Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3
PP 345367
REPRINTS AVAILABLE
DIRECTLY FROM THE
PUBLISHERS
PHOTOCOPYING
PERMITTED BY
LICENSE ONLY
BERG 2012
PRINTED IN THE UK
Diagrams of
Countercultural
Architecture
Simon Sadler
is Professor of
Architectural and
Urban History at the
University of California,
Davis. His publications
include Archigram:
Architecture Without
Architecture (MIT
Press, 2005), Non-Plan:
Essays on Freedom,
Participation and
Change in Modern
Architecture and
Urbanism (co-edited
with Jonathan Hughes;
Architectural Press,
2000), and The
Situationist City (MIT
Press, 1998). He is
currently researching
countercultural design.
sjsadler@ucdavis.edu
Simon Sadler
Simon Sadler
Simon Sadler
that followed. The jagged seams, eccentric shapes, and outlandish colors of the pioneering countercultural commune of Drop
City, Colorado, founded in 1965, act as envoys of a philosophical
shift between Fullers design method modeled on science and the
Droppers method modeled on a Nietzschean gay science: Drop
City remains reverential towards science, yes, but only as one of
several life-affirming forces in the world which must be followed
spontaneously (Figure 1). The domes at Drop City show what the
Fuller ideal looks like after the acceptance of fate, of poetry, and
their magnification through narcotics. The shift is nicely illustrated in
a contemporary photograph in which a Fullerine geodesic sphere,
delicately crafted by Droppers, hangs from the apex of their Cartop
zome, a geodesic distorted first by its noncircular plan, then by
its highly unconventional construction from bonded car panels. The
diagram of forces running through the Cartop zome becomes wonky
and Aquarian, pushed and pulled by the myriad interconnections, as
one Dropper account put it, of Materials, Structure, Energy, Man,
Magic, Evolution, and Consciousness (Alloy Report [1969] 1971:
114).
One senses in the structures at Drop City the presence of
diagrams in that purer form described and made famous by Gilles
Deleuze, for whom the diagram traces the forms, differences, and
Figure 1
Steve Baer and Droppers, Cartop zome, Drop City, Trinidad, CO. Environmental Communications, 1966.
Simon Sadler
Figure 3
Diagram from Lama Foundation, Architectural Design, 42 (December 1971).
Figure 2
Lama Foundation, nr. Taos, NM, 1969present. Environmental Communications.
Simon Sadler
Figure 4
Ram Dass, Be Here Now. Hanuman Foundation, 1971.
The Centers domed roof was a thirty-two-foot-high enenacontrahedron, a shape that drew energy from the earth while also
celebrating the sky and the sun. A helix of diamond-shaped
sections echoed the peaks of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains,
while one-story wings tapered down on either side hugging
the ground. One wing contained a communal bathhouse and
the other housed a library and prayer room. The outer walls
were made from traditional adobe bricks, packed and stacked
in the style of the local Pueblo Indians. All doors in the eightsided building pointed east, and all windows were positioned
in alignment with the sun and moon. Light streamed through
the star-shaped skylight and played across the walls of the
great meditation space. An eight-foot-high octagon window
something like a third eye looked west toward the Rio
Grande. (Gordon 2008: 201)
Simon Sadler
of the whole, and that the diagrams indicated some key to this
harmonious coexistence of people, places, and energy.
Seen like this, even the bid to defer utterly to the patterns and
energies of the world by creating a closed loop ecosystem in which
everything (humans, plants, air, bacteria) has its place assigned by
scientific-ecological authority should be read as an ontology (Figure
5). At the New Alchemy polyculture farms and research stations,
begun in 1969, inhabitants combined the roles of stewardship earlier
developed by the Bible, Aldo Leopold, and laboratory science, and
submitted the labor of their bodies to the alchemical loop: the
diagrammatic comparison called to mind is of New Alchemy arks
bearing the seed of a new civilization practically in the mode of the
Benedictine St. Gall plan of 81926 ce. Inevitably, ecology itself was
a culture, one formed through the obsessive interest in pattern,
energy, and relation. In The Book of the New Alchemists (1977),
William Irwin Thompson concluded that this techno-scientific cycling
of organisms through the New Alchemy ark had indeed to be
experienced as a (counter)culture:
Simon Sadler
Figure 5
New Alchemy Institute, Tropical Lowlands Farm, from Book of the New Alchemists, edited by
Nancy Jack Todd, copyright 1977 by New Alchemy Institute, Inc. Used by permission of
Dutton, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
bent are the subjective and metaphysical priorities of Drop City and
Lama, in which pattern and energy exist at some meta-state which
necessitate their diagrammatization in the absence of any scientific
instrument for their measurement. The architecture itself is that instrument. New Alchemy and the Integral Urban House are machines
of biomechanical reproduction, while Drop City and Lama act like
devices to track and inflect energies and patterns, framing views,
gathering communities, dispersing straight thinking. As mechanisms they are tuned separately, Drop City to the safe release of
dysfunction through eruptive will and creativity, Lama to the making
of stillness as the negation of dysfunction, day-to-day life conducted
semimonastically. Nonetheless, all the diagrams convert (supposed)
physical and metaphysical principles into culture. This culture was
one of exile from a world in crisis, the basics of life rotating around
the individual body like a survival mechanism in an age of seemingly
imminent political and environmental collapse.
