From Heidegger to Adorno: Toward an Aesthetics of Dwelling

1. Introduction

What can the philosophical thought of Adorno and Heidegger have in common? The former’s criticism^[1] of the latter (mainly for the obsolete character of the concept of authenticity), the latter’s complete indifference to the former’s work (stating that he has “read nothing of his”^[2]), and the difference between Heidegger’s ontology and Adorno’s critical theory initially show that the distance between the two worlds is abysmal. If, however, we were trying to look beyond the obvious and seek a new key of interpretation and a new way of approach that would not focus on the socio-political and historical conditions of that time, but would be contemporary, then it would be useful this time to turn to whatever similarities and convergences^[3] the works of the two philosophers may present. By comparing the texts of the two philosophers, we could thus answer critical and topical questions concerning the way we live today, the way we build, and the way we use existing architectural structures. The journey from Minima Moralia to Functionalism Today and from Building Dwelling Thinking to …Poetically Man Dwells… will lead us to a series of questions concerning architecture (such as those of ownership, subjectivity, freedom, and community). We will ask whether it is possible from the duality created by the positions of Heidegger and Adorno [dwelling is possible (under certain conditions) - dwelling is impossible] that some convergence can emerge in the sense that they both start from a common premise; that is, that the problem is located in the field of dwelling which has been challenged in the post-war period and is empty of meaning. Is, after all, what Adorno says not so different from Heidegger’s? Is the realization of the impossibility of dwelling perhaps the realization of our mortality and impermanence of which Heidegger speaks? Are we always visitors? Wanderers? Does the realization of the impossibility of dwelling liberate us and enable us to inhabit in another way?

Alongside these texts, this paper will explore a “close reading” of the 2007 David Zwirner Gallery exhibition which sheltered the work of Rirkrit Tiravanija and Gordon Matta-Clark. On that occasion, Rirkrit Tiravanija recreated his famous Untitled 1992 (Free) installation-performance act which was exhibited next to Gordon Matta-Clark’s 1972 Open House. Although these specific works of art are not architectural works per se various aspects of aesthetics, politics, or even ethics in architecture can be contemplated through their prism. Rirkrit Tiravanija through the 90s and 00s was inspired by the work of several architects and artists^[4] and tried to experiment with space, scale, and materials by reinventing and recreating architectural works in child-size replicas. Gordon Matta-Clark’s studies in Architecture led him to a series of site-specific projects in which existing buildings were used as material for his art. Those types of interventions through cuts to buildings that were about to be demolished are better known as “anarchitecture”. So in a way, the coexistence of the two works in the same gallery is not paradoxical. With his Untitled 1992 (Free) Rirkrit Tiravanija emptied out the gallery space and transformed it into an exhibition space where he prepared Thai food in a temporary kitchen and offered it for free to everyone. The concept behind this work was to invite the public to participate and to be active, thus becoming the performer of the show. People were forming a disparate group and yet by sharing food, experience and space they were able to create a so-to-speak ephemeral community. One might even say that a sense of belonging could also be achieved through the aforementioned process. Right next to this installation stood Gordon Matta-Clark’s piece that was originally placed in the street; a dumpster reshaped into a living space with rooms and corridors for the homeless. Could this architectural artwork be more than a shelter for a person in need? We will see how the theory of Adorno and Heidegger can be applied to such artworks and suggest that the reinterpretation of existing architectural works can be a political act in terms of creating new ways of perceiving, thinking, and occupying space.

2. Adorno on the impossibility of dwelling

Let’s first start with the atypical work Minima Moralia which was written between 1944-1947. With its “reflections on a damaged life” -as indicated in the subtitle- Minima Moralia is full of observations, remembrances, and different perspectives of a life that can no longer be considered autonomous. Had we sum up the main question of this philosophical work, we could simply phrase it as follows: How should we live our everyday lives and how are we supposed to live in a world that is fragmented? Since it is not possible to seek a different reality, Adorno seems to suggest that we should live in this world despite the condition. Hence, the negative approach that dominates his thought can liberate us and help us perceive the world while acknowledging the impossibility of a coherent whole. Having said that, we can now have a deeper understanding of the meaning that his theory on dwelling postulates. Within the first lines of Fragment 18 (Refuge for the homeless), it is stated that something that was once present is now lost into oblivion:

“Dwelling, in the proper sense, is now impossible.”

