-
7/25/2019 Erratum the Eternal Problem of Beauty's Return
1/2
Erratum: The Eternal Problem of Beauty's ReturnSource: Art Journal, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Winter, 2003), p. 110Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558499Accessed: 01-07-2016 12:26 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trus
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more informati
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
College Art Association, Taylor & Francis, Ltd.are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Art Journal
-
7/25/2019 Erratum the Eternal Problem of Beauty's Return
2/2
organization on the one hand and an ideal
aesthetic realm on the other. Consequently,
an essential aspect of Mies's sensibility is
lost: its consistent emphasis (one, admitted-
ly, that was as rhetorically motivated as it
was theoretically inconsistent with his actual
built work) on the structural component of
the doctrine of truth to materials and its tec-
tonic argument favoring the imperatives of
Bauen over those of Architektur. In this one can
discern the impact of Robin Evans's seminal
reading of the Barcelona Pavilion as a theater
of ambiguous representations largely unre-
lated to its underlying structural claims.4Yet
when endorsing this thesis Colquhoun dis-
plays none of the nuance that marks Evans's
argument, a drawback that becomes clear
when Colquhoun maintains, in a provoca-
tive gesture that is really without basis, that
more than other modernists, Mies's work
runs counter to the tectonic tradition
(I79). Apart from the unaddressed question
as to what precisely this tradition consists
of-for clearly there never has been a mod-
ern architecture endowed solely with a
structural as opposed to a sheerly represen-
tational vocation, a fact that becomes espe-
cially obvious when one considers that the
tectonic, as the expression of structure,
always involves some kind of signifying
value-the overemphasis on the visual and
ideal aspects of Mies is beside the point.
At the same time, by failing to place both
Gropius and Mies within an integrated pic-
ture of the historical development of the
Bauhaus, Colquhoun overlooks tensions that
shaped their respective administrations and
the impact these had on one of modernism's
most important arenas of theory and praxis.
When tracing the fates of modern archi-
tecture in Scandinavia and Italy, the strengths
and weaknesses of the book stand out clearly.
Careful delineation of the diverse currents
of Scandinavian postwar modernism, with
particular emphasis on the New Empiricism,
follows a cursory discussion of Erik Gunnar
Asplund that does not do justice to what
Kenneth Frampton has called the Scandina-
vian Doricist sensibility. However, the treat-
ment ofAlvar Aalto is relatively substantial
and avoids a reductive characterization of his
trajectory as expressionistic by stressing its
affinities with sachlich and regionalist tradi-
tions. No such balance is struck, however, in
the analysis of Italy before and after World
War II. Though perfunctory attention is
organization on the one hand and an ideal
aesthetic realm on the other. Consequently,
an essential aspect of Mies's sensibility is
lost: its consistent emphasis (one, admitted-
ly, that was as rhetorically motivated as it
was theoretically inconsistent with his actual
built work) on the structural component of
the doctrine of truth to materials and its tec-
tonic argument favoring the imperatives of
Bauen over those of Architektur. In this one can
discern the impact of Robin Evans's seminal
reading of the Barcelona Pavilion as a theater
of ambiguous representations largely unre-
lated to its underlying structural claims.4Yet
when endorsing this thesis Colquhoun dis-
plays none of the nuance that marks Evans's
argument, a drawback that becomes clear
when Colquhoun maintains, in a provoca-
tive gesture that is really without basis, that
more than other modernists, Mies's work
runs counter to the tectonic tradition
(I79). Apart from the unaddressed question
as to what precisely this tradition consists
of-for clearly there never has been a mod-
ern architecture endowed solely with a
structural as opposed to a sheerly represen-
tational vocation, a fact that becomes espe-
cially obvious when one considers that the
tectonic, as the expression of structure,
always involves some kind of signifying
value-the overemphasis on the visual and
ideal aspects of Mies is beside the point.
At the same time, by failing to place both
Gropius and Mies within an integrated pic-
ture of the historical development of the
Bauhaus, Colquhoun overlooks tensions that
shaped their respective administrations and
the impact these had on one of modernism's
most important arenas of theory and praxis.
