> BACK
revised on
2010.10.16
II. Adventure of Reason
3. Construction from zero
(1) World view of Purism
At
the end of World War I in 1918, Le Corbusier started the Purism movement
together with Amédée Ozenfant. Le Corbusier debuted as a painter at an
exhibition at the
The
thing that catches the eye is a white cube in the center that appears
like Japanese tofu(bean curd). Classical console decoration is visible
in the lower left, and it can be understood that this is definitely
located above the fireplace. However, there is no clue to identify what
this cube was drawn to represent. Furthermore, there is shading and
reflections on the mirror-like top of the fireplace. Because of the
realistic scene, it has the mysteriousness of a
Surrealism
painting.
In
the same year, Le Corbusier and Ozenfant wrote a book entitled “Après le
Cubisme” (“After Cubism”), which attempted to be the critical successor
of the Cubism artistic movement. Cubism carries the new sensibilities of
the 20th century to geometrically disassemble the three-dimensional
spaces that can be seen using the eye, and pioneered a method for
redrawing abstract paintings. However, Le Corbusier and others thought
that Cubism continued to fail in the mannerisms of the method. Le
Corbusier sought a new reality.
Although a cube also appeared in the painting entitled “Bol, Pipes, et
Paipers Enroulés” (“Cup, Pipes, and Paper Rolls”), the trend toward
abstraction was more clear in this case. There are curled up rolls of
paper, pipes, and a white pottery cup on top of a cube arranged on a
table, and these are clearly represented by abstracting a realistic
scene (Fig. II-2). However, the identity of the brown cube that appears
like it could be a box placed there is unclear. There is also deep
interest in the dangerous positional relationship that raises concern
over whether the cup might fall off from the cube.
Le
Corbusier seems to have returned Cubism to the straightforwardness of
Paul Cezanne. As can be seen in paintings such as “House at Aix” (“Maison
et ferme du Jas de Bouffan”, 1885 to 1887), Cezanne abstracted the plain red brick house that appears
in the middle of the scene to the point where it is barely discernible
as a house. He was the first painter to start with piecework-like
elements (Fig. II-3). Although Le Corbusier gradually increased the
level of abstraction, this did not develop to the point of virtually
discarding any connection to the real object, as Picasso had done. The
fact that he was not purely a painter but was also an architect demanded
a realistic space even within the painting space.
In spite of this, his cubes
remain mysterious. This is the same as the mysteriousness of the
pyramids of
Of course, this knowledge was
hidden when abstract shapes were used in architectural designs. The
abstract shapes do not necessarily have psychological power. Although
functional structures such as factories have clear ordered patterns,
normal factories do not stand out. Intentional stylization such as the
temple motif given to the factories by Behrens was required for this.
Although Le Corbusier stayed at Behrens architectural offices in search
of something, it became clear after looking for a while that there was
little to be gained, and the forms sought by Le Corbusier were slightly
different.
I introduced the basic idea of
information aesthetics earlier, and that also plays a role in the
interpretation of what Le Corbusier was trying to obtain through Purism.
He knew that the objects that we can actually see with our eyes contain
too much information, and some alterations were needed to reduce the
amount of information in order to convey or represent something. Cezanne
certainly did this, and Le Corbusier clarified the validity of the
origins of Cubism. But for the painter of Impressionism, it was
important that the outer world is reflected in the eye, that is the
phenomenon of “im-press” against the heart. On the other hand, Le
Corbusier must create the form of a house in a vacant space as an
architect, where his painting work was nothing more than preparation for
it.
For an architect, the job is to
create information. The forms created must contain an abundance of
information. The mysteriousness that can be seen in the cubes in “La
cheminée” and other paintings is because the shape created by 8 simple
points and 12 edge lines is imbued with psychological information in
addition to physical information. The first 20 years or so of the 20th
century was a time when the drive toward simplicity began, and Le
Corbusier attempted aggressively to manifest the power held by simple
items as an extension of this.
The word Expressionism specifies
the artistic action of “ex-press” that is to push out to the outside
world. Although the mode of expression of the strong impetus of German
Expressionism was evident from a peculiarly expressive intention, the
artists of the early 20th century aggressively generalized the
construction of objet d’art (works of art) and spaces. If we take a form
of Expressionism that attempts to express everything merely by the
silhouette of a shape, then there is also a path that achieves
expressive power like that of the pyramids through the simplification
and transparency of shapes similar to Le Corbusier. In any event, the
time where groups of excessive and chaotic shapes were a means of
communication became a thing of the past.
The first building “Villa
Fallet” built by Lu Corbusier in the town of La Chaux-de-Fonds, a watch
handworker’s town on the North side of Lake Geneva where he grew up, was
packed with a variety of information, including the steeply inclined
wooden roof, construction with the traditional curved braces, the design
of the window frames that symbolizes a tree-like structure, and the
fresco-like decorations with a repeating-pattern-like wallpaper (Fig.
II-4). This revealed a light and gentle design that could be called a
slightly girlish extension of simple conventional construction methods
without the excesses of neo-baroque or the organic curves to the degree
of Art Nouveau. He was strongly affected by Cubism that led to the
extreme of abstraction, i.e., the reduction in the amount of
information. This was because cubes without any meaning were the extreme
of virtually zero information.
Before the declaration of
Purism, Le Corbusier presented the principles for an architectural
pattern named Dom-ino in 1914 (Fig. II-5). This showed that the skeleton
of a building could be formed if the floor was supported by only four
concrete columns, and only required the foundation slab (the surface in
contact with the ground) and stairs for buildings of two or more
stories. The revolutionary point of this idea was that it reversed the
idea of the traditional brick construction method in Europe, where
construction of brick walls started first, with the construction of
internal wooden beams and floor being added later.
The walls were added later, and
the full glass surface architecture that came much later was derived
logically from this. Although it was simple, this architecture was a
reversal of the conventional knowledge of the past and had to pass
through a variety of strife before it became generally accepted.
This spirit was common to
Purism, where unnecessary information was cut away and objects were
reassembled from the remaining minimum elements. In the several years
from Dom-ino until the announcement of Purism, Europe slid into
political and social chaos, with World War I intervening, which turned
common sense on its head. During this time, the Russian Revolution
occurred, followed by the German Revolution at the end of the war, with
the Czars and Kaisers expelled and the society of
Eventually, Le Corbusier
proposed a plan for reforming the city center of
There was a view point to clear
away existing information created through the accumulation of history
and to rethink a city from nothing. This type of method to destroy
existing buildings at first and to redesign and redevelop a completely
new design forgetting the figure of the past is called generally “scrap
and build,” and has spread throughout the world particularly since
postwar reconstruction after World War II, whose idea was brilliantly
here. This kind of methodology is also called “Tabula Rasa (blank
slate),” and the spirit of modernism existed within those action itself
of erasing existing things.
Dom-ino, the idea for which was
sparked from thin columns and floor boards, represented a complete
disavowal of traditional European architecture and logical rethinking of
only newly produced building materials. Although a tradition of wooden
construction also continued to survive also in Switzerland where Le
Corbusier grew up, this is conjectured to have also the hidden effect of
the Japanese wooden frame construction that was assumed to have affected
the architects of Europe. We can find here one of actions worthy of
respect that the European people themselves disavowed the traditions of
Europe and attempted to begin again from zero.
(2) Breakthrough of Futurism
In
the same year of 1914 when Dom-ino was introduced, Antonio Sant’Elia
published the “Futurist Architecture Manifesto.” The “Futurist
Manifesto” was published by the poet Marinetti in the paper “Le Figaro”
in 1909, and took the artistic world by storm. The content of this
manifesto was also a disavowal of traditional Europe by Europeans
themselves.
At
this time when the phrase “Decline of Europe” was exchanged between
intellectuals, Europeans actually largely followed the path of
transforming into people of the world. The International Style that was
subsequently established focusing mainly on German style in the 1920s
spread throughout the world, beginning the spatial culture of the 20th
century. The decline of Europe meant the new domination of the world.
This domination was not through a struggle for political power or
hegemony, but was through the establishment of people’s ordinary
lifestyle.
Europeans struggled in order to transform themselves into global
mankind. For example, van Gogh and Gauguin searched the Orient for new
ideas, the paintings of Cubism referenced the primitive engravings of
Africa, and architects referenced the vernacular architecture of the
Mediterranean coast and wooden architecture of Japan. The thinking of
the Europeans had already exceeded the bounds of
It is said that it happens
sometimes in history paradigm shifts where the ideas of people are
switched from the base. Historical architectural styles can also be said
to be paradigms; for example, the Gothic and Renaissance styles differ
in their origin with regard to the manner of thinking and the method to
construct thinking system. Europe in the early part of the 20th century
attempted a similar shift; however, the architecture of the new paradigm
was not limited to
The disavowal of the current
state of Europe brought about the exotic romanticism of yearning for a
barbaric world on one side, and it raised also the romanticism of
dreaming the future on the other side. Futurism expressed the disavowal
of the current status quo by proposing an image of an unknown future
society. Sant’Elia wrote the following:
“We must invent and rebuild the Futurist city like an immense and
tumultuous shipyard, agile, mobile and dynamic in every part, and the
Futurist house must be like a gigantic machine.
