L'art et la ville

Le droit a la ‘personnalite’ est le plus grand privilege moderne. Il est a la portee de tous, grâce aux elements standardises, dont on peut composer un tres grand nombre de permutations equivalentes. Cette personnalisation est recherchee par tous, les artistes y compris, ceux-ci devant assurer aussi la mission de fabriquer des combinaisons ‘porteuses de messages’. Un objet sans message dechiffrable cesse d’etre objet d’art, il n’est qu’un canular. Le message peut etre compose a partir de ‘complexes’ ou de ‘Simplexes’. Le dechiffrage des ‘complexes’ n’a pas encore atteint le domaine public, mais il peut etre appris. L’architecte ne doit pas etre un artiste, car une ville n’est pas faite pour porter un message. L’architecte doit creer un systeme technique donnant a l’habitant le droit a la personnalisation (par permutations). C’est l’architecture mobile (ou urbanisme spatial) qui semble le seul systeme capable de donner cette liberte; la ville nouvelle amenerait alors la formation d’un nouveau folklore. La ville ne portant pas de message collectif n’est pas observable comme ‘oeuvre d’art’ par les non-habitants. Par contre, en tant que mecanisme, la ville reste parfaitement observable par les ‘naturalistes’. En conclusion, si l’artiste doit se soucier que son message soit comprehensible, l’architecte, lui, doit organiser le ‘code’ technique (autrement dit, l’infrastructure) qui permettra n’importe quel message. Abstract: The greatest modern privilege is the right to be an individual. Standard elements of construction contribute to this fight by making possible a great number of useful permutations. To be a unique individual is the target of everyone, including artists, but in order to be an artist one must be able to communicate individuality in a way that can be understood by everyone. Artists make objects that carry a message, but if the message is not decodable by others, the object is not a work of art—it is a ‘practical joke.’ Messages can be composed of ‘complexes’ or ‘simplexes.’ Today we can almost decode ‘complexes,’ and soon we will be able to teach its principles. Architects cannot be artists, for a city is not constructed to carry messages. Architects should create technical building systems that will permit anyone to manifest his own personality in his environment by selecting his preferred permutations within such systems. Mobile architectural systems (systems of spatial urbanism) are, it appears, the only ones capable of providing this liberty. The spatial city makes it possible for the city-shape to become a new folklore. Since cities do not carry messages, one cannot look upon a city as a work of art, except if one lives there. On the other hand, the city can be studied by ‘naturalists’. In conclusion the author points out that if an artist must worry about his message being understood, a town planner must provide technical elements (or a technical ‘code’ or infrastructure) within which any individual ‘message’ can be composed

Art · French Urban and Social Studies

• On Models of Utopias and Social Ecology

  Yona Friedman•Leonardo•1972

  Add to list