Murder at the Modern

8/6/2019 Murder at the Modern

1/17

22 March 1997

With permission of the author.

First published in arq, Vol 2: winter 1996, pp. 60-71.

history

James Marston Fitch

Beyer Blinder Belle

41 East 11 Street

New York

New York 10003 USA

This paper deals with a strange and isolated series of events at New York's Museum ofModern Art between 1966 and 1977, orchestrated by the Director of the Department of

Architecture, the late Arthur Drexler. The events, which consisted of a series of books,exhibitions and catalogues, were all aimed at discrediting the Museum's ownInternational Style and replacing it with Drexler's own special brand of eclecticpost-modernism.

Modern architecture saw its Golden Age in America in the years 1960-1980. That period saw the

appearance of a constellation of great buildings and landscapes that marked the true maturity of the style,

such as Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles' Boston City Hall [Fig. 1], Harry Weese's Washington Metro rail

stations, Saarinen's Dulles Airport in northern Virginia, Mies's Seagram Building and Kevin Roche's Ford

Foundation Headquarters in New York, SOM's Equitable tower in Chicago, and Kahn's Salk Institute in

La Jolla [see Fig. 11].

l. Part of a constellation of great buildings:

Boston City Hall by Kallmann, McKinnell and Knowles, 1970.

der at the Modern http://www.jya.com/jmf/matm.ht

17 29/03/2011 3:28


2/17

2. Modern design triumphs at a residential level:

house at Santa Monica by Charles Eames, 1949.

3. One of two spectacular functional failures:

Richards Medical Research Building,Philadelphia by Louis Kahn, 1961.

Modern design triumphed in the same period at the residential level in such great houses as those by

William Wurster and his colleagues in the San Francisco Bay area, and those by Richard Neutra for the

Tremaines in Santa Barbara and the Kaufmanns in Palm Springs. It was the period of the classic smallmodern house as well: Mies' house for Dr. Edith Farnsworth near Chicago, Philip Johnson's own Glass

House in Connecticut, which so slavishly mimicked it, and Charles Eames' own elegant demonstration in

Santa Monica of how to build a similar structure out of industrialised components [Fig. 2]. By the same

token, this was the Golden Day of the modern landscape, from the private gardens of Dan Kiley in New

England to those of Thomas Church in California, and the innovative social landscapes of Garrett Eckbo

and Lawrence Halprin across the country.

But it was also the period that saw the spectacular functional failure of two of modernism's grandest

constructs: Paul Rudolph's Art and Architecture Building at Yale and Louis Kahn's Richards Medical

Research Building at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia [Fig. 3]. The wide use of unshaded

fixed glass brought both of these beautiful buildings close to ecological disaster. Unfortunately, these werenot isolated events. Such fundamental deficiencies were even then apparent to serious modern architects

as they watched the steady drift of the style away from its functionalist origins towards increasingly

formalistic ends (Fitch, 1972).


17 29/03/2011 3:28


3/17

The most powerful ideological attacks on modernism were based not upon its functional shortcomings, but

upon its alleged aesthetic deficiencies. And they came not from the public world but - of all improbable

places - that citadel of modernism in art and architecture, The Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

The attacks were launched in the form of a book, Robert Venturi's Complexity and Contradiction in

Architecture, published by the Museum in 1966, and the Museum's exhibition and catalogue of 1975 and

book of 1977, The Architecture of the Ecole Des Beaux-Arts.1

This move into such recondite areas of art

history - for Venturi's paradigms for post-modernist practice were drawn almost exclusively from the

Baroque and Rococo styles of the Counter Reformation - by the institution whose very existence hadbeen based upon contemporaneous art deserves more critical attention than it has so far received. The

more so because the moves were conceived and engineered by two of modernism's strongest ideologues

within the museum: Philip Johnson and the late Arthur Drexler, who was then director of the Museum's

Department of Architecture and Design.

The Museum had become an official sponsor of modern architecture ever since its first ground-breaking

show on the subject, 'The International Style' in 1932, jointly curated by Henry-Russell Hitchcock and

Philip Johnson (Hitchcock and Johnson, 1932). Over the years, in a series of exhibitions and publications

on the subject, it had fashioned itself into the ideological centre of modernism in architecture. The

Museum sponsored the show that introduced the work of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe to the American

public in 1947, with Johnson as curator and author of the handsome catalogue (Johnson, 1947). In 1952, itstaged another important show, 'Built in the USA: Post-War Architecture', dedicated to 'the great post-war

flowering of architecture in this country which is so obvious around us'. Johnson, who wrote the preface to

the catalogue, was able to say flatly that 'the battle of modern architecture has long been won ... with the

mid-century, modern architecture has come of age' (Johnson, 1960). In 1960, Drexler published his own

monograph on Mies, which concluded with this glowing assessment of the man's work:

'The measure of Mies' authority is this: it no longer seems possible to rebel against the Miesian

discipline except in Miesian terms: the alternatives to his philosophy are themselves based on

the design structure. With Mies architecture leaves childhood behind.' (Drexler, 1960)

Nevertheless, even in this Mies biography, Drexler was already voicing private reservations aboutmodernism:

'Architects have been increasingly dissatisfied with the tight range of forms made possible by

skeleton construction. They have sought especially to renew and amplify values of plastic

form ... through the expressive elaboration of individual structural elements.' (Drexler, 1960)

A sharp attack on modernism

The first reactionary thrust of the Museum against the ideology of modernism came in 1966 with its

decision to publish Robert Venturi's Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. It was objectively a

sharp attack on modernism, for the book was fundamentally a young man's plea for the freedom to do

what he liked. And what he liked at the time was the Baroque and Rococo, the Mannerist styles of the

princely courts of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe. It was a striking book, well-researched

and abundantly illustrated, but its main arguments were for a pictorial architecture, with no interest in or

knowledge of the functional and environmental aspects of the buildings the author was praising or

condemning. In his foreword to the book, Drexler praised Venturi for the 'delight' he takes in exposing the

'reality' of modern architecture, 'especially in those recalcitrant aspects most architects would seek to

suppress or disguise' (Drexler, 1966). Yet there was much suppression and evasion in Venturi's own

critique, for example, of Mies' house for the Tugendhats [Fig. 4]:

'Modern architecture tends to reject inflection at all levels of scale. In the Tugendhat house noinflecting capital compromises the purity of the column's form ... Walls are inflected neither

by bases nor cornices nor by structural reinforcements, such as quoins, at corners' (Venturi,

1966)


17 29/03/2011 3:28


4/17

4. Unmentioned by Venturi:

Mies' brilliant exploitation of the Tugendhat House site, 1930.

This critique, while accurate in its own metaphysical way, is the equivalent of chiding the tiger for not

bearing the markings of the tortoise. It suggests that Venturi was unaware of the long struggle of the

modernists to dissolve the traditional building, to recompose it with flat slabs, screens and columns which

met, intersected, and penetrated each other to create a new sort of space. This was the concept behind

Mies' Brick Country House of 1922 and the basis for the famous similarity between the paintings of the

De Stiil artist van Doesberg and the floor plans of the architect Rietveld's house for Mrs Schroeder in

Utrecht (1924). And it was also, of course, at the heart of Wright's long battle 'to destroy the room as a

box'.

But Venturi's position on the Tugendhat had other, much more serious flaws. It failed to understand Mies'

brilliant exploitation of a challenging site: a plot which fell sharply down from the street towards an

adjoining park to the south, and a three-storey house that stair-steps down the slope, giving every room in

the house a southern exposure and completely private views. To optimise its resources, the Tugendhat

living spaces had motorised glass walls that slipped down into pockets to open the rooms to the balmy

summers and rose to cut out the cold Slovakian winters. It had been beautifully decorated by Mies with

furniture of his own design. It boasted luxurious kitchens, pantries, and baths. To neglect to mention such

amenities while harping on some missing mouldings suggests that Venturi had never seen the actual

building, only photographs of it, and thus had failed to understand that it was that rare thing in architecture

- a building that is both great and good. This was rare enough in any architect; remarkable in a formalist

like Mies.

An astonishing success

The sponsorship of Venturi's book by the museum, when he was still relatively unknown as a scholar or

architect, suggests that his ideological posture had won strong support within the institution. The praise ofan established figure like Vincent Scully, who wrote the introduction to the book, is also surprising,

suggesting that Scully himself had abandoned the role of advocate for modernism that he had assumed in

his book for the George Braziller series,Modern Architecture (1961). In his introduction to Venturi's

book, Scully's tone is almost viperish:

'Venturi's ideas have so far stirred bitterest resentment among the more academic-minded of

the Bauhaus generation - w th its utter lack of irony, its spinsterish disdain for the popular

culture but shaky grasp on any other. its incapacity to deal with monumental scale, its lip

service to technology, and its preoccupation with a rather prissy purist aesthetic.' (Scully,

1961)

Considering the fact that Venturi's subject was recondite and his argument dense, his book had astonishing

success, precisely among architects themselves. It was to go into several printings. Scully was to write a

new introduction for the second edition, and whatever one may think of Venturi's intellectual posture in


17 29/03/2011 3:28


5/17

this book or of the architecture that he has produced in the years since its publication, it is clear from the

new introduction that Scully's view of himself had changed from that of being a moderator of history to

becoming a monarch of taste.

