Ideology - so be ıt.
A fictional dialogue
By
Iklim Dogan
Based on ideological criticism on
The Red Vienna
Traced with and inspired by the ideas of
Louis Althusser, Slavoj Žižek
On Ideology
And Eve Blau and Manfredo Tafuri
On Architecture
CHARACTERS
Lou
grace
TIme
The omni-present, anytime late afternoon
PLACE
LOU and GRACE sit on the foreyard of Karl-Marx-Hof, where the bronze figure from sculptor Otto Hofner is placed. They share one bench together but both sitting on the edges, facing the façade of Karl-Marx-Hof, where the six tower-like structures stand.
They observe a kid drawing “sun and clouds” on the façade of Karl-Marx Hof. Later the kid draws the symbol of Karl-Marx-Hof next to the sun. Then some other kids join him and they all start to draw the figure. They argue about who can draw the best figure. They all draw one. One adds some leaves and fruits to it. One adds wings, one draws it above the clouds, one draws people holding the symbol’s hands, one draws tiny little stick-men underneath.
Scene 1: An Encounter with the Symbol
(LOU watches the kids drawing, GRACE looks up through the dark reddish symbol covering up the façade of Karl-Marx-Hof. GRACE makes a grimace)
GRACE
This is a very absurd figure.
LOU
What?
GRACE
The symbol of Karl-Marx-Hof.
LOU
You mean the six tower-like structures?
grace
Hans Hollein made “symbol” out of it. A symbol of the social housing projects during the 20’s: The Red Vienna.
LOU
What do you mean “Hollein made a symbol out of it”?
grace
Don’t you recall the exhibition at the Künstlerhaus in 1985? How was it called … Oh, “Dream and Reality” between the years 1870 and 1930. He built the symbol on the top of the museum. A critical undertone from Hollein, Oh Vienna, O-la-la. Since then, everybody sees the symbol as a symbol of The Red Vienna.
lou
Hmm… I think it was even worse when they used the slogan “One-kilometer Art déco” for tourism advertising in 1980’s.
(They stop for a moment.)
grace
Well, how would you shape the destiny of such a magnificent appearance?
lou
Oh, the magic mountain. (Smiles.) Well, the social democrats needed it. Remember the February Uprising in 1934. Even the right-wingers called it the workers’ stronghold: the cells of organized coups.
GRACE
I remember that, of course. Many parts of this complex were destroyed.
lou
A stronghold on the north of the city, next to the train station, where the army of the left could defend its symbolic structure. (Smiles sneakily.)
grace
Such a structure to symbolize the Red Vienna, and the Red Vienna as the symbol of the left...It became the “embodiment of ideological conflict” (Cf. Blau 1999: 2). The leftist capital of an anti-leftist land.
lou
From Stronghold to Art-déco.
(They stop for a moment.)
Scene 2: Architecture and Politics
(LOU and GRACE stand up, walk 2-3 steps apart from each other and then come back and sit on each others seat.)
grace
Interesting. Have you seen the first proposal for Karl-Marx-Hof? It was from the architect Clemens Holzmeister. I read somewhere, he worked on it for 6 months, thinking deeply about architectural possibilities, playground, kitchen etc. The municipalities found it “uninspiring”.
lou
But did they pay him at least for his effort?
grace
(Smiles.) I don’t know. But his plan looks denser and narrower, it could create more houses. It looks more like a labyrinth with fewer enclosures. The Höfe filled with more blocks, more continuous entrances.
lou
I see. Politics has the final say.
grace
And now this massive building as we have in front of us was designed by Karl Ehn. The buildings cover an area of almost 11.000 square meters, whereas the courtyards are almost ten times larger. So they could just build a garden city with the same area, you know. It was also a topic at that time, right?
lou
Yes, they could. (Shows the towers and speaks louder.) But then where could they build these towers? (Stops.) They needed towers. (Nods.) Otherwise, it would not make any sense.
GRACE
Yes. But it is hard to understand. Why such a form, for a social housing project, I do not get it. How can such a form have so many meanings? Was it implemented, was it intentional that this structure should be a defensive structure? (Stops.) And the kids are drawing that symbol.
lou
All they see is that symbol. All they can do is to draw that symbol.
GRACE
What do you mean?
LOU
Well, you know, they observe it as something, which is always there, they just see it as a ordinary, familiar form. A meaningless form. I don’t see it like that though, I don’t think it is a naïve symbol. (Stops, rolls up her eyes and looks through the audience.) It is propaganda of Austro-marxism.
GRACE
Hmm?
lou
(In a serious and louder tone, as if she is reading a manifesto.) The aim of Austro-Marxism was not to build garden cities on suburbs, like it was popular in Germany at that time, but rather rebuilding the inner city: to make the city proletarian. (Stops, looks through other direction in a regretful tone.) But, on the other hand, Karl-Marx-Hof failed to be attached to its urban context, although it represents the aims of Austro-Marxism... (Waits.) Their program was not thought through in its circumstances.
