L’architecture engagée du «Case Study House Program» de la revue Arts and Architecture de 1945 – 1966 : une confluence génératrice

La conception architecturale du logis, individuel ou collectif, est un défi majeur pour les architectes depuis l'avènement de la modernité. Au début du 21ième siècle, la multiplicité des conditions démographiques et celle de la mobilité des personnes sous-tendent la complexité de l'élaboration de prototypes ou de modèles d'habitation. Que peut-on apprendre des expériences menées dans ce domaine après la seconde guerre mondiale aux États-Unis ? Ce mémoire de maîtrise est consacré à l'étude d’un cas particulier celui du programme de création architecturale réalisée en Californie de 1945 à 1966, connu sous le nom de : «Case Study House Program». Ce programme, dirigé par John Entenza, éditeur de la revue Arts and Architecture, rassemblait de nombreux architectes dont les plus célèbres sont Charles et Ray Eames, Richard Neutra, Craig Ellwood et Pierre Koenig, tous auteurs de maisons modernes devenues oeuvres canoniques dans l’histoire de l’architecture. L'analyse détaillé de ce cas et de ses retombées devrait permettre de mieux cerner les aspects suivants: la portée critique du CSHP (case study house program) qui s'opposait aux modèles dominants du marché immobilier, modèles généralement inspirés de styles traditionnels; le potentiel et les limites d'une telle démarche face à la demande sociale; la dimension anticipatrice des propositions du CSHP pour la conception de logis mieux adaptés aux besoins du 21ième siècle, en particulier ceux qui découlent des changements démographiques et de la mobilité géographiques des personnes; la valeur d'exemple du CSHP pour mieux comprendre les fondements de la résistance du public aux innovations architecturales, autant du point de vue technique que du point de vue esthétique.

Le corps ambivalent dans l'exposition «En imparfaite santé : la médicalisation de l'architecture» (2011-2012)

Le progrès scientifique et technologique n'est pas sans faille – les conséquences imprévues de son application peuvent causer de nouveaux problèmes. Tel est le constat machiavélien sur lequel est fondé le projet En imparfaite santé : la médicalisation de l'architecture du Centre Canadien d'Architecture (2011-2012), présenté sous forme d'exposition et de catalogue. Ce mémoire étudie comment les deux plateformes, la première étant expérientielle et la seconde théorique, formulent une critique du processus de la médicalisation actuelle, lequel est entré dans le champ de l'architecture contemporaine. L’exposition est approchée comme discours et comme installation d’objets pour un public; une attention particulière est alors portée à la scénographie et au parcours du visiteur. D’autres réflexions ont pour objet le graphisme, un outil soutenant le leitmotiv de confrontation. Dans l’étude du catalogue, l’accent est mis sur l’essai d’introduction, qui est implicitement traversé par le concept fondamentalement ambivalent de pharmakon. Le péritexte, l’encadrement physique du contenu principal de l’ouvrage, est aussi examiné. Ensuite, l’analyse comparative propose que chaque plateforme véhicule un propos différent, une stratégie rendue possible par l’ambivalence de la notion de corps, entendue littéralement et métaphoriquement. La conclusion finale du mémoire esquisse une courte proposition de contextualisation, autant de cette dualité que de la remise en question de l’autorité du discours techno-scientifique. Bien qu’En imparfaite santé dirige sa critique envers la persistance de la vision moderniste de l'architecture, nous avançons que le projet concerne tout autant, sinon plus, l'omniprésence actuelle du numérique. Ce dernier, à l’instar de l’architecture moderne, ne modifie pas seulement la conception du corps humain et architectural, il renforce également une croyance positiviste dans la technologie qui n'est pas toujours contrebalancée par la pensée critique.

Leslie Martin, Colin St. John Wilson y James Stirling : revisión de la modernidad en la arquitectura británica = Leslie Martin, Colin St. John Wilson and James Stirling : review of modernity in British architecture

