Villa Savoye/Elements Of House-Ness

Template - 02. LINGUISTICITY: THE ALLEGORICAL CONTEXT & THE PROGRAMME OF THIS HOUSE.

The villa may be perceived as a whole where the tensions amongst the motives of this architecture have necessitated a peripheral frame. The frame in turn insisting that the objects within, however diverse, are related and compel one to meditate upon their interrelation.[1] Further, the fact that the frame is posited within the reality of the outside context which is in no way negated as the transparency of the section from one to the other becomes a major object of deliberation.

Here, I am interested in excavations: bringing to light the semantic elements of the hidden, 'internal' dialectic in le Corbusier's building.

A programmatic description of the house is sought here based on the architect's own statements about the house. A structural-allegorical analysis attempts to decipher the semiotic elements of House-ness. As the building ignores 'normal' signs of House-ness, relying instead upon a totally 'new' formulation of language based on the cubical frame, a conclusive term to the problem which bears upon further deliberations is also sought.

Of course, my concern here is not so much to demystify the contents of this work, as it can be argued that any attempt at demystification is in itself only re-arming the myth.

As for the other ichnographic object: the path structure, code for interpretation is supplied by its situation-the notional 'frame' of House-ness. Based on observations about articulation of the form of the villa, the path may be perceived as a succession of happenings where: "Entire portions enter into dialogue with one another in such a manner that forms cancel out any discontinuity between the real and unreal. An un-interrupting succession of surprising events, the villa shocks the habitual thinking of the spectator: it strives to appropriate for itself the artificial universe of signs capable of absorbing unconscious pulsations.[2]b.

In which; I, believing the `unconscious pulsation' to be of the Bourgeoisie that le Corbusier-always-repressed; am mildly amused in discovering the `heroic' aspirations coded on the path. I explore the valorisation of simple day-to-day acts on the extra human plane. Thus my `amusement' masks the irony of the leftist determinism,......our own wills undermining our own forms. The allegorical interpretation read, devaluation-of the architectural promenade based on this "insight" consists of:

• Narration of the Passage: A part explanation, part description of the Oniric experience.
• Relating the narrative to the traditional Judaic Christian structures of the path.
• A simultaneous discussion of allegory as a technique and the revelations interpreted in this context.

A: The Elements of House-ness.

In studying Barthian signification, certain elements of language (in this instance, the image) must be identified. As Barthes is silent in the way in which the mythical signified might be identified at the start as a premise, resorting instead to "a somewhat humorous plea for a reasoned use of neologism which foreshadows reflections on the. mutual supports of linguistic and social correlations"; which reflect upon his ideological concerns, the Levi-Strauss" method of structural/allegorical interpretations was employed. Here, the elements of myth are treated using the linguistic method of morphology as a basis in bringing certain fundamental criteria, categories and relations: the basic elements of language: to notice.[3]

le Corbusier's own description of the building offers a rich mix of linguistic redundancies and emphasis. Clearly, it is intended to say 'something more' then the basic description of the whole and hence, open to a 'reading operation'. Of which, a set of constituent units may be identified using the Levi-Strauss formula of "economy of explanation, unity of solution and ability to constitute the whole from fragment as well as the later stage from the previous stage"[4]

A. O1. le Corbusier's Description of the Villa.

"The site: a magnificent property shaped by a large pasture and orchard forming a dome-like raise encircled by a belt of full grown trees. The house was not to have a front. Situated at the top of a raise, it had to open to all directions." (LCOC; 1929-34).[5]

"The house is a box hovering in the air.... in the midst of fields overlooking the orchard.... it fits well into the rustic countryside of Poissy. The inhabitants who (will) have come here because they found this rustic setting beautiful with its country life will contemplate it in its preserved state from the height of their suspended gardens or through their long window(s) facing in all directions. Their home lives will be enfolded (inserted) in(to) a Virgillian dream. (Precisions.....).[6] "In this house we are presented with a teal architectural promenade, offering prospects which are constantly changing and unexpected, even astonishing. It is interesting that so much variety has been attained while from a design point of view a rigorous scheme of pillars and beams has been adopted." (LCOC: 1929-34)

"The house is a box in the air, pierced all around, without interruption by a long window. No more hesitation about playing architectural games with space and mass. The box is in the middle of pastures, dominating the orchard.