GRACE
(Nods.) I sense your anger here, I also disagree that Karl-Marx-Hof is the symbol of The Red Vienna. I think, it is a bad example of the social housing projects. But I still think, that they did their best under such conditions...
lou
(Interrupts.) That is not what I am arguing. The interdependence of politics and architecture, that is what failed. Remember what happened afterwards.
grace
The interdependence... (Thinks for a moment.) Is it architecture’s fault that Social democracy fell? Or is it Politics’ fault, that architecture became a failure?
LOU
(In a lecturing tone.) So, if we do not think architectural eras in their political sense, if we do not think that they do not have an impact on social formations, then you can argue that architecture and politics are two diverse paths. They do not cross. I think it is not plausible. I believe that they both have an impact on each other, and that they have a common ground: ideology. Architecture in its forms, politics in its words is the expression of ideology. You can even say, that politics has a mouth, and architecture shapes that mouth. Architecture can shape, how far you can open that mouth.
Grace
Well, you used that word, ideology again. What do you want to say? (In a sarcastic but serious manner raises her voice, looks through the audience.) Should we blame all architects for being ideological? Should we blame them for working later for the national socialists. Were they trying to brainwash people with their forms?
LOU
(Throws an angry glance at GRACE.) Don’t make a conspiracy theory out of this. This is not what I said, neither thought, nor a possible definition of ideology.
(They stop for a moment.)
grace
Politics and architecture... I want to listen to you on this, but my first thought would be, that, it is not the architecture that is filled with these symbolic meanings, it is what socially and politically occurs that loads them with meanings.
(They stop for a moment.)
Scene 3: Of Höfe and Ideologies
(LOU stands up, walks 1-2 steps. Looks through the audience, then starts talking in a higher tone, as if she is reading a manifesto)
LOU
The traditional concepts of forms or the ideal forms of architecture are reflections of class ideologies: reflections of their “false consciousness”. They are the result of an ideological act. These ideologies need to be criticized, not with the aim to revolutionize, but to identify those tasks that capitalism took away from architecture. (Cf. Tafuri 1976, ix-60.) Architecture needs self-critique and self-realization, to find its own character, to cope with new political and social challenges.
grace
(Confused, within an undertone.) How do you come to that point from the Symbol of Karl-Marx-Hof?
LOU
(Turns back to GRACE.) Try to analyze what do you feel towards this symbol. You would not be able to observe it from such a distance if the fore yard that we are sitting now would not exist. I mean, if it would be placed in a narrow street, facing other apartments. No one would recognize it. It would be, then, a landscape for the people living across: a landscape they would look over while they drink their coffees on the balcony. Its triumph lies in the existence of this massive forecourt that we are sitting right now.
GRACE
I don’t get it. Go on.
LOU
It is a huge housing complex with 4 big “Höfe” throughout the Heiligenstaedter street and the Borsch Street. Only this forecourt that we are sitting right now, is not enclosed from the street side, it is like a vitrine to look through. And these openings beneath the tower-like structures, are huge. I am just saying that if this forecourt were also a Hof, then only the inhabitants would see these towers. Thus, on the other parts of this Stronghold-déco, there are 4 real enclosed Höfe. (Stops. Goes back to her place, looks up, shows the forecourt with her hands.) This forecourt, these symbols can triumph through these openings here, in this semi-closed Hof. They push you to keep your position, not move, not break. Eliminates the confusion that is necessary for elimination. It locks you in.
GRACE
I don’t agree with this. The Höfe create a garden for communication, for sharing. A playground for children, a safe area. They are extruded living rooms. They are perfect. It is a familiar structure.
lou
They are a desire, a wish, a need for the totality embedded in a fortress.
GRACE
The Hof structure has always existed, within different functions and different enclosed spaces. During the Gründerzeit the Hof structure became the most common typology for the apartments in Vienna.
LOU
(Smiles sneakily.) Yes? ... strangely familiar (Excited.), rather than simply mysterious, or locating a kind of strangeness in the ordinary. (Looks up.)
grace
(Waits, thoughtfully.) Or you mean these Höfe have something in particular?
LOU
(Smiles sneakily.) Indeed. There is a relationship between a particular Hof and the universal Hof. The Marxist motive “reification” is at work: behind these particular Viennese Höfe, and the relation of houses to each other, one should detect the social relations, the relations between human subjects. Because, the Höfe are the embodiment of living, in which performative utterances can occur.
grace
(Throws a confused glance.)
lou
But the distortion lies here, that when one thinks about the architectural forms as such, like house, one immediately reduces it to “shelter”. The function of the house, that is the embodiment of living, appears here immediately as a natural property of the thing called “Hof”, as if the “Hof”, already in itself the very normal way of living, having shelter, in itself an immediate material reality of living.