'At this distance, I feel doubly honored to have been invited to write the original introduction,

which now seems to me not so well written as the book itself (edited by Marian Scully), but

embarrassingly correct in its conclusions. I am especially pleased to have had the wit to assert

that Complexity and Contradiction was "the most important writing of the making of

architecture since Le Corbusier's Vers une Architecture of 1923". Time has shown that this

outrageous statement was nothing more than the unvarnished truth, and the critics who found

it most amusing or infuriating at the moment now seem to spend a remarkable amount of

energy quoting Venturi without acknowledgement, or chiding him for not going far enough, or

showing that they themselves had really said it all long before. It doesn't matter much. What

counts is that this brilliant, liberating book was published when it was. It provided architects

and critics alike with more realistic and effective weapons, so that the breadth and relevance

which the architectural dialogue has since achieved were largely initiated by it.' (Scully, 1977)

In the perspective of a quarter century, Venturi's strategy is very clear. In order to discredit modern

architecture, he needed to ratify its antithesis. And what could be more antithetical to the rational,pro-democratic commitments and icon-free, structurally responsive forms of modernism than the

aristocratic-theocratic bias and historicising ornamentalism of the Mannerist, Baroque, and Rococo

periods? To his credit, Venturi was candid about his motivation:

'Architects can no longer afford to be intimidated by the puritanically moral language of

orthodox modern architecture.' (Venturi, 1977)

And then, from the pulpit of the Museum of Modern Art, the very shrine of American modernism, this

young counter-revolutionary gives us his credo:

'I like elements which are hybrid rather than "pure", compromising rather than "clean",

distorted rather than "straightforward", ambiguous rather than "articulated", perverse as well

as impersonal, conventional rather than "designed", accommodating rather than excluding ...

inconsistent and equivocal rather than direct and clear. ' Venturi, 1977)

The long text which followed was densely argued and richly illustrated but it could not conceal the fact

that all of his sweeping generalisations were based upon the crippling restrictions of his credo. It was

limited to a narrow time-band of two centuries, roughly 1550-1770, to Western Europe out of the whole

world geographically, and, of all the world's political systems, to the princely courts of the Counter-

Reformation.

A taste for contradiction in itself

This keyhole view of architectural experience becomes obvious when one quantifies the buildings whose

ambiguities and inconsistencies Venturi chooses to celebrate. He cites some 85 churches and monasteries,

30-odd castles and palaces, and 45 bourgeois houses, while one finds only a single bridge, two farm

houses, four office buildings, four orphanages, four theatres, and seven banks. Thus the overwhelming

majority of his models of complexity and contradiction were generated by the exigencies of those societies

least likely to offer useful paradigms to modern American society. The ruling classes of those societies -

clergy, royalty, aristocracy - had not confronted (indeed, could not confront) the basic tasks of modern

productive society. These had been served by the anonymous, mundane activities of miller and miner,

blacksmith and farmer, merchant and textile maker, which across the centuries they had invented and in

which Venturi at that time found of too little interest to examine.

Considering the slashing nature of his attack on the modernists, the young architect (he was then 41)

offered surprisingly few contemporaneous examples of what new course, actually, his colleagues should


17 29/03/2011 3:28


6/17

adopt. He had mild praise for a few modern buildings, largely because of idiosyncrasies in their plans or

elevations: Wright's lovely little V. C. Morris Gift Shop in San Francisco, apparently because of the spiral

ramp which devoured so much of its rectangular floor space; Alvar Aalto's high-rise apartment building in

Bremen because its undulating facade concealed a fan-shaped layout of pie-shaped apartment units [Fig.

5] and Hans Scharoun's Philharmonic Hall in Berlin, its wildly free-form plan generated by an orthodox

theatre nucleus that lacked conventional walls. The common denominator of these idiosyncratic choices

seems to have been just that: their idiosyncrasy. Whether they would have performed better at any level,

formal or functional, than their modernist prototypes is not even mentioned. Their selection seems to have

been motivated by nothing more profound than 'a taste for contradiction in itself', as Drexler was to put in

his book (1977) on the Beaux-Arts.

5. Accorded mild praise by Venturi:

Aalto's flats at Bremen with their fan-shaped plan and undulating facade, 1962.

6. The simplified gables and lunettes of post-modernist Palladianism revealed:

Guild House, Philadelphia by Venturi and Rauch, 1966.


17 29/03/2011 3:28


7/17

7. Walls manipulated as 'morally free' surfaces for idiosyncratic ornament:

National Gallery Sainsbury Wing by Venturi, Rauch and Scott Brown, 1991.

8. A special brand of ornamentalism:

Seattle Art Museum by Venturi, Rauch and Scott Brown, 1991.

As a registered architect (as well as a civilised man), Venturi was compelled in his actual architecture,

both before this book and in the three decades since, to restrain the preferences proclaimed in it for the

hybrid, the compromising, the distorted, the ambiguous, the perverse and equivocal. That 'moral space' of

freedom in which opulence and ornament could freely play, that Drexler demanded in his essay on theBeaux-Arts, could not include structure (or the integrity of the building would be at risk), nor functional

layouts of corridors, stairways, or fire exits (or the life of the inhabitants would be in danger), nor

mechanical equipment like airconditioning and lighting (or the comfort and health of the tenants would be

jeopardised). Thus the only 'morally free' element of the post-modernist building would be its surfaces - in

Venturi's subsequent buildings - and specifically, its walls. And it is precisely upon the manipulation of

such surfaces that Venturi's ornamentalism would effloresce - in frescos and murals, sculpture, and

fragments of historicising details.