The politics of this cultural exile are troubling, needless to say,
and will be reviewed in a moment. One thing seems clear: these
diagrams did not scale up to civilization at large. Micro-diagrams
Figure 6
Sim van der Ryn, diagram of Integral Urban House, Berkeley, CA, c.1973.
Courtesy of Sim van der Ryn.
Simon Sadler
offer little more than models of virtue, we might worry, and sometimes appear ludicrous beyond that gauge (as memorably proven
by Buckminster Fullers renderings of gigantic geodesics in the sky
and over Manhattan). Probably the best approach is dialectical,
then imagining oneself on the inside and outside of the diagram,
charmed but distanced. As it happens, designers are trained to think
in this way, back and forth from the inside of designs to the outside
(between the orderly interior of a building, say, and its environment),
and from center to periphery (connecting a villa back to town, for
instance).
And this experience of traverse was known, we can fairly speculate, to many countercultural searchers in the late 1960s and 1970s,
among them surely designers, who left the cities and suburbs,
perhaps pointing their cars toward the communes for a sojourn
before returning to the cities and suburbs days or months or years
later. The return to mainstream America was practically as significant
as the departure: sociological research refutes the myth that former communards became remorseful bourgeois disavowing their
youthful experiments. Most retained an idealism about community
and familial relationships. Nearly all [of those interviewed], reports
commune historian Timothy Miller, were [now] teachers, health care
workers, artists, organic farmers, social workers, and the like (Miller
2002: 349) the like, in other words, of middle-class reformists from
whose ranks the design discipline historically hails.
To traverse Cold War, Vietnam era America did not entail absolute
retreat from it, but its mental and physical crisscrossing diagramming it; cognitively mapping it. The archive of countercultural architecture is not safely back there, then it is not something
either architecture or architectural history can disown. Todays senior
architects were training during the Age of Aquarius, and it is inconceivable that countercultural architecture had no impact at all,
positive or negative, on the formation of subsequent architectural
culture. Its ambitions are too cognate with ecological tendencies
and diagrammatic methods surviving in contemporary architecture
for the point of comparison to be ignored.
the opposite direction away from the unsociable hut earlier known
to Henry David Thoreau and Martin Heidegger. For all its introversion,
the Integral Urban House was also purposively urban, too, sited in
a rundown area of Berkeley, California like some kernel for the next
generation of urban renewal.
Critical attention has recently focused on the degree to which the
new communalism of the 1960s and 1970s was modeled upon the
smooth self-regulation that was believed to govern the systems of
nature itself.6 Cybernetic self-regulation was certainly of interest to the
counterculture at large (witness their discussion in the Whole Earth
Catalog, founded in 1968), and as their diagrams show, residents of
the Arks and Integral Urban House were trying to apply something
comparable, a closed loop, at the biological level. This suggests the
end of politics and the initiation of bio-politics (the corporeal control
of subjects), aided by withdrawal from the heterogeneity of the city.
But it is difficult to prove that the cybernetic model was rigorously applied in theory or in practice to the social functioning of the intentional
communities cited in this article. The more immediate motivation to
form intentional community was the search for shared values. No one
was forcibly herded into countercultural camps, and though plenty
of accounts suggest that interns felt bullied by the silent politics that
the new communitarianism was meant to have left behind, so too are
people routinely oppressed in schools, workplaces, and streets. This
was why communards, mostly young, mostly white, privileged, and
educated, sought countercultural alternatives in the first place, preferring systematic solutions and a common culture to the perceived
systemic dysfunction of mainstream society. Their value systems
drew on sources ranging from cybernetics to religious beliefs, from
white settler and Native American traditions to communism.