When tracing the fates of modern archi-
tecture in Scandinavia and Italy, the strengths
and weaknesses of the book stand out clearly.
Careful delineation of the diverse currents
of Scandinavian postwar modernism, with
particular emphasis on the New Empiricism,
follows a cursory discussion of Erik Gunnar
Asplund that does not do justice to what
Kenneth Frampton has called the Scandina-
vian Doricist sensibility. However, the treat-
ment ofAlvar Aalto is relatively substantial
and avoids a reductive characterization of his
trajectory as expressionistic by stressing its
affinities with sachlich and regionalist tradi-
tions. No such balance is struck, however, in
the analysis of Italy before and after World
War II. Though perfunctory attention is
given at the outset to the contributions of
Giovanni Muzio and the protagonists of the
Novecento, to the links between architecture
and painting in the ambit of Valori Plastici,
and to the rise of Rationalism, Organicism,
and Neorealist tendencies, major figures are
basically overlooked (Franco Albini, Luigi
Moretti) or underplayed (Ignazio Gardella is
not adequately presented; the studio BPR's
TorreVelasca of I954-58, the most impor-
tant Italian work to appear on the interna-
tional scene at that time, if only because
of the notoriety it acquired as a result of
Reyner Banham's attack on Neoliberty, the
Italian retreat from modern architecture, is
not even mentioned.) Political contextual-
ization is also weak, a flaw that leads to mis-
leading characterizations (Giuseppe Pagano,
described by Colquhoun as an ardent
Fascist in the late 1930s, in fact followed a
more complex political trajectory than this
peremptory label would seem to indicate,
since he broke with Fascist orthodoxy in
favor of the autonomous potential of mod-
ern architecture in 1938 and subsequently
disavowed Fascism, joining the resistance
in 1942 .6
In the last two chapters, on the postwar
era, a conspicuous discrepancy arises in the
analysis of modern architecture's compro-
mises with advanced capitalism. When
interpreting Constant Nieuwenhuys's New
Babylon (1957-74), Colquhoun underscores
the dialectical process linking this utopia to
a dystopian outcome by observing that, as
a projection of I95os ideals of normative,
consumption-based living into an indefinite
future, Constant's visionary model collapses
into the very ideology it would seem to crit-
icize. Strangely, however, in the discussion of
the American postwar architecture of the
organization man -a corporate expression
of the conformist aspiration to make repres-
sive social norms and ideal architectural
principles coincide-no comparable critique
of architectural ideology is offered.
Historiography and criticism thus go
their separate ways. In the best of cases, the
impulse to combine these two types of
analysis has as its goal the overcoming of
the repressions and resistances found in tra-
ditional histories. By narrowly restricting
the field, Colquhoun does not make this
impulse his own. As a result, the reader is
confronted by a history of fragments that
claims to provide an adequate overview of
given at the outset to the contributions of
Giovanni Muzio and the protagonists of the
Novecento, to the links between architecture
and painting in the ambit of Valori Plastici,
and to the rise of Rationalism, Organicism,
and Neorealist tendencies, major figures are
basically overlooked (Franco Albini, Luigi
Moretti) or underplayed (Ignazio Gardella is
not adequately presented; the studio BPR's
TorreVelasca of I954-58, the most impor-
tant Italian work to appear on the interna-
tional scene at that time, if only because
of the notoriety it acquired as a result of
Reyner Banham's attack on Neoliberty, the
Italian retreat from modern architecture, is
not even mentioned.) Political contextual-
ization is also weak, a flaw that leads to mis-
leading characterizations (Giuseppe Pagano,
described by Colquhoun as an ardent
Fascist in the late 1930s, in fact followed a
more complex political trajectory than this
peremptory label would seem to indicate,
since he broke with Fascist orthodoxy in
favor of the autonomous potential of mod-
ern architecture in 1938 and subsequently
disavowed Fascism, joining the resistance
in 1942 .6
In the last two chapters, on the postwar
era, a conspicuous discrepancy arises in the
analysis of modern architecture's compro-
mises with advanced capitalism. When
interpreting Constant Nieuwenhuys's New
Babylon (1957-74), Colquhoun underscores
the dialectical process linking this utopia to
a dystopian outcome by observing that, as
a projection of I95os ideals of normative,
consumption-based living into an indefinite
future, Constant's visionary model collapses
into the very ideology it would seem to crit-
icize. Strangely, however, in the discussion of
the American postwar architecture of the
organization man -a corporate expression
of the conformist aspiration to make repres-
sive social norms and ideal architectural
principles coincide-no comparable critique
of architectural ideology is offered.
