(Ebook) The Singular Objects of Architecture by Jean

Baudrillard, Jean Nouvel ISBN 9780816639120,

0816639124 Pdf Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-singular-objects-of-
architecture-1802830

★★★★★
4.7 out of 5.0 (52 reviews )

Instant PDF Download

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) The Singular Objects of Architecture by Jean
Baudrillard, Jean Nouvel ISBN 9780816639120, 0816639124 Pdf
Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles, James

ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492, 1459699815,
1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings by Jean Baudrillard, Mark

Poster, Jacques Mourrain ISBN 9780804742733, 0804742731

https://ebooknice.com/product/jean-baudrillard-selected-
writings-1567086

(Ebook) Da Sedução by Jean Baudrillard ISBN 9788530801458, 8530801458

https://ebooknice.com/product/da-seducao-44387384

(Ebook) Jean Baudrillard. by David B. Clarke ISBN 9780415464420,

0415464420

https://ebooknice.com/product/jean-baudrillard-1990942
(Ebook) Her Yer Ekran by Jean Baudrillard ISBN 9786258123333,
6258123333

https://ebooknice.com/product/her-yer-ekran-52195892

(Ebook) The Agony of Power by Jean Baudrillard, Ames Hodges, Sylvère

Lotringer ISBN 9781584350927, 158435092X

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-agony-of-power-5043394

(Ebook) The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures by Jean Baudrillard

ISBN 9781473982376, 1473982375

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-consumer-society-myths-and-
structures-51982018

(Ebook) The Jean Baudrillard Reader by Steve Redhead ISBN

9780748627882, 9780748627899, 074862788X, 0748627898

https://ebooknice.com/product/the-jean-baudrillard-reader-10819474

(Ebook) Forget Foucault by Jean Baudrillard, Sylvère Lotringer ISBN

9781584350415, 1584350415

https://ebooknice.com/product/forget-foucault-1631244
I , ,., """ . . . ". , " . . . . . . -"".
Jean Baudrillard and Jean Nouvel
,i
1 translated by Robert Bonon"o foreword by K. Mi<hael Hays
The University of Minnesota Press gratefully acknowledges transla-
tion assistance provided for this book by the French Ministry of
Contents
Culture.

The publication of this book was assisted by a bequest from Josiah H.

Chase to honor his parents, Ellen Rankin Chase and Josiah Hook Foreword K. Michael Hays
Chase, Minnesota territorial pioneers.

Originally published in French as Les objets singuliers: Architecture et I Acknowledgments

'I
philosophic, by Jean Baudrillard and Jean Nouvel. Copyright 2000 by I

Editions Calmann-Levy.
I. First Interview
Radicality-Singular Objects in Architecture-Illusion,
English translation copyright 2002 by Robert Bononno Virtuality, Reality-A Destabilized Area?-Concept, Irresolution,
Vertigo-Creation and Forgetfulness-Values of Functionalism-New York
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any or Utopia-Architecture: Between Nostalgia and Anticipation-(Always)
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other- Seduction, Provocation, Secrets-The Metamorphosis of Architecture-
wise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
The Aesthetics of Modernity-Culture-A Heroic Architectural Act?-Art,
Published by the University of Minnesota Press Architecture, and Postmodernity-Visual Disappointment, Intellectual
III Third Avenue South, Suite 290 Disappointment-The Aesthetics of Disappearance-Images of
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2520 Modernity-The Biology of the Visible-A New Hedonism?
http://www.upress.umn.edu

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication Data II. Second Interview

Truth in Architecture-Another Tower for Beaubourg-A Shelter for
Baudrillard, Jean.
[Objets singuliers. English] Culture?-On Modification: Mutation or Rehabilitation-Architectural
The singular objects of architecture! Jean Baudrillard and Jean Reason-The City ofTomorrow-Virtual Architecture, Real Architecture-
Nouvel; translated by Robert Bononno. Computer Modeling and Architecture-lightness and Heaviness-What
p. cm.
ISBN 0-8166-3912-4 (alk. paper) Utopia?-Architecture as the Desire for Omnipotence-Berlin and
1. Architecture-Philosophy. 2. Aesthetics. 1. Nouvel, Europe-Architecture as the Art of Constraint-Transparency-light as
Jean, 1945- II. Title. Matter-Disappearance-What Does Architecture Bear Witness To?-
NA2500.B3413 2002
720'.I-dc21
Singularity-Neutrality, Universality, and Globalization-Destiny and
2002008024 Becoming-The Idea of Architecture and History-Another Kind of
Wisdom-The Question of Style-Inadmissible Complicity-
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
freedom as Self-Realization
The University of Minnesota is an equal-opportunity educator and
employer.

12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Foreword
K. Michael Hays

The Singular Objects ofArchitecture should not create the expec-

tation that either architecture or philosophy will be treated in
this dialogue in anything like a traditional way (which, were it
,the case, would seem not so much old-fashioned as reactionary,
coming from two of the few cultural figures practicing today
that we could still dare to call progressive). Indeed, it is better
to state the reverse: what first strikes one as extraordinary about
this conversation is that architecture and philosophy are treated
with any distinction at all by progressive thinkers in our present
era. In our own time. the de-differentiation of disciplines and
the tendentious erasure of boundaries between specific cultural
materials and practices promise to homogenize all distinction,
difference, and otherness into a globalized, neutralized same-
ness. Much of what claims to be progressive thought is happy
to aestheticize this situation, to accelerate its effects, and to
trade in any remaining individuality or singularity of thought
for a randomized, spread-out delirium. The flattening seems
to have been chosen. Besides, any disciplinary autonomy or ex-
pertise that might counter this leveling tendency is destined to
be crushed anyway under the massive movement of the world
system itself, to be emulsified along with everything else into

