eco +Function+and+Sign

182STRUCTURALISM Eco FUNCTION AND SIGN:THE SEMIOTICS OF ARCHITECTURE SEMIOTICS AND ARCHITECTURE Ifseniotics, beyond beitrgthe scicDce ofrecognized systensofsigns, is really to be a sciencestudying all cultural phenomenaas ifthey were systems sisrlsof on the hypothesisthat all cultural phenonena are, in realitn systems signs, of or th.rt cLrkurecan be undeBtood as .onftuniutior then one ofthe fields in wh;ch it will undoubtedly fnid itself rnost challengedis that of architecture. It should be noted that the tetmarcbite.twe \1ti11be used in a broad scnsc here, indicating phcnoncna of nrdustrial design and urban desisn as wcll as phenonrenaofarchitccture proper (I{e willleave aside,however,thc quesrion of whether our rorio$ on thesephenom€nnwould be applicablc to rl,y 4'pe of design produ.ifls three'dimensiolul .o str .tians destifled to fetmit the f,lfilnent of sonre fun.tion .anftecte.l tuith ,& i,, io.ter], a dcfinitton thar would enbracc the design ofclothing, insofar as clothingis cutturalized and a means of participaring in sociery, nnd even rhe dcsisn of food, nor as rhe productior of something for the individualt nourishmcnt, but insofar as it involvcs the construction ofcontexis that have social funcrions and symbolic connotations, slch as p.rrticLrlarmenus! the acccssoles oi a meal, etc. a dcfinitioD rhat would be undelstood to cxclude, on the other hand, the production of rhree dimensional objects desthed primarily to be rortaz phteA rathet than utili?Ed in sociern such as works of art.) \vhy is architectureI particula! challenseto seniotics? First of aU because apparenrly most architectural objects do not .anhuniete (and are not dcsignedto communicate),but tr.tto,. No otre can doubt that a roof funda metrtally serves cover,and a slassto hold liquids ;. such a way rhat one can to then eas;lydrink them. lnderd, this is so obviously and unquestionablythe casc as it migbt seem perverseto itrsist upon see;ngas.n act of communication somerh;ng that is so well, and so easily, characre.izedas a possibiLity of function. Orc of the firsr questiotrsfo! semiot;csto fnce, then, if it aims ro provide keys to the cultural phenomenain rhs f;eld, is whether ir is possiblero interpret functions as havins somerhing to do wirh conmunicatioq aDd the point of it is that seeiDil functions from the semiotjcpoinr ofview might permit oneto understan.land deftre them bette! preciselyas functions, and therebyto dis.over other types of functionalirn which are just as essentialbut which a strright functjonal;t inrerpretarlo. keepsone from perceivins.l ARCHITECTURE COMMUNICAIION AS A phenomcnological .onsideration of our rclationship with architectural objects tells us rhat we conmonly do cxpcrience architecture as commun ication, evenwhile recognizingits functionalit) Let us imagine rhe point of view of thc nar who srarted the h;story of architccture.Still'allwonder and ferocity'(to useVicot phrase),driven bycold and rain ard following the example oi sonc animal or obeying an impulse in which hstinct and rersonjng are mixcd in a co.fused way, rhis hyporh€rical FUNCTION AND SIGN 183 Eco StoneAge man takesshelterin a.ecess,in some hole on e side ofa nountah, be examinesthe cave that shelrers nr a cave.Sheltered from the wind and.lin, hin, by daylight or by the light of a fire (we will assume he has already discoveredfire). He notes the arnplitude of the vault, and urderstands this as the limit ofan outsidespace, which is (with its wind and rain) cat off, and as thc besinnins af dn inside spa.e, which 1s likely to evoke ;n him some unclear nostalgiafor the womb, inbue hirn with feelingsofprotection, and appear still imprecise,and ambiguousto him, seenunder a play of shadow and light. Once rhe srorn is over, he night leavc the cave and reconsiderit from the outside; to there he would note dre entryway as'hole drat permits passage the ins;de', and the entrancewould recall to his mind the imageofthe inside:entrancehole, coveringvault, walls (or conthuous wall ofrock) surroundins a spacewirhin. Thus an 'idea of the cave' takes shape,which is useful at least as a mnemonic device,enabling him to thnrk of the cavelater on as a possibleobjective in case ofrainj but it also enableshim to recogrize itr another cavethe samepossibillty o/sreitel found in the first one. Atthe secondcavchc tries, the idea ofthatcave type, sonethingthat is soon replacedby the ideaof.a\etort.ourt-dmodal,, does trot exist concretelybut on the bass of which he can recognizea certain context of phenornena 'cave'. x The nodel (or concepd tunct;ons so well ihat he can now recognizefrom a distance someone eise'scave or a cave he does nor iDtetrd to nake use of, independentlyof whether he wants to take shehc in it or not. Thc man has Now this would still be learnedthar the cavecan assumevarious appearances. the z mattet of ar ind.iuidul: realization of an abstract model, but iD a sense nodel is alrcady coaifie.l, not yet on r soc;al level bur on thc level of this it ;ndividualwho proposesand communicates to himself,within his own mind. And hewould probably be able, atthis point, to comnunicate the model ofthe cave to other men, by neaDs of graphic signs. The architettwal code wodd genente an i.ofti. .ode, and the 'cave principle' would become an object of communicativeintercourse. At this point the drawins of a cave or the irnage of a cave in the distance becomes rhe communication of a possiblefunction, and such it rernains,even when there is neither fulfilnent ofthe function nor a wish to {ulfil it. what has happened,then, is what Rolatrd Barthes is spelking abour when he saysthat'as soon as there is a socict/, every usageis convertedinto a sigtr of itself'.2To use a spoon to get food to oft\ mouth is still, of course,the fulfilnent of a function, through the useofan artifact that allows rnd promotes that futrction; yet to say that ;t 'promoted ihc function indicates that the artifacr servesa connrunicative funct;on as well: it .ammuni.ates the furctiofl to be falfilled. Morcole\ the lact that someore usesa spoon becones, in the eyesoi the $ciety that observesit, tbe communication o{ a conformjty by bim ro (as certain usages opposedio ce.tain others, such as eatiry with onet hands or sipping food directly from a dish). The spoor promoresa .e/ tdift way of edtiftg, and sissifiesthdt udy af eating, just as the cave plomotes the act oftaking shelterand signifiesthe existenceof the possiblefunctionsi afld both objects s/8',t e/en tuhen they dre not beitg (To between and48 desrees this delinitioncouldofcoursebe added fornula relatins/to t)And sucha the form denotes meaning the ttair as a possibility goingup' on the basisof a of codethat I can work out and recognize operative as evenif.this is a datum o{ culture.ontext is attributed to the sign lebide. we will see.they would always be oI constructedas rtrr.) That a stair has oblig€d rne to go up does not concem a theory of that significatioqbut that occuting with certainIormal charactedstics det€!as starrs occurs mine its Mture as a ya' /el. sign Thuswhat our semiotic ftameworkwouldrecognize thearchitectural in 1sthe tuesen e of a sisn t)ehicleubose tunotcd meaninsis the fun tioft it nahes The semiotic perspective we havepre{erred that with irs disrinction between meanings forn€! observable describable and apartfrom sisnvehicles and -the the meanings attribute them!atieastat som€ to stage ofthe semioric investwe igation.permits us to recognizein architectural signssis. on hy part. of denotation.the sumtotal suriaces whenprojected orthographically a horizontal on (or pans) fallinesomewhere 17 fron horizontal'. ln other words.no oneis goingup that stair at present even and though.rrrdl motuls. in the cultxral context in which we live (and this is nillennia of historvas far as certain a modelof culturethat holdsfor several exists architectural an form that might ratherstable codes concerned)there are of upwardin be definedas 'an irclined progression rigid horizontalsurlaces in /. overlapping su€cessive or plane. whichthe distance between su€cessive surfaces elevation. which can denoteprecise functionsprovided one interpretsthem in ihe light of certaincodes. of. itr fact. r. although for based otrco$tanci€s inferred from obseryati. asno oneis ever goinsto us€a truncated pyramidagainin makingastronomical observations).shwal .in theory. postriated as a theorcticdl hypothesis. whichthe surfaces 5 in 15 and in of the progression plan. is setsomewhere havea dimeflsion inthe direction between and9 inches. which there is little or no distance between. thecodes to do Dotadmitolempiical verification either.€odes worked out on the strength inferences proposed structuralmodelsof givencommunicative r€lations. and can be established independentlyof apparentbebtuion.on communicatile usages.the objectcommunicates meits to atrarticulatiotr certain'distinctive of possiblefunctiotr . but whose attributioncanoccur. only by way as not furthercodes. 