Claude Nicolas Ledoux Inaugurator of a New Architectural System Summary and Review
Perchance more than for architecture itself, the 20th century proved to exist quite an historic period of innovation for the field of architectural historiography; while the dawning of modernity had shown its undisputable signs during the fin de siècle, it was forty or fifty years later that the endeavour to identify these signs would solidify modernity's presence. What was a affair of temporal procession became a matter of disciplinary questions – and sooner or later, every bit Vidler remarked, the history of ideas and artistic styles were "subsumed under larger questions: the dissemination of knowledge, the distribution of power, and the representation of status"[one]. A sure generation of historians could be credited with playing a major role in such a shift, but two of its members in particular: Sigfried Giedion and Emil Kaufmann. The old famously tried to explain the ambiguity and the relativity in the way architecture is perceived, through the introduction of his "time-space" conception. The latter attempted to restructure the categorization of architectural styles, by taking the focus away from the stylized form. He did this past devising an architectural organisation, a organisation of examining the building every bit sum of parts, instead of merely an object of art. His contribution though to modern architectural historiography should keep to a greater extent, as he unmarried-handedly ignited a disciplinary discourse – on the question of autonomy. To this twenty-four hour period, Kaufmann'due south proper name remains behind both the coining of the term Autonomous Compages and its link to the dominant at the time Modernist movement. The response of his contemporaries to his theories has been varied, then has been the assessment of his legacy past the historians who followed. Through the years, though, Kaufmann'south need to define architectural autonomy has spurred a wave of architectural piece of work (both congenital and written) that can only prove the continuous relevance of this question.
Kaufmann first analyzed his theory of autonomous compages in his 1933 book, Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier. Having meticulously studied Claude-Nicolas Ledoux'due south work during and after the revolutionary catamenia in France, he used his architectural organisation in guild to conclude that it constituted a departure indicate from the classical tradition of the xviiithursday century. This tradition, which he described as the Baroque organisation, would have buildings designed as a whole, with each part subordinated to the sum and indispensable to its totality. Kaufmann noted that Ledoux broke with this principle, designing clearly separated volumes that would be placed together in a way of common dependency. His buildings would exist "cleaved downwardly" in parts according to function and geometry akin; at the same time, he evenly rejected most of the traditional decorative features of design.[2] It was in this contrast that Kaufmann placed the roots of the "democratic solution". The transition from the baroque unity to the pavilion system, from the formal totality to the functionally defined units, from the "dynamic" to the "static" composition, all signified the emergence of a so-chosen "architecture of isolation"[3]. Every bit each part of the building, from the unlike volumes to the materials, was treated individually, a certain "individual consciousness" was attributed to the architectural work. This was undoubtedly a philosophical notion; another sign of the influence the Historic period of Enlightenment held over the Arts. And information technology was well-nigh directly indebted to the philosophical theories of Kant, whom Kaufmann considered Ledoux's prominent theoretical reference. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason had originated the idea of free will and the autonomy of man's philosophical enquiries. Thus information technology would seem evident to Kaufmann that Ledoux had used information technology to imbue his architecture with the individuality that rendered information technology free from other aspects of creative endeavor. The link with Kantian ethics was ultimately his argument for placing the nascence of modernity at the finish of 18th century; for what Kant had been to mod philosophy, Ledoux would exist to modern compages.[4]On that link, Kaufmann based his bold statement that the 20thursday century advanced owed its arrangement of thinking to one French revolutionary builder alone, who disclosed to compages the independency from mode. Many a time this argument would suffice to bring Kaufmann'south piece of work under asymmetric scrutiny – it nonetheless managed to fully encompass his intentions.
The nigh important aspect of such a claim, then, has to be the motivation backside it – as that would explain both the subsequent controversy and the constant need to revive the question of autonomy. Kaufmann devised his architectural autonomy after Kant'southward autonomy of the volition, simply in the early 20th century, the Kantian moral philosophy had already been practical to depict the new-formed bourgeois society. The conservative autonomy symbolized the republican, libertarian principles of a society who thought of itself "equally composed of isolated, every bit free individuals"[5] – much like the point Kaufmann was making almost modern compages. By following this simple line of thought, he linked modernism with the bourgeoisie, as he placed their origins in the same philosophical foundation; thus modern architecture would become the "guardian" of the traits of autonomy. According to his reasoning, modernism would rise to defend the ideal of a liberal, social democratic state. Moreover, the timing couldn't be more than relevant; at the time, this exact social state (its reason and liberties) came under threat by the advance of fascism. As German neoclassicism became a weapon in the hands of the Nazi regime, the vanguards of modern architecture had to exist attributed with the virtues of the revolutionary arrangement. So we may assert that the twin ideas of autonomy and modernism reflect a sociopolitical attribute of architecture that would nigh probably reemerge in the years that followed WWII, up to the present 24-hour interval.
