Jameson �s Folly:Architectu re, Postm odernism and theC ultural (Para)log ic of Late

Capitalism

Space and C ulture 3

Julie Fieldhouse andAmanda Araba Ocran

Folly: A popular name for any costly structure considered to have shown folly in the builder(Oxford English Dictionary 1991).

�Architecture therefore remains in this sense the privileged aesthetic language; and thedistorting and fragmenting reflections of one enormous glass surface to the other can be takenas paradigmatic of the central role of process and reproduction in postmodernist culture �(Jameson 1991: 37).

Introduction

Like the now monumental status of the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in the spectacle of

downtown Los A ngeles, Jameson � s 1984 article � which constructed the Hotel as a

postmodern artefact � has become a canonical text that dominates the critical landscape

of cultural theory. Yet, it is not the towering scale of the Bonaventure that serves as the

foundation for Jameson �s imposing vision of the postmodern. Although Jameson �s

analysis of th e Bonav enture is con cerned m ainly with the interior, the basis for his

formulation of a postmodern aesthetic and the primacy of architecture is the mirror glass

exterior. It is the reflec tive property of the Hote l �s mirror glass fa cade wh ich provide s his

focal metap hor. In the ep igram cited a bove, Jam eson invo kes a hall of m irrors effect to

express his paradigmatic vision of the architectural mirror in postmodernism. Here, he

demarcates a privileged space for architecture in postmodern cultural production and uses

the mirror metaphor as emblematic of the postmodern condition.1

The distorte d images p roduced by urban re flections on m irror-clad tow ers are used to

give tangible expression to his view of the relationships among aesthetic, technological

and economic production in contemporary life. He represents postmodern space and

62

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

1. Jameson describes

the W estin

Bonaventure Hotel

as �emblematic � (see

Stephanson

1989:48 ).

spatiality through a mirroring process � a hall of mirrors � in which

aesthetic production and global economic complexities reflect one

another in a multiplication of images. These reflections, he argues,

induce diso rienting psyc hological eff ects makin g it difficult to

distinguish between the original image and its reproduction and

between the individual and the (urban) environment. While appearing

to exert masterly control of the mirror metaphor, Jameson falls prey

to the disorientations of his own mode of analysis. Jameson �s

deployment of the metaphor entices the reader into a hall of mirrors,

mesme rized by his o wn reflectio ns, whirling himself and the reader in

a theoretical playground, he makes of postmodern culture a funhouse

mirror with no way out. Like the grandiose scheme of the

Bonaventure, Jameson �s argument presents a shiny facade concealing

a problematic structure. In this article we look behind facades and

inspect the structure of Jameson �s argument and that of his archetypal

artefact, the B onaven ture Hotel.

While Jameson �s article has been the subject of wide-ranging

debate since its publication, these critiques have not addressed in any

detail his use of the mirror as a metaphor for postmodern cultural

productions (see Davis 1985, Preziosi 1988). Although some of these

critiques hav e been sca thing in tone, a nd while w e attempt to

problema tize Jameso n � s use of the m irror metaph or, we hop e to

provide a constructive basis for further discussion of his thesis.

We believe it is important to revisit Jameson �s article on the

cultural logic o f late capitalism at this time bec ause mu ch work in

contemporary so cial theory continues to invok e mirror metaphors

without taking onboard the deeply compromised nature of such

representations. Jameson �s 1984 article set the stage for an ahistorical

invocation of the mirror metap hor as a cipher for the postm odern

condition. Richard Rorty �s work (1979), among others, has

demonstrated that the mirror metaphor has a long and troublesome

history in Western thought (see Gasché 1986). In a similar vein,

Gasché suggests that once reflection became the principal metaphor

of Cartesian thought:

63

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

Figure 1 Bonav enture Hotel, Los A ngeles (Photo: M ichael Dear)

64

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

it ... signified the turning away from any straightforward consideration of objects and from theimmediacy of such an experience toward a consideration of the very experience in whichobjects are given ... with such a bending back upon the modalities of object perception,reflection shows itself to mean primarily self-reflection, self-relation, self-mirroring (Gasché1986: 13).

The self-mirroring process is a central feature of contemporary social theory (see

Dhareshwar 1990). It is the fascinating quality of the mirror metaphor as a

representational device which renders it so unruly for those who attempt to hold it out as

an object of inquiry, as does Jameson. Thus, as Gasché (1986) and Rorty (1979) advise,

the mirroring process as a form of representation must be approached cautiously and

critically. We suggest that Jameson �s ahistorical invocation of the mirror metaphor leads

to his entrapm ent by the fas cinations of m irrored repres entation. W e do not set o ut here to

deal with all of the contradictions of mirrored representation. Our enterprise is small; we

primarily address that moment in Jameson �s work when he deploys the mirror-glass

metaphor in his 1984 article.

We approach our critique on two levels. First, we examine the specifics of Jameson �s

statements about the p aradigma tic role of the m irror in postmo dern archite cture, in

particular, his discussion of the Westin Bonaventure Hotel. Second, we reference the

work of other contemporary social theorists to critique these statements in a wider

historical and philosophical context. We argue that in Jameson �s analysis of the

postmodern condition he reifies the mirror as an aesthetic device. Jameson compromises

his attempt to apply a Marxist perspective to the production of postmodern aesthetics by

neglecting the economic and technological history of mirror glass. By closely scrutinizing

Jameson �s treatments of both the architect and architecture of the Bonaventure Hotel, we

arrive at an alto gether differe nt understan ding of the c ultural logic tha t Jameson claims it

embod ies. We q uestion the m etaphysica l level of abstrac tion that Jam eson uses in his

interpretation o f postmod ern space , and juxtap ose it with an approach grounde d in

popular culture such as that used by Celeste Olalquiaga. We then examine the uncritical

way in which Jameson ma kes the leap from a reified aesthetic acc ount of postmode rn life

to an epistemological claim about postmodern culture and post-industrial society. Finally,

we examine the way in which Jameson conjures up the mirror metaphor without reference

to the wide r historical and philosoph ical context.

65

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

Economy, Technology, Aesthetics

We are reflected in all we see.

Graffiti on boarded-up window of downtown Vancouver business after the Stanley Cup riot(The Vancouver Sun June 16 1994).

Postmodernism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism is one of the first formulations

of a Marxist account of postmodernism. One reason the article received so much critical

attention was Jameson �s assertion that postmodernism is the product of changing global

econom ic conditions and his (app arent) relegatio n of class relatio ns to a seco ndary role

behind architectural aesthetics in an an alysis of this process (see Dav is 1985). Later,

David H arvey (198 9) expand ed the M arxist theme on global e conom ic change and its

effects on cultural life into a fully developed argument on the economic underpinnings of

the postmodern condition.

Jameson makes the argument that post-Fordist capitalism is characterized by the

mobility of capital enabled by new communications technologies. Key notions such as

flexibility and de-centring affect a fragmented labour process. Changes in strategies of

production are simultaneously manifested in a new cultural politics. For Jameson (1991)

the depthles s, fragmen ted, ephem eral quality of th e means o f production in social life is

reproduced in a postmodern aesthetic in which architecture is the privileged medium.

Jameson (1991: 2) states:

It is in the realm of architecture, however, that modifications in aesthetic production are mostdramatically visible and that their theoretical problems have been most centrally raised andarticulated; it was indeed from architectural debates that my own conception ofpostmodernism ... initially began to emerge.

