Handbook of Semiotics

Architecture

Architecture The semiotics of architecture, a branch of the semiotics of visual communication, is closely related to aesthetics, to the semiotics of objects , and to proxemics, the semiotics of space (see esp. Eco 1968: 344f£.). Preziosi (1979a) even discovers connections to zoosemiotics when he talks about "zooarchitectonics." According to Barthes, the semiotics of architecture begins where mere metaphorical discussions of the "language of the city" are replaced by analytic and systematic research in architectonic signs and codes (1967a: 12). Such research originated mostly in the 1960s. It was discussed both at a theoretical level at international semiotic conferences (e.g., Chatman et aI., eds. 1979: 901-978) and by practitioners of architecture. Some of them considered semiotics a tool "to overcome the crisis in the methodology of design" (Schneider 1977: 50) or "a way out of naive functionalism " (Sipek 1981: 86-87). According to Sipek (1980~ 1981), for example, semiotics can contribute to solving the problems of architectural practice by pointing out the pluralities of interpretation and by thus placing man in the center of architectural concern. 1. State of the Art Studies under the more or less metaphorical heading of "the language of architecture" (cf. Prak 1968, Reinle 1976) are precursors of the semiotics of architecture. Collins traces the history of this metaphor back to 1750 (1965: 173-84). After an early discussion of architecture within Mukafovsky's semiotic aesthetics, explicitly semiotic approaches to architecture originated in the 1960s with a number of studies in the context of structuralism (Koenig 1964; 1970, Eco 1968: 293-356, Jencks &: Baird, eds. 1969; cf. Tafuri 1968: 183-216). Hjelmslev, Peirce, and Morris provided different models of analysis for various approaches to the architectural sign. In France, a school of architectural semiotics developed on the basis of Hjelmslev and Greimas (cf. Greimas 1976b: 129-58, Groupe 107 [1973], Boudon 1981, Hammad et al. 1977, and the volume Semiotique de I'espace [1979]). A special issue of Communications 27 (1977) is entitled Semiotique de l'espace, and special issues of Bulletin du groupe de recherches semio-linguistiques 10 (1979) and 18 (1981) are entitled Semiotique de l'architecture and Parcours et espace. A semiotic and ideological study of historical architecture in England and its representation in poetry is Wayne (1984). The history and the state of the art in the semiotics of architecture are documented in surveys , studies, and anthologies by Agrest &: Gandelsonas (1973; 1977), Krampen (1979a; b), Preziosi (1979a; b), Broadbent et aI., eds. (1980a; b), Tafuri (1980: 121-237), Dreyer (1984), Minai (1984), and Gottdiener & Lago1 . STATE OF THE ART • 435 poulos, eds. (1986). A bibliography is Gwin &: Gwin (1985). 2. Meaning and Functions of Architecture In its cultural origins, architecture had the practical function of providing shelter, and nobody will deny that the roofs and windows of most contemporary buildings serve such primary functions as protecting against rain and providing light (cf. Eco 1968: 296). At first sight, architecture seems neither to be communicative nor to represent anything except itself. Traditional aesthetics therefore used to classify architecture together with music as an asemantic art (see Wallis 1975: 40 for a survey of such theories). Yet, architecture is not restricted to its utilitarian function. It is polyfunctional and may have several dimensions of meaning. Even doors (Seligmann 1982, Gandelman 1984) and windows (Sebeok &: Margolis 1982) may evince a multiplicity of meanings. 2.1 Functional Views of Architecture Within his structuralist aesthetics, Mukarovsky gave an outline of a polyfunctional view of architecture in which he opposes the aesthetic function of architecture to the follOwing four functional horizons (1937: 241-44): (1) the immediate practical function, (2) the historical function relating to previous modes of building , (3) the social function relating to the social status and economic resources of the builder, and (4) the individual function relating to his individual style. In contradistinction to these four specifically architectonic functions which relate buildings to entities beyond themselves, the aesthetic function of a building is autotelic. It refers only to itself and is thus a dialectic negation of the other four functions. Later functional semiotic descriptions of architecture were based on Jakobson's models of the six functions of communication (Schiwy 436 • ARCHITECTURE 1973: 117-19, Preziosi 1979a: 49-55; 1979b: 68-72; see Function 3.2).' Preziosi defines these functions of architecture as follows: (1) the expressive function dominates in the personal style, the mode of architectonic self-representation of a builder. (2) The conative function of architecture addresses its user, suggesting orientations, interpretations, and his spatial...