(*1).”
The image of 19th century
architecture, such as the abundance of decoration in neo-gothic, was
harshly criticized, and mechanisms like shipyards or machines without
the scent of culture become the new model. This change ignored history
to the point where it could be viewed as a barbarization of culture. The
architectural culture of
Sant’Elia drew many plans
entitled “Città Nuova” (“
The writings of Sant’Elia were
revised by Marinetti, the leader of Futurism, and it is here that poetic
expressions were introduced.
“That oblique and elliptic lines are dynamic, and by their very nature
possess an emotive power a thousand times stronger than perpendiculars
and horizontals, and that no integral, dynamic architecture can exist
that does not include these;
(*2).”
Sant’Elia selected and used
sloping lines like a hydroelectric power dam for the shape of the future
city, and Marinetti perceived these as a figurative symbol of the future
city. The elliptically shaped lines obviously referred to parabolic
curves of some structural lines. If this is said to be superior due to
the shape born from structural certainty, the artificial aesthetics of
classicism are ignored. The traces of the handwork of human were
completely removed.
The anti-humanism of Futurism
advanced to such an extreme that it became laughable. They became
enthralled by the appearance of the modern warfare technology that gave
birth to the the machine gun and tank. And with the outbreak of World
War I, they volunteered to appear in the field of combat. For them,
compared to the lethargy of the everyday, the feeling of speed of the
war was nothing more than ecstasy. Sant’Elia, who was blessed with an
abundance of imagination and was expected to be the arrowhead for the
appearance of a new architectural style from
Even now, although they are said
to have been fairly self-destructive artists, this was a consequence of
Futurism attempting to destroy their own European culture. They were not
simply future Utopians who saw sweet dreams and drew the form of a
bright future city. They stood at a turning point in history and
attempted to change history by their own resolve.
The ideas of the urban and
architectural theorist Paul Virilio, who gained attention in the 1990s
taking the concept of a “speed” as the key term, started from this
Futurism. The idea of creating an awareness of speed in architectural
design was inconceivable against the setting of 19th century
architectural forms. Sant’Elia therefore discovered the perspective of
the passengers of electric trains and automobiles, and understood the
new order of things, which differed from the architectural order
reflected in the eyes of pedestrians. The 20th century was not only a
time of super-high speed trains, but witnessed the introduction of
machines with more speed, from the jet engine to the rocket, and even
today, the Internet has come to carry information virtually instantly to
the other side of the world through optical technology. Virilio said
that this has changed the psychological and behavioral patterns of
people, and has had an effect on the structure of society.
This yearning for the inorganic
order of high-speed machines was also the product of humanistic designs,
like the poetic sentiment that enveloped the sloping lines of Marinetti.
The sketch of the “Electric Power Plant” by Sant’Elia showed curved
lines like smoke wavering in the sky (Fig. II-8). These are unmistakably
Art Nouveau curves, and the designs of Sant’Elia were greatly affected
by Art Nouveau. On the ground, a rational ordering was put together that
was constructed almost entirely of straight lines. Then, when the
feeling of speed of these straight lines raised up into the sky, these
became the curves of Art Nouveau.
The curves of Art Nouveau,
however, were the seeds that led to the futuristic feeling of speed. The
curves that melted and then organically drew together the chaos of 19th
century forms of architecture were the beginning of the subsequent
fluctuating spaces. This was also an extension of the mysterious
fluctuation curves wriggling in the sky, as seen by van Gogh. From among
the chaos of the end of the century, the organic chaotic curves were
gradually drawn out.
The elegant feeling of speed of
the Art Nouveau curves shifted into the abrupt feeling of speed of
mechanical straight lines. The pleasure of curves dancing in space
eventually shifted to the feeling of speed and arrived at a linear
structure. The shadows of romanticism that remained in Futurism were
eventually eliminated, and the warmth from the touch of the artist
discarded, with the movement moving into the cold form of rationalism
that could be discussed later. This move was also one of turning points
in order to enter into the 20th century.
(3) Constructiveness of Constructivism
The Russian and Dutch
Constructivism movements grew into a 20th century architectural style,
expanded into other schools, and left behind a large impact.
“Kosei-Shugi” is usually used for the Japanese translation of
“Constructivism”, but it is not adequate, because “Kochiku-Shugi” is
better when translated literally. But it may be meaningless to focus on
minor differences, because it was the age of fluid movement.
In Japanese, there is a fairly
large difference in fact between “Kosei” (“to assemble and compose”) and
“Kochiku” (“to construct and build”), and the Russian Constructivism
matches the word “Kochiku” better, while the Dutch Constructivism had
the meaning of composition and was closer to the word “Kosei”. Although
these are minor differences, the Russian Constructivism had a connection
to the Russian Revolution and included the meaning of building from
zero. On the other hand, Dutch Constructivism emphasized the abstract
formal structure appearing from among the traditional geometrical
mysticism.
A similar formative process with
a slightly different foundation appeared, and this gave birth to the
Constructivist style across Europe, called International Constructivism.
This was not simply a fashon of forms, but was linked to a new reality
of shapes. The activities that had been limited to a formative movement
under the introspection of the initial artists eventually established a
rational formative language for structures and urban design.
This was related to the
rationalism of lifestyle of “New Objectivity” (“Neue Sachlichkeit”) and
functionalism of the 1920s. There was constant argument over whether art
played a role in the everyday life of people and remained as an
outstanding achievement. Although art is certainly always contaminated
by impurities if we focus on the utilitarian, it is also clear that art,
which is isolated from lifestyle, can only be an escape from human
society. In any case, for architects, Constructivism came to be employed
as an extremely useful formative technique in the establishment of 20th
century architectural styles.
Also among Russian
Constructivism, there was an artist who focused his efforts on
discarding the styles of the late 19th century and turning towards the
styles of the 20th century. It was Kasimir Malevich, who created the
school called Suprematism.
He originally appeared as a
regional Impressionist painter, and eventually appeared in
However, the robust psyche of
Malevich peered into the depths of the European-scale abstract painting
movement. This was because the “black square” (1914-1915) where he
experimented with drawing a simple square on a square canvas, and the
philosophically titled “white on white” (1918) where he experimented
with drawing a diagonally leaning white square (Fig. II-9). The Russian
Revolution then intervened, and Malevich was led to the point of
absolute zero in the world of painting, as if he had felt and absorbed
the strange psychological state of society.
In the world of two-dimensional
computer graphics, i.e., “painting software,” the first problem that
arises is “Try to draw a square with sides of length --.” In other
words, the world of Suprematism where Malevich was eventually led was
the most rudimentary. In terms of information aesthetics, Suprematist
paintings were necessarily the paintings with the least amount of
information. In the end, are not the objectives of Malevich equivalent
to the delusions of Don Quixote?
In reality, the thing that was
most needed in this age was the return to a world of nothing, the
“non-objective world” in the words of Malevich himself, and the view
through the eyes of Malevich was equivalent to that of a revolutionary.
A new path was adopted after discarding all existing sense of value. At
virtually the same time, Le Corbusier discovered the white cube. The
awareness of these creators was linked by some deep undercurrent.
In the 1920s, Malevich worked on
the solidification of Suprematism, first creating a gypsum piece called
the “black square,” and then a solid carving called “Suprematist
Architecton” (Fig. II-10). The former could be said to be a single
building block, and the latter combined several rectangular solids and
was a relatively complex piece. Certainly, if enlarged, this could be
conceivable as an architectural structure as is.
In other words, after being led
to absolute zero, Malevich turned back with the intention of setting out
from zero. The impetus to simplify and reduce information stopped and
now turned to the gradual complexification and creation of information.
Therefore, the word “constructive” is appropriate. At the peak of the
Russian Revolution when there was no Czar and a completely new age was
beginning where everything needed to be built up from zero, Malevich
also started from the composition of primitive rectangular solids in the
same way as the establishment of society started from the creation of
the organization called the council (Soviet).