Jameson, as evinced in this statement, backs into his analysis of the link between the

aesthetic and the economic. Although Jameson asserts a Marxist perspective, he does not

make any connection between particular economic imperatives and technological

inventions. In respect of the relation between technology and cultural production,

Jameson (1991: 37) a sserts

I want to avoid the implication that technology is in any way the � ultimately determininginstance � either of our present-day social life or of our cultural production: such a thesis is, ofcourse, ultimately at one with the post-Marxist notion of a post-industrial society.

In this stateme nt Jameso n attempts to avoid eco nomic de terminism in his analysis. W hile

we agree that economic determinism is something to be avoided, our problem is that he

too hastily sets aside the material relationship between technology and cultural production

in late capitalism.

66

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

2. One subtext in

Jameson �s

observations about

the role of mirror

glass in

contempo rary

architecture is the

notion o f its

�novelty . � While

Jameson might argue

that �novelty � is a

form of innovation

when other

marketing strategies

have been exhausted,

this is not the case

with the

development of

mirror glass. There

was no n eed to resort

to aesthe tic

marketin g ploys to

develop mirror glass,

the potential cost

savings alon e were

impetus enoug h to

produce the

technology.

Technological invention in capitalist enterprise aims to reduce

costs throug h eliminating or reducing labour or reso urce inputs. T his

also applies in instances where the turn-over time in the production

process is red uced or elim inated. M arx � s base/sup erstructure an alysis

of the relations hip betwe en econo my and c ultural produ ction fits well

the development of mirror glass as an architectural medium. The

economic imperative here was to reduce heating and air conditioning

costs in commercial buildings. However, Jameson omits a

consideration of this specific economic context in which mirror glass

was invented and applied. Instead, in this instance, he substitutes an

analysis of aesthetic effects as the impetus for architectural

technological innovation.2

For Jameson the aesthetic effects of the architectural mirror form

the basis of his sweeping observations on the postmodern condition.

However, on unpacking these statements, we find that they do not

sustain an analysis of the relationship between aesthetics and

econom ics. For exam ple, James on does n ot pay sufficie nt attention to

the particular relationship that architecture has with technological

innovation and prevailing economic conditions. Although he states

�Of all the arts, architecture is the closest constitutively to the

econom ic, with wh ich in the form of comm issions and land value s it

has a virtually unmediated relationship � (Jameson 1991: 5), Jameson

does not explore the � unmediated relationship � to which he refers. In

this sense, Jameson h as reified the aesthetic dimension o f architecture

and disconnected it from its technological and economic moorings.

By making the �architectural mirror � paradigmatic of postmo dern

culture, he ha s inadverten tly drawn a ttention to this ap oria in his

argument. In a similar manner, Jameson elevates the artistic status of

the architect of the Bonaventure Hotel (John Portman) to a

�philosoph y, � thereby do wnplay ing the eco nomic im peratives tha t lie

at the heart of Portman �s work. Such an emphasis on Portman � s

architectural philosophy also recalls the larger question raised by

Gillian Rose (1988) about the �conflation of architecture with theory �

in analyses of postmodernism. A brief examination of the

development of the use of mirrors as architectural facades

demon strates the clos e nexus b etween te chnolog y and eco nomic

forces in the p roduction o f architectural a esthetics in co ntrast to

Jameson �s theoretical approach.

67

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

The M irror Glass C ommo dity

While Jameson and other theorists of the postmodern portray mirror glass solely as an

aesthetic device, in fact, its industrial production necessarily was preceded by

technological innovations enabling its use as an exterior wall material. Pamela Heyne

(1982: 10 1) reminds us that:

In all this discussion of illusionism and opacity and aesthetics, we forget the real raison d �êtreof mirror glass. It was developed initially as a means of reducing heat build-up in curtain wallbuildings. Though ...[architects]... recognized the aesthetic potential in glass with a reflectivecoating, had there been no problem of heat build-up in all glass buildings, mirror glass wouldundoubtedly never have been developed.

Heyne (1982) documents the development of mirror glass as a technological innovation

in response to economic factors and technical difficulties in the construction of the glass

curtain wall building.

Early mo dern uses o f glass in arch itectural design came ab out for econ omic as w ell

as aesthetic reasons. The curtain wall building � a glass clad building with a steel frame

� was less expensive to build in the post-war era than buildings of previous eras that

were constructed out of masonry. Architects began to experiment with glass as an

aesthetic m edium tha t was alread y a popula r construction material bec ause the cu rtain

wall building could be built quickly and was comparatively inexpensive to construct (see

Heyne 1982: 89). T he glass cu rtain wall bec ame a sign ature of the ne w Internatio nal Style

of modernist architecture:

It was ... a symbol of a new society, free from the vicissitudes of war and poverty, living inclean and wholesome environments. The dark, ponderous buildings of the past would bereplaced by towering prisms of glass. (Heyne 1982: 86)

However, technical problems beset the curtain wall building throughout the 1950s and

60s. These problems, identified early on by architects, particularly the firm of Saarinen

and Associates in the United States, included the �greenhouse effect � of heat entrapment

leading to high air conditioning costs and, in winter, heat loss led to high heating bills.

Thus, w hile the buildin gs were c heap and efficient to con struct, they w ere expen sive to

operate and unpleasant to inhabit. The Saarinen architects devised a solution to these

problems through modifying the light capturing properties of the curtain wall to deflect

light away from the building using mirrored glass. Although one way or mirrored glass

existed it was not suitable for industrial applications. Architects worked closely with glass

manufacturers to develop a mirror glass that could be used on a large scale (see Heyne

1982: 89 � 90).

Bell Labo ratories in Ne w Jersey was the first b uilding to use mirror glass cla dding in

68

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

1962. As a research facility needing accurate temperature control, Bell was so pleased

with the reduced air con ditioning costs that within five years they modified the entire

exterior of the b uilding using two acres of mirror glass (see Hey ne 1982 : 91). The Illino is

headqu arters of John Deere (finish ed in 1963 ) was the first b uilding to hav e a facade b uilt

exclusively from mirror glass. Following its construction, the glass industry committed

itself to full-scale commercial production of mirror glass. Once the glass industry had

made that commitment, it then had to devise ways of selling the product to other

architects (see Heyne 1 982: 92).

The history of the production of mirror glass cladding can be divided into three

phases. P hase I beg an with the econom ic impetus to develop th e technolo gy in the late

1950s and early 1960s. The cost saving advantages of mirror glass provided the initial

catalyst to develop this technology for industrial clients (see Heyne 1982: 89 � 90). Phase

II (c. 1963 � 1970) began o nce the technology existed on a comm ercial scale. In phases II

and III, produ cers were primarily con cerned w ith selling mirror g lass and no t with its

technolog ical develop ment. A ra nge of ma rketing strateg ies were em ployed in p hase II to

sell the product to architects and their non-industrial clients. The marketing strategies

took two basic forms, one economic and the other aesthetic. Phase III was ushered in by

the soaring costs of heating and air conditioning arising from the OPEC crisis of 1973.

Marketing strategies focused on economic selling points.

