Esprit Futur : Le Corbusier and José Oubrerie at Saint-Pierre De Firminy, Firminy-Vert, France, 1968–2006

What is the secret mesmerism that death possesses and under the operation of which a modern architect – strident, confident, resolute – becomes rueful, pessimistic, or melancholic?1 Five years before Le Corbusier’s death at sea in 1965, the architect reluctantly agreed to adopt the project for L’Église Saint-Pierre de Firminy in Firminy-Vert (1960–2006), following the death of its original architect, André Sive, from leukemia in 1958.2 Le Corbusier had already developed, in 1956, the plan for an enclave in the new “green” Firminy town, which included his youth and culture center and a stadium and swimming pool; the church and a “boîte à miracles” near the youth center were inserted into the plan in the ’60s. (Le Corbusier was also invited, in 1962, to produce another plan for three Unités d’Habitation outside Firminy-Vert.) The Saint-Pierre church should have been the zenith of the quartet (the largest urban concentration of works by Le Corbusier in Europe, and what the architect Henri Ciriani termed Le Corbusier’s “acropolis”3) but in the early course of the project, Le Corbusier would suffer the diocese’s serial objections to his vision for the church – not unlike the difficulties he experienced with Notre Dame du Haut at Ronchamp (1950–1954) and the resistance to his proposed monastery of Sainte-Marie de la Tourette (1957–1960). In 1964, the bishop of Saint-Étienne requested that Le Corbusier relocate the church to a new site, but Le Corbusier refused and the diocese subsequently withdrew from the project. (With neither the approval, funds, nor the participation of the bishop, by then the cardinal archbishop of Lyon, the first stone of the church was finally laid on the site in 1970.) Le Corbusier’s ambivalence toward the project, even prior to his quarrels with the bishop, reveals...

Permanent shift: the topology of Didier Vermeiren's Cariatide à la Pierre

Photographic documentation of sculpture produces significant consequences for the way in which sculptural space is conceived. When viewed as discrete mediums the interaction of the photograph and its sculptural subject is always framed by notions of loss. However, when taken as a composite system, the sculpture-photograph proposes a new ontology of space. In place of the fixity of medium, we can observe a topology at play: a theory drawn from mathematics in which space is understood not as a static field but in terms of properties of connectedness, movement and differentiation. Refracted through the photographic medium, sculpture becomes not a field of fixed points in space, but rather as a fluid set of relations - a continuous sequence of multiple ‘surfaces’, a network of shifting views. This paper will develop a topological account of studio practice through an examination of the work of the contemporary Belgian sculptor Didier Vermeiren (b. 1951). Since the 1980s, Vermeiren has made extensive use of photography in his sculptural practice. By analysing a series of iterations of his work Cariatide à la Pierre (1997-1998), this paper proposes that Vermeiren’s use of photography reveals patterns of connection that expand and complicate the language of sculpture, while also emphasising the broader topology of the artist’s practice as a network of ‘backward glances’ to previous works from the artist’s oeuvre and the art-historical canon. In this context, photography is not simply a method of documentation, but rather a means of revealing the intrinsic condition of sculpture as medium shaped by dynamic patterns of connection and change. In Vermeiren’s work the sculpture-photograph, has a composite identity that exceeds straightforward categories of medium. In their place, we can observe a practice based upon the complex interactions of objects whose ontology is always underpinned by a certain contingency. It is in this fundamental mobility, that the topology of Vermeiren’s practice can be said to rest.

Corrigendum to "Mapping hippocampal and ventricular change in Alzheimer disease" [NeuroImage 22 (2004) 1754-1766] (DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.03.040)

We recently noticed an error in the demographic data in this article. The validity of the findings and the conclusions of the paper is not affected. However, there is an error in the reported sample size and in the means and standard deviations of the subjects’ ages and MMSE scores. We would like to correct this error, which came to light when we were re-analyzing the data for a meta-analysis. The error occurred because an older version of a spreadsheet was incorrectly used when reporting the sample composition. Instead of examining 12 Alzheimer's disease patients and 14 healthy elderly controls, we in fact examined 17 Alzheimer’s disease patients and 14 healthy elderly controls. All maps and morphometric data reported in the paper are correct, except that the sample size was in fact slightly higher than that originally reported, and the maps computed in the paper were based on the larger sample (which included five more subjects in the Alzheimer’s disease group). All of the maps and figures in the paper are correct, and the conclusions of the paper are unchanged. We apologize for this error, which falls under the sole responsibility of the first author. The corrected demographic information appears below.