Primitive Original Matters in Architecture

Primitive Original matters in architecture

Edited by Jo Odgers, Flora Samuel and Adam Sharr First published 2006 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2006 selection and editorial matter: Jo Odgers, Flora Samuel and Adam Sharr; individual chapters: the contributors This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Primitive : original matters in architecture / edited by Jo Odgers, Flora Samuel and Adam Sharr—1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical reference and index. 1. Architecture—Language. 2. Architecture—Terminology. 3. Language and culture. 4. Architecture—Psychological aspects. I. Odgers, Jo. II. Samuel, Flora. III. Sharr, Adam. NA2543.L34P75 2006 720.1’4—dc22 2006005423

ISBN10: 0-415-38538-5 ISBN13: 978-0-415-38538-1 (hbk) ISBN10: 0-415-38539-3 ISBN13: 978-0-415-38539-8 (pbk) ISBN10: 0-203-96744-5 ISBN13: 978-0-203-96744-7 (ebk) Contents

Illustration credits ix Notes on contributors x Acknowledgements xvi Introduction xvii Jo Odgers, Flora Samuel and Adam Sharr

Part 1: Original matters 1 1 Primitive: the word and concept 3 Adrian Forty

Part 2: Negotiating origins 15 2 The primitive as modern problem: invention and crisis 17 Dalibor Vesely 3 Origins redefined: a tale of pigs and primitive huts 33 Mari Hvattum 4 The primitive hut: fantasies of survival in an all-white world 43 Lorens Holm 5 Gottfried Semper’s primitive hut: duration, construction and self-creation 55 Jonathan A. Hale 6 Mineral matters: formation and transformation 63 Richard Weston

Part 3: Questioning colonial constructs 71 7 Post-colonizing the primitive 73 Felipe Hernández and Lea Knudsen Allen 8 Notes for an alternative history of the primitive hut 86 Stephen Cairns 9 Reinventing ‘primitiveness’: Henri Lacoste and the Belgian Congo Pavilion at the 1931 International Colonial Exposition in Paris 96 Johan Lagae 10 The radicalization of the primitive in Brazilian modernism 108 Styliane Philippou 11 The need to be critical 121 Robert Brown Contents

Part 4: Urban myths 125 12 Practically primitive 127 David Leatherbarrow 13 Giants and columns 139 Nicholas Temple 14 The emblematic city: John Wood and the re-founding of Bath 150 Jo Odgers 15 Alvar Aalto and the primitive suburb 166 Harry Charrington 16 Metaphorical Manhattan – ‘Paradise Lost’ 176 Lorna McNeur

Part 5: Making marks 181 17 The perception of self-negation in the space of emptiness: the primitive in Tadao Ando’s architecture 183 Jin Baek 18 The ‘primitive surface’: carving, modelling, marking and transformation 194 Stephen Kite 19 The modern-day primitive hut? ‘Self-building’ with Jung, Aalto and Le Corbusier 207 Flora Samuel and Sarah Menin 20 The wisdom of the sands 221 Simon Unwin

Part 6: Primitive futures? 227 21 Digital commerce and the primitive roots of architectural consumption 229 Richard Coyne 22 Primitive and the everyday: Sergison Bates, Lefebvre and the guilt of architectural expertise 240 Adam Sharr 23 Heart of Darkness: air of comfort 251 Helen Mallinson 24 Primitive: from which construction begins 260 Peter Salter 25 The United Cultures of Britain 267 CJ Lim Select bibliography 273 Index 279

viii Chapter 8

Notes for an alternative history of the primitive hut

Stephen Cairns

Historically, arts discourse in the West has tended to characterize the ‘primitive’ in two distinctive frames. The first depicts the primitive as an attractive state, holding something the West or modernity has lost. Here the primitive is imag- ined as being in tune with nature and able to serve as a reservoir of essentially unchanging and noble truths; and because these truths are usually caricatured as fragile and under constant threat, they are seen to need protection or conser- vation, an impulse James Clifford has named the ‘salvage paradigm’.1 The second frame depicts the primitive as a repulsive condition. Here the primitive is conceived as a more violent, marauding and threatening state, not so much in need of protecting, conserving or salvaging, as controlling and guarding against. Furthermore, both the attractive and repulsive depictions of the primitive – ‘what we should emulate or, alternately, what we should fear’2 – are often entangled, such that a positive assessment of the primitive cannot help but be coloured by a negative one, and vice versa. The noble savage and the cannibal, that is, are almost always co-present.

Theory and the primitive

Recent theoretical writing has captured something of this entanglement, and has self-consciously activated the violent and marauding conception of the primitive to alternate ends. Theorists often gathered under the heading of ‘post- structuralism’ – Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze and Guattari, Kristeva, Barthes and others – have redeployed the critical potential of the primitive as a condition of radical and threatening difference. The primitive in this disparate body of theory

86 Notes for an alternative history of the primitive hut

circulates in the guise of terms such as ‘paganism’, ‘nomadism’ or ‘savagery’. The primitive is, in this context, activated as agent of disruption, interruption and potential. With its themes of corporeality, base materiality, irrationality, or alternate rationalities, the idea of the primitive serves as the vehicle by which to question, as Spivak puts it, ‘the millennially cherished excellences of western metaphysics: the sovereignty of the subject’s intention, the power of predica- tion’.3 It acts as a provocation to radical forms of invention. In the context of this redeployment, the long-standing notion of the primitive-as-reservoir has come to seem anachronistic. The primitive, now loosened from its essentialist moor- ings, is reasserted as a generative force. No longer merely a mute resource awaiting reverential interpretation by external (western) agencies, the primitive is affirmed as a principle of newness and potential in its own right. For all of this recent affirmation of the primitive, the cultural-political dimensions of this recognition are, at best, implicit. Reasserting the primitive as a generative force in western theory, seemed to carry with it the possibility that those cultures to whom the term ‘primitive’ was historically attached might now themselves find a place from which to speak, to act and to articulate their own desires and aspirations. Yet, there is nothing in this theoretical work that offered such an explicit or particular politics of representation. Without such particu- larity, the appreciation for a newly radicalized notion of the primitive begins to appear as yet another form of orientalism in which a generalized mode of creativity and potential is extracted from heterogeneous subjects whose only unifying trait would be a relative lack of material resources. Post-colonial critics such as Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha, have, in various ways, commented on this paradox. They have sought to exploit the openings that this animated and threatening primitivism offers to a consideration of a cross- cultural politics of representation, while at the same time critiquing the latent ‘macrological nostalgia’ and ‘primitivistic reverence’ that they say persists in this theoretical work.4 As Spivak points out (in the context of her critique of Kristeva’s book on Chinese peasant women) the interest ‘French theorists’ such as Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze and others have in ‘reaching out to all that is not the West’ is ultimately a form of self-interest. As she puts it:

[i]n spite of their occasional interest in touching the other of the West, of metaphysics, of capitalism, their repeated question is obsessively self-centred: if we are not what official history and philosophy say we are, who then are we (not), how are we (not)?5

Spivak characterizes this theoretical engagement with difference as a kind of crisis management in which the West turns to the primitive only in order to manage its heterogeneity and to confirm and enrich its own identity.6 Homi Bhabha advances a similar argument suggesting that the notion of culture is

87 Stephen Cairns

often used to domesticate difference into the project of universal theory- making, citing a number of (mostly contemporary) illustrative exemplars: ‘Montesquieu’s Turkish Despot, Barthes’ Japan, Kristeva’s China, Derrida’s Nambikwara Indians, Lyotard’s Cashinahua pagans’.7 In each instance theory’s proper name is doubled by a culturalist ‘ethnic’ representative, which stands for difference incorporated. In this doubling theory enacts a ‘strategy of contain- ment where the Other text is forever the exegetical horizon of difference, never the active agent of articulation’.8 Indeed, one of the central arguments of Bhabha’s book The Location of Culture is that anthropology’s culture-concept functions repressively in the context of radical difference primarily because of its spatiality. He argues that, in spite of the sophisticated self-reflexivity of contemporary theory, ‘[t]he Other is [still] cited, quoted, framed, illuminated, encased in the shot/reverse-shot strategy of a serial enlightenment’.9 In this sense, the other is spatialized: located, fixed, grounded and thereby known through the culture-concept and so ‘loses its power to signify, to negate, to initiate its historic desire, to establish its own institutional and oppositional discourse’.10 The artistic avant-garde from the turn of the last century is, of course, one of the classic sites of the West’s engagement with the primitive. It is a site that has come to orient some of the key theoretical debates in art criticism in recent times, and is where this line of post-colonial criticism finds its most sustained development in relation to the arts. The Susan Hiller edited collection, The Myth of Primitivism: Perspectives on Art usefully encapsulates the key post-colonial parameters of these debates.11 Ethnographic material from Africa and Oceania that so inspired the European metropolitan avant-garde, was, on the one hand, openly understood to be a ‘resource’ for the enrichment of Euro- pean art (Picasso, for example, famously appreciated ‘what one could gain’ from this alter-tradition)12 and, on the other, produced in communities that were always, relative to Europe, materially under-resourced. Primitivism in art, it was argued, not only relied on the processes of colonialism that enabled these materials to be accessed in the first place, but could itself be construed as another, more subtle, form of (cultural) resource extraction. The event that served as a lightning rod for this line of criticism was the Museum of Modern Art’s 1984 exhibition ‘“Primitivism” in 20th Century Art’. Hal Foster, in his critique of this exhibition, invoked Ricoeur who, he suggests, ‘wrote presciently of a moment when “the whole of mankind becomes a kind of imaginary museum”’. Echoing the critiques of Spivak and Bhabha, Foster suggests that this primitivism represents a kind of ‘closure’ or ‘claustrophobia’.13 He concludes by arguing that:

