Australian Architecture 1901-51: Sources of Modernism Johnson, Donald Leslie University of Sydney Library Sydney 2002 http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/oztexts © University of Sydney Library. The texts and Images are not to be used for commercial purposes without permission Source Text: Prepared from the print edition published by Sydney University Press Sydney 1980 All quotation marks are retained as data. First Published: 1980 720.994 setis australian etexts architecture prose nonfiction 1940- Australian architecture 1901-51 Sources of modernism Sydney Sydney University Press 1980 Contents Preface vii Acknowledgements ix 1 1901–13: Attempts at Cultural Redefinition 1 The Quest for an Australian Style 1 The Canberra Competition 20 2 1913–27: The Rise of Domestic Architecture 33 Griffin 35 Bungalows 42 European Strains and Local Histories 71 3 1927–34: Internalization 85 Travellers and The Atelier 89 Griffin 105 Students and Followers 109 4 1934–47: Reaction and Resolve 138 5 Harry Seidler: Maturity at Mid-Century 172 Epilogue: The Sydney Opera House 209 Select Bibliography 211 Index 221 Preface This monograph grew out of my studies on the American architect Walter Burley Griffin who lived and practised his art in America, Australia and India. As those studies proceeded two important questions or observations emerged. Why was so little known of this important architect, and why was he not accorded a proper position in the history of architecture, American or Australian? Over succeeding years the first question has been answered by people similarly concerned: Mark L. Peisch, H. Allen Brooks, W. R. Hasbrouck, Paul E. Sprague, D. T. Van Zanten and, more peripherally, others in America. In Australia, first Robin Boyd, then Peter Harrison, Petter Willé and myself have attempted to sort the local history. But the second question has remained unresolved. Perhaps too many comments in the past about Griffin's failures or importance were too personal and/or unsubstantiated guesses without reference to parallel events. As we will learn, one can come to grips with the architecture of Griffin from his beginning in 1901 and, from 1948 with the designs of the Viennese architect who also immigrated to Australia, Harry Seidler. That period bound by the launching of each man's career, is one of great importance during which an architecture of character emerges, warranting at least international interest. It is undeniable that the two men stand prominent at each end of the time scale as sentinels of architectural quality. Australia is not an isolated case of a country that has come under the influence of foreign architects. One need only reflect on the sway of Scotsman C. R. MacIntosh on the Viennese, of Bostonian H. H. Richardson on Europe or of the mid-western American Frank Lloyd Wright on Germany and the low countries, or of the Swiss, Le Corbusier, on Germany. Immigration has had a greater success in providing inducements for change, not only as a means of transporting ideas but in easing acceptance by an almost tangible personification. Again, people come to mind: the Frenchman Paul Cret in Philadelphia, the Austrians Richard Neutra and R. M. Schindler in California, the European Serge Chermayeff in London, the Germans Walter Gropius in England (and then at Harvard University) and Mies van der Rohe in Illinois. But is personification the only source for change? My book, The Architecture of Walter Burley Griffin (South Melbourne 1977), contained only a hint as to Griffin's role in the development of modernism in Australia. It was intended that his influence — or lack — would be knitted with that book but it was limited in words and illustrations. Yet, since its release new information about modernism has come to light, so whatever frustrations one felt, they have partially subsided. And a final point: there is a rather explicit moral value given to the modern movement which came out of the urban centres of central Europe, to the International style. Suffice it to say I am aware of that value but it was, after all, a judgement made by people in their own time. In a sense, the essays in this monograph attempt to search out of the recent past a set of pragmatic reasons for change. Also, they attempt to answer an important implication of the discussion above: if there was no internal development of ideas in architecture, why? The discussion, therefore, revolves around the problem of inventiveness and the components of communication in the architectural profession in the first half of this century. D. L. J. Kangarilla 1978 POSTSCRIPT Research for this book was complete in early 1978. Many details have come to light since that date but they do not alter the basic theses. In fact, a colleague in England, Anthony King, wrote me the following information in November 1979 which seems important to convey to readers: . the idea of the Piddington Bungalow of J. H. Hunt is almost