La búsqueda de nuevas formas de modernidad se convirtió en la cuestión principal de la obras desarrolladas por Leslie Martin, Colin St. John Wilson y James Stirling entre los años 1955 y 1970. Enmarcadas dentro de la sensibilidad surgida en la posguerra británica, su profundo sentido crítico supone una renovada interpretación de alguno fundamentos del Movimiento Moderno así como la reflexión sobre la modificación y el uso de formas que tienen sus raíces en la tradición cultural. Esta investigación se estructura en cuatro temas ampliamente debatidos y que han articulado parte de la revisión moderna a lo largo de la segunda mitad del siglo XX: » la abstracción y el realismo » la revisión de la idea funcionalista » la reconsideración de los arquetipos formales » la relación entre forma y contexto urbano se muestran como base crítica para las obras seleccionadas. La tendencia hacia el realismo surgió como respuesta a la voluntad de universalidad (y objetividad) que representó el lenguaje abstracto, del mismo modo que la revisión de la idea funcionalista pretendió superar la consideración de la obra arquitectónica como producto racional de su función y tecnología. La reconsideración de los arquetipos de la tradición, a su vez, muestra una preocupación por el significado de las formas culturales del pasado, una cuestión igualmente decisiva en la renovada atención a la estructura de la ciudad histórica. Estos temas evidencian un interés por ampliar la arquitectura moderna sin que el reconocimiento de las formas del pasado suponga un distanciamiento respecto al futuro. La idea de revisión, asimismo, se convierte en estrategia a la hora de encontrar nuevas respuestas. Si algunos de los principios del Movimiento Moderno surgen como reacción al clasicismo Beaux Arts que le precedió, las propuestas analizadas muestran la validez operativa de este enfoque para crear obras de una intensa modernidad. Su interés, por lo tanto, no solo radica en su consideración como objetos de estudio que amplían nuestro conocimiento de un período determinado, sino como tradición reciente que sirve de base crítica para la práctica actual. ABSTRACT The search of new forms of modernity became the main theme of the works developed by Leslie Martin, Colin St. John Wilson and James Stirling between 1955 and 1970. Belonging to the sensitivity emerged in postwar Britain, their deep critical sense encourages a renewed interpretation of some principles of Modern Movement and a reflection about the modification or the use of forms that are rooted in cultural tradition. This research is divided into four themes widely discussed and which has articulated part of modern review along the second half of the twentieth century: » Abstraction and realism » Review of Functionalism » The reconsideration of the formal archetypes » The relationship between form and urban context are shown as critical base for the selected works. The trend toward realism arose in response to the will of universality (and objectivity) that represented the abstract language, just as the review of Functionalism aimed to overcome the consideration of architecture's work as rational product of its function and technology. The reconsideration of traditional archetypes, in turn, shows a concern for the meaning of the cultural forms, a matter equally decisive in the renewed attention to the structure of the historical city. These themes evidence an interest to extend modern architecture, without thereby the recognition of the past forms imply a distancing regarding the future. The idea of review also becomes strategy in finding new answers. If some principles of the Modern Movement arose in reaction to Beaux-Arts classicism which preceded it, the analyzed proposals show the operational validity of this approach to create works of a strong modernity. Their interest, therefore, lies not only in its consideration as study cases that broaden our knowledge of a certain period, but as a recent tradition which serves as a critic basis for the current practice.

Les concours publics d'architecture.

The plates of vols. 1-12, 1895-1907, of Concours publics d'architecture, edited by Wulliam and Farge, have been bound by subject matter with one final text volume.

Six lectures on architecture,

The beginnings of Gothic art and The culmination of Gothic architecture, by R.A. Cram.-- Principles of architectural composition and Modern architecture, by T. Hastings.-- Organic architecture and The language of form, by C. Bragdon.

Session organiser/chair: The architecture of coal and other energies

Coal ignited the industrial revolution. An organic sedimentary rock that energized the globe, transforming cities, landscapes and societies for generations, the importance of ‘King Coal’ to the development and consolidation of modernity has been well-recognised. And yet, as a critical factor in the production of modern architecture, coal—as well as other forms of energy—has been mostly overlooked.

From Appalachia to Lanarkshire, from the pits of northern France, Belgium and the Ruhr valley, to the monumental opencast excavations of Russia, China, Africa and Australia, mining operations have altered the immediate social and physical landscapes of coal-rich areas. But in contrast to its own underground conditions of production, the winning of coal, especially in the twentieth-century, has produced conspicuously enlightened and humane approaches to architecture and urbanism. In the twentieth century, educational buildings, holiday camps, hospitals, swimming pools, convalescent homes and housing prevailed alongside model collieries in mining settlements and areas connected to them. In 1930s Britain, pit head baths—funded by a levy on each ton produced—were often built in the International Style. Many won praise for architectural merit, appearing in Nicholas Pevsner’s guides to the buildings of England alongside cathedrals, village manors and Masonic halls as testimonies to the public good.

The deep relationships between coal and modernity, and the expressions of architecture it has articulated, in the collieries from which it was hewn, the landscape and towns it shaped, and the power stations and other infrastructure where it was used, offer innumerable opportunities to explore how coal produced architectures which embodied and expressed both social and technological conditions. While proposals on coal are preferred, we also welcome papers that interrogate the complexity, heterogeneity and hybridity of other forms of energy production and how these have also interceded into architectural form at a range of scales.

Confrontation de l'architecture de l'Iran avec la modernité occidentale : constance de la question identitaire

À la fin du 19e siècle, l’Iran commence à se transformer radicalement. Ce changement est le résultat d’un processus de métamorphose socioculturelle, avec le désir d’effacer les méthodes du passé et de recommencer ; une ambition de faire un renouvellement fondamental dans la société, en bénéficiant des grandes idées progressistes de l'Occident moderne. Cette volonté s’est renforcée à la suite des premières visites en Europe d’étudiants et de Nassereddin Shah, le roi de l'Iran, dans les années 1870. Dans ce contexte, les Iraniens et leurs gouvernants, considérant leurs infériorités politico-économiques, ont décidé de remplacer les frustrations internationales par des idées nationalistes et une propagande de suprématie raciale ou religieuse, notamment concertant « l'identité culturelle ». Suivant ces tentatives pour réformer les infrastructures sociopolitiques de l'Iran, tous les domaines culturels du pays, incluant l’architecture, ont été modifiés, selon les idéologies des dirigeants de l’Iran pendant trois périodes historiques du pays : l'époque Qadjar (dès le règne de Nassereddin Shah en 1848), l'époque Pahlavi (1925-1979) et l'époque Post-révolution islamique (1979- jusqu'à présent). L'idée générale de notre mémoire est d'étudier le processus de modernisation de l'architecture de l'Iran, de même que les influences majeures de tous ces changements, concrétisés par des fusions éclectiques et des idées pluralistes – souvent basées sur la politique. De là, en usant des approches de l’histoire sociale et culturelle de l’art, nous analysons des exemples de monuments de l'architecture publique de l'Iran depuis l'entrée de l'Iran dans la modernité, pour chacune des trois périodes mentionnées. Cela, afin de comprendre si les architectes iraniens ont trouvé de nouvelles conceptions pour opérer un déploiement créatif des principes traditionnels et pour trouver de nouvelles orientations dans le processus général de leur évolution architecturale. Autrement dit, nous cherchons à savoir si l'architecture iranienne, avec tous les changements stylistiques dans le processus de conceptualisation, a pu trouver - depuis l'intervention de la modernité occidentale et de l'architecture moderne - son propre langage de la modernité en architecture.

Confrontation de l'architecture de l'Iran avec la modernité occidentale : constance de la question identitaire

À la fin du 19e siècle, l’Iran commence à se transformer radicalement. Ce changement est le résultat d’un processus de métamorphose socioculturelle, avec le désir d’effacer les méthodes du passé et de recommencer ; une ambition de faire un renouvellement fondamental dans la société, en bénéficiant des grandes idées progressistes de l'Occident moderne. Cette volonté s’est renforcée à la suite des premières visites en Europe d’étudiants et de Nassereddin Shah, le roi de l'Iran, dans les années 1870. Dans ce contexte, les Iraniens et leurs gouvernants, considérant leurs infériorités politico-économiques, ont décidé de remplacer les frustrations internationales par des idées nationalistes et une propagande de suprématie raciale ou religieuse, notamment concertant « l'identité culturelle ». Suivant ces tentatives pour réformer les infrastructures sociopolitiques de l'Iran, tous les domaines culturels du pays, incluant l’architecture, ont été modifiés, selon les idéologies des dirigeants de l’Iran pendant trois périodes historiques du pays : l'époque Qadjar (dès le règne de Nassereddin Shah en 1848), l'époque Pahlavi (1925-1979) et l'époque Post-révolution islamique (1979- jusqu'à présent). L'idée générale de notre mémoire est d'étudier le processus de modernisation de l'architecture de l'Iran, de même que les influences majeures de tous ces changements, concrétisés par des fusions éclectiques et des idées pluralistes – souvent basées sur la politique. De là, en usant des approches de l’histoire sociale et culturelle de l’art, nous analysons des exemples de monuments de l'architecture publique de l'Iran depuis l'entrée de l'Iran dans la modernité, pour chacune des trois périodes mentionnées. Cela, afin de comprendre si les architectes iraniens ont trouvé de nouvelles conceptions pour opérer un déploiement créatif des principes traditionnels et pour trouver de nouvelles orientations dans le processus général de leur évolution architecturale. Autrement dit, nous cherchons à savoir si l'architecture iranienne, avec tous les changements stylistiques dans le processus de conceptualisation, a pu trouver - depuis l'intervention de la modernité occidentale et de l'architecture moderne - son propre langage de la modernité en architecture.

