English texts

Note: the article extract is generated automatically and may contain anomalies. Please refer to the PDF above.

Carlos Raul Villanueva Evolution and Training It can be said that the activity carried out by the architect throughout the centuries, in spite of all its historical variants and although, apparently, there was resistance to any great internal upheavals, has none the less finally been substantially altered in structure.

The first upheaval came about during the Renaissance when the architect realized fully, for perhaps the first time, the subtle and difficult privileges that had been accorded to him in his role of artist/creator. From this moment his professional conscience found itself torn between tlje growing contradictions of his sense of adventure, of invention, of originality and the ever increasing, clearly defined limits within which his clients placed the programme of their needs.

• These contradictions began to make the problem of design more crucial, they took place within a context that was soon to be entirely artistic (with the architect fully aware of his status as artist); but their consequences rarely did more than cause individual and personal reactions on the part of the creator. The second event of real value is that the architect reaches the point where he places himself—in the advanced economic-industrial system— at the heart of the conventional formulae of a liberal'profession.

First of all a craftsman, then an artist, now an intellectual, the architect has included in his work elements of insecurity, of non-conformism together with a feeling of protest and of utopia.

These factors correspond, in the contemporary world, to a basic contradiction between his primary role as an integral part of the economic mechanism, which justifies and at the same time demands this role, and secondly the development of his capacity to analyze, to use his eminently critical view of society.

Nevertheless, we know that it is impossible to-be at the same time the blind instrument and the critic of the same system without falling into a serious contradiction: the principal contradiction which affects the architect, like the intellectual and the professional man, in the present-day world. From this point of view the situation is no longer one that is new and exclusive to architecture. In the

society to which we belong, all the professions suffer from the same state, as do all the intellectuals and all the men who declare themselves not in conformity with the process of ‘choisification’ in whose toils they are caught. It seems, however, that the architect was predestined, perhaps ever more than other professional men, to be affected by this contradiction because of the organic characteristics of design which lead him, almost of necessity, to give a judgement on the world and, as a result, to build a critical vision.

It does not seem possible, for the moment at least, that the profession of architect will cease to show this uncomfortable duality. On the contrary, it will keep it, accentuate it, revive it each time more clearly, in a rigorous historic need. Because of this the university structures that train the architect find themselves forced to allow the development, to a degree hitherto unknown of the idea of autonomy and that of co-direction, which was established some time ago in Latin America, and is at present urgently claimed by European students. What has been added however, is the important new idea of, the relation between autonomy and co-direction, on the one hand, and on the other, the function that the University must fulfil as an outside critic of the society. From the point of view of the training of the architect it is indispensable to understand the close relationship of cause and effect between historical awareness adapted to a sound critical position, which gives at the same time a special role to the historical training because it has been conceived not in an academic manner but from a functional angle.

The pragmatic truth which is imposed on the architect as a definite sign of his deeds can be catalogued by means of several prominent traits, i. e.

1. The definitely urban shape of the human habitat.

2. The mass demand for architectonic products.

These two decisive facts combine with two possibilities which, at present, and each time with more imperious force, are offered to the architect.

1. The integrated use of science.

2. The abundant use of technology of a solidly industrial basis.

Here are a few of the points on which everyone agrees, the growing difficulties that the architect meets in order to satisfy the requirements of society. It does not only concern the reasons for the maladjustment and the contradiction of which we have spoken, far from it, but also the empiric form which is intuitive and basic, that still rectifies the method of design of the architect. The determining factors and the possibilities mentioned previously must be coupled together to give birth to a structure of teaching based on a seriously scientific attunement : to design and to develop a scientific methodology to be inscribed oh the order of the day for the architect. Whatever may be the solution given to this problem, it cannot be obtained without teaching that in practice it is eminently experimental and capable of investigation.

I have the feeling that it is on these themes that the attention of the profession should be focused at the moment.

Fundamental interests are at stake; they demand the definition of precise objectives. On the world scale, it is time to declare the profession of architect in peril. An enormous task awaits us and we possess the most suitable tool. Let us lose no mòre time.

Kuion Maekawa The Training of Architects In training architects today there is a.

double difficulty to be faced : first of all, in spite of all the well-established institutions of contemporary education, it is not possible to do anything except through the architects themselves. The second difficulty is that because of the social crisis which has shaken the very basis of the profession, it is hard to find architects who are sufficiently worthy of belonging to this liberal profession.

In architecture, technique and the inspiration are separate one from another. The technique of modern architecture is autonomous and objective and is entirely independent of the architect himself, whereas in other arts, such as painting and sculpture, the technique is always to be found in the person of the artist himself, closely linked to the imagination of the artist.

The technique of architecture is therefore accumulative and transferable, and in consequence can be taught within the framework of the present institution of the School of architecture, but the problem of inspiration in architecture is completely beyond its scope.

The training of architects can only be achieved by the architects themselves, but what is tragic today is that it is not easy

to find an architect worthy of the name of this liberal profession. For a long time the profession of architecture was considered, together with those of law and medicine, as one of the most eminent; unfortunately, in modern society, it seems that it has abandoned this prestige of being liberal to become commercial. The architects of the modern world seem to be no longer aware of the indispensability of a free statute for their creative activities, which are the very basis of their existence.

The reason for which the profession of architect has been considered liberal lies in the fact that it has always had a double responsibility : one towards its* client, as the supplier of the artistic concept and also as the representative of the interests of the client, the other towards the community as creator of the public environment. To accomplish this double task, it was necessary for him to keep his free statute, architecture being after all the mass resulting from the decisions of the architect in the free state of his imagination. Today the architect’s liberty of mind is in great danger : not only because it is menaced by the present regime of the industrial society, but also by the psychological decadence of the architects themselves who do not regret throwing themselves like ‘articles of commerce’ into modern society and who are no longer conscious of the need for a free spirit to maintain their existence.