"From the interior of the vestibule a gentle ramp leads up, almost without noticing it, to the first floor where the life of the owner is deployed: reception, bedrooms etc. Taking their views and light from the regular perimeter of the box, these different rooms adjoin each other radically from a suspended garden where the sliding walls of glass of the saloon and several other rooms are opened in all freedom; thus the sun enters everywhere, to the very heart of the house.

"From the suspended garden the ramp becomes external and leads to the roof and solarium. The latter is also linked by three turns of spiral staircase to the cellar dug into the earth below the pilotis. This spiral, pure vertical organ is inserted freely into the horizontal composition." (Precisions....)

"I hope that you will not blame me for having deployed before your eyes this example of taking liberties. They have been taken because they have been acquired, seized from the living source of the stuff of modern life. Poetry, lyricism produced by technology." (Precisions....)

A.02. Identification of the Elements of 'House-ness'.

Here, I am interested in excavations: bringing to light the semantic elements of the hidden dialectic in le Corbusier's building.

I must add here in parenthesis that this interpretation has precisely nothing to do with le Corbusier's intentions; my 'reading' consists of several translations[7] as well as the original French text. As every translation is already an interpretation, my sources are 'corrupted' with multiple, and often incompatible motives. In this sense, in my 'original' material the authority of le Corbusier’s statement gives way to a more complex condensation of values Which only adds to the interest

The constituent units may be isolated with ease out of this description; which correspond toughly to the complex mythology accompanying the villa typology.[8]

1. le Corbusier introduces the site as a "DOME LIKE RAISE SURROUNDED BY THE ORCHARDS". A pastoral milieu: the ground is not a mere raise, it is also dome-like: its associations are to the sky and the domus: the locale already has a House-ness about it. The domus is surrounded by orchards, its context is PASTORAL.
2. "THE INHABITANTS WHO (WILL) HAVE COME HERE WILL FIND THIS RUSTIC COUNTRYSIDE BEAUTIFUL". To start with, the inhabitant is a stranger to this context, he is from another space-time. The program of his house as a weekend / pleasure villa suggests that s/he is an urban wo/man. And "because the urban man is a city dweller. that he looks at the branches of trees and flowers in the flowers in the fields" (L.C., Sketchbooks B-5 / 303; the architect's emphasis). He comes 'here' in "this ere of awakening to nature". S/he then is a part of the modern epoch. We may rewrite the original statement as: "ONLY THE URBAN WO/MAN, FOR S/HE STRIVES FOR WHAT S/HE LACKS (in the city) FINDS THE ORCHARDS / COUNTRYSIDE BEAUTIFUL." This unit emerges as a condition of MODERN TIMES. This need is more psychological and ideological then utilitarian.
3. Le Corbusier is empathetic about the being of the "RUSTIC COUNTRYSIDE IN ITS PRESERVED STATE".
4. The house should not have a facade. Situated as it is on a 'slight' dome like raise, it is "OPEN TO THE FOUR HORIZONS, A HORIZONAL COMPOSITION" this only accentuates the significance of the dome-like. Just as the dome, the house becomes the centre (locus) the four horizons: by being open to the horizons, the house ascribes all horizontal directions an equivalence, varying only in tone and nuance. The house: vestment for the 'I' is in this way the dominant centre of the world circumscribed by the horizon. This is its HOUSENESS.
5. "BOX HOVERING, DOMINATING THE ORCHARD". As the dominant centre, the house would 'naturally' dominate the immediate context: the orchard. But further, just as the 'I' inhabiting it, it remains an outsider to 'this' context. It becomes a capsule-in the metaphoric image of the ship-hovering: surveying: the surroundings. This indication of closure describes its HOUSENESS: it "elevates" the inhabitant.
6. The argument so far makes clear that "MAN (the "I") IS 'DEPLOYED''[9] HIGH (above) IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE AND THE HORIZON". The usage 'deployed' is an enigmatic sign. The deployment, for one, is of the sanctum of HOUSENESS. Or perhaps; it is intended to invoke the early Renaissance tradition of the fortified villa!
7. "THE HOUSE IS LINKED TO THE GROUND BELOW THE PILOTIS:. The house hovers high above the ground which has traditionally been held to have been made of a chthonic substance. Modernism, in placing faith in the vital energies of mankind strives to win greater freedom from precisely the same substance. Further, urban man originated in the rural 'culture' which preceded the city. Or perhaps, in further mythification in this instance, civilisation 'occurred' in the Aenidic wanderings between the chthonic substance of the Tufa and the celestial substance of the pastures.[10] Either in fact or cultural fiction, the link of what is made today to the earth, the sub terrestrial origins is significant. The modern artefact makes explicit this linear relation TO THE PAST.
8. "LIFE INSERTED (enfolded) IN A VIRGILLIAN DREAM". Virgil's Aeneid is all about a dream in which the Roman nobleman returns where he originated: to the countryside and a great moral adventure. Thus, a journey into a strange, sur-real space / time is begun. le Corbusier's free insertion of this sign brings to notice that fictitious origin in history which also might have been the 'origin' of the villa type and Christian pastoral mentality in art.[11] This PAST REFERENCE effects a return to the original story of the origins.
9. "LIBERTIES ACQUIRED FROM THE 'LIVING STUFF' OF MODERN LIFE". For the moment this would be understood box hovering, as a countersign to the previous. It opposes the MODERN with the past. orchard
10. "POETRY, LYRICISM PRODUCED BY TECHNOLOGY". Here, the use of that especially MODERN myth / phenomena of creativity has been included within the ensemble.
11. Here, the message of le Corbusier's allegorical photographs may be included: the images include objects of daily us in the composition, stressing the presence of man in his absence. Though the corpus of these images demands an extensive interpretation (of the dream like image, here, in terms of PAST REFERENCE, the centrality of three elements may be insisted upon: the loaf of bread, bottle (of wine) and fish. Referring to a rich cultural history,[12] these objects signify the constants in western culture. They become not only elements of the mythic (a)history of the west, but here, an alibi for the Occident.
12. "THE SUN Pierces THE EXACT CENTRE OF THE HOUSE". At once defining interiority by its exact opposite while bringing the context of the sky-dome in. The moving shafts of sunlight define the curvature of the sky-dome. This is analogous to the first: dome on the ground. Further, sunlight (esp., path of the sun) means 'here' and now. It is a reference of concreteness of the PRESENT.

