DACCA: the Capitol Complex of Shar E Bangalar and the Singular Vision of Louis Kahn

Images and Architecture (the work of Herzog and de Meuron and the signal box)

In 1961, several exhibitions in New York featured works of art from a group of artists who were inspired by images taken from popular sources. Comic books, advertisements, television, and motion pictures all became rich sources for these artists who would later be placed under the heading of “Pop Art.” Among the leading figures of this movement was the American artist Andy Warhol, who often worked with mass media images in his work. Many of these images involved celebrities, for example the Marilyn Diptych circa 1962. In this work, a publicity photo of Marilyn Monroe is repeated along a grid and separated into two halves. One half in exaggerated colors and the other in black and white. The photo however, is altered from the original publicity image and a new layer of emotional meaning added. In fact, viewers of this piece often note that it relates not only Monroe’s beauty, but to a sense of desperation and tragedy as well.1 Throughout his career, Warhol developed a keen ability to borrow images from the mainstream and then overlay them with new layers of meaning. In other words, a glancing look reveals little or nothing out of the ordinary, but a more careful examination reveals an uncommon depth of thought and feeling.

“Warhol is the artist we would most like to have met.” (Interview with Jacques Herzog, El Croquis #86)

The ideas of Warhol loom large in the schemes of Herzog and de Meuron, especially the idea that creativity can transform the commonplace into something new and vital. The way that Warhol’s art has used common imagery to convey an original meaning inspired Herzog and de Mueron to apply this idea to architecture. Herzog in fact says that, “this is exactly what we are interested in, using well known forms and materials in a new way so that they become alive again.”2 Herzog goes on to say that, “No one has yet truly accomplished this in contemporary architecture. Architecture which looks familiar, which does not urge you to look at it, which is quite normal, but at the same time has another dimension, a dimension of the new, of something unexpected, something questioning, even disturbing.” To this end, images of architecture, both literal and metaphorical will often play key roles in their work. The preoccupation with imagery appeared early in the development of Herzog and de Meuron. This can partly be attributed to their education at the Federal Polytechnic school in Zurich (a.k.a. the ETH). At this time, in the early 1970s, Aldo Rossi was a leading figure at the ETH. Under his encouragement, Herzog and de Mueron moved away from the notion that architecture can be best understood as an extension of sociology (common among architectural educations at this time) and instead embraced a position that placed greater importance on the act of building. Rossi also was tremendously moved by images, especially historical images of architecture and he passed along this interest to Herzog and de Meuron. However, Rossi’s images were often saturated with sentimentality and attempted to transfer layers of implied meaning.3 This attitude did not attract Herzog and de Meuron, and to their credit they never sought to borrow images from pre-existing architectural languages in order to manufacture meaning in their work. In fact most of the imagery associated with their work has a kind of neutral starting position. In other words, their work attempts to discover meaning inherent in the project and place, rather than to borrow, and subsequently apply meaningful forms or gestures from prior works. “He (Rossi) interested us in images, but we were never interested in his images, never interested in collecting images of architectural memories.” Even early on, Herzog and de Meuron