The reactions to Kaufmann's history take been quite diverse, whether 1 thinks of his gimmicky architects and critics, or the generations that came after him. Negative reviews, as expected, would mainly concern the seemingly unfounded merits of neoclassicism and modernism being the 2 faces of the same coin. Equally he made straight references to early modernists such equally Loos and Gropius, his theory was bound to provoke those who did not perceive well the revolutionary connotation. Kaufmann even considered that the pure geometrical forms of Le Corbusier's piece of work echoed those of Ledoux, transferring the autonomous aspect into the twentyth century. Merely his contemporary historians were prepared to dissect this notion of autonomy. It is interesting to note that as his theses acquired a political hue, Kaufmann was attacked by representatives of both ends of the ideological spectrum. Most notably, Meyer Schapiro criticized him for loosely drawing upon the relation of lodge and compages, in society to brand a formalist assumption – disregarding cultural or historical context, he simply compared architectural form with social form.[6]Schapiro's criticism though may take come up from his own radical Marxist background, whereas Kaufmann's intention was to simply highlight the formal similarities in lodge to make his betoken. Ultimately this would be for the sake of architectural autonomy as well, for explicitly attributing an ideological identity to gimmicky compages would have resulted in disproving his statement. Hans Sedlmayr on the other hand, the historian and founding fellow member of the New Vienna School of Fine art History, rejected Kaufmann'south method on the grounds of exemplifying the renewal and revolution that modern architecture implied. Sedlmayr'southward correct-fly ideology made him a proponent against modernism and social democratic ideals, just his biased castigation of architectural autonomy formed a basis for Kaufmann'south critics in the years that followed. His arguments though, ironically echoed those of Schapiro – as architectural grade lost grip with its "earthly" context and shifted to pure geometry, there was the danger of it degenerating to what he chosen "paper architecture".[7] This merits would most certainly resurface concerning the proponents of architectural autonomy in the decades of '70s and '80s, like Aldo Rossi and Peter Eisenman.
The master adversary of autonomous architecture would nevertheless come within the ranks of modernity itself. As functionalism rose to contradict the various formalist concepts that permeated pre-mod architecture, Kaufmann's system was met with expected atheism. Nikolaus Pevsner would utilise the occasion of Ledoux and Le Corbusier brought together, to reject them both as "absurd" formalists. According to him, this autonomy led to "Architecture for Fine art'due south sake, compages every bit pure abstract fine art".[viii] Using the same buildings that Kaufmann presented to demonstrate his point, Pevsner noted that a block's separation from the whole, from its context and environment, would ultimately result in its separation from use. Certain enough, architecture consisting of "volumetric projects" might have gained a new establish individuality, an artistic freedom, merely had severed itself from its disciplinary service – functionality. Pevsner was in fact battling eclecticism in the guise of historicism, and all the stylistic choices Kaufmann's retrospective theories implied; but this argument would presently crumble to the ground every bit Philip Johnson cited Kaufmann'southward work on Ledoux equally an inspiration for the cubic (and very much Miesian) design for his 1940 Glass Firm. Indeed, the vanguard of the International Style managed to employ this historicist plow to produce an icon for what Vidler called "classicist modernism" – a "Ledoux" box that did a greater service to Kaufmann's autonomy than any other.[9]
It is ironic though that disenchantment with Modernism would bring nigh the harshest critic of architectural autonomists. Peradventure appropriately, it took 1 of Pevsner'due south students, Reyner Banham, to come up with an alternating view on historiographical focal points. This view was apparent even from the championship of his 1960 published treatise: "Theory and Design in the First Motorcar Age". The concept of this machine age denoted the Zeitgeist of a specific menses, which roughly covered the first 30 years of the twentythursday century. This was the age when machines were reduced to homo calibration, aided past the broad distribution of electric power, which substituted the power of fire and steam. The utter symbol of this first Machine Age, the automobile, would pass through artful standards in a fashion until then hinted only in the work of the Futurists (the likes of Filippo Tommaso Marinetti and Umberto Boccioni) and, in some extent, Le Corbusier. Banham truly believed that widespread technological advancements constituted a driving force behind social and cultural changes, ultimately reflected on each age's architectural attempts. In his mind, Modernism was an undisputed product of the first Machine Age, when "…that barrier of incomprehension that had stood between thinking men and their mechanized environment all through the nineteenth century, in the heed of Marx equally much as in the mind of Morris, had begun to crumble."[10]That way, architects had to finer transcribe the mechanized essence of the era into their work, in order to be in accordance with it – and Banham would eagerly disapprove of those who didn't. Where Kaufmann saw the abstraction of the modernist avant-garde as a revealing sign of the individuated system, Banham admitted that very few of them managed to capture the motorcar aesthetics as a signal of divergence from tradition. Futurism remained the truthful herald of that spirit; its champions made utilize of the "mechanical equipment" equally a ways to brace architecture with its social and technological surround. Thus architectural autonomy was promptly replaced by the Zeitgeist – which after all, is (by definition) automatically and anonymously created.