GRACE
And? How does that all fit together?
lou
The Höfe are familiar, ordinary structures, but not really thought of in their embodiment, and in what they symbolize. Compare it with the materiality of money: the paper. We do not think about it, while we spend it. So, when we live in the Höfe, we know very well that there is nothing magical about them. Now take is as such, try to analyze its core, then look back again at these Höfe and these towers.
grace
You mean, while creating shelter for myself…
lou
(Interrupts GRACE, speaks louder.) The absurdity of living in a tower. And while you are living there, you are not aware of it. While you are in it, you do not think about the tower. You might complain about the building plans, which were distorted to create these arc openings.
grace
So, what you are trying to say is that I am not aware of the materiality of the thing I am living in, while I am living in there.
lou
Yes. Just like you never think about the material quality of money, like paper, while you spend it. There is a gap between what you do and what you think about it.
GRACE
(Throws a glance as if she is still not satisfied.)
lou
I know you have a beautiful house in the 19th district with a garden and so on. The shapes you live in, look similar from the outside, while here in this Hof the plans are so distorted that one can never perceive where they are. This is the illusion behind it.
grace
Well the lady on the balcony right on the arm of the symbol (Points out with her finger.) looks like she is enjoying her coffee.
(They both smile, silence for a moment.)
Scene 4: The Hof: its Ideology and materiality
(LOU watches the kids drawing, lies a bit on her back, plays with her feet.
GRACE puts her cellphone out, scrolls down, checks her e-mails, then puts it back in her pocket and turns her head to LOU.)
GRACE
You criticized the Karl-Marx-Hof before, arguing that it is opposed to its urban context.
LOU
Definitely. It is not at peace with its immediate environment. Like I said about observing the symbol. It is an individual that is opposed to its environment. Like a book-protagonist opposed to the other characters in the book. It is an individual that failed not only to interact with its environment but also failed in its architectural and technical capacities to provide “shelter”. Maybe the Hof typology works well for other housing projects, but in this one, within the interlocking other structures, like the openings, massive blocks, it became the epic mascot of the Red Vienna. The political program of Austro-Marxism’s stubborn will to keep this typology, although it caused limitations on the floor plans, problems with ventilation in the flats occupying the ‘towers’; and a limited imagination with regard to what collectivist life could be.(For example, the lack of central heating obliged women to trudge up and down stairs for fuel, just as they had in the old tenements.) (Cf. Tafuri (ed.) 1981, p. 94.)
grace
The Höfe that I observe are successful in their form as architectural typology. Karl-Marx-Hof became the embodiment of the “idea” through its form. Therefore, it might lack in its architectural qualities, as in qualities of living, but through its elemental forms, it embodies the idea, but not the living itself. Its an icon, rather than being recognized as a “shelter”. The traditional typologies operate as a cultural practice, in which cultural practice becomes instrumentalized.
lou
(Confused.) How is the Hof instrumentalized?
GRACE
You are missing some points here. The Hof is not opposed to its environment, because it is a part of it: it is already there. It finds itself on the stage, exposed. The property that embodies it as an idea melts with its urban context and it turns itself into a new radical political being. It is an individual, but not an opposed one. It generates a new identity during the act of reproducing familiar typologies.
lou
But the Karl-Marx-Hof is disidentifying itself from its environment, from its user, by making itself an “individual”. It is rather a proletarian monument, but how come? As an icon of the reforms, of emancipation. But how come that real emancipation is again writing down theories, petrifying them?
grace
Someone once said, the more things change, the more they are the same.
lou
It is, therefore, an opposed individual. A totality.
grace
I find it hard to call it an opposed individual. I think it is not an individual, it is rather a paradoxical subject. It constitutes its subjects, the people who live in it. But it also constitutes itself as “the” Subject. Not like “god” in religious ideologies, in which there is the subjection of people to (Quoting with her fingers, louder.) the Subject. But through subjects’ recognition of each other, and finally the subject’s recognition of herself. It is not a universal theory as such. Through interpellation, the Karl-Marx-Hof as the individual becomes a Subject, that subjects itself as well.
lou
What do you mean?
grace
I mean that you are constituting all these semantics in it, though it can also exist without it. It could be refreshed, gain new meanings. It is a historical construct, but not as massively ideological as you say. You are constituting concrete realities from abstract theories. Thus, all in all, Karl-Marx-Hof is not a symbol or a good example of the social housing in Vienna. While becoming the embodiment of ideas, it lost its capacity to create good living conditions, as you also mentioned. I find it also absurd, that it is the complex about which it is discussed the most, although it does not show the realities behind social housing.
(They stop for a while silent.)