1 Stokstad Marilyn, Art History (New York, Prentice Hall, 1995) pg. 1130 2 El Croquis #84 (1997) pg. 13 3 Portoghesi, Paolo Aldo Rossi, the Sketchbooks (London, Thames Hudson, 2000) pg. 72 CASE STUDIES IN MODERN ARCHITECTURE MICHAEL BROWNING displayed strength of conviction. It is these convictions that enabled them to retain many of the positive aspects of Modernism in their work, while resisting the shallowness that characterized much of the Post-Modern period, that was simultaneously gaining momentum as they began their working careers. Although Herzog and de Mueron’s work has often relied on images some of these historical in nature, they never treated the images as though meaning is generated by them. Contrast this position to that of Post-Modern’s such as Venturi and even Rossi to some extent, who attempted to transfer meaning through images and symbols. These ventures into symbolism often proved disappointing, in part because the preoccupation with the symbol itself, exaggerated the inherent power of the symbols. In other words, a symbol may communicate meaning, but it does not generate the meaning, rather it is the architectural experience that produces any lasting effect. Herzog and de Meuron understood these limitations, and despite their early training, remained in the present, aware of the past, but not mimicking its signs or motifs. Instead, they have looked to the present in order to discover vital interpretations of the places within which they operate. Herzog and de Meuron’s experience with Rossi should not be characterized as one entirely of rejection. According to Herzog, “he helped us to value the past”, but not in a sentimentalized or maudlin fashion.4 Rossi, and Post-Modern values also helped Herzog and de Meuron to work with a freedom in their thought processes, and enabled them to function in multiple modes. Although their work is sometimes compared with late-Modernism, the freedom of thought they exhibit stands in contrast to much of the work from this period, which had become excessively bound by static and insensitive rules. For example, these rules often summarily eliminated all historical ideas and references. Herzog and de Meuron however, have not followed this pattern, and they will incorporate historical and vernacular ideas into their work when appropriate. Note however that this usually does not include decorative ideas, and is never pastiche. If it can be said that Herzog and de Meuron have avoided the failures of Post-Modernism by remaining in the present, then they have also similarly avoided the failures of Modernism. Modernism in this regard, advertised itself as being hopeful and forward looking, but in that process became attached to utopian ideas that oversimplified human interactions and yielded heavy handed and ultimately insensitive works. Yet Modernism also succeeded in proving that architecture could be effective and powerful without being “decorated.” In this way Modernism showed that through abstraction architecture could not only retains its meaning, but when sensitively employed, that the abstraction can actually enhance its potency. Both of these ideas are evident in the work of Herzog and de Meuron. Regarding their work more specifically, and retaining a focus on imagery, much can be said. Recently, Herzog and de Meuron have taken to literally incorporating imagery into their building skins. This idea most notably has been used at the Ricola produciton facility (Ricola 2) in Mulhouse Brunstatt, and the Technical School Library in Eberswalde Germany. The Ricola building employs a silkscreen technique to overlay a Karl Blossfeldt photograph onto glass panels that cover the boxy façade. The image was carefully selected and proportioned by the architects although there is no functional or narrative connection between the building and the image itself.5 In fact, the architects explicityly avoided selecting an image they felt retained any inherent meaning. The library at Eberswalde also displays a similar sensibility, with images printed onto the alternating bands of concrete and glass, that wrap the façade of this simple box structure. Once again, the images are disconnected from any narrative or programmatic role, instead chosen for compositional and aesthetic reasons. These two buildings have garnered considerable attention from the architectural press, and although the material experimentation is admirable, these works occupy a precarious position astride the world of both architecture and art. Herzog has commented that like Warhol, the repetitious use of the images transforms it (them) from something commonplace to something new.6 Nevertheless, these works lack the emotional impact of Warhol. This is parlty due to the arbitrariness with which the images have been selected. Compare this to Warhol’s many portraits

4 El Croquis #84 (1997) pg. 18 5 Ursprung, Phillip Herzog and de Meuron, Natural History (Montreal, Mueller, 2002) pg. 301 6 El Croquis #84 (1997) pg. 12

2 CASE STUDIES IN MODERN ARCHITECTURE MICHAEL BROWNING of Marilyn Monroe. Embedded into these images were feelings whereas the images used at Ricola, seem to contain nothing more substantial than the decorative instinct that selected them. It is as if a Post-Modern attitude has emerged, borrowing not from previous architecture, but rather from previous art. The end result is similarly disappointing, oddly disconnected imagery removed from any meaningful experience and destined to become merely fashionable wallpaper. Also problematic is the notion that images presented on facades in this manner can somehow provide a commentary on culturally shared experiences. Similarly, Pop Art for example, employed mass media images to illicit viewers of the work to question their relationship with the media at large.7 Herzog and de Meuron also seem interested in this issue, and although they do not describe their buildings as works of art, they nevertheless are very much aware of keeping the work both artistically current and relevant. This situation begs the question: Is architecture a viable medium for challenging the role of media proliferation? The answer is unclear, but it is fair to say that architecture is more a part of the mundane world than most artwork. Art, which has a more limited interface with the public enjoys a distinct advantage over architecture in that program does not interfere with its information content. Buildings must be lived in and worked in on a daily basis, thereby painfully revealing superficialities in their generating ideas. In other words, architecture can’t exist without program, and program confuses art. Additionally, architecture is also relatively permanent. Although architecture must constantly adapt to the changes around it, it is far more rigid than most other media traditionally associated with the arts. This dynamic makes it extremely difficult for architecture to become and remain relevant as a means for critiquing values. In other words, although created in the present, buildings are not entirely of the present and therefore usually cannot critique the present with the same effectiveness as more flexible mediums can. This is not to say that architecture can’t succeed to some extent at commenting on our values. (Peter Eisenman for example has had a remarkable career in this regard.) Nevertheless, architecture usually is most successful within the bounds of what it is most fundamentally about, e.g. the language of architecture itself: space, light, material, craft, etc. Through these means, architecture is very good at expressing the values of a person or a group, but it is much less apt at critiquing those values. Borrowing from the language of art, while interesting, seems ultimately at odds with this most basic role of architecture.

Metaphor and typology

Although, Herzog and de Meuron have recently used actual images on their facades, more often their work makes use of images in a less literal fashion. Metaphorical images are one way in which this has been expressed in their work. At the Ricola storage facility in Laufen (not to be confused with the production facility) for example, two clear metaphors are present. First, the site becomes an important source. Located at the bottom of an inactive limestone quarry, the building is bordered by a very tall wall of limestone. These exposed layers of rock are translated into the horizontal layers of cladding that cover the façade. In addition to layers, the idea of storage shelving, derived from the function of the building as a warehouse, also takes on a metaphorical role in the project. In this way, the idea is expressed as a system of brackets that project out from the structure and hold the cladding almost as if the cladding were objects on shelves. Here we see that Herzog and de Meuron draw on ideas taken from a great diversity of sources and are not hampered by restrictive ideologies. In this way, when a metaphor is useful it is adopted, but it is not pushed beyond its potential as is sometimes the case with design overly reliant on metaphor. The Ricola storage facility also displays another important characteristic of Herzog and de Meuron’s work; the use of typological precedent studies. Although they do not copy precedents when establishing their formal decisions, they like to work within established frames of reference. Ricola for example, in both plan and section, as well as when viewed from a distance exemplifies the quintessential warehouse type. It is after all little more than a large rectangle which has been extruded to efficiently enclose the a large volume. However, the

7 Stokstad Marilyn, Art History (New York, Prentice Hall, 1995) pg. 1130

3 CASE STUDIES IN MODERN ARCHITECTURE MICHAEL BROWNING tasteful cladding adds an elegance to the façade which is uncommon in structures of this type.8 This interest in typology suggests a certain affinity for the ideas of Rossi, yet we also know that many of Rossi’s attitudes as well as his aesthetic sensibility were rejected by Herzog and deMueron. This again demonstrates the confidence and independence with which they work. The typology of the warehouse is not unique to the Ricola project in Herzog and deMuerons catalog of work, as it also appears in the Dominus winery building near Sonoma California. Again, established forms are used to create an image that relates to buildings common in the area. The building, especially when viewed from a distance appears to be like any number of storage barns used in this area for storing wine barrels. Closer inspection however, reveals a surprisingly rich experience largely achieved by using a common material (basalt stones), in an uncommon way. More specifically, the stones are placed inside of stainless steel baskets, also called gabions, which are then stacked to clad the structure. This cladding simultaneously unifies the composition, ties the building to its place, insulates the interior, and aesthetically enriches both the interior and exterior experiences. Other Herzog and deMeuron trademarks such as a restrained palette, boxlike formal language, and straightforward planning are also apparent in the project. However, the most remarkable pattern of their work which is evident at Dominus, is the manner in which the commonplace has been transformed into the extraordinary. Ultimately the achievement at Dominus is one that takes place within the domain of architecture. Little pretense is displayed in the design and while some conventions are challenged, most notable regarding materials, others are happily accepted. These key ideas include, siting and regionalities, pushing material possibilities, threshold, marking the landscape, light, openness, and the nature of the wall itself. Allowing these forces as well as the programmatic issures to drive the design focuses the work to a large extent and yields a compelling result.