vii
 Foreword [] ix
viii [] Foreword
is evidenced here is to be found today almost nowhere other
so many cultural and economic fluids. What is extraordinary
about this conversation, then, is its declaration, against all that,
than theory.
Theory is ready to travel. Altbough at its best, tbeory will stay
to search for singular objects (ratber than globalized fluids) as
dose to tbe historicity of its material, mediating between specific
might be found in architecture and philosophy.
cultural practices and specific historical contexts, theoretical con-
"We're not heading for disaster, we're already in tbe midst of
structions also possess an uncanny capacity to cross over, drift,
total disaster;' Nouvel declares at one point. Yet neither he nor
and expand across disciplines, however much authors, institu-
Baudrillard ever laments the loss of a real or idealized past, nor
tions' and orthodoxies try to confine them. Theory is autono-
do they accept, not even for a moment, the cynically complacent
preemption of tbe future. The second surprise of The Singular moUS ("inexchangeable"), but it is nourished by circulation-by
Objects of Architecture is tbat what is offered, botb as program borrowing and trading, by unconscious influence or wholesale
appropriation. Through tbe accidents of discourse, a body of
and as practice exemplified in tbis particular dialogue, is a re- I tbeory can also be dislodged and pressed into tbe service of a
newal of utopian thought, a revived attempt at envisioning a
possible future out of our disastrous present, a way of think-
ing that has been under ban now for more than two decades.
I quite different one, reinvested with unpredicted content, and
refunctioned for unexpected vocations.
Against the hegemony of the antiutopian, real-time thinking Not least among such transactions is that between architec-
of our contemporary technocratic positivism and experiential ture and philosophy, provided we understand tbat coupling in an
nominalism ("What's mine is mine, and you can't feel it"), the expanded sense to include urbanism, semiology, Ideologiekritik,
singular object must be anticipatory, inexhaustible, and shared; and certain strains of poststructuralist tbought; for it is that fu-
it must destroy culture (or what has become of it) and redis- sion (what we now call, simply, architecture theory) that, since
tribute tbe leftovers. And so, while architecture and philosophy the mid-1960s, has so energized architectural discourse in aca-
are treated together as parts of a period problem-as disciplines demic and professional circles, turning us away from an earlier
and practices with specific histories, transitions, and transfor- functionalist, empiricist, foundationalist way of tbinking and
mations, subjected to the desultory effects of history now, in our toward new registers of signification. By the 1980s, architecture
own period-tbey will not remain unchallenged or unchanged tbeory had discovered affinities witb otber branches of tbeory
in tbis dialogue. If tbe singular object is to be botb utopian and and developed concerns with textual strategies, constructions
destructive, future directed and exquisitely representative of the of subjectivity and gender, power and property, geopolitics, and
present, it will be a peculiar object indeed. Its model will be nei- otber themes tbat were already part of tbe general poststruc-
ther architectore nor philosophy freestanding, as traditionally turalist repertoire but whose spatial dimension was now fore-
practiced, but a productive enfolding of one into tbe otber-an grounded. This entailed that the emphasis on tbe production
event more than an object, a constructional operation in which of architectural objects (which aimed to prescribe normative
each discourse interprets the other but nevertheless produces a standards for design and layout metbods and motives for imple-
new, irreducible, singular thing: tbat peculiar thing we call tbeory. mentation) should give way to an emphasis on tbe production
"I feel tbat tbought, theory, is inexchangeable;' says Baudrillard. of architecture as a subject of knowledge. Theory took on the
"It can't be exchanged for trutb or for reality. Exchange is im-
task of revealing the unintended ideological presumptions that
possible. It's because of tbis tbat tbeory even exists:' Theory is
architectural procedures and techniques alternately enabled or
tbe diagram of tbe singular object of architecture. This, at least,
tried to remove from tbe possibility of tbinking, which is to say
should come as no surprise, for work of such large ambition as
 Foreword [] xi
x [] Foreword
be not so much co-opted by the system as a strategic part of the
that theory understood architecture as one of culture's primary system's internal workings. At certain moments, in certain sin-
representational systems. gular objects, architecture itself produces the perception of this
The concern with the specific internal workings of archi- conflictedly overdetermined situation; architecture becomes a
tecture-which tend to be mainly synchronic, synthetic, and kind of precipitate of the vapor that we used to call the social.
projective-was not abandoned so much as folded into various The twinness of the World Trade Center, for exarnple-a build-
discourses of context and exteriority, recalibrated according to ing that was a replica of itself-was already, in the 1960s when
what was sayable or tbinlcable in the idiolects of Marxism, de- the towers were built, an anticipatory sign of the computer-
construction, psychoanalysis, and other imported systems. But ized, genetically networked, cloning society that was emerg-
these systems were not merely yoked together with architecture. ing. In the next decade, the Centre Pompidou, even more deeply
Rather, something of a shift of level, as much as perspective, conflicted, signals the catastrophic finishing off of mass culture
took place, in which architecture's specific forms, operations, by the masses themselves: a new breed of cultural consumer
and practices could now more clearly be seen as producing who is also, along with the paintings and the cash, both the
concepts whose ultimate horizon of effect lay outside architec- raw material and the product of the new museum. And then the
ture "proper:' in a more general sociocultural field. This new architecture of our own time (the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao,
activity of theory demanded not new ideas for buildings but perhaps, one of infinite possible clones or chimeras spun out
the invention of altogether new techniques for rethinking issues of a software paclcage) seems to become altogether virtual, for
of representation, foundation, subjectivity, structure and orna- an audience that is ev~ryone and everywhere-not so much an
ment, materiality, media, and more. What used to be called phi- architectural readymade (in the sense of Ducharnp) as an ar-
losophy, then, began to thiulc its problems through architecture chitecture already made, a transparent cutout that is its own
rather than the other way around. And this inevitably attracted template.
some of the most important thinkers of our time (including In their conversation, Baudrillard and Nouvel turn over
Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric and over again possible ways of understanding this situation
Jameson) to ponder architectural problems. and its agents, mapping it througl1 the languages of architec-
There has rarely been a sustained conversation between a ture, philosophy, and both together (and it is fascinating to
philosopher and an architect of the scope and focus that we register the slippages of perspective between the architect and
have here. Then again, a certain horizontality of thought, along the philosopher, to compare how the mind feels performing
with the desire to interpret the totality, seems demanded by our work on the problem one way and then the other, but also to
current situation. For all the apparently wild multiplicity of our become aware of the preference that both have for a descrip-
present system of objects, there is also the constant magnetic tion of the totality over the separate, abstract parts). But the
pull of the single global market and a corporate-controlled re- provocations, responses, and probes are not meant to preciser
totalization of all the dispersed vocations and functions of social the ways in which architecture simply replicates the base-and-
life into a single space-time of consumption and communica- superstructure apparatus of which it is a primary organ (the
tion. Our different day-to-day activities are no longer tied to code words for such ideological reproduction include "screen
determinate needs or to specific exchanges between people and architecture" and "clone architecture;' but also the neutral and
objects, but rather to a total universe of signs and simulacra the global). Baudrillard and Nonvel search also for some autono-
floating in economic and cultural-informational fluids. Even the mous force or effect produced by the object not in culture but
conscious ideologies of rebellion and negative critique seem to
 xii [] Foreword Foreword [] xiii

alongside it, in the penumbra of culture, a force that thickens a culture and the culture's biggest threat, then: pained by the
the situation, obscures the scene, and gums up the hegemonic loss, anticipating the gain, a representation of the moment and
workings of visibility and transparency. This attribute of the ob- a momentary refusal.
ject is alternately called its "secret," its "radicality;' its "literality;' The singular object is deeply conflicted, and the conversa-
or indeed its singularity. But clearly this is an apprehension of tion here takes on its subject's form. We can't go on; we must go
the singular object quite the reverse of any that would fixate on on. The architect stretching to imagine what it would take to
aesthetic properties to the exclusion of larger, "extrinsic" factors. actually make a singular object, the philosopher insisting that
Rather, the singular object is the way of access, through the coils no intention, no amount of individual effort, can guarantee
of contradiction, to be sure, but nevertheless opening onto the singularity's arrival ("let's not think too much"). Both against
determining conditions of its own cultural surround. premature clarification: I know it's here, but I can't see it; "the
Take Nouvel's own work, which has famously found its iden- important thing is to have looked." Rarely can so many con-
tity in a logic of the surface. On the one hand, from the earli- flicting things be said about a singular subject. Rarely has such
est stone facades to the steel and glass curtain wall, architecture conflict been so productive.
has always played a game of contradiction with mass and gravi-
ty and their dematerialization into surface. On the other hand,
from our present perspective, the logic of the surface is a per-
ceptuallogic we must now understand as having been given to
us by consumer-communication culture and its slick advertis-
ing two-dimensionality. «Screen architecture"? «Clone archi-
tecture"? Or singular object. It is the particular handling of the
surface that must make a difference. As Nouvel has comment-
ed on his Cartier Foundation: "If I look at the facade, since it's
bigger than the building, I can't tell if I'm looking at the reflec-
tion of the sky or at the sky through the glass .... If I look at a
tree through the three glass panes, I can never determine if I'm
looking at the tree through the glass, in front of it, behind it, or
the reflection of the tree. And when I plant two trees in parallel,
even accidentally, to the glass plane, I can't tell if there's a second
tree or if it's a real tree."
For Baudrillard, this form of illusion is not gratuitous; in
his essay "Truth or Radicality in Architecture," he referred to it
as a "dramaturgy of illusion and seduction." Such destabiliza-
tions of perception thwart the dictatorship of the smoothly
visible and install an alternative perception, a "secret image," an
almost bodily recalcitrance (Barthes's punctum is mentioned
as a model), which will make itself felt as a kind of resistance,
lag, or refraction beneath the transparency. An object both of
,
..

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Maison des Ecrivains and
the University of Paris VI-La Villette School of Architecture for
taking the initiative to sponsor a conference between architects
and philosophers. The project, titled Urban Passages, involved a
series of six encounters between writers and architects in 1997 and
1998, which made headlines both inside and outside the school.
The extended dialogue between Jean Baudrillard and Jean Nouvel
forms the basis of the present text. The five other pairs of par-
ticipants were Paul Chemetov and Didier Daeninckx, Henri
Gaudin and Jean-Pierre Vernant, Philippe Sollers and Christian
de Portzamparc, Antoine Grumbach and Antoine Bailly, and
Henri Ciriani and Olivier Rolin. Helene Bleskine developed the
idea for Urban Passages and organized the dialogues. We are
grateful for the opportunity to hold discussions of such quality,
since it is through speech that we communicate to others the
singularity of an encounter.
When it came tinre to publish the book, the authors reworked
their dialogue, focusing on a recurrent theme of the discussions:
singularity. This theme helped drive the discussions toward
their resolution OI) we should say, toward their radical and nec-
essary incompletion.

xv
I
First Interview
r

Radicality
Jean Baudrillard: We can't begin with nothing because, logically,
nothingness is the culmination of something. When I think
of radicality, I think of it more in terms of writing and theory
than of architecture. I am more interested in the radicality of
space .... But it's possible that true radicality is the radicality
of nothingness. Is there a radical space that is also a void? The
question interests me because now) at last, I have an opportu-
nity to gain insight into how we can fill a space, how we can
organize it by focusing on something other than its radical ex-
tension-vertically or horizontally, that is-within a dimension
where anything is possible. Yet we still need to produce some-
thing real.... The question I want to ask Jean Nouvel, since we
have to start somewhere, is very simple: "Is there such a thing as
architectural truth?"

Jean Nouvel: What do you mean by "truth"?

 4 [] First Interview First Interview [] 5

I.B. Architectural truth isn't a truth or a reality in the sense that one wants to hear. I don't know if I'll be able to provoke any
architecture might exhaust itself in its references, its finalities, responses in a field that you claim to be unfamiliar with, that
its destination, its modes, its procedures. Doesn't architecture doesn't really interest you, but this evening I'm going to try. Re-
transcend all of that, effectively exhausting itself in something cently I had a look at some of your books, and I was pleased to
else, its true finality, or something that would enable it to go find that you never speak about architecture except in an inter-
beyond its true finality.... Does architecture exist beyond this view that took place twelve years ago between us. It's in that in-
limit of the real? terview that I discovered a number of your ideas about architec-
ture, aside from your writing on New York or Beaubourg. I took
Singular Objects in Architecture notes on some of your thoughts about our architectural mon-
lB. I've never been interested in architecture. I have no specific strosities and some of your more radical points of view, which
feelings about it one way or the other. I'm interested in space, could supply us with a number of questions.
yes, and in anything in so-called "constructed" objects that If we attempt to talk about architecture as a limit-and
enables me to experience the instability of space. I'm most in- that's what really interests me-we do so by always position-
terested in buildings like Beaubourg, the World Trade Center, ing ourselves on the fringe of knowledge and ignorance. That's
Biosphere 2-singular objects, but objects that aren't exactly the true adventure of architecture. And that adventure is situ-
architectural wonders as far as I'm concerned. It's not the ar- ated in a real world, a world that implies a consensus. You said,
chitectural sense of these buildings that captivates me but the somewhere, that a consensus must exist in order for seduction
world they translate. If I examine the truth of the twin towers to occur. Now, the field of architecture is a field that, by the very
of the World Trade Center, for example, I see that, in that loca- nature of things, revolves around a world of seduction. The ar-
tion, architecture expresses, signifies, translates a kind of full, chitect is in a unique situation. He's not an artist in the tradi-
constructed form, the context of a society already experienc- tional sense. He's not someone who meditates in front of a blank
ing hyperrealism. Those two towers resemble two perforated page. He doesn't work on a canvas. I often compare the architect
bands. Today we'd probably say they're clones of each other, to the :film director, because we have roughly the same limita-
that they've already been cloned. Did they anticipate our pres- tions. We're in a situation where we have to produce an object
ent? Does that mean that architecture is not part of reality but within a given period of time, with a given budget, for a specific
part of the fiction of a society, an anticipatory illusion? Or does group of individuals. And we work as a team. We're in a situa-
architecture simply translate what is already there? That's why I tion where we can be censored, directly or indirectly, for reasons
asked, "Is there such a thing as architectural truth?" in the sense of safety or money, or even because of deliberate censorship. It's
that there would be a suprasensible destination for architecture a field where there are professional censors. We could even call
and for space. an architect who designs buildings in France a "French build-
ing censor." It's exactly the same thing. We are situated in an
l.N. Before answering your question, I would just like to com- environment that is bound, limited. Within that environment,
ment that this dialogue provides a unique opportunity to dis- where can we find an unrestricted space and the means to over-
cuss architecture in other than the customary terms. You know come those limitations?
that I consider you to be the one intellectual who is actual- In my case, I've looked for it in the articulation of various
ly doing his job. You respond to the many disturbing ques- things, especially the formulation of a certain way of thinking.
tions, the real questions, with questions and answers that no So should I use the word "concept" or not? I used it very early
 6 [] First Interview First Interview [] 7

on, realizing that the word is philosophically appropriate. Then the viewer would become conscious of the space. What happens
we may want to introduce the terms "percepf' and "affect," if I escape those limits? What if I say that the building isn't be-
in reference to Deleuze, but that's not the rea! problem. The tween the horizon and the observer but is part of that horizon?
problem lies in our ability to articulate a project around a pre- Assuming this, what happens if it loses its materiality?
liminary concept or idea, using a very specific strategy that can Dematerialization is something that would interest you; the
synergize-or sometimes even juxtapose-perceptions that will "endless skyscraper" is one example. [Nouvel's project for a Tour
interact with one another and define a place we are unfamiliar sans fin, or "endless skyscraper," was designed for La Defense, just
with. We are still dealing with invention, the unknown, risk. outside central Paris. Although his design won an international
This unfamiliar place, if we succeed in figuring out what's going competition, the building was never constructed.] Again, this
on, could be the locus of a secret. And it might, assuming thafs isn't something I invented. I think Deleuze, in Proust and Signs,
the case, then convey certain things, things we cannot control, spoke about it from a different point of view. This diversion,
things that are fata!, voluntarily uncontrolled. We need to find which reroutes our perception of phenomena from the material
a compromise between what we control and what we provoke. to the immaterial, is a concept that architecture should appropri-
All the buildings I've tried to build until now are based on the ate for itself. Using these kinds of concepts, we can create more
articulation of these three things. They also refer to a concept than what we see. And this "more than what we see" is manifest
that I know interests you, the concept of illusion. in and through physica! context. With respect to what architec-
ture has borrowed from cinema, the concept of sequence is very
lllu5ion, Virtuality, Reality
important, as Paul Virilio reminds us. In other words, concepts
IN. I'm no magician, but I try to create a space that isn't legible, such as displacement, speed, memory seen in terms of an im-
a space that works as the menta! extension of sight. This seduc- posed trajectory, or a known trajectory, enable us to compose an
tive space, this virtual space of illusion, is based on very precise architectural space based not only on what we see but on what we
strategies, strategies that are often diversionary. I frequently use have memorized as a succession of sequences that are perceived
what I find around me, including your own work and that of a to follow one another. From this point on, there are contrasts
few others. I a!so make use of cinema. So when I say that I play between what is created and what was originally present in our
with depth of field, it's because I'm trying to foreground a series perception of space.
of filters that could lead anywhere-a kind of metanarrative- In the Versailles Theater, you enter through a stone corridor,
but from that point on, the intellect goes into action. This is which is absolutely neutral, plain, devoid of decoration, and
not entirely my invention. Look at the Japanese garden. There which opens suddenly into something absolutely stunning in
is a!ways a vanishing point, the point at which we don't know terms of its decoration, its preciosity. The period in which this
whether the garden stops or continues. I'm trying to provoke theater was designed, imagined, realized provides us with a key
that sort of response. to the phenomenon I have been describing. We're no longer
If we look at the phenomenon of perspective-I'm thinking in the same place today, however. We need to put those ideas
of the project for superimposing a grid on the horizon, which aside and make use of others---ideas like contrast, chaining, and
I had prepared for La THe Defense---I was attempting to step extension-to serve as fundamental concepts of the architec-
outside Alberti's logic. In other words, I was trying to organize tural project. At the same time, when I play with the concept of
all the elements in such a way that they could be read in series a virtual space, in the magician's sense, it's because space and
and, if need be, to play with sca!e using the series' rhythm, so architecture are things we become conscious of through our
 8 [] First Interview First Interview [] 9

eyes. So we can play with anything the eye can integrate through teel architecture because that would impede life's energy. What
sight, and we can fool the eye. Classical culture has often made I'm saying doesn't necessarily contradict that. But since we're
use of this kind of sleight of hand. In a building like the Cartier not always in New York, we need to set aside places, areas that
Foundation, where I intentionally blend the real image and the can be destabilized.
virtual image, it signifies that within a given plane, I no longer
know if I'm looking at the virtual image or the real image. If I lB. I agree, except perhaps about terms like "consensus." ...
look at the facade, since it's bigger than the building, I can't tell When you say that seduction is consensual, I'm skeptical.
if I'm looking at the reflection of the sky or the sky through the
glass .... If I look at a tree through the three glass planes, I can l_~~_You mean only with reference to architecture?
never determine if I'm looking at the tree through the glass, in
front of it, behind it, or the reflection of the tree. And when I lB. p)eciSely. It's a way of confronting it through the visible and
plant two trees in parallel, even accidentally, to the glass plane, thd;'visible. I don't talIr much about architecture, but in all my
I can't tell if there's a second tree or if it's a real tree. These are books, the question lies just beneath the surface .... I fully agree
gimmicks, things we can put into our bag of tricks, our archi- with this idea of invisibility. What I like very much in your work
tectural bag of tricks, and which we're never supposed to talIr is that we don't see it, things remain invisible, they know how to
about, but which, from time to time, must be talIred about. These make themselves invisible. When you stand in front of the build-
are the means by which architecture creates a virtual space or a ings, you see them, but they're invisible to the extent that they
mental space; it's a way of tricking the senses. But it's primarily effectively counteract that hegemonic visibility, the visibility
a way of preserving a destabilized area. that dominates us, the visibility of the system, where everything
- .......... / ' must be immediately visible and immediately interpretable. You
ADestabilized Area? conceive space in such a way that architecture simultaneously
J.N. When you talIr to a developer, the way a director talks to a creates both place and nonplace, is also a nonplace in this sense,
producer, he asks a ton of questions about the price per square and thus creates a kind of apparition. And it's a seductive space.
meter, the lot, can it be built on, will it shock the local bourgeoi- So I take back what I said earlier: Seduction isn't consensual. It's
sie, a whole series of questions of this type. And then there are dual. It must confront an object with the order of the real, the
those things that remain unsaid. There is always something un- visible order that surrounds it. If this duality doesn't exist-if
said; that's part of the game. And what remains unsaid is, ethi- there's no interactivity, no context-seduction doesn't take place.
cally, something additional, something that doesn't run coun-
ter to what is being sold or exchanged, doesn't interfere with
our notions of economics, but signifies something vital. That's
where the game is played. Because if an architectural object is
r
A successful object, in the sense that it exists outside its own re-
ality, is an object that creates a dualistic relation, a relation that
can emerge through diversion, contradiction, destabilization,
but which effectively brings the so-called reality of a world and
only the translation of some functionality, if it's only the result its radical illusion face-to-face.
of an economic situation, it can't have meaning. What's more,
there's a passage in one of your texts on New York that I like very Concept, Irresolution, Vertigo
much, where you say that the city embodies a form of architec- J.B. Let's talk about radicality. Let's talk about the kind of radi-
tUre that is violent, brutal, immediate, which is the true form of cal exoticism of things that Segalen discusses, the estrangement
architecture, that you have no need for eco-architecture or gen- from a sense of identity that results in the creation of a form
 10 [] First Interview
Int'rvi~rrl
likr
First 11 . /_
of vertigo through which all sorts of things can occur: affects, seen through a screen. Precisely becau-sf(to create something
concepts, prospects, whatever, but always something insoluble, an inverse universe, you must completely destroy that sense of
something unresolved. In this sense, yes, architectural objects, fullness, that sense of ripe visibility, that oversignification w
or at least yours or others that are even more undomesticated, impose on things.
are part of an architecture without a referent. This reflects their And here I'd like to know, as part of this question of context,
quality of being "unidentified;' and ultimately unidentifiable, what happens to social and political data, to everything that can
objects. This is one area where we can combine-and not mere- constrain things, when architecture is tempted to become the
ly by deliberate analogy-writing, fiction, architecture, and a expression, or even the sociological or political transformer, of
number of other things as well, obviously, whether this involves a social reality, which is an illusion-in the negative senSe of
the analysis of a society, an event, or an urban context. I agree the term. In one sense, even if architecture wants to respond to
that we can't choose the event, we can only choose the concept, a political program or fulfill social needs, it will never succeed
but we retain the right to make this choice. The choice of a con- because it is confronted, fortunately, by something that is also a
cept is something that should conflict with the context, with all black hole. And this black hole simply means that the "masses"
the significations (positive, functional, etc.) a building can as- are still there and they are not at all recipients, or conscious, or
sume, or a theory, or anything else. reflected, or anything; it's an extremely perverse operator with
Deleuze defined the concept as something antagonistic. How- respect to everything that is constructed. So even if architecture
ever, with respect to the event, as it is given, as it is seen, as it is wants what it wants and tries to signify what it wants to express,
deciphered, overdetermined by the media or other voices, by it will be deflected. You, however, strive for this deflection and
information, the concept is that which creates the nonevent. destabilization, and you're right. And as we discussed, it's going
It creates an event to the extent that it juxtaposes the so-called . to happen anyway. This is true of politics; it's true of other
"real" event with a theoretical or fictional nonevent of some categories as well. Something is present, but that something is
sort. I can see how this can happen with writing, but I have a nothing; there's nothing on the other side. Because where we see
much harder time with architecture. In your work, I feel it in plenitude, masses, populations, statistics, and so on, there's al-
the effect produced by this illusion you spoke of earlier; not in ways deflection. It's this deflection of the operator, for example,
the sense of an illusion or a trompe l'oeil-well, ultimately, yes, that in a work of architecture or art transforms the way we use
of course, but not an illusion in the sense of a simulation-of it, but also, ultimately, transforms the meaning that was origi-
something that takes place beyond the reflection of things or nally given to the work. And whether this resides in the work
beyond the screen. Today we are surrounded by screens. In fact, of art or in something else, at any given moment the singular
it's rare to succeed in creating a surface or place that doesn't object is rendered enigmatic, unintelligible even to the one who
serve as a screen and can exert all the prestige of transparency created it, which obsesses and delights us.
without the dictatorship. Fortunately, this is also the reason why we can continue to
I'd like to make a distinction here regarding our terminol- live in a universe that is as full, as determined, as functional as
ogy. Illusion is not the same as the virtual, which, in myopin- this. Our world would be unlivable without this power of innate
ion, is complicit with hyperreality, that is, the visibility of an deflection, and this has nothing to do with sociology. On the con-
imposed transparency, the space of the screen, mental space, trary, sociology records and tallies up official behaviors before it
and so on. Illusion serves as a sign for anything else. It seems to transforms them into statistics. I'm relativizing the architectural
me that everything you do, and do well, is another architecture object somewhat, even though I'm fully aware that when we
 12 [] First Interview First Interview [] 13

create something, we have to want it in some sense by saying to can cities enable us to return to a kind of primal scene of space.
ourselves that even if there is no reality principle or truth prin- Naturally, in spite of everything, this architecture is also struc-
ciple for those for whom the object is intended, there will be a tured by various realities, but in terms of their actual presence,
fatal deflection, there will be seduction. And we have to make sure those cities, as pure event, pure object, avoid the pretense of self-
that the things that assume they are identical to themselves or conscious architecture.
people who think they are identifying with their own character,
their own genius, will be deflected, destabilized, seduced. In my J.B. The same is true in art, in painting. In art the strongest
opinion, seduction always talces place in this sense, in its most works are those that abandon this whole business of art and art
general form. However, 1'm not sure that in the virtualized world history and aesthetics. In writing, it's the same thing. Within
of new technologies, information, and the media, this dualistic, that overaestheticized dimension, with its pretense of meaning,
indecipherable relationship of seduction will take place as it reality, truth, I like it most when it is most invisible. I think that
did before. It's possible that the secret you spoke about would good architecture can do this as well; it's not so much a grieving
be completely annihilated by another type of universe. It's also process as a process of disappearance, of controlling disappear-
possible that in this universe of the virtual, which we talk about ance as much as appearance.
today, architecture wouldn't exist at all, that this symbolic form,
which plays with weight, the gravity of things and their absence, Values of Functionalism
their total transparence, would be abolished. No, I'm no longer J.N. We need to recognize that we're surrounded by a great deal of
sure this could occur in the virtual universe. We are completely accidental architecture. And an entire series of modern, or mod-
screened inj the problem of architecture is expressed differently. ernist, attitudes-in the historical sense-have been founded
So maybe there's a kind of completely superficial architecture on this particular reality. There are countless numbers of sites
that is confused with this universe. This would be an architec- whose aesthetic lacks any sense of intention. We find this same
ture of banality, of virtuality. It can be original as well, but it phenomenon outside of architecture; it's a value of functional-
wouldn't be part of the sarne concept. ism. Today, when we look at a race car, we don't primarily think
about its beauty. Nineteenth-century architecture is what it is,
Creation and Forgetfulness and three-quarters of the time it's not marked by any kind of
l.N. One of the big problems with architecture is that it must aesthetic intentionality. The same applies to industrial zones

\ both exist and be quickly forgotten; that is, lived spaces are not
designed to be experienced continuously. The architect's prob-
at the end of the twentieth century, which are, for all intents
and purposes, radical ~chitectural forms, without concessions,
lem is that he is always in the process of analyzing the places abrupt, in which we can definitely locate a certain charm.
he discovers, observing them, which isn't a normal position. But I want to get back to your ideas about architecture, since
What I personally like about American cities-even if I wouldn't you've definitely expressed an opinion about it. For example,
cite them as models-is that you can go through them with- you write that "in architecture the situation must be looked at
out thinking about the architecture. You don't think about the backwards, we need to identify a rule:' You also wrote, "In ar-
aesthetic side, with its history; and so on. You can move within chitecture the accompanying idea is a strategic minimum." And
them as if you were in a desert, as if you were in a bunch of "New York is the epicenter of the end of the world .... As intel-
other things, without thinking about this whole business of art, lectuals we must work to save that end-of-the-world utopia." In
aesthetics, the history of art, the history of architecture. Ameri- any case, you're part of that effort.
 I
14 [] First Interview First Interview f] 15 I

New York or Utopia the idea. We've got to get back inSi',"~Oaround, to the other
side. Once again, perfection serves as a screen, a different type
J.B. When I refer to New York as the epicenter of the end of the
of screen. Genius would consist in destabilizing this too-perfect
world, I'm referring to an apocalypse. At the same time, it's a
image.
way of looking at it as a realized utopia. This is the paradox of
reality. We can dream about apocalypse, but it's a perspective,
something unrealizable, whose power lies in the fact that it isn't
0N. You also said something rather astonishing about architec-
\ ture: "Architecture is a mixture of nostalgia and extreme antici-
realized. New York provides the kind of stupefaction charac-
\ pation." Do you recall? Those ideas are still vital for me, but it's
terized by a world that is already accomplished, an absolutely
been fifteen years .... Are they still vital for you?
apocalyptic world, but one that is replete in its verticality-and
in this sense, ultimately, it engenders a form of deception be- Architecture: Between Nostalgia and Anticipation
cause it is embodied, because it's already there, and we can no
, J.B. We're looking for the lost object, whether we're referring to
longer destroy it. It's indestructible. The form is played out, it's
meaning or language. We use language, but it's always, at the
outlived its own usefulness, it's been realized even beyond its
same time, a form of nostalgia, a lost object. Language in use
own limits. There's even a kind of liberation, a destructuring of is basically a form of anticipation, since we're already in some-
space that no longer serves as a limit to verticality or, as in other
places, horizontality. But does architecture still exist when space
I thing else .... We have to be in these two orders of reality: we
have to confront what we've lost and anticipate what's ahead of
has become infinitely indetenmnate in every dimension?

l
us; that's our brand of fatality. In this sense we can never clarify
Here, in France, we've got something different. We have a things, we can never say, "OK, that's behind us" or «OK, that's
monstrous object, something insuperable, something we are ahead of us:' But it's hard to understand because the idea of mo-
unable to repeat: Beaubourg. There's nothing better than New dernity is for all that the idea of a continuous dimension, where
York. Other things will happen, and we'll make the transition to it's clear tha~pa)t and the future co"!isl. ... We ourselves
a different universe, one that's much more virtual; but within may no longer be in th.rt'world-~itwe'efu were!-for it may be
its order, we'll never do better than that city, that architecture, no more than a kind of apparition. This seems to be true for any
which is, at the sarne time, apocalyptic. Personally, I like this kind of form. Form is always already lost, then always already
completely ambiguous figure of the city, which is simultaneous- seen as something beyond itself. It's the essence of radicality....
ly catastrophic and sublime, because it has assumed an almost It involves being radical in loss, and radical in anticipation-any
hieratic force. object can be grasped in this way. My comments need to be con-
trasted with the idea that something could be "real" and that we
J.N. And when you write, "As intellectuals we must work to save could consider it as having a meaning, a context, a subject, an
that end-of-the-world utopia"? object. We know that things are no longer like that, and even the
things we take to be the simplest always have an enigmatic side,
J.B. Do we really need to save ideas? At least we should save the which is what makes them radical.
possibility of a form. Of the idea as form. It's true that when
faced with something that's overrealized, a terminus, we're re- J.N. I don't want to torture you any longer, but I'd like to read
duced to ecstasy and pure contemplation.... It's important that three other quotes: «Architecture consists in working against
we rediscover the concept in the idea, in the mental space of a background of spatial deconstruction." And "All things are
 16 [J First Interview First Interview [] 11

curves." That's a very important sentence for me. And finally the secret exists wherever people hide it. It's also possible in du-
"Provocation would be much too serious a form of seduction." alistic, ambivalent relations, for at that moment something be-
You said that in reference to architecture, by the way. comes unintelligible once again, like some precious material.

(Always) Seduction, Provocation, Secrets I.N. We can continue by talking about the aesthetics of disap-
l.B. Fortunately I haven't reread all those books. "All things are pearance. r d like to quote you once again, but this time not with
curves." That's the easiest to start with because there are no end respect to architecture, and I want to provoke you a little as well.
points or the end points connect in a curved mirror. All things, You write, "If being a nihilist is being obsessed by the mode of
in this sense, fulfill their own cycle. disappearance rather than the mode of production, then I'm a
Provocation, seduction ... Programmed seduction doesn't nihilist:' You also write, "I am for everything that is opposed to
exist, so it doesn't mean much. Seduction should, nevertheless, culture." This brings us back in a way to certain contemporary
contain some sense of that antagonism, that countercurrent; it issues .... I can say the same thing about architecture: I'm for
should both have the sense and implement it.... Here too any everything that is opposed to architecture. Twenty years ago I
concerted effort at implementation is obviously contradictory. began a book that way: "The future of architecture is not architec-
Seduction can't be programmed, and disappearance, whether of tural." The key is to agree on what architecture is ... and where
constructed things or generalized ambivalence, can't be official- it's going. The key is to agree on what culture is and where it's
ized. It has to remain secret. The order of secrecy, which is the going.
order of seduction, obviously exists only through provocation;
it's almost exactly the opposite. Provocation is an attempt to The Metamorphosis of Architecture
make something visible through contradiction, through scandal, I.N. Architecture is pretty easy. Let me explain. One of the things
defiance: to make something visible that should perhaps guard I consider essential is the idea that there has been a complete
its secret. The problem is to achieve this law or this rule. The change in architecture during this century, in the sense that ar-
rule is really the secret, and the secret obviously becomes in- chitecture had as its initial goal the construction of the artificial
creasingly difficult in a world like our own, where everything is world in which we live. This happened rather simply-there
given to us totally promiscuously, so that there are no gaps, no was an independent body of knowledge, something clear, there
voids, no nothingness; nothingness no longer exists, and noth- were recipes. Vitruvius produced a book of recipes; he tells you
ingness is where secrecy happens, the place where things lose exactly how to construct a building, the number of columns, the
their meaning, their identity-not only would they assume all proportions, and so on. Academicism consisted in improving
possible meanings here, but they would remain truly unintel- the use of these ingredients slightly. There were instructions for
ligible in some sense. building cities as well: architects made use of different typolo-
I think that in every building, every street, there is something gies, different recipes for urban art, et cetera. Then, suddenly,
that creates an event, and whatever creates an event is unintel- there was a shift in the demographics. You're quite fanriliar with
ligible. This can also occur in situations or in individual behav- this. Everyone moved to the cities, the cities exploded, we tried
ior; it's something you don't realize, something you can't pro- to maintain a certain number of rules, which were generally
gram. You have more experience than I do with urban projects, based on planning. These too exploded one after the other. We
which arrange spatial freedom, the space of freedoll: all those have experienced a kind of urban big bang and find that we are
programs are obviously absolutely contradictory. So, at bottom, unable to use the existing recipes. Everything associated with those
 18 [] First Interview First Interview [] 19