Having so few prototypical examples of post-modernist architecture in the world outside, Venturi closed

his polemic with a list of 14 of his own designs, six of them built. After so bold a challenge to the status

quo, these Venturian designs were surprisingly timid and conventional. Most of them suggest fairlystraightforward solutions to familiar problems, with use of his new-found ornamental freedoms. Two

residences - one built and one proposed - show the now familiar simplified gables and lunettes of

post-modernist Palladianism. The one large structure actually built, a senior citizen's housing project in

Philadelphia [Fig. 6], is an essay in minimalism, a stripped-down version of the prototypical six-storey

high-rise, so simplified here that the most banal detail, such as a single course of white-glazed brick, is

treated as an ornamental triumph.

There is little hint of the special brand of ornamentalism that would later make Venturi's firm one of the

country's most prestigious post-modernists (and Venturi winner of the coveted Pritzker Prize in 1991),

with commissions such as the Sainsbury Wing of London's National Gallery [Fig. 7] and the Seattle Art

Museum [Fig. 8]. In both buildings, he has manipulated the walls as 'morally free' surfaces on which he

could inscribe idiosyncratic ornament. In the National Gallery, one finds a collage of architectural

fragments scattered like disjecta membra of late Georgian and early Victorian London, while in Seattle,

his walls are covered with paper-thin bas-reliefs so personal in their imagery as to be embarrassing to the


17 29/03/2011 3:28


8/17

casual observer.

Strange omissions

As if aware of the limited applicability to American conditions of the architectural symbolism of the

princes and prelates of the Baroque and Rococo, Venturi turned n 1972 to a totally new venue for another

set of anti-modernist paradigms - the Nevada metropolis then known for its gambling, gangsters, and

prostitution: Las Vegas. In his bookLearning from Las Vegas (1972), Venturi celebrates the populist artand architecture of the Strip. For all its pretended objectivity, this work studiously avoids the complexity

and contradictions of its subject matter: the environmental and cultural problems presented by a town

located in one of the nation's harshest climates, whose principal industry was vice. In fact, neither

condition is even mentioned inLearning from Las Vegas. Silence in the second case might, perhaps, be

excused, though it still remains to be shown how the blatant vulgarity and shameless waste of Las Vegian

ornamentalism could be helpful to the ordinary American community.

But to blandly ignore Las Vegas' profligacy of waste of energy is another matter altogether - especially if

one remembers this whole project began as an experimental class in Yale's School of Art and Architecture

in 1968. Las Vegas has a microclimate characterised by extremely high temperatures: daytime air

temperatures regularly peak at 110 degrees Fahrenheit, while blacktop paving can show radiant readingsof 145 degrees Fahrenheit and over. Yet, based upon photographic evidence only, taken from inside

air-conditioned cars, the authors pronounce the Las Vegas Strip as being 'nearly all right'. Their advisory

report Venturi et al, 1972) prepared for the Las Vegas Planning Commission is quoted as being 'against

trees because they are too hard to maintain'.

In a final display of environmental illiteracy, the authors go on record as being against introducing 'lots of

water and greenery because they raise the humidity'. Evidently these new enthusiasts for desert living had

never heard of that standard document of air-conditioning engineering, the psychometric chart, which

shows us that, in the very dry air of the desert, temperature drops sharply with each percentile increase in

humidity. In any case, Venturi and his co-authors dismiss such basic ecological problems as irrelevant:

'high energy expenditure and urban wastefulness are not central to our arguments for symbolicarchitecture' - and nowhere do they even mention the problems of energy conservation again.

A hallucinatory a-historical perspective

Two publications were produced by The Museum of Modern Art in connection with the Beaux-Arts

exhibition: the 40-page illustrated catalogue, which appeared at the time of the show in the Fall of 1975,

and the 525-page, heavily-illustrated text, The Architecture of the Ecole Des Beaux-Arts, which followed

in 1977. The two texts served two discrete functions. One was to describe the institution and what it did;

the other was to explain why the museum was engaged in such a recondite and unprecedented trip into the

pre-modern past.

These two documents do not tell us who initially conceived of the project, but give us ample information

on the persons who executed it. The editor, Arthur Drexler, was at the time Director of the Department of

Architecture and Design. Associated with him were four art historians: Richard Chafee, Neil Levine,

David Van Zanten, and the late Ann Van Zanten. Despite the subject, not one of the authors was an

architect; the four historians all held doctorates in art history. Drexler was without formal training in either

discipline - a circumstance not without irony in view of the subsequent impact that their study was to have

upon architecture itself. And looming in the background was Philip Johnson, who had played a decisive, if

shadowy, role in the museum's architectural activities for decades, including the design of its first and

second modernist extensions along 53rd Street in 1950 and 1964 [Fig. 9].


17 29/03/2011 3:28


9/17

9. Philip Johnson's second modernist extension to

Drexler's Museum of Modern Art, 1964.

10. Drexler's exemplar:

Un hotel a Paris pour un Riche Banquier

designed by a Beaux-Arts student.

Drexler's key role in the preparation and presentation of the Beaux-Arts project was anything but passive.

In both catalogue and book, his hand is obvious and his intentions are made quite clear: the discreditation

of modernism and its replacement by a kind of eclectic ornamentalism that is startlingly vague in its visual

and intellectual aims. In his preface to the catalogue, the Director of the Museum's Department ofArchitecture and Design states his change of position quite unambiguously:

'Fifty years ago redemption through design good design - was the mystic hope hidden within

the humane re-ordering of earthly things. Today, in architecture as in everything else,

messianic fervour seems naive when it is not actually destructive.' (Drexler, 1975)

But he remains discreetly reserved as to why the Beaux-Arts, among all the historic styles available,

should be the one to be considered uniquely appropriate for review:

'Now that modern experience so often contradicts modern faith we would be well advised to

re-examine ... some Beaux-Arts problems, among them the quest on of how to use the past[which] may perhaps be seen now as possibilities that are liberating rather than constraining.'

(Drexler, 1975)

It is in the extended essays of the book, with their lavish illustrations and lengthy captions, that the real


17 29/03/2011 3:28


10/17

intentions of the authors become apparent: implicit in the sheer scale of the talent lavished on the subject,

explicit in the lead essay by Drexler, 'Engineer's Architecture: Truth and Its Consequences'. The historians'

essays on the development of the Beaux-Arts as an institution are typical examples of American

art-historical scholarship. But the captions for the show itself, as quoted in the catalogue, are mannered

and claustrophobic. If a new and deepened perspective of historic process was the objective of the

museum's new venture, there was little evidence of it in the show itself. Despite all the apparatus of

scholarship, the text of the catalogue is hallucinatory in its a-historical perspective, in setting the

background for 'La Belle Epoque', it explains that:

'Viollet-le-Duc, newly appointed Professor of the History of Art and Aesthetics, had to resign

after repeated student disruption of his lectures. With the design and construction of the Paris

Opera, and the implementation of Haussmann's plan for the city, students turned with

renewed interest to the [Ecole's] tradition of brilliant planning and composition.' (Drexler

1977)

There is not the slightest clue to the reasons for Viollet-le-Duc's forced resignation - i. e. his controversial

theories on how modern building had evolved from the caves and tree homes of prehistory and of his

growing insistence that the new iron and glass constructions be given a new and candid expression in

architecture. This lack of critical perception is typical of the entire catalogue. To illustrate the 'new'thinking of the students who had shouted Viollet-le-Duc off the rostrum, the authors present the thesis of

one of them, Un Hotel a Paris pour un Riche Banquier. This presentation drawing [Fig. 10] shows a huge

urban palace whose length would appear to be about that of the United States Capitol. The entire

comment on the project reads thus:

'[the Town House] is urban in scale and it provides a triumphant solution to the problem of an

irregular site by the device of two pivot-like round chambers that gather up the axes of the

building at their inner angles ' (Drexler, 1975)

The level of critical penetration displayed in this caption is typical of the entire catalogue. This enormous

palace for a nouveau riche banker to Napoleon III is located at the intersection of two of the newboulevards created by Baron Haussmann to prevent a recurrence of the barricades of the 1848 revolution

and aimed at controlling the next one, which did occur in 1870, only four years after this beautiful

drawing had been made.

The separation of form and function

Drexler's essay, 'Engineer's Architecture: Truth and its Consequences', is long and flowery, employing a

series of analogies from art, poetry, drama, and philosophy whose polyphony often outruns their relevance

to architecture. Obscure as it often seems, there is a central point to his argument and one to which he

returns time and time again, in many guises: to discredit the fundamental thesis of modern architecture;

namely the symbiotic connection between new form and new function.