El Lissitzky, who drew paintings
under Chagall, received strong encouragement from and followed this
unique world of Malevich. The series of paintings entitled “Proun” (1920
to 1921) were all literally architectural paintings for a person who had
studied architecture. Although Malevich took the approach of adhering
to, in the words of computer graphics, a single orthogonal
three-dimensional coordinate system by principle and piling rectangular
solids, Lissitzky revealed diagonally arranged rectangular solids
through arbitrarily changing the coordinate system. The groups of forms
then folded and turned along walls and jumped from wall to wall,
stepping into the territory of space design (Fig. II-11).
“Proun” eventually focused on
architectural proposals that were realizable through cooperation with
the architect Mart Stam (1924). This a two- to three-story structure
with a C shape that floated high up in the air, and was securely
supported by two large shafts (Fig. II-12). A typical example of the “to
construct and build” preference of Russian Constructivism can be seen
here. In other words, first there were the column-shaped solids standing
straight up above the ground, which were also in the solid carving of
Malevich. The second was the cantilevered acrobatic structural element
with large arms projecting from the columns to form a shape floating
above the ground. In any case, it was an antithesis of the conventional
idea of being packed with walls
and stuck to the ground as the traditional brick structures show.
Lissitzky left Moscow to
interact with other artists and architects in various other parts of
Europe including Berlin, becoming a type of preacher of the Russian
Constructivist methods. The architects of Europe also focused on the new
trends in Russia, encouraging themselves to the development of
modernism.
The Russian Constructivist
architects had many optimists, who utilized a variety of new forms.
Malevich’s idea of Suprematism developed into the simple assembly of
glass cylinders and groups of large rectangular boxes of the Zuev
Workers’ Club in Moscow by Ilya Golosov, and Ivan Leonidov’s competition
entry for the Narkomtiazhprom building (Commissariat for Heavy Industry
in Moscow) in 1934 (Fig. II-13). The preference for cantilevers was
displayed in the volume of the audience seats of the Rusakov Workers’
Club of Konstantin Melnikov (1929) and the large projecting structure
for spectator stand of the Moscow International Stadium proposal by
Mikhail Korzhev (1925-26) (Fig. II-14).
The Russian Constructivist’s
preference for acrobatic structures was shown early in the famous
“Monument to the Third International” of Vladimir Tatlin (1920) (Fig.
II-15). This was a giant spiral-shaped skeleton structure with iron that
enveloped a slowly rotating main conference hall, and in this case the
structure was completely changed into a large mechanism. The roots of
the rotating landscape restaurant were also in Russian Constructivism,
and the architecture that was at work here was developed in essence.
The process of the departure of
Malevich from absolute zero, the move towards soaring column shapes, the
suspension of cantilevered arms, and the motion of architectural
elements as mechanical devices show that the architectural form of the
20th century was a system of forms that was learned in steps starting
from zero. The challenge of Russian Constructivism should certainly be
called the growth of a newborn baby.
(4) Revolution in drawing method
It was in Early Renaissance of
Italy where the perspective drawing method was born which represents
accurately the feeling of depth in structures and urban spaces. This
perspective drawing method was gradually improved over several hundred
years and was able to offer excellent reproduction of reality by the
19th century. Today, this has become a basic technique for designers
used for a variety of purposes, from pictures of expected buildings to
illustrations for simple pamphlets. However, the artists departed from
perspective drawings at the end of the 19th century and it became rather
modern that did not follow the perspective drawing method.
Because the Impressionist
painters drew vague impressions by discarding any realistic sense of
depth, the perspective drawing method, which aimed simply at accuracy,
became an obstacle. Futurism represented an abstraction of motion of
objects and Picasso merged multiple viewpoints into a single painting,
giving up on representing any of the order that is physically visible to
the eye. Such revolution in drawing method of paintings had no use to
the practical work of architects, though. Renderings of expected
buildings play the role to transmit accurately the information to the
owners of buildings, and so the vagueness and distortions of
Impressionism or congested angular images of Cubism merely confuse the
owners.
Therefore, the perspective
drawing method continued to exist among architects. However, the
revolution in modernist drawing methods that occurred among the artists
was not completely blocked out of the world of architecture. The
axonometric projections began to be widely used as an addition to the
perspective drawing method inherited from the Renaissance. The
perspective drawing has necessarily focal points on one hand, the
axonometric projection uses on the other hand an orthogonal coordinate
system of X, Y, and Z axes, and structures of a rectangular solid shape
are represented only by sets of parallel lines in the X, Y, and Z
directions.
The perspective drawing method
draws the scenery as seen when a single person is standing at a certain
location, and is therefore subjective. By comparison, axonometric
projections can be drawn without specifying where they are viewed from
and are said to be objective. For the people of the Renaissance, which
pursued the revival of humanity, the perspective drawing method was
appropriate, and if this was the case, then would not the age of
axonometric projections become an age of neglecting humanity? In any
case, it should be noted that the age of modernism that originated with
the glorification of humanity was in fact an age that discarded some
aspects of older idea of humanity.
One group that skillfully
employed axonometric projections was the “De Stijl”, Dutch
Constructivist group. The leader of this group, Theo van Doesburg,
designed the “Maison Particulière” (personal house) aiming at
axonometric projections in cooperation with the architect Cornelius van
Eesteren, and exhibited it at the De Stijl exhibition in Paris in 1923
(Fig. II-16). This picture has a plan view tilted at an angle of 45
degrees with height represented as additional. One sheet shows a birds’
eye view and another shows a view looking up from beneath the ground.
This is a viewpoint position similar to looking up at a scale model from
below, and is a viewpoint position that could not actually exist because
it would be viewed from within the ground.
The architectural theorist
Auguste Choisy drew similar axonometric projections from a viewpoint
under the ground in a theoretical architecture book in order to draw a
view looking up at the ceiling of a Gothic church
in the 19th century, and there could be an influence from this.
Perspective drawings have the weakness of making it difficult to
understand the assembly of a structure because columns and spaces are
represented as becoming thinner in the distance in order to express a
feeling of depth. Choisy drew this type of an outlandish axonometric
drawing in order to avoid these weaknesses. Doesburg employed such
features as a new method for recognizing space.
Furthermore, these axonometric
projections were employed by him as an important artistic expression. As
another axonometric projection of the project “Maison Particulière”, he
interpreted the walls and floors as combinations of plate-shaped
rectangular solids and reproduced these as a composition of abstract
shapes (Fig. II-17). Conventional European architecture mainly used
brick construction with stone surface or stucco coatings and had a box
shape surrounded by sturdy walls. These axonometric projections
disassembled this box shape, and interpreted structures as a set of
independent walls.
The painter Piet Mondrian of the same De Stijl group painted abstract
paintings by combining groups of rectangles on a two-dimensional plane,
and these Doesburg diagrams expanded them into three dimensions. He
presented this type of architectural image as an extension of an
artistic work. He was said to be a selfish person who had a habit of
using the person cooperating with him to crystallize his own ideas, and
then leaving him after quarreling. His collaboration with Eesteren was
also successful to choreograph splendidly and achieve a ground-breaking
expression.
De Stijl emphasized the
composition of multiple shapes even more than Malevich’s aspirations for
absolute zero degree, and this contributed to the establishment of a
compositional formation process. This was the beginning of the
self-disintegration of the cube practically that had been the starting
point of the 20th century creative world. But in fact, this was not
simply the destruction of the silhouette, but meant a change from the
centripetal thinking of Malevich to the centrifugal thinking, that is, a
preparation of creative tools to handle the more complex and diverse
requirements. The “Schröder House” (1924) designed by Rietveld remains
in Utrecht as the result, where rectangular surfaces painted in primary
colors freely intermingled with linear elements in a weightless space.
Instead of a symbolic and monumental single piece, this was a complex
shape that was to be the theme for the future.
In a time when independent
reinforced concrete walls were actually possible, this form was
immediately received as a new architectural form. The architect Mies van
der Rohe presented in successive proposals for a concrete rural
residence (1923) and a brick rural residence (1924) at around the same
time that were combination of independent plate-shaped brick and
concrete walls (Fig. II-18). Both of these were idealistic proposals
that were too far ahead of their time and did not come to reality.
However, this concept was realized in the German pavilion of the
Barcelona World Exposition in 1929, commonly known as the “Barcelona
Pavilion,” and became praised as a historical ground-breaking piece of
work.
Axonometric projections were
also employed around the same time by “Bauhaus,” an arts education
institution that made a large contribution to the pioneering of modern
art. This school, which came into existence in
The Art Nouveau style building
designed by Henry van de Velde was used as the Bauhaus school building
in Weimar, and Gropius remodeled a director’s room in this building,
which showed an epoch-making design method. At this time, Herbert Bayer,
who would become known as a graphic designer, drew the interior of the
director’s room using the isometric projection method, and this drawing
became well known (Fig. II-19). This is known as an isometric drawing,
where the left and right sides are tilted at equal angles of 30 degrees,
and the remaining 120 degrees form the corner of the front edge of the
solid. Although the isometric projection is included in the broader
meaning of the axonometric projection, in the axonometric projections
that are generally used, the corner of the end of a rectangular solid
forms an angle of 90 degrees. In Bayer’s isometric drawing, the angle of
the front end is 120 degrees, and the plan view is distorted.