rather than seek or resuscitate a lost or dead other, why not turn to vital others within and without – to affirm their resistance to the

88 Notes for an alternative history of the primitive hut

white, patriarchal order of Western culture? … On this reading the other remains – indeed, as the very field of difference in which the subject emerges – to challenge Western pretences of sovereignty, supremacy, and self-creation.14

These cultural-political questions raise important themes to do with appropria- tion, ownership, repatriation, agency and resistance in the relationship of art production to cultural difference. They are questions that are still very much alive, as more recent books on art and primitivism suggest. We might think by way of example here of Flam and Deutch’s Primitivism and Twentieth-Century Art: A Documentary History,15 or Pinney and Thomas’s Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment.16 This latter collection, written from the perspective of an anthropology of art, outlines perhaps the strongest post-colo- nialist critique to date. Developing the central thesis of Alfred Gell’s book Art and Agency,17 it explores the idea that the art product in tribal contexts never simply bears the impression of an artist’s agency, but that this agency is itself distributed through the social and material context in which the work is being made. In this analysis, artistic agency and its social and material milieu are given a kind of mutually soliciting power. Agency cannot, then, be located in any particular individual, but is dispersed among a community and into the material realm too because material objects are assumed to have ‘the capacity to stand in networks of human social agency’.18 This can be seen to be a radical exten- sion of the kind of post-colonially-inspired critiques being advanced by Foster and others during the early debates on primitivism in art. Significantly, because this work is anthropologically-framed, it is energized empirically by carefully specified social, geographical and material situations. It represents a kind of situated theory. In this sense, the anthropological concept of culture has been radicalized and reactivated, not as a domesticating device as Bhabha charged, but as an enlivening and enabling condition.

Architecture and the primitive

In architecture the status of the primitive appears to be much more clear cut. It is the first framing, that of the primitive as the noble savage (rather than cannibal), that figures most prominently in the key chapters of the history of architectural theory. As a consequence, it is a history that is remarkably free of the ambivalent and contorted play of fear and desire that marks the appearance of the primitive in the arts more generally. However, the freedom that comes with a whole- hearted ennobling of the primitive is a blind and unproductive one. With primitivism’s internal tensions seemingly resolved, the motivation for thinking critically about the problematic of otherness and difference more generally becomes