Historiography and criticism thus go
their separate ways. In the best of cases, the
impulse to combine these two types of
analysis has as its goal the overcoming of
the repressions and resistances found in tra-
ditional histories. By narrowly restricting
the field, Colquhoun does not make this
impulse his own. As a result, the reader is
confronted by a history of fragments that
claims to provide an adequate overview of
the entire period. And though it is true
that modern architecture, like important
strains of modern art, often exemplifies
what Manfredo Tafuri has called the cult
the fragment, this curiously uneven, if at
times insightful, book shows the dangers
of extending this aesthetic to the project
of rewriting the history of architectural
modernism.7
I. Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture and
Historicity, Essays in Architectural Criticism:
Modern Architecture and Historical Change
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981), 19. See also
Modernity and the Classical Tradition: Architectur
Essays (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989).
2. On Loos's esteem for Sullivan (which was, i
fact, mutual), see E. McCoy, Letters from Lo
Sullivan to R.M. Schindler, Journal of the Societ
Architectural Historians 20, no. 4 (1961): 179-8
3. Colquhoun, Displacement of Concepts in
Corbusier, Essays in Architectural Criticism, 51.
4. Robin Evans, Mies van der Rohe's Paradoxi
Symmetries, Translations from Drawing to Build
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), 153-94.
5. Reyner Banham, Neoliberty: The Italian
Retreat from Modern Architecture, Architectu
Review 747 (April 1959): 230-55.
6. I would like to thank Brian Kish for calling inf
mation about Pagano to my attention.
7. Manfredo Tafuri, A Search for Paradigms;
Project, Truth, Artifice, Assemblage 28 (1995
62, trans. D. Sherer.
Daniel Sherer is adjunct assistant professor in
Columbia Graduate School of Architecture,
Planning, and Preservation.
Erratum
The name of an artist and writer whose book
reviewed in the fall ArtJournal was misspelled.
is Joanna Frueh.
the entire period. And though it is true
that modern architecture, like important
strains of modern art, often exemplifies
what Manfredo Tafuri has called the cult
the fragment, this curiously uneven, if at
times insightful, book shows the dangers
of extending this aesthetic to the project
of rewriting the history of architectural
modernism.7
I. Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture and
Historicity, Essays in Architectural Criticism:
Modern Architecture and Historical Change
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981), 19. See also
Modernity and the Classical Tradition: Architectur
Essays (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989).
2. On Loos's esteem for Sullivan (which was, i
fact, mutual), see E. McCoy, Letters from Lo
Sullivan to R.M. Schindler, Journal of the Societ
Architectural Historians 20, no. 4 (1961): 179-8
3. Colquhoun, Displacement of Concepts in
Corbusier, Essays in Architectural Criticism, 51.
4. Robin Evans, Mies van der Rohe's Paradoxi
Symmetries, Translations from Drawing to Build
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997), 153-94.
5. Reyner Banham, Neoliberty: The Italian
Retreat from Modern Architecture, Architectu
Review 747 (April 1959): 230-55.
6. I would like to thank Brian Kish for calling inf
mation about Pagano to my attention.
7. Manfredo Tafuri, A Search for Paradigms;
Project, Truth, Artifice, Assemblage 28 (1995
62, trans. D. Sherer.
Daniel Sherer is adjunct assistant professor in
Columbia Graduate School of Architecture,
Planning, and Preservation.
Erratum
The name of an artist and writer whose book
reviewed in the fall ArtJournal was misspelled.
is Joanna Frueh.
I 10 WINTER 2003I 10 WINTER 2003
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.3 on Fri, 01 Jul 2016 12:26:17 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms