Letter to the Editor, Blueprint
Thank you for the review of Charles Jencks’s and my book, Adhocism: The Case for Improvisation (Blueprint, Nov-Dec 13). But no thanks to the reviewer.
Thomas Wensing’s piece is a catalogue of false suppositions, starting with: ‘In the context of Jencks’ later books… I suspect that the reissue [the core of our book was first published 41 years ago] is an attempt to retroactively position Adhocism as one of the books which was important in formulating the post-modern critique of the modern movement.’
In fact the impulse for reissue came from me, not Charles Jencks, and had nothing to do with ‘positioning’ or otherwise towards postmodernism. It was to bring the book abreast with adhocism as it has grown in influence.
Nowadays the Oxford English Dictionary defines adhocism as ‘the policy of improvisation.’ To expand the definition for building design I’d say adhocism describes work that, with an expressive air of real or apparent improvisation, deliberately includes the tried and true in some obvious way when creating the new. Its application to architectural conservation is one powerful use. Reviewer Wensing’s use of a quotation alleging that ‘every part’ of an adhocist building ‘is designed with scant regard to the whole’ — from James Stevens Curl — is a prejudiced crack that isn’t true in any case I know; and Mr Wensing’s own allegation that ‘adhocism is the opposite of premeditation’ is an absurd take in view of the defining basis for ad hoc, which means ‘for this.’ Adhocism fundamentally depends on purpose-directed volition (sometimes blatantly so, as our book tells it).
When the builders of the amazing 13th century consolidated dwelling in the Canyon de Chelly, Arizona — an early, autochthonous example of adhocism — adapted the stone of the same cliff as blocks for their building material, it sure wasn’t with scant regard for the whole, nor were their years of devoted effort due to the opposite of premeditation. The same could be said of the recent, wonderfully adhocist High Line in New York. Most new readers of Adhocism will get that, and they may find its liberating advantages even more apparent than readers four decades ago.
Sincerely, Nathan Silver