A.03. Analysis:

In structuring these units, one must keep in mind that we are dealing not with a 'written' myth but an account of a three dimensional entity. In which the diachronic aspect of language is not so important as is the bundling of relations (the image may be experienced in any sequence). As this mode of presentation is predominantly spatial, the elements may be included within the 'slate structure' in a dominantly spatial relation across the bundles. This intuitive sequencing within the groups giving a constant flux of relations across. The relations are, dominantly, spatial (the house X the pastures) and temporal (modern times X past references).

Also one must remember that any "structural-allegorical" analysis of a myth is a playful analysis. It amounts to the naming of the poetic. The activity does not claim a hermeneutic authority.

House	pastures	Modern times	past reference
Box, hovering, dominating the orchard.	dome-like raise in the ground surrounded by the orchards	only the modern man for he strives what he lacks finds the orchards/country side `beautiful'	bread, fish, wine
man .`deployed' high in CONTEMPLATION of the countryside and the distant horizons	rustic countryside in its preserved state	liberties `acquired' from the source of the living stuff of modern life	the house link to the ground below the pilotis
house open to the four horizons. horizonal composition
rooms open in `all freedom' to the suspended gardens	sun enters the very heart of the house.	Poetry, lyricism produced by technology	life insert (enfolded) in Virgillian dream
Man, dominating and contemplating nature.	The cosmic/mythical values embedded in the site	Modern life and technology.	Mythic and historical motifs.
Duality of experience: Modern and Mythos. In writing; the referents are intentionally deferred. Resulting in significant redundancies. Relation between the building and countryside becomes comparable to relations between `modern' times and history. Than, it should be possible `find' archetypal mythic/historic conditions recreated in the `modern' format Also, mark coexistence of 1. Liberty/limits. 2. Self-conscious `modernity'/dream myth. Is the `deployed' man a modern 'hero'?