Scene 5: Critique and its poor
(They stand up, swap places.)
grace
You know, I don’t believe that ideology is as simple as “They do not know it, but they are doing it.” Because there is no other way around. I think it is exactly the opposite: “They know it very well, but they are still doing it.” Therefore, it is not what you think, it is what you do.
(They stop for a while silent.
GRACE starts to talk again.)
grace
Overall, it was a long debate at that time, how this complex should be built. I think this was also by far the most discussed design. It was aimed to bring the theories of Austro-Marxism under one roof: engagement in its urban context, in its context of the site and allowing interpenetration of public, private and communal space. Still, under the influence of Garden Cities, it was important to have more green areas rather than interlocked blocks. Therefore, I think it is not a concept that you can directly compare with the ideology of form.
lou
Well, one should not forget the situation of the Social Democrats: they had to fight against two political parties: bourgeois-right wing on one side and the communist party on the other side. And, they searched for an alternative to ideology: pure science. A theory not as the objective socio-economical reality, but a theory which has as its basis as the ideological phenomena dependent on that. From which it was also aimed to find a lesson/theory about emancipation for the socially under-represented.
grace
Well, to criticize your ideology critique ideologically (Smiles.), although you might not want to hear it, it is important to understand the aims of Austro-Marxism. I think they did not use the working class as a political unit to start a polemic against the bourgeoisie. They got confused by the bourgeois culture. They wanted to create proletarian masses. Their utopia was a diverse one. A confusion. A confusion of reapplying bourgeois culture to the working class. Now, how emancipatory is it, to make someone, hungry for culture, to adapt your culture? Social Democrats wanted to turn People’s culture to workers’ culture. But how is that possible?
lou
Althusser once said that the worker is in the factory, producing, and the intellect is in her room, producing thoughts, to emancipate the worker. The intellect thinks for the worker. I think an architect who designs, within the realm of ideas, creates “intellectual labor” which is akin to the labor of a carpenter who produces furniture.
GRACE
Go on.
LOU
So, a worker in a factory who produces only one part of a product, does not own the product. Thus, he sells his labor-power for a wage. The architect too is just a worker in a project for buildings. That would be an argument to understand Austro-Marxism’s goal in making a workers’ culture.
grace
Does it make sense here to question if it is about workers’ culture or people’s culture? Austro-Marxism, if they stay with this theory, they fail in constructing it.
lou
Go on.
Grace
Thus, the forms were taken from petit-bourgeois architecture. I think these are two goals which oppose each other, or they are not emancipatory. Firstly, you apply and give the forms and quality of living to the worker class, but without creating a new culture for them. So, you implicitly say: “Take this bourgeois culture and make it yours, it is the best for you.” Like the ring street of the proletarians: the Gürtel. Otto Wagner’s monumentalist architecture is at stake, imposed upon the worker’s culture, they say. Is it really like that? Is it emancipatory or is it imposing? And secondly, the aristocrat thinks for the working class, he believes in his capacity to do the best for them, by doing this, he distances himself from them. And his argument: “The workers have no time to think, because they work. They mind their business.” Like Plato says: workers should “mind their own business”. Therefore, I think putting intellectual work on the same level as workers labor in a factory is not fair.
LOU
(Looks excited.)
grace
So, it is not necessary to reduce types of “labor” into some elements to create equal levels, if it is aimed to make something “emancipatory”.
lou
You are right.
grace
If it comes to critique then, it should not only be about forms and ideologies, but also if these communal political reforms were anti-emancipatory or if they are causing a rupture in the society, although its aim was to create equality and lower the distribution of classes. This is what I think that they aimed for but failed in constructing it.
lou
Yes.
grace
But, you are right about something.
lou
Hmm?
grace
The Karl-Marx-Hof failed to find the proper aesthetic character of social democracy. (Cf. Blau, p.6)
lou
(Puts a slight smile on her face.)
grace
Its local references caused historical allusions. It is regressive from both technological and typological points of view.
lou
Indeed. Tafuri said once, that the critic is like the person who has decided to walk on a tight-rope while constantly changing winds do their best to blow him down.
(They stop, nod their heads. They both stand up, LOU raises her hand as if she wants to say something.)
LOU
I am touched by your behavior.
grace
(Throws a confused glance.) What behavior?
lou
Your will to discuss with me on my ideological criticism ideologically.
grace
(Throws a confused glance.)
lou
To reduce my arguments to absurdity, you became as ideological as me.
GRACE
(Throws a glance through Karl-Marx-Hof, ignores LOU.)
(LOU goes to the left side, GRACE to the right, they grab a piece of chalk from the ground, and join the kids. They draw Karl-Marx-Hof symbols as well. GRACE interrupts the silence.)
grace
You know, we just wanted to spend some time with kids, being playful with them, nothing else, right? (Stops.) Somebody once said, the more things change, the more they are the same.
(Stops for a moment, looks at somewhere far away then nods.)
lou
So be it.
The End