'ead uehicbs capableof being describedand catabgued.184 S T RUCT URA L I S M Eco THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGN a with this semiotic framework. setsomewhere in betrveetr and 8 inches. orc mightevergo no just up it agah (even ifstairs areneverusedagainby anyone. usages and as on denotative connotative and meanings attached the sigtrvehicles the basis to as o{the codes this is the sernioric univers€ which a readine in ofarchitecture - .cle (justasthe verbalsignvehi€le units'). and euenof a presumedmental reaction.and are of successile meaninss with which these signvehicles capable beingIilled. the basis on of of Irom Significative forms. (h is true that eventhe but proce$€s codification oI belong the realmofsocialbehaviour. alsoby way of connotation.oneis not obliged characteriz€signon the to that basis enherbehaviour it stimulates actualobiects wouldyerifvits o{ that or meaning: it is characterizedonly on the basis oI codified meanins thdt in a silien .andthelattervariable deternined thecodes thelight of which but by in we the sign vehicles. Recentln for example. whose denoted function would be . of concentratingon relationshipsthrough which the windows becone elernents rbythm -lust as someonewho s readinga poern may. one has been able to go up also by meansof an elevator. More loosely. Let us remm.e forhs.loopholes. a universe in which verifi.) may. however. but theycolnote diverscways ofconceiving the function: they begnrto assune a symbolic functior. their disposition on a fagade(portholcs. And it is clear rhat this denotation occurs even when one is not availing oDeselfof the denoted inhabitability (or.tnce are the archite. the winding stairs of the Eiffel Tower by or the spiralling ramp ofFfunk Lloyd lvrighCs GuggenheimMuseum. Round arches.onofthe elevator . And tbus an arcbirect might presenrone with some false windows.the sign vehicle of a pre cisely and conventionally denotedmeaning . besides denoting a func tioq rcfcr to a certain conceptionofinhabitation and usei theymay roaroraaa ouetall ideologr that has inforned the architeccs operation.it hns beensaid that the first meaning of x building is what one must do in order to inhabit it .crete objecrsof any rele. for the monent. their number. in its communicative capacity. and rhe interpretat. But we must remember fron the outset that therc is morc to architectrral comnunication thatr this.llusorn and rhesewindows could still function ns windows in tbe architecturalcontea'tin which they occur as and be enjoyed (given the aesthetjcfunction of the rrchitectural message) Morcover windows in their forn. Let us here consider some of the geleral conditions under which an object derotes its fulction corventionalh According to an immenorial architectural codificatiol. let them recedeinto the background and thereby enjoy a certain formal play in the sign vehicles' contextual juxtaposition. my attention may be rurned ro a w. more generalh the denoted utilny) of the architectural object. But wherher it is a simple ser of srepsin a garden or a grand staircase Vanvitelli. codes. pointed arches and ogee arches all function in the load-bearing senseand denotethis function.aiion through observable physical behaviour and actual objects (whether denotata or referents)would be simply irrelevant and in which rhe only co.thcir denoted function may trot be uppernost in my mind. a stair or a raDp denoresthe possibility of going up.FUN C TI ON 185 communicltion becomes viable.cultain wall. etc..ts function. one finds oneselfbeforea form whose interprerationinvolvesnot only r codifiedconnecof tion betweenthe form and the function but also a conyentional coDceptiotr how one fulfils the fr:nction with the forn.ati. accordiryto Ve said that the object ofuse denotesthefunction coDventionally. Iften I look at the windows on rhe faqadeof a building.thc architectural object denotesa 'form of inhabitation'. utilitarian functiotr. Withln these bounds one can begin to seethe various communicativepossibiliriesof archi Eco ARCHITECTURAIDENOTATION The object of usc is. without an architectural entirely disregardingthe meaningsof the words there.twal obie.dow-meaning thar is based on the function but in which the function has recededto the extent that I may even forget it. for instance.to denotation and the primary.ts ds sighifi. It too would be playing upon elementsof preexisting codes.Otherwise archithe t€ctural objectwould be€ome. and presurnablyrheir designis such that none of us would haveany troubleinterpreting them. evoked and n€gated. rhen. Likewise misht possess h€ only fragmentsof the code of the revolving door and be deterrnined useone to of theseas if it were a matterof an ordinarydoor. which should be clarified. the principle that fom follows iunction might be resrated: the fotn of tbe obiect n'"st. The designer may have had a conception the push br:nons.is different {ron that of an object subject a nurnber determinat€ to of uses. progressivelydeforming already known forns andthe functions conventionally referable these to forms.Now the 'legibility' of thesefeaturesoI the elevator might be taken for granted.denotethat cbarly etough to make it ptdcticable as ue as desituble. clearly function enoughto disposeone to the actionsthough which it would be fulfilled.evenif he can gr:ess but the function.We can see. Now an architectural objecrcould likewisebe something new and informativej atrdif intended promotea new function. capable beinstuerpretedin the lighr oI variousdi{of ferentcodes.) as One rnight well wish to go further into the nature of architecturaldenotation (here described rougl r andwith nothingin rheway of detailed only analysis). But we alsomentioned possibilities architedural of connotation.a to conceptiotrof how to fulfil the function through the various accessory d€vices at one's disposal in th€ elevatox. best the intentions on the part of the desi$€r would trot result in making the thing clear to him. it would have to progressivelytransform thern.it couldcontainin irs to {orrn (or in its relation to comparable Iamiliar formd indicationsfor the 'decoding' of this function. Suchis the cas€ wirh 'kinetic'obiects that simulate outvard the appearance objects usejobjects usetheyare not. and it catr communicate this new code. the primitive.and subjectto none . does not know that these forns are the 'key' to the function. He simplyhasno realsraspof the codeofthe elevator. it can present articulations elenents of that correspond an idiolecrof irs own and to not to pr€-existing codes. . besides nakins tbe function possible.But clearlya primitive man usedto stairsor rampswould be at a lossin lront of an elevator. Then all the ingenuity of an architect or designercannot make a new form functional (and camot sive form to a new function) uitbort tbe suppott of exktins p/ocesses codification . and thus directing an€ntion ultimately to itself. shouldbe notedthar the situationoI atr objecropento (It any useimasinabl€ .ad rather than beingdisposed the motor activityo{ moviry one'sf€etin a certainway . a {unctional not object.as the work o{ art night. besidesthe recognition of the possibleIuncriotr . In other words.thar atr architectt beliel in forrn that 'follows tunction' would be rather naive unlessit reallyrested an understa ing ofthe processes codilication on oI invoived. we will see. .18 6 S T RUCT URA L I S M Eco involves. indeed work ofart: bur a an ambisuous forrn. it is essentially objectintendedto be confor an ternplated.the of graphic arows indicating whether the elevatoris about to go up or down.but rather than evokiry and negatingthe codes. implicit in its makeup. . and the emphatic floorlevel indicators. precisely fashioninsit on th€ basiso{ the pre-existing by codes. of A work of art can certaitrly be somethingnew and higt y informative.because of o{ of of the underlying ambiguitythat disposes them to any useimaginable so to and nonein particular. in effect. and clearly evening dress(which.til. wewill speak of a'prinary' fun. Indeed the connotation o{ dignity and regalnesscan becone so functiomlly important that the basic Iunction. may even be dighted. utilitas (to borrow a rern from Koenis). in our hypothetical nodel of the beginning of archi tectufe. $ows their acceptance the plrt of those who are communicating. with it. or dis torted: a throne.tiolt (which is denoted) and of a conplex of secondary . thcre is thc questionwhether. be less fuflctio dl rhan its f.tion? In other words.F U NCTION AND S TGN 187 ARCHITECTURAL CONNOTATION Ve said that besides denoting its futrction the architectural object could connote a certain ideology of the function. this symbolic 'turction' of the object. to corroborate its user's 'sitting in dignity' perhaps through various accessory sisns conDotins lesalness' (eagleson the arms. So the rirle &u dto" should be extefldedto all the usesoI objects of use (in our perspectiyq to the various communicative. 'securiq". and a crown on his head). r h. and so forth. lengthen. they do represert (and indeed conrnunicate) in eachcasea real social utility of the object.ngto tails behind while leaving the chest practically bare) is functional because. witb respectto life in society. as well as to the denoted. to connote regalness. to seat one. insteadof servingto coverone like most everydayclothing. on their social status. a globe in the left. when referring to the denotedarjliras and of'synbolic' connotations on the other.). oowned back. because although they may not be tumediately identified with the 'futrctions' narrowly defined.rst fun. (From the semiotic point of view. the comotatiotrs would be founded on the denobtion of the pr. for wirh respectto life in society the 'syrnbolic' capacitiesof these objects are no less'useful' thar thei 'functional' capacities. as ilthe latter did not likewise representreal functions.the object would be any les rsefrl in terms of its ab.tds. confirms then. and for rnen covers poorly. given that rhe cave denotesa cenain b^si.lity. But ifthe seat is a throne.came to derote a shelterfunction.tzs. 'familiar sulroundiryJ.thanks to the complex of conventions it connotes.gh. ofteD'uncovers' for women. But ufldoubtediy it can connote other things. but that would not diminish A seattells ne first of all thnt I cln sit down on it. as a symbol.And it should be clear that we are not be. it pernits cerilin soc.atrd only oft ofits meanings. and therefore sents one'poorly'with respecrto the primary rtil. Thus to seatone is only one of the functions of the tbrone.the first but notthe most important.mary . but no doubt in time it would have begun to connote 'family' or 'group'. Iuncdons).a ARCHITECTURAL COMMUNICAIION AND HISTORY FUNCTIONS AND SECONDARY FUNCTIONS PRIMARY Sinceit would be awkward fron here on to speak of 'tutrctions' or the one hand.al relations.their decisionto abide by ceitain mles. often demandsthatthe person sitting on it sit rigidly and uncomfortably (along with a s€eptrein his right hand. it must do more than seat one: it servesto sert one with a certaitr digtrity. It is cl€ar that the most imporrant function of the throne is the 'synbolic' one. to couote such things as closeness and familiarity.ng metaphoricai nr calling th€ symbolic connotations {unctional. The cave. Then would its connotative nature. etc. etc. comparingthe recordsof int€r' these the havelong debated historians pretationhistoxyhas left us.. later. shouldbe renernbered. interplav thrusts tioningasa sorto{provisional up was andcount€rthrusts picked by thewebsatrdbv theotherelements of and in theorythe ogives the crossvaultingcould of th€ structure. the indeedif communicative valueof the ogivalribbing r€rnairsunquestionabl€. is impliedin beensaid.otel a structual function doubted that th€ ogivesof the along suppon reducedto the pure interplayof thrustsand counterthrusts turns rather on the referent o{ that the slender. an axiological in mechanism. simplv be be that theword unicornisa sign. it is the w€bs of th€ ogival vault that have the structural value. that the €lements the had also a lymbolic' dimension functionsto them). it moreintentional.on the basiso{ elaborate beendefined patrimony of givengroups founded on the cultural conventionsand intellectaal persPectives. it rests o{ the example wherewe canbeginto see intricacies Let us take a historical primary and secondaryfunctions.and the entire lofty and elegant structureof a cathedralstandsupon it. to might havebeen surpris€ thoseusingrheterm ) rc While they were debatins the functioml value of ogival ribbing' however. rathera semiotic but mor€importantthan Iunctions rest on the d€notatiotr of the primary function that the secondary of liust aswhenonehasthe connotation 'badtenor'from the word for'dog' in on the process denotation). that the cod€of the Gothic oI historians and interpreters all periodsrealized of (in other words.Iunc the ogivehad a structuJal the of frarnework. for exarnple. aannot denied and eventhoughits non'existence eveflthough the unicom doesnot exist. to colnmubi. by viftue of the rniracleof equilibriun it allows. And in the . then. Architectural and panicularlythe smrcturalvalueof the ogive Three codeo{ the Gothic. impres the valu€. the standard romantic and proto-romartic inteF pretation! whereby the structure of the Gothic cathedral was intended to world. thus the pre-Roman nedieval period. have major hypotheses beenadvanced. with by and givenperiodsand determined particularideological which they arecongruent.nervous elernentsi cotrtoversy denotation: is the denoted function an illusionf Even iI it is illusorv. legions of and primitiye. rather. There is. that the terns primary and srro"lary will be used what has already discrinination(rs iI the onefunctionwere not hereto convey. havebeenelininated.evenif it Sives opposite the ogivehasno structural sion. no one has ever No matter which int€rpretation crossvaultiry d'.ate the Iunction. o{ dflridical relisiosity. 1 the ogive has a structuraltunction. hi(-har€connotative).188 S T RUCT URA L I S M and It Eco futLtiolts l.rre. valuein the couse of corstluction.one of had sone complexes secondary Gothic cathedral knew that the ogival vault and the wall piercedwith great windows had something connotativ€ to communicate Now what that somethingmight be has subcodes connotative time and again. o{ Italian. atrd not to the dbbing had beetrarti$lated only pe/mit i\ rhat lal'r€ would. barbaric and the reproduce vault oI Celticforests.s 2 3 one might adhereto. ll-ikewise. the sense th€ others). while perhaps appearins more valid. by conventioqthese the samevalue today. 'mode of forming'. and nade to appea! very small. that expressiveness instead and arises for between signili€ative forms and codesof interpretations.accordingto another lexicoq th€elevation the spiritto theGods. which are no longer as distinctively attetruated and verticalas they usedto be.centuries later. independently the connotations its indi a of of (with whichit vidualmanifestations messas€s)comes in to connote ideology an wasintimately unitedeithelatthe moment its bifth or at thetime of its most of characteristic affirmation).rda€stls. andprecisely because are'read' they . suchas 'verticalemphasis elevation the soul of Godward'or contrast light streaming oI throughgeat windowsand naves in = Now thes€ connotations deeply are so rootedthat even 'shadows mysticism'. afterall. inthe nineteenth century witnessed phenonenon one a typicalo{ the Indeed. whose to the ofthe divine. whilein {acttheystill do in some respects.F U NC TIO N AND S IGN put commentators all€gorists themselves defining. notion quite in keepingwith €ertain Neoplatonic texts a and basedon a codifiedequivalence between light and participation the in we could saywith sone assuraflce. identification undoubtedly precediry an that r€sted the other. beenable to connorediversethings.htand shadowbeconeswhat one most deeply associates mvsticstates mind. otherwisethe Gothic churchesof New York.andthat something the altar of like of Abrahamon the top of a rnountain couldevokemystical feelingqthus one . Onehadat thattimetheidertification'Gothicstyle = religiosity'. with of A metopolis like New York is srudd€d with rco-Gothicchurches. could connote. and to accordingto codes of Eco precisionand subtlety. would no longerexpress what they usedto.thatthe in light that peneuates streams in Irom (or the structure oI the walls that permits the the windows into the dark naves light to be o{feredsucharnpleaccess) rnust represent very elfusiv€ftss of the the divine creativeenergy. proseandin verse.a historyofart-when in a givetr manner.in the twelfth century. balanced and harnonious in its proponions. in But thereis.a code's very constitution andthat is thejustification Sugergives ofthe cathedral his De in 'rebusin ddministrdtione s. perioda codeh its entirety(all artisticstyle.the cotrtrastoI lig.And style(whose was 'lansuase') chosen express presence fact churches hav€(Ior thefaithful) still thecurious is that. in spite of the fact that skyscrapers by which they are now hemmedin on every side.6There he lets it be understood. today sone effort is reqairedto rememberthat the Greektempie too.but the history of the interpretation of rhe cothic teaches that over the centuriesthe samesigtr vehicle. will suffice referthe reader the catalogue it to to drawn r:p. that for men of the twelfth century oI the cothic windows and glazing(andin generalthe space the navestraversed giventhe term by streams light) comoted 'participation' (in the technicalsense o{ in medievalNeoplatonism).omotative lexiconmayirnpose itselfoverothers th€ course time and. th€n.in the light of different us has subcodes.for in o{ exanple. on = connotative identifications. alrnost in all miniaturized haverendered verticality the emphasized this architecture to but indistinguishable. formidable the individual meanings every single of architectural element.byJorisKarlJuysmans his ra cathedrule. a singular documentwe couldmention. example this shouldbe etrough remitrdus that An like thereareno mysterious values derivingsimplyfron the natureof 'expressive' from a dialectic the Iorms themselves. 