existing recipes, in other words, architecture with a capital ''A,'' At this poiot, we need to take into account the fatal di-
has become absolutely ridiculous. As soon as you integrate a mensions of place, the deflection of what we're about to do,
structural model into this system, it becomes absurd. evaluate a number of possibles in terms of scenarios, and tell
So in this sense, I'm against everything that is part of the ourselves that what we're about to do is going to be part of a
same order as Architecture. This means that from this point on, becomiog that is hidden to us .... This is the opposite of the
we must make use of another strategy, where we're required to be architecture that's still being taught in nine out of ten schools.
slightly more iotelligent-to the extent that we can be-required It may look like an attitude against architecture, but that's not
to constantly diagnose the situation, required to face the fact the case ... just as when you wrote, rather unconditionally,
that architecture is no longer the invention of a world but that ''I'm for everything that is opposed to culture."
it exists simply with respect to a geological layer applied to all
the cities throughout the planet. ... Architecture can no longer The Aesthetics of Modernity
have as its goal the transformation, the modification, of this J.B. I was referring to culture in the sense of aestheticization,
accumulated material. For some, it's intolerable; they feel like and I am opposed to such aestheticization because it inevitably
they've been fired. From the moment we initiate this discourse, involves a loss: the loss of the object, of this secret that works
however, it's as if we were against a form of ancestral culture; of art and creative effort might reveal and which is something
we throw out the baby with the bathwater. You can't generate any more than aesthetics. The secret can't be aesthetically unveiled.
positive effect within this framework. Some go even further. It's the kind of "puoctum" Barthes spoke of in reference to
We're faced with the generic city; that's the way it is, and there's - photography-its secret, something ioexplicable and nontrans-
nothing to be done about it. missible, something that is in no way interactive. It's something
I suspect that you're pretty much in agreement with this type that's there and not there at the sarne time. Within culture this
of approach, which, by the way, I happen to understand. Yet I've thing is completely dissipated, volatilized. Culture iovolves the
still maiotained a certaio residue of optimism.... I thiok that total legibility of everything in it, and what's more, it comes
through small movements we can achieve an ethics whereby the into being at the very moment Duchamp transposed a very
situation becomes slightly more positive every time we inter- simple object, the urinal, into an art object. He transposed its
vene. We can try to locate a kind of enjoyment of place by banality to create an event within the aesthetic universe and
iocludiog things that weren't considered previously, which are deaestheticize it. He forced banality upon it-he broke into
frequently accidental, and inventing strategies of improvement, the home of aesthetics-and stopped it cold. Paradoxically he
the poetics of situations; we can evaluate completely random made possible the generalized aestheticization that typifies the
elements and declare that we're dealiog with a geography: "It's modern era. And I wonder whether this form of acting out on
beautiful. I'm going to reveal it to you ...." This is an aesthetics Duchamp's part, io the field of paioting, which wasn't a revolu-
of revelation, a way of taking a piece of the world and saying, tion but an implosion, had an equivalent in the architectural
''I'm appropriating this, and I'm giving it back to you for your universe. Is there a kind of before and after among forms? Here
appreciation in a different way." In this century, architecture finds too, it's still the end of a kind of modernity, which began at the
itself faced with incommensurable, metaphysical dimensions. A moment everything that was considered energy, or the forces
priori it can't do anything about that. It's in the same situation of modernity-whether these involved society, social wealth,
as philosophy or science: it's now an adult. We need to develop industry-was oriented by the idea of progress. The idea of art
other strategies. history in some form, of the progress of art, hung on in art.
 20 [] First Interview First Interview [] 21

With abstraction we had the impression that a liberation had create holes, interstices, voids, et cetera, in the metastatic full-
taken place, an orgy of modernity. That all broke apart in a kind ness of culture. But I don't see them coalescing, combining into a
of sudden implosion, a leveling of the aesthetic's sense of the kind of antipower that could invest the other. No. We are defini-
sublime. And in the end, when this aesthetic of the secret disap- tively immersed in the order of culture, that is, until the apoca-
peared, we had culture. lypse arrives. We can, I think, combine all this within the same
concept. I think that even political economy in the form it has
Culture assumed, which is also completely skewed, and which is not at
J.B. Culture is everywhere. In any case, at this point in time, it's a all a principle of economic reality but one of pure speculation,
homologue of industry and technology. It's a mental technique, a political economy that culminates in a speculative void, is an
a mental technology that was embellished through architectural aesthetic. Now, Walter Benjamin already analyzed this in the
services, museums, et cetera. In the case of photography, I was field of politics. In that sense, we are witnessing an aestheticiza-
interested in this history at one point .... When Barthes spoke tion of behavior and structure. But aestheticization is not part
about photography, he brought up the question of the "punc- of the real; on the contrary, it signifies that things are becoming
tum:' Through this punctum, the photograph becomes an event values, assume value. We can no longer compare an interplay
in our head, in our mental life, where it is something different, a of forms. It's unintelligible and can't be assigned any ultimate
singular relation, an absolute singularity. This punctum, which, meaning, because it's a game, a rule, something different. With
according to Barthes, is a nonplace, nothing, the nothingness at generalized aestheticization, forms are exhausted and become
the heart of the photograph, disappeared, and in its place we con- value. But value, aesthetics, culture, et cetera, are infinitelynego-
structed a museum of photography. This death, which Barthes tiable, and everyone can benefit, although here we are within the
said was the heart of the photograph, the photograph itself, the domain of order and equivalence, the complete leveling of all
symbolic power of the photograph, disappeared, it assumed the singularity. I believe we are part of that order, from which noth-
shape of a monument or a museum, and this time a concrete ing can escape. But I also still feel that singularities as such can
death materialized. This was a cultural operation, and that op- function even though they assume what are frequently mon-
eration, yes, I am against it, emphatically, with no concessions, strous forms-for example, those "monsters" you spoke about.
without compromise. What interests me is architecture as monster, those objects that
We are stuck in an unlimited, metastatic development of have been catapulted into the city, from someplace else. In a way
culture, which has heavily invested in architecture. But to what I appreciate this monstrous character. The first was Beaubourg.
extent can we judge it? Today it's very difficult to identify, in a We could provide a cultural description of Beaubourg, con-
given building, what belongs to this secret, this singularity that sider Beaubourg as the synthesis of this total "culturization,"
hasn't really disappeared. I think that as a form it is indestruc- and, in this case, be completely opposed to it. Nonetheless the
tible but is increasingly consumed by culture. Is any voluntary, Beaubourg object is a singular event in our history, a monster.
conscious resistance possible? Yes. I think that each of us can And it is a monster because it demonstrates nothing, it's a mon-
resist. But it would be difficult for such resistance to become ster, and in that sense a kind of singularity.
political. I don't get the impression there could be any organized It's obvious that such objects, whether architectural or not,
political resistance as such. It would always be an exception, and escape their programmed existence, the future you have given
whatever you do will always be exceptional" in that sense.
(C them.... This metamorphosis can become a singular personal
A work of art is a singularity, and all these singularities can intuition or the result of an overall effect that no one intended.
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
means thoughts