Furthermore, when Bauhaus
relocated to
The axonometric projection is a
method of drawing that is not visually appealing, but is useful for
knowing the precise relationship between components as used also today
for assembly diagrams of axles of automobiles. Looking back from that,
the focus of building design can be said to have shifted to the assembly
of spaces, and this overshadowed the ideas up to the 19th century of
emphasizing the allure of external appearances, particularly facades,
and the details of this. Of course, this also contributed to the idea of
functionalism that emphasized the practicality of the interior spaces
instead of the absurd emphasis and pouring of capital into facades, and
certainly involved a variety of factors, not just the issue of drawing
methods. The extent of the contribution of the revolution in drawing
methods was especially so large that it cannot be overlooked. One can
say that there occurred a change in the early 20th century as large as
the appearance of the perspective drawing method in the Renaissance.
At this point, the idea of the
viewpoint seen by a human being was abandoned fundamentally, and a human
being as a subject became irrelevant for the objects. As the age of
Renaissance, although meant literally the revival of humanity,
emphasized in reality nurturing of selected individual genius, and as
spaces in the baroque age were ordered for a single person like the king
Louis XIV who said that “L'État,
c'est moi”,
humanity as meant in the Renaissance in wide meaning was a concept for
particular gifted men. The modern society that had shifted even further
from civil society to mass society was an age of the countless masses,
not of particular individuals. The axonometric projection is a method of
drawing that actually symbolically represents this modern age, and the
existence which bears an end of the architectural style of the 20th
century.
(5) Machine models
Machine, and particularly
automatic machine, must be raised as one of the new ideas that
characterized the early 20th century. As explained earlier how the
futurist artists had followed the road of machine cult, including
machine guns and tanks, the feature of machines as the symbol of the
20th century was automation. Although the futurists envisioned cities
assuming train and car transportation as horizontal movement devices and
elevators as vertical movement devices, the outlandish high-tension
power pylons that appeared in these paintings showed that the new age
was to be constructed by electromagnetism.
One aspect of the newness of the
neoclassical architecture from the 18th and the 19th century was that
the order created by beams and columns symbolically represented the
static order. Neoclassicism was modeled on the architecture of Greek
temples. For architects, the ancient Greek ornaments were important, but
the solidly standing columns and clear horizontal beams of the temple
architecture were furthermore important. This was a metaphor for
statics.
With the arrival of the 20th
century, metaphors for “dynamics” appeared in architectural designs. One
person who was particularly motivated by this word was the German
Expressionist architect Eric(h) Mendelsohn. He used the term “the
dynamics of blood” and sought a new architectural form as if pouring
cultural character to the science.
Although he is also known as the
designer of the “Einstein Tower” (1924) who also interacted with fellow
Jewish German Einstein, this celestial observatory standing on the top
of a hill near Potsdam was also intended to prove Einstein’s theory of
relativity from celestial observations (Fig. II-21). The tower that can
be seen as this multistory building actually has a smoke-stack shape,
and light passing through the telescope contained within the dome at the
apex can be reflected some times by mirrors and fed into a laboratory
stretching out horizontally toward the back. The curious structure like
kneaded clay with the windows gouged out by pallet obviously exceeds the
needs as a celestial observatory, and is certainly an Expressionist
design. Mendelsohn focused on this type motion inherent in the shape,
and made the term “dynamics of blood” his keyword of the design.
On the other hand, he presented
as the style of urban architecture a streamlined form with flowing
contour lines and continuous horizontal windows and dominated the time,
such as in the “Schocken Department Store” in Stuttgart and Chemnitz,
and the “Universum” movie theater compound building that was built in
Berlin’s principal avenue Ku’damm (Fig. II-22). Streamlining was chosen
as an architectural style that suits the urban background and had come
to take on a feeling of speed with street cars and automobile traffic.
Of course, since the buildings did not move and the streamlined forms
needed in transportation machines such as automobiles were not necessary
in real buildings, this was merely an architectural representation of a
metaphor for transportation machines.
Le Corbusier coined the phrase
that “a house is a machine for living in,” which had a significant
effect on the architectural image of the 20th century. This phrase has
become so famous that it is often misinterpreted. The misinterpretation
often arises from stretching the interpretation of Le Corbusier’s words
beyond the machine images considered by Le Corbusier into general
mechanisms. In order to understand an overall picture of the first half
of the 20th century, though, it is appropriate to take a broader
interpretation and inadvisable to focus strictly on the thoughts of Le
Corbusier.
The motif of the houses of Le
Corbusier was that of a luxury liner, with the machine being the ship as
a residential device floating in space. He presented also the
influential phrases titled “five points of modern architecture”. Those
contained the proposal for pilotis on ground level and rooftop garden,
and this was related to the image of housing designed by Le Corbusier
like a passenger ship brought onto land and supported by columns.
Although expressiveness of the kind of the metaphor of streamlining like
that of Mendelsohn was not Le Corbusier’s preference, he also created
words such as “Citroen House” as a play on words of the French car
Citroen. Furthermore, houses were given a style reminiscent of the
interior of a passenger ship, such as the introduction of steel spiral
staircases and multistory spaces.
What should be broadly
interpreted in the words “a house is a machine for living in,”
particularly with the appearance of low-cost residential apartments, is
the need to consider the arrangement of function within a unit,
particularly the three-dimensional reconstruction and striking
rationalization of the kitchen, which was the site of housework. At this
time, the idea of practical and Constructivist systematic
three-dimensional design was created, which was unrelated to the poetic
and romantic words of Le Corbusier.
The Constructivism of Russia and
the Netherlands, as described earlier, changed from the 19th century
perception of architectural beauty of focusing on the facade, and taught
that there was art in the assembly of cuboids. This Constructivist
aesthetics did not come from the architectural rationalism of necessity
and functionality that began to be led by Otto Wagner of Vienna and
others, but was created as an artistic movement. Because this eventually
found a building form in the
This diverse range of architects
conceived machines with their own images as models of the new
architectural style. In order for the buildings to become machines in
which people live, it was still early in Europe where most people still
lived in brick buildings, yet the various mechanical models had an
effect on the designs of each architect. The results were gathered
together in a large trend called functionalism. What functionalism has
given to the new house design was that the house functions well, that
is, it handles rationally the desired functions, and then houses have
been transformed into something like simple machines, even if they were
not highly complex machines.
As described earlier, the cube
was decomposed into planes by Constructivism and moved into the
dimension of compositional formation, and it moved into the dimension of
dynamic spatial formation through the subsequent addition of mechanical
models. The house itself does not move, it is the people that move. The
rational linking of people with architectural spaces became a device
that was useful to people. The theme of rationalization of the
circulation lines that were incorporated into the kitchen in particular
was symbolic.
In
The headquarter building was
formed from a high-rise tower and a low-rise building coiled around it,
and the building exhibited a complex shape that appeared to be the
result of rather functional considerations than the external appearance,
such as the arrangement of various rooms and circulation line planning.
The conference hall showed the acoustical calculations, and formed an
irregular dome shape. The visual presentation that integrates all parts
is, if anything, the staggered contour line as if enveloping the
complicated plan.
The abstract formation of
Russian and Dutch Constructivism, which composed solids while
maintaining a coordinate system of orthogonal X, Y, and Z axes,
transformed into the realistic functionalism with the grouping method of
picturesque sensibility during this period. Le Corbusier, surely the
poet of geometry, subdued the lakeside scenery wrapped in green in
addition to horizontally expanding the architectural volume. Meyer, on
the other hand, exposed the two unaligned high-rise towers and the
irregular dome, and frankly asserted functionality like a factory. Cubes
were completely dismantled and simple clear contours were lost.
Disregarding we love or hate, this can be said to show one aspect of
20th century reality of aiming for mechanical rationality, if we
consider that this was further developed into more highly mechanical
device image that became the architectural motif of the 1960s.
(*1) Antonio
Sant'Elia, “Manifesto dell'architettura futurista”, 1914.
(*2) Ibid.
4. Romanticism in the 1930s
(1) Temptation to fascism architecture
The 20th century began with the
pursuit of the simplicity of neoclassicism, sunk to the absolute zero of
the cube, then turned to the composition of cuboids and developed into
mechanical complexity. During these 20 years, 19th century concepts were
firmly swept away, and the basic form of 20th century architecture was
determined. This was the age of the creation of a new framework.
This age was the age under the
initiative of “reason” in the meaning of phlosophy, i.e., an age where
the rationalistic logic took precedence. The opening of this age had a
mere handful of avant-garde intellectuals. They rocked the foundations
on which the masses rested, and this would unfortunately be frankly
opposed by the naive public with an inclination to fear the change, even
if a new rational foundation would be built in the near future. The form
of the new architecture of modernism was often the subject of this kind
of disgust. The revolution by reason in the early 20th century did not
proceed smoothly.
In 1927, an experimental housing
exhibition was held by the German Worker Federation over the hill of
Weissenhof in the suburbs of Stuttgart. This incorporated the ideas of
the modernist architects from each country in Europe, and exhibited a
common architectural style that would later come to be known as
“International Style”, a particularly notable result even in the history
of modernism.
However, although this drew many
visitors, the question was also raised of whether future housing, where
the tiled pitched roof had disappeared and the walls were painted plain
pure white, would be accepted. A chasm appeared between the avant-garde
intellectuals who were proposing new forms and the common conservative
citizens.
The contours of houses were
thoroughly simplified, and rational formations based on Constructivism
became the overall foundation. Mies van der Rohe, who was also the
planner of the overall plan, exhibited an apartment block with a simple
long, thin box-shape that took away the artificialness. Gropius proposed
a steel framework house that would be the frontrunner of prefabricated
construction called in German “Trocken Montage Bau” (“dry assembly
building”). Le Corbusier realized housing that employed his own
architectural theory, which included pilotis, rooftop gardens, and
continuous windows. There remained indeed embers of individualistic
Expressionism in the vibrant use of colors of Bruno Taut’s advocating of
colorful architecture or the curved motif of Hans Scharoun, but the
architectural forms were significantly simplified and unified overall,
and this was a clear declaration of the birth of a new style based on
abstract cubes (Fig. II-24).
Incidentally, as the flipside to
this success of modernism, the year 1927, when the Weissenhof housing
exhibition was held, was actually a watershed moment in history. Unlike
The culture of rationalism and
universality of a civil society brought on once by the French Revolution
also flowed into late 18th-century Germany. Although even the people of
the city welcomed the cosmopolitan yet modern culture at that time, when
Napoleon eventually became an emperor who ruled over Europe, there was
rise of nationalism in various countries in the 1810s, and Napoleon was
overthrown. Gothic styles became the banner of nationalist symbolism as
resistance to the internationalized neoclassical styles introduced from
France. This rational universal architectural culture was wrapped in
dissatisfaction, and an approach of romanticism was revealed, which
attempted to preserve the native architectural cultures since the middle
ages that showed their own identity.
The rise of nationalistic
culture in the 1930s to the point of abnormality resembled this, and was
produced from the feeling of danger that traditional culture would be
rejected by a culture that strove for the new universality. These can be
said to have been romantic fluctuation in an age reason’s initiative.
Architectural style played a surprisingly large role at that time, and
the International Style and traditional style were now in opposition, in
the same way as the level of opposition between neoclassical and gothic
forms.
In the 1930s,
Amongst this, the young
conservative architect Albert Speer suddenly appeared on the scene.
Adolf Hitler, who tried to reproduce the authority of the Roman empire
under the name of the “Third Reich”, liked his architectural sense, and
this produced the architectural style of the Nazis that was based on
neoclassicism. Rationality and functionality that had been the themes of
modernism were repudiated from the roots up, and architectural styles
that were reminiscent of old Roman architecture and alters experienced a
revival. The theme was eternal buildings with a preference for simple
stone structures, and the futuristic and airy image of modernism was
intentionally discarded.
The Nuremburg rallying grounds
(1934) designed by Speer and the Berlin Olympic stadium (1936) by Werner
March were stone buildings that showed the approach of a preference for
robustness and a sense of weight that was in directly the opposite
direction from the skeletal lightweight structures of Gropius. This was
meant to be raised as the antithesis of modernism that started as a
torrent in the 20th century. Hitler, who had dreams of impossible
eternal structures, flowed with the blood of radical romanticism.
However, this was not simple
reactionism, but included a unique modernity. For the Nazis, who created
the Volkswagen, utilized the new media of radio for public
announcements, trampled Europe with blitzkriegs, and launched rocket
bombs at
In Italy at around the same
time, Giuseppe Terragni, Adalberto Libera, and the other members of
“Movimento Italiano per l'Architettura Razionale (MIAR)” created a
popular architectural style. Even here, although the rationality was the
key term for the architectural style, the focus was placed more on
visual effect of rationality, i.e., whether the appearance of
geometrical order was strictly regular and self-consistent, than on
functional rationality. The architectural style of the Italian Fascist
party was also born from these rationalist architects, which was due to
the aspiration for the order that tended toward the perfectionism of
shapes.
The geometric forms were applied
as an expression of the power of eccentricity. The features of fascist
architecture of huge cold walls, tall soaring pillars, and regular
sequences of architectural elements were derived from the
characteristics of simple clear shapes appearing threatening when scaled
up (Fig. II-26). Although the cubic shapes of modernism had brilliant
life breathed into them, these were also used for an monumentality
beyond ordinariness and aestheticism of formalism, and were largely
removed from the functional rationality for everyday life.
The monumental architectural
style of the Nazis and the Italian fascists had a common formal beauty
having a transcendental scale. In Germany, the norms recurred to the
classical age were sought, and in Italy, the proportional beauty of the
Renaissance buildings was sought. Both of these shared the motivation of
resisting the sudden flow of modernism.
The fact that Speer disliked
Gropius while feeling an affinity for Mies indicates that Speer felt
sympathy with the posture that Mies finally devoted himself to the
formal beauty of structural order rather than functional. Scientific
rationality discarded the irrationality of humanity as discussed
earlier, and the problem of the 1930s had a character of the hysterical
self-defense of this irrationality. Here can be seen the similar
composition as the romanticism of the early 19th century, that thorough
rationalism conversely nurtured a radical opposition.
(2) Budding point of organic architecture
The radical romanticism of the
1930s visible in Nazism became a blemish on history that carries the
confusion and destruction of society, but if we focus only on the
romantic fluctuation, there is an aspect that is the inevitability of
history. In other words, if modernism had walked independently without
accepting any criticism, then it would have become a new authority and a
healthy balance would have been lost.
The theme of the 1930s was that
the forward-looking reason and the opposition to it were the two forces
that were balanced to preserve the totality of humanity. A new movement
appeared in Northern Europe, in other words, the rural areas of Europe.
Alvar Aalto of
By the way, Japan also began to
be affected by modernism in the Taisho era, and coordination of
modernism and tradition became a large theme in the early Showa era,
that should also be treated as the same worldwide romanticism
phenomenon. Many people often questioned the “the Japanese” or
“Wafu”(Japanese way) in Japan, that is indeed the problems only within
Japan. But the theme of the harmony with indigenity and cultural
climate, that arose throughout the world as modernism became a torrent
in the 20th century and spread to every region, is best understood by
summarizing as the international romantic movements.
To oppose individuality against
universality of rationalism should be seen as an incidental reaction
process that was incorporated into the program of modernization itself.
At the least, the problem of “Wafu”(Japanese way) faced by the modernist
architects of Japan had the same entry point as the problem of cultural
climate faced by Aalto. Differences arise only in the construction of
the problem, if this is treated only as a domestic problem or as
elevated to a problem of universal style.
If we look at what Aalto did, he
first absorbed the International Style where the concept of the cube was
subtly developed, and then melded with the environment of this style. In
the Paimio Sanatorium (1929), Aalto took the rational architectural
style of steel reinforced concrete that had already been developed by
the pioneers in
There was already no shadow of
19th century architecture, as if Aalto was a person from a generation
that did not know of 19th century things. Aalto again used neoclassical
design methods up until just prior to Paimio, and used sunken Doric
order columns in a 1924 Workers’ Club (Jyväskylä). This corresponded to
the neoclassicism of Behrens at the early 20th century, and was not the
neoclassicism of the 19th century, though. This point was equal to the
simplified neoclassical style exhibited by Asplund in the Stockholm
Library (1920 to 1928), with Northern Europe showing a time lag of
approximately 10 years compared with the rapidly changing styles of
One feature of Paimio that
attracts attention is the minimization of connecting circulation lines
between buildings with a folded line arrangement like branches
bifurcating while growing (Fig. II-28). Because the rationalism of
Constructivism employed a framework of orthogonal X, Y, and Z
coordinates, it did not give bends other than 90 degrees, and Aalto was
suitable for the meaning of functional rationality. In other words, the
arrangement that appears to be free at first glance in Aalto’s building
composition was a more natural expression than functionalism.