3 fu ARCHITECTURAL CODES WHAI ISA CODEIN ARCHITECTURE? Architectural signsas denotativeand connotativeaccordingto codes. So.we weDt oD to considervisual codes.recoveriesand substitutions of vadous kinds. and constitute the norm in tbe course of the reading of works of art proper. no longer effective. in the course of history.al. however. is the tuuit o{ a codification and comprehensible otre type of fluctuation in the life of objects of use can therefore be s€enitr the vaiiety of readingsto which they ale subjeci.to the vicissitudes conmu cation. when. one might say)rather than as a timepiece:the clock's measurementof time.its very currency puts its authenticity in doubt. the advent ofthe in spite of the ncw fornal context skyscraperhas now brought about.the notion is fairly But clear: there is a codeJanguage.gn vehicleswould denote stable prirnary functjons. recoveriesand substitutionsare common to the life oI lorms in general. and in the process to . and indeed the very notion of only on the basis 'clock time'.we found we had to list a number of levelsofcodification (including.would no longer even be no the denoted. but not limited to. by of designingfor variable prinary functions and open secondaryfunctions (opetrin the sensethat they may be determiftd by unforseeable future codes). and th€re are certain connotativesubcodes. in another sectionofthis study. These losses.for example. that is only becauseaccording to the common view one is dealing there with functional objects of an unequivocally indicated. and thts uniuocally .everything that has been said so far migrhtsuggestthat there is little questlon about what is meant by code. regarding both primary ald s ec o n d a ry n c ti o n s . iconic and iconographic codes).thecodes and subcodesas naking diflerent readingspossiblein the courseofhistorn the architect'soperation as possiblya matter of'facing' tbe likelihood of his work beiry subject to a variety of readings.om municative. there is the story ..190 S T RUCT URA L I S M Eco them as distinctivelyvertical on rhe basisof codesthat permit one to recognize (and new code ofreading). the 'addresses' longer possessing requisitecodes. The example of ogival ribbing has aiready shown us a denoted function undergoing cLtious flucturtions . As long as one confinesoneselfto verbal cornmunication. If they seen more striking (and paradoxical) in the fi€ld of architecturnl forms.but by others provisionalor illusory-and thereis everyreasonto believethat in the coruseof time certtn primary fmctions.. natulej to give the lie to such a vjew. with only the secondaryfunctions varying itr the course of history. but if unhue it is in any casecredible about the mtive wearing an alarm clock on bis chest. an alarn clock inter' pret€d as a petrdantlas akind of 'kinetic jewelry'.it was considered by some effective and essent. to imagine that by their very nature architecturrl s. both prinary and secondaryfunctions night be found undergoing losses. AND HISTORY ARCHITECTURAL MEANINGS It would be a mistake. for units eDdowedwith definite meaning.. individunl slgn vehicles. etc.. rather than the meaningsconventionallyattributed to. syllablesor words.'palace'. it rvould bc appropriate to look also for purcly syntactic codificationsin architecture(findins such codificationsand defining thcm with precisio\ Ne night be in a bctter position to understand and classify.'railroad station'.then.n the definition of the codes of archi tecture.ron or rn J s.rm r a . too. codesofreading (and ofconstructior) of the object would have to be distlnguished from codes of reading (and of consffuction) of the d"saz for the object (adnittedly we are considering here only a semioticsof architectural obiects.e rn J \e. the Stonehense Then.dl . lr r t e rh . l(c will rcturn to typological codeslatcr.First ofall.But sinccwc know therc can be convetrtionsconcerning only the syntactic articulation of sigls. varjous systems ofnotation (the codesoperative in a p l a n ar e not .8ut that doesnot mean a semioticinvestigntionofthe archi tectural designwould be without some interestingproblems of its own there are in a design.FUN C TI ON 191 introducc various 'clarifications' of the conccpt of codc. but it is clcar that they constitute only ole. etc. the dolmen. .odas. in rhe caseofarchitecture. such as the nenhir. and or the different qpes of arriculatior a code may provide for'Ifc also saw the irnportance oI the prhciple that thc clencnts of articulation under a given code car be syntagms another. synbols. Catchwofds like 'senxntics .or that rhe syltagrns ofone code can of turn out to bc clementsof articulation of anothcr. rh o \c o p (ra u .ds. lyng outside archi Iie can expect some problems. morc 'synthetic' code.at lcast from the poht ofview of scmiotics. Tlis should be kept in nind when considerhs codesh architecture. perhnps enough to fill dre cntirc gamut of sisns proposed by Peilce. cspecially scmantic typological codes. if perhaps the most conspicuous. diagrams. the aniculation of certain significativesructures seFrable frorn these sjgn vehiclesand their meanings or for thnt matter to someunderLying technicnlconvention.Of course the notational codesof the design.'f architecture' have led some to look for the equivaient of the 'word' of verbnl language in architectural signs. those concerning fulctional and sociologicalnrpcstit has bcenponitcd outthatthere are in archi tecrure configurations clearly indicatins'church'. and not a semiotics of architectural designs).forexample. of the level of codification in Eco . just as to transcribe spoken language there are conventions for representing such elements as sou. jndices. indeed for symbols referring to referetrts.for ole might be tenpted to attribute to an arclitectrual code aticulatiols that belolg really to some code..objccts whose oncc denorcd functions can no longer be ascertanred. we can see that rhere rs the prollem of neglecting considerwhether what one is look.fl nt diagran for a building). either nore analytic or more synrhetic. sinsigns. fron the anemps therehave beento date to spelloutaspects of architecrural communication. to rules concening.while conventionalized independentlSare to some extent derivativesof the codes of the object: they provide ways h which to'transcribe'the object. qualisigns. Much of the discussionoI architecture as cornmunication has centred on typalosi.r0and in thesesystems notation there can be found of iconic signs.more 'analytic' code.g at is referableio I synt$dc to code rather than a semanticcode that is. the angle.and not iust those it of absract. The trouble is that this geometric code uodd not petain specifi.the ellipse .a good definition of the rudimentary code of architecture. and assumethat the most basic level of arti€ulation (that is.and if one resortedto elementsof the code of solid geonetry (pyramid.rr rhen perhap' w e already have.even rather complicated i[egular Iigures. the square.heia lthe 'elenents' of classical geometry). just as in linguisticsone pass€sover the possibility of going beyond 'distinctive features' in a. the straight line. might be elen€ s of a se€ondaniculation.It might €ven be identifiedwith a 'gestaltic'code presiding over our perceptionoI all such forms. because has long beefl held that the con{igurations in representationalart can be reduced to an arti€ulation. cone.then it would make sense describethe architecturein the light of to B"t the fact that a/chitecture that geom€tric code. So it would be better to passover a €odeof this kind.Let us sav that the secondarticulation is basedon rhe Euclidean stoi.one might be tempted to hypothesize {or architecture something like the 'double alticulation' found in verbal languages.alysing phonemes.) in defiiing the stru€ture of the landscape. and it could be $sumed that further articulative possibilities would come to light with the recognition of non-Euclideangeometries. etc. the parallelograrn.e< . atrd for a nurnber o{ other rnore synthetic codes as well. i{ perhaps a quite cornplex one. of primordial g€onetric elemetrts. the units constituting the 'second' articulation) would be a matter of g€omehy. Besideslying behid some artistic phenomena . Ofcourse solid geometrysuSgests thepossibility oia third leveloI anicu lation. the triaryl€.a y to drchitc.ul . is an exampleof one sort of code one can arriv€ at wh€n attemptirg to analyse the elements of articulation of a certain 'language': a code capable of sewing a netalanguage ^s Ior it.might b€ elem€nts o{ a lirst 3rticulation.rti ono' ' pa.ls . as long as they could be definedwith geonetric equations of some kind . and thus had to find a rnetalanguagecapable of describing them in the same t€rms .in Euclidt geometry..for it is clear that 'church' has found different aniculations at diJferent moments in history .etc. one rnight wish to 'code' a cetain landscape in such a way as to be able to compare it with certain proposed architectural solutions. a levelat which the udts are trot yet distinctiue (having differential sisnificant (endowed with meaflins) blt ^rc value).then. with thes€combining into spatial syntagmsof one kind or anotheil'z In other words.192 S T RUCT URA L I S M Eco In attempting to move proglessively back from a level at which the codes are so cornpiex and temporal . with more conplex syntagms to be found in such things as spaceenclosingconbinations of rectangles articulations basedon the Greek cross or plan. ll rrc h ' L e ffu rei r rh e a rt o f rh e drri .Ighat we havehere. to det€rmine what archite€tural anifacts to inselt in the context of that landscape. then the 'fi!st' articulation would involve certain higherJevel sparial units.tarc. the various curves.Adninedly such amlytic possibilitiesmight have to be explored if one had to compare architectural phenomenawith phenomena belonging