Already 40 years ago Elie Faure wrote that after 100 years of almost total eclipse, the dawn of modern architecture was announced, but it already seemed to have fallen into a state of decadence. Contemporary architects are divided into two categories: those who repeat routine work, without thought or repugnance, and those who do the most shameful things in the name of individualism, the so-callèd prestige of the present society. It is in this way that modern architecture has already fallen into a kind of academicism less than half a century after its birth.

How can one hope for a resurrection of free architecture? We must remember that at the beginning of this movement the predecessors of modern 20th-century architecture began the impulse as a censure on their architectural surroundings.

At this decisive moment for architecture, I think that it is only this free spirit of criticism by the architect which can enable the dawn to break on a new contemporary architecture.

crat, he considers himself as a specialist in co-ordination, programming and synthesis. He practices his profession in a welter of divergent interests and would be the final arbiter. This allows him to flirt with the left, and to be seen from time to time as progressive. When he decries the mal-functioning of democracy, he doesn’t hide his intention of building for power.

The works of the architechnocrat can be conventional or Utopie, banal or fantastic. They are always more important than the men for whom they are supposed to be destined. Architechnocracy hasn’t'yet found a style, and is not very sure of finding one.

Compared with the traditional architects who still form the majority of the profession, the architechnocrat may seem an excellent fellow. He uses scientific methods and contributes, to a certain extent, to a renewal in the art of building. On the other hand, he is made suspect by the scope of his ambition. Is he not, at the same time, guilty and victim of a dangerous blindness? Let us try and answer this question.

The technocrat appears when technological power is slipping from the hands of the owner classes and when they see their economic strength compromised by the financial concentration of big business.

The tasks of organization, forward planning and programming which are so indispensable to the system’s proper functioning are therefore passed on to specialists who are made to feel all the more indispensable in a society which has removed from the individual the skills necessary for an independent existence.

To accomplish his task, the technocrat needs to be remote from the antagonistic groups in society. As a result, he tends to set himself apart from any clashing of interests and places himself in the role of arbiter. He distrusts any political argument and reacts to it with superiority and the universality of pure reason. He tries to depoliticize human relations so as to eliminate embarrassing variables in his solving of human equations. He considers that it is up to the incorruptible computer and the ‘neutral’ State to do the rest.

What is this desire for political independence worth? On the left when he is face to face with the representatives of capital, on the right in his dealings with the workers: Provoking the criticism of the left, he reassures the owner classes that the established order can easily adapt itself to the solutions which he proposes. To the working class, he presents himself as a progressive by pointing out his disagreements with the capitalist. This split

Claude Schnaidt The Architechnocrats A new man-type is in process of being born : the architechnpcrat, a happy marriage between the architect of yester year and the modern technocrat. How can he be recognized?

Unlike the architect, he cannot be recognized by his ties, his clothes, and his hairstyle. He is discreet, and prefers boardmeetings to conferences, confidential documents to manifestos. One meets him everywhere, in the minister’s suite, in large air conditioned offices, in small, badly ventilated and dusty studios. He may be an employer or an employee and doesn’t necessarily come from a bourgeois background. He feels quite at home in the consumer’s society, although he sometimes criticizes it. He is modern. His vocabulary draws on cybernetics, structuralism, and serious newspapers. Although it amuses him to experiment with idehs, he is wary of ideologies and forecasts their early disappearance. He would like to see the final supremacy of nationalism, efficiericy, and pure technology.

He has total confidence in machines, computers, and organization. In his view, technology will bring us plenty, leisure, and the classless society. He has a technical solution to every problem. As an architect he considers himself omniscient and competent in all fields; as a techno26

personality is a lure. To attempt to satisfy equally those who are in power and those who are not is necessarily to play the game of the former. Whether he likes it or not, the technocrat serves capital.

The technocrats wish to improve and rationalize the system by collaboration with him, the architechnocrat tries to make plans ‘work’. His prediction for the efficient and the profitable leads him to concentrate his attention on the riieans rather than on the end product. His function prevents him from questioning the base from which he has to work.

Take as an example urban traffic. The architechnocrat’s solution consists of breaking holes, destroying houses, cutting down trees, and building parking lots in order to accommodatefloods of vehicles.

The expansion graph of the car industry is taboo to him. He doesn’t doubt for a moment the very necessity of the car.

He wants to turn the city into a ‘machine’ for moving traffic. As the results of the first operation are immediately cancelled out by the influx of private cars, the architechnocrat follows up with a second operation. The slowing down of development of means of public transport continues, and this increases the costs of their exploitation. Fares are increased because in the eyes of a capitalist state, public service companies must make a profit. The rise in fares naturally encourages all those who own a car to use it in the city. The architechnocrat tries as a result a third operation, and so on, like one of the more publicized surgeons. If nothing works, the problem is passed on to the computers.

Several large cities are planning to site in major streets cameras which are capable of transmitting by radio the speed/ number ratios of vehicles necessary to sort out the jams. These would be fed into a computer which in turn would be connected to the traffic lights and would ensure à smooth traffic flow. In this way all the problems which the police and planners have been unable to solve will fall into place. Should it not work, supertechnocrats will seek a more advanced solution.

One such solution has been perfected for Los Angeles. All direct communication between people, and the movement which this necessitates would be replaced by a cybernetic system. Everyone wôuld stay at home and would be linked to one another, by means of a few buttons and screens. No more schools, offices. The children’s teaching machine would be connected to the electronic brain of the central school administration. Their father will run his factory from the living room. The streets will be deserted apart from some young people bent on the perpetuation of the species by more direct contacts.

There are other solutions to the problems of urban traffic which never occur to the architechnocrats. For example, the development of dense, fast and cheap systems tion of different solutions. Since they are of public transport to dissuade people capable of handling systems of great from using their cars. Our technology, complexity, they seem predestined to the properly orientated, would enable us to solution of architectural problems which find a means of transport more appro present, in general, a large number of priate to the city than the private car. alternatives and innumerable combinaMoving pathways, monorails, endless tions. But if machines are in a position carriages and other vehicles developed to undertake tasks which are impossible for major exhibitions could come into to man, they cannot operate without general use. This would cost a great deal, information. All they can do is to process but probably less than the direct and correctly, rapidly and tirelessly such indirect cost of the present anarchy. The information which is fed into then and architechnocrat is not interested in such this information must be complete and solutions because hypertrophy and auto- programmed with great accuracy.

mobilism mean nothing to him. To ask Thé problem is, however, that in archihimself too many questions, to attempt tecture we never have exact information, to reduce the number of cars to a level and often have none at all. For example: which is appropriate for an urban en how many inhabitants should make up a vironment, to rethink public transport,, neighbourhood? How do different famiall this requires a level of economic and lies behave? Hpw does one measure the political decision of which the archi degree of comfort? What percentage of technocrat is incapable. The architechno the loads are absorbed by^the infills in a crat handles questions of housing in the framework? Why are some areas more samé way. He conceives the dwelling, the full of life than others? How is vibration building and the district according to the transmitted in a building? What is the ^ criterion of our bureaucratic society of quality and therefore the value of a organized consumers. He neglects the house? What is the relationship between social extensions of the family unit be the cost of insulation and heating? Our cause he considers amongst other things, backlog of ignorance is unfortunately that the multiplication of individual limitless. We have practically nothing of electrical household apparatus is an ad value to feed into a computer’s memory, vantage. This view is, in fact, profitable and as a result, we cannot use it efficiently.

only to the manufacturers and their Any attempts to work in this field have distributors. Studies have shown that the been unconvincing because they consist, so-called progress in domestic equipment • with few exceptions, of a meaningless has not reduced the housewife’s working manipulation of symbols which have no day. On the contrary the time gained in valid experimental basis. These sad cleaning clothes electrically is largely used efforts give a mathematical accuracy to up in the maintenance of the machine conclusions whose premises have no and by the intensive use which is made greater value than intuition or supposiof it.

tion. Valid solutions such as the com45 % of the so-called productive working puters could already provide cannot be hours of the entire population are con based on the prophesies of a few archisecrated to unremunerated housework. technocrats, but on research which must The correct solution is to replace a large be carried out to further our knowledge.

amount of inefficiently produced house While technocracy progresses in the work by a smaller amount of industrial ranks of the architects, the environment work, efficiently produced. In other and daily life of men deteriorates inwords, to convert housework into a col exorably. The megalopolis which are lective task. To this end, every dwelling developing become apoplectic whenever should be sited near to a service centre there is the slightest hitch in their supersathousing a laundry, a small bar, cooked urated infrastructures. Whole regions are meals, peeled vegetables, cleaners, chil dying and changing into a countryside of dren’s nurseries, infirmary, etc. The idea old people and abandoned farms. The is not new. Le Corbusier thought of it few theories which we have disagree with because he was not an architechnocrat. the facts which they seek to explain. We In his Unités d'habitation he provided for debate amongst ourselves about everythese services. The experts decided, how thing in the most incoherent manner posever, that they would not show a profit, sible. Where is the rationalism and the so they were left out.

efficiency which technocratism is supThe architechnocrat matures the hope posed to have brought us? It is time to that the computer will solve all our prob realize that the architechnocrats are not lems, and unquestionably it will be all they say or what they would have uscalled upon to become the architect’s believe. A few of them may be excepirreplaceable assistant. First of all to tionally competent, but they are emrelieve him of routine and trying work; ployed one-sidedly. Architechnocrats can secondly to encourage him to take on be highly placed, can have influential work which is beyond his ability.

contacts; their power of decision is, howMachines can, and must, file, analyze, ever, limited. They produce solutions, calculate, evaluate, integrate, check, but the forces of money and political correct and draw. They should also be power choose these which are most in capable of taking charge of the elabora line with their interests.

The architechnocrats boast about the technical quality of their solutions to various problems, even though these are conditioned by many factors which are

well outside the realms of technology.

They are against all ideologies, but they have created one to justify and compensate for their powerlessness to advance

technology and pure reason. Technocratism, in architecture as in other domains, is no more than a myth carefully matured to dissipate our tragic plight.

of humanity has his presence been more necessary.

Since the beginning of this century the timid emergence of the idea of ‘town planning’ has dominated to an ever increasing extent the life of our society.

Architecture and planning today become so closely interwoven, that they are in fact one discipline—the ‘Art of Building’, intimately associated with man’s condition and his opportunities for living, acting, thinking and loving.

We are in the presence of the rapid growth in the field of social action in architecture.

The new conditions are only too apparent throughout the world and are due to the change in scale, quantitative and qualitative. In the society of the greatest number, of the consumer and of the atomic bomb, man is ever more anguished, obsessed and lost.

Already there are signs of the coming of a world in Which man will be forgotten.

The danger is great, the time has come to question and to contest the present situation which has developed out of an outdated past.

We have a duty to assume this responsibility.

To assume our responsibility, and to participate fully in the metamorphosis of man’s environment demands above all a recognition and denunciation of the most important obstacles, those who are opposed to a meaningful social, political and scientific action. Those who participate in the creation of our environment realize that without a new and communal vision of future society, their efforts will remain isolated, disorientated'and worthless.

The simple act of building can no longer be isolated, the exclusive privilege of a profession or public body. It is a collective action which is the concern of all and is even part of everyday life.

Even the term ‘Architect’ is still associated with an artisanal and corporative concept of the profession.

The architect can no longer remain isolated; the multiplication of his problems, their infinite diversity impose on him his integration into complex teams where information, the creative assistance of the user, the human sciences, technical disciplines and the exact sciences will find their natural place, their objective role—and, at last, their responsibility.

Team work requires a new training, a re-thinking for all who are involved, and

not only for architects, so that a common language, a common comprehension will help in arriving at a synthesis of decision.

The slogan of the need for freedom in the use of land is already out of date.

It is only a willing and permanent mobilization of land which can nurture the global and dynamic urbanization which is necessary in our time.

