The need to categorize a work of architecture (and any other work for that matter) within a certain (architectural) style is a natural result of the manner of rational thought, seeking order out of the chaos of disorder. Any attempt to tame this urge can only be met with temporary success before the mind revolts and returns to its natural state. We are all familiar with puzzles that present us with disorganized and chaotic fragments and invite us to reproduce their ordered form. I am yet to see a remotely interesting puzzle that does the opposite. Koolhaas’s work seems to recognize this inevitability. He remarks “any architect who has a complex set of ambitions has to be extremely aware of the fragility of his enterprise (Zaera, p34).”
Doug Graf in his lectures on architectural theory speaks of ‘grandfathering’ whereby one generation of architectural theorists (A) assume a position, the next generation (B) completely rejects it only for the generation immediately after (C) to assume the position of A as a direct result of completely rejecting the ideas of B, and the trend continues from generation to generation. If Doug’s theory is to be believed, then architecture can be viewed as essentially a constant swinging of the pendulum between two extremes of order-disorder, an oscillation that returns to its origin every other generation. That would make Koolhaas and the school of thought he inspired (i include Dogma and to a certain extent MOS in here), turn of the century modernists. Kipnis’ remarks strengthen this position: “The problem that confounds architectural criticism is that at many levels…Koolhaas embraces traditional architectural standards perfected by the modernists.”
Koolhaas and his school however being fully conversant of the previous failures of Modernism are not content with simply residing within a particular position but have challenged themselves by anticipating(by looking back) what is to come and marrying it to what is now. It may be a rejection of absolutism that saves architecture…or destroys it, by ridding it of the solace of simply reacting to what is. For instance, Koolhaas describes two of his projects as such: “Lille is a classical operation to minimize the chaos while in Melun-Senart we tried to exploit it (Zaera, p35). Two projects by the same architect that seem to assume opposite sides of the order-disorder dichotomy. On Dogma, Van Gerrewey notes that :”there is a renewed interest among younger architects in the architectural tradition of modernism, an interest legible in their attempts to uphold certain principles(p28).”
MOS is a bit of an anomaly in this narrative and one is not quite sure if to place them among the last generation of postmodernists, before the paradigm shift or if they are two generations ahead and looking into the future, or a radical form of modernism that pretends to be disorderly while being orderly, an orderly arrangement of chaotic elements. Miljacki’s article on MOS may begin to suggest the last because it describes MOS’ work as attempt to reconcile generational contradictions, an act which would be extremely hard, perhaps even impossible without some system of order.
Gerrewey speaks of the idea of architecture as a mirror that reflects societal conditions. The previous Modernism model reflected the ambitions and promise of technology, the new Modernism reflects conditions of current society: politics, economic conditions etc. So once again in creating the new by recycling and re-presenting old ideas in architecture, form again follows function but the new function is socio-political criticism.
References:
Alejandro Zaera. Finding Freedoms: Conversations with Rem Koolhaas
Jeff Kipnis, Recent Koolhaas
Christophe Van Gerreway. How Soon is Now? Ten Problems and Paradoxes in the Work of Dogma
Ana Miljački, Promiscuity as a Project?-“MOS definitely”
Pier Vittorio Aureli, Martino Tattara. Stop City
Random Thoughts of a Curious Mind 