The now indicates that something has changed, something that was a certainty in the past or at least a contingency is now impossible. The following sentence not only confirms this alteration but reveals a distorted reality:

“The traditional residences we grew up in have grown intolerable: each trait of comfort in them is paid for with a betrayal of knowledge, each vestige of shelter with the musty pact of family interests.”

Fragments of a past life, kaleidoscopic images of a house and a home that no longer fulfills its purpose, there is no shelter in the “modern habitations” and no refuge in a “period-style house”. According to Adorno, the choice to live in between, and the preference for temporary housing (a hotel room or a furnished room) could be a plausible solution but not for everyone; what about the ones in need? This observation is still valid and resonates with current issues of our time, especially if one thinks of the new ways of living and emerging types of working, such as the need for housing for the hybrid population of the digital nomads, or the constant waves of migration that are fueled by war, climate change or any other type of crisis. “The house is past”, says Adorno, and the least that the owner can do, if anyone still owns a property, is to be aware of the impossibility to feel at home^[5]. If we tried to project this concern into our century would we be able to say that contemporary architecture has achieved what modern architecture had failed to do? There is no simple answer to that question but if there is still ambiguity as to whether or not architecture is capable of making us find our place, we could turn to certain pieces of -contemporary- art to find not only one of the “last refuges”^[6], but also a possible guide that provides ideas and suggestions that could lead into an autonomous architecture who defies alienation. We will see in detail how art and architecture are intertwined and how they influence each other, but before that, it is of great importance that we continue our analysis with the second text of the German philosopher– a speech he addressed to the German Werkbund in Berlin in 1965, to get a notion of Adorno’s effort to reconcile at some level two forms of estranged art; the so-called “applied” and “fine arts”.

In Functionalism Today (Funktionalismus heute), we are introduced to another part of Adorno’s criticism of culture in general and architecture more specifically. This time Adorno expresses his discontent vis-à-vis practical architecture, an architecture that is non-ornamental, where function comes first or, to put it in another way, where “form follows function”^[7]. Functionalism’s adherence to materials, utility, and its inflexibility toward aesthetic experience had the opposite effect to that intended. It created a simulacrum of Functionalism’s authentic image. By drawing a parallel between the art of music and architecture, Adorno proceeds to critique Adolf Loos’ ideas on architecture and the ornament in order to elucidate some points and explain what true functionalism should stand for:

“This insight necessitates a correction of Loos’ thesis, which he, in his open-mindedness would probably not have rejected: the question of functionalism does not coincide with the question of practical function. The purpose-free [zweckfrei] and the purposeful [zweckgebunden] arts do not form the radical opposition which he imputed. The difference between the necessary and the superfluous is inherent in a work, and is not defined by the work’s relationship — or the lack of it — to something outside itself.”^[8]

Functionalism doesn’t equal necessarily function. Moreover, in every artwork, there should be an equilibrium between high and low, purposefulness^[9] and autonomous freedom, imagination and handicraft, symbolism and objectivity. Adolf Loos’ ornament-free utopia, with its streets “like white walls” and the artist’s divine mission, “no longer holds” according to Adorno; nor do “the purely purpose-oriented forms” or the resurrection of the decoration. Adorno’s initial fear of the impossibility of dwelling is once more confirmed^[10], however, he is convinced that we have to keep trying and never give in to the threat of our society. Architecture can reconcile all those unbalanced forces by using imagination to turn purpose into space^[11], as long as the architect has a certain sense of space^[12], that is to say, that he doesn’t let the expression of his subjectivity be used to the detriment of space. What Adorno says in his lecture is essential both for the architect of the ‘here and now’ and the architect of the future. Architecture can create a space worth living in but when there is a deficiency in imagination and ideology, when architecture serves only profit and space is conceived as a product in a bourgeois, consumer society, then we become once again homeless. Instead, like in a yin-yang circle, all of the aforementioned pairs should fulfill one another; a work of art with no purpose should have a practical side and a purposeful artwork should be combined with creativity and imagination. Each artist, Adorno concludes, has to transcend his own craft and proceed in a way so that he creates firstly “with regard to social things” and secondly, in a purposeful art such as architecture to pursue a new kind of aesthetic reflection, beyond the principle of beauty. In Functionalism Today we see how subjects such as Art, Architecture, Politics, and Aesthetics, are explored in parallel -at times through subtle references- and how it is made clear that all of these fields are mirroring different aspects of the same concerns and problems that our society is suffering from and that where partly mentioned in Minima Moralia.

Adorno firmly believes that we have to cope with this damaged world and overcome the adversities without searching for alternate realities or utopias; we can’t emphasize this enough. That’s why he rejects any concept of a different reality, such as Adolf Loos’ idea of Functionalism or Heidegger’s concept of the hut in the Black Forest. And yet somehow Adorno’s and Heidegger’s divergent points of view seem to have some similarities. Heidegger admits that the modern man is homeless not because of a housing shortage but because he doesn’t know how to be in-the-world. He has to learn how to dwell as a mortal to get a sense of belonging. Both of them try to re-establish the meaning that has been forgotten^[13] and to question our connection to the world, the former by accepting the loss of meaning and by inciting rebellion against capitalist society, the latter by acknowledging the “fall” of the Dasein and by putting forward a proposal on how to live ‘poetically’.

3. Heidegger thinking dwelling

But what does it mean to be in-the-world, to live as a Dasein alongside other beings, in coexistence with them? Most importantly, how to dwell as a poet? In his 1951 lecture “…Poetically Man Dwells…” (…Dichterisch wohnet der Mensch…) Heidegger tries to find through language and poetry the ‘measure’ that could let people be aware of themselves and live authentically in the Fourfold. In the second paragraph, the philosopher refers to the reason why dwelling in the modern age is precarious and why it seems to be incompatible with the poetic most of the time:

“Our dwelling is harassed by the housing shortage. Even if that were not so, our dwelling today is harassed by work, made insecure by the hunt for gain and success, bewitched by the entertainment and recreation industry.”^[14]

Once again we come upon the same problem. Since dwelling has become dysfunctional the only way to grasp the meaning of the world that we live in is to resort to poetry which can give substance to all the things that go beyond our perception and vision thanks to metaphor, analogy, and poetical images. Language has the power to express and channel notions and ideas that can make us measure ourselves with our mortality and with divine entities. That’s how we should interpret the relationship between dwelling and the poetic. Through poetry, a man can learn how to live ‘full of merit’, how to build, and how to dwell. Heidegger explains that “poetry first causes dwelling to be dwelling.” and that “Poetic creation […] is a kind of building”. In order to dwell we also have to understand how to live in between securely. We have a glance upward, toward the sky and at the same time down to earth because we are in the Dimension^[15] within which everything occurs. Of course, Heidegger concludes, authentic poetry is not available at all times and cannot be brought to light appropriately in every period. When Kindness does not inhabit our hearts we are not capable of taking the measure, thus we live unpoetically.

Again, Heidegger’s analysis can redirect us in some way to Adorno’s viewpoint. Heidegger’s reference to the harassment that cause work and the entertainment industry to dwelling as well as his reference to temporary lodging^[16] can remind us of Adorno’s critique of capitalism and his preference for temporary housing. No matter how different their conception of the world is or how different their philosophical backgrounds are, in many cases we cannot help but notice the interconnections between their texts. Even when comparing two ideas in which the contiguity is less obvious or less apparent we notice that they are “shockingly close”^[17] as Habermas would argue. Following that sequence, we can go even further by suggesting that Adorno’s idea of the impossibility of dwelling could be close to Heidegger’s claim that the realization of our mortality can set us free and help us dwell poetically. In both views there is a sort of common ground in the sense that both philosophers embrace the fact that we cannot change the current state of the world, we can only accept it as it is and live in a different way. Perhaps they refer to the same circumstance, only seen from a different perspective or by entering from different interpretive systems. Both of them are recognizing that there are some constraints and are looking for ways to make this world relevant. There is a world before and after the War, a diaeresis between two divided realities that cannot meet and the task of the philosopher is to help the individual think, find his identity, and make life bearable again.

To think is to be aware of our own existence and of the place it occupies in the world, to be conscious, to learn, to know; and it is by no accident that the verb ‘to think’ constitutes one of the three pillars of Martin Heidegger’s 1951 lecture title: Building Dwelling Thinking (Bauen Wohnen Denken). Although the word “thinking” is the third in line its importance is of great value in the process of the reveal of the essence of dwelling. Thinking can help us create, find meaning, build, and building allows our being-in-the-world and being-toward-death to dwell authentically in the fourfold. These three terms complement each other and are inextricably linked. The final purpose is to dwell, so building has to be thought of in such a way as to ensure dwelling. To build and to dwell is not to construct and give shelter. The equation is much more complex than that. Here’s another paradox that shows how complicated the relationship between the terms is: Building -that “cultivates growing things” and “erects buildings”- allows us to “letting dwell” and at the same time, only dwelling can let us build^[18]. The three terms enter into a continuum where each one of them is a prerequisite for the other two to exist and Heidegger turns to a linguistic analysis so that he and his audience can have a thorough understanding of this correlation. Through language -and etymology- Heidegger wants to help us understand the true notion (and nature^[19]) of these intrinsically linked terms, to remember what has been forgotten and restore their meaning. We see, for example, that the word Bauen (building) contains in its original version (buan) the meaning of the word ‘dwell’. The answer to how to build has been given to us through language and it’s been there since the beginning.

In looking back to find answers, however, Heidegger does not propose a return to a previous state or era. When he explains why the farmhouse in the Black Forest, close to Todtnauberg, meets all the criteria for dwelling^[20], he points out that this reference to the farmhouse does not imply by no means that our society should use such houses as models in order to design and construct again similar buildings^[21]. The farmhouse simply shows us what an authentic dwelling looks like^[22]. Once more, Heidegger invites us to remember in order to think and gain access to truth. In this way, we will be able to comprehend that what we initially thought to be the problem of the modern age -that is housing shortage and homelessness- can impel us to reflect on the real plight of dwelling:

“However hard and bitter, however hampering and threatening the lack of houses remains, the real plight of dwelling does not lie merely in a lack of houses. […] The real dwelling plight lies in this, that mortals ever search anew for the nature of dwelling, that they must ever learn to dwell. What if man’s homelessness consisted in this, that man still does not even think of the real plight of dwelling as the plight? Yet as soon as man gives thought to his homelessness, it is a misery no longer. Rightly considered and kept well in mind, it is the sole summons that calls mortals into their dwelling.”^[23]

Homelessness is an eternal condition in the history of humanity. First, we are homeless and the realization of our homelessness is what motivates us to seek dwelling. This is a never-ending process. Heidegger draws our attention to the notion of homelessness and associates it with the concept of nihilism^[24] and the question of Being. Just as we can distinguish between a positive and a negative turn of nihilism^[25], we can as well venture a positive reading of Adorno’s concept of the Shelterless. Their approaches may differ but they both create a new aesthetics of dwelling that emerges from homelessness and through their writings they participate in a political dialogue that is broader than Adorno’s critique of capitalism or Heidegger’s discontent and mistrust toward modernism and technology. Their legacy has inspired not only architects but also artists^[26] and we can claim that architects may be redirected to the concept of dwelling through contemporary art.

4. Contemporary art as a vehicle for dwelling

In the 2007 Rirkrit Tiravanija and Gordon Matta-Clark exhibition we won’t find any reference to the philosophical work of Heidegger and Adorno, but we shall see that the juxtaposition of the two artworks can create a dialogue that will let us reflect on various concepts that are interconnected with their thought. Matta-Clark’s Open House somehow echoes Adorno’s ideas^[27] of temporary housing, homelessness, shelter and abandonment, and even his critique on capitalism, the exchange value system and consumerism. Considering the fact that the original work (1972) was conceived as an architectural piece -a dumpster made out of materials that were found in the Soho district, that was meant to be placed in the street outside the gallery space showing the struggle of real life and of the people that are in constant search of refuge as opposed to the protected and secured space of the gallery, we understand that this contradictory image produced a powerful statement against the capitalist system within which the art-world and Art Institutions see art as a product. The decision to exhibit the artwork in public space, where life is happening and not in a more “sterile” environment is one with aesthetic and political connotations. Everyone was supposed to have access to the container -from artists to homeless people- and everyone was at liberty to use it as shelter. Despite the site-specific nature of the original version, the 2007 recreation that was installed inside the Zwirner gallery preserved the concept of the artist. Anyone could still walk around in the corridors and rooms inside the container and find shelter for a moment. Gordon Matta-Clark’s work was an empty, abandoned space that was transformed into a temporary living space that could be shared by everyone. In addition to remodeling an existing space, by choosing reused, recycled or discarded materials for his artwork Gordon Matta Clark was proposing a different approach to architectural planning, building and living in the city^[28]. Open house, like any of his other projects, shows how the artist expresses his concerns regarding the failure of society to let people think, move and act freely without any restrictions or limitations. Gordon Matta Clark saw that the impossibility of dwelling in the early 70s^[29], especially in the deprived areas, and the alienation resulted from politics based on property, ownership, materialism, and capital. Through his art, he intended to create a community of solidary people, to revolutionize the way we think and occupy space within the capitalist society and to help us find our identity. He chose to use architectural constructions as material for his art in order to redefine the image of abandonment and abjection.

Image 01- Matta-Clark 2007 Zwirner gallery

The installation-performance of Rirkrit Tiravanija was the second work of art that was hosted in the Zwirner gallery and was in dialogue with Matta-Clark’s dumpster. Tiravanija experimented with space as well but in a slightly different way. He rearranged the gallery space so that the visitors could feel they were in connection with themselves and with the other visitors. If we were to find an analogy between Tiravanija’s work and Heidegger’s theory we could claim that Tiravanija is creating the appropriate conditions to let people be as mortals, to show them how to be in their ‘presencing’, how to dwell. The artist let visitors be part of a unique experience where human interaction, free food, and a cozy space were generating different combinations each time and were producing unexpected, interesting results. The food sharing was leading people back to a forgotten place by reviving the gathering of the tribe around the hearth and by pointing to a group habitation. People were able to communicate, take a break from technology, feel their mortality, understand the common fate of humankind, and realize that we are not superior to the divinities. Even the materials used in every presentation of the work are meticulously selected and serve a specific purpose. The wood surfaces of the installation are another element that reconnects the visitors with nature and life on earth. We could even argue that the installation is Tiravanija’s contemporary hut. Tiravanija understood the crisis of detachment that contemporary society was undergoing and he created an experience that would allow us to belong to a community and reevaluate our human needs. His work is characterized by simplicity, however, we enter a spiritual dimension where we can see the grid of human relations, think about the true nature of things, how to overcome our homelessness, and how to dwell.

Image02-Tiravanija 2007 Zwirner gallery

5.Conclusion

These two examples of contemporary art show us that a building is a space of endless possibilities and the way we rearrange it, the way we imagine its function and its form from a different perspective can create new meanings. Our intervention in an existing place is an aesthetic and a political act in that it allows us to conceptualize it and reinvent its role within the urban space. Art proposes an efficient and creative way to deal with architectural problems that may occur and teaches us how to apply ideas to practice. And whether we decide to join Heidegger’s call for unity or Adorno’s philosophy of disruption, 21^st-century architects can always rely on art for a renewed vision of the question of dwelling, based on rethinking existing space.