The regular and triumphal announcement of the achievement of a programme of thousands of dwellings, whether by the State or private enterprise, no longer fools anyone. Groups of dwellings are beginning to invade towns and suburbs which are completely out of sympathy with what already exists and bear no relation to the future. These are isolated from their physical and social environment—ghettos for the poor, and for the rich. They disfigure our urban space, and although they provide a roof over the heads of those who live in them, they must not be confused with the idea of ‘habitat’, nor must their ‘construction’ be classed as ‘architecture’.

We are living, in truth, in a consumers’ society which determines the very conception of architecture and planning.

Houses, schools, public buildings and buildipg land become, they also, consumer items. There is nothing against this, as long as there is a proper and not a theoretic control of production. Consumer production, dictated by motives of speculation and profit exploits the naivety and ignorance of man, largely through unlimited advertising.

Consumer architecture is ridiculous in appearance as a result of what is generally a spurious impression of futurism, or else a pastiche of past styles.

‘Gadget’ architecture, ‘drugstore’ architecture, ‘pubs’, ‘shopping centres’ and ‘residences’ in cut stone all express the decadence and dishonesty of ‘production architecture’ in present-day conditions.

Machines exist to serve us but we tend to use them in the opposite sense: instead of producing objects which satisfy our needs, we produce them to induce new needs: man is caught in the trap of a system of exploitation which creates an artificial environment of camouflage around him.

The machines exist and work.

The industrialization of building is a sad reality ; we are producing vast numbers of dwellings, but have not yet defined what sort of dwelling we should be producing.

The force of habit from the past, the lack

Georges Candilis In Search of a New Meaning for the Word ‘Architect’ Three years ago in May 1966, in Paris, some architectural students published a work of reflection and research on architecture, planning and their teaching.

The title is a résumé of the contents ‘Of what use is architecture?’ Since then, a group from the Beaux Arts School, students and staff, has begun to undertake a study in depth of the reform of architectural education, and an open debate on the role of the architect in society in the future.

This experiment has resulted in a clarification of the present situation in ‘architectural production’ which can be summarized as an answer to the first question: Architecture, under present conditions, is of no use whatsoever.

Worse still, it is becoming, consciously or unconsciously, a tool for the degradation of its practice.

The architect has lost his sense of responsibility and his respectability. His participation in the creation of the built environment is dictated more and more by quantitative values : money, number of and time.

The decisions are taken without him, by a system which is complex and confused— technocratic finance.

The method of financing and interest on capital plays a major role, and the profit is more important than quality.

The architect, despite himself, becomes a commercial element: he himself is guided in his ‘architectural’ output by his own mercenary interest.

Swamped in a system of contradiction, confusion, ignorance and camouflage, the architect finds himself in a ridiculous position in the hangover from a dying past. He is considered either as an ‘artist’ just accepted in the role of ‘plastic decorator’ of a building, or else as an inferior form of technician who is taken more or less seriously by specialist technologists.

The architect basks in the illusion of his participation in the creation of man’s environment. In reality, his training, his professional organization, the framework of his activity, the false role which is imposed on him by present-day conditions plunge him into an intolerable social and scientific position, out of scale with the needs of our time. The architect is only tolerated because he exists.

The responsibility and the role of the architect among those who make decisions for the future becomes more and more important. Never in the evolution 28

)

of imagination and invention, the total absence of experimentation and fundamental research, have resulted in the production of dwellings which are stillborn; out of date as soon as they are finished, dwellings which reflect a ridiculous tendency to try to produce a sort of miniaturized 19th-century bourgeois residence.

It is this false orientation which encourages tfie paradox of a dismissal of what is new and the application of false values to what is old:

— the denunciation and the suppression of excessive speculation in all its forms, financial and in the field of building; — the effective control of architectural production ; — the basic reform of architectural education and practice; — the establishment of responsibility at every stage of decision making; require one important preface: — that ‘Man’s habitat’ becomes his ‘right’ in the widest sense. This will

bring in its wake considerable political, social, administrative and financial consequences. ‘It is a clarification of the architectural responsibility of the whole of society’ (P. Lefèvre).

It is the only real condition for giving a new sense to the word ‘architect’.

To give this new sensé is to establish the architect in the primary role which he must play in a new society : the society of the consumer and the greatest number.

Extracts from the Posters, Declarations and Motions that were Written during the Revolution of May 1968.

Extracts on the Subject of Professional

Extracts on the Creative Intervention of

Problems

the Users

The term ‘Architect’ has remained linked to an artisanal concept of the profession.

Today the construction of a building can only be the task of a complex team: information and the human sciences, technical disciplines and mathematical sciences, put into solid form and then constructed. To be an architect does not mean doing big business but having a certain social mission towards not the clients but the users.

A new organization would be neither strictly professional nor definitive. It would evolve as a function of fundamental research and be in permanent contact with the University.

An appeal for participation in the work of the commission for the ‘defeudalisation of the profession’.

The theme of this latter is an architecture for all and by all. For all, in opposition to the profit of the few, by this we mean a general benefit that is both material and cultural.

By all, in opposition to the idea of the intervention of one person, and while respecting particular cases, we feel the need for vast organisms of reflection, programming and realization supposing: First of all that there is education for all from the earliest age, in view of this action of the responsible citizen ; then the development of the creative qualities inherent in all, necessitates the enlargement, in every way of the number and nature of the participants.

Extracts from Team Work

Nervous diseases, psychosis and other illnesses dèriving from an inability to adapt to the environment have quickly brought about the intervention of the sociologists, economists, geographers and other specialists who, with their own particular analyses, would make us forget the global, and above all political, nature of the problem. There are not too many architects, just as there are not too many engineers or technicians. The young specialists in human sciences have, objectively, a considerable field for intervention in the realm of housing and regional planning, but they are at present under-employed because the training which they receive is not geared to the real problems of life.

Extracts on the Consumer Society

We want to fight against the conditions of architectural production which, in fact, submit architecture to the interests of the public or private promoters.

The machine age is here, but we make use of the machine the wrong way round.

Instead of what is necessary, we produce too many objects that have to be maintained and then maintain their upkeep and so on . .. new objects, maintenance products and finally, a whole world of maintenance.

We refute the consumer society. We are wrong. We wish to consume but to

consume what we have decided to produce.

Extracts on Speculation

Town planning is a world phenomenon.

Its evolution implies essential mutations.

Town planning and the human sciences are viewed from an angle that makes them seem a decoy and in the extreme a demagogy if, in the final analysis, only money and the rules in force offer the solutions.

We demand the right to an architecture in the largest sense of the term, that is to say, the right to a planned place of quality and consequently, the right to the town, the right to the habitat, the right to lodging with all the consequences that entail; political, administrative and financial, and above all, the free disposition of the ground and the suppression of all forms of speculation.

We denounce the economic structures based on a desperate speculation and the search for maximum profit which defines the framework of present-day town planning, where the organisms for regional planning and for town planning are entirely, or partially, financed by the commercial banks. The architect at present has the choice between being a thief (becoming the head of an agency, a financial shark, in search of new business) or being robbed (being a good ‘slave’, a designer of the agency), that is to say allowing himself to be exploited by the big boss.

René Sarger May 1968 and Architectural Students The international press in search of news in May and June was well served this year. A sudden revolt that threatened to upset the very basis of French society.

Others thought that it was a systematic attempt to stir the students to violence' which would in turn reinforce, through fear, the system the students sought to overthrow. In fact, the students' revealed

the profound crisis in the French University and also of the system which is responsible for it. One knows that France is not democratic in its selection of students and that the sons of the lower and middle classes are relegated to the proletariat.

The students are afraid of a curtailment of their liberties, when they become

salaried. Last year less than 10% of the architects who qualified were able to set up on their own. A century ago when craftsmen and peasants suddenly found themselves transformed into labourers the same revolts broke out and socialist utopias flourished. How to avoid stagnation in the salaried classes, that was the question to be solved by destroying the 29

structures of society to obtain ‘the free was formed "and the work of the comassociation of men.’ This spirit now missions began.

affects new levels of society. History is For more than a month the ‘old school’ being repeated. What is new is that it is became a centre of agitation on all the architectural students who have fronts. Very quickly the decision was taken to rescind the Architects’ charter.

reached this state of awareness.

Of course there have been the extremes The headquarters of the Architects’ order and although there was a cry for the ■ were occupied. But the most important abolition of the Communist party as factor was the demand for the reform of traitors to the revolution, some factory the teaching and pedagogical methods.

directors noted several ringleaders among The students wish to take part in the the teachers and students who voted the organization and management of the instruction, they wish the Schools of Action of 15th May.

Everything began at the school in the architecture to be co-administered by weeks preceding the voting of this motion the teachers and students and linked to and following the arrest of students in the University. Contact was made beParis. The protest of part of the teaching tween the Special School and thp exbody began on the 7th May then followed School of Fine Arts. The situation in the the manifestations. A strike committee two schools differs according to the i '.

way in which they are governed. If is perhaps easier in the School of Fine Arts than in the University for in the former a series of reforms had already begun.

While the Rector of the University called the police the Malraux Cabinet allowed the strike committee to use the offices of the School of Fine Arts and representatives were present at the general assemblies and protested against the entry of the police in June.

Some of the preliminaries have been cleared and the students and teachers can work on the reforms of the programmes and the teaching methods.

There are still obstacles, will they be removed quickly, the reply is in the hands of the students and the teachers of the Schools of Architecture.

May Motions Why do we prolong the struggle? What do we battle against? We fight against a university of class, we want to enjoin the contest against all its aspects.

(1) We criticize the social selection that takes piace throughout the years of both primary and higher study to the detriment of the children from labourers’ and peasants’ families. We want to fight against the system of competitive examinations which is the principal means of selection.

(2) We criticize the matters taught and the pedagogical form in which they are diffused, because everything is organized so that the products of this system do not acquire a critical mind both with regard to knowledge and to social and economic reality.

(3) We criticize the role that society expects from the intellectuals: to be the watchdogs of the economic production system, to be the technocratic mânagement. To 'arrange it that everyone feels truly in his place, especially the ‘everyone’ who is in an exploited position.

What do these criticisms mean for the school of architecture? For the school of painting and sculpture? Certainly it is up to the commissions to define this precisely, but we can already speak for the school of architecture.

— We want to fight the domination in the teaching of the profession by the

Conseil de l 'Ordre or other corporate organisms. We are against the patronage system , as a pedagogical method, we are against the conformist ideology that the system engenders. The teaching of architecture must not be merely the repetition of what the master does so that, . finally, the pupil becomés a true copy.

— We want to fight against the conditions of architectural production which, in fact, submit it to the interests of the public or private promoters. How many architects have agreed to carry out small or large sarcelles? How many architects take into account in their contracts the information, hygiene and safety of the workers on the sites and, if they did, no promoter would reply to their bid for tenders. And it is common knowledge that there are three deaths a day in France in the building industry.

— We want to fight against teaching matter that is particularly conservative, most irrational and little scientific, where impressions and personal habits continue to prevail over objective knowledge.

Thè ideology of the Rome prize still, prevails. Briefly, we wish to take into account the true relationships of the

school and of society, we want to fight against its class character. We realize that we cannot fight this battle alone.

We must not fall into the delusion that the universities can install within their faculties Cores of real autonomy alongside the rest of the bourgeois society. It is beside the workers, who are the principal victims of the social selection that the teaching system engenders, that the university students must fight. The fight against the class university must be organically linked to the fight of all the workers against the capitalist system of exploitation.

It is necessary therefore that we undertake to question the relationships that at present direct the profession and its teaching, — question the present separation of ENSBAand higher-level teaching, — refuse to carry out any form of preselection on entry into the school, — fight against the present system of examinations and competitions, — prepare the fight against the decrees of reform, — set up real relationships to fight with the workers.

On all these points we must have the most free debates. All the professors must give their views.

The forms of organization for the fight must be found.

Ionei Schein Town Planning—Architecture— Revolution To form the trilogy ‘town planning— architecture—revolution’ is to admit that town planning and architecture like revolution are political acts. Based on this statement future sociologists will, in connection with the May revolution, compare the architecture of the Nanterre faculty and the surrounding constructed 30

urban environment. Both are splendidly nondescript. Sociological students have realized that the qualities of the built-up environment, in which a society lives day in day out, cannot be 'dissociated from its activities and above all from the socio-political structures in which these activities take place. A revolution occurs

in a town not in a palace and I think that a town should have a character of permanent contestation.

The town, as our society conceives it, is a mass of political, economic and social micro-phenomenons that leave their mark on the environment.

Régis Debray said that we are never

really contemporary with our present, that we always look wiht the eyes of history. In his book ‘Revolution within the Revolution’ he writes that one must liberate the present from the past. As the present is the past of the future, one reaches the logical conclusion in the revolutionary sense of reasoning that the future has nothing to do with the present, for it is a succession of‘presents.’The built-up environment is it a conclusion, a consequence of the revolution? It was until to-day.

It is no longer in these terms of constatation and definition of the structures of society that the town planners must regard the phenomenon of the inhabited spaces. When you change the structures of a society you must also change the structures of the constructed environment, otherwise the changes in the social body are annulled and recession sets in as a result of the refusal to transform the inhabited spaces. New situations demand new methods. The revolutionary transformation of our society has its source in industrial production. If there is selfmanagement or ‘participation’ the industrial environment will change.

The socio-technical mutation ridicules zoning and segregation, so' that town

planning and architecture can -no longer follow social, political and economic action but must spread the revolution: only thus will evolution continue.

The action of the students and their teachers together with one or two professional architects has brought about discussion not only of the teaching structure but also of the,architect’s professional structure. They asserted the political character of the uprising but in the rue Bonaparte they also forced themselves to define the political meaning of the town planning architectural act. They have shown how in accepting the compromises insisted upon by the pressure groups, at all levels of architectural creation, how by accepting the cultural pauperization of the profession, town planning and architecture were the perfect expressions of ä society in which architects are ready to accept their place and to carry out degrading tasks and general debasement. The professional organizations afterwards said they had made claims previously but this was not true as any individuals who suggested changes were ignored and any changes made were not basic ones. The student architects called the intellectuals the watchdogs of the system of economic production. The students want to fight against the class character of the School. Finally the architects realized that they are not the only people concerned in building and approved the student motion as well as the dissolution of the Architects’ charter. They wrote to the Ministry of Cultural Affairs and explained their aims.

1500 architects put their signatures to this letter.

How naive and false the architects appeared with regard to the students, how little capable of self-criticism; we enjoy the position of transcribers of civilization without obligations, without any wishes for responsibilities.

The students have shown us that the teaching of architecture and life, the idea and the production of the constructed domain are indissoluble.

How should we combat routine and stupidity, the compromise set down as system, the ruses of worldy relations and those of designed formality, that are used by so many architects who forget both their role of creator of the environment and that of citizen.

by an internal logic which rendered them inseparable, only two were taken into consideration by the organizing bodies of the more forward thinking schools, while others rejected them in their entirety. In order to discourage attempts at participation, special staff/student commissions were set up, and in order to bridge the split in the teaching bodies, new lecturers were brought in from the other universities and from the professions. These two measures were effective for a while and in fact, during the revolt of 1965 and 1966, the architectural faculties were content to await an improvement in the System and lost themselves in bureaucratic contrqversy.

Soon after this, however, the basic problems, again came to the surface and the struggle restarted in 1967. Once again, it began with a series of criticisms levelled against the least effective and most outof-date sectors of the educational system, finally developing into a concerted attack against the power of the controlling bodies of the schools.

The faculties of Milan, Turin, Naples and Venice were oòcupied by the students and were all evacuàted after police intervention, except for Milan. In Venice, where the occupation had been longer and less compromising than elsewhere, the police intervention was not called for by the rector, but by a neo-fascist movement which called itself the ‘New Order’ which in reality aimed at retaining the old

order wherever it existed and more particularly in the universities.

Giancarlo De Carlo The Pyramid Overturned # During the recent revolts of university students, the schools of architecture played a significant role. We should here like to attempt to define this role.

A Brief Résumé of the Facts In December 1963, shortly after the beginning of the academic year, the students of the course in composition in the Milan School of Architecture vient on strike. Some weeks prior to this, they had asked their lecturers to set up a debate on the make-up of their cqurses as they considered the existing ones to be irrelevant and inept. When this was refused, they occupied the school in February 1964, after a series of promises and threats, and were joined by students of all the other faculties. This was the first time that an Italian university had been occupied by its students. A few months later, their example was followed at Turin and Rome. During these ‘sitin’s, the students began to examine their problems. They started by discussing the definition of the architect’s role in society, the type of formation which he should receivè from a school, the reorganization of the school’s internal structure, the removal of the barriers between different courses, the transformation of established institutes into research centres and the participation, at decision-making level, of the students in the cultural growth of the school.

Of all these themes, linked as they were

The Opposing Parties and their Present Relationships Students are not a social class. Even if a part of their demands has its base in economics, they are in fact a heterogeneous group destined for a specific social function. Their real problem is not so much to arrive at economic security as to clarify their objectives, the reasons for attaining them, and the methods by which to carry them out. The only condition for this clarification is that it must be carried out by the students themselves. In effect, it is only in this way that they have the guarantee that their objectives are not inhuman, their reason overpowering, their methods agnostic. In other words, that they cjo not simply become instruments during the formation in their social function and that their life may have a human direction.

The question is therefore posed in terms of ‘the franchise’ and is in effect an extension of civil rights. On this new frontier, all youth is on the move, from the United States to Europe, via China.

It is battling for an autonomy of expression which has always been refused in the name of the ancient affirmation of the principle of authority: the incontestable predominance of the old in the government of society. The movement in each country, despite local variations, is con-

•

verging towards a common objective: the affirmation of the right of the young to question the behaviour of a society which has failed miserably in human terms, just when it has attained a peak . of productive effectiveness.

In their battle with the controlling bodies of the faculties, the student architects— perhaps even before the others—looked for forms of organization and action which were to be revolutionary, but valid because of their originality. The traditional student bodies, characterized as they were by political ‘trends’ copied from those of the parties, had had a fundamental influence in the early stages of the revolt. They now assume an essentially organizational—thus marginal—.

role. The plenary assembly of students is the sovereign body. Representative commissions are restricted to an absolute minimum. In many faculties, the president of the assembly is replaced daily, as are those delegates who are charged with liaison with the teaching staff or outside bodies. This leads to delays and confusion, but lessens the risk of a crystallization of power and helps to develop participation and a social conscience—in other words, liberty. The students are, in effect, persuaded that contrary to what they have been taught, liberty is more important than efficiency.

In an architectural iaculty, which they had occupied, they formed themselves into free groups, similar to the Jacobite clubs. It was in no way regarded as unreasonable to pass from one group to' another if one’s opinion changed during discussion. In another faculty, the students removed the paving from the court where the lecturers parked their cars, to turn it into a garden. Among these new forms of behaviour born of the tension of occupying the schòol buildings, there were the uncertainties, the horror of the institutional void, the nostalgia for symbols of reassurance. Above all, among those responsible for official student representation, there were the inevitable ‘Uncle Toms’ who were set on completing the operation in the quickest possible way in order to maintain their position, however precarious.

During the recent programming seminars there were several attempts by the authorities to provoke dissention based on the first results achieved. The assembly, however, although frequently distracted and vague on points of detail, always showed itself immovable on questions of principle.

The faculty councils and the student assemblies are therefore the only parties present in the major schools of architecture in Italy. As in all the other faculties, they are separated by the principle of authority. It is necessary therefore, to examine further this line of demarcation.

The Arguments in the Conflict Italian architectural faculties are the fruit of a marriage of reason between the 32

Schools of Fine Arts and the schools of engineering. They have inherited from each their worst aspects which they have never succeeded in overcoming. It is as a result of this basic mistake that the student is subjected to such an absurd and contradictory programme. Such an attempt to cover all subjects from the sciences to the arts is presumptuous. ‘The result’, wrote a student close to qualifying, ‘is that the architect becomes a mathematician, doctor, engineer, art historian ... all this whilst remaining a dilettante.’ The conflict began immediately after the war as a result of gross inadequacies in architectural education. In effect, the first timid approaches of the student were an attempt to realign the scientific subjects.

On this occasion, the most advanced faculties, which allowed at least some dialogue between the students and lecturers in so-called artistic matters, committed the first errors of judgement. With the praiseworthy intention of taking pressure off the work programmes, they reduced those of mathematics and the sciences, without, however, reappraising the whole. The problem was not a question of pruning the branches of the tree, but of strengthening the trunk and treating the roots. During a congress of university teachers held at Naples in 1959, the students presented a motion which spoke of the goals to be achieved. ‘The development of a design implies an increase in sensitivity towards reality, towards the problems and needs of the country.’ The urgency of the nation’s needs were brought to the surface—in other words, the hypothesis of a re-engagement of architectural activity in the development of society. (It must be remembered, that at this congress the students were speaking as. the guests of rather patronizing hosts.) In the years that followed, discussion was centred on this theme. It was fed by the increasing discontent of the students, and also by a series of factors which emerged with the passing of time. The economic development of the sixties had revealed in a striking manner how far was Italian architecture from being able to face the problems which resulted. The rapid transformation of the physical environment caused by internal migration, urban planning, increased mobility, the increase in earning power; all these were abandoned to the piracy of private speculators, financial monopolies and the insecurity of politicians. Architecture found itself unable to influence to any extent the effects of what was happening; besides this, it failed to put forward any worthwhile ideas or recommendations. The school continued to graduate members of semi-professionals geared only to approach the decorative requirements of the moneyed ‘élite'. It did not produce the much needed regional or urban planners or designers in the true sense. It is clear

at the same time that it did not produce a culture based on the systematic application of research.

During the strikes and occupations of 1962 and 1963, the students began to reflect on this unhappy situation and on what awaited them on their qualification, unprepared as they were to face an undecipherable world; their conclusions could be summarized in three main arguments: a faculty of the masses, a review of teaching methods and the setting up of a new research programme. It was submitted to the staff, with a proposal that a communal effort of reorganization takes place. If today, at the climax of the crisis, we examine the documents which contain this proposal, we can see that it is dogmatic in its form, but liberal in its intent. It seems strange to us now that the authorities refused it, even saying that it was an offence against their professional dignity. Without doubt, it was the familiar archaic authoritarian attitude showing itself, with the perverse shrewdness of the Italian university authorities.

In the case of the architectural faculties, however, there ^as something else.

Faculty for the masses is synonymous with faculty for the greatest number. The number of students increased because of the increasing demand for architects. This requirement springs from the fact that Italian architecture is trying to abandon its role of providing innocuous decoration in order to become an essential part in the development of the country. But how many of these comfortably secure civil servant lecturers were ready to risk this possibility. How many of them, formed as they were in the intellectual haven of good taste, could assume a social responsibility?

In addition, the renewal of teaching in its full sense implied the creation of a scientific basis for the architecture of the greatest number. The control Qf the transformation of man’s habitat and of the almost' unlimited production of ordinary objects^ require the use of analytical instruments based on complex and farreaching techniques. For this reason, the $ ‘design’ born outside the schools, came to supplant equipment and decoration.

