In explaining
Foucault’s work, Yasraf Amir Piliang ( 2003)
tries to define 'discourse' as follow:
".....a certain way in conceptioning
and act to social objects, that generating an implication at subjects. It is
manifested into social practice of physical formation (or structure) and also
in the form of oral and writing. For example, usage the body, usage the space
and object, transfering the knowledge, forwarding the information"
(Piliang, 2003:106/ translation).
In Foucault's opinion, discourse and power
are complementary. On one side, 'power' creates some discourses to make the 'power' continue, and on the other side 'discourses'
might shape new powers. Foucault explains that discourse is not exist in a
history continuity context, but in discontinuity context. According to
Foucault, every period in history is
arranged by what he call 'episteme'
(see Adian, 2006, and Sack, 2005). Episteme
he intends is to express periods of history, and to explain with reference to,
the world views and existence of certain discourses. Episteme is distinguished
by various institutions, discipline, knowledge, order and activities the
consistence with the certain world views. (Dahaner, at al, 2000: xi, see also,
Eisenring, 2008).
Thereby, it can be explained the interrupting between
modernism and postmodernism, especially in the field of art and architecture.
At postmodernism era, any postmodern architecture work can be seen as staying
in an episteme of world development
history in which postmodernism discourse sticks on it.
In
modernism discourse, any architecture masterpiece is considered as a result of architect’s
genius. The concept of architect's
authority as a subject, seem is clearly influenced by Descartes's philosophy idea of
rationalization. As we know, rationality
in modernism doctrine is always considered to be a truth tester, Foucault
then discloses that rationality is nothing but
a practice of power to create the exclusion of those who are irrational (see Hardiman,
2003:195). This rationality principle then gives
respectable space for any owner subject
of rational idea or the owner subject of
knowledge. As we know, in Descartes's philosophy, subject is
central of ideas, concepts, and
knowledges. Rationality model and subjectivity like this then became the
ideology of West capitalism at that
period, and this gives separate prestigious space for individual, including
private of architects. Why?, because they are the holders of discourse for their own masterpieces. On the contrary an architect in postmodernism's episteme
has not gotten space anymore in
discourse.
Second
thing can be pulled from Foucault's concept on discourse is that at behind of
the arrangement of space and
architectural object steming from postmodernism's ideas, there is a form of a
certain power operated. At the episteme of postmodernism, discourse on an
architecture masterpiece - especially at commercial common building—now is more predominated by
neo-capitalism's power than by rationality's power. On the contrary, postmodernism's
doctrine, as part of neo-capitalism's discourse, seeks and explores any form of
new powers, namely the power of
commodity, the power of symbols, and the
power of signs, which at finally constructs society at ideology of
consumptivism (see Eisenring, 2006, 2007, 2008).
In
Agger's eyes ( 2005:135), commodification of postmodernism is a way of how the power
moves its products and ideology. Existence of power as background of any
creation of architecture today is also shown by Robinowitz's expression as
follows: "In the privat sector, there are a number of large-scale economic
and social forces that influence the potential for development and even the
type and shape building" (Robinowitz, 1979b: 100). Thus, the role of
architects in creation of their masterpieces at episteme of postmodernism might be intervenced, engineered and
defined by the power operating in neo-capitalism society, without need to care
about the norms of architecture as we
have been known better at episteme of
modernism.
No comments:
Post a Comment