Adam Martin

Reading Summaries

“What is Modern Architecture?” by Mark Crinson

In this article, the author uses several anecdotes to poke holes in the 20th century European conception of “modern architecture. Modern architecture, as understood in this specific place and time, was seen as the culmination of human progress and enabled by new technologies and burgeoning industrialization. The movement saw itself as a scientific enterprise, and as such, considered itself to be both correct and inevitable.

Crinson’s first pushes back against the objectivity of modern architecture by relating the story of Le Corbusier’s outrage at not being awarded the design of the Palace of the League of Nations. Le Corbusier directed his ire largely toward the academics who were given the design, saying that they were divorced from the realities of architecture. Later in the article, Crinson points out that Le Corbusier and his colleagues actually resembled academics themselves in many important ways: prescriptivism, theorizing, and philosophizing.

Crinson gives two more examples of modern architecture’s shortcomings. The first is its overt exclusivity, as illustrated by the case of Otto Neurath and his pitch for isotype drawings at a CIAM conference. He was roundly rejected. The second was its relationship to colonialism and colonialism’s many impositions on subject nations. For this point, he describes the scars left by prefabricated homes placed in Africa to house specific Europeans and the reclamation of those sites as the decay and fade into the background.

His overall argument is that this specific notion of modern architecture is neither as permanent nor as inevitable as it would like to be.

“Non West Modernist Past” by Jiat-Hwee Chang and William S.W. Lim

In this article, the authors describe the ways in which 20th century modern architecture has sought to dominate or subsume other forms of modernism in other places and times.

They begin by pointing out that non-western architecture is typically included in the canon of modern architecture for one of two reasons. Either a western “master architect” dabbled in the “periphery” for a specific building, or a specific building is seen as emanating directly from the western modern tradition and therefore as worthy of study. This observation highlights the ways in which non-western architecture is viewed as lower in the cultural hierarchy. Case in point: “non-western architecture” is frequently used as a category in architectural study, despite the fact that most of the world is non-western.

The authors go on to problematize the now common tendency to include the works of racially diverse architects in study without bothering to question the underlying assumptions of European modern architecture. The assumptions at issue include European primacy and the “assumed autonomy of the architect.”

The authors then tie modern architecture to its context, pointing out the many ways in which architecture both shapes and is shaped by its particular place in time. Some examples include “dual cities” in colonial urban centers, ostensibly traditional non-European buildings with European technological structures, and political shaping and repurposing of architectural spaces.

They conclude by pointing out that modernism is ever shifting and is present throughout history. It is not exclusive to 20th century “modern architecture.”

“Crafting Architecture Criticism” by David Leatherbarrow

This article seeks to reframe architecture criticism as a craft practiced by journeyman professionals who contribute to the field as a whole.

The author begins with a brief discussion of technologies effect on criticism. On one hand, the internet has democratized access to architecture and discussions of architecture. On the other hand, this improved access has led to trivial, uncontextualized commentary from anyone who can use a keyboard.

He spends the rest of the article describing what good architectural criticism looks like. This breaks down into three main tasks: recording, reconstructing, and repositioning. Recording is the process of gathering facts about a building firsthand rather than through “received wisdom.” Reconstructing is the curation of a relevant set of facts that illuminate a certain aspect of an overall building. Repositioning is using the reconstructed picture of a building to say something about the field of architecture as a whole or the building’s place within the field.

Finally, the author ties the craft of architectural criticism to the craft of architecture and building itself. The three tasks of recording, reconstructing, and repositioning are analogous to the builder’s tasks of surveying, configuring, and remaking. In this way, he says, buildings are themselves architectural critiques.

Critical Response

The main throughline of these three readings is that architecture is inherently contextual.

This is important to keep in mind as we discuss modern architecture because the phrase “modern architecture” is so closely tied to the European 20th century movement that attempted to monopolize modernity. That movement conceived of itself as acontextual, which I think was to its detriment. In hindsight, it’s apparent that this movement arose from a very specific view of modern technology in the wake of a global conflict that highlighted the power, terror, and potential of that technology.

Furthermore, borrowing from Leatherbarrow’s conception of architectural critique, the modern architecture movement’s rejection of traditional forms is itself an engagement with those forms. To attempt to liberate oneself from historical precedent requires an understanding of that precedent.

I hope to further discuss Crinson’s implication that not only did colonialism shape modern architecture, but that modern architecture helped shape colonialism in turn. While it is readily apparent that modern architecture was employed as part of a colonial policy matrix that enacted large scale political violence and oppression, I don’t know to what extent that violence was enabled by the architecture. I tend to view instances of architecture like the Crown Law Offices in Nairobi as arising from colonialism rather than as aiding it in any meaningful way, but I’m open to persuasion.

Application

Bank of London and South America; Buenos Aires, Argentina

The Bank of London and South America embodies many of the tensions that we have seen throughout this week’s readings. Built in 1966, it sits squarely in the shadow of colonialism. While Argentina itself had not been a colony since the early 19th century, London and its wealth are inseparable from the legacy of colonialism. Furthermore, this building was a collaboration between two Argentine firms and the Bank of London’s staff architect, Gerald Wakeham. While Wakeham probably didn’t contribute much to the actual design, he acted as an intermediary between the bank’s board and the local architectural firms, filtering information and only passing along what he pleased. Per ArchDaily, many have even called for him to be credited with this building’s design.

This building is a critique of modern architecture in the sense that it incorporates and reinvents many tropes of 20th century European modernism. Its repackaging of brutalism in a more playful guise jumps out to me immediately. It is also deeply contextual, with great attention given to the existing street wall and neighboring buildings.

Here is a sculptural building utilizing exposed concrete, a la Le Corbusier’s Carpenter Center, but designed by Argentinian architects to fit within the Buenos Aires cityscape. This is modern architecture in a nutshell.

Takeaways

• Architecture is inherently contextual, even if it doesn’t want to be.
• Architecture shapes and is shaped by its context.
• Western modern architecture is hard to disentangle from the legacy of colonialism.
• Modernism is in the eye of the beholder and is dependent on place and time.