The passionate critic

It's hard to be dispassionate about Reyner Banham. For me, and for the plethora of other people with strong opinions about Banham, his writing is compelling, and one’s connection to him as a figure quite personal. For me, frankly, he rocks. As a landscape architect, I gleaned most of my knowledge about Modern architecture from Banham. His Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, along with Rowe and Koetter’s Collage City and Venturi’s Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture were the most influential books in my library, by far. Later, as a budding “real scholar”, I was disappointed to find that, while these authors had serious credibility, the writings themselves were regarded as “polemical” – when in fact what I admired about them most was their ability and willingness to make rough groupings and gross generalizations, and to offer fickle opinions. It spoke to me of a real personal engagement and an active, participatory reading of the architectural culture they discussed. They were at their best in their witty, cutting, but generally pithy, creative prose, such as in Rowe’s extrapolation of the modern citizen as the latest “noble savage”, or Banham railing against conservative social advocates and their response to high density housing: “those who had just re-discovered ‘community’ in the slums would fear megastructure as much as any other kind of large-scale renewal program, and would see to it that the people were never ready.” Any reader of Banham will be able to find a gem that will relate, somehow, personally, to what they are doing right now. For Banham, it was all personal, and the gaps in his scholarship, rather, were the dispassionate places: “Such bias is essential – an unbiased historian is a pointless historian – because history is an essentially critical activity, a constant re-scrutiny and rearrangement of the profession.” Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future, Nigel Whiteley’s recent “intellectual biography” (the MIT Press, 2002), allowed me to revisit Banham’s passionate mode of criticism and to consider what his legacy might be. The book examines Banham’s body of work, grouped according to his various primary fascinations, as well as his relationship to contemporaneous theoretical movements, such as postmodernism. His mode of practice, as a kind of creative critic, is also considered in some depth. While there are points where the book delves into Banham’s personal life, on the whole Whiteley is very rigorous in considering and theorizing the work itself: more than 750 articles and twelve books. In academic terms, this is good practice. However, considering the entirely personal nature of Banham’s writing itself, this separation seems artificial. Banham, as he himself noted, “didn’t mind a gossip”, and often when reading the book I was curious about what was happening to him at the time. Banham’s was an amazing type of intellectual practice, and one that academics (a term he hated) could do well to learn from. While Whiteley spends a lot of time arguing for his practice to be regarded as such, and makes strong points about both the role of the critic, and the importance of journalism, rather than scholarly publishing, I found myself wondering what his study looked like. What books he had in his library. Did he smoke when he wrote? What sort of teaching load did he have? He is an inspiration to design writers and thinkers, and I, personally, wanted to know how he did it.

Deceit and Bruno Taut's Glashaus

The historical context surrounding Bruno Taut's Glashaus has been established through work of authors like Reyner Banham, Dennis Sharp and Ian Boyd-Whyte. However, these English language translations, are mostly derived from secondary sources such as Adolf Behne and Paul Scheerbart. Surprisingly, Taut's own writings largely do not feature in this prevailing account of his work. Since 1990, strong doubts have arisen about this conventional picture of Taut's Glashaus. Manfred spiedel, for instance, minimizes Paul Scheerbart's contribution to the design by arguing that Scheerbart met Taut only a few months before the construction of the Glashaus, that is, after Taut had finished his preliminary sketches. Kurt Junghanns goes further and asserts that the Glashaus design was complete beefore Taut and Scheerbart ever met. In 2005, Kai Gutschow published The Culture of Criticism: Adolf Behne and the Development of Modern Architecture in Germany, 1910 - 1914. Most startling, Gutschow asserts that Behne acts as the propagandist for the Glashaus by fabricating its link with Expressionism. This is particularly troubling because nobody contributed more to establishing the link between the Glashaus, Bruno Taut and Expressionism than Behne. As a result of this new evidence, this paper concurs that the established historical understanding of the Glashaus is flawed. By returning to Taut's own writings, a reinterpretation can be offered that strongly links the Glashaus to the Victoria regia lily and Strasbourg Cathedral. The significance of this approach is that it re-establishes Taut's own rational behind the design of the Glashaus, and thus contributes to the re-evaluation of the generally accepted histories of the Modern movement.

The lily, client and measure of Bruno Taut’s Glashaus

The Glashaus is considered a significant exemplar of early modernist architecture and is generally accepted as having had Expressionist origins. However, current research has revealed that the design origins of this important building are not fully understood. While the historical record acknowledges the contributions of the bohemian poet Paul Scheerbart and the art critic Adolf Behne, the role of the Glashaus’ architect, Bruno Taut, has been moderated. In an attempt to rectify this situation this article proposes that the design origins of the Glashaus can be found in a strong architect-client interaction. It is argued that the Glashaus’ client, the Deutsche Luxfer Prismen Syndikat under the directorship of Frederick Keppler, exerted a significant influence on its design. In order to showcase the glazed products of Luxfer in the best manner possible, Keppler insisted that the design feature a glazed dome, electric lighting, a fountain as well as a cascade. Given the detailed stipulations of this brief, Taut had few options other than to offer interpretations of precedent that derived from the Victoria regia lily and Gothic proportioning. By expounding this architect-client relationship, this article expands our understanding of the Glashaus, and reinvigorates our understanding of this important early example of modern architecture.

The importance of the Deutsche Luxfer Prismen Syndikat, the Victoria regia lily and Gothic imitation in the design of Bruno Taut's Glashaus

Bruno Taut's Glashaus is considered a seminal example of early modernist architecture. Yet, some of the crucial factors behind the design of the Glashaus remain little understood. This PhD reveals that the Glashaus' patron, Frederick Keppler, exerted a significant influence over its design by insisting that it follow a prescriptive brief. Interpreting these rigid instructions, Taut as the architect, gained inspiration from the myths and symbols associated with the Victoria regia lily and the Gothic. This PhD therefore significantly expands the understanding of the Glashaus, and thus reinvigorates our comprehension of one of the most distinctive early examples of modern architecture.

Reflections from damaged modernity

The cliché about modern architecture being the fairy-tale fulfillment of every fantasy ceases to be a cliché only when it is accompanied by the fairy tale’s moral: that the fulfillment of the wishes rarely engenders goodness in the one doing the wishing (Adorno). Wishing for the right things in architecture and the city is the most difficult art of all: since the grim childhood-tales of the twentieth century we have been weaned from dreams and utopias, the stuff of modernism’s bad conscience. For Adorno writing in 1953, Hollywood cinema was a medium of “regression” based on infantile wish fulfillment manufactured by the industrial repetition (mimesis) of the filmic image that he called a modern “hieroglyphics,” like the archaic language of pictures in Ancient Egypt which guaranteed immortality after death in Egyptian burial rites. Arguably, today the iconic architecture industry is the executor of archaic images of modernity linked to rituals of death, promises of omnipotence and immortality. As I will argue in this symposium, such buildings are not a reflection of external ‘reality,’ but regression to an internal architectural polemic that secretly carries out the rituals of modernism’s death and seeks to make good on the liabilities of architectural history.

The sublime, affective process + architectural production

A year before Kate Nesbitt’s Theorising a New Agenda For Architecture (1996), the author penned a chapter on the significance of the sublime and its contribution to post-modern architecture via the uncanny or disturbing through the theories of Vidler and Eisenman (Nesbit, 1995). Twenty years on, we see its ongoing presence within the contemporary works of artists Kapoor, Ellison and Viola. Eisenmann and Libeskind aside, explicit reference to the Sublime whether through architectural praxis or theory appears to have been trumped by ecological derivatives and associated transactions, as catalyst for new architecture and architectural thinking. For Edmund Burke (1757), the Sublime was seen as a leading, an overpowering of self to a state of intense self-presence, often leading to a state of otherness. To experience the sublime is to experience affect, physiologically overwhelming the mental faculties through intensities of astonishment, terror, obscurity, magnificence, and reverence. Key here is Burke’s articulation of the stages of the sublime encounter, particularly so, its implications for the process of production which architectural theorists appear to have overstepped in their valorisation of the sublime object. This paper seeks to resituate the sublime within the context of architectural production. Through concepts such as material thinking, bodies and making strange, the paper explores a shift in focus toward affective processes traced from Burke’s inquiry. Rather than proposing strategies solely for affect within the work itself, the focus lies upon the designing experience, where blockage and desirous forces are critical partners in the process of production, as revealed through recent studio programs entitled Strange Space.