89 Stephen Cairns

dissipated in architecture. It is remarkable, for instance, that while the Museum of Modern Art’s 1984 exhibition ‘“Primitivism” in 20th Century Art’ provoked controversy and heated debate, and generated a range of important reconsiderations of the politics of art,19 the Bernard Rudofsky-curated Architecture Without Archi- tects, held in 1964 at the same institution, and which relied on a primitivist depic- tion of non-western architectures as organic, authorless, cultural creations, generated little controversy. Of course, the twenty-year difference between these exhibitions is crucial as it was precisely in this period that the theoretical discourse I sketched above began to have its effects, and the critical reception of the Primi- tivism show could be counted as one of those effects. Nonetheless there has been little, even belated, critical reflection on the 1964 show,20 and it still remains widely regarded within architecture as an appropriate and timely corrective to the excesses of architectural modernism. All of this confirms what Adrian Forty pointed out in his keynote paper in the conference that inspired this book: that, historically, architecture has remained relatively untouched by the controversy that the primitive has generated for the other arts. Part of this immunity may be related to the form that the primitive most commonly takes in architecture. In architecture the trope of the primitive is given its most consistent expression through the idea of the primitive hut. Joseph Rykwert’s book On Adam’s House in Paradise (first published in 1972)21 is perhaps the most influential encapsulation of the history of this idea. For him the primitive hut is ‘the paradigm of building: as a standard by which other buildings must in some way be judged’.22 He argues that the primitive hut functions as a resource that underpins architecture’s very rationale, grounding questions of ‘why we build and what we build for’, while offering a set of principles to which architects could appeal in order to reform ‘corrupt custom or practice’.23 In this intellectual context, the primitive hut ‘retain[s] its validity as a reminder of the original and therefore essential meaning of all building for people: that is, of architecture. It remains the underlying statement, the irreduc- ible, intentional core’.24 There is little sense that the primitive is a threatening or difficult condition in Rykwert’s account. On the contrary, again and again cultur- ally, geographically and historically diverse examples, Rykwert demonstrates the persistently benign and noble values that seem to radiate from this idea. Rykwert’s book effectively raises the stakes around the question of the primitive. Not only is this a matter of thinking through the question of architecture’s relation to the primitive, as if it were one idea among many; but because the primitive hut is as old as architectural theory itself,25 and because of its special status as original architecture, to broach the primitive is to raise fundamental questions about architecture itself. At a time when the cultural- political debates around the question of difference and otherness have such prominence across all the arts and beyond, it becomes more important than

90 Notes for an alternative history of the primitive hut

ever to explore the idea of the primitive (as one embodiment of difference and otherness) in an institutionally-specific way.

An alternative history of the primitive hut

One way of framing this line of inquiry would be to propose an alternative history of the primitive hut. The aim of such a history would be to explore how the internal tensions held within the notion of primitivism I charted above, came to be resolved within the field of architecture. It would interrogate precisely how architecture’s embrace of the primitive managed to hive off and domesticate primitivism’s more troubling and threatening dimensions, and how the (ultimately more interesting and productive) tensions that the primitive seems to present for the other arts were resolved in architecture. Such an alternative history would be attentive to the institutional positioning of the primitive in architecture and would explore its productive potential and political consequences. It would borrow the theoretical vigour of the ‘pagan’ and the ‘nomad’ to exploit the critical possibilities that theory has opened, while retaining the kind of scep- ticism post-colonial criticism reserves for a theoretical practice that under- invests in the contingencies of specific histories of difference and their worldly circumstances. Such an alternative history might begin with a re-examination of Marc-Antoine Laugier’s An Essay on Architecture (first published in 1753),26 perhaps architecture’s best-known formulation of the idea of the primitive hut. In the remainder of this chapter I would like to sketch such a re-examination in order to offer a sense of how this alternative history might develop. For Laugier the failures of the architecture of the mid-eighteenth century were all too evident in the fashionable ornamental ‘excesses’ of the Rococo and in the medievalism of the Gothic. His version of the primitive hut embodies a set of essential principles – that happen to consist of the basic components of Classical architecture: column, entablature and pediment – that amount to a structural-functional basis for architectural composition.27 Laugier suggests:

From now on, it is easy to distinguish between the parts which are essential to the composition of an architectural Order and those which have been introduced by necessity or have been added by caprice … Let us never lose sight of our little rustic hut.28

Laugier’s primitive hut is a theoretical deduction predicated upon a generalized figure of ‘man’ who, ‘by imitating the natural process’,29 comes to discover the correct and proper principles of architecture. Laugier does not rely on empirical evidence of the building practices of contemporary or historical ‘primitive’

