&(0 Q=9J:GGCQ=9J:GGC &(0 9JL =KA?F < 9J;@AL=;LMJ=
&(0 )*/1+, HGKLAGQB >AFD9F<= HGJLH9Qz $*((/$[%hjafl\aYk][$)1-p)*-[e$\]lYad& & ;`Yjd]kJ]ffa]EY[caflgk`&@ak[gfljaZmlagflgl`]Eg\]jfEgn]e]fl :mad\af_gfl`]@gjargf&L`]9j[`al][lmj]g^Kn]jj]>]`f L`]JakcYf\Dmpmjqg^HmZda[MjZYfKhY[] 9\gd^DggkJ]Y\qeY\] O`Yl\g_Yj\]faf_$l`]EYljqgk`cY\gddYf\l`]Jgddaf_Klgf]k`Yn]af[geegf7 Gdd]:µjldaf_Ìk\j]Yekg^kl]]d @]Y\afl`][dgm\k$^]]lgfl`]_jgmf\ LadY HYkkY_]+! Oal`@aklgjqLgoYj\kEg\]jfalq&L`]9j[`al][lmj]g^?mffYj9khdmf\ ÇKhYlaYdh]jkh][lan]kgfl`];Yjf]_a]9jl9oYj\*((0]p`aZalagf ;gn]j EMK=MEG>;GFL=EHGJ9JQ9JLCA9KE9 AKKF)*+1%+,() JYfYd\DYoj]f[] h`glg_jYh`q LaegNYdbYccY ]p`aZalagfk =dafYH]fllaf]f LaegNYdbYccY Zggck HYfmD]`lgnmgja d][lmj]k 9f\j]oEY[EaddYf D]kda]NYf
HYjlg^l`]9dnYj9Ydlg>gmf\Ylagf$l`]9dnYj9Ydlg9[Y\]eqakhjaeYjadq^mf\]\Zq &(0 l`]>affak`Eafakljqg^=\m[YlagfYf\akdg[Yl]\YlKlm\ag9YdlgafLaadaeca$@]dkafca& L`]9[Y\]eqYdkgjYak]k^mf\af_gfYhjgb][lZYkak3YeYbgjhYjlf]j`YkZ]]fl`];alqg^Bqnkcqd& L`]Jmd]kYf\J]_mdYlagfkg^l`]9[Y\]eqkh][a^qalk^mf\Ye]flYdhmjhgk]kYkk]jnaf_ `llh2''ooo&YdnYjYYdlg&Õ YkY\ak[mkkagf^gjme^gjafl]jfYlagfYd]fnajgfe]flYd[mdlmj]$hYjla[mdYjdq[gfl]ehgjYjqYj[`al][lmj]$ Laadaeca*($((++(@]dkafca$>afdYf\ Yf\YkY[gddYZgjYlan]gj_Yf^gj[gflafmaf_]\m[YlagfafYj[`al][lmj]& hlY`8YdnYjYYdlg&Õ L`]9[Y\]eq`YkY^gmj%e]eZ]jZgYj\$o`a[`[gfn]f]k^j]im]fldq& L`]Yj[`al][l=kYDYYckgf]f`YkZ]]fl`]9[Y\]eqÌk\aj][lgjkaf[]alk^gmf\af_af)111& HmZdak`]j L`]9[Y\]eqhYjla[ahYl]kafYoa\]jYf_]g^Y[lanala]k$^jgek]eafYjklg>affak`Yf\afl]jfYlagfYdf]logjcaf_& L`]9dnYj9Ydlg>gmf\Ylagf L`]9[Y\]eqakafl]jfYlagfYddqY[[dYae]\^gjYjjYf_af_\]ka_fk]eafYjk$Yj[`al][lmj]kqehgkamek Yf\]n]flkZjaf_af_lg_]l`]jj]k]Yj[`]jkg^YjlYf\Yj[`al][lmj]& =\algjaYdZgYj\ Gj_Yfak]\]n]jqkmee]j$l`]k]YlljY[l`mf\j]\kg^>affak`Yf\afl]jfYlagfYd]ph]jlk$ ;dY]k;Yd\]fZq$Dmak>]jff\]r% afl]j]kl]\af\ana\mYdkYf\bgmjfYdaklk&L`]]n]flkYj]mkmYddqY[[gehYfa]\Zqk]n]jYd]p`aZalagfk& ?YdaYfg$EYjlCYde$EYjccmDY`la$ L`]9[Y\]eq`YkYdkgZ]]fafngdn]\afgj_Yfakaf_l`]Za]ffaYd>affak`9j[`al][lmj]]p`aZalagf JgZ]jlE[;Yjl]j$9flgfqEgmdak$ J=>GJEK9F<J=E9JCK (*(+$(,(-$(.(/Yf\l`]mh[geaf_(0(1!af[ggh]jYlagfoal`l`]>affak`9kkg[aYlagfg^9j[`al][lk EYjbY%JaallYFgjja$Fa[`gdYkJYq$ Yf\l`]Emk]meg^>affak`9j[`al][lmj]& 9ff]Kl]fjgk$Lgj]LYddinakl$ `Ylqgmk]]fgoakYf]ohlY`2YfYffmYdbgmjfYd[gflYafaf_ EYj[Lj]aZ$LaegLmgeaYf\ L`]9[Y\]eqY[lan]dqhmZdak`]kZggckYf\eY_Yraf]k$af[dm\af_alkgof=f_dak`%kh]Ycaf_ bgmjfYd$ Yjla[d]kYjgmf\Y_an]fl`]e]&L`akq]Yj Yf\hjgZYZdq]n]jql`j]] LaegNYdbYccY fYe]\Y^l]jl`]Yf[a]fl=_qhlaYf_g\g^Zmad\af_& ^g[mk]kgfYj[`al][lmj]$\]ka_fYf\l`]Yjlk$ q]Yjk^jgefgogf!gmjl`]e]akÊZmad\af_%\]ka_faf_%l`afcaf_Ê$ Yf\alk[gfl]flkaf[dm\]l`]d][lmj]kg^l`]lghd][lmj]k]ja]kYjjYf_]\af@]dkafcaloa[]Yq]Yj& O =\algj%af%[`a]^ o`a[`oYkl`]lald]g^Yfafl]jfYlagfYdkqehgkameg^Yj[`al][lmj]j]k]Yj[`]jk L`]Bqnkcqdkmee]j]n]flkYj]^gddgo]\Zqkh][aYdj]hgjlk& =kYDYYckgf]f L`]\aj][lgjg^l`]9[Y\]eqakYdkgl`]]\algj%af%[`a]^g^l`]*0%hYjl9dnYj9YdlgYj[`al][lmj] YjjYf_]\dYklkmee]jafBqnkcqd&L`]hj]k]flakkm]g^hlY`eYafdq[gfkaklk ]kY&dYYckgf]f8YdnYjYYdlg&Õ egfg_jYh`k]ja]k$hmZdak`]\Zql`]9[Y\]eqaf[gddYZgjYlagfoal`l`]gl`]jmfalkg^l`]>gmf\Ylagf& l]d#+-0% (!-(%---/++( g^l`]c]qfgl]d][lmj]k$]\al]\lgl`akhmjhgk]&AfY\\alagf$=DAF9H=FLLAF=F 9dnYj9Ydlg9[Y\]eqhmZda[YlagfkYj]YnYadYZd]Yll`]gfdaf]Zggcklgj]g^l`]>gmf\Ylagf& `Yk]\al]\l`]log\ak[mkkagfk`]d\\mjaf_l`]kqehgkame^gjgmjbgmjfYd& L`]9[Y\]eqYdkgYjjYf_]k[gflafmaf_]\m[Ylagfogjck`ghk^gjYj[`al][lkmf\]jl`]lald]g^ 9kkaklYfl]\algj hlY`Ydkgaf[dm\]k^YeadaYjeYl]jaYdkm[`YkYjla[d]k$j]na]okYf\d][lmj]k^jge Kgmf\af_k^gj9j[`al][lmj]&L`]^g[mkg^l`]ogjck`ghkakafljg\m[af_[`ad\j]fYf\hj]%l]]fk =dafYH]fllaf]f lgYj[`al][lmj]Yf\mjZYfhdYffaf_&9dYklaf_j]kmdlg^l`]ogjck`ghkakl`]afl]jfYlagfYd ]dafYh]f8_eYad&[ge l`]9dnYj9Ydlg9[Y\]eqkhjaf_Yf\Ymlmefd][lmj]k]ja]k&L`]hj]k]flakkm] Ykkg[aYlagfg^Yj[`al][lmjYd]\m[YlagfHdYq[]& l]d#+-0% (!,(%//.1)1* [gflYafkl`]d][lmj]ZqHjg^]kkgjE9JLC9DE^jge=klgfaYgfl`]Yj[`al][l @]jZ]jlBg`Yfkkgf$o`gogjc]\\mjaf_l`]ljYfkalagfZ]lo]]feg\]jfake >mjl`]jaf^gjeYlagf =\algjaYdYkkaklYfl$Y\n]jlak]e]flk Y[Y\]eq8YdnYjYYdlg&Õtooo&YdnYjYYdlg&Õ'Y[Y\]eqtooo&hdYq[]&gj_ E]jbYNYafag Yf\[dYkka[ake& e]jbY&nYafag8YdnYjYYdlg&Õ • l]d#+-0% (!,((%//*.+. Aj][]fldqojgl]Yk`gjlhj]k]flYlagfgfl`]gh]jYlagfkg^l`]9dnYj9Ydlg ^Yp#+-0% (!1%,0-))1 fgl]k^gj[gfljaZmlgjk 9[Y\]eq&Al`afcalÕllaf_lgaf[dm\]alafeq[gfljaZmlagf`]j]$^gjA`Yn] DYq%gmlYf\f]o_jYh`a[\]ka_f fgla[]\l`Yll`]Y[lanala]kg^l`]9[Y\]eq$afhYjla[mdYjYkYmfalk]hYjYl] ;Ydd^gjYjla[d]k KmkYffYJYmfag ^jgel`]9dnYj9Ydlg>gmf\Ylagf$Yj]fglf][]kkYjadq^YeadaYjlg]n]jqgf]&A Hd]Yk]k]]^jgfl[gn]j^gjl`];Ydd^gjYjla[d]k C]lg<]ka_f kmka8c]lg\]ka_f&Õ `gh]l`]l]plZ]dgok`]\kkge]da_`lgfo`Ylo]\g& KmZeakkagfg^eYfmk[jahlk l]d#+-0% (!-(%+/--0+- L`]]\algjkg^ Yj]j]Y\qlgj][]an]gja_afYd$mfhmZdak`]\eYfmk[jahlkoal`gmlgZda_Ylagf& F]o_jYh`a[\]ka_fZYk]\ EYfmk[jahlkeYqZ]af>affak`$=f_dak`gjKo]\ak` hj]^]jYZdqaf=f_dak`!& gfl`]\]ka_feY\]ZqFaafYNYafag 9ddl]plkYj]hmZdak`]\af=f_dak`&L]plfgllg]p[]]\YlglYdg^*(((([`YjY[l]jk fglaf[dm\af_]f\fgl]k!& =K9D99CKGF=F =f\fgl]kYj]hj]^]jj]\lg^gglfgl]k&L`]9ml`gjakj]im]kl]\lgYllY[`Yk`gjlZag_jYh`qlg`ak'`]jYjla[d]& =f_dak`dYf_mY_][gfkmdlYfl @]dkafca)/Fgn]eZ]j*((0 L]pl[YfZ]k]flZq]%eYad2hlY`8YdnYjYYdlg&Õ'eYad2hlY`$Laadaeca*($((++(@]dkafca$>afdYf\'^Yp#+-0% (!1%,0-))1& ;af\qCg`lYdY ]kY&dYYckgf]f8YdnYjYYdlg&Õ
>afYdeYfmk[jahl Hjafl]j 9^l]jY[[]hlYf[]$ÕfYdeYfmk[jahlk[YfZ]k]flZq]%eYadgjZqeYad af[dm\af_Zgl`\akc]ll]Yf\hYh]j[ghq!& 9jl%HjaflGq 9ddfgjeYdogj\hjg[]kkaf_^gjeYlkYj]Y[[]hlYZd] Ydl`gm_`Ea[jgkg^lOgj\H;'EY[^gjOaf\gokYj]hj]^]jj]\!& Yjlhjafl8Yjlhjafl&Õ L`]9ml`gjemklY\nak]mkafY\nYf[]o]Yl`]j`]'k`]oYflkl`]Yjla[d]lgZ]hmZdak`]\YkYfYjla[d]j]^]j]]\ l]d#+-0% (!1%//,((-*( YfgfqegmkdqZqlogj]^]j]]kgjYkYf]kkYq&>ajkl=f_dak`dYf_mY_]hmZdak`af_ja_`lkoaddZ]j]lYaf]\Zql`]hmZdak`]j& #+-0% (!,((%,+00)/
AddmkljYlagfk ;gn]j L`]9ml`gjakj]im]kl]\lghjghgk]addmkljYlagf^gj`ak'`]jYjla[d] hj]^]jYZdqYeafaemeg^logaddmkljYlagfk ?Yd]ja]AeY_]*)(_'e* h]jgf]k`]]l\]h]f\af_gfkar]!&@a_`imYdalqgja_afYdkYj]hj]^]jj]\$Ydl]jfYlan]kk`gmd\Z]\ak[mkk]\ Jan]kLjY\alagf*-(_'e* afY\nYf[]oal`l`]Yjl]\algj&AddmkljYlagfkYj]fgllg]p[]]\kar]:- )/.*-(ee!&J ]kgdmlagfYld]Ykl+((\ha \glkh]jaf[`!&
akhmZdak`]\gf[]Yq]Yj& AKKF)*+1%+,() ((. ; G F L = F L K
]\algjaYd ((- J=>GJEK9F<J=E9JCK =kYDYYckgf]f
<=KA?FAF? % :MAD ((0 L@AFCAF?'E9CAF?29JAKLGLD=ÌKFGLAGFG>L@=;J=9LAN=AFL=DD=;L D]kda]CYnYfYm_` ()0 KAL=%OJALAF?2L@=9J;@AL=;LMJ=G>9JL;JALA;AKE BYf]J]f\]dd (+0 GF9J;@AL=;LMJ9DCFGOD= (,* KH9;=$DA>=$9F<9J;@AL=;LMJ= CaeegDYhafla] (-( L@=LGO=JG>L@=OAF (., L@=LJ9 (/* L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= KlYf^gj\9f\]jkgf 9JLA;D=K9F<=KK 9QK gfYj[`al][lmj](00 9E=JA;9F;AF=E99F<EG<=JFAKL9J;@AL=;LMJ=AF>AFD9F< gf\]ka_f )(/ ;GEH9;LCAL;@=F EYjlafJ]dYf\]j gfh`glg_jYh`q))( FGFKAL=Ç9FMJ:9FDAEAF9DKH9;= LaegNYdbYccY :GGCK ))0 = 9; 9<=EQD=; LMJ=KK=JA=K )*, 9J;@AL=;L@=J:=JLBG@9FKGFÇ9N9FL%?9J<==KLGFA9FKLQD= EYjlCYde )+, FG?M;@AÌKD9F KL9F>GJ<9F<=JKGF L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= ZZ DYm_a]jÌk[dYael`YlÉafl`gk]Yjlko`a[`Yj]fglhmj]dqe][`Yfa[Yd alakfglkm^Õ[a]fllgcfgo`golgogjc3alakYZgn]YddaehgjlYfllgd]Yjf 9lgl`afc&Ê:ml`gok`gmd\gf]l`afcYZgmlYj[`al][lmj]$gjjYl`]j$l`afcaf Yj[`al][lmj]7Akl`]j]Ykh][aÕ[Yj[`al][lmjYdoYqg^l`afcaf_7À;YfY\]ka_fZ]Y ^gjeg^l`afcaf_7Gj\g]kalYddZgad\goflgkmZb][lan]lYkl]7 KlYf^gj\9f\]jkgf9j[`al][l “Not subjective taste!” – we had better say, if we think there is a discipline Yf\Hjg^]kkgjg^@aklgjqYf\ of architecture, a profession of architecture; if we can honorably have 9j[`al][lmj]afl`]<]hYjle]flg^ 9j[`al][lmj]&L`]EYkkY[`mk]llk schools of architecture or be professors or critics of architecture. Afklalml]g^L][`fgdg_q$;YeZja\_]$ Abbé Laugier put his question with reference to “arts which are not EYkkY[`mk]llk purely mechanical,” among which he counted architecture. The obverse of that characterization is, then, that these arts are also ‘mechanical.’ Architecture does have to answer to many instrumental demands of function and making. It is not surprising then, nor wrong, that much thought in architecture is addressed to instrumentalities. Nor is it surprising that we have had programs called “functionalism,” claiming not only to address the necessary instrumentalities of architecture, but also to be theoretically adequate. In later discussions of the theory of architecture, functionalism is generally rejected; but functionalism remains a default position in much of architectural practice, and even in pedagogy. Is there a specific, architectural way of thinking? I think there is a logically necessary condition if that question is to be answered. If we are to think, to design, to build architecturally, then these activities cannot simply be reduced to information supplied by other disciplines, as functionalism at least appeared to do. 9dnYj9Ydlg&NaddYEYaj]Y& ALVAR AALTO worked at a time when there were architects of ;`aef]q\]lYad&9ML@GJÌK9J;@AN=K& consequence who strongly advocated the theory and practice of Functionalism. Aalto did not buy into a narrow functionalism. Repeatedly he made the case for a deeper functionalism that would give adequate &(0 L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= (/, (/- relied on French architecture of the late 18th century. There he found the origins and nature of autonomy in architecture.* The architect CLAUDE NICOLAS LEDOUX is Kaufmann’s key figure. Ledoux embodied in his life and work a crucial change that Kaufmann sees as epochal for society and its cultural forms. Ledoux’s key work is the royal saltworks at Chaux, conceived as an ideal city. Kaufmann interpreted Ledoux’s first project for Chaux as a hierarchical, compact, and strictly organized design. These traits he perceived as counterparts to an earlier, then receding, authoritarian political and cultural organization that Kaufmann subsumed under the term ‘baroque’. In contrast, the final, only partially realized, scheme for Chaux, although clearly ordered, exemplified an unprecedented openness with individual buildings conceived quite differently from one another depending on their intended use. This form of organization Kaufmann ;dYm\]%Fa[gdYkD]\gmp&;alqg^ attention to the humanistic dimensions of architecture. But would that termed the “pavilion system” and traced it in works of the late 18th ;`Ymp&>ajklYf\ÕfYdk[`]e]k& simply yield a functionalism that considers more variables, proposed by century by Ledoux and other architects whom he collectively termed 9ML@GJÌK9J;@AN=K& more disciplines? Psychology and sociology would join anthropometrics ‘Revolutionary architects’. and Taylorism and materials science and structural and mechanical These architects worked almost wholly before the French revolution, engineering? These additional variables might enhance the performance so the ‘revolution’ of the ‘Revolutionary architects’ was a revolution of functionalism, but architecture would remain a mechanical technique that had been underway for some time and reached beyond France – the for the agglomeration of information from other disciplines. revolution of the Enlightenment. Kaufmann cited especially JEAN- If Aalto’s advocacy of a more informed functionalism does not answer JACQUES ROUSSEAU’s concerns for the rights of the individual, drawing to the problem of architectural thinking, are we merely left with the view a rather literal connection between an emphasis on individual rights and that architectural design possesses a certain je ne sais quoi, as in this the conceptual opening and particularity of architecture ordered within famous detail from the Villa Mairea, that leads us to set some architects the pavilion system. or buildings apart from the norms of professional practice? Kaufmann conflates at least two concepts of autonomy. There is a I don’t want to settle for architecture – or for an interpretation of ‘conceptual autonomy’ as just referenced: an intellectual and political Aalto’s work – as either merely a more sensitive functionalism or a shift from a traditional, hierarchical society to the origins of modern program for the sophisticated design of details of elusive significance. society with relative autonomy in thought and action. Formally, the Further, despite the way it sounds, I don’t want completely to reject either authoritarian baroque society displayed itself in hierarchical spatial functionalism or the je ne sais quoi.) Nonetheless, these are not the routes organizations, intended for perspectival viewing from an idealized by which to address the question of what it is to think architecturally. position. With this concern for a hierarchical image, architectural >jYfgakEYfkYjl&;`l]Ym In this article, I will review earlier attempts to discover an form could be twisted and ornamented till both individuality and \]EYakgfk$).,*%-)&9ML@GJÌK architectural way of thinking through the concept of architectural material logic were subverted to the holistic image. In contrast, Ledoux 9J;@AN=K& autonomy. Not satisfied with these proposals for autonomy, but still seeking to “think in architecture,” I will give renewed attention to my notion of “quasi-autonomy.” L`afcaf_Yj[`al][lmjYddq29mlgfgeqoal`=eadCYm^eYffÌkD]\gmp What is it to think architecturally? The question is not new. We are led back to attempts to claim, and then discern, the autonomy of architecture. The concept of autonomy in architecture has been proposed from different positions that I will sample here. At the outset, we can take ‘architectural autonomy’ to be a proposition that in some way recognizes ‘a specific architectural way of thinking’, and traces the constitution of that way of thinking within the discipline of architecture itself. One of the most noted of such endeavors was by the historian EMIL KAUFMANN in the early 1930s, in the time of high modernism. Kaufmann was an advocate of LE CORBUSIER, but his theoretical position &(0 L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= &(0 (/. (// Schapiro concludes this thought with a remarkable passage that sounds as if he anticipated the early work of PETER EISENMAN. Here is Schapiro, in 1933, thirty years before Eisenman’s House I: They [the self-justifying artists] know only the ‘laws of art,’ and submit to no others. In the name of a similar purity, an architectural aesthete might deduce an art which conceals or suppresses the tectonic, constructive elements as non-artistic, and which constructs independently of these factors its own effects of mass and space and light., Almost surely Eisenman has read Kaufmann and the review essay of Schapiro. In any case, Eisenman notably resumes the quest for autonomy in architecture. L`afcaf_Yj[`al][lmjYddq29mlgfgeqoal`H]l]j=ak]feYfÌkD];gjZmka]j If Kaufmann relied on Rousseau and individual liberty, Eisenman relied on IMMANUEL KANT, as read (not uniquely) by the noted New York formalist art critic CLEMENT GREENBERG. Greenberg relied on his interpretation zla]ff]%Dgmak:gmdd ]&;]fg% designed his dispersed pavilions according to particular programs and of metacriticism in Kant to formulate his own position that what sets lYh`g^F]olgf&9ML@GJÌK9J;@AN=K& sensibilities. modern art apart is its exploration of its own production. Claiming Kant As concerns materiality, Kaufmann argued that Ledoux’s severe as the first modernist, Greenberg made self-referentiality the central tenet surfaces, in planes or geometrical forms, allowed the realization of of modernism, most clearly demonstrated in New York painting of the Ledoux’s own claim that “stone could again be stone.” There is an post-war years.- architectural autonomy that is to be found in the proper use of materials Eisenman’s early work, his ‘Cardboard Architecture’ houses, made and constructional logic. In Kaufmann, there is also an autonomy, or an commitments remarkably similar to what Schapiro had anticipated: “an autonomy conflated with the material claims, based on function. art which conceals or suppresses the tectonic, constructive elements as ETIENNE BOULLÉE is a notable figure among Kaufmann’s non-artistic, and which constructs independently of these factors its own ‘Revolutionary Architects’, and here we may sense that sheer scale, effects of mass and space and light.” as much as simple forms, contributed to the claim for architectural Eisenman’s cardboard architecture already involved the ambition to autonomy in this body of work. bring modernist self-referentiality to architecture, and thus claim for Kaufmann’s long essay appeared in a volume of works by colleagues himself a significant position in the cultural world of New York and in the so-called ‘new Viennese School of art history’. In a review of this beyond. Viennese work, the noted New York scholar MEYER SCHAPIRO criticized the group’s reliance on the concept of autonomy in the arts – being H]l]j=ak]feYf&;Yj\ZgYj\ so blunt as to say that one of the articles, as others in the collection, Yj[`al][lmj]@gmk]NA&9ML@GJÌK + “suffers from the dogma of autonomous principles.” Consequently, it 9J;@AN=K& H]l]j=ak]feYf$@gmk]AN$ comes as something of a surprise that Schapiro found Kaufmann’s essay \]lYad&9ML@GJÌK9J;@AN=K& to be “excellent.” Admittedly there could be an underlying sympathy between Schapiro’s left politics and Kaufmann’s claims for the individual vs authority. Yet it comes as a surprise that Schapiro seems readily to buy into Kaufmann’s finding that “the essential contribution of Ledoux is his discovery of an autonomous principle of architecture.” Kaufmann further characterizes this autonomy as deriving “its aesthetic from the internal demands of construction and use, and is independent of any foreign, imposed artistic conception.” Toward the end of his review article, Schapiro again becomes critical of claims for autonomy, relating it “to that idea of a ‘pure art’ which arises constantly among artists” to justify the “absolute independence of their activity as artists.” &(0 L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= &(0 (/ 0 (/1 In 1979, in his journal Oppositions, Eisenman sought an early precedent for ‘self-referential’ architecture in the modern movement – and thus to give his thesis of self-referentiality a firmer theoretical base.. In his essay, titled Aspects of Modernism: Maison Dom-ino and the Self-Referential Sign, Eisenman made a new claim for the significance of the Maison Dom-ino. He proposed a theoretical interpretation internal to the Dom-ino image itself. In so doing, he sets aside the reigning interpretation of that work, stemming largely from the writings of his mentor COL I N ROW E . Eisenman sees Rowe’s claim for the innovative modernity of the Maison Dom-ino, revealed fully in Le Corbusier’s great villas of the late 1920s, as marking no more than one more instance of historical change in an established mode of representation. Rather than establishing a historical continuity, as Eisenman found in Rowe, Eisenman recognizes features of the Maison Dom-ino that he poses as a radical break with tradition. Relying solely on the famed perspective drawing of the Maison Dom-ino, Eisenman enters upon a close description entailing such observations as the different lengths, A and B, of the slabs, the alignment of the slabs and the equal spacing of their vertical stacking. The possibility of many variations of those factors is noted, and also that such variations entail little more than geometrical distinctions. However, in Le Corbusier’s project drawing, Eisenman notes, these features are what they are; Eisenman’s respect for Le Corbusier and the renown of the Maison Dom-ino diagram is such that he unquestioningly makes the assumption that there must be formal intentionality in the given configuration of the Maison Dom-ino. What then is that intentionality? Eisenman finds it to be crucially adopt a modernist stance, though here he finds early intimations in the D]\gmpÇD];gjZmka]jÇ=ak]f% revealed in the relation of the columns to the slabs. The columns are Maison Dom-ino. In his theoretical essay, as in his ‘cardboard’ houses, eYf&9ML@GJÌK9J;@AN=K& geometric A B relationship which in itself is so clear as not to need With Rowe, Eisenman, and others, I share in the conviction of the 9J;@AN=K& reinforcement [Eisenman’s emphasis], one interprets this as an intention importance of the Maison Dom-ino. I see it as a major contribution to DgmakCY`f2CaeZ]ddEmk]me to underscore a condition of being, that is as a significant redundancy. what I term the quasi-autonomy of architecture – a claim that will need Yf\KYdcAfklalml]&9ML@GJÌK 9J;@AN=K& … The redundancy of the mark thereby signals that there is something development following some other remarks on autonomy. present other than either the geometry or the function of the column and We might say that Eisenman sought autonomy through negation slab.” / of Building, negation of functional and material conditions. The Eisenman concludes: “Thus, the fact itself – the slab – plus the spatial distinctiveness of architecture, its autonomy, lay in self-referentiality marking – the location of the columns – suggest an idea about sides A embedded in abstract systems of markings and relationships. His and B which is an idea only about itself, a self-referential statement. This rejection of the material conditions of architecture is explicit. then may be a primitive though truly Modernist phenomenon, one that Emil Kaufmann had seen the autonomy of his Revolutionary architects speaks about its mere existence and its own condition of being.” 0 as establishing a new tradition. Despite the interval of the nineteenth Self-referentiality as a “truly Modernist phenomenon” was not, century, with its many competing architectural positions, Kaufmann, of course, a new idea. Aside from its appearance in innovative art, looking to his own time, was strongly attracted to the work of Le including cinematography, from the late nineteenth century onward, it Corbusier as a brilliant manifestation of that tradition. had also been theorized. As noted, the major art theorist of mid-twentieth With Eisenman looking back to the early period of Le Corbusier as century New York, Clement Greenberg, built his theory, criticism, and the root of his still more abstract position, we have a proposition of a indeed his history on the concept. Greenberg was directly influential tradition of architectural autonomy established in the late eighteenth on the circles in which Eisenman moved, though that influence was century, allegedly rarified and advanced in an early work of Le Corbusier, then on the wane. Eisenman notes that architecture had been slow to and finally set out, in theory and practice, by Eisenman. &(0 L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= &(0 ( 0 ( ( 0) I am not satisfied with that story and so will return to it. But first I thinking”? Le Corbusier’s Maison Dom-ino is recurrently a test case in want to touch on the other architect of recent times whose work is closely architecture, as it was for Eisenman. Let us give it another look. associated with the concept of autonomy: A L DO ROSSI. Unlike Eisenman, I am unwilling to assume that the Maison Dom-ino diagram of 1914 revealed a sophisticated proposition such as self- L`afcaf_Yj[`al][lmjYddq29d\gJgkkaÌkYmlgfgeql`jgm_`hj][]\]fl referentiality. My doubt is borne out through a broader examination of Contemporaneously with Eisenman, Aldo Rossi too sought autonomy the Maison Dom-ino project and its afterlife in Le Corbusier’s career. by negation of functional and material conditions. There is, however, a The Maison Dom-ino project was distinctly pragmatic in its origins; its gulf between Rossi and Eisenman. Eisenman rejected precedent. Rossi, premises are more fully revealed by attention to other Dom-ino project conversely, sought the autonomy of architecture precisely in the history of drawings: plans, detail drawings, and perspectives of possible houses/ the discipline, as manifested in the rigors of the architectural discipline housing based on the project. The project grew out of Le Corbusier’s and in the historical city. interest to develop a system using the relatively new technology of the Rossi and his circle speak of the craft of architecture – the architect’s reinforced concrete frame, calculated to meet the severe housing needs métier. With this, the Rossi group comes to their admiration for the in Flanders, devastated by the locally sustained battles of World War I. work of HEINRICH TESSENOW. We are being returned to a classical Le Corbusier sought to form an industrialized company for production of tradition, a stripped classicism that represents a strict discipline within the rationalized frame system that could be deployed and then in-filled architecture.1 locally. Under the exigencies of the time that infill might include Is the notion of autonomy a stalking horse for classicism? With the rubble from destroyed buildings, though Le Corbusier also envisioned Rossi circle, one might think so. Kaufmann, looking back to eighteenth- industrialized in-fill systems. Attention to structure is integral to the century France, may seem to embrace classicism, but one must remember project, but we will see that Le Corbusier’s structural concern is far from his favored attention to Le Corbusier. Stripped classicism is the world of a structural determinism. the Rossi group, and no doubt one possible, but not the necessary, end of The reflected ceiling plan of the Maison Dom-ino shows that it did not the quest for autonomy in architecture. involve ‘slabs’ in the usual sense of that word as monolithic concrete floors. Rather it is a framework of girders and beams formed by small 9j[`al][lmjYdYmlgfgeqemklf]_d][lÉ:mad\af_Ê7 But the big question: repetitive cement or tile units, destined to have a plaster ceiling. Infill Where is the B, where is Building, within thought about autonomy in walls would then have preferred locations on the structural lines. In Le architecture? Corbusier’s Maison Dom-ino plans, we find no innovative exploitation It was present in Kaufmann. He spoke of autonomy as deriving “its of structure or space. Whenever possible, columns are buried in walls. aesthetic from the internal demands of construction and use, and is Where an interior wall is of lesser dimension than a column, the exposed independent of any foreign, imposed artistic conception.” Just as he part of the column is boxed-in or projected into the less significant space. spoke of the formal and representational autonomy of the pavilion Neither is structure emphasized nor is planning free from the structure. system. The cantilevered space beyond the columns on the long sides of the Schapiro wrote with a slightly diffident acceptance of these two building merely sets the dimensions of insignificant spaces. Where a aspects of Kaufmann’s autonomy: disciplined affirmation of material principal room is projected through that space, there is no recognition constraints on the one hand (a position that both Rossi and Eisenman of space within or beyond the column line. In brief, examination of the find anathema to any claim for autonomy); and an abstract, moral Maison Dom-ino project as a whole reveals nothing of Le Corbusier’s and philosophical, idealism on the other. However, I find, neither in famous propositions often associated with the Maison Dom-ino, the Five Kaufmann’s writings, nor in Schapiro’s commentary, any attempt to do Points, the free plan. Eisenman’s self-referentiality also appears foreign more than juxtapose these two grounds of autonomy. to the issues at hand. Once more, Is there a specific architectural way of thinking? In Le Corbusier first published the Maison Dom-ino project in the early exploring the attempts to answer this question through the concept of 1920s in the journal L’Esprit nouveau, and again in his most important autonomy, I come to a sense of aridity. With Eisenman a slighting of book, Vers une Architecture.)( In both these publications, Le Corbusier precedent. With the Rossi group, a return to a reduced classicism. And uses large illustrations of interior and exterior perspectives of individual in both cases, not just a neglect, but a refusal to deal with tectonics, with and collective “maisons ‘Domino’.” The now famous perspectival Building. The material conditions of building are seen as inherently diagram appears only as a thumbnail reproduction near each of the large negating architectural thinking. exterior perspective drawings. It is mentioned as a concrete framework, but the discussion turns on the process of fitting out the house and laying L`afcaf_Yj[`al][lmjYddq2ImYka%Ymlgfgeqoal`9f\]jkgfÌkD];gjZmka]j out an agreeable site. So, where is Building in the search for “a specific architectural way of Nonetheless, my purpose is not to be dismissive of the Maison Dom-ino. In the past, I have referred to it as a ‘non-conservative model’ – that is, it &(0 L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= &(0 ( 0* ( 0+ sense of Le Corbusier circa 1930, but they are a fundamental part of architectural knowledge. In design, it is a conscious, and almost inescapable, act to employ them – or not. Facilitated by, but not part of, structural technology, the Five Points are an important modern contribution to the discipline of architecture, to the quasi-autonomy of architecture. Or, to return to the question raised in the beginning: “How one should think in architecture.” I want to return to the matter of the ‘non-conservative model.’ To the extent Eisenman’s essay purports (or seems to purport) to be a historical inquiry, I argue that he is quite wrong. But if the Maison Dom-ino is a ‘non-conservative model,’ then it is open to new readings, just as Le Corbusier did through his villas of the 1920s. I believe the master did so again with the Carpenter Center at Harvard in 1960. Le Corbusier conducted a long-extended research program, a program that adopted and adjusted increasingly rewarding auxiliary hypotheses, but that traced back to a common core, the Maison Dom-ino diagram (fig. 1) whose capacity was only revealed with concerted effort over time.)+ So it is completely appropriate that another architect, still later, should propose yet another way to learn from this model. Conceivably, what Eisenman proposed is an extension of Le Corbusier’s research. Alternatively, his new auxiliary hypotheses may be so radical as to reposition the old core and generate a new research program. Eisenman’s essay can be understood then not as a history, but as a ‘rational reconstruction’ of what may have been latent in the diagrammatic Maison Dom-ino perspective.), Whether the Maison Dom-ino provoked Eisenman’s self-referentiality, or his self-referentiality led him to ‘mis-read’ the Maison Dom-ino, there is a new impetus for the discipline of architecture. To seek such reconstructions is a D];gjZmka]j2Klmll_Yjl$ af_]p`aZalagf$)1*/&9ML@GJÌK more than a decade later, in 1926, was designing the Villa Stein and his construction and hopefully one that is both empirically sound and 9J;@AN=K& two houses for the Weissenhof exhibition in Stuttgart, he introduced his fruitful. I find some of the details of Eisenman’s argument for a self- renowned “Five Points”: pilotis, free plan, roof garden, free façade, and referential Maison Dom-ino to be in question. Nonetheless, I applaud strip window.)) New ground was broken both in building and polemics. Eisenman’s effort and where it finally took him (or where I presume to Pilotis and the Five Points had not been foreseen in the Maison Dom- say it took him) in the closing lines of the last quotation: to “another ino nor even in the extensive housing design documented in his 1923 primitive condition for an architecture” publications. A potential of the Maison Dom-ino could only be realized after concerted (and ‘patient’) effort, as manifested at Stuttgart, at ImYka%Ymlgfgeq29Ydlg$^gje$Yf\Y[[geeg\Ylagfg^[aj[meklYf[] In Garches, and in the other brilliant villas of the late 1920s. The ‘non- this setting, I do not want to conclude without recognizing the architect conservative’ Maison Dom-ino diagram had been revisited till it became whose achievement brings us together. Aalto emphasizes other lessons for a provocation for the inventive Five Points and the villas. “thinking in architecture.” In 1937, Le Corbusier published his early architectural work, including If one attends carefully to an Aalto building and its details, it is the great villas, in the first volume of his Oeuvre complète.)*For the first difficult not to embrace a thought that I once borrowed from Aalto: time his presentation of the Maison Dom-ino project emphasized not the “the methodical accommodation of circumstance.” )- With Aalto, housing, villa, or urban designs, but the perspective diagram. ‘accommodation’ rarely means the submission of one circumstance to The Five Points were not possible without the innovation of another, but rather the informing presence of contrasting formal moves modern frame construction, but such technological capacity awaited each making its own accommodation to varying circumstances. There the architectural innovation of Le Corbusier. The Five Points are an are formal propositions, but accommodation is not forced under some architectural innovation. We no longer assign to them the imperative unifying system, whether structural or decorative. The results of such &(0 L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ= &(0 ( 0 . 1 Stanford Anderson,“Fiction of Function,” on the “suppression of the cornice.” His Assemblage 2 (February 1987), pp. 18–31. discussion is heavily weighted to issues 2 Emil Kaufmann, “Die Stadt des Architekten of snow on flat roofs and to his sixth Ledoux: Zur Erkenntnis der autonomen point – not to what one would deem the Architektur,” Kunstwissenschaftliche more important architectural issues. Forschungen, II (1931), 131–160; Von Since this is a publication of late 1927, the Ledoux bis Le Corbusier. Ursprung und concern to defend flat roofs in northern Entwicklung der autonomen Architektu winter conditions is probably emphasized (Vienna and Leipzig: Rolf Passer, 1933; because of the heavy criticism of the flat reprint, Stuttgart: Hatje, 1985); Three roofs of the Weissenhof exhibition. Revolutionary Architects: Boullée, Ledoux, 12 Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret, Oeuvre and Lequeu (Philadelphia. PA: American complète 1910–1929 (Zurich: Edition Philosophical Society, 1952); Architecture Girsberger, 1937), pp. 23–25. in the Age of Reason. Baroque and Post- 13 It is time to acknowledge that my Baroque in England, Italy, France [1955] theoretical apparatus of research projects, (New York: Dover, 1968). cores, and auxiliary hypotheses are 3 Meyer Schapiro, “The New Viennese owing to my long-held interest in the School,” Art Bulletin, XVIII (1936), pp. epistemological studies of Imre Lakatos. 258–266. See especially Lakatos, The Methodology 4 Schapiro, p. 266. of Scientific Research Programmes 9JLA;D=K9F<=KK9QK 5 Clement Greenberg, Art and Culture: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Critical Essays (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978). My adaptation of Lakatos’ thought 1961); a study of Greenberg and his to architecture appears in Anderson, thought: Caroline Jones, Eyesight Alone: “Architectural Design as a System of Clement Greenberg’s Modernism and the Research Programmes,” Design Studies Bureaucratization of the Senses (Chicago: (London), V (July 1984), 146–150, and University of Chicago Press, 2005). “Architectural Research Programmes in 6 Peter Eisenman, “Aspects of Modernism: the Work of Le Corbusier,” Design Studies Maison Dom-ino and the Self-Referential (London), V (July 1984), pp. 151–158. Sign,” Oppositions 15/16 (Winter/Spring 14 “Rational reconstruction” relies on a 1979), 118–128; reprinted pp. 188–198 in historiographic/theoretical extension of K. Michael Hays, ed., Oppositions Reader Lakatos’s theory. See “History of Science (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, and its Rational Reconstruction,” pp. 102– 1998). 138 in the book cited in the last footnote. 7 idem., p. 194. 15 Stanford Anderson, “Aalto and 8 ibid. ‘Methodical Accommodation to 9 Giorgio Grassi, La costruzione logica Circumstance’,” and “Aalto und della architettura (Padua: Marsilio, 1967); ‘die methodische Anpassung an L’architettura come mestiere e altri scritti Gegebenheiten’,” in Timo Tuomi et al., (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1980). eds., Alvar Aalto in Seven Buildings/Alvar 10 Le Corbusier-Saugnier, “Maisons en série,” Aalto in sieben Bauwerken (Helsinki: L’Esprit nouveau, 13 [undated, ca. 1922–23], Museum of Finnish Architecture, 1998), [1525]–1542; Le Corbusier, Vers une pp. 142–149, 192. Also in editions with architecture (Paris: Vincent, Freal, 1923), Finnish, Swedish and Portuguese pp. 189–224. translations. 11 [Le Corbusier], “Calendrier d’architecture” 16 Kahn’s words are from Robert Venturi, in his Almanach d’architecture moderne Complexity and Contradiction (New York: (Paris: G. Crès, 1926). Here, Le Corbusier Museum of Modern Art, 1966), p. 54. makes an extended presentation within 17 Aalto, “The Reconstruction of Europe is which, with hindsight, one can discern the Key Problem for the Architecture of our the Five Points. The Five Points are, Times” (1941), reprinted in Asko Salokorpi, however, stated succinctly, as points, ed., Abacus, 3 (Helsinki: Finnish Museum in two publications associated with the of Architecture, 1983), 121–142. Sarah Weissenhof exhibition: Le Corbusier Menin introduces the “wavy line” diagram and Pierre Jeanneret, “Fünf Punkte zu in her excellent paper for a book still in einer neuen Architektur,” in Deutscher process: Stanford Anderson, Gail Fenske, Werkbund, Bau und Wohnung: Die Bauten and David Fixler, eds., Aalto and America. der Weissenhofsiedlung (Stuttgart: F. 18 W. Boesiger and O. Stonorow, Le Corbusier: Wedekind, 1927), pp. 27–28; and in The Complete Architectural Works Alfred Roth, Zwei Wohnhäuser von (London Thames and Hudson, 1964), I: p. Le Corbusier und Pierre Jeanneret 189. (Stuttgart: F. Wedekind, 1927). In “Ou 19 Colin St.John Wilson, “State of en est l’architecture?”, l’Architecture Modernism,” in his Architectural vivante (Autumn/Winter 1927), pp. 7–29, Reflections (Manchester: Manchester Le Corbusier lists six points, adding one University Press, 2000), p. 90. &(0 L@AFCAF?AF9J;@AL=;LMJ=