Week 8: Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture

Venturi’s goal in his book “Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture” is not to provide polemic analyses of architecture, but, to employ certain criticisms that unveil the complex value, meaning, and purpose/ utility, potentially present, or possibly absent, in architecture. He does this by… It is important to note that Venturi admits his analysis is influenced by his preferences; “As an artist I frankly write about what I like in architecture: complexity and contradiction. From what we find we like- what we are easily attracted to- we can learn much of what we really are.” (Venturi, 13) But then again, all theorists and all architects tend to write about, or design, or analyze what they like. This recognition humbles his argument and grounds the reader through recognizing that his book is a collection of arguments that upon the reader’s analysis, can be accepted or rejected. Perhaps it is the probing nature of his writing that leads many readers, such as myself, to accept his argument, almost as if they had formulated it themselves. 

The primary postulation of his book is clearly referenced in the title- Complexity and Contradiction. But what does this mean in the context of architecture? In the section titled “Non-straightforward Architecture: a gentle manifesto” he quite explicitly proclaims that he is a proponent of, in Isaiah Berlin’s terms, the fox. Moreover, Venturi is famously known for writing “less is more? No less is bore, more is more”. In relation to his theory of complexity and contradiction, he believes that architecture is better with richness, meaning, hybrid-ness, wholeness, harmony, substance, purpose, expression. This support of bricolage can be confused for the support of chaos in architecture but Venturi specifies that the complexity in architecture must be purposeful in order to be profound- arbitrary and incoherent elements are worthless. He also specifies that simplicity can fit his bill, only that it requires even more complexity to be profound. He explains the value of complexity and contradiction in architecture in elaborate detail throughout the book wherein the most cogent argument is that of the compelling essence it adds to architecture. 

At this point, the provided analysis is convincing enough to support the inclusion of complexity and contradiction in architecture. However, it is still unclear how these elements are expressed through architectural elements. Venturi explore this concept by analyzing classifying complexity and contradiction into two categories; While the second classification of complexity and contradiction in architecture relates to form and content as manifestations of program and structure, the first concerns the medium and refers to a paradox inherent in perception and the very process of meaning in art: the complexity and contradiction that results from the juxtaposition of what an image is and what it seems. Joseph Albers calls ‘the discrep­ancy between physical fact and psychic effect’…” (Venturi, 20) This analysis is potent because it clarifies how complexity and contradiction can be expressed and experienced. The concept that the optical and physical experience of space is juxtaposed to the experience of consciousness and emotion, leads us to the multifaceted value of architecture. It becomes evident that complexity and contradiction, when executed purposefully, lead to more profound physical and psychic experiences. If the elements of architecture are immediately understood and accepted, then it lacks the qualities that engender intrigue and perplexity, without which, architecture is meaningless. 

A contemporary example of this is the mass-development of suburban neighborhoods. More specifically, suburban neighborhoods where the homes are simultaneously erected with near-identical form and program. It seems obvious to any budding architect that these types of structures have no architectural value, however, to explore Venturi’s theory, let us analyze them. In terms of complexity and contradiction in these structures, the simple ones embody the quote ‘less is bore’, and the seemingly complex ones are comprised of arbitrary and incoherent elements. There is hardly any architectural intention behind creating these dwellings and therefore their ‘architecture’ is immediately intelligible. This only furthers the ideology that complexity and contradiction must be purposeful and profound in order to be mutually inclusive with meaningful and allusive architecture.