Having to his satisfaction separated the two, he then advances the argument that functionality is neither

desirable nor even necessary to architecture. Such a divorce permits him to 'liberate' architectural form for

the untrammelled play of the imagination upon it, i. e. to ornamentalise it. This has a moral as well as an

aesthetic impact with which Drexler must deal. He finds a handy quote from Picasso:

'Art is a lie, Picasso declared. "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us

realise truth ... The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the

truthfulness of his lies".' (Drexler, 1975)

Then, ignoring the vast experiential difference between the artist's painted form and the architect's builtone, Drexler almost criminally misinterprets Picasso:

'The "lie" whereby architecture most readily convinces us of its "truth" is that form responds


de 17 29/03/2011 3:28


11/17

to necessity.' (Drexler, 1975)

Or, again:

'Architectural form is a fiction designed to reveal a truth.' (Drexler. 1975)

Having freed architectural form from any moral obligations to honesty in structural expression, Drexler

then turns to simplicity, which, he discovers, is a trait not without its hazards:

'Simplicity, for example, connotes virtue in architecture as in life: probity, forethought,

restraint, humility ... when the idea of simplicity takes the force of a moral injunction applied

to the fashioning of buildings and artefacts, the avowed equation of simplicity with goodness

obscures a less obvious connection: goodness is constraint: the ultimate good is the ultimate

constraint; the ultimate good brings life to an end. Thus the Shaker community forbade sexual

intercourse between its married adherents. extinguishing itself in consummate piety and good

design. Shaker buildings and artefacts are undeniably simple and often beautiful, but

intelligent appreciation [i. e. Drexler's] eventually recoils from distortions wrought in the

name of simplicity, which signify death.' (Drexler, 1975)

If Drexler was fearful of the 'distortions wrought in the name of simplicity' by the Shakers, he had no suchmisgivings about excessive ornament at Garnier's Paris Opera, where,

'opulence, like Shakespeare's Cleopatra, makes hungry where it most satisfies: too much is not

enough.' (Drexler, 1975)

Equating opulence with ornament, Drexler tells us that:

'the loss of ornament has impoverished our architecture beyond any advantage simplicity can

return.' (Drexler, 1975)

and he continues:

'opulence as an architectural value has made its way since the First World War steadily

downward through the cultural strata of society: today it is the exclusive province of the

uninstructed.' (Drexler, 1975)

Drexler applies these newly-found moral and aesthetic criteria to the monuments of modern architecture:

Mies van der Rohe's pavilion at Barcelona, Kahn's Salk Institute, [Fig. 11] etc. He finds them all in one

way or another deficient. Only Le Corbusier's little chapel at Ronchamp, which he deems as 'post modern'

(though it was built in 1950) wins his partial approval:

'The significant post-modern fantasy of architectural form makes mass and weight serve assymbolic assertion of the free spirit, contradicting the earlier rationalist commitment to a

determinist architecture based on structural and economic necessities ... Rejecting utilitarian

values, it has opened the way to historicizing references.' (Drexler, 1977)


de 17 29/03/2011 3:28


12/17

11. A contradiction of an earlier rationalist commitment?

Salk Institute by Louis Kahn, 1968.

For all his concern with truth and honesty, he is not troubled by Le Corbusier's use of cement stucco on

metal lath to create the great balloon-like walls of pseudo-concrete, which would have been all but

impossible in concret-brutitself. Indeed, Drexler's opposition to modernism has grown so fundamental as

to 'support whatever means would seem to contradict it ... a taste for contradiction itself.

A last indictment of modernism

Drexler's remarkable essay, as an introduction to an exhibition nominally committed to an only routine

review of a certain historical period, closes with a summary of its actual subject - the ethical, aesthetic,

and moral weaknesses of modern architecture:

'In its early years the modern movement prompted an allegiance that transcended mereenthusiasm and approached religious fervour. Promising release from a past perceived as

burdensome, the new architecture expected an end to injustice with new patterns of life

finding their own space and form.' (Drexler, 1977)

Yet that promise of new space and form has been betrayed, he tells us. This in the very decades that saw

the appearance of the constellation of new buildings and landscapes described at the beginning of this

essay. But now Drexler tells us:

'It is possible to suggest, if only with evidence provided from outside the realm of

architecture, that the dominant utilitarian view of existence is being challenged.' (Drexler,

1977)

And he closes the essay by a last indictment of modernism. It was too progressive politically. In a brash

and opinionated statement, he unambiguously calls for a reactionary take of position.

'Most of us now understand that architecture is the least suitable instrument with which to

achieve social justice. Without abandoning other responsibilities, we might yet wish to

concentrate on what architecture and architecture alone can provide, leaving reform or

revolution to those better equipped.' (Drexler, 1977)

Drexler's tone throughout this essay is petulant, discussing the physical constraints with which the

architect must necessarily deal as bothersome limitations upon his personal freedom of action, soundingmuch more like a graphic designer (which he actually was) than an architect (for which he had neither

formal training nor actual expertise). He faulted modernism for 'valuing necessity over freedom', for its

conceptual posture, which seemed finally to exclude possibilities [for change] rather than embrace them',

for a posture so rigid that it left critics with no choice 'but to support whatever would seem to contradict


de 17 29/03/2011 3:28


13/17

it'. (Drexler, 1977).

With the opening of his next show, 'Transformations in Modern Architecture' at the Museum of Modern

Art in February 1979, it must have seemed to Drexler that his crusade against Modernism had triumphed.

That, at least, is evident in the tone of his long introduction to the catalogue for the show. He confesses

that he has used photos of his own selection, with or without the architect's consent; and that he has

deliberately omitted plans or sections of the conditions photographed. His reason for this odd editorial

intervention is, as he confesses, to 'liberate' the photograph from its contextual spatial envelope and to

permit Drexler to handle it as an isolated visual image, pure and simple. Thus liberated from contextual

reality, Drexler can select only the most idiosyncratic, abstract or arty prints, which seem to make his

point, i. e. that even the most pure of Internationalist modern are moving in the (Drexler-desired) direction

of eclectic Post Modernism. Modernism itself had proven to be of limited historical significance. Of the

movement itself he says,

'Defined with sufficient rigor, it is compressed into something that flashed across the horizon

between the early Twenties and the early Thirties: 10 or 12 years and a handful of

masterpieces.' (Drexler, 1979)

Given this hallucinatory 'rigor' in defining the extent in time and space of the Modernist movement, he

then proceeds briskly to eviscerate its ethos.

'Functional perhaps meant nothing in particular but today "functional" has no place in serious

discussions about the nature of architecture, either as praise or blame.' (Drexler. 1979)

Of modernism's perception of the social significance of architecture itself, he is equally contemptuous: the

reactionary thrust of his own world view, already apparent in the 1979 catalogue, is now quite explicit.

'Modernism's theories about housing and urban planning, for example, once held to be the

very claim to ethical competence, by the end of the Seventies have been largely repudiated

for contributing to the environmental dysfunction they were supposed to end.' (Drexler, 1979)

Drexler's unrelenting attack on modernism serves only partly to obscure the meagre alternatives which he

has to offer. Aside from a rather perfunctory recapitulation of those afforded by Venturi's two books - the

Complexity andLearning from Las Vegas - Drexler has nothing to offer but the historicising eclecticism

of the old Beaux-Arts. He describes his new option euphemistically thus:

'As the demand for meaning [in architecture] increases, new - or old sources of supply must

be found ... this has helped to change the import of "historicizing" formerly inadmissible but

now a new frontier of meaning.' (Drexler 1979)

Having taken us through this thorny labyrinth of special pleading, Drexler closes his catalogue with a full

page photo of the model of the not-yet-built AT&T headquarters building by Philip Johnson [Fig. 12]. Of

this paradigm of recidivism Drexler has only this to say:

'Ten years from now, it will be interesting to see if this building seems only a straightforward

but modest step in the process of retrieving the past.' (Drexler, 1979)


de 17 29/03/2011 3:28


14/17

12. A paradigm of recidivism:AT&T headquarters, New York by Philip Johnson, 1983.

13. An exemplar for young engineers:

the Crystal Palace by Paxton, 1851.

14. The superficial polemics of post-modernist leaders:

hotel at EuroDisney, near Paris by Robert Stern, 1992.

The genuine triumphs

Actually, the retrieval of the past has taken quite an opposite trajectory in America with the appearance of

the preservation movement - with its own professional personnel, academic apparatus and huge popular

base. This has changed forever the perspective through which we view the fragments of historicarchitecture with which we share our landscape. At one time, say up to 50 years ago, it was possible for

the architectural profession to argue that it was merely responding to an overwhelming nostalgia for a lost

landscape, on the part of its clients, when it produced facsimiles to satisfy that hunger. But that argument

is no longer viable today. There is not a nostalgic client anywhere in the United States who could not fairly


de 17 29/03/2011 3:28


15/17

easily find a genuine antique building to restore, modify and/or adapt to his own needs; and a team of

trained and experienced preservation architects to help in the task.

Moreover this entire process takes place in an intellectual climate in which the professional's very

comprehension of the past has itself been radically altered. Whole new fields of activity for dealing with

the artefacts of past epochs have been created in the past century or so: archaeology, art history,

museology. And the whole thrust of scholarship in each of these fields has been to define, in ever sharper

terms, the difference between the original, the prototype, on the one hand, and the duplicate, the

facsimile, the copy on the other. There has long been basis enough for such distrust, especially in the field

of fine art where the copy or facsimile, no matter how honest or well-intentioned to begin with, had a

disturbing tendency to show up, sooner or later, in the market place as an original. If the post-modern

architects choose to ignore this fundamental shift in attitude towards the past, so be it. Obviously the

preservationists cannot.

One thing which has distinguished the American preservation movement from its earliest days, has been

its distrust of the facsimile or reproduction, its insistence upon the actual original, prototypical artefact.

There is something almost religious in its insistence upon the actual tree under which Washington

supervised the battle of Stony Point, the very same blood-stained bedclothes under which poor Lincoln

breathed his last in the little hotel across from Ford's Theatre. And indeed there is probably more than alittle of the Christian tradition of the pilgrimage and the relic of the true cross in the preservation ethos.

