Von Ledoux Bis Le Corbusier 110

CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 110

Macarena Reconsidering Emil Kaufmann’s de la Vega Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier

El objetivo de este ensayo es re-abrir y re-leer Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier de Emil Kaufmann. A pesar de que Panayotis Tournikiotis y Anthony Vidler lo incluyeran en sus respectivos discursos sobre la historiografía de la arquitectura moderna, se pro- pone reconsiderar a su autor como un historiador pionero de la Ilustración. Tres ideas: el único protagonista del libro es Claude-Nicolas Ledoux; la arquitectura en torno a 1800 necesitaba una reevaluación; y la obra de Kaufmann se enmarca en un tiempo de búsqueda de una nueva ciencia del arte y una nueva historia de la arquitectura. Kaufmann es una figura de transición entre una generación previa de histo- riadores del arte que establecieron conceptos y principios fundamentales, y otros de su misma generación que se embarcaron en la tarea de considerar la arquitectura moderna como objeto de una investigación histórica.

Emil Kaufmann’s an Emil Kaufmann’s Von Ledoux bis Le Von Ledoux bis Le CCorbusier be considered a history of Corbusier: Ursprung modern architecture? Contrary to what und Entwicklung der certain theorists have proposed in their autonomen Architektur, 1933. works, this research aims to re-open and (Tournikiotis [2014]) re-read Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier: Ursprung und Entwicklung der auntono- men Architektur in order to reconsider Kaufmann as a pioneer historian of the Age of Reason, rather than a historian of modern architecture.

On the one hand, Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier is discussed in two studies: first, in Panayotis Tournikiotis’ The Historio- graphy of Modern Architecture published in 1999; and second, in Anthony Vidler’s Histories of the Immediate Present published in 2008. According to Tournikiotis, Emil Kaufmann’s discourse is “plainly operative”, functions as a “manifesto” and “establish[es] the modern movement and reveal[s] it as victorious” (Tournikiotis 1999: 21, 22, 26). Tournikiotis’ arguments will be confronted exclusively with the boo- shown in the majority of his scholarly pro- k’s content. Focusing on the concept of duction” (Scalvini and Sandri 1984: 79). autonomy allows Vidler not to refer to this Second, in a more recent investigation book as a history of modern architecture. published in 2011 Gevork Hartoonian’s However, Kaufmann appears in a list toge- The mental life of the architectural histo- ther with Colin Rowe, Reyner Banham and rian: re-opening the early historiography of Manfredo Tafuri, so it can be understood modern architecture, Kaufmann is not the that Vidler, too, included him in his parti- object of any chapter. Hartoonian makes cular historiography of modern architectu- small references to the historian –always re. linked with the concept of autonomy– which appear in three chapters dedicated On the other hand, there are other studies to three historians: Nikolaus Pevsner, that have not included Kaufmann’s book. Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Sigfried First, Maria Luisa Scalvini and Maria Giedion; as well as in the final chapter Grazia Sandri in L’immagine storiografica entitled “Adieu Zeitgeist!” dell’architettura contemporanea da Platz a Macarena de la Giedion briefly mention Kaufmann and his This ambiguity in the consideration of Vega. Architect. book in a footnote from the chapter about Master Degree UPM. Emil Kaufmann by different theorists, PhD student Henry-Russell Hitchcock. Scalvini empha- which contrasts with the lack of doubt in University of sizes “Kaufmann’s interest for French the cases of Pevsner or Giedion, reveals the Canberra. revolutionary architecture, an interest need for a thorough re-evaluation. CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 111

From Ledoux to Kaufmann the process of rupture and restart in the development of art. In the midst of such a Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier: Ursprung und debate, Kaufmann agrees with Wölfflin in Entwicklung der autonomen Architektur is observing an interruption when he tries to the only alleged history of modern archi- define Neoclassicism in Von Ledoux bis Le tecture written in German. It was publis- Corbusier. hed in 1933 in Viena, at a time when “the true specificity of Kaufmann’s analysis is “Neoclassicism was a last attempt in that defined”, according to Gilbert Erouart direction; it was not a reanimation, but, (1980: 10). In the preface, Kaufmann sta- fair and completely, the end of classical tes two main objectives: on the one hand, art. This is how we see the second half of to present Ledoux’s work and thinking “as the eighteenth century in the universal more than just a biography, something history and the history of literature and else as a mosaic of an artist’s life”; and, on art: first, new ideas; then, a profound res- the other, to attempt “a reinterpretation of tlessness, the search for new paths, pas- the architectural development of the nine- sionate mistakes and failures; (…) only teenth and twentieth centuries” rarely the realization of these new ideas, in (Kaufmann 1982: 7). the Civil Code or, more clearly, in Ledoux’s architectural legacy”. (1982: 65) The beginning of the twentieth century was a time when the history of architectu- Kaufmann understands architecture re was being written by art historians; not around 1800 as a body of work in need of only the history of modern architecture, reevaluation. Why? In his opinion, the rup- but also of Renaissance, Baroque and ture or crisis in European thinking at that Neoclassical architecture. The nineteenth time was considered to have had impact century was still in need of a conceptuali- exclusively on philosophical, literary and zation. To truly understand Kaufmann’s social spheres. How is it possible that in work, it has to be considered in the context the arts one would only perceive a sterile of the historiography of art, in the context Neoclassicism? Kaufmann criticized pre- of the structuralist analysis theorized by vious historians for not going beyond the “The New Viennese School”. Works by pretended antique epidermis. “Excessive Heinrich Wölfflin and Paul Frankl could be attention should not be paid to merely considered relevant to exemplify the situa- superficial phenomena. On the contrary, tion of the history of art at this time. processes which take place under the sur- Significant differences are to be found in face are decisive” (1982: 63). the way both Wölfflin and Frankl present the architecture of the years around 1800. This type of analysis, which looks beyond appearances and focuses on buildings’ First, in 1914 Frankl’s Die Entwicklungs- internal structure, is what Kaufmann pre- phasen der neueren Baukunst appeared. sents of Ledoux’s work. Ledoux was at that Frankl proposes four analytical categories time a forgotten architect, and, in to examine four development phases: Kaufmann’s opinion, rediscovering and Renai-ssance, Baroque, Rococo and considering his work was “enough” to Neoclassicism. According to Frankl, exemplify architecture in the time of nothing but continuity exists between French Revolution. His work was a result each of these phases, and Neoclassicism of the times, a true reflection, but it was returns to Classicism and the not appreciated then, “his own time did Renaissance, describing a “circle uniform not understand him” (1982: 27). and closed” (Frankl 1981: 254). Second, just one year later, in 1915 Wölfflin’s How does Kaufmann present this artist in Kunstgeschichtliche Grund- begriffe: das Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier? The main Problem der Stilentwicklung in der neueren idea is transition: Ledoux lives and works Kunst was published. Wölfflin’s discussion between two époques, understands both of of Renaissance and Baroque architecture them and practices both resultant archi- contrasts a series of concepts. At the end tectures. Kaufmann’s discourse is mainly of every chapter, he mentions a “new style” a description and classification of Ledoux’s at the end of the eighteenth century, cha- work and shows the development from a racterized as “unusual”, as a “process of more heteronomous work to buildings that profound regeneration” (Wölfflin 1924: are examples of architectural autonomy; it 337). According to Wölfflin’s analysis, it shows a structural transformation. The seems like a new start but not a return to idea of Ledoux as a transitional artist the starting point. Where Frankl sees a cir- appears throughout the book, and by the cle, Wölfflin understands that the spiral is end, Kaufmann introduces an important the geometrical figure that best exemplifies nuance: Ledoux as a “limit artist”, capable CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 112

Pages from De Ledoux a Le Corbusier (1982) that illustrate the Spanish edition of Tournikiotis’ Historiography. (Tournikiotis [2014])

of working in both the old and the new requires specific categories of treatment” manner. Kaufmann uses, among others, (1946: 283). The idea that a new time the metaphor of a river and Ledoux is one requires new categories was part of the of the first to cross from one side to the debate, not only in the first decade of the other, feeling comfortable on both sides, he twentieth century, but also during the lives in the limit and walks constantly the 1930s and the 1940s. During that time, distance from one side to the other. the theorist John Coolidge was trying to Despite his own chronological discourse, establish the “Preliminary steps towards Kaufmann claims that to establish a chro- ‘The New History of Architecture’” (1943), nological evolution is a useless task and and Paul Zucker, was finding “The that Ledoux’s relevance comes mainly Paradox of Architectural Theories at the from his knowledge of the old. beginning of the Modern Movement” Paradoxically, it is precisely that knowled- (1951). In Kaufmann’s case, Gilbert ge of old forms that makes him attempt to Erouart and Georges Teyssot have amply transform them, to design them in a diffe- discussed these new categories and have rent manner. Kaufmann’s “transitional clearly explained the difference between figure” differs not much from Wöfflin’s “Einheit” and “Vielheit”, “heteronomy” and “Magna individuality”: a debt admitted by “autonomy”, “Barock-Verband” and Kaufmann himself in an essay in 1943. “Pavillon-system”. Also, concepts like According to Wölfflin, “when new possibili- “Baroque’s unity disintegration” or “isola- ties are fully incorporated in its last style, tion principle”, once again inherited from it can be inferred that a new sensitivity is Wölfflin’s thinking. This is reason enough in need of a new style. However, those new not to focus on the definition of such cate- style possibilities were the result of leaving gories and to try and go beyond them, behind some of the old possibilities” (1924: towards a new attempt of interpretation. 329). A careful reading of Von Ledoux bis Le At the end of both their books, Wölfflin and Corbusier shows that Kaufmann not only Frankl admit that their analytical catego- uses Ledoux’s work to define two different ries cannot be used to examine a new systems, but he also makes a great effort style. Only a few years after, Kaufmann to clarify the transition between both of considers that if every time is characteri- them. The formal features of the heterono- zed by its own artistic will and “every time mous and the autonomous architecture has its own basic ideas about the disposi- are easily detected, but the task of every tion and interrelation of elements” (1943: engaged historian, the true novelty 17) then it seems correct that “every time Kaufmann offers in this book, is the defi- CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 113

nition of this process through a series of Panarèthéon and the Pacifère. And third, phases. Only Vidler –and only when he “The autonomous solution” in which “both takes into account the essay “Die Stadt des interior and exterior are determined by Architekten Ledoux” (1933) and not the identical intentions” (1982: 57). book– discusses the idea of “an organic and slow process of internalization and More than tendencies, this classification cognition on the part of the architect” reveals different attempts to search for a which results in the “discovery” new direction in architecture. This is (Erkenntnis) of autonomy, “through a Kaufmann’s task: he establishes a relation number of stages represented by detailed between the systems and the forms that analyses of Ledoux’s designs in roughly represent them using Ledoux’s ideas, and chronological order” (2008: 24). thus, he describes the process resulting in the chaotic evolution of Ledoux’s works. The stages, which Vidler detects in The architectural system is Kaufmann’s Kaufmann’s essay on the Saltworks of definitive tool of analysis. According to Chaux, can be outlined in Von Ledoux bis Vidler, “it is clear that Kauf-mann intends Le Corbusier, too. First, the transitional us to see his “architectural system” as works characterized as an “architecture of commensurate with intellectual develop- isolation” and formed by “functionally defi- ments, as the manifestation, in other ned and formally expressed units” (Vidler words, of the architect’s thought proces- 2008: 24): transitional works in which ses” (Vidler 2008: 50). Kaufmann detects “a contrast between the interior and exterior” (Kaufmann 1982: The arguments above are related to Kauf- 42). Second, Kaufmann discusses five mann’s first objective: “a summarized pre- simultaneous tendencies in architecture sentation of the artist’s work”. Now, it is around 1800, which the visionary archi- time to reflect on the second objective, his tecture of the Revolution embodied: interpretation of the architectural evolu- Romanticism, architecture parlante, formal tion during the nineteenth and twentieth experiments and two others in which the centuries. Kaufmann briefly mentions intention was to create effects or an Walter Gropius’ Bauhaus-Bücher, cubism, extraordinary impression, according to the Art Nouveau, Secession and Richard author. Kaufmann uses Ledoux’s work to Neutra’s words in the last chapter entitled describe these tendencies and the process “Architec-tural autonomy”. However, it is continues with the “symbolic system” important to understand not only the embodied in buildings like the direct links between Ledoux’s body of work

Pages from De Ledoux a Le Corbusier (1982) that illustrate the Spanish edition of Tournikiotis’ Historiography. (Tournikiotis [2014]) CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 114

and the time of Le Corbusier, but also the From Historiography to Kaufmann complete line that Kaufmann draws from one to the other across the nineteenth cen- Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier has not yet tury. According to Kaufmann, “Ledoux is been translated into English. Thus, the the first to initiate the long path which ideas Kaufmann presented in this book connects the Baroque to the architecture were made available to the English-spea- of the twentieth century” (1982: 22) and king public first by Panayotis Tournikiotis “our own time, similar to Ledoux’s, is occu- in 1999 and, more recently, by Anthony pied with similar experiments which, des- Vidler in 2008. While it is true that his pite their architectural impracticability, next two books and a series of essays in are significant due to the tireless ambition the Journal of the Society of Architectural of new forms” (1982: 54). Historians were written in English, it is difficult to find the reason why the book was Once architectural autonomy has been not translated into this language. At this established as the main characteristic of point, and before considering Tournikiotis’ both Ledoux’s work and modern architec- and Vidler’s analysis, it may be interesting ture, the question is: how did it survive to discuss, at least briefly, the book’s edi- during the nineteenth century? Once torial life. Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier was again, Kaufmann describes a process, but first translated into Italian in 1973 (Milan: this time not as thoroughly as before, sur- Mazzotta); the second edition appeared in prisingly, as this was one of the two aims 1975. During the next decade, two more of his research: translations were published: first, the French version in 1981 (Paris: L’Esquerre) “Ledoux’s work, which culminated in a with a second edition in 1990; and second, vigorous protest against the Classical- the Spanish version in 1982 (Barcelona: Baroque tradition, had little in common Gustavo Gili) with a second edition, too, in with his neoclassical contemporaries in his 1985. Precisely in 1985 appeared the re- last period. His definitive correspondence print, or unveränderter Nachdruck, in with twentieth century architectural forms German (Stuttgart: G. Hatje). The interest causes profound astonishment. The ques- on this book, at least during the 1980s, tion it raises is whether this similarity with cannot be denied. Moreover, in 1992 Von the architectural style of our time is only Ledoux bis Le Corbusier was translated superficial and fortuitous or whether there into Japanese and in 2002 a new French exists a constant development from edition has been published. The question Ledoux, as the most representative figure it raises is why the book has never been of French revolutionary architecture, to translated into English. It is an interesting our day”. (1982: 77-78) question with a difficult answer which may be the object of another investigation. Kaufmann uses the concept of autonomy to reflect on this development throughout In his chapter on art historians, the nineteenth century. According to him, Tournikiotis does not mention the reasons the principle of autonomy “preserves its to include Kaufmann in his study; he does efficacy during the first subsequent deca- not justify his choice. Whereas The des after the Revolution” which he discus- Historiography of Modern Architecture is ses thoroughly; “weakened as time passed considered a key study, some arguments by until it was almost forgotten at the end are forced and hard to agree with. of the nineteenth century” (1982: 78). If Ledoux’s work is sufficient in itself to dis- “It is true, of course, that Kaufmann esta- cuss architecture around 1800 according blishes the foundations of the modern to Kaufmann, the figure of Le Corbusier movement without actually describing; his –his work is not really analyzed– is suffi- book functions as a manifesto, but it cient to characterize architecture at the would not be useful as a guide to the beginning of the twentieth century. The architect. (…) In both cases [Pevsner and author considers that he has proven the Kaufmann], however, the text contains a survival of the principle of autonomy potential architectural project, a ‘building’ during the nineteenth century despite his that some architect might one day cons- limited analysis. He considers unquestio- truct –whether his name is Gropius or Le nable that autonomy reigned in modern Corbusier or anything else. It is this speci- architecture. Despite the fact that fic parameter that determines the operati- Kaufmann neither mentions nor discusses ve nature of their discourse”. (Tournikiotis a single building by Le Corbusier, “his 1999: 22-23) work was the full affirmation of the new principles” (1982: 93). Is it possible to establish something without even describing it? Is Kaufmann’s CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 115

Teorie e storia dell’architettura published in 1968. He blames Pevsner and Giedion for being “happy to produce a short-lived, consumable (even rapidly consumable) literature” (1980: 154). According to Tafuri, they are works so present-centered that one finds more opinion than analytical rigor. Moreover, he considers Kaufmann an example of “Illuminist criticism”, together with Max Dvořák, member of the Wiener Schule der Kunstgeschich-te. Illuminist criticism introduced an “ambiguity” that is shared by operative criticism. In Tafuri’s opinion, it can be considered that Kaufmann’s res- tless study of the architecture in the Age of Reason reveals attitudes which give “new courage” to modern architecture, without fully committing to it. The only artistic revolution which interest this historian is, according to Tafuri, the one initiated by Ledoux around 1800.