91 Stephen Cairns

peoples to make his case. The famous and influential frontispiece to the second edition of his Essay (published in 1755) by illustrator Charles Eisen (Figure 3.3), dramatizes the theoretical character of Laugier’s primitive hut by omitting any identifiable agent guiding the construction process. The construction appears to have unfolded with such inevitability and autonomy that, as Anthony Vidler points out, ‘[t]he first man, so often shown building Adam’s hut, is nowhere to be seen’.30 Laugier’s narrative of the primitive hut was, as is widely noted (by Rykwert, Herrmann, and Vidler among others), indebted to Jean-Jacques Rous- seau’s fiction of primitiveness as embodied in the figure of the noble savage. Yet, as Vidler notes, ‘Laugier, in contradistinction to Rousseau, had chosen to eliminate altogether the social roots of dwelling’.31 Laugier preferred to use ‘architectural criteria derived from the internal logic of architecture’ rather than ‘the external influences of customs or mores’.32 Vidler develops this point by comparing the respective frontispiece images of Laugier’s Essay and Rous- seau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, (also designed by Charles Eisen), both of which were published in the same year, 1755. Rousseau’s image (Figure 8.1) depicts

a Hottentot raised by Dutch missionaries on the Cape of Good Hope, demonstrating, to the Governor of the Cape and his aides seated outside the walls of their fort, his desire to ‘return to his fellows,’ gesturing toward a group of huts on the shore, his true home. ‘Noth- ing’, noted Rousseau with delight, ‘can overcome the invincible repugnance they have in assuming our mores and living in our way’. The hut, however rudely built, here became a principle of social happiness, not of architecture.33

While Rousseau’s image places the primitive hut in a complex scene of cross- cultural contact in order to illustrate the ‘incompatibility of primitive life with civi- lized mores’,34 Laugier’s image isolates the primitive hut in an open landscape, uncomplicated by anything other than the threat of bad weather. Laugier’s anthropology was of a speculative and non-empirical kind, and the omission of an evident human agency from the graphic representation of his primal architectural scene underscores the theoretical and autonomous status of his primitive hut. His anthropology is, at the same time, shot through with emerging empirical evidence of contemporary primitive life. This anthropology, Herrmann notes, was gleaned from classical sources ‘such as Diodorus Siculus, Pliny, Vitruvius, Tacitus and others’, but was supple- mented by contemporaneous ‘accounts given by missionaries and travellers about the life of modern savages in North America and elsewhere’, including the influential missionary ethnography of Joseph-François Lafitau’s Customs

92 Notes for an alternative history of the primitive hut

8.1 Frontispiece of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, designed by Charles Eisen, 1755 of the American Indians Compared with the Customs of Primitive Times.35 In addition, as Geoffrey Symcox shows, the figure of the noble savage emerges from the pre-existing wild man myth, a crude and threatening figure who was, in effect, ‘disciplined and domesticated’ to emerge ‘in the eighteenth century as the refined and rational Savage’.36 The noble savage cannot, then, be simply accepted as a self-evident predicate upon which a case for architecture’s proper values might be deduced. Rather, he emerges through a complex play of classical anthropology, mythological tradition and a growing body of contemporary ethnographic material. This figure, who was later to be subsumed into the nineteenth-century doctrines of evolutionist anthropology, begins to emerge in the Enlightenment as an analytic category of cultural anthropology.37 Laugier’s influential essay on the idea of the primitive hut, elucidating as it does a set of autonomous architectural principles, can be shown to rest upon experiences of the primitive that are delivered to it and managed by way of an institutional exchange with anthropology. Architecture’s immunity from the more troubling dimensions of the primitive – its corporeality, materiality, mutability and radical difference, for instance – relies on this institutional exchange. In this sense, anthropology touches actual ‘primitive’ states through its ethnographic field techniques so that architecture does not have to. In effect,

93 Stephen Cairns

it allows architecture a vicarious experience of the primitive, to touch the primitive while keeping its hands clean. This laundered primitive is not an isolated quirk of eighteenth- century architectural theory. Architecture’s vicarious (anthropologically-medi- ated) relationship with the primitive can be shown to operate in any number of contexts: in Vitruvius’s account of the origins of architecture; in Gottfried Semper’s interest in the nineteenth-century German anthropologist Gustav Klemm’s account of the material and ornamental basis for architecture; in Le Corbusier’s reference to ‘savage’ and ‘nomadic’ dwellings in his theorization of a modern urbanism; in Aldo van Eyck’s relation to Marcel Griaule and Ruth Bene- dict in his proposal for distinctive social forms and architectural counter-forms; and even in the Arcadian primitivism that informs Kevin Lynch’s notion of cogni- tive mapping and urban imageability. While an often culturalist interest in the architectures of others remains a minor knowledge within architecture, the primitive remains the Other against which key moments in architectural theory are constructed. In this sense the dominant strands of architectural scholarship are threaded together by an uncritical reliance upon the primitive. It is time for architecture to attend more critically to its primitivist subtext in order to generate a productive engagement with the full critical potential of the primitive. Paying serious attention to this subtext is a risky business as it necessarily opens onto a more fluid and mutable set of conditions in which forms, materials and social agencies interact in complex and unpredictable ways. But, as the work on ‘art and the technologies of enchantment’38 suggests, this risk is intellectually rewarding and politically necessary.