certainly taken from the Birchington/Westgate bungalow innovation of John Taylor I mentioned in the 2nd AAQ [Architectural Association Quarterly] article. It has very many similarities to a number of photos and drawings I have of the Taylor bungalows. More than that is the fact that these Taylor bungalows were first illustrated in the Building News in 1873 and 1874 and it would seem more than a coincidence that JHH coined the name and did the design in 1876. This all reinforces your point about the diffusion of ideas thru journals, etc. Acknowledgements There are only a few architectural historians in Australia. Anyone attempting to piece together a history owes a great debt to the first, Robin Boyd. This is especially so for his observations on the twentieth century in Victorian Modern, Australia's Home and to a lesser extent, The Australian Ugliness. For the late nineteenth century one's debt is to J. M. Freeland for his book Architect Extraordinary: . John Horbury Hunt. Freeland's survey, Architecture in Australia: a History was always helpful. The first serious student and historian of the nineteenth century was Morton Herman and his initial study The Early Australian Architects and Their Work, although not critical to this work, was given reflection in the Australian continuum. This was also the case in relation to his more relevant study of Edmund Blacket in The Blackets, an Era of Australian Architecture. Since so much of the research for this book paralleled efforts for the Griffin book, the people mentioned in that book must be acknowledged here. Others to whom I owe a debt of gratitude are: John Kenny, Melbourne; the architects who provided so much time and material—Harry Seidler, Frederick Ballantyne, Edward Billson, Louise Lightfoot, Les Grant, and E. J. Weller; David Gebhard and Gerald Groff, Santa Barbara; Vince Terrini, Auckland; Peter Navaretti, Melbourne; Elmar Zalums; the state libraries of New South Wales, South Australia and especially Victoria; the reference section of the Flinders University Library and Reg Brook and his photographic staff at that university; and my mother Mrs D. M. L. Johnson. My thanks are also due to Mrs Lesley Glaysher of Sydney University Press for editorial guidance and assistance during the production stages of this work. An outline of the period to 1935 was given as a paper to the Art Association of Australia conference in August 1976 and a revision of that paper was published in the association's Architectural Papers 1976 (Sydney 1978). I would like to thank the editor of the Australian Journal of Art for permission to quote in part from my essay on Harry Seidler that appeared in the first issue (1977) of that new art history journal. Some people provided photographic material and they are mentioned elsewhere. Most of the extant buildings (and many of the original sites of demolished buildings) in America and Australia mentioned in the text were visited by this author. I would like to thank the people who assisted or opened their doors of hospitality. The Flinders University Research Committee gave financial assistance on a number of occasions. Some students offered ideas and sources of inquiry by providing excellent seminars in courses and honours topics. And some were patient: thank you Sonya, Karl and Adam. Australian Architecture 1901–51 Let it not be imagined that building, merely considered as heaping stone upon stone can be of great consequence, or reflect honour either upon nations or individuals. Materials in architecture are like words in phraseology, having separately but little power; and they can be so arranged as to excite ridicule, disgust or even contempt. Yet when combined with skill, and expressed with energy they actuate the mind with unbounded sway. FRANCIS GREENWAY, quoted in Walter Bunning, ‘Fifty Years of Federation’, Australian Broadcasting Commission, recorded 9 April 1951 1 1901–13: Attempts at Cultural Redefinition It is difficult to discern any coherent cultural development or much achievement in the first third of the century. In fact the period 1900–1940 marks a perpetuation of colonial dependence and curious hesitation in development towards nationhood. GEOFFREY SERLE, From Deserts the Prophets Come, Melbourne 1973 In the 1880s there were serious discussions and many meetings all urging the colonies to federate and form a single nation. There were barely three million people on the Austral continent during that decade and they had been members of the British colonies for slightly more than one hundred years. It was by no means a wealthy group of people (except for the grazier) and the colonies were not the most financially successful (except with wool) nor diverse (ethnically or economically) so the proposition to unite seemed reasonable and relatively easy: and so it proved. In 1901 the colonies finally achieved federation culminating a fervour of nationalism that dominated the previous two decades.