It is also hard to agree with Tournikiotis when he refers to the book’s structure. According to the thorough examination presented in this essay, this structure would be: a presentation of Ledoux and his work classified in the above mentioned stages (Baroque’s unity, revolutionary Panayotis book an example of operative criticism? architecture and the different tendencies Tournikiotis’ The The difference between the historiogra- until reaching the autonomous solution) Historiography of phers is related to the difference in their and the reinterpretation of autonomous Modern Architecture, consideration of operative criticism. architecture during the nineteenth century 1999. According to Scalvini and Sandri, it can be and the beginning of the twentieth cen- inferred that the answer to this question is tury. This structure has little in common “no”; that Kaufmann lacks the “commit- with the one described by Tournikiotis, ment” they appreciate in the historians maybe because of his choice to describe it they review. On the contrary, Tourni-kiotis together with Pevsner’s Pioneers. emphasizes the operative character of Kaufmann’s discourse in discussing it “There are structural similarities between together with Nikolaus Pevsner’s Pioneers the two books. Both begin by noting the of Modern Design. Tournikiotis distinguis- existence of what we might schematically hes Kaufmann and Pevsner from Giedion, call an architecture A, which is a faithful not only for their attitude but also for their reflection of its age, is described in negati- books’ structure. Pevsner and Kaufmann ve terms, and is dealt with as an abstract built their discourses on the methodology entity: only a very few of its representatives of Kunstwissenschaft or “science of art”, are named. Both authors then discern a but to affirm –as does Tournikiotis– that rift, which takes individual form in the both “were trying to capture the more pro- work of the first pioneer to call architectu- found meaning of architectural change re A into question at a given point in time. without denying their own stated predilec- They then narrate the lengthy transition to tion for modern architecture” seems only architecture B, during which the pioneers applicable to Pevsner’s discourse (1999: implement their model projects. 25). After reconsidering Von Ledoux bis Le Architecture B, too, is a faithful reflection Corbusier, Kaufmann’s true interest is the of its age; it is described in positive terms change or shift taking place around 1800 and summarized in the work of one archi- embodied in Ledoux’s work. This can be tect”. (1999: 27) easily seen in his subsequent books and essays. Ledoux embodies the rupture, according to Kaufmann, but the process described by In order to consider Kaufmann’s work the author lasts thirty years, not two cen- under the light of the operative criticism it turies. Tournikiotis’ assertion also contra- is necessary to turn to Manfredo Tafuri’s dicts one of Kaufmann’s main ideas: CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 116

Anthony Vidler’s Ledoux transformed heteronomous archi- Histories of the tecture, but by studying, using and com- Immediate Present: bining it in the search for something new. Inventing architectural modernism, 2008. “In both cases, we can recognize the same (Tournikiotis [2014]) polemical structure: in order to constitute architecture B as modern and fundamen- tally new, the authors attempt the exem- plary projection of its opposite, architecture A”. (1999: 32)

In Kaufmann’s case architecture B is the autonomous solution detected in Ledoux’s last works, and the transition from one architecture to the other is the evolution within the artist’s work. Indeed, this pro- ves the scarce link between the structure described by Tournikiotis and Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier’s content.

Moving on from 1999 to 2008, from Tournikiotis to Anthony Vidler, there are also ideas that are hard to agree with. In this case, a briefer commentary can clarify the claim. “The real subject of the treatise would then be the architecture of Loos, Gropius, Richard Neutra, and Le architecture. First, his clear preference for Corbusier –the architecture of modernism Ledoux and the architecture of the Age of developed between 1900 and 1929” (2008: Reason allows us to reconsider Kaufmann 37). Is Le Corbusier and modern architec- as a historian of modern architecture. ture the real subject of the book? There is More-over, at the end of Von Ledoux bis Le no way, after reading the content’s analy- Corbu-sier, Kaufmann claims that “to per- sis presented above, that we can affirm form an interpretation of current architec- anything other than the real subject of Von ture’s essence cannot be the object of an Ledoux bis Le Corbusier is Ledoux. Vidler, historical research work” (1982: 94). It can too, considers this history as a “modern be inferred that he thought it necessary project”, whereas we understand it as a not only to wait some time, but also to “first draft” of a history of architecture in truly understand architecture around the Age of Reason. Neither Tournikiotis nor 1800 as a first step towards the study of Vidler criticizes the lack of detail in modern architecture. Kaufmann’s description of the survival process of the principle of autonomy. Second, this study intends to recognize the worth of Kaufmann’s task in reevaluating These two historiographies are the main pre- and post-revolutionary architecture, sources for English-speaking readers and an architecture neglected and forgotten by it has been proven that they should be previous historians. Baroque had been read, at least, with caution. It is important defined as a decadent time until Alois Riegl to take into account that both historiogra- rejected this consideration in his reevalua- phies consider Kaufmann’s together with tion of Spätromische architecture. Sigfried other historians’ discourses, which can Giedion or Heinrich Wölfflin continued the lead to misinterpretations. The need for a work and shed some more light on the plain presentation of the content of Von Baroque. In Kaufmann’s words “is the bio- Ledoux bis Le Corbusier has been proven, grapher who ventures in an unmapped too, while we wait for the English transla- territory the one that should be praised; tion. someone who discovers an artist or who offers a new image of a personality or an From “the History of Art” to “the era”, like himself (1946: 284). In La estruc- History of Modern Architecture” tura histórica del entorno, Marina Waisman defines the exploratory function, “which Some interesting ideas are revealed as a focuses on aspects misinterpreted by result of rethinking and reinterpreting the architectural practice or thinking”, as one content of Von Ledoux bis Le Corbusier, of the functions of the history of architec- which will help to clarify Kaufmann’s con- ture (1985: 8). Thus, the contemporary tribution to the historiography of modern view of works by Ledoux, Boullée and the CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 117

architecture in the Age of Reason that Original edition: 1978. Situation d’Emil Kauf- Kaufmann offers has become a way to mann. Trois architectes révolutionnaires: Boullée, Ledoux, Lequeu. Paris : Éditions de la SADG. understand modernity, in a wider sense Frankl, Paul. 1981. Principios fundamentales de la than just the Modern Movement or modern Historia de la Arquitectura: el desarrollo de la architecture. arquitectura europea desde 1420-1900. Barce- lona: Gustavo Gili. Translated by Herminia Third, it is important to understand that Dauer. Original edition: 1914. Die Entwicklungs- Kaufmann’s evaluation takes place in a phasen der neueren Baukunst. Leipzig: B.G. time of searching. On the one hand, the Teuber. search for a new science of art between the Hartoonian, Gevork. 2011. The Mental Life of the Architectural Historian: re-opening the Early 1920s and the 1930s; and on the other Historiography of Modern Architecture. Newcastle hand, the search for a new history of archi- upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. tecture later on in the 1940s. In this con- Hernández Pezzi, Emilia. 1988. Historiografía de la arquitectura moderna. Madrid: Editorial de la text, Kaufmann’s reinterpretation of the Universidad Complutense. revolutionary architecture and its connec- Kaufmann, Emil. 1982. De Ledoux a Le Corbusier. tion to rationalist modern architecture Origen y desarrollo de la arquitectura autónoma. opens new paths for the discipline. To Barcelona: Gustavo Gili. Translated by Reinald Bernet. Original edition: 1933. Von Ledoux bis understand that the genealogy of modern Le Corbusier. Ursprung und Entwicklung der architecture starts with Ledoux around autonomen Architektur. Vienna: Rolf Passer. 1800 is not exclusively Kaufmann’s idea. Kaufmann, Emil. 1943. Claude-Nicolas Ledoux, Inau- gurator of a New Architectural System. Journal Other theorists like Henry-Russell of the Society of Architectural Historians, III, nº 3: Hitchcock understood the continuity in 12-21. architecture from 1800 to the twentieth Kaufmann, Emil. 1946. Nils G. Wollin: ‘Desprez en century. Moreover, some of the subse- Suède’. Art Bulletin, vol. XXVIII: 283-284. Panosky, Erwin. 1970. Tres decenios de Historia del quent historians of modern architecture Arte en Estados Unidos: impresiones de un have initiated their discourses at the end europeo transplantado. In El significado de las of the eighteenth century. artes visuales. Buenos Aires: Infinito. Original edition: 1953. “Three decades of Art History in the United States: Impressions of a transplanted To sum up, it can be concluded that Kauf- European”. College Art Journal 14: 7-27. mann himself is a transitional figure bet- Scalvini, María Luisa and Sandri, Maria Grazia. 1984. ween a previous generation of art histo- L’immagine storiografica dell’architettura contemporanea da Platz a Giedion. Roma: Officina rians who established fundamental con- Edizioni. cepts and principles; and others of his own Schapiro, Meyer. 1936. The New Viennese School. Art generation who embarked on the hard task Bulletin XVIII, nº2: 258-266. In: Wood, Christo- pher S. (ed.), 2003. The Vienna School Reader: of considering modern architecture as a Politics and Art Historical Method in the 1930s. subject of historical research. From the New York: Zone Books. 453-485. former, Kaufmann inherited an idea of Schlosser, Julius von. 2009. The Vienna School of the truly methodological research, which he History of Art- review of a century of Austrian scholarship in German. Journal of Art –without architectural education– was able Historiography, nº1. Translated and edited by to adapt to the study of architecture Karl Johns. Original edition: 1934. Die wiener around 1800. His work helped the latter as Schule der Kunstgeschichte. Mitteilungen des österreichischen Institut für an example, and they applied similar stra- Geschichtsforschungen Ergänzungs-Band 13, tegies in their investigations, which in fact Heft 2 : 145-228. deal with modern architecture. Tafuri, Manfredo. 1980. Theories and History of Architecture. London: Granada Publishing Li- mited. Translated by Giorgio Verrechia. Original Using similar terms as those Kaufmann edition: 1968. Teorie e storia dell’architettura. uses to refer to Ledoux, he could be consi- Rome and Bari: Laterza. dered as a limit historian who knows the Teyssot, Georges. 1980. Clasicismo, Neoclasicismo y “Arquitectura revolucionaria”. Introduction to research methods used on both sides of a Tres arquitectos revolucionarios: Boullée, Ledoux river. He is the one to cross from one side y Lequeu. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili. 15-35. to the other, from the historiography of art Trans-lated by Xabier Blanquer, Marc Cuixart, to the historiography of modern architec- Enric Granell and Ricardo Guasch. Original edition: 1978. Trois architectes révolutionnaires: ture. He belongs to neither of them, and to Boullée, Ledoux, Lequeu. Paris : Éditions de la both at the same time. SADG. Teyssot, Georges. 1981. Neoclassic and “Autonomous” Architecture: the Formalism of Emil Kaufmann. In: Pophyrios, Demetri (ed.), On the Methodology Bibliografía of Architectural History. Architectural Design, 6/7: 25-33. Coolidge, John. 1943. Preliminary steps towards “The Tournikiotis, Panayotis. 1999. The Historiography of New History of Architecture”. Journal of the So- Modern Architecture. Cambridge, ciety of Architectural Historians, vol III, nº3: 3- Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Spanish edition: 11. 2014. La historiografía de la arquitectura moder- Erouart, Gilbert. 1980. Situación de Emil Kaufmann. na. Barcelona: Reverté. Translated by Jorge Introduction to Tres arquitectos revolucionarios: Sainz. Boullée, Ledoux y Lequeu. Barcelona: Gustavo Vidler, Anthony. 2008. Histories of the Immediate Gili, 7-14. Translated by Xabier Blanquer, Marc Present: Inventing architectural modernism. Cuixart, Enric Granell and Ricardo Guasch. Cambridge: MIT Press. Spanish edition: 2011. CUADERNO DE NOTAS 15 - 2014 ARTÍCULOS VON LEDOUX BIS LE CORBUSIER 118

Historias del presente inmediato: la invención del Movimiento Moderno. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili. Translated by Moisés Puente. Waisman, Marina. 1985. La estructura histórica del entorno. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión. Wölfflin, Heinrich. 1924. Conceptos fundamentales en la Historia del Arte. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Translated by J. Moreno Villa. Original edition: 1915. Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Das Problem der Stilentwicklung in der neueren Kunst. Basilea-Munich. Zucker, Paul. 1951. The Paradox of Architectural Theories at the beginning of the Modern Movement. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians vol. X, nº3: 8-14.

Artículo sometido a revisión por dos revi- sores independientes por el método doble ciego.