Those early preservationists may have erred in their early attributions, but their errors were those of faulty

scholarship, not faith, and they were always quick to correct their errors in the light of subsequent

knowledge. (See, for example, Mt. Vernon's repeated reexamination of its paint colours across the

decades.) We must therefore disallow the claim of Drexler's post-modernists that they stand in the direct

line of succession to the preservationists.

One must ask again: why would an institution, whose whole raison d'etre is the sponsorship of art after

the Impressionists and of architecture beginning with Frank Lloyd Wright, have chosen to sponsor such

recondite projects as the book, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, and the show, The

Architecture of the Ecole Des Beaux-Arts? Why, having decided to broaden its overview of the presentby a new and more catholic examination of the past, did it choose two historical periods which, by their

very nature, were most antithetical to modernism: the Baroque and Rococo of Counter-Reformation

Europe and the Beaux-Arts of the French Second Empire? If history were indeed to be re-examined as a

resource for modern architects, why not the archaic Greek that so intrigued the early Le Corbusier? Or the

Roman which Jefferson had found so useful in building the first Republic? Why not suggest that the

modernists study the Shakers, whose works had inspired our own Craftsman movement? Why not urge

young engineers to study the Crystal Palace [Fig. 13], the Brooklyn Bridge, or the Eiffel Tower? Or

industrial designers to re-examine the great Clipper ships and racing carts that so excited Horatio

Greenough? In short, what were the real intentions of these two actions - the book and the show - if not to

derail and destroy the rational/functionalist content of modernist theory and practice? And why, 10 years

later, did it permit Drexler (and of course Johnson, the eminence grise of the Museum) to indulge in thispictorial distortion of the true course of modernist architecture?

It is difficult to imagine that the Museum of Modern Art, of all our institutions, could have been unaware

of the implications of these interventions into the architectural culture of this country. For in modern life,

the great exhibitions have developed a dynamic of their own. Together with the crowds that visit them, the

critical literature that they generate, and the permanent influence of these publications, they have had an

enormous impact upon the field which they nominally only describe. In this case, they clearly prepared

the ground for the success of the Post-Modern movement, stylistically and functionally reactionary as it

has shown itself to be. And the attacks were all the more persuasive in that they originated in the very

temple of modernism itself, not from some fragmented traditionalists who, however discredited, had never

given up their opposition to the modern. Whatever the shortcomings, real or imagined of modernism, they

have not been replaced with anything better by the superficial polemics of the post-modernist leaders,

whose ambitions and capabilities have now found perfect expression in their new hotels [Fig. 14] at

EuroDisney, outside Paris.


de 17 29/03/2011 3:28


16/17

_______________________

Notes

1. Both date from the period between 1966, when Venturi's book was published, and 1967, when the

decision to proceed with the Beaux-Arts show was finalised, according to Arthur Drexler.

References

Drexler, A. (1960).Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, George Braziller, New York.

Drexler, A. (1966). Foreword to Venturi, R. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, The Museum

of Modern Art, New York.

Drexler, A., ed. (1976). The Architecture of the Ecole Des Beaux-Arts: An exhibition presented at The

Museum of Modem Art, New York, October 29, 1975-January 4, 1976, The Museum of Modern Art, New

York.

Drexler, A., ed. ( 1977). The Architecture of the Beaux Arts, The Museum Of Modern Art, MIT Press,

Cambridge, Mass.

Drexler, A. (1979). Transformations in Modern Architecture, The Museum Of Modern Art, New Y

Fitch, J. M. (1972).American Building 2: The Environmental Forces that Shape It, 2nd edition,

Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Hitchcock, H.-R. and Johnson, P. (1982). The International Style, W. W. Norton, New York.

Johnson, P. (1947).Mies Van der Rohe, The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Johnson, P. (1969).Introduction to Built in the USA: Post-war Architecture, George Braziller, New York.

Scully, V. (1961).Modern Architecture: The Architecture of Democracy, George Braziller, New York.

Scully, V. (1966). Introduction to Venturi, R. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, The

Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Scully, V. (1977) Introduction to Venturi, R. Revised edition. Complexity and Contradiction in

Architecture, The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, The Museum of Modern Art, New

York.

Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D. and Izenour, S. (1972).Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism

of Architectural Form, revised edition, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Illustration credits

1, 3, 9,11 by Cervin Robinson.

2 by Julius Shulman.

6, 7 Venturi, Rauch and Scott Brown.

8 by Susan Dirk.

12 by Philip Johnson.


de 17 29/03/2011 3:28


17/17

13 by Dell and Wainwright.

14 by Disney

Biography

James Marston Fitch is Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at

Columbia University. He is currently Director of Historic Preservation for the architectural firm of Beyer

Blinder Belle .

Thanks to the author and arq.

Hypertext by JYA/Urban Deadline.


Documents

Murder at the Modern