While b oth econo mic and a esthetic selling ploys we re used to se ll mirror glass in

phase II, the cost savings did not provide compelling reasons for its adoption by non-

industrial clients . Both the Jo hn Dee re and Be ll Laboratorie s buildings w ere located in

park-like environments. The aesthetic effects created by mirror glass in such

environments became a selling point for producers. In park-like settings a mirror clad

building �s proximity to trees, water and green areas created a �romantic � effect (see

Heyne 1982: 92). T his aesthetic c ontext wa s seized up on by adv ertisers as a w ay to

promote the widespread use of mirror glass on building exteriors. Advertisers �

exploitation of �romantic � images for industrial applications of mirror glass cladding

dovetailed neatly with the growing appreciation in the United States of environmental

issues:

The glass, which had the ability to make an entire building blend into its setting visually, cameon the market at a time when the United States was entering an environmental movement.With space explorations and live broadcasts from the moon itself, people in the United Statesand indeed much of the world realized how small and insignificant the world was whenviewed from outer space. With the awareness of the fragility of planet Earth came a desire toprotect nature (Heyne 1982: 93).

At this juncture the aesthetic appe al of mirror glass was based on the idea that mirrors

would unambiguously and � truthfully � reflect the surrounding environment. When its use

69

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

was confined to park-like locales the notion of the mirror �s � true � reflection was an

obvious assumption. However, once mirror cladding was applied to the urban

environm ent in the late 19 60s both th e aesthetic co ntext and th e romantic illu sion of its

reflection could no longer be sustained.

The widespre ad urban application of m irror glass marked the beginn ing of Phase III

and the return to primarily economic marketing strategies. The OPEC oil shocks of the

early 1970s forced developers to look for ways to reduce heating and air conditioning

costs. This led to an explosion of the use of mirror glass cladding in urban environments,

especially on high rise buildings which required fully regulated internal climates (see

Heyne 1982: 102). While the construction of mirror glass buildings in urban areas solved

some eco nomic pro blems, it prese nted a new aesthetic con text and w ith it a new ae sthetic

idiom:

Urban reflections, besides being unattractive, were also illogical at times. Rapidly moving carsreflected on a facade gave a building a curiously kinetic appearance. The reflections of otherbuildings sometimes were strange... Also, the reflections were often quite distorted. While thiswas not objectionable when sky and trees were reflected, it was odd to see images ofcrumpled-looking buildings (Heyne 1982: 104).

Jameson (1991: 37) has interpreted the aesthetic challenges brought about by the

distorting effects of mirror glass as �paradigmatic of the central role of process and

reproduction in postmodernist culture. � He also suggests that �the distorting and

fragmentin g reflections o f one enorm ous glass su rface to the oth er ... � are instrume ntal in

�evoking a wh ole new postm odern space in em ergence around u s � (Jameson 1991 : 37).

However, as Heyne points out the opacity of mirror glass in contrast to the transparency

of clear glass, was seen by architects to give city buildings a �modern � appearance

producing � a sleek package rathe r than a box-like cage � (Heyne 1982 : 92).

The World in Miniature: The Westin Bonaventure Hotel

Jameson � s statements on the parad igmatic status of mirror glass in postmo dern

architecture also imply a conc eptual role for architects in creating the type of pos tmodern

space evoked by mirror glass facades; as if architects produced these visual effects by

design, rather than their being the unintended outcome of a technology applied to the

urban env ironment. T o illustrate his arg ument, Jam eson focu ses on w hat he con siders to

be an emblematic example of postmodern architecture: the Westin Bonaventure Hotel

(Los Angeles) designed and developed by architect John Portman.

Although, Jameson (1991: 44) identifies Portman �as an artist who is at one and the

same time a capitalist in his own right, � he minimizes Portman � s own �bottom-line � that

as a capitalist and a developer, Portman devised and built the hotel first and foremost as

an economic en terprise, not as a monum ent to or an expression of som e postmodern

70

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

zeitgeist. In Portman �s own words:

When I go to Wall Street I put on a Brooks Brothers suit and slick my hair down. I never talkabout esthetics [sic.]. I talk to them on their own level: Business shapes architecture (Portmanquoted in Stanton 1975: 60).

A profile of John Portman in L �Architecture D �Aujourd �hui evaluates this emphasis on

the financial aspects of real estate development and its effect on the buildings Portman

designs:

Portman deliberately chose to adapt the architectural product and its conventions to the grandscheme of modern capitalist enterprise: the rational organization of work, precise estimationand control of investments... and above all the calculated appreciation of the financial risksinvolved (B.B.T. 1977: 48).

Jonathan Barnett (1976: 155) takes this analysis further when he argues that Portman �s

�projects are fin anced be cause of the ir advantag es as real estate , not becau se of their

architecture. � Indeed, Portman has received much attention in the architectural world for

his role as a developer of his own architectural projects:

Years ago Portman realized that architects were becoming mere cosmeticians, consultants inesthetics, with the important decisions made by those who hold the power strings. Sincedesign is now defined by calculable functions and economic and technical considerations, thearchitect �s artful additions depend on the accidental goodwill of the commission-givers ...Most of the time architecture, which mirrors the laws of the social and political system, isdetermined before architects start to design it. Portman understood that architecture does notstart at the level of the designer �s office. And since he believes in the American profit-orientedsystem, he saw the key to the new solutions in finance. Since the promoter/entrepreneur makesand controls decisions, he decided to become the developer who awards himself thecommission to design (Leitner 1973: 80).

As Barnett has pointed out, architects wield very little control over the design of

buildings. Rather, the real estate mark et, government regu lations and financial backers

predetermine the basic structure and materials of a project (see Barnett 1976: 4). The

scope of artistic expression for architects within these constraints should not be over

emphasized. Portman �s developer/architect persona is at once a realistic reflection of the

econom ic context an d an expre ssion of his rea dy accep tance of the s tatus quo. W hile

stating that �first and foremost I am an architect � Portman contends that he is a

capitalist/developer so as to �control my own destiny � (Ross 1978:52; Carmichael

1982:126). Jameson recognises Portman �s role as a capitalist but privileges his status as

an �artist. � However, Portman himself shows how, in fact, his artistic role is constructed

and conditioned by his entrepreneurial philosophy and the exigencies of capitalism.

71

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

3. Jameson notes the

modifications to the

interior of th e Wes tin

Bonaventure Hotel

(Los A ngeles) to

remedy the

econo mically co stly

problems created by

disorientation of

� postmode rn

hyperspace � (see

Jameson 1991:

43 � 44). For other

examples of

Portman �s use of

mirror gla ss see his

Peachtree Center

Plaza Hotel (Atlanta,

1976) and the

Renaissance Center

(Detroit, 1977).

4. For another

example of

Jameso n � s emph asis

on architectural

agency see, Jameson

(1985: 72).

Despite his �architectural theory, � the multi-millionaire Portman,

as a businessman, could not afford to ignore the economic benefits of

mirror glass cladding as evidenced by its use on many of his other

developments and its ubiquity as an exterior on buildings constructed

in the post-OPEC years of economic austerity.3 We suggest that

Jameson �s assertion of a conceptual role for architects in the use of

mirror glass cladding and the notion of agency which it implies, is not

borne ou t by the reality o f real estate dev elopmen t.4 Econom ic

imperatives in the 1970s led to the widespread use of mirrored

exteriors in urb an locales. A technolog y develop ed for applic ation in

park-like settin gs was a pplied to the u rban enviro nment for p urely

economic (not artistic/aesthetic) reasons.

While downplaying the economic imperatives and

decontextualizing the historical development behind the architectural

mirror in general and, particularly, in Portman �s work, Jameson

substitutes a flimsy construction of architectural theory as a

rationalization for the Westin Bonaventure �s design. Although the

Westin Bonaventure �s original design is acknowledged (even by

Jameson) to be a functional and commercial folly, it is elevated by

him to an iconic status as a postmodern cultural artefact (see Jameson

1991: 42). Jameson � s ex post facto rationalisation o f the hotel � s

initial spatial dysfu nction, later m odified, is exp lained by re ference to

Portman � s architectura l theory. On ce again Ja meson h as conve niently

reversed the relationship between political economy and its cultural

productions.