Every bit was the instance with Kaufmann, though, Banham'due south historiographical attempts had one foot firmly set up on his present. That would exist the accordingly chosen second Machine Age, kickoff at the late 1950s and bringing along a technological revolution with new sources of energy, domestic electronics and social changes from the household to the whole of lodge. Banham was sure to apply to the second the same principles that ruled the starting time automobile age. The new symbolic object became the television, cogent a quantum in mass communications and everyday entertainment, while at the same time offering the products of this technological progress to all. In that style, compages couldn't (and shouldn't) remain unaffected past the rapidly evolving Zeitgeist – and Banham wished that late Modernism would be much more than consistent in post-obit it than the masters of the beginnings of the century. Moreover, he tried to delineate the evolution of architectural forms every bit something directly linked with the varying social environs; he perceived architecture as "a stream, (into which i cannot step twice) of reflections of the transformations taking place in other fields."[11] His history formed a sort of "guide for the future", in a fashion that studying architectural interpolations in the by could help ane come up with a modus operandi for the times to come up. Architects had to predict the progressing Zeitgeist and move forth, trying to translate this progress in terms of aesthetics. Actually Banham was quite resolute in the need of these aesthetics to be formed from the technical innovations and the full general spirit of the era – more than than the principles taught in architectural schools, which reflected an academicism that couldn't operate any longer. Autonomy, in the sense of an independently applied architectural essence, was to be avoided. Even the subject area itself had to accommodate in this kind of advancements, as Futurism had attempted to do fifty years earlier; Banham presented that argument in the class of an advice that ended his book: "The architect who proposes to run with technology knows now that he will exist in fast visitor, and that, in society to go along upwardly, he may take to emulate the Futurists and discard his whole cultural load, including the professional person garments by which he is recognized as an builder. If on the other hand, he decides not to practise this, he may find that a technological culture has decided to keep without him."[12]
Every bit the 2nd Machine Age drew to a close, in the late seventies, the case for Kaufmann's architectural system appeared to be lost. After all, the modernist move had received fatal blows past those who, similar Banham, disapproved of its continuous breach from social reclassifications. They deemed fit that if pure functionalism had failed to capture this required essence, probably zip would. The aforementioned reorganization of historiography, though, would soon prompt the case open up again, equally Anthony Vidler attempted not merely to theorize on the history of modern compages, but to revisit Kaufmann's work in particular, by going all the fashion dorsum to the Enlightenment. By imitating Kaufmann's retrospective ways of reading architecture, he effectively pointed out the Historic period of Reason as a moment of nascence for the codification of architectural knowledge – and the return to the origins, in particular, was one of these codes that seemed to serve the notion of autonomy. In his 1987 book, "The Writing of the Walls: Architectural Theory in the Late Enlightenment", Vidler sketched the outlines of institutional developments since the 18thursday century, while at the same time describing the way these developments were reflected in architectural historiography. That way he identified autonomous compages as a course of this "origins quest"; by linking Laugier's archetype of the primitive hut to Rousseau's natural gild theories, he vindicated Kaufmann's thesis of doing the same through Kant. The concept of natural aesthetics ruling architectural design would found a major deviation from the Bizarre operations and demarcate the beginning of the new principles. In a sense, information technology was the notion of autonomy that carried the values of the Enlightenment through the centuries – leading to the commonplace of the "ahistorical Enlightenment".[13] Vidler would later examine the extent to which Ledoux's piece of work formalized these principles; instigated past Kaufmann's historicist approach, he fifty-fifty best-selling his contribution to social reform in the Revolutionary era.
Recognizing the "validity" of autonomous architecture would nevertheless exist a side outcome of Vidler's history, while his writing never attained the polemical hue of Banham's reprobation of late modernism. More likely, reinstating Kaufmann's condition equally a "canonical" historian and theorist of the Modernist movement, would become a seeming accomplishment with his 2008 book, "Histories of the Immediate Present: The Invention of Architectural Modernism". He rightly credited Kaufmann for shaping the "revolutionary" and "mode-less" mod by making utilize of the "enlightened" Kantian theories; his (fittingly called) neoclassical modernism – whereas Banham was deemed the author of futurist modernism – was admitted to be a much needed "moral fable" that gave birth to the reevaluation of modern historiography.[14] Even his influence on architects similar Philip Johnson was once more stated to demonstrate autonomy's steady grip on the mid-20th century architectural practice. Nevertheless, Kaufmann'due south attempt to codify a arrangement, and not a mere codification of democratic forms, could not exist stressed plenty – as his theories resurfaced in the cease of the 20thursday century, when Modernism had already failed, this became more credible. Detlef Mertins, the architectural historian and Vidler'due south student, tried to highlight this issue by making a clear link: "Modern Compages became a unmarried unified historical phenomenon. Having begun by challenging pre-existing codes, it succumbed to its own codified."[15] Kaufmann rejected this regression of autonomy into a machinery, something that would accordingly limit its potential to transform technique into aesthetics.[16] Mertins acknowledged that this claim was to be taken seriously, if the question of autonomy was to lead to new negotiations of the form. Whatever unresolved or disputed elements in Kaufmann's history would only be an impediment to a universal codification – such as the ane Modernism undertook. Should nosotros try to reread his theoretical organization, over and over again, the applications of autonomy will be practically limitless.