In which case, we might speculate that secession from the Cold
War political sphere was motivated by a tacit quest for some new
common sense a sensus communis or general intellect.
Immanuel Kant suggested that this universal common sense was
shared by the whole human race and permitted individuals to intuit
not so much the actual as the merely possible judgments of
others, and [so] put ourselves in the position of everyone else
(Kant 1987: 160). It entailed, in other words, an empathy with what
matters to people at large with what it is to be fully human and it
is this enlarged cognitive sphere that also appears to be mapped in
countercultural diagrams. The space of communal meals, guitar playing and chopping wood was to be that noninstrumental space (the
communards surely dreamed) in which sensus communis might be
developed (Figure 7). Photographs of the new settlements published
by their residents, then and since, conveyed idyllic qualities, people
and built elements arrayed in a rustic, benign, ecological balance.7
The pictures sometimes evoke a still-life quality, as though inviting
comparison with the still-life genre in art, wherein purposiveness (of
the sort formed around scientific and moral reasoning, according to
Simon Sadler
Figure 7
Photograph of dining area, Lama Foundation. Environmental Communications, c.1970.
the call for cognitive mapping famously issued by the Marxist literary
critic Frederic Jameson in 1990, based in turn on the cognitive
diagrams published by urban planner Kevin Lynch a decade before
Soleri published Arcology (see Jameson 1990; Lynch 1960).
In its pages Soleri places his idiosyncratic ontology on an equal
footing with his architectural design. Preceding the thirty specimen
arcologies, which he argues will reintegrate a set of natural interactions that have been severed by acquisitive society, Soleri details
his understanding of the relationships and processes undergirding
the cosmos in more than fifty fantastical diagrams. He cites but two
sources for his worldview, through his choice of epigrams by French
structuralist anthropologist Claude Lvi-Strauss and French Jesuit
theologian and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The effect
of these two sources is to frame arcology as an emanation of the
deep evolution of humans, of life on earth, and of the cosmos. What
I think he is trying to say, wrote Soleris friend, the architectural critic
Peter Blake, is this: there is an inherent logic in the structure and
nature of organisms that have grown on this planet. Any architecture,
any urban design, and any social order that violates that structure
and nature is destructive of itself and of us (Blake 1969: n.p.).
Again, the countercultural diagram is founded upon some lost
ecological order. There are also resonances, in arcologys tension
between matter, spirit, and the ideal, that characterize Western
philosophy more generally, such that Soleris text points, for todays
reader, in such contradictory directions as Hegelianism, phenomenology, and Deleuzianism. An idealism is present, for instance, in
Soleris contention that the mind desires to condense the universe
into a comprehensible whole in exactly the manner that produces
Arcology. And spirit is present in Soleris conviction that arcology
Figure 8
Paolo Soleri, The Organism of a Thousand Minds: The Biological Organism and the Arcological Organism
(the City). Figure 17 from the book Arcology: The City in the Image of Man, by Paolo Soleri, first
published in 1969. Courtesy of the Cosanti Foundation.
Simon Sadler
Figure 9
Lawrence Halprin, Sea Ranch Ecoscore, c.1970 (later published in Lawrence Halprin, RSVP Cycles, 1970).
Courtesy Lawrence Halprin Collection, The Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania.
Simon Sadler
architects in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, working within the parameters of an existing building industry and existing
stylistic conventions, and it is arguably an overly reflexive architecture
mitigating against risk.12 It was quite a different thing to posit, as the
counterculture originally attempted, that design should usher us into
a fundamentally altered relationship with society, with nature, with
economy, with the cosmos.
Architecturally, formally, stylistically, technically, the results of the
hippies diagrams were predictably chaotic, paltry whether compared with the engineered finesse of recent sustainable design or the
formal sophistication of recent diagram architecture. But of course
no architectural movement springs into being fully formed, and so
it was that the very attempt to sidestep style actually produced the
recognizable styles of countercultural architecture quizzical and
unselfconsciously pragmatic combinations of industrial technology
and shingles, adobe and steel, the vernacular and mathematics. It
follows that countercultural architecture was mostly bad according
to the measurements of conventional architecture, of durability,
beauty, and utility: countercultural architecture was the chaos of
diagrams without an agreed formal language.
