, and the "the loss of content” (referring to the disappearance of belief). The disappearance of belief requires inflationary symbols to fill the void, and the egoistic commercial interests can profit from these symbols, producing what Jencks terms "the enigmatic signifier," a form of icon is metaphorical in more indirect, enigmatic ways, avoiding obvious associations, direct historical references, but instead open to, but carefully guiding interpretations. They are like substrates or magnets to embody whatever the subject ascribes to them. Most recently, the enigmatic signifier has exploded in the form of signature architecture and icon-creation for the purposes of commercialism and media exchange value. In some sense, these buildings operate in much the same way as the Egyptian pyramids—as pure iconic forms, as pure signs, but with the important distinction that they are in total usurpation and transgression of the public realm in their quest for individualistic attention. Evidence of this is that iconic buildings each have their media epithet that reduces them into a condensed image: “shard,” “erotic gherkin,” “crystal beacon.” “Shock and awe” is the aim, as seen in projects such as Selfridges. Jencks asks, is “this radical form of democracy and egalitarianism… [this] rampant individualism killing the public realm?” As Rem Koolhaas puts it, “shopping is doubtless the last form of public activity,” which we excoriates in “Junkspace.” Nevertheless, architecture is forced to embrace it, even if it is in a mode of subtle disgust or subversion, as one might interpret OMA’s approach. In The Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping, Rem drives home the point of the total commercialization of all culture, and he laments the role of the architect in this to be primarily the producer of the image and the icon. In Jenck’s view, this is what gives rise to the new form of architectural icon.
The "enigmatic signifier" leads to skepticism about whether monuments are really possible anymore, whether they have devolved into simply the icon, that is devoid of ritual, perpetuity, authority, and shared values, especially when they proliferate through the city. Rem’s 1978 work Delirious New York somewhat presages this discussion of the enigmatic signifier, as New York in the 1970s could be said to presage the expanding urban conditions worldwide. Rem accepts the symbolic complexity of the city as the new "Culture of Congestion" in which competing systems of symbols and meanings render each building autonomous, a city within a city with its own ideology and lifestyle, and thus meaningless, an idea later developed in SMLXL into the concept of "generic city," in which the meaningless skyscraper dominates the symbolic landscape as the final architectural typology. These ideas are supported by the work of David Harvey in The Condition of Postmodernity, which theorizes that the global flux of interconnectedness which has replaced the traditional Fordist, "decongested" model of the city has resulted in homogenous architectural types that are globally distributed, cities-in-cities whose autonomy is reinforced by their internal heterogenous program, that are more related to a global culture that to any local culture or nation. In contrast to projects like the the Seagram Building, which is a modernist icon of Fordist principles, projects such as the Rockefeller Center and the World Trade Center exemplify this dilemma, for while they are certainly iconic, owing to their figuration, size, centrality, and importance as loci of power, it is not clear what they signify. They exist on their own terms, as cities-within-cities, but paradoxically still attempting to address formally some exterior order of signification that is in fact meaningless, or inconsistent with their actual autonomy. (Interestingly, the WTC as we know, became not just an icon, but a fated monument to global capitalism.)
Pointing to the symbolistic autonomy of the self-contained interiorized mega-buildings of New York, Rem attempted to find within the complex interiority and non-relational atomized condition of the city a new way to relate to symbolism. The contemporary skyscraper is seen as a totally out-of-date, in denial of its real identity and functioning. In CCTV in Beijing, Rem turns this logic into a powerful "enigmatic symbol," to use Jenck’s term. “Kill the Skyscraper,” turning it in to a mutant hybrid that optimizes the symbolic value of its true identity and interior functioning. Its centralized nature, its continuous, connected program, overturn the image of the skyscraper, turning it into an interiorized icon. Is power is underlined by a strong form whose holistic nature is assured by a structural logic. Moreover, it has overtones pertinent to China and the media is its totalitarian completeness, and contains imagery of a moongate, an empty TV, a Chinese bracelet, etc.