Notes

1 Clifford, ‘Of Other Peoples: Beyond the “Salvage” Paradigm’, in Discussions in Contemporary Culture, Hal Foster (ed.), Seattle: Bay Press, 1987, pp. 121–30. 2 Marianna Torgovnick, Gone Primitive: Savage Intellects, Modern Lives, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990, p. 3. 3 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘French Feminism in an International Frame’, Yale French Studies 1981, 62: 157–84, esp. p. 157. 4 Ibid. p. 160. 5 Ibid. pp. 158–9. 6 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in The Post-Colonial Critic, Sarah Harasym (ed.), London: Routledge, 1990, p. 8. 7 Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture, London: Routledge, 1994, p. 31. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 ‘However impeccably the content of an “other” culture may be known, however anti-ethnocentrically it is represented, it is its location as the closure of grand theories, the demand that, in analytic terms, it be always the good object of knowledge, the docile body of difference, that reproduces a relation of domination and is the most serious indictment of the institutional powers of critical theory’. Ibid.

94 Notes for an alternative history of the primitive hut

11 Susan Hiller (ed.), The Myth of Primitivism: Perspectives on Art, London: Routledge, 1991. 12 Michel Leiris and Jacqueline Delange, cited in Hiller, p. 12. 13 Hal Foster, ‘The “Primitive” Unconscious of Modern Art’, October 1985, 34: 58–70, esp. p. 69. 14 Ibid., pp. 69–70. 15 Jack Flam and Miriam Deutch (eds), Primitivism and Twentieth-century Art: A Documentary History, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. 16 Christopher Pinney and Nicholas Thomas (eds), Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment, London: Berg, 2001. 17 Alfred Gell, Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. 18 Nicholas Thomas, ‘Introduction’, in Pinney and Thomas, Beyond Aesthetics, p. 5. 19 See ‘Part IV. The Museum of Modern Art’s 1984 Primitivism exhibition and its aftermath’, in Flam and Deutch, Primitivism, for a selection of key articles in this debate. 20 An obvious exception is Felicity Scott’s work. See Felicity Scott, ‘Bernard Rudofsky: Allegories of Nomadism and Dwelling’, in Anxious Modernisms: Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture, Sarah Goldhagen and Rejean Legault (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000, pp. 215–37. 21 Joseph Rykwert, On Adam’s House in Paradise: The Idea of the Primitive Hut in Architectural History, Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1981. 22 Ibid., p. 190. 23 Ibid., p. 192. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid., p. 13. 26 Marc-Antoine Laugier, An Essay on Architecture, Wolfgang Herrmann and Anni Herrmann (trans.), Los Angeles: Hennessey and Ingalls, 1977. 27 Ibid., p. 12. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Anthony Vidler, ‘The Hut and the Body: The “Nature” of Architecture from Laugier to Quatremère de Quincy’, Lotus International 1981, 33: 102–11, esp. p. 105. 31 Anthony Vidler, The Writing of the Walls: Architectural Theory in the Late Enlightenment, Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1987, p. 20. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. p. 20. 35 Wolfgang Herrmann, Laugier and Eighteenth Century French Theory, London: A. Zwemmer, 1962, p. 46. Rousseau’s interest in Lafitau’s work is also noted by Geoffrey Symcox, ‘The Wild Man’s Return: The Enclosed Vision of Rousseau’s Discourses’, in The Wild Man Within: An Image in Western Thought from the Renaissance to Romanticism, Edward Dudley and Maximillian E. Novak (eds), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972, p. 233. 36 Ibid., p. 224. 37 Hayden White, ‘The Forms of Wildness: Archaeology of an Idea’, in Dudley and Novak, The Wild Man Within, p. 10. 38 Pinney and Thomas, Beyond Aesthetics, p. 5.