We can now reflect on the true nature and purpose that architectural autonomy tin can acquire nowadays. Kaufmann'due south ambivalent legacy can be quite hinting, in fact – virtually of the times, a question hard to reply denotes that a compromise has to be fabricated. The challenges of the 20th century have resurfaced to confront all architectural endeavors in a starker mode. This time, natural and built environment take to redefine their human relationship in a way that excludes both the obliteration of the former and the regression of the latter into mere "environmentalist architecture". Technological advancements, in the grade of the omnipotent Digital Age, have also the hazard to influence architectural blueprint more than than whatsoever other automobile-driven attainment did in the '20s and '60s. Therefore, nosotros must ponder whether autonomy holds a sense of "safeguarding" the profession's most fundamental principles – an effort to keep the black box of architecture firmly closed. Today's architects know that if they listen Banham's communication of keeping up with the digital Zeitgeist, they'll exist in the fastest visitor ever – and many would argue that there isn't much load left for discarding. In the same vein, succumbing to indeterminacy would perfectly capture the experience of gimmicky cultural and social structures; but time and once again it has been proven that uncertainty tin can seriously impact both the form-finding and problem-solving nature of architecture. This can also describe the role that the environmental debate can play in the field of architectural design. A critic of autonomy would call for a complete submission to the characteristics of natural forms and operations, all the way to mimicking organic relations and expanding biological inquiry. On the other paw, an autonomist would opt for a strictly passive opinion of the building amongst its natural surroundings – a case where infrastructure would simply get along with the environment, while "minding its own concern". Of course then the autonomist can always be accused of perpetuating the sustainability deficit – and rightly so. Nosotros are thus forced once once more to consider the middle basis. Perhaps become for a conditional autonomy, with architecture incorporating interdisciplinary noesis and processes, but however having the concluding word. Historicism and functionalism can serve the aforementioned purpose. Universal solutions and inoperable indeterminacy can exist placed under the same amount of scrutiny. The virtually important question to keep in mind would be not what we do, but how and why we exercise it. As Mertins wrote, "Kaufmann's case for autonomy started every bit individuated course and adult as a system of individuation"[17]. In fact, having a arrangement can e'er prove useful – serving a general objective while however allowing for individual applications. Perhaps the human being who first delineated the question holds a central to the answer.
[ane] Anthony Vidler, The Writing of the Walls, Princeton Architectural Press, 1996, p.ane
[2] Emil Kaufmann, Claude-Nicolas Ledoux, Inaugurator of a New Architectural System, University of California Printing, p.18
[3] Anthony Vidler, Histories of the Immediate Present, MIT Press, 2008, p.24
[iv] Vidler, Histories of the Immediate Present, p.29
[5] Ibid., p.35
[half-dozen] Vidler, Histories of the Immediate Present, p.41
[vii] Ibid., p.45
[8] Ibid., p.112
[9] Ibid., p.55
[10] Reyner Banham, Theory and Pattern in the First Machine Historic period, MIT Press, p.21
[xi] Panayotis Tournikiotis, The Historiography of Modernistic Architecture, MIT Press, 2001, p.158
[12] Banham, Theory and Blueprint in the Start Machine Age, p.329
[13] Vidler, The Writing of the Walls, Princeton Architectural Printing, 1996, p.2
[xiv] Vidler, Histories of the Immediate Present, p.12
[15] Detlef Mertins, Modernity Unbound, AA Publications, 2011, p.six
[16] Detlef Mertins, System and Freedom – Sigfried Giedion, Emil Kaufmann and the Constitution of Architectural Modernity, in Autonomy and Ideology: The Origins of the Avant-Garde in America, 1923-1949, New York, 1997, p.222
[17] Mertins, Organization and Freedom – Sigfried Giedion, Emil Kaufmann and the Constitution of Architectural Modernity, p.229
Source: http://hct.aaschool.ac.uk/emil-kaufmann-inagurator-of-a-disciplinary-discourse/
0 Response to "Claude Nicolas Ledoux Inaugurator of a New Architectural System Summary and Review"
Post a Comment