Although Hannes Meyer exhibited
radical functionalism in a combination of towers and horizontally
expansive headquarter building with a large swollen conference hall in
the competition entry for the Palace of the League of Nations, Aalto
took the same compositional method and removed the orthogonal
three-dimensional coordinate system, shifting to a topological system.
Both of these took the background of a composition method with the
actual picturesque style composition as used frequently in the 19th
century, i.e., combination of towers, masses, and horizontal elements,
which is so similar to the trinity idea of “shin”(formal),
“gyou”(semiformal) and “sou”(informal) in Japanese flower arrangement.
The idea of scenic design that preferred this kind of change and motion
was merged with functional rationalism. For Aalto, functionalism sat on
a more relaxed, natural functionalism, and this later came to be
referred to as organicism.
In order to understand this
organicism, there is one pattern motif; it is the horseshoe shape that
can be seen at the entrance to Paimio. This was the approach leading up
to the deep entrance that allowed canopies to be attached to the sides,
and showed the merest hint of naive functional rationality. This calmly
flowing horseshoe shape could also be seen in the Garkau farm house
(1922 to 1926) of Hugo Häring, one of modernist architects group in
Berlin, who criticized the geometrical system of “A Contemporary City
for 3 Million Inhabitants” proposal of Le Corbusier and raised its
problem with the orthogonal three-dimensional coordinate system. There
was a cattle barn and the owner should give feed to the cattle, that
resulted in a single horseshoe shape instead of a straight approach and
return (Fig. II-29). The second story of this cattle barn had a concrete
floor slightly tilted like a cone, which was to make it easier to drop
hay into the feed troughs below. This barn with the distortions is
perhaps better said to be a cattle breeding machine rather than a
building, but was an organicist machine unlike the mechanical images of
the Futurists and Le Corbusier. Häring who was known as a theorist also
advocated for the term “organic” architecture.
It is famous that the horseshoe
shape was used in the large residential apartment block of the Siedlung
Britz in Berlin by the Expressionist Bruno Taut, where it was not a
functional form but a mere symbolic form. The horseshoe shape of Aalto
was closer to the functionalism of Häring. It is unknown whether Aalto
viewed the plans of the complex of the Garkau farm houses, but there
could be found a group of different forms of buildings including a
pointed arch-shaped structure and so on, with the arrangement also
seemingly random at the first glance. The site plan of Paimio certainly
set a conceptual precedent there.
Eventually, the characteristic
organic curves called Aalto curves appeared in the 1930s, such as in the
meandering ceiling of “Viipuri Library” (1935) and the flowing slanting
walls of the “Finnish Pavilion at the New York World Fair” (1939) (Fig.
II-30). These were the theme through Aalto’s lifetime, and appear in
walls and ceilings in a variety of buildings. Traces of the rational
thinking of functionalism could be not seen here any more, and were pure
intuition that exceeded rationality. The transition from the horseshoe
shape to Aalto curves can be thought of as jumping from rationalism to
irrationalism. However, Aalto curves differed from the intuition of
Expressionist architecture, such as the Einstein Tower or the Second
Goetheanum by Rudolf Steiner, and are undoubtedly the result of a
transition from functional rationality to organicism.
The greatest harvest of
romanticism in the 1930s was Aalto. This certainly continued the
development from 1920s Constructivism to functionalism, and yet it
included a critical look at modern rationalism. The orthogonal
three-dimensional coordinate forms were discarded and the mechanical
coldness of radical functionalism was also discarded, but this did not
suffer from the syndrome of hysterical reaction against modernism of the
Nazi and fascist architectures. Modern rationalism could relax in the
forests of Northern Europe on the margins of Europe while observing the
battle between modernism and anti-modernism in the center of
As can also be seen from
Futurism and Constructivism, modern rationality was tightly bound to a
revolution against the existing senses of values. The rationalists of
the 1920s wiped away the things of the 19th century and aimed at
building up a new value system. Reason had to be clear and simple, and a
banner for the revolution had to be summarized into a single word. Many
people cannot be appealed to and led in a single direction by a vague
and complex image. Modern rationality therefore aimed for the direction
of forming a one-dimensional sense of value. The white cube of Le
Corbusier visually symbolized this one dimensionality. Aalto curves
appeared as a visual symbol with a sense of value that repudiated this
white cube.
Aalto curves are a form that
surpasses rationality, and have unlimited development and freedom that
appears merely as playfulness at a glance. This also represented the
formality of neoclassicism of the early 19th century as well as that of
the freedom of romanticism, and the composition of the contrast between
the aspiration for formality of modern rationalism and the trend towards
freedom of organicism was revealed at this point as if in a faceoff.
Romanticism only has a relative existence within the structure of ideas
of modernism and only takes the position of being able to savor the
freedom of the heart thanks to the existence of rationalism that
preserves formality. Freedom that forgets formality is nothing more than
simple chaos, and cannot form a functional structure.
5. Theory of the spatial structure
(1) Way of thinking in cultural anthropology
The composition of antagonism
between modernism and fascism of the 1930s, i.e., the antagonism between
20th century rationalism and radical romanticism, is lost in the period
of chaos of World War II.
This was also the same in
Whereas nationalism became a
relic of the past and advocacy of excessive nationalistic identities
were considered dangerous. Internationalism was strongly pushed forward,
particularly in the socialist bloc, and a social order surpassing
nationalism and religion was constructed. However, because this new
social order took on a form of being pushed by brute force, the
subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union was accompanied by a reactionary
resurgence of old religions, and these became wrapped up in fierce
interracial conflicts.
Although the structure of this
victory of functional rationalism and defeat of nationalistic
romanticism was the solution to the problems of the 1930s, the times
pass rapidly and the doctrine of duality was quickly overshadowed.
Functional rationalism was blamed to be too simple and a more skillful
logic was searched. Whereas, apart from the 19th century global system
of nation states based on nationality and history, people’s eyes were
opened to the existence of more real social groupings, and the cultural
anthropology began to spread. The ideal shape of cities and buildings
did not simply follow scientific rationality, and was searched in the
different point from global power structures or governmental
administration systems.
The term “structure” became
convenient there among architects and urban planners. This was not the
physical structure referred to by structural mechanics, but was more a
soft meaning of social structure or cultural structure. In France, the
cultural anthropologist Lévi-Strauss performed research on primitive
people, and the existence of primitive social structures was treated not
simply as the mechanisms of slow-developing societies, but as knowledge
of social construction applied universally to all mankind (*2). This
formed a school of thought called “structuralism,” and had an effect on
a wide range of fields. The logic of primitive societies was even
applied to the analysis of large cities in developed countries, and this
was accepted as a new theory by architects and urban planners.
The writer Bernard Rudofsky
wrote the best-selling book “Architecture Without Architects (*3)” in
1964, and presented settlements of primitive societies, noting that
designs that did not exist in any kind of modern architectural design,
or that surpassed these, were realized by unnamed people (Fig. II-31).
Although this itself had a direct connection with cultural anthropology
of structuralism, the discussed themes were the same.
The two dimensional antagonism
between rationalism and irrationalism in the 1930s focused on small
tribes instead of nations, and was skillfully replaced by a third method
by focusing on logic that only prevailed in small groups rather than
globally universal logic. Way of thinking from the part rather than the
whole made it as possible. Although the theme of cultural climate
pursued by Aalto and others around the 1930s were only rated as having a
peripheral relationship with the center or complimentary to global
universal logic, at this time, the concept of a universal whole was
rejected, and a new awareness was born that the universality already
resides at the periphery of the world.
French structuralism developed
into the semiotics of Roland Barthes and others, giving birth to
architectural theory that employed semiotics, and this vocabulary also
had a large effect on architectural criticism. However, it was not
argued yet on the way of thinking of structuralism inherent in the
architectural thought of this period. In particular, the way of thinking
that was common to the cultural anthropology of structuralism is
somewhat useful in order to understand the path traced by the
architectural styles of the 20th century under the initiative of reason
(*4).
The
Dutch architect Aldo van Eyck
undertook studies of the Pueblo Indians and other people, and recognized
that village structure that was also called primitive had a unique
spatial sense of value. He then applied this theory to the design of an
“Orphanage” (1957 to 1960) in
The house in a primitive village
was first created without division into functional partitions and
without thinking about how it would be used. For example, if there was a
village with a certain number of families, then only that number of
houses was created, and these were arranged to form a suitable circle
around a central space that was shared. As the village gradually
developed, with the creation of warehouses and temple-like spaces, they
were often shaped like a house. In other words, unlike the idea of the
division of roles of functionalism, the form of buildings and the
village structure that determines their distribution are decided at
first. The empirical knowledge about the relationship between parts and
the whole is useful there.