And yet, diagrammatic continuities bridge countercultural designs
with the most remarkable of their diagrammatic successors. There
is, after all, a curious resemblance in the diagrams of the Droppers,
Soleri, Eisenman, and Rem Koolhaas as they trace in their own
ways complexity, struggle, and intuition, stratified forms and nonEuclidean geometry. They all follow the diagrams lead to abstract
form.13 Conversely, the countercultural architecture which proved
less compelling in terms of abstract, sculptural discovery (the world
encapsulated by a dome, for instance) was bland for the same
reason that some contemporary architecture is bland because it
annulled complexity and struggle.
This observation suggests a hypothesis about why some designs
are more interesting than other designs, cutting the architectural
canon laterally, from the 1960s to the present, rather than vertically along an epistemological and chronological rupture between
counterculture and postmodernism. Step back far enough from the
profound differences in programs, conditions of production, formal
languages, technical facilities, intellectual foibles, and worldviews,
and one notices how some designers are more inclined than others
to wrestle with the relationship between form, program, parameter,
and ontology. Their remarkable aesthetics trace their remarkable
ontologies, and thus their remarkable design ethics. It is not possible to form clean and simple diagrams relating the components
of totality. To do so would be to oversimplify the parameters which
architecture registers. Some diagrams successfully bring core processes like biorhythms to the designers attention; but that isolation
of one lived and literal parameter is unlikely to lead the designer to
a rich language of form. Contemplation of the intersecting abstract
Acknowledgments
My thanks to Panayiota Pyla, convener of the Society of Architectural
Historians Conference session for which this paper was initially
written; to the editors and reviewers of Design and Culture; and to
Sim van der Ryn, the Cosanti Foundation, the Architectural Archives
of the University of Pennsylvania, the Penguin Group, and George
Braziller, Inc. for their generous assistance with illustrations and
permissions. The author made every effort to contact the copyright
holders of figures credited to Environmental Communications and
the Hanuman Foundation, but with no success. However, they are
invited to contact the author and publisher with any concerns.
1. See, for instance, ANY (1998); Somol (1999); Vidler (2001); Garcia
(2010).
2. Commune historian Timothy Miller explains that there was no
singular communal movement; several thousand communes of
the 1960s and 1970s followed a wide variety of philosophies,
social forms, and housings (often in commandeered traditional
houses), which we retrospectively see circumscribed as a single
counterculture (Miller 2002: 32751).
3. For instances of this diagrammatic reading of Fuller, see
Colquhoun (1962: 5965) and Kepes (1956: 3645).
4. Borobudur and Islamic patterns recur as examples of paths
for the body and eye in Bloomer and Moore (1977: 91). It is
worth noting, then, the overlapping interests of countercultural
architecture and the ascent of interest in phenomenology within
advanced architectural circles after the Second World War (see
Otero-Pailos 2010). The two are not quite equivalent, though;
countercultural architecture is more proactively trying to model
and form belief (about ecology, spiritualism, etc.) a sort of architectural phenomenology squared.
5. Note, for instance, its abstraction on the cover of the first edition
of Kepess The New Landscape in Art and Science.
6. Probably the most powerful synthesis of the view that ecology,
cybernetics, counterculture, and neoliberalism combine into a
single disquieting history is that forwarded by Adam Curtis (dir.)
in All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace, screened on
BBC2 television (MayJune 2011), drawing (one deduces) from
many studies such as that by Peder Anker (2002).
7. See, for example, the slide sets distributed c.1970 by the
company Environmental Communications, and Roberta Price,
Notes
Simon Sadler
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
References
Alloy Report. [1969] 1971. In The Last Whole Earth Catalog, pp.
1127. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Anker, P. 2002. Imperial Ecology: Environmental Order in the British
Empire, 18951945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ANY. 1998. Vol. 23. Theme issue, Diagram Work: Data Mechanics
for a Topological Age.
Baer, S. 1968. Dome Cookbook. Corrales: Lama Foundation.
Beck, U. [1986] 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.
London: Sage.
Blake, P. 1969. Foreword to P. Soleri, Arcology: The City in the Image
of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bloomer, K.C. and C.W. Moore. 1977. Body, Memory, and Arch
itecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Colquhoun, A. 1962. The Modern Movement in Architecture.
British Journal of Aesthetics (January): 5965.
Dass, R. 1971. Be Here Now. San Cristobal, NM: Lama Foundation.
Deleuze, G. [1986] 1988. Foucault. Trans. S. Hand. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Garcia, M. (ed.). 2010. The Diagrams of Architecture. Chichester:
John Wiley.
Gordon, A. 2008. Spaced Out: Radical Environments of the
Psychedelic Sixties. New York: Rizzoli.