The Image as an Icon

Further evidence of Herzog and deMeuron’s creative freedom can be found with the Signal Box #4 project in Basel. Notably, the architects did not make use of metaphorical ideas during the design development. In addition to metaphor, typology also plays little if any role in this project, as there is very little in the way of precedent to base this design on. Image however still played an important role in the conception of this project. In this case, it became important to the architects that the building take on a special role in the landscape. The building, essentially a large mechanical vault for housing the railyard’s electronic switching equipment, was also intended to serve as a kind of prototype for other buildings of this type. These buildings in turn would be built throughout Switzerland at the various rail centers. Their unique appearance would then become associated with Switzerland itself becoming what the architects hoped would be a kind of national icon.9 In this way, for the many travelers who pass through Switzerland by rail, the buildings would become landmarks and symbols of Switzerland. The unique power of the Signal Box as an image derives almost entirely from the cladding that wraps the facade in continuous copper bands. These bands, which are twisted in strategic locations to emit light into the structure, also function to reduce the possibility of damage to the interior equipment from exterior electrical disturbances. Experientially, the cladding dominates the exterior, subverting any indication of the structure as well as disguising traditional building apertures such as doors and windows. From a distance, the only appreciable indications of scale come from the equipment in the rail yard surrounding the building. The unconventional skin of the Signal Box, does not imply that Herzog and de Meuron have abandoned their position of working within established frames of reference. Note the simple rectangular volume of the project as well as its extraordinarily common sectional and plan parti. In fact, from far away, the building appears to be just another of the countless anonymous mid-rise buildings that dot the modern urban landscape. A closer inspection however reveals a remarkably powerful and dynamic object. Note that in some ways this is precisely what Herzog and de Meuron were

8 Wang, Wilfreid Herzog and de Meuron (Zurich, Artemis, 1992) pg. 42 9 Lobel, John Herzog and de Meuron 1978-1988 (Basel, Birkhauser, 1997) appendix

4 CASE STUDIES IN MODERN ARCHITECTURE MICHAEL BROWNING hoping to do, work with the common in order to say something new.10 These ideas are reminiscent of Warhol, whose images can easily blend into the sea of images around us, yet despite this still manages to say something original and at times profound. It should also be noted how the Signal Box manages to accomplish this goal while working for the most part discretely within the discipline of architecture. Here the key ideas at work include, materiality, cladding, light, proportion, scale, and site peculiarities. All of these things, carefully manipulated by the architects, are crucial not only to this project, but to architecture as a whole. Thus the key positions the building takes remain essentially about the architecture itself. This position stands in stark contrast to point of view demonstrated at Ricola 1 as well as Eberswalde, both of which require ideas outside of the world of architecture in order to activate the design. It is not surprising that of these three, the Signal Box is the most striking. Also noteworthy, the Signal Box displays another hallmark of Herzog and de Meuron’s work, namely their sensibility regarding materials, and the way in which they use well established materials in innovative ways. Copper of course has been used as an architectural cladding for centuries, but despite this fact Herzog and de Meuron still manage to say something original. This effect is largely due to two simple moves, the wrap and the twist. That Herzog and de Meuron can then create such a remarkable result by using such accessible means is empowering. Empowering because most architects must operate within a very mundane reality and the accessibility of their designs, urge designers at all levels to learn from the work not to accept commonly held limitations. In contrast to Herzog and de Meuron’s accessibility, consider the work of Frank Gehry. His work is also striking for its originality, yet much of his most original and most celebrated work is possible only because of technological advancements such as the advent of three-dimensional modeling software. Although the designs are remarkable, currently they are so far removed from the common architect that the process becomes almost irrelevant. His work is inspirational and wonderfully evocative of our potential, but woefully inaccessible to the average designer. To be fair, Herzog and de Meuron’s work typically involves lavish materials and uncommon degrees of craftsmanship, but nevertheless, the spirit of their work is so close to the common roots of architecture that even average designers cannot help but be encouraged by their example.

To conclude, it is difficult to succinctly summarize the work of Herzog and de Mueron. Although there are common threads that bind their work together, the territory they have staked out is more noteworthy for its variety than for its sameness. Their work is the product of curious and original minds, and although like all designers, their work has shortcomings, it is hard not to respect their achievements. Their work guided often by images, has still maintained a multi-sensory intimacy and has avoided pastiche. The work has also freely borrowed from many sources with confidence and consistently manages to innovate in subtle and eloquent ways.

WORKS CITED:

1) Herzog and deMeuron. El Croquis #84 1997. (Primary) 2) Wang, Wilfried. Herzog and de Meuron. Zurich: Artemis, 1992. (secondary) 3) Ursprung, Phillip. Herzog and de Meuron Natural History. Montreal: Muller Publishers, 2002 (secondary) 4) Stokstad, Marilyn. Art History, volume 2. New York: Prentice Hall, 1995 (secondary) 5) Lobel, John. Herzog and de Meuron 1978-1988. Basel: Birkhauser, 1997 (secondary) 6) Portoghesi, Paolo. Aldo Rossi, The Sketchbooks. London: Thames Hudson, 2000 (secondary)

10 El Croquis #84 (1997) pg. 8