In the case of Van Eyck’s
orphanage, two types of large and small cubic space units crowned by
each dome roof are created, and then integrated appropriately with the
administration building and front garden space to the whole complex
(Fig. II-32). This was certainly the application of the village
structure of a primitive society to architectural plans. It was not only
this work, but he applied what should be called a design method of
“structural theory”. In the proposal for a new church under the concept
called the “wheels of heaven” (1964), four circular rooms produced the
shape of ladder-shaped frameworks, and this was also a development of
this method(Fig. II-33).
What is necessary for the
structural theory method, is to define the puristic base forms as the
units and then the connective relationship between the multiple units as
the structure. In the functionalist method, the whole was divided into
several functions, and the space was partitioned according those
functions, whose method is named zoning. This had the feature of the
method of partitioning, where the parts were created only after the
whole is partitioned and the parts could not be independent. In the
structural theory method, the parts come first and the whole is decided
later. There the parts could be even independent separately according to
circumstances. As it is named the system theory to inquire how the
relationship between the parts and the whole, the nature of the system
differs here between the two.
The changes in 20th century
architectural styles were actually produced from such changes in the
nature of the system. Constructivism took the formal system of geometry
as the theme, functionalism used this as a base to take spatial system
as the theme while considering the function of the space, and organicism
took more natural spatial system as the theme by discarding the themes
of formal system. Structural theory then attempted to give definite
patterns to spatial system that are irregular at first glance and
proposed patterned spatial structures.
The focus on primitive society
came against a background of a large historical movement of the 20th
century of self-denial of European society. Rudofsky certainly admired
the organic spatial structures established in the primitive society that
are not necessarily designed by anyone. This means a critical view of
the European civilization where is created the habit of singling out the
artist by their personal name since Renaissance.
At the same time, this was also
against the background of the profound impulse towards universality
aimed for by 20th century Europe, and was not carried out under any
simple attempt to protect primitive society as humanism. They entered
primitive societies, performed structural analysis, and deduced abstract
logic. For the architects, this logic was brought back and applied as
new design methods. Even when a model was sought of primitive society,
this was a field for sophisticated development by modern rationality.
Incidentally, also in Japan,
many surveys of the historical town at various sites in Japan were
conducted in the 1960s under the name “design survey” by architects and
architectural historians like Yuichiro Kojiro, Mayumi Miyawaki, and
others, and research on Japanese unique spatial structures was conducted
resulting into the book “Japanese Urban Space” (*5) by Arata Isozaki and
others. Broadly speaking, this can be said to be one corner of the
global age of structural theory. Attempts to elucidate the principles of
spatial structure from primitive villages continued in Japan up to the
world village survey of Hiroshi Hara (*6).
Until now, the structural
outline of the International Style and its regional development has been
widely used to understand the architecture up until the 1960s. However,
as noted earlier, this dualism was just a theme of the 1930s, and the
initiative of 20th century reason did not necessarily stop at that
point. It should be noted that the insufficiencies of the logic of
functionalism were once surmounted by the logic of the structural
theory.
(2) Urban structure
The Estonian-born American
architect Louis Kahn was known for unique mysterious forms, and he came
to be like a guru amongst architects. However, this was a result of his
personal sense of form and psyche, and has almost no relation to the
underflows of history of the 20th century. Although it is scarcely
pointed out, his logic relied certainly on the spatial structural theory
of this period. This provides a glimpse of the footsteps of 20th century
reason.
He presented proposed reforms to
the city center of
Only that, each of these units
was completely different from the image of high-rise buildings that had
been born with the gradual development of theories of rational and
economic structures. This idea also differed fundamentally from the
architectural styles of the time that continued to transform into
asymmetric complex shapes that considered the functional spatial
partitioning, and carried a monumentality like classical altars. This
came to solidify the symbol of Kahn as a hero who rejected 20th century
modern rationalism and pioneered a new monumentality. Furthermore, the
theory that 1970s post modernism started from that time has also been
claimed. Looking at history from a bird’s eye view, however, the way of
thinking of Kahn is located within the genealogy of modern reason.
Kahn was also famous for his
clear separation of “served spaces” and “servant spaces.” His theory was
that it would be good to have main spaces where the function is not
particularly defined and support spaces supporting them behind, and this
was again a method peculiar Kahn that supplanted functionalism. For
example, at the Pennsylvania State University Medical Research Center
(1957 to 1964), a column-free space with a square floor plan was
prepared at first, and stacked into seven stories solids, whose five
towers as main units are combined via a central tower as a forum. The
thin square towers as the support spaces that contained the toilets,
elevators, etc. are added outside of the each main units. The structure
of individual, large square main spaces with small square support
spaces, and the structure of a grouping of those five units clearly show
the relationship between the parts and the whole in the structural
theory (Fig. II-35).
The structural theory of design
also had a large impact on Japan, and Kenzo Tange took this as his own.
In the Yamanashi Culture Hall (1964 to 1967), several cylindrical shapes
were lined up and office spaces etc. are arranged appropriately in
between (Fig. II-36). At the least, in the floor plan, this created the
feeling of cone-shaped residences in a primitive village arranged in a
line, but in this case, they were cylindrical columns that contained
toilets and stairs. These were servant spaces in the words of Kahn, and
at the same time columns that formed a framework, and therefore they
were arranged in an orderly uniform lattice rather than in a free
arrangement, which support the rest free space as served space.
Van Eyck designs that were
similar to it at a glance in a roman catholic church (1968) in The
Hague, where the circular shapes were small prayer rooms, and the pipes
of sky-lights opened in the ceiling (Fig. II-37). For him, the circular
unit was an independent spatial unit, and this itself was
self-promoting. It seems after all that Tange referenced each of the
design methods of van Eyck and Kahn and rearranged to his own spatial
structure, but this can also be read as the effect of the large Buddhist
temples in Japan with rows of round pillars.
Tange had almost no interest in
the spatial structure of village level and exhibited predominance in the
display of uniform spatial structures of units. The “1960 Tokyo Plan”
written by Tange was splendid for designing a city above the sea by
crossing Tokyo Bay with a network of ladder-shaped highways and
arranging buildings in cluster shapes that extended branches above the
sea, and was paid attention from the world. The Yamanashi Cultural Hall
was also proposed as part of an extensible urban structure, with
cylindrical columns arranged throughout the city as the “cores” and
floors connecting these created in the required location only when
needed.
At this stage, the reality of a
village was abstracted as a spatial structure theory, and the idea of a
new architectural design method that took small villages as the ideal
transformed into the spatial structure that assembled a large city. For
Tange, who was aware to be responsible for the reconstruction of the
nation after the war, this could be extended to a super-large city
structure at the territorial structure level called the Tokaido
Megalopolis, and this reflected the conditions unique to the period
racing from post-war reconstruction to post-war economic miracle.
That Japanese architects began
to go shoulder to shoulder with and attracted the attention from
architects of the world is recognized that the standards of Japanese
architects had risen to such high level from the domestic viewpoint in
Japan. As can be understood from the way of thinking of cultural
anthropology, though, it could be said, there arose a new global
cultural structure that the new intellectualism of the world focused
more on the periphery than the center, and while Europe was undergoing
self-dinial as the center, the also Japanese architects at the periphery
were provided with the stage. The fact that Japanese architects had
interacted with the world indicates that it was a period of
structuralism of anthropology.
The architects originally
responsible for structural theory were the members gathered for the
preparation of 10th CIAM conference (Team X) and were representatives of
a new age. They pointed out to the masters Le Corbusier and Gropius that
their architectural theories had already fallen behind the times, and
sought for a new theory. The rise of the structural theory was
eventually the result of the criticism against the functionalism as the
first generation of modernism and the intergenerational fighting to
overcome those deficiencies.
Modernism means the thought to
be modern, if taken purely from the interpretation of the word, and is
to focus always upon one step ahead of the present. Therefore, it is not
possible to be content with what is thought to be new at the present.
Theory was also constantly searching for things newer than the present,
and never solidified. Even the architectural theories of Le Corbusier
were also overtaken by newer modernism and eventually destined to be
driven into the past.
Only if the “Plan Voisin” of Le
Corbusier (1925) is compared with the “Golden Lane Project” drawn by
Alison and Peter Smithson (1951 to 1953), the magnitude of the chasm
between the two was known (Fig. II-38). The idea of the Smithsons began
with a maisonette style board-shaped high-rise apartment block, and at
this level, it exhibited commonality with the “Unité d'Habitation” of
the high-rise apartment block Le Corbusier had realized at Marseille
etc. But the Smithsons saw this as a unit of urban structure that
connected to other units, and created a larger unit on the plan like the
cut-off end of a twig. This unit connected to the cut-off ends of other
twigs without aligning the directions. In this way, the parts gradually
expanded into a large part, forming a city that was overall like a bushy
shrub. The overall shape was not intended by the architects themselves,
and could also form unexpected shapes.
The logic of not specifying the
whole but only the relationship between the parts was a decisive
difference from Le Corbusier who partitioned giant rectangular shapes
into grids. There arose a criticism that the procedure of a single
architect such as Le Corbusier deciding the entire image was an
indication of the arrogance of the architects, and even totalitarian.
The Smithsons’ city certainly avoided this weak point and the overall
silhouette was not designed by themselves, but entrusted to the
preestablished harmony.
The infrastructure does not
stand out in the least there. In Tange’s “1960 Tokyo Plan,” although the
network of highways as infrastructure was displayed strongly in a hard
form, Smithson’s showed that it was good to be flexible in the nature of
the structural theory. It seems like the complete dismantlement of the
dream of Le Corbusier who thought the pure shape as the ideal.
(3) Future city as an urban machine
Even though spatial structural
theory started from cultural anthropology research into primitive
villages, the architects who provided 20th century intellectualism were
still in the machine age. As for the relationship between the parts and
the whole, machine was certainly a systematic existence where the parts
were integrated to construct the whole. The romanticism that saw the
ideals in the primitive villages could easily turn into a type of
romanticism that dreamed of futuristic machines through a small change
in thought.
The “Archigram” group formed in
the 1960s by several people including Peter Cook, Ron Herron, and Denis
Crompton attempted to treat the city as machine. The Futurism of the
1910s and a modernist trend to treat machines as a metaphor of the
1920s, employed machines on the rudimentary level of the time as a
motif, though, the period of half of the century has transformed the
machines themselves and changed them into robotic automatic machines.
The idea of treating buildings as residential machines began to be
displayed in the mode of residential robots.
The “Walking City” of Ron Herron
(1964) envisioned a single city as a chunk floating in the air, with
home and office windows arranged in a regular array like a beehive on
the surface of the fat submarine-like solid (Fig. II-39). This giant
chunk could walk slowly using large telescopic legs, touring the world
such that there are sometimes multiple Walking Cities against the
background of
The idea of the high-rise
buildings forming a single urban unit, like the “Unité d'Habitation” of
Le Corbusier, was further developed at this time, rendering an urban
image like a space station or space ship. Le Corbusier’s idea of pilotis
as support columns raising the city into the air were further changed
into walking legs. Although this kind of science fiction-type image was
expected to take of the order of one century to achieve, it presented at
least a symbolic image of the 20th century city.
While the designers draw urban
images of such robotic city, the theme of “mobility” of a city became a
topic of discussion with reality, and cities came to be viewed as
devices with the dynamics corresponding to the motion of people more
than as collections of static buildings. However, in reality, it didn’t
go beyond that the automobile society appeared where individuals could
freely and quickly drive around the city, the cities were connected with
super high-speed rail connections and the cities of the world able to be
crossed by airplane, and mobility did not reach the point where the
image of architecture itself is changed fundamentally. The problem to be
discussed here is not the extent of the technological revolution, but
the fact that the systematic thinking architecture was established there
that assembled structures called machines.
The Archigram proposals of 1964
also included a project called the “Plug-in City,” which showed a
relatively realistic city image. There were rendered several different
structures. The structures like inverted cones with thick trunks
attaching a lot of capsules, the structures like intermittent cylinders
stuck with axis, and the frameworks inclined at 45 degrees with capsules
attaching like terraced fields are found there and various forms are
experimented (Fig. II-40). The point to be paid attention here is the
clear division of the conventional structure into a structural body and
capsules.
The “cluster” method can be seen
here, with a fixed structural pattern given to the relationship between
the parts and the whole. The capsules were like vehicles without wheels,
and were devices that compactly contained people. The frames of the
devices were made from metal, with unitized toilets and kitchens inside.
On the other hand, the part assumed as the trunk contained pipes
connected to each capsule. The network of pipes under the ground now
stood up vertically, forming a tree-like cluster structure.
Borrowing the terminology of
Kahn’s served spaces and servant spaces, the capsules were served spaces
and the trunk corresponds to servant spaces. Even in the Medical
Research Center of Kahn, the cantilevered beams became thinner towards
the end like a branch, and parallelepiped boxes were suspended and put
side by side from these. If this concrete building is considered to be
replaced by metal, the structure of the buildings is basically the same
as that of Archigram.
In the “Plug-in City,” the
capsules could be connected in the same way as inserting a plug into a
power socket, and there was a separation of the immovable trunk and the
movable capsules. The immovable part of the city was only the part of
the trunk that contained the lifelines, and the capsules could be moved
or replaced with new products. On the one hand, the capsules were not
the job of a conventional architectural company but were factory
products like automobile production. On the other hand, the network
assumed as core was a structure of the scale of civil engineering. This
kind of spatial structure was equivalent to the binary separation method
into housing units and central open space of a primitive village. The
“Plug-in City” could be said to be a modern primitive village.
The idea of capsules took on
concrete form in the
The “Metabolism” group
consisting of Kiyonori Kikutake, Fumihiko Maki, Masato Ootaka, and Kisho
Kurokawa, founded for the World Design Conference in Tokyo in the 1960s,
advocated the need for metabolism of city and structure under the theme
of replacing ability. This applied the biological attribute of
metabolism to artificial objects, but actually advocated assembly of
cities and buildings like machinery systems.
Of course, there was still no
technology where a building itself could organically metabolize like the
real plants and animals, and this was merely a metaphor for the range of
organic body analogies. It is recognized here that the process of the
modern reason which has gradually built ingenious artificial systems
starting from zero reached the peak. Buildings were viewed as machines,
and the mechanical systemization of buildings was actually realized to
some degree with the technological innovations. The “Walking City” was
the form of a city that mankind would build in a space station in the
space age, and was the leading edge of conceivable residential machines.
As naive humanist and
traditionalist opposition appeared when the concrete form of
functionalism in the 1930s was visible and that gave birth to regression
to fascism and transition to organicism, the similar opposition to the
systemized urban and architectural images of the 1960s appeared. This
could be said to be the inevitable attribute clinging to modern reason,
and certainly led to romanticism that yearn for the irrational. This was
a check function built in the brain of human body, and the racing ahead
rationalism is occasionally operated modifications from this.
The 1960s in Japan was a time of
post-war economic miracle following post-war reconstruction, and was the
time of movements in opposition to the pollution brought by this. When
the optimism for the future like that of Archigram was far removed from
the common knowledge of general citizens, the instinct like a life
preserving device applied the brakes. Designers also were forced to
respond to the naive sensibilities of the citizens due to the intrusion
on life and environment.
The Berlin architect Ludwig Leo,
who focused on the stretched super-rationalism of the radical
functionalist Hannes Meyer of the 1920s, said to become wrapped up in
the question of architectural design and immersed in the citizen’s
movement (Fig. II-42). In 1968, the May Revolution took place in
With the constraints on
development and growing awareness of environmental conservation, nature
began to stand out as a force exceeding the artificial in the Utopian
city images of Peter Cook of Archigram, and in the series of drawings
that rendered the metamorphosis of the city entitled “Urban Mark,”
structural entities formed from small grids gradually melt until
reaching an amorphous scene of unified city and nature (Fig. II-43). It
can be said that the process of the development from the cube to the
structure born from 20th century modern reason and its subsequent
decomposition were symbolized by this.
In 1848, 120 years before the
May Revolution, a republic revolt occurred in
This formed a large divide from
the age of reason of the first half of the 19th century to the age of
sensibility of the second half of the 19th century. In the 20th century
also, the same kind of a divide from a time of reason to that of
sensibility occurred around 1968. The direction after the fail of the
modern reason that attempted to construct machinery systems is the theme
of the next chapter.
(*1) Le
Corbusier, “The Athen Charter”, New York, 1973(original 1933).
(*2)
Claude Lévi-Strauss,
“Athropologie structurale”,1958.(Japanese tranlation by Ikuo
Arakawa and others, Misuzu, Tokyo, 1972).
(*3) Bernard Rudofsky, “Architecture without Architects”, 1964
(Japanese tranlation by Takenobu Watanabe,
Kajima Shuppankai, Tokyo, 1984).
(*4) Arnulf
Lüchinger, "Structuralism in Architecture and Urbanism", Stuttgart,
1981.
(*5) Urban
Design Research Group(ed.), “Japanese Urban Space”, (Japanese)
Shokokusha, Tokyo, 1968.
(*6) Hiroshi
Hara, “Tour toward Villages”, (Japanese) Iwanami-Shoten, 1987.
> BACK