So, what is a good enigmatic signifier? In recognition of the spiritual component of the enigmatic signifier, Jencks postulates that a successful icon is:
-stands out from the background/city
-is a condensed/minimal image
-highly figural
-metaphorical
-symbol fit for worship
But he cautions that the architect must carefully negotiate the metaphorical associations, such that they are both obvious and veiled, connoting, but not explicit. Moreover, it works best when the symbolism underlines the symbolic program of the building.
Symbolism:
-obvious and veiled simultaneously
-systematic and layered
-related to popular images or conceptions
-related to symbolic program
For example, the icon is employed masterfully in some public buildings, which removes for the moment the commercial factor, for example in Le Corbusier’s Chandigahr Assembly Building, Ronchamp, and Norman Foster's Reichstag Dome. But these successful icons have preconditions that are not able to be satisfied within the commercial context, which is what leads often to the "enigmatic signifier." They are based on the preconditions that:
-the people believe in something
-there is a developed idea about how to represent their faith
-the architect can carry through the symbols
SYMBOLS OF HONG KONG
-motifs: illegal facades, small spaces, interiorized culture, escalators...
-existing icons
-layering
-verticality
-labyrinth
-vertical travel
-short-perspective
-top-down views
-feng shui
panorama medium-urban short interior
elevation plan perspective circulation plan diagram, program diagram
IFC: -non-figural, iconic due to scale/height accentuated by sleek design. highly interiorized...
AIA tower: figural surface
AIG: figural object, integrated city fig/gnd
Gherkin: figural object fig/gnd
HSBC: facade, traditional axiality (feng shui), figural floating object
BoC: figural object, separated city
Culture of interiority.. XXXX
Moreover, the tactics of scale, elevation (raised dais), frontality / centrality / axiality, and materiality, the traditional methods of constructing an icon, are called into question in the present day. Scale had been usurped, elevation has been usurped; in New York, axiality has bas been usurped. Traditionally, organically organized cities such as Rome, London, Berlin, and Paris, have successively reorganized themselves to employ these tactics, which are all the more effective against a disorganized background. In Hong Kong, this can be seen in the Flagstaff Legislative Council, as well as in Norman Foster's HSBC building.
But the ability to make an icon is not as much the point as the ability to make a monument, that is to instill with icon with meaning. In the "culture of congestion," buildings talk past eachother, and meaning cannot be organized.
In the disorganized cities of Asia, such as Hong Kong, also the traditional structured urban-scape in which these devices were to operate in the modern schematic are rendered ineffective. Scale, elevation, frontality, centrality, axiality, operate differently in such a disorganized city.
the Monumentality Debate: (non-exhaustive)
-Giddeon, Sert, Leger: "Nine Points on Monumentality": call for modern architecture to embrace the symbolic power of architecture as an expression of the collective identity of a people.
-Rem Koolkaas: Deliriious New York, SMLXL, Junkspace, The Harvard Guide to Shopping
-Nelson Goodman, "How Buildings Mean:" architecture operates symbolically to create meanings in four ways: 1. denotation, 2. exemplification, 3. metaphor, 4. mediated reference.
-
-Charles Jencks, The Iconic Building: buildings as icons now rely on metaphor, which is comic and cheap.
-Charles Moore: metaphors are ok
-Peter Cook: ???
-David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: post-capitalist "regime of flexible accumulation" means nodal points within cities are more connected to the worldwide networks than to their immediate context. Thus they cannot serve as monuments in the traditional sense.
-size: traditionally, icons relied on size to convey their meanings: Speer's Berlin, etc. This has been usurped by non-monumental large architecture.
-culture: traditionally, monuments represented a collective understanding, and an authority thereby. now, there is flux, skepticism, lack of consensus, lack of symbolic culture,
time:
-monument attempts to assert power over time.
-"collective memory" in HK. how do they think of themselves, how do they want to represent themselves through the ages...
-flux of the city: charts / graphics??? zaha project...
rituals:
-protests, philipinos,
authority
-flagstaff
-chinese traditional
-symbol
what does the monument symbolize