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 support@jstor.org.

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