to some other llaryuage'.the point.Ior ifftance.). a level at which the units begin to be signilicanq and on€ rectangle within atrother might be an elementarysyntagnatic combinatior (as in some window-wall relationship). taken as a metalanguage. geod€tic. geomerric an (Mondrian). etc.the code ofthe clearly underliesthe formulations of geometryin the etymologicalsense word (sufleying) and other types of 'transcriptiotr' of terrain (topographic. which could be called cro'ez"r. la 2 Synractic codes Theseare exempli{iedby typological codesconcerninganicuhtion into sp. reinforcedconcreteelemcnts. etc.h e .from those that have come to light.ald in turn anatomic code. etc.tial plan. to take a ready example.r l. rn . or structural conditions behind architecture and architectural signific. There is at this level of codification ro communicative 'content'. labyrinth. Greek-cross but there are certainly orher syntacticconventionsto be considered(a stairway does not as a rule go through a windoq a bedroorn is generally adjacent to a 3 Semantic codes Theseconcertrthe significant units of architecture. plates.where though one is still short of meaningsthere are certain formal conditions of signification. fre<luencies.ons that might therefore be seenas sonewhat analogous to a second articulation in verbal languages. articulations of the kind dealt wirh in thc scienccof architectural engineering.dte that ar. but that doeslot lead rs to believethattheMo. floorilg systcms. types (circular plan.tion condit. Itr fact there are few physical phenomeDathat would trot pennit amlysis in tenns of chemistryor physicsat the rnoleculr level.tiors (roof.r\e u n . r n $her h e r. VARIETIES OF ARCHITECTURAL CODE Eco It would appear.or the relatioft established between individual architectural sign vehicles (even some architectural syntagms) and theii detrotative ard connotative neannrgs.).window).The architectural form resolves into beams.. Then what nore properly archirectural codes have energed in various analyses recendn 'semiodc' readingsofarchitecture? or.FUNCTION AND SIGN cdn be desoibed in terms of geometry does at i di. high rise. eic.lenotephnaty fu11. wave forns.n . wiring. columns. that arcbitectLrraL codes could be broken down roLrghlyas follows: 1 Technical codes To this category would belong. 'open' plan. . therc is only a structural technical)function or techniqueitself becornes logic. except of course in caseswhere a structural (or such. that both Chineseand words articulated in the phonemesof thc Italian language can be seen as a matter of amplitudes.insulation.r' rh 'u h d i rided la) .ode. it simply shows that the languagesadmit of that type of analysis. drat for ccrtain purposesthey can he rcduced to a conmon system of traffcriptiotr.s h. stairway.sa should be alalysed with the same irstrurnents used il amlyshg a nineral specimeD. They rnight be r .hite.t le ds such k faunded otl d seanetic. Afier all.. in rndio-acousticsor when converted into grooves on a disk does not indicatc that Chin€seand Italian rest on one and the samecode. be a specialplacefor typeslike 'gardencity' and 'new towfl'.l7 evengiventhat. as comunicative systems ratherlimitedin operational They a!e.. school.one couldtake a verballanguage a field of lnearlyabsolatel to in wnich the . example. triumphai arch. somehaveimagined to it is freedom thenarchitecture not the field of creative be. it readying new propositions to put b€Iore the so€ialbody . for instance. but a system o{ rules for giving society what it expects in th€ way of not somehave might be considered the service In that casearchirecture continually {or imagined to be-a mission menofunusualcultureatrdvision.then.messages serves {ormulatiotr the ofmessages A verballanguage (andis irnerentlyn€ithera class instruideologies connoting most diverse the i6 of ment nor the supersructure a panicular econonic base) Indeedthe produced r:nder codes a verballansuase of makes the diversity ofthe messases connotations conin it all but impossible identify any overallideological to might be sideringbroad samplirysof them. of is But what standsout about thesecodes that on the whole they would appear possibilities. their own. andused(aboutthissortof deterninant will have the end he would be free to tly to find a exploit someway in which to nak€ from different to a churchthat while conforming its type would be sornewhat providea somewhat a any that had yet appeared.or (d) at a largerscale neaningundet cenain havetypological fun. panouJl.a aesthetics) havealreadycreated that avant-garde manner. as would codes a of relationships truly on the modelof thoseof verballanguages.there should. neoGothicarch)i (c) connote tdrolos'es of inbabitation Gomnon room. to be. the codesare really those to indicated above. railroadstation). architect in prescription be thatchurches made a the first placeobeying socio-architectural And in we moreto saylater). significandydifferent messages ftom which countless o{all kinds. dinins room. churchthat would ther€by unaccustomed.if the codes allow only slislt differencesfrom a standardizednessage. villa. as ultirnatelevel. iI unexpected situations.but a servicein the .And in architectuJ€. of something a tradition.ideological andconnotation bias But kind inher€ntin the laryuage). 'refreshing'context in which to worship and imaginethe he time.tions ltymp num. that doesnot seem be the case.howeverappealins. operative architectule in onemight say). forthereis soneevidence support theorythat theveryway in it is obliges one speaking to seethe world in a which a language articulated ofsome parti€ularway(th€re might be. that is.odlliicati'o'rs y\eldinl staflddrdizedtuessages this instead of €onstituting.15 types\hospital.tiondldnd palace.But if at the same must unfailingly aniculate the building in mani{old conformity to a type ('downto the hardware'. and for the codifications emersins from certaitr recent nodi operundi \deriled tuolr. Of coursethis characterization to the challenged.in orderIor it to be a chuJch. codific^tions of aheady uothed'o t solutions. sociolosiail The inventory coutd of course becomequite elaborate. go. on the most profound.peaker is ftee to improvise novel m€ssages suit fteedon. r€lationship with God. syst€m possible could be generated.794 S T RUCT URA L I S M Eco (b) haveconnotativesaeondaty fun. the is a for The pointis notthat in articulating chur€h. and the technical codes. a kind relating to certain principies of statics and dymmics.The codesofarchitecture world thenconstitute a rhctoric inthenarrow sense ofthe word: a store of ttied and tue aiscursiue fornrlas. if it is elsewhere. but also of the syntactic codificationr. 2. geP?a.FU N C TIO N AND S IGN 195 . which clearly confnre us to a certain quite specialized 'granmar' of buildirg.elementsand sysremsthat.builds upon tbem well known or readily acceptable 'arsunents'. 1968. in p a L4 . or providing for formulaic presentationof the unexpected(ls a comple schemes mcnt to the systemof established. op. cjt. as we have suggested yet cone to expect (Eco. of ARCHITECTURE MASS AS COMMUNICATION? APPEAL ARCHITECTURE IN MASS If architectureis a systen ofrhetorical formulas producing just those messages throurunny oI udrs Iias cometo . then. or lirnited repertories oI set constructions.it could certainly be called mass cornmulication looscln without bothering about any detailed criterir.fw]ifiTliidftiouT meiinia o]-ihe mqpertedi. are found codified ulder the science archirecturalengineering.inshesit from various forms of mas culture? The trotion that architecture is n forrn of mass culture has become rather popular. They establish not senerative possibilities but ready made solutions. the routine satisfactiono{some preconstituteddemand.certain elements systemsof construction the principles. they would consrittrrea rhetoric ir the senseof the term discussed Eco. ch.. concepts. ('This . lThat is. But even under morc carcfui consideration. 1968. It would appear to be rather impoverished d. ) And this could be said not only of the scmantic codes. identified and never really disturbed expec tations). 2. 4. rather than relationships from which conrnunication vnryjng in infoflnation content as determincd by the 'speaker'could be irnprovised. op. not open forrns for extemporary lpeech' but fossilized forms at best.) is too architecturalmessage: pemits a kind it specialized permit everyconceivable to has ofarchitecture to which civilization in its evolving rechnologies accusroned us. etc. 'figures of speech'. things fiey have not So the codes that have been mentioned wo d amout to little more than lexiconson the model of those of iconosraphic. beam.3). an art. even with changesand technical refinenents from time to time. and thereby eiicits l certain rype ot consenr. proving relatively stable and resistant to wear and tear. and many ofthen from Euclidt geometry.water supply and mass transir are seivices:an Eco oper:rtion that is. cit.n sense wh. ifi-a. A. also.. ccrtain geometricconcepts.for it is obvious that evetrthis body of 'empty' forms underlying architecture (colunl.ch waste disposal. stylistic :rrd other specialized systems.l' architectural objects seemto have characreristics cornmon with the messages in ofmass comnunication.r! and as a communicntive operation directed toward large groups of people and co irning certain widely subscribedto attitudes and ways of life whilc meetnrstheir expectatjons.xpect Gasone. To .lFei <fisti-ru.to put before the publlc characteristicof an.l:it starts with Architectural 'discourse' generally-42{_4lu z-ss acceptedpremises. 4 d n t t e t t f l . meant to e \p e ri e n .and l i rt' l i l ' ^ o d J n d n e e di o r haveanrrhi re ro do w i rh $ hJr rhey l i nd rhem .se&qs_ !ss!ti4C-. . l u n c ri o n \ a r.. and ra -All foiion"6t'. o .f. Paintersmav deal wnh salleries. l u rf r\ re rrl n produtr\ dl d al rrl ude.objrcl u."d o r i d v e ri \i i q .i.196 S T RUCT URA L I S M Eco proposition is to our liking./e.tq /. Architecture h d besizss. rddrs..aptot seltllg oxt of the rain or hanglaundryout to dry overa rtling and see tro peFersion in this.imply. Architecture berozgs te!fu tg!!:l!::/!!!.d bur al . i n rl ' e w Jv i n qhrch une r.lo flI gJqql.bll engaged the practice u.ew o rk .lift an abenant uay.but we usethe-coverof an e]evate{roadw. w l rrch the message.. interestin the intentions of tbe 'addresser''?o Architectural messages n flelier be interprete.nc. rhe comi€s which we experiencethe dffi"ff "f. nor onl y. perhaps with no thought of having them publbhed.' ' t'.Elidiiiiaiiia"iii.. Thus archit€cture fl . 1 t l | c r t 4 t . have to be based on 1 .. roo differs from other forns ofculture."Ljqrb .rgnrl i .fiiT.ol oa. but rhe archirectcannor be. in the sane way in 6levision.o pronrored and ' ' . en'fo-n .'r It is oroduced under economic conditions v e ry\i n i l rr ro rh e n n e \ soverni ns ru. .nE .t ates bet'ueet1 being ruther coerciue. Architectural discourseis experien.IU:rUC-!gl4!!193 in of g rv e ne \o n o m) a n d (e c h noo8y rnd tr) ng ro erbrr.herl.eh $:rhpuhri..anypelsusiL'er with a gentlehand (even if one is not aware nI iE* as a 6rn oT manipulation) one is orompted to follow the 'iDstructions' inDiicit in the architedural me * rs e .. it is in most respeds something we are involvedonly represent a 3lrqqdy fiqlller ytrb.s!d writingLthe painter can always pursue paitrthg independently. uI ur.Mo'.eof bengenglsidinTpi. e ( f r r .arc promotedrhrough etc. e EXTERNALCODES ARCHITECTURE BASED CODES AS ON EXTERNAL IT TO we began with the premisethat architecturewould. wri. u oLldhr\ e . rnv.edinattehti"ely. .perhaps while making a living in some otkr way.onte' r t.n o r..idoTbirng rpJii'(i{erro. \e n q h e n h e $ o L rl d rke ro. h of ma* ..49S. e rhe l ogi cl ' e ' i nd' rh e re .rn Jnd nrher nore demandi rgrrc* ase.' -ro-uear music and hieh fashion. rh ar i . 'hidden persuasion'.ome 'en._ ]4 u !!d .::.h..9:tp{!!rirb:9 !o_uh !.iiiiErpreting if we were to use the-Veltlrlde M.iii6?ft6.ju{l!\Tqp m11n rer rndmor read' clorh.9hIqqryI. "nd the dif{erences welcone improvement or vaiation of some kind.sexual associations.pSrygsj! -ol-!9!ictsus r!!!4qts asdustcloths. l t al t nu wlll ll\ e lll \ uc h a n o l u L h a w r l v t t n 1 1 .'6ii6iifi. and the writer can produce works for which there is no market.ee 1?lnsa$ireqifieFotFNalis iFim.') Architectural discourseis psycholo+i. rnd n rhr. *lt'e. a ler r ir g ) uJ u' c r r ' ) oJ . to be able to com municate the functions it pemits and pronotes. \.the levelofpoint 3 above. if elevsted. . and (for . do we fnrd forns that could ofarchitecture coDstitutc be ulderstood as'architecture'. and that would a systen of functions that would satisfy the exigencies.. then.somethinSthat may be taken for granted. a psycholosist. howeveL th. to tlink like a sociologist.e may llso move in the d. om . a sericsof social exigencies. believingthar th. going againstexisting rhetorical and ideolosical expectations.nov aiioD and higher information content.So while the elements rhemselves system.a semanticsystemof certain (developingfrom the currcnt situation) on the basjsof which future exigencies new functionsand new architecturalfoms might come into being. so to speak. . and life rvnhnr it.t would have to be bascd on sonething like this: the a. |d l. In other words. rhe architect world havc identified: r 2 3 presumablyas a systemof sone kind.he noves outsidethe accepted typologn which 'bridge' than to d1ctype has streetsat ground levcl or. etc. there wc. and a system of forms thar would correspond to the functions.u l rh o . and has traccd our. however.the architecruial message mass appeal..u o r' .an anthropologist..chirect hrs preceded certain with an cxaminationofcertain new socialexigencies.t when architecrure moves in thh dircction n departsfron given codesentirely.s new sign. an ideologist. . architccture Le Corbusier was obliged. for instance. But fi. he could even.(1 . Now whether such a belief is justified or not. sonething that yet it seemsthat architectu. before thhkhg likc ar architcct..that an urban designercould lay out a strcet oD the basisofthe lexicon that enbraces and definesthe type'streeC. it cannot be the case..ew only atthc last level.ther becomea code only when coupled with systenx that a lie outside architccture. becomesigr rchicles of those exigencies. above?Lct us use whatabout architecture. make it somewhat difierent fronr previous ones while still operating withnr the traditional urbanistic system. \.for without the basisof a code of some kind. along witL thc rest of his proposed citn $.with a ninor dialecticbetweenredundancyand infornation. architecturaldesigrl certain rcndcncies the developrnent the nodern city in of 'eristential' desiderata.F U N CTIO N AN D S IGN 797 we have seenthai the codesthai could properly be called arclitectural establishrather limired opeiatioDalpossibiliries. L B.e fu i .sr we nightconsidu the pcculiarity of the phcnonenon frorn the semioticpoint of!.Le CorbLrsier .ould be accepted and comprehendedby the uscrs. and wc will return to that shortly. Eco this meals that to producc thc new Froni the point of view of conmon sense. and that $" . .rect.street'). .that they fulctiotr not on the model of a languagebur as a systen of rhetorical fonnulas atrd soltriionsi aheady produced messdse becones soncthing of resting on thesecodes.on of i.elevntedin a different fashion and for differelr reasons-and yct he doesso with ncennin assurance. if we acceptthe hypotheses of X for the systen ofarchitectural fc'rms. It goeswithout snyjng.uld be no effectiveconmunication .Y for the s-vstem fmcrions. proposeshis elevated streets(closu to the type vhcn. (r for any othe! srstem of signs.but thrtitis the objecr ofot €/ (physics. or at any rate confoundnrg all rhe notions we have elaborated. So abovc and beyord what elseit offers. verbal (through an oral or writter description).biolosx crc. \p fl i n .rra l .c€d to adin.198 STRUCTURALISM Eco rhe systemof social exigencies..Bur fton1 the point of vicw of semiotics. Now it is clear that while a form x is being usedit might seem(to the user) quiie closelytjedto a functionl and an nnthropologidlvalue I just as closely as 3 meaning seems(to the speaker)tied to a verbal sign vehicle. rs arthropological values. the units in Y. etc. thcn. have rve jeoprrdized the senioric framework beh. "r " lf for architccturc.or at lcasr where they cal be more successtully separated. as functions. as sparial forms. of ihe Ogden Richards ffiangle becnuse in semiotjcs one studies codes as phenomenaofculture and. or ot he r k i n d o f s y s re mfo r' ra n s c ri bi ng' funcri ons.for example). kinesic.id thrt architecturehas to elaborateits s'gn vehiclesand nessages with referenceto somethingthat lies o.8. semioticsshows us the possibility ofinvestigatiDgsystems of sigrs whcre the plales of expressionald contert are not inseparable. THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SYSTEM Bur in introducing this (. admir ofseveral kinds of descript]ontwo dimensional (through a set of drawnrgsor a phorograph).bccauscup to now studics in scnuntics have bccn conductcd nrsidethe circlc of verbal 'interprctants'.h of these three synems indepe .t its signs cannot.it is possibleto dascribethe u"its of ed. havins recourseto the units of either of the odrcr two.t is.an r night be a or table o[ a certain width. on seniosis. nnd rhe uD i rs i n K . This is something that was never envisagedby those who have considered the norioD of mca ng suspcct. which nr tum allows the realizationofan anthropologicalvalue [ ('formal' relationship). mathematical (through a seriesof equrrions).rsid? it.and ruLcs reearding the syntqmatic combination of rhe elencnts of rhc paradignatic rcpcrtories.let us say). this a.lertl). This mcans notdrat thc referetrtisnon-exisrent. Then rhe unirs in X.we woul. r l r.we had to adnit that rhc planc of cotrtetrtinvolved somethingthat did not belong to the semiotic universe.can be desoibed verbally.l bc faccd with a phenomelon co ourding seniotics. without. corfne itself to the sciences rh c . after all. th..here and elsewhere. admit of either verbal description or repres entrtion in terns of som€ iconic (cinemntographic. which permits and signifiesa ceruin fumrion:r (to eat ar a consideral.ledisiance frorn one another.\ g. be adequatelycharacterizedwithout bringing somethinglike relerezrs back into the picture? Ifle have argued that seniotics must confine nself to the let srd. ald mrst.m : nr r n . examlne only the comrunicativc rules cstablishedwithin a social body: rules of the equivalence between sign vchicles aml mcaninss (thc definition of the latter being possiblcoDly through intcrprctants or othcr sisn !ehicles by neans ofwhich the meaningsmay bc significd). the althropological system.thropologicrl systern.n . nr€ we fo.): scniotics can.whose sigr vehicle that function has becorne.nd everythingwe said before? Having s.\prri .leavlDgasideverifiable rcalitiesto which thc signs may refer. rnd rlis |le musr do no mattcr how much he may seem to brve become a rechnician.such as in poetry.l ultimately have to be So the rchit€ct. take irto accountexigencies ofcommerce orcirculntion. somconciDtcnt on specificoperationsrnther than generrl questions. and perhapseve.does not change the situation very much. Tine and agah he is forced to become something of a sociologist. even if teamwork nakes it seem less a natrer of guesswork. that is. let us say the code concerned wjth irnage recognitionatrd orientatiotrwould haveto be brokendown and integratedwith a code corcermrg proxcnic phenomena. on having experts in the various fields working with him . And that he can rely in this to some extent or tearnwork .wc said thefe were possibllities of the poetic flmction and self-reflexivenes in of architecture. as they can itr other typcs of discourse.that is..). it would become necessary fnrd the relations bctween a number of differcnt systemstracing ro them all back to an rurderlying Ur-code common to all of then. nedicalfindlngs on frctors contributing to stress. is conthualiy obligcd to be somethnrgother thnn an lrchitect. to facts that Nhile belorghg to rhe may nevertheless senasabeady codifed. ( ONCLL LO\ S at the O. . a speciaiist.. rlrrough the operation of ns systen of stimulative .ght rhispoinrbeleftwith thcnleathathaving roleoI supplynrg 'wordi to signify 'things' lyirg outsideits province.F U N CTIO N AND S TGN 199 So it is not casually that we have beel referring to an atrrhropolosical Eco tysrem'i we have been referring. a be universe olthe socialsciences thus reducedto a culturnl system. forced to artjculate a languagethrt has always ro expresssomethiDgexterDalto ir . basedon that code.'r] He rnight thel base his operation upon ruies of n code concernedpreciselywith phenomenaof nnage rccosnition and orientation la code that could be elaborated on the basis of data from interviews and bssic researchon perception. but the fact renains that becaDse its very nature (and cven thoush it has tfaditionally been understoodas I matter of prre 'arrangenenc. rcgardnrg only its own forrns)these cnn never lake over'in it. terns of the tatd tr. architectureis powerlessto proceedwithout a prior determinationofexactly what those 'things' are (or are go'n8 to be). To put it differently. Forced to fnrd forms that will give form to systemsover which .a psychologist. architecturehrs the power.. But then the validity and significance of tbe opcration.atr anthropolosist a semiotician . . etc.yfor the architecr to relate his architecturcto some other systemof social phenomenaas well the one dealt with in proxcmics.n practice. on which elaboration of the new architectrral solurions woul.the architect fnrds linrclf obliged in hi! wotk to thihk i.and since there would no doubt be more than just thesc two external systemsto relnte to. or ore nighr have comc to a sonewhat different conclusion: that even though the systemsof functions and values it is to convcy are external to it.e m.e has no pouer. painting or music . would depend upon confining oneselfto thar particular point of view As soon as it becamenecessa. ler us say that the architect has decidedto rcstructurc the urban fabric ofa city (orthe'shape of landscape'h a certain area)fiom the point oI view of the perceptibility of its'image. l^ .a € tl l '..h e ''1 .350-77 ) Bnrrr.: Il srggiatore..e JL . 'o4'i ' .* *rc-...' .: . muni....* inrpo. 1963 see ciuiio Crflo Arsai.cntre involics conrh.l archire.hite. edieYalt.turc i$u'nes r sclf erfhinins rbo"r J'nqv'r t.7 ' r d nJ Al Trs'silas ENin Abbd S".i.hc lbb?y chft. lvlarzoratl.' .ln ^ .' r' 1 .t cir..tio. 1 " o ' o ' " 'qfd " r'"r"'3' ! ed rl '/" l . l odr t |'.... afchir.t thc isiEti. \t tt J . pp.' ' S. ' \ 1 ..Ii or' l .D. ' J.r! nor onl! to srllivrn hur also to Le corbusier on ihe rhe lcvcl ol unrsn.r' l -' Li " 1 o r ..pofl .1 ..i r ' ^ /.' s.vi53 nructure. r l.lJ' .-r Ru n ' . rs in r Diizza s cnnrnrs continued ahcntion to tho fuc'd$ oi thc lw|ere.r! t..h nsrases xs obolisks. and they go along with iwo unfortunate ideasof the role ofthe architect. code 6r inrcrpretins thc messse archne. "11Jrtr' J.31m of r Greek tcnple.n " h ' . " than a deurld rnN$sn ofsLstxcted:i iiiefJ lhds. 11 f "d ' "' r ' n l o'q p llo q' l.which may not be well founded According io the secord..lcsisn tDrning to the relatiorrln'ms in the .rl e{erici ?s"i.ons and values are going to be restrictiry men to a Particular way of life dictating laws to cvents' These both 8o too far.. P/.4P ' f r b ' L jln .t9 L e D. buiihrlwe mn* ncler d. I4ih.dtioo rbar is connfivc 1or iDrPerrti'c.l -d r "5 {lh .s s t t'\" MIT nb'ds_ \'d' rel \' ' lr ' . -' . rnd tvmPrna hur e*abhhed tor .nt. Eleuz. D ..vconh$ron buildnrss that su ound itl.' .sisne m$ rnedir'..r 'r' Reconsirlcrcd ir tunciionalism: ree Lonn Sullivtrn.'l J1l n.nr"' . NOTES ChrGti.r .' a . in su.nilo!:'r' r\nnerte Lavc6 rnd colh S'nnh lrrd's )'Ne* York: tunction thrt s prcdoninant d dre rr.1 ._F\"".t." .i... Arrd S"s".Dh 'rl 'd '3 ' 1.herehe may accepion faith certanrsociologicaland ideologicaldeterininationsmade bv others.le no n . or. 'n This alternative to thesevarieties of overconidence has alreadv been sug tbe a/cbite. ' ''\o'puhl _ ''-.Accordins to the first.? tr .lue ol!on..t.. tirle **'. Buildins iristicrlll | h l o4 pD '0 L r /r l!.I L' .{.e nlhabn i1 h r 'cit'h enotive ithinL of the..oB "'. at a *-"ntic a!f.v). therc channels rre opencd [d "t architecturrl nc$ass. iben. o' l . Io .d.htccturrl mcs'se."' lo e hF.. whrt I" rhi\.1-.sdio r dertto. Jor oDe examplc to rtlicv' an.hitcctuml nossagesdisplrv 'ls' in-1.b to rhe city Ic sh.n?ntt.. 1966. *h. D.""D P l a^-) .i .k" rhe lekl of urhsn iabric.'1 svn.r. lunctions listcd bv lsLobsor.v and qemurncver wrni to undcditdthrtan) .h .nt ol '"*"*g dle Plar oI si8ns. the mrny atcrtion'schinE devi.o n .rive \'r.' . L. .rtrdv'1r'r_'5 . '! '0" ' '.i4"".' "^ "' . in trobbht di !"tu Ll'nb-t" !c. maLins o.uu tv to !nd{find tr. .N.bolic raluc was impon. .lvla$rMlIPre$'1965 {olaid Bdhs. "r ' l "{i ' ol I t' .I4ila.s.o'i ' o ' .Op " 'l .i1"pp. rhe tubrlen'e of a L'roque churchl' Phari' (obviourly i.. I ..".1 ".e d ' L ' r ' n1J : .4 ^ 1 ' ' .'h. 'netalingndl o' ih..c' "' t.o r ' .. n \u . 5...tuft'adtalt\Agc.....xe i.er.rurc the Phrtic lDrdionnrishr he n. d. .. cii lsclczione dclh criticr darc coniedporanerl' 2' (the openrperta)is th. 106\l r" \r 'n ed l " kl ^' R .. -l ' ' " Vu*.r.' \. apen secandaryfun.'i n . ..riier tunndi.lt af sr Dt"i r"l e lf o' | t r n o r 1 r "o ... nr ireco-* l.a.rehtit{jnAt.s o/so.' .*.1 i' o'rd"r .o . he has onlv to find the proper forms to answer to what he can takc as 'programmatic' givens. vr'r p.nNorbcrsschutz..".' .t shaltld be designiflSfor l)ariable prihtlrv l'ftctio's dftd gesteA.l ..to determine what those funct.rrches. Loi 6 Jo'ol i I r l. Li ' '' ul "c ":' o .n d l' ^ _ r l. .1 "r 'r'l vo-d' dell M.1.o ll' tr | )J "_"! l ri o' r\'q' fn ' 8.re the ndior or NorLs thd e'rin open ' r'rl '4' oof r" -.und to be Drt.o F Po j.b Ja 3'oedb\'l ' w.\ +rr'nl ^'r'\.loni.' . r". the rclitect (and we know artificer ot what curreDcythis delusion has enjoyed) becones a derniuse..200 S T RUCT URA L I S M Eco sign vehicles. lhe Trll o{lic.." \l \t.r".r f. 1965 Ciulio carlo i€rn ri . fi".n ' 'o q "e i o1 r\ .nmhrivc !. n Op. \hJ tt? 1 la ^ a 4 d ^ J'o hJ r\ r' ra r' \J\' r ' tL l. . ln rcab. cited.prehensive$udy to daie.hnetutu nt.nani. 15 On ihe con. cambridgc.lready be the elemen$ oi an innnnc nunbd oI po$iblc co. 19 53 rnd viftono Grogofti l l tttitatiD dell tt. criticism rndtbe hi$ori.h the sisninedis alNaysdcieficd dr bccon s nsct.11. ( t pac e.Fldence: 3arty.hite. rhc problern of.t?rrrrai.ot. communicaTione etreticr e mss 13 Sc. D. thrust.ariv.Nhich nr spite oj the iact thii man ha! lifrle say vdr regard to rhcn con$nutio. sen{aiedivari.oncs closc ro rlie deturition of fisures olspccch (as /cl. 19J7. B.rbinfioN. 2. cit. .. Bdti: Dedalo l.(l bcWotkoIA dl D .z/o.rnd dre lisnif.4ralai dd |nqtu$io dell nr. Illt.t'te ds srn.azbne.sccalsoS.as! nr dNh."inoti. Jcd.Matisfl dd Ln'stkti. rnd notc thc drnt ofth.s.lasttottLot farnd. ofan idcolo$ that nrposes. pp.eandRome: Geidelft.6 iDro rhh work ot .1..le.niolosy. Sinbalo. ArcLite.a.. plic e' ) .C..1. to oppor !o rhe concrereprocc$ ofrisnificarion nrthclightollvhich mishl bc 10.rchnecrure h nu! of denning the linit bqond rhi.nrusins lnutriion dcs. scc.ans.1964.o. op. be tr. 1967. and laws sill pernirnin e.cn. rhc rcnarks by op. 1164. :16 lor Josefh shlin\ weu-known viows on linstritics sceJosel Srnlin.h: ".1965i scc lor ihrr naiter the vhole ol nsue 35 oi Ed'lizt M.alc. a plan niEht bc rcad.op. nchdins rrchnecturc. 