Here, the 'real' content(s) which motivate the work may be indicated: the basic opposition seems to be between modernist values (the house, the modern times and the T) and the older cosmological.

mythic values ('inherent' in the pastoral context, in referencing to past). Perhaps not so much a contradiction as a (dialectical yet non synthetic) tension, this has been realised by establishing fundamental symmetries (i.e., the structure /sequence of the table) amidst the object and the landscape (nature). This is a major structural concern for the architect.... (a) ....it has to do with on one hand beliefs in modem values and on the other, the irrefutable persistence of historically instituted significances, of memories. In languaging this 'problem', the relative role and the status of the two must be determined for the two constitute a legible whole.... (b) ....Here, a play of surface and latent contents opens up: the first three bundles make it possible ('natural'?) to find a mythic/historic condition encased within the present. In fact, one is defined not only by the sign of its object-hood but also by the other.... (d) ....Hence the real contradiction is suggested: it has to do with the notions of freedom and limit. The modern man has not 'liberated' himself from the historic but generated a tactile play amongst the limits. The building is defined in this way as an "example of taking liberties......seized from the living stuff of modern life".

This dialectical non synthetic 'play' would perhaps be best (inasmuch as it can amount to an act of 'playing') can perhaps be best described in le Corbusier's own words: as the play of an acrobat.

 "An acrobat is no puppet. He devotes his life to activities 
 in which, in perpetual danger of death,
 he performs extraordinary movements 
 of infinite difficulty, with disciplined 
 exactitude and precision.....Free
 to break his neck and bones and
 be crushed.
 Nobody asked him to do this. 
 Nobody owes him any thanks.
 He lives in an extraordinary world, of the acrobat. 
 Result! Most certainly! He does things
 which others cannot.
 Result: why does he do them ? 
 others ask. He is showing off
 He's a freak, he scares us, we pity him. 
 he's a bore."[13]

Notes:

1. See, Frazer-Fischer; A Nature Morte, 1927; in Oppositions 15/16, page 164.
2. See, Safari & Co; Modern Architecture, vol. I; page 122.
3. The fundamental co-relation between the two methods is in the analogy between the patterns in myth and the Freudian concept of dream. Barthes, in pointing at the analogy states: "for Freud, .....the human psyche is a stratification of tokens or representations. One term is constituted by the manifest meaning of behaviour, another by its latent or real meaning. (It is, for instance, the substratum of dream), as for the third term it is also here. a co-relation of the first two: it is the dream itself in its totality, the Para praxis or the neurosis, conceived as compromises, as economies effected thanks to the joining of a meaning (the first term) to a form (the second term). W e can see how necessary it is to distinguish the sign from the signifier: a dream to Freud is no more its manifest datum then its latent content: It is the fundamental union of the two terms" (M: p 122/23). In the process the signifier of the dream-myth points at its latent or 'real' context, baring in turn the motivation of the dream/myth. Whereas, Levi-Strauss' "ultimate concern is the unconscious nature of collective phenomena" (SA: pp. 18). "Like Freud, he seeks to discover principles of thought formation which are universally valid for all human minds (L: pp. 55). "He assumes together with Freud that a myth is a kind of collective dream and that it should be possible to interpret so as to reveal its 'hidden' meaning." (L: pp: 57). To Levi-Strauss, myth expresses unconscious wishes which are somehow inconsistent with the conscious experience. Yet, through a structuralist reduction of myth, its latent or 'real' content may be found This method defines the part reality, part motivation through an agglomeration of the constitute units of myth. The allegoric model for interpretation defines the second term of the myth as a problem which must, ideally, be perpetually deferred. As, "The purpose of myth is to provide a model capable of overcoming a contradiction: an impossible achievement if, as it happens, the contradiction is real." (SA: pp. 229)
4. As the function of myth is to treat conflicts which confront primitive societies by maintaining them in prolonged suspension, Levi-Strauss, analysis is particularly allegorical. It potentially becomes applicable to not only the primitive societies but also 'modern' ones. In this light, within this writing the use of Levi-Strauss' method of structuralist comparisons is limited solely to the effect of defining for the moment the concept 'hidden' within the narrative. This definition is used in order to felicitate reading operations; where the meaning 'found' in this myth resides in the relative status of its units and the ways by which they are combined. Myth being an intermediary between a ‘statistical aggregate of molecules' (langue) and a ‘molecular structure itself (parole), such elements necessarily display a "higher and more complex morphological order".
5. Claude Levi-Strauss. The Structural Study of Myth. In Structural Anthropology, Vol.-O1. Op cit. pp. 230.
6. le Corbusier, Oeuvre Complete. Boesinger, Zurich.
7. Le Corbusier, Precisions Sur un Etat de la Architecture et lo Urbanisme.
8. E.g., one cited in Rowe; Mathematics of the Ideal Villa, another in Precisions sur un Etat de la Architecture et Urbanisme, Tim Benton, Villa Savoye and the Architect's Practice; et cetra....
9. THE VILLA: Since it was first fixed by the patricians of ancient Rome, the basic programme of the villa has remained substantially the same because it fulfils a need that is not material but psychological and ideological. This need is not subject to influences of evolving societies and technologies-the villa accommodates a myth impervious to reality. [Source: The Villa as a Paradigm; James Ackerman. in Perspecta: the Yale Architectural Journal # 22.] The term 'ideology' is used here in reference to a concept or a myth so firmly rooted in the unconscious that it is held as an incontrovertible truth. 1n the case of the programme of the villa there are several versions of such. For instance....
   1. The city dweller has typically idealised country life and has sought to acquire a property it might be enjoyed. The villa exists not in order to fulfil autonomous functions (e.g. such as those of the farm house) but as an antithesis to urban values and accommodations.
   2. Core of the villa ideology is rooted in the contrast of the city ("culture") and countryside ("nature"). The virtues and delights of being posited in the countryside being the antithesis of the vices and excesses of the other. The literature of republican Rome related to stoicism in its ascetic and moral tone advises to urban man of affairs to acquire a modest farmhouse on a small country property and to cultivate it himself with little or no help: the labour itself is seen as purifying him of the contaminations of the city.
   3. Marxists interpret ideology as the means by which the dominant class reinforces and justifies the social and economic structure and its privileged positions while obscuring its motivations from itself and of others. In this term, the villa is a paradigm not only of architec2ure but of ideology. It is a myth or fantasy through which a person whole position (of privilege) is rooted in urban commerce and industry has been able to expropriate rural land.
   4. The same repertory of benefits of villa life echo down the centuries: the practical advantages of farming, the healthfulness provided by the air and exercise-relaxation and reading, conversation with virtuous friends and contemplation, and delightful views of the landscape.
   1. Style and Form: The villa is less fixed than most other architectural types because the requirements of leisure lack clear definition. The villa seldom displays an effort on the part of the proprietor or the architect to confirm the past custom, with rare exception it strains to be the paradigm for the architectural avant-garde. To fulfil its ideological mission, the villa must interact in some way with nature. The compact-cubic villa is often a folly in nature, standing off - it in a polar opposition. Designers of Renaissance villas were too fixed on this polarity of nature and culture to devise schemes in which the barriers were removed. What interaction did occur was, rather, between architecture and the garden; which also remained fully within the architect's control.[Source; Ackerman; op cit.]
   2. The View: The choice of prospect is almost as much subject to myth as to design The villa must be viewed in the sense that fully illustrate its `urbane' roots of the villa myth. The villa often looks back on the city from a high and distant promontory outside city-walls. . .. . . so that the owner can enjoy a visual command of the site. .
   3. The Villa as a Sign: The expression of power and aspiration is evident in the first villas......which look over the vocabulary of the medieval feudal estate.
10. See, Christian Norberg-Schultz. The Genius Loci of Rome in Architectural Design magazine. London vol. 1979.
11. See, James Ackerman. The Villa as a Paradigm, Perspecta 22.
12. E.g., for signification of wine, see, Barthes; Mythologies. op cit. pp. 65-68.
13. the Acrobat, le Corbusier; in Oppositions 15-16 / pp. 09.