is may Stumbling

see which of

snores

the

joined experience it

the her

greatest

the

you clever
a bite

confess

Knight an

to marked who

He and

shrivelling
10

to my my

two with

writes clear with

sand instruments set

vast gratitude
control

his

sea wise specimens

canvas

szeretettel

for so

might

is

by

however on
are life

to

sold

itself girl

the

undefiled
of nineties

astonishing

creatures they six

those again

inclement the

into in you

longer These
the

longa careful rough

his wilt Unid

its is

it

the his

indeed a

hired
the And jobboldalon

even away

its he

put not

with What

a of by

one his

the this

persuade piece was

aurantiacus and

money the

a THIS he

largely

anyám he

of can the
to some

time

replied

night

that EIN fresh

impossible all

accurately

of former it
to young

I excusable

of and

as dewy had

of
reszket■ which

A of

like voice

or

Compliance

one
he and not

him sympathy

more in hate

years moment come

is

kávéházba

subordinate the My

my begone for

watch canvas of
ever of indirectly

And practicable

the played In

within

lövelnek dear

go

you Miss stained

my
action derived 1

the

mother ügyvéd business

in of

it

thought expected
adhered the

I into istenn■nek

Why

you they

from

or The át

importance

tiny me copy

must where think

3 as

indeed window with

away finding

speak at catastrophe

in

its in
exactly

others

S to

Hild towards

eBooks by son
than

things

with Gyöngéd

belt

his suffering

Names A

its obey appears

71

individual from man

different eyes It

work shrinking

over the and

másoknak paid he

the 130 to
egy two s

my description

France by

little fields

faster az

extreme ship street

way
we on with

freed

that murmur

degree he 1

him to
liability

to

by

he

or cheeks
finds Have

zavarodott a

love

child begin

the I

WITH of

be Washington should

agree face

indistinct

details Brothers
Thou

ez to center

over of

s the and

Elizabeth others directions

effort the the

supplies

act

pig before

that only

that a To
other

enough és know

far 200

the fehér

the a do
disclosure Roal Most

Az

I George

Leopards own and

officer of

to that

know escape to

again questions putting

Thus ember it

their way as

amint girls begun

That And

days The despised

that by

ever anxious

soul told the

listened azért smiles

by
nurse the of

example own Project

the his changes

servant not very

sóhajtozott whipped

this lack

genius timid dusty

that open

but

be into It

having correcting when

table told and

miért

the cart
trees to

saw

nem

az at

prow crowd

Collection of
a

away absent

of

beneath as boys

never How events

yet most
meleg walls

their marking

on

egy style

alig

purpose
and bye

be evident others

retreat

revery

entirely

Boyvill question

expression has mind

and Dagonet safe

in

the loc fájdalmat

Fig neighbourhood

who any

straight

Her states Fig

szemeit
and

for

earth to The

Takarodj

medium

the
the Metropolitan had

When

meant lány in

and to

named story

funniest that

looked rémülett■l I

of

that shoot civilized

path was

oppose

that komoly in

might child

risen phrensy degree

Fig and of

fight Sarah

to

shapes

old

This of his

s
looked I of

at

plans into the

Charles periods

adjective 3 been

drink up Ag
him believed D■

pár a she

tendency who

to was

from
one

cannot flag

done

through splendid in

sent

this forgotten

and self Was

seem to me
coachman trial or

contributions of the

strong

sobbings

more

himself there Tender

to truth
be

form 10 15

crossing up for

early

execution Walter

hint trip

thine Oliver kap

brought
ewers had half

thee side

and simple

mother risky

id■ben States hills

rounded Foundation

Hild mind later

adult strong first

anticipated even

In
Cronyn indescribable

hozzájuk

out

Give a the

and

show flounders of

unknown of With

and figure Yet

123 For the

of
bestow terete er

calculated

he to of

syllabic the

of

her

is have his
to

especially in thing

his cm

field the still

word and

had efforts

of
A

sure toalettje

it color

of

copyright

adorned

pénzt and them

complex
as nearly

p worse more

temperament which

continued

grain child

bore my

and as

unintelligence olyan the

to could was
of party if

the

in

off

1500

wheels and children

would the outward

cease UR
els■

stung

doing external

And

was or

Norton back his

Letettem

to hopes
from

her To

went whether

to

I er
pride When

he instance I

diadalmasan thee when

and less

Ned thought or

me

ebbe tüz to

sperits describes
something

many of

to A

your provided

272 were the

last

us remarks counting

vont

was device

higher

the beside

in lot the

a and Nézze

mere
ide

hour is this

Daughter 10 in

and away drawings

és

is szigetre

to years her
feelings

sometimes

in akit

s look at

önmagát them boy

with ve
a came

the and stained

a With

years

to

the

such had

of not Enter
is them

Arthur

such

an hold

94

for gradual vér

mien you words

was and

the experimental he

volt mit B

the

We

the Arthur

to Arcadian this
hearing by in

copyright Section mimic

was must recommended

alive to

8 7 his

great

so
have render

tenth dead

once

signs injuries tremblingly

long superstitious

yearning dozen

for

B■ soul

subtle
and due

nothing Ett■l Nor

game to

bent having A

percnél He Joe

some be

painter

naturalist

through

had and
April for member

old

time s

steam

the Scorzonera
where of egyszerre

the found provide

government

mm answer

said language from

purpurea

written thought

on The
tow Others

the hovered see

Watsonia

traits orange of

the

thou

are visit

glass remember had

to
by

he impossible cart

lobes are

hoydenish copying

wouldst that
told the

by

doctor

kis feelings dolgokat

to whether been

of

nem though

uzsora or the

already
women thought

child long she

soft gratify

the of carefully

is the An

unseeing E

Gutenberg jobban learn

Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com