Jameson places much emph asis on Portman � s architectural theory

which he claims expresses postmodern sensibilities. However, upon

closer exam ination, Portm an � s architectura l theory is quin tessentially

modernist. Portman expounds his �architectural philosophy � in his co-

authored b ook, The Architect As Developer (1976). In the chapter

entitled �An architecture for people and not for things, � Portman

subdivide s his � philosoph y � into eight area s. In the section on � People

watching people, � he dwells upon his experience of European

sidewalk café cultures where one of the main attractions is the chance

to see and be seen. While not actively intending to mimic European

public spaces, Portman �s design philosophy incorporates

opportunities to �people watch � in his buildings (see Portman 1976:

110). In so doing, he recalls the 19th century European fashionable,

72

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

middle class, masculine culture of the flâneur as evoke d by W alter Benjam in in his

writings on the Paris A rcades. B enjamin � s discussion of the arcade s � ambienc e is

underscored in his quotation of the Illustrated G uide to Par is:

These arcades, a recent invention of industrial luxury, are glass-roofed, marble-walledpassages cut through whole blocks of houses, whose owners have combined in thisspeculation. On either side of the passages, which draw their light from above, run the mostelegant shops, so that an arcade of this kind is a city, indeed, a world in miniature (Benjamin:1978: 146 � 147).

This �world in miniature � is reminiscent of Portman �s modernist vision of the interiors of

his grand hotel project; a vision to which we shall later return. Although Portman cloaks

�people watching � experiences with a populist vocabulary, the photographic centrefold of

one of his �people watching � sites that accompanies his discussion clearly represents a

space demarcated by gender, race and class. The photograph depicts a group of ten white,

middle class men g azing at two wh ite women w alking past (see Portman 1976: 112 � 113).

What the photograph shows us is that Portman has recreated the 20th century equivalent

of the 19th century European flânerie .

Portman �s incorporation of �shared space � in designing hotels, in particular, has

brought him notoriety both as an architect and as a businessman. Critical attention

focused on �wasted space. � Imposing atriums and lobbies, central features of his hotel

designs, went against conventional architectural wisdom (see Newsweek July 23 1973:

53, Dean 1978: 66). Portman � s philosophy on open spaces (i.e. wasted space) is that these

constitute � shared spa ce ... based o n the hum an desire for a release from confinem ent �

(Portman 1976: 117). Portman �s response to his critics was that �big space[s] � could be

profitable because their uniqueness led to higher hotel occupancy rates and greater

patronage of the bars and restaurants. Jameson interprets Portman � s approach as a

populist philosophy; an interpretation with which Portman is in accord. Jameson sees

(Portman �s) populism as a key feature of postmodernism (Jameson 1991: 39). He writes

of the populism of postmodernist buildings:

they no longer attempt, as did the masterworks and monuments of high modernism, to insert adifferent, a distinct, an elevated, a new Utopian language into the tawdry and commercial signsystem of the surrounding city... (Jameson 1991: 39).

In fact, this modernist agenda is exactly what Portman has sought to achieve in his hotel

designs. A key feature of his Hyatt hotel designs is � the soaring atrium lobby, which

combines such 20th century hype as glass elevators and revolving restaurants with some

of the urbanity of 19th century squares and plazas � (Dean 1978: 65). As one reviewer of

Portman � s work writes, � The 19th century d esire to escape from urban reality to nature

was an extroverted, even transcendental act ... � (Stephens 1978: 45). Portmanesque

73

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

populism consists of creating, �a great luxuriousness of space and a feeling that is almost

resort in nature. I wanted to make it a happy, fun place where people are aware of people �

(Portman quoted in Stephens 1978: 66). Portman �s acceptance and celebration of the

Disney-like attraction of his hotel designs lends itself to the populist discourse that

Jameson interprets as part of the postmodernist appeal of Portman �s work:

Portman had the occasion to ride the elevator at the Bonaventure with two elderly ladiesseasoned with the glow of Southern California. He described how one turned to the other injoy saying, �Gee, this is better than Disneyland. � What more can you ask? (Ross 1978: 55).

What Jameson has neglected to consider is not only the inherent elitism of Portman �s

populist rheto ric but also that p opulism as a utopian ag enda is no t restricted to

postmodern discourses but is deeply implicated in modernism. As David Harvey (1989)

has argued, the modernist rapprochement between elitist forms of cultural expression and

the utopian mode of social engineering at the heart of modernist architecture consisted of

a movement to �bring their art to the people as part and parcel of a modernist project of

social transformation � (Harvey 1989: 59). Like Portman, � [modernist] ... avant-gardist

movements possessed a strong faith in their own aims as well as immense faith in new

technologies � (Harvey 1989 : 59).

The populist discourse of the Disneyland analogy � � the happiest place on earth � �

for Portman �s work carries with it a false assumption of class neutrality. While Portman

claims to be designing for the �common man � [sic] his buildings are patronized by the

middle-class: �What I wanted to do as an architect was to create buildings and

environments that really are for people, not a particular class of people but all people �

(Portman 1976: 64). However, for example, the average Hyatt client in 1978 was aged

25 � 50 years old and ea rned $30,000 or m ore per annum (see Dean 1978 : 68).

Mike Davis demystifies Jameson �s interpretation of Portman � s architectural

philosophy in a close examination of the local effects of Portman � s fortress-like hotel

Disney p rojects such as the Bon aventure in downto wn Los Angeles . Davis arg ues that it

is only by examining Portman �s work as a speculator, developer and architect in the

larger conte xt of urban re newal in L os Ang eles, � the burgeo ning city of third -world

immigrants � that one can understand the underlying class and race dynamics at work:

Since the ghetto rebellions of the late 1960s a racist, as well as class, imperative of spatialseparation has been paramount in urban development. No wonder, then, that the contemporaryAmerican inner city resembles nothing so much as the classical colonial city, with the towersof the white rulers and colons militarily set off from the casbah or indigenous city (Davis1985: 111).

Not only does Jam eson igno re the colon ial and racial sp atial arrangem ents of urba n life in

Los Angeles while asserting a global dimension for postmodern culture, he ignores the

74

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

international economic context of neo-colonialism. Jameson �s treatments of global

capitalism and late capitalism are curiously parochial. As Davis suggests, the

Bonaventure as cultural artefact reproduces colonial power relations within Los Angeles.

The politics of location in Jameson �s argument must be problematized from the point of

view of L.A. but also in the context of a global network of neo-colonial relationships

which privilege the W estern, white, and middle-class experience of postm odern culture

over that of Others. Indeed one could argue that postmodernism is a cultural logic of

postcolonialism.

While Jameson (1991: 39) claims that buildings such as the Bonaventure �respect the

vernacula r of the Am erican city fab ric, � Davis (19 85: 112) co ntends that:

to speak of its �popular character � is to miss the point of its systematic segregation from thegreat Hispanic-Asian city outside... Indeed, it is virtually to endorse the master illusion thatPortman seeks to convey: that he has recreated within the precious spaces of his super-lobbiesthe genuine popular texture of city life.

Portman �s cosmetic populism (as represented by the Bonaventure) is a packaged middle-

class nostalgia for the American dream of a classless society and a return to unspoiled

nature. Outside his hotels, the urban hoi polloi is cut off and deflected from the high

security, high tech oasis by menacing mirror glass walls: a forbidden city within a city.

Portman exploits the desire to escape from urban squalor to a �magic kingdom �

(Disneyland) free from the racial and class-based tensions of contemporary American

life. Disneyland is viewed by other interpreters of American popular culture as not only a

fantasy of classlessness but specifically as a middle-class American utopian fantasy that

simply gives people what they want: �Disney World is nearer to what people want than

what architects have given them... [Disneyland]... is the symbolic American utopia �

(Robert Venturi quo ted in Harvey 198 9: 60).

For Portman it is the interior design of a project that expresses his architectural

philosophy. Indeed, the Disney-like fantasy exists only within the Hotel. In writing about

his philosop hy, Portma n never m entions the e xteriors of his b uildings. In this h e is

quintessentially modernist. In speaking of Le Corbusier on the subject of modernist

architecture, Ja meson (1 985: 86) arg ues that: � � the plan pro ceeds from within to w ithout,

the exterior is the result of an interior � in such a way that the outside of the building

expresses its interior... � This plan of the relationship between the exterior and interior of

architectural design corresponds with Portman �s own modus operandi. Jameson, who

argues that the mirror glass exterior of the Bonaventure is paradigmatic of postmodernist

culture, is clearly on shaky ground h ere. For Po rtman, the ch allenge w as to find w ays to

cut construction costs so that he could incorporate the costly interior �wasted spaces �

within his projects (Portman: 1976: 30). One way to achieve long-term cost savings was

75

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

to clad his buildings with mirror glass. For example, Barnett (1976: 36) states that for the

addition to the Hyatt Regency Atlanta �a cylindrical tower covered in reflecting glass was

the most economical � design Portman could conceive.

The Hall of Mirrors: Lost in Space

Since Jameson �s article appeared in 1984, other interpreters of postmodern spaces have

followed his practice of treating the Westin Bonaventure as emblematic. Soja (1989: 62)

considers Jameson to be the preeminent interpreter of postmodern spatiality and cites

with admiration his analysis. He shares Jameson �s obsession with the Bonaventure and,

indeed, alm ost fetishizes it:

shining from its circular turrets of bronzed glass, stands the Bonaventure Hotel, an amazinglystoreyed architectural symbol of the splintered labyrinth that stretches sixty miles around it ...the Bonaventure has become a concentrated representation of the restructured spaciality of thelate capitalist city: fragmented and fragmenting ... its pastiche of superficial reflectionsbewilder co-ordination and encourage submission instead (Soja 1989: 243 � 244).

In fact, in 1984 Jameson, Soja and Lefebvre took a car tour together around Los Angeles.

Befitting its iconic status for Soja and Jameson, the Bonaventure Hotel was both the point

of departure and the telos of their journe y (see Soja 1989: 63 ).

In a subsequent article, Soja reaffirms his support for Jameson �s argument about the

nature of postmodern aesthetics as expressed in Jameson �s analysis of the Bonaventure.

Soja asserts that �the Bonaventure Hotel symbolizes and simulates the geographical

experienc e of postm odernity � (Soja 1990 : 16). He arg ues that Jam eson wa s first to

identify the B onaven ture as a hete rotopia: simu ltaneously a real place an d a culturally

produce d represen tation of the sh ift from mod ernism to po stmodern ism. His an alysis

draws on Foucault �s writings on the opposition between utopia and heterotopia which

uses the mirror metaphor to distinguish between real (heterotopic) and unreal (utopian)

spaces.

Soja �s characterization of the Bonaventure as a heterotopia and, therefore, as

oppositional to utopia is problem atic. As we have s uggested above , the Bonaventure

could also re present a uto pian mod ernist constru ction both in te rms of its desig n and its

designer. It does not necessarily perform the symbolic function that Soja attributes to it of

representing an aesthetic break between modernism and postmodernism and, thereby, the

cultural logic of late capitalism (see Soja 1990: 16). However, Soja reaffirms his (and

Jameson �s) belief in the B onaven ture � s emblem atic status by q uoting the e xtract from h is

earlier discussion reproduced above (see Soja 19 90: 18).

Soja misapplies Foucault �s category of heterotopia in relation to the Bonaventure. An

hotel (a commercial enterprise) designed and financed by an

76

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

architect/speculator/developer who �controls his own destiny � is qualitatively different

from the type of collective, culturally produced heterotopia of which Foucault speaks

(e.g., sacred ground, colonies, asy lums).

Soja �s �Heterotopologies � article attempts to ground a Baudrillardian analysis of Los

Angele s in Fouca ult � s spatial categ ory of hetero topia: � a brilliant guide book to

unmasking... � other spaces � ... � (Soja 1990: 36). While Soja acknowledges that he does

not succeed in seeing Los Angeles through the same analytical lens as Baudrillard, he

asserts that Baudrillard �s work provides a �new spectacle, � one that supplies, beyond

Foucau lt and Lefeb vre, a qualitative ly different exp eriential level of a nalysis (see S oja

1990: 36 � 37).

As Mike Gane reminds us, Jameson belatedly acknowledges that Baudrillard �s

critique of the Pompidou Centre in the article �The Beaubourg Effect: Implosion and

Deterrence � was a major influence on his discussion of the Bonaventure (see Gane 1991b:

66). Baudrillard, in his American tour, also visited the Hotel. While recognising the

positioning of the Westin Bonaventure as a cultural artefact, he views its architecture as

dysfunctio nal and its use as a postm odern em blem as hig hly problem atic: � Is this still

architecture, this pure illusionism, this mere box of spatio-temporal tricks? Ludic and

hallucinogenic, is this postmodern architecture? � (Baudrillard 1988: 59). Gane argues that

it is the differences rather than the similarities between Baudrilllard �s and Jameson �s

analyses of the Bonaventure which are significant (see Gane 1991a: 155). Indeed, we

suggest that what Soja almost understood in the elusive but tropic distinction between

Baudrillard, and Jameson and himself, is that Baudrillard � s experiential mode is kinetic ,

echoing his earlier critique of the Beaubourg. Baudrillard �s experiential mode also

exceeds Jameson �s more pa ssive gaze in examin ing the Bo naventure Hotel.

77

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

5. Gregory argues

that �For Olalquiaga,

as for Jameson,

architecture is the

canonical text and

the privileged site of

the po stmod ern. �

(Gregory 1 994: 154 ).

Denouement in the Hall of Mirrors

Anothe r observer o f postmod ern cultural pro duction, C eleste

Olalquiag a, also ackn owledg es her deb t to Baudrillard for his

assertion that postmodernism is fundamentally characterized by

simulation (i.e. the reproduction of images not the reproduction of

commodities) (see Olalquiaga 1992: xv). In Megalo polis , Olalquiaga

(1992) ex amines po stmodern spaces an d their relationsh ip to

technology and cultural production. Technological change has

facilitated shifts in p erception; the significance now ass ociated w ith

visual images in the production of �simulated space � has lead to a

condition of psychanaesthenia, �a state in which the space defined by

the coordin ates of the org anism � s own bo dy is confu sed with

represented space � (Olalquiaga 1992: 1 � 2). Olalquiaga positions

architecture as one example of urban culture which contributes to the

production of psychanaesthenia but, unlike Jameson, her analysis of

the postmodern condition does not privilege architecture. Olalquiaga

also diverges from Jameson � s analysis in the way she links capitalism

with postmodern cultural change. Rather than seeing a simple direct

causal link between capitalism and cultural change, she places

particular disorienting features of postmodern architecture in the

service of capital. For example, she suggests that the

psychanaesthenic effects on consumers induced by the dislocations of

contemporary urban life produce an escalated consumption of goods

in a desperate attempt to compensate for the loss of a material and

distinct identity, 5

�Casting a hologram-like aesthetic, contemporary architecture displaysan urban continuum where buildings are seen to disappear behindreflections of the sky or merge into one another ... Any sense offreedom gained by the absence of clearly marked boundaries, however,is soon lost to the reproduction ad infinitum of space � a hall ofmirrors in which passers-by are dizzied into total oblivion (Olalquiaga1992: 2).

In this statement Olalquiaga connects postmodern cultural practices

to the relationship between space and identity. Location and

referentiality are constitutive of identity formations. How ever,

postmodern aesth etics of duplication, recurrence and repetition are

dislocating and simulative leading to the loss of referentiality and,

thereby, the problematization of identity. By contrast, Jameson

78

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

locates his analysis in the formal abstractions of postmodern cultural aesthetics rather

than in the � practice of everyday life. � For Olalquiaga, � What is at stake is the very

constitution of being--the ways we perceive ourselves and others, the modes of

experience that are available to us, the women and men whose sensibilities are shaped by

urban exposure � (Olalquiaga 1992: xi). When Jameson invokes the hall of mirrors effect

and its relation to reproductiv e processe s (see Jame son 1991 : 37), he obsc ures its

connection with the problems it creates for identity formation in contemporary everyday

life in favour of an emphasis on the aesthetics and technologies of distortion.

Indeed, Jameson �s own fascination with the fragmentary and distorting features of

the Westin Bonaventure is multiplied and reflected by the work of Soja; together they

create their own hall of mirrors bouncing their mutual obsession back and forth in a

continuou s process o f repetition and reproductio n. In this man ner, James on and S oja

inadvertently repeat what they consider to be both a problematic and a defining feature of

postmodern aesthetics, namely, its preoccupation with surfaces and lack of depth. As

Olalquiaga (1992: 2) has noted:

Instead of establishing coordinates from a fixed reference point, contemporary architectur[altheory] fills the referential crash with repetition, substituting for location an obsessiveduplication of the same scenario.

Jameson and Soja do not offer a critique of the loss of boundaries rather, they

reinforce this effect in their own work. A latent contradiction is also at work in Jameson �s

assertion on one hand that the Bonaventure is symptomatic of the �referential crash � and

loss of boundaries extant in postmodern life and, on the other hand, that the Hotel

respects �the vernacular of the American city fabric, � a vernacular that at one and the

same time is repelled by the mirror glass skin of the building. The populism of Jameson �s

interpretation of the cultural meaning of the Bonaventure is contradictory when taken

together with his assertions of its formidable aesthetic disorientation.

The inhe rent disorienta tion of mirror g lass reflections have long been use d as both

plot- thickening and revolutionary devices in popular culture. In film, for example, the

hall of mirrors set frequently provides a site for the denouement of the storyline. Orson

Welles � s film noir classic The Lady From Shanghai (1948) climaxes in a hall of m irrors

shoot-out sc ene betw een the pro tagonists. Th e psycha naesthen ic effects of m ultiple

images bu ilds both sus pense an d terror in a life and death battle. T his experien ce is

recalled in Baudrillard �s hallucinogenic and finally desperate tour through the

Bonav enture Ho tel. It is the psycha naesthen ic effects of the B onaven ture as an ex ample

of simulated experience that conjures up for Jameson a postmodern aesthetic vision but

these effects have long been part of the experience of popular culture in the central

vernacular of American culture: the Hollywood film.

79

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

In another example of this vernacular, Bruce Lee, in Enter the Dragon (1973),

identifies the psychanaesthenic effects created by a hall of mirrors. In the climactic scene

of the film, Lee pursues his nem esis (Han) into a room in w hich all the surfaces are

covered with mirrors. To escape this hall of mirrors, Lee must re-establish boundaries

between himself and the surrounding space by literally (and figuratively) breaking the

infinite repetition of his own image and that of his opponent. Circumventing the effects of

psychanaesthenia in Lee �s case is literally a matter of life and death. Olalquiaga, reminds

us throughout her w ork of the psychana esthenic effects produced by postmodern

�simulated space � and argues that human beings are required to invent new ways of

situating them selves or fall pre y to the � obsessive , paralyzing repetition � associated with

contemporary forms of neuroses (Olalquiaga 1992: 1). In contrast to Olalquiaga �s

grounded interpretation of postmodern aesthetics in popular cultural productions,

Jameson � s level of abstraction distances his ana lysis from the antagonism s of urban life

(see Davis 1985 : 107).

Leaping Tall Buildings in a Single Bound

We no w return to a closer exam ination of ou r earlier criticism of J ameson for the way in

which his discussion of the postmodern condition leaps from the analysis of the surface

effects of postmodern culture � the paradigm of mirror glass reflection � to assertions

about underlying logic and process without linking the two in a systematic way. He

telegraphs his argument from a discussion of the material (architecture) to the immaterial

(aesthetics) and then to epistemological and philosophical claims. Jameson �s leap is a feat

accomplished in part simply by not distinguishing between the different grounds of

inquiry that are bound up with examinations of production and reproduction.

Wha t Olalquiag a and othe r contemp orary socia l theorists such as Baud rillard call

� simulation � Jameson calls � reproduction. � Jameson recklessly d eploys the term

� reproduction �: he chooses not to clearly distinguish between the reproduction of images

as something propelled by technological and aesthetic inventions (simulation) and

reproduction as an inherent feature of the capitalist commodity culture (i.e., the mass

production of consumer goods and services) which preceded it. By fusing the two

categories o f reproductio n, Jameso n privileges a esthetic prod uction ove r that of econo mic

production.

Walter Benjamin deserves to be revisited here. Benjamin was critical of the effects of

modern capitalism on cultural production; yet, he made a significant distinction between

reproduction as a process made possible by technological invention (the photograph and

film) and the sites and processes of industrial society �s economic as distinct from

aesthetic production and consumption (See Benjamin 1968). In his introduction to the

incomplete �Arcades Project, � Benjamin identifies the nascent commodity culture of

80

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

modernism as having particular aesthetic requirements created in the service of

commerce. The 19th Century Paris Arcades discussed by Benjamin were the product of

several of these requirements. The luxurious centralization of trade and commerce, the

exhibition of goods as novelties and the replication of their images through advertising

and the media, and the drawing in of admirers into a flânerie of display and consumption,

remain key aspects of contemporary commodity culture.

However, Benjamin is not merely describing a bazaar but a process of transforming

goods into a form of entertainment, of commodity circulation which takes on a

transcend ental mean ing. Here, th e invention of the store as a departme nt of comm odity

circulation, novelty, and fashion takes its place among the great institutions of capitalist

culture. The institution of the department store, like the grand hotel, assumes many forms

but in the service of commerce it remains the same in its basic function:

Novelty is a quality independent of the intrinsic value of the commodity. It is the origin of theillusion inseverable from the images produced by the collective unconscious. It is thequintessence of false consciousness whose indefatigable agent is fashion. The illusion ofnovelty is reflected, like one mirror in an another, in the illusion of perpetual sameness. Theproduct of this reflection is the phantasmagoria �cultural history, � in which the bourgeoisiesavours its false consciousness to the last (Benjamin 1978: 158).

Benjamin �s exegesis on the aesthetic fetish of commodity culture and its spatial

concretizatio n in grand b ourgeois in stitutions cou ld well be ap plied to Jam eson � s analysis

of the Bonaven ture (see Davis 1985 : 110).

Crossing the Great Divide

Jameson moves from a reified account of the privileged language of architecture to an

epistemological claim abo ut postmodern culture an d post-industrial society. How ever,

Lefebvre (1991: 5) ha s observed that in contem porary social theory notions o f space are

fetishized in �philosophico-epistemological � views of the relationship between the mental

realm and the social and physical realms. This problem arises from an uncritical use of

the Kantia n concep tion of space that is divided b etween th e �mental � and phys ical, in

contradistinction to a Cartesian view of space as all-encompassing (see Lefebvre 1991:

2 � 3). Althoug h the Kan tian conce ption of � mental spa ce � has been employe d frequently

by many theorists it is never clearly defined or delineated. In particular, the existence of

�mental space � is hypothesized in a vacuum, creating a chasm between abstract mental

space and the physical/social location in which it �becomes practice � (Lefebvre 1991:

4 � 5). Lefebvre argues that upon confronting these chasms, many contemporary social

theorists paralogically,

leap over an entire area, ignoring the need for any logical links, and justify this in the vaguestpossible manner by invoking, as the need arises, some such notion as coupure or rupture or

81

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

break ... Although a few of these authors suspect the existence of, or the need of, somemediation, most of them spring without the slightest hesitation from mental to social(Lefebvre 1991: 5 � 6).

It is in this manner that � philosophico-epistemo logical � conceptions of space are

fetishized an d the phys ical and soc ial spheres are swallow ed up by th e mental do main

(see Lefebvre 199 1: 5).

Lefebvre (1991: 5) sp ecifically directs his critique of this vaulting from the mental to

the social, the abstract to the physical, the immaterial to the material, at French

poststructuralists (Derrida, Kristeva, Barthes). However, a similar � albeit reversed �

argumen t may be m ade in respe ct of James on � s jump from the social to the mental.

Jameson �s formula for the production of postmodern space takes as its point of

departure architectural works that are successful in creating dysfunctional urban

environm ents. But, co ntrary to Jam eson � s argume nt about the unmedia ted relationsh ip to

economics that architecture holds as an art form, he interprets dysfunction and

disorientation purely on a cognitive level (see Jameson 1991: 37). In turn, he argues that

postmodern architecture can be figuratively identified by its distorting and disorienting

effects. For Ja meson (1 991: 44), an y cultural pro duction tha t cannot be systematica lly

theorized in relation to the �great global multinational ... network, � is obviously another

symptom of the su blime disorienting effects of postmo dern culture itself.

Jameson � s argument is self-referential in that any anom alies in his analysis are

explained awa y as further evidence of a po stmodern inexplicability and, in this m anner,

postmodern space serves as a residual category for anything which transcends or exceeds

a theoretical understanding o f contemporary ca pitalism (see Jameson 1 991: 37 � 38).

Indeed, he (Jameson 1991: 44) asserts:

postmodern hyperspace ... has finally succeeded in transcending the capacities of theindividual human body to locate itself, to organize its immediate surroundings perceptually,and cognitively to map its position in a mappable external world... this alarming disjunctionpoint between the body and its built environment ... can itself stand as the symbol andanalogon of that even sharper dilemma which is the incapacity of our minds, at least atpresent, to map the great global multinational and decentered communicational network inwhich we find ourselves caught as individual subjects.

In contrast, Olalquiaga reminds us that postmodern space is �a state of things � and can be

successfully inhabited. For her, psychanaesthenic effects offer new ways of experiencing

and adapting to the urban environment. Unlike Jameson, she does not perceive the

disjuncture between � the body and its built environment � as necessarily an analogy for our

limitations in understanding contemporary social life. Rather than telegraphing from

physical to mental space, Olalquiaga makes the necessary links between experiences of

82

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

postmodern space and individual adaptations to it. Her analysis is more firmly grounded

in the �practice of everyday life � (Olalquiaga 1992 : Chapter 1).

Escape From History

Despite his injunction to �always historicize, � Jameson does not place his discussion of

the mirror as a metaphor for the postmodern condition in any wider historical or

philosophical context. In so doing, he situates himself squarely within the mainstream of

traditional Western philosophy which can be viewed as �an attempt to escape from

history � (Rorty 197 9: 9). With such an o mission, he creates the im pression tha t this

metapho r has recently sprung to life c oncurren t with the introd uction of m irror glass in

contemporary architecture. It is significant to note that Jameson does not refer in the 1984

article to the mirror metaphor � s historical and philosophical con text. However, as R ichard

Rorty demonstrates in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), the mirror has been a

ubiquitous and parad igmatic me taphor in W estern thoug ht.

Rorty ma kes the asse rtion that W estern philos ophy ha s depend ed upon visual,

particularly mirroring, metaphors to explain the creation of knowledge:

It is pictures rather than propositions, metaphors rather than statements, which determine mostof our philosophical convictions. The picture which holds traditional philosophy captive isthat of the mind as a great mirror, containing various representations � some accurate, somenot � and capable of being studied by pure, non-empirical methods (Rorty 1979: 12).

Rorty maintains that epistemology in Western philosophy is concerned with the question

of accurate representation. The idea of philosophy as a foundational discipline comes

from its self-appointed role as an adjudicator of the knowledge claims of diverse

disciplines (see Rorty 1979 : 135). This position for philosophy , he suggests, is first self-

consciously put forward by Kant in an attempt to establish an ahistorical framework for

inquiry. He argues that indeed the whole idea of foundations of knowledge comes from

the choice of � perceptual metapho rs � (see Rorty 1979: 25 7).

Rorty contends that the history of (Western) �systematic philosophy � � based on the

idea of kno wledge as accurac y of represe ntation � has been a continuo us attempt to

promote more p recise representations by, � inspecting, repairing, and polishing the mirror �

(Rorty 1979: 12). Systematic philosophy has not attempted to problematize mirror

metaphors. Indeed, in its attempt to perfect the mirror metaphor, systematic philosophy

has aspired to transcend it:

The notion of an unclouded Mirror of Nature is the notion of a mirror which would beindistinguishable from what was mirrored, and thus would not be a mirror at all. The notion ofa human being whose mind is such an unclouded mirror, and who knows this, is the image... ofGod (Rorty 1979: 376).

83

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

Jameson falls into the trap laid by Kantian philosophy in employing the mirror as a

metaphor as though it were an unproblematic, neutral representational device. He thereby

repeats and perpetuate s systema tic philosoph y � s foundatio nalist epistem ological pro ject.

Further, Jameson follows traditional Western philosophy �s �attempt to escape from

history � when he conveniently ignores the wider historical and philosophical context of

the mirror metaphor. The omission of the paradigmatic metaphorization of the mirror as a

particular cultural trope taken together with a neglected history of the production of

mirror glass (the architectural mirror) and the relationship between economic imperatives,

technological inventions and aesthetic effects means that Jameson �s version of

postmod ernity is one w e cannot a ccept.

Conclusion

Images and their reproduction, as Olalquiaga has argued, are integral to the production of

postmodern spaces (see Olalquiaga 1992: 1 � 2). However, social theorists often ignore the

discrete technological and economic histories behind the development of the mirror as an

architectural and aesthetic device. Instead, these theorists promote the view that mirror

glass was develope d and w idely applied in postmod ern architectu re for purely a esthetic

reasons. We argue this interpretation of the use of the architectural mirror has led to the

reification of the mirror metaphor and its use as a cipher for the postmod ern condition. In

recycling the mirror metaphor Jameson uses a hall of mirrors effect to characterise

postmodernism as the cultural logic of late capitalism; a characterization which we

consider to b e highly pro blematic. In so doing, we suggest tha t he becom es lost inside h is

own metaphorical space, disoriented by the very effects he invokes.

In privileging the architect and architecture of the Bonaventure as the primary text of

postmodern cultural production, Jameson does not read the racialised, colonial landscape

of postmodern Los Angeles. In a similar manner his interpretation of the cultural logic of

late capitalism does not address the possibility that postmodernism is an expression of

global configurations of postcolonial power. Rather Jameson homogenises a particular

postmodern experience of late capitalism, creating a monolithic entity which does not

acknowledge different social and spatial locations.

Mirroring metapho rs brought to bear in spatia l theory transla te almost too neatly into

postmodern representations of contemporary life as evinced by the emblematic status of

the Westin Bonaventure Hotel (Los Angeles) in Jameson �s work (see Stephanson 1989:

48). His reification of the Bonaventure as cultural artefact extends to his discussion of the

architect/developer of the hotel, John Portman.

Our intention has been to closely scrutinise Jameson �s use of a privileged space for

architecture in postmodern cultural production and his use of the mirror as emblematic of

84

Fieldhouse and Ocran

Habitable Spaces

the postmodern condition. We approached our examination of Jameson �s cultural logic on

two levels. Our two levels of critique addressed 1) Jameson �s specific statements about

the role of the mirror in postmodern architecture and 2) the need to situate these

statements in a wider h istorical and p hilosophic al context.

Jameson �s attempt to apply a Marxist perspective is rendered problematic by the way

aesthetic production and economic production are connected in his argument. He has

ignored the technological, economic and architectural history of mirror glass production.

Instead, Jam eson has s ubstituted a re ified accou nt of both the architecture o f the We stin

Bonaventure Hotel and its architect, John Portman. Further, to make the leap between

aesthetic and economic production without the benefit of historical analysis, Jameson

invokes the hall of mirrors trope but ultimately becomes lost in his own metaphorical

space. He vaults from an aesthetic account of postmodern architecture to epistemological

claims about the postmodern condition.

While w e do not co ntest the idea th at postmod ern cultural pro duction an d late

capitalism are linked, we disagree w ith Jameso n � s particular form ulation of this

relationship. Specifically we have a problem with the way he sets aside economics and

history wh ile privileging a esthetics. W e present an alternative rea ding of the re lationship

among economics, technology, and aesthetics in our account of the economic and

aesthetic history of the architectural mirror and the philosophical context of the mirror

metaphor.

Upon a close exam ination of the p remises of h is analysis, w e consider that his

formulation of � the distorting and fragmenting reflections � of mirror glass surfaces as

�paradigm atic of the cen tral role of proce ss and repro duction in p ostmode rnist culture � to

be unsup ported by th e historical con ditions of mirro r glass produ ction and its u se in

architecture. Consequently, we consider his ensuing argument that �postmodernism is the

cultural logic of late capitalism � to be problematic. Our analysis demonstrates that the

links in his logic al chain are m ore assum ed than su bstantiated. T hrough o ur critique of his

logic we arrive at Jameson �s folly, and an altogether different understanding of the

cultural and e conom ic meaning of the Bon aventure H otel.

Univer sity of British Colum bia

Vancouver, Canada

ReferencesBarnett, Barnett, J. 1976 . �How A rchitecture Improv es Real Estate � and the O ther W Barnett, J . 1976. �How Architecture Improves Real Estate � and the Other Way Around, � PoBarnett, J. 1 976. � How Architec ture Imp roves R eal Estate � and the Other W ay Aro und, � Portma n and B arnett

1976: 63 � 67

Baud rillard, J. 1 988. America , London: Verso

B.B.T. 1 977. � J.C. Portm an, Un Profil � L �Architecture D �Aujourd �hui 193. 48 � 61. (Our translation)

Benjamin,Benj amin, W . 1968 . �The W ork of Art in t he A ge of M echan ical Re produ ction, � IIllumina tiIlluminations, ed. Hannah

85

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3

Arendt, New York: Schocken Books. 217 � 251

� � 1978. �Pari � 1978. �Paris, Ca pita � 1978 . �Paris, C apital o f the N inetee nth C entury , � Reflections, ed. Peter D emetz, tran s. Edmu nd Jeph cott,

New York: Schocken Books. 146 � 162

Carm ichael , J. 198 2. � Disn eylan ds for A dults, � Forbes (September 27, 1982). 125 � 126

Dav is, M. 1 985. � Urba n Ren aissan ce and the Sp irit of Po stmod ernism , � New Left Review 151. 107 � 113

Dean,Dean , A.O. 1 978. �A Ho tel Ch ain B uilt up on A n Arc hitectu ral Co ncep t, � AAmerican InsAmer ican Institu te of Arch itects

Journal, 67:8. 64 � 71

Dhareshw ar,Dhareshwar, V. 1990. �The Predicament ofDha reshw ar, V. 1 990. �The P redica ment o f The ory, � Dha reshw ar, V. 1 990. �The P redica ment o f The ory, � M. K reisw irth and M. C heeth am, Theory Between the

Disciplines, Authority/Vision/Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 231 � 250

Gan e, M. 1 991a . Baudrillard � s Bestiary, London: Routledge

� 1991 b. Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theo ry, London: Routledge

Gasc hé, R. 1 986. The Tain of the Mirror, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U niversity Press

Greg ory, D . 1994 . Geographical Imaginations, Oxford : Blackw ell

Harvey,Harv ey, D. 1 989. The C ondition of Postm odernity : An En quiry into thThe Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the OriginsThe Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Oxford:

Blackw ell

Heyne,Heyn e, P. 19 82. Today �sToday �s AToday �s Architectural Mirror: Interiors, Buildings, and Solar Designs, New York: Van

Nostran d Rein holt

JamesJameson,James on, F. Jameson, F. 1985. �Architecture and the Critique of Ideology � Architecture Criticism Ideology, ed. Joan

Ockman, Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press. 51 � 87

� � 1991 . �Postm odern ism, O r, The C ultural Logi c of L ate Ca pitalism , � Postm odernis m Or, T he Cu ltuPostmodernism Or, The Cultural LogiPostm odernis m Or, T he Cu ltural Lo gic

of Late Capitalism , Durham: Duke University Press. 1 � 54

Lefeb vre, H . 1991 . The Production of Space , trans. Do nald N icolson-S mith, Ox ford: Bla ckwell

Leitne r, B. 19 73. � John Portm an: A rchitec ture Is N ot a B uildin g, � Art in America 61: 80 � 82

Newsweek . July 23 1973. �The Portman Style, �: 53

Olalquiaga,Olalq uiaga , C. 19 92. Meg MegalopolMegalopolis: Contemporary Cultural Sensibilities, Minne apolis: U niversity o f Minn esota

Press

Portman, J. 1976. �An Architecture for People and Not for Things, � Portman and Barnett, 1976. 133 � 140

Portm an, J an d J. Ba rnett. 19 76. The Architect As Developer, New Y ork: M cGraw - Hill

Prezio si, D. 1 988. � La V i(ll)e en Rose : Read ing Ja meso n Ma pping Spac e, � Strategies 1. 82 � 99

Rorty , R. 19 79. Philosophy and the M irror of Nature , Princeton: Princeton University Press

1

Jameso n � s Folly

Space and C ulture 3