1964. Joseph Nev York:Hoiizonrtcs. SeeChrniian N orberg-Scbb. or. n a te d b ya co lle .. . H^rt. tuad. 19 Forporhaps tbc nost co!.. ihcn.r. 'Lriicol. matixolfreedo'n butas rhe \rry imaseoi a donination.t.1967.loi \. 1963.o lorser seemto be any loinr in deignns r'ncw . whers tbc prop( paraucl is drawn betw. rr. s u .)./. sis. cit.. NeN nnki Har. Inrernational. \rho concentates before ivork of3rt.1967.lna tinu.h an cxisiins lorn . se Kltrns Kocnis.r.ris .y c{isrins city there would. ind FilibertoMsnna.bnctonico. ed.r'.he r\se ol Nlechanical Reprcdudion .dg. 143 5.. and on dre . '"edi.usdodcsof eoshvene.).. op.).r1. Ma$. A n..v.onosrrrhyjtypeisdcino.ok tt At.hnltoni.hn ftnnr.i nate..cfro di tipoloda rrcbii.narchitccturaltypologyandi..a. as prnn.1956.viJrg for iormuhic prcsenLriionof the u.n: Feftinelli. 8.parA.h bay Lc ntrrcd rs follo$i. Ma!!. as.t presentnevs posi$ rhe exisrence and any cultural (o4 lor tlEt mrtter.hidmat.sr...rpty ihe.tonicr' h lrs..ryes rot oDly when one res it as i $rucrure rhI rjcnerac bcaning: it emergesrho Fhen. tho linii bcyond which thc ..hite. in llannah Aicndt. I or r r h e o r e t i c a l c o n s .re{pected)given in lco 1963.:L-1..ntinuity of lnropcan rrchirccue'.3!-oj Tnrnri Einaudi.cn.I..onrt. c h i c o . Hc cri.bove.httcttrfl ca.s a section the .4/.4.i senenl' di iuspettotez. T he ren .l scc nodrc.2. I"tentions in At.) 2l M.onirons us vtrh ntinitg nctdphorical ch.tion lom lohr opposites whi. Mil.tue. and Cillo Dornes. This i\ mor ohvious vth rcsard io 6uildinss.2. Now ir is rue rh rnr city conaronh ns Nith phc.drian discu$edin Fusco196.ionidei codicivisivi..d..and.t /.d.ho rcn cisdc iiv . dre tei entitled snt . Ihaqht a"d Rcdlity.Architccttu h. r or .n\ wort (1965.ctivity thccityndesigned rhe noiion oia nee pla) oi purc sign-vchiclcs of rrchiredure of nDch oi is.det"a.. cit. Ld"srnp.r adicolazionc and !co.( $e way legendrelh ofrhe chineso painter whcn bc ricwed hG rinished piintins.e: H.ch.Milton tstno 2. '. For il this notion were canied ro 3n extreme.on.ns. Bft.ity: in a. ^'rd Nato fet soiolasjd arhtdtonia.deed.. cir. ofvice ve6ai see Throushdie useolrhewonsco.s Mo.sabsorbcd L) it.rgioBetti. 1952.ept ol t)pc. dlr on.sec Bcnjanin Lcc Whorf.ysreresented the prorotype olr work ofartihc rc. Flatunc: liorcnti.. perDntins every trpe of life wirhin rhat lorn.hemespn. Prcblemi . In*iiub per la Collaborarionc autr le. ud Seetlie issue ot a/ilit innoductidr. 'l codici 'Anicola.arcd to dcsisn. to fill in ttu $ructurc.o.rchitecturalsisn vehiclestharpa$ bsfore onc appcarno lona(as.hetorical fornx it htrs Eco 9 1l 14 on thcsc.j pp. Ltl. DGig.2.ftd edahe dadi.i'\ h vhi.ticultrr rhc . 1966.through the.r.lcl JcsiEn . Nev York. but the semniic valuc olthc ciry c. u in p.wnic\ . o l w h .c & World. ch. secFns. 1960.r ivityin r $ iso id L ta ctio n .pliics. Veni.s.s. 20 lb quotcI/alcr Benj.omcna of etricbment knd nrLxtitulion) of meinins. .o. ol gene. one N nling n wnb concr$c siEnilicrtio.crtive powd ola ciq considered really inlinne as nrinne 3s the sisnif(Iive poNer of verbal lancua8cs.: MIT Ptu$. -thcn thcrc would. Iiorentina.her'..odes thd follo{. bcsidcsDorlles and Koenis. .tt t. n\ed\^'. L.?ione del linsniggr.i Se'niD!i. 2. Il nib della dopp.r.: lvll l Prc$. in exFeriencingii. op. trnd concenii. 1968.hnetutu.196i.ptio.l$. Aicrnerr/. 38 j2.1nd edn.196J.mbidge.o lonser .tbti. 17 That lansurrc d(cinnrcs 1be way in which one rees realit.ed. In con.ry elc'nenb nre sFrial irt!. cit.nin' Dirr$io.\ z. m i i o n o l t h c .l s. 1951.s.F UNCTTON AND SICN 201 ottr final sisnilied'. John Crrol.ibcd in Giovanni Khus (oe.ili.llovs the rrpe ol life one has in mind.lequatcl)\pokc.red nassabsorbs rhc work ot aii. psvcholosical)conllex . Fdilizia M. unequivocalh the light thatthe *rth's satellitegivesoff.dako Donald Appleyard.The archi r e.1l4): pp.nd th. a stimuhs acts directly at the But as Rolard Barrhesvrote inhis Ebnents of Semtolo$. independeutlyof what it actually does.The word 'moonlight'.ry of scniotics as a science. Atthe sametime it has a broaderconnotation depending on the historical period and education of the person who communicates or receivesa messageusing the word. K. olrese. In order to understand the problem better. Cambridse. Each county shows itself by the way in which it is ablc to presentthe same thing other countries could also plesent. connotation and denotrtion.2a.of which the parts or the whole can perform the double action of evcry communication..' The' pl dnetary w society'has already standardizcd industrial production to such a degreethat the facr of showhg a tractor or a spacecapsuleno longer differentiatesone image of civil.1967.adiLynch. as soon as society can be said to exist.s an acr of communication. In architecture. The colonnade by Bemini in St Pelert Squarein Rome crn be interpreted as an immeNc pair of ams.t of {ructurllish.. cotrvebarion.which rvonld nive come up in any cas. Aside fron ihis. rnd th{ herco'nnen*. while I a. The prestigegame is won by the counny rhat besr rells whar it does.bccause is otre step nfter anolher. rir'. nnd so on. Maria aotiero Lo $ruturalismo tunzio.op. a product of archnecture or design js simply llke a mechanism that *qgests a function and acts on thc user only as a stimulus tha! requ.'Look whnt I produce' but ' L o o k h o w s ma rt I a m i n p r esenti ng hat I produce.Mass. a as chair for sitting). h. 447 50. conmented that tfie inirodnciion ol the trnrhropolo'jiGl synon inro thc discu$ion w.smple HOW AN EXPOSITIONEXPOSES ITSELF ID contemporary expositions a country no longer says. The staircasebecones for everybody the colvcntional sisn to denote ascending. Review.202 S T RUCT URA L I S M Eco 2z 23 Reviewing rbc tu( vcrsion ol rhis texr. 'love'. a rru .!.kinsrhn Seelrncl\ 1960.j Lucirntr de Rora Lapocticanrbahisri.it seemsat lirst that the inherent function of every item prevents us fron regard.teso" the slnthesk of roffi. The known connection a in . lct us assumethat architecture (and desisn.1964.i. tosetherwith r seriesol doubh advancedbyvtrtoio Crcsorti in point r liide clear. a medium of communication (a stajrcaseis used for going up.o l u r o n . Astimulus is physiologicallevel and has nothing lot a syrbol. Co.cn. but stimulatesthe walkefto ascend.rvrid Unive6itt Press.stttne"ti criti. aanbiidsc: H. if architecturecommunicatessomething.r.I vould like ro point ouftbat I was rcdly trying ro resolvethe problenr.zation from another The olly solution left is symbolic. jn its overall sense). For a parallel drawn bctwccn Alcrand&t work .doesnot it allow ole towalk on a plane. open to embraceallthe faith{ul. N. Tbus it could connote'a romantic situation'. A word or a phrase caD denotc something.: ^nd rrnchfts. 2 4 loran. cvcn to mc. The Viee f/ohtbe Ro. one rhtri reopsnsd the problcs of thc autono..knowledEc rh&c nisht have bccnsoDe malicious i'tentro ir.itr. wherher or not anvoneascends eiven sraircase fact.c n n ' i -r rh ' r e r o' erporron.res a behavioural response:a staircasc.ng it as a message. a mcssage.op.it is in the form ofa symbol.t.ve driven meion. see 1953. di CliisioDher Alexlnder'. 'feeling'. means. every use also bccomcsthe sign of that same use. Maiia Cori. cn.s . forexample.al.d.rchon proceduEs ofcodi{icfion f the levelofnhnate seeChrntorhef Alexinder.vin Lynch lonn My. Documents Similar To eco +Function+and+SignSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextgeometrysyllabusvocabulary week 1Mimesis AusschreibungPresentation AnalysisWRIT 1133 - Project 4 AssignmentCorrigenda for Third Ed Latest 2009unit objectivesgeometry syllabus 16-17 page 1accel algebra syllabus fall 2017edtpa day 4The Built Idea From the Cave to the HutLesson Activity 1Portfolio2_Word Level_Translation Difficulties and Techniques (1)tsmcflwebETHNIC IDENTITY OF KAREN SGAW FROM HOUSEHOLD STOVELesson Plan 7th Gradereadiness brochure- finalThe New Mathematics of Architecture-ForewordLesson 4 - BOOK 2DLL_ENGLISH 3_Q1_W69780273709688_sm09Jeopardy Literary TermsBhn BackupMicro Teachingass3lessonsalchemy cq themes action plan smallprez2222Lesson PlanWEEK_2_VC.pdfMore From Afonso PortelaSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextIP-04-301_ENsynergy-fuller.pdfFlexible Housing in the UKgeometriafolha1.pdfEsquema GeralThe History of Developments Toward Open Building in JapanEstrutura Geral WorkflowEsquema ReticularautosasiuTJ-4000 Russia_+Kiseleva+N+-+Finish+%28edit%29Árvore de Decisoes20131125-1729321311Da222De Desvao a Agua Furtada A3s 2Las Formas de La Residencia en La Ciudad Moderna Carlos Marti ArisO Anticristo Manual de Instruções Para a Nave Espacial Terra (via Optima, 1998)Cidades2010-20-21_Domingues Architecture and Utopia Design and Capitalist Developmenttest1ruadovilar_v02_horarios_faup_miarq_2014_2015__1___1_[Projecto] De Desvão a Água-furtadaArtº 5, nº 1, a), nº 2 e 3, Artº 6 e Anexo I-A.pdfPORTO 20TH CENTURY URBAN CENTRALİTİES. TWO STUDY CASESj. Turner Archive - FreedomtoBuildCh7buildings and climate changeSolAr Inclusao Nova CidadeAutoCAD ShortcutsCritical Path233 PolíticaFooter MenuBack To TopAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersSocial MediaCopyright © 2018 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaSign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadClose DialogAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOK