The Body

Andrew Benjamin

Architecture has relied on models or analogies in order to define its activity or delimit its field of operation. From Vertruvius up until the recent past one of the most pervasive analogies has been the body.# What will be suggested in this paper is that not only have developments in architecture overcome the hold of that analogy, that freedom has allowed a return to earlier architectural forms, in order that they may be reinterpreted. In a sense architecture can develop another relation to the body by its having been freed from a relationship based on an analogy between the building and the body. What this means is that it is possible to take up, from within architecture, issues that pertain, for example, to the disabled body or the gendered body precisely because issues that relate to embodied existence are no longer positioned by the analogy between the built and the body. It is not as though the body has been reconfigured and thus the nature of the analogy has changed. The body can be reconfigured because the analogy has been overcome

Of the many formulations of the relationship between body and architecture the one found in Alberti�s On the Art of Building captures the nature of what is involved.# It is not just that beauty is defined in terms of the internal adequacy of proportion. It is also the case that the internal divisions of the human body provide the measure for the building. Of the many passages that could be cited one of the most apposite is the following:

The shapes and sizes for the setting out of columns, of which the ancients distinguished three kinds according to the variations of the human body, are well worth understanding. When they considered man�s body, the decided to make columns after his image. Having taken the measurements of a man, they discovered that the width, from some side to the other, was a sixth of the height, while the depth from navel to kidneys was a tenth.#

What is important in this passage is twofold. Not only is there the strength of the analogy, it is also the case that measurement and thus a certain geometry of proportion is structured by the analogy. Measure is always defined externally.

Part of the force that can be attributed to the analogy is this structuring potential. Fundamental to the process was an essential anthropocentrism. This is not the pursuit of humanistic values � though that may have been the case � it was the identification of the generative element of design within an analogy in relation to which architecture was always determined externally. Once architecture moves to the modern period � a movement allowing for a retrospective reinterpretation of the tradition � then the external control will have vanished. It is not just that the body has been deferred if only to be reincorporated as a concern within architecture, it is more significantly the case that an external control, a control structured by analogy (an instance of which is the body), has given way to a fundamentally different way of construing the generative dimension of architecture. That dimension has become internal to the object, defining the object as that which is to be explicated in terms of its self-effectuation as architecture. A clear example here is the way that the Raumplan intersects with role of "cladding" in Loos�s Villa M�ller to construct the object as architecture.

If architecture has been freed from the analogy of the body how then does this freedom open up the concerns of the history of architecture. Surely it could be argued that while this freedom may have some impact on future projections it remains the case those conceptions of symmetry that appeared in earlier buildings, or plans, defined symmetry in terms of the order of the body, or if not the body then nature. (In both instances what determined symmetry was external to built form.) While that may have been the case what will be suggested here is that there is no need to limit interpretations in this way. The larger point would be that to the extent that elements of the history of architecture can be differentiated from their insertion into given history, the possibility of reinterpretation and thus reactivisation allows history to have an important connection to the contemporary practice of design.

All that will be offered here is a sketch. Two moments from the Italian Baroque will be chosen; the first a work of sculpture and the second a straightforward work of architecture. The first is Bernini�s David (1623) and the second Borromini�s San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane. (1638-1682)# While reference will be made to other sculptures and architectural works these two will be central. Part of the argument will have to involve a consideration of how certain definitive elements of the Baroque are to be understood.

David.

As a point of departure it should not be forgotten that what is at work here is a body. Admittedly it is a sculptured body and yet as sculpture it can be interpreted as the move from the body understood as proportion towards a body understood as a dynamic process of internal relations. Moreover, it is a dynamic process that is neither that of simple movement nor unending oscillation. What is at work is the movement of the material infinite.

This sculpture involves a marked development from earlier works such as The Rape of Proserpina (1621-2). What delimits the latter is its static quality. That quality is brought about by relationship between the planted left leg of Pluto and the force of Proserpina�s left hand against his face. The skin above her abductor�s left eye is being forced up while all the weight is borne by his left leg. The right leg is raised indicating the possibility of movement and yet the relationship between the eye and the left leg indicates a stationary position. All that is being marked is the moment. Ovid insists on the simultaneity of seeing, loving and abducting. (Metamorphoses. V.395) The sculpture is of that point in time. The movement of hand, facial skin and legs involves a careful balance. As such it is both mannerist in orientation though more importantly as a work it can be said to be defined by a temporality of the instant. What is seen is that instant. Each of the elements comprising the relation that define the sculpture can be viewed. There is a real extent to which the work is complete in itself. It is the completion that delimits what is seen. The relationship between presentation and the instant defines the work in terms of both representation and expression. Neither claim can be made for David. This will be the reason why David is an architecturally more interesting sculpture. Moreover, though this is a contention to be argued, David opens the way towards Borromini�s extraordinary facades and interiors. More, particularly David, despite being a body leads away from the analogy between body and building, precisely because it can be viewed as no longer held by a conception of form that is anthropocentric in nature.

What marks out David, as a work has initially to do with time. And yet what temporality brings with it is a work, which while present and thus which while a presentation, nonetheless, has to be defined in terms of an interiority that eschews any reduction to the instant. In other words, it is defined in terms of a set of internal relations. While those relations have exteriority insofar as the object is a material presence what is exterior is the presentation of pure interiority. And yet the relations comprising this interiority have to be defined in terms of dynamic relations rather than the interconnection of static points. What will emerge is another way on construing internal relations.

One of the most remarkable qualities of the sculpture is that it is not possible to stand in front of it as opposed to behind it. Equally, it is not possible to stand to one side and see it from that side rather than being either in front or behind. No matter where the viewer stands the sculpture stands before the eye. In a sense this is because David�s body is turned such that in being ready to release the catapult - a rope containing a rock stretched between his hands � a circle has been constructed. What is viewed is that circle. And yet, to insist on the formal circularity of the object would be to miss both the counter balancing of forces as well as the dynamic relations that the �circle� constructs (or equally, of the which the circle is the effect). While it may be necessary to provide a semiology of the sculpture in which the relations are described, the points being described maintain a different sense of relationality than one understood as comprised of mere connectedness. The work is not the connection of points. It is not even as though points connect lines that are dynamic. Points would only ever be after effects of lines. Once the dynamic quality predominates then what is maintained is a pure interiority that continues to present itself. What is presented, while having a singular quality, is not reducible to a simple singularity. This is especially the case if the singular is understood as necessarily bound up with representation and the temporality of the instant. Within the process of relation it is always possible to construct a point of view, however that point is the effect of the process. Equally, it cannot be identical with the object. This is not a claim about relativity but about the process of pure internal relatedness. The infinite in question is the material infinite of the work.

David�s right foot is on the ground. The back of the left is raised with the toes of that foot taking the weight. The body is neither turning nor not turning. The tension created by the feet instantiates process. Process here is movement. The rope of the catapult is held tight. The hands are pulling and yet at that moment the catapult is still. It is however a still point within the process that marks the catapult being held and which is, at the same time, the process of its being released. (The temporality of the instant yields its place to an anoriginal temporal complexity.)# His loins are wrapped by a folded garment and around his shoulder there is a pouch held in place by further folded material. The folds of the material are not, in this context, what is interesting. The significance is that they cannot be differentiated from the work of the body. The wrap of the material over his loins forms part of the body�s unfolding. It neither flows with the body nor against it. It is neither on the body nor is it separate from it. Body, material, pouch, sling, all form part of the process. The error would be to see the body as adorned and therefore the body as central. Indeed, it can be argued that what defines the sculpture are the relations between the body � and by body what is meant is David�s literal body � and what could be taken, albeit wrongly, as secondary, i.e. material, sling, pouch, etc. On an abstract level it is possible to see the sculpture � and it should be remembered that there is a potential endlessness that comprises this seeing � as a surface. And yet it is not a single surface on which different elements are placed. The sculpture is the endless articulation of relations in which what are articulated, can at times, be attributed specific qualities. In other words, on the level of description it is possible to distinguish the material around the body, or connected to it, from the body itself. And yet such a formal distinction would miss the way they form part of a continuum. The continuum in question is not one of either adornment let alone one of ornamentation. Rather, these formally distinct elements form part of a continuous surface. At the extreme it can be suggested that the only way the distinct elements are able to be distinct and those to be viewed as separable is because they are interarticulated within, and as, a continuous surface. Such an argument would be consistent with the claim made above that points are after effects of lines that work.

What then of David�s body? The body becomes the site of infinite relatedness. In refusing to privilege any one position� and thus by extension any description � it becomes a finite point the condition of possibility for which is the infinitude of relations. The latter is the work of the material infinite.

San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane.

Borromini died in 1667. At the time of his death the fa�ade of San Carlo was not yet finished. (The building, except for the fa�ade was finished in 1641. The fa�ade was completed in 1682.) The remaining plans however indicate the extent to which the existing building follows the original drawings. Blunt and Wittkower, amongst others, have provided detailed descriptions of the building. What is important here is to see the building within what could be described as another history of the curvilinear. Fundamental to the inception of the Baroque was the distinction between the static and the dynamic.# Noting that development, while essential, is to repeat a commonplace until the nature of that movement is characterized. Even then, it should not be thought that there is simple consistency within all Baroque architecture. However, in this context what has to be noted, is the path opened by a consideration of Bernini�s David. What is opened up is complexity within movement. In regards to San Carlo what needs to be emphasized is the distinction between a conception of movement that involves illusion and one that defines movement by the continuity of counter measures. It will be the latter that has realized complexity. It is not as though the two are in direct opposition or that they do not overlap or even reinforce each other. What is significant is how their difference provides particular openings.

The dome consists of a texture of geometric shapes � crosses, octagons and hexagons � that move towards a naturally lit opening which rises up towards the motif of a bird. Not only is the eye dragged up through the rich array of forms it is then tempted further � tempted towards the infinite - by flight. As the eyes soars the infinite is captured as much by flight as it is by the geometry. The infinite in question is the infinite of illusion. The interplay of symbolism and a vanishing point maintained by the intersection of geometry and light create a feeling of infinite movement towards a divine infinite. While the illusion is important, it is not as though infinite transcendence can have material presence other than as illusion. This is the restriction of the infinite. As Descartes argued in the Meditations what could not be represented was the infinite nature of God. There is however another conception of the infinite. Here the infinite is not linked to representation but to the infinity of pure becoming. Within the philosophical writings of the period the most exact formulation of this position is found in Leibniz�s conception of substance as force (vis). Substance is never static nor transcendent it is "un �tre capable d�action" (a being capable of action).# Activity defines substance. Its continuity is its continual self-realization and thus self-effectuation. Movement therefore is an infinitude of relations. Once an architecture of illusion is put to one side, then the question that has to be addressed concerns the architectural correlate to this conception of the infinite. It should be added immediately that this conception of the infinite can have material presence. The infinite is linked to relation. Baroque architecture is not Leibnizian. The relation has to do with how the infinite is understood. Architecture is not philosophy. The importance of the distinction lies in the nature of the former�s material presence.

One of the central elements defining the internal operation of the church is the movement of bays, columns and walls. While each element has a distinct quality there is an interconnectedness that is neither arbitrary nor the work of chance. Their interrelation is held by an entablature that divides the overall building into three sections. The physical presence of the entablature has the effect of emphasizing the columns even though it is an emphasis that is dissipated, formally, once it is recognized that they form part of the walls which in turn form the bays since the latter cannot be disassociated from the wall�s articulation. There is a complex pattern in which while the elements are separate in that they have either ornamental of functional specificity and as such can invite and maintain particular programmatic possibilities, they are nonetheless articulated together. If the walls were understood as a continuous line, then the measure and counter measure � that is the movement of the curvilinear � would have become a surface. In other words, what is at work here is not a straight line that has become curved. Measure and countermeasure continue to yield openings that become locations with, and as, a surface. # It is possible to see a similar operation in regard to the fa�ade. While the status of the fa�ade is contested it is, nonetheless, worth noting the way in which the curvilinear is once again a series of measures and counter measures that yield space. The curvilinear does not maintain, rather it is part of the process of spacing. It is in the process and in the potential endlessness that marks its presence that it is possible to locate the work of a material infinite.

In regards to the fa�ade the entablature plays a different role from the one it played within the building. Internally it held two different orders in place by marking their point of division. Moreover, the visual power of the entablature worked to control the eye and thus to regulate the experience of the building. The fa�ade incorporates the entablature. Even though it divides it is also the case that acts of division are part of the work of the fa�ade. Formally, it consists of convex and concave lines the delimit spaces (bays). As with the interior, columns, and ornamentation cannot be separated from the fa�ade. In forming part of the fa�ade it becomes a complex surface. Questions of addition and ornamentation cannot be separated from the possibility of their presence as that which is enacted by the measure and counter measure of the surface. While it is possible to see the two parts of the fa�ade as responding to each other insofar as a concave line on one level is positioned in relation to a convex line on the other, there is more at stake. Two elements need to be noted. The first is that the relationship of the convex and the concave is part of the totality of the surface. Again, it is a totality that allows for what was identified above as a material infinite. The second point is that the work of these lines � the work that is the complexity of the curvilinear � is the disclosure of spaces that allow for program because they await it. In others words, programmable space is the consequences of lines that work.

What Borromini�s adventure allows is not a claim about the modernity of the Baroque or even the extent to which the concerns of the Baroque could still play a determining role in design. Such claims would have to overlook the need to reconstruct historical periods. The inventing of histories and the establishing of points of connection occur because of openings afforded by the present. What is central to Borromini in this context is the way San Carlo can be seen as demanding another account of the generation of form. As an account it has to involve the movement of matter beyond the body, precisely because the generation of form is internal to the object. The limitation of the Baroque is the way internality and thus form were conceived. And yet the limitation is merely the Baroque�s particularity. In moving from externality and thus from an anthropocentric architecture, what the Baroque demonstrates is the impossibility of architecture having a forma finalis. The future opened up by Bernini and Borromini is that their work demonstrates the possibility of not repeating the detail of their formal inventions. The future is allowed by a different repetition one in which a material infinite will figure as that which continues to find form.