For the same reason, urban planning, also born outside the schools, began to replace the architecture of the towns. But how many of the staff were able to project their culture beside a teaching method so truly scientific in approach? They had accepted the reduction in mathematics and science courses because it appeared to justify their inconsistency. They would never admit that these courses should be reintroduced at a still higher level.

Finally, there was no question of giving the green light to a true research programme. In effect, in a country in such a precarious situation as ours, research signifies dispute. Anyone who studies the physical structure of Italy will find it based on a system which is idiotic and egotistical. In these conditions, research

activity could be accepted only if it was not authentic, that is to say, in so far as it was acceptable, although by its own assertion, controversial.

Faculty for the Masses, Didactic, Research The university for the masses is not an enlarged or simplified traditional university. In order to have such a university, it is not sufficient merely to plan larger or more numerous lecture halls, to increase or reduce timetables, to increase or reduce working hours; what is needed is a transformation of the structure which changes the relationship between the parties, which re-establishes the equilibrium of participation—functions and responsibilities, which ensures' the flexibility of exchange confrontation, which reinforces cultural acuteness.

The objective of the university of the masses is to fulfil a different social requirement from the traditional university for the ‘élite'. It is no longer a question of creating trained minds to serve the class in power, but rather the whole of society—specialists, but conscious of the aims of their activity.

Teaching and research are distinct functions, even though they are linked by reciprocal necessity. In effect, it is unthinkable that didactic can include research, as was the case up to the present in schools of architecture.

Instruction as such cannot possess the powers of discovery and penetration appropriate to research. It is equally unthinkable that research can contain didactic as was the case in the school described earlier, since it is impossible to carry out research if one does possess the technical and methodological instruments which permit the systematic investigation of a discipline. To develop operative research, mathematics are necessary; for research into the transformation of the urban fabric, history of architecture is necessary; for technological research, it is necessary to^understand the nature and behaviour of materials, for research into individual projects, it is necessary to have the possibility of presentation and communication of ideas, and so on.

A continually updated didactic framework should provide the means to constitute a cultural base for the work of research. It should be first hand, broadbased and of as advanced a level as possible. It should form part of the faculty, to be orientated towards all subjects relevant to architecture and in addition be made available to other faculties yvhose studies are in some way related to architecture. In effect, there is nothing as stupid as the partial teaching of mathematics to architects, when mathematics are properly taught in the scientific faculties; structures are more properly taught in the engineering school and even sociology and economics, which have

recently been brought into the field of architectural studies with an effect almost as disastrous as a course in ‘semi-planning’ in the schools of sociology or economics.

The department would have the responsibility of liaising external and internal matters and of establishing contact with the outside. The door would always be open to change, amputation, addition, modernization. Above all, the student would be free to choose and decide according to his needs, and without any obligation other than the consciousness of his dwn deficiencies, recognized during the preparation of his work programme and later on.

In this way, the department, apart from its work of coordination mentioned above, could assume the function of encouraging a programme of university reform. This would be transformed,from its present state of a conglomeration of self-sufficient and incompatible faculties into a school of open studies, intercommunicating and flexible. It would be the meeting place for examining the possibilities of multiple studies, where the student would freely follow his chosen way. He would be enabled to overcome all the prejudices of classification which have split the unity of culture, he would be able to free himself from the tyranny of obligatory choice, his critical sense would be stimulated by free and responsible choice throughout his student career.

In considering the research activity in such a faculty, we feel that it would be useful to set down 3 axioms. The first is that the activity in question is represented by the joint undertaking of numerous research projects within a group. This signifies that the dimension of the group must always correspond to the intransigent requirements of research, and that regardless of the subject matter, the principal requirement is that of continual and direct exchange of ideas and experiences among the members of the group.

It is false to think that in a faculty for the masses, research must be carried out by large ‘watered down’ groups in order to allow as many students as possible to participate. In addition it is suspect when a group is led by a single teacher, who allows the sub-groups tò be led by his assistants. This faithfully reproduces the conditions in traditional courses, in other words it offers the same product for sale under a different label!

The second axiom is that all research undertaken by the faculty must be oriented in a common direction. Themes must be chosen which are the most appropriate to university activity. The various research programmes undertaken by a faculty must all be directed towards the study of a few central points, be they abstract or practical, that have to be minutely examined from a critical and then from a constructive viewpoint. This must be sufficiently detailed and explicit to include the several cultural and political responsibilities which are applicable to the points in question. This is the only correct method by which to transform the research into participation. Other methods cap show a good practical sense or empiricism, but in reality conceal selfinterested connivance. They merely turn out supporters of the present system.

The third axiom concerns the manner in which research is conducted, and, in particular, the type of relationships which are created within the group, where students and lecturers work together. These, relationships must be strictly on the basis of equals, in the sense that each participant must have the same rights and duties, so that the strength of collective work can flourish; so that it can be the' result of a freshness of ideas and experience. The activity of research becomes therefore not only a framework promoting cultural development, but also an occasion of non-authoritarian comportment, an example of a democratic exercise which is reflected in the entire structure of the school.

University for the masses, didactic and research are therefore fundamental steps on the road to clarification. The faculty of architecthre began to travel it with decision at first, then with a degree of uncertainty. This was due to the ambiguity of dialogue which the students reopened, on their side with a certain sense of reality but without being sure of success in liberating it from all the obscure reserves which have been the cause of a permanent incomprehension.

The Contradictions in Italian Architecture The students, therefore, are forcing a renewal of architecture by a more intense participation in the transformation of the structure of society. From the sidelines, however, is appearing an attempt at a diversion towards an architecture considered as pure art (uncontaminated) and a school considered as academic. In other words an agreeable prostitution is coming to the surface again sheltered from the vulgarities of reality.

The basic reasons for architecture are much more complex than these proposed academic hibernatiohs. The problems of the physical environment have become fundamental to world progress. In each act of economic or social planning, in each political prospective, it is no longer possible to abstract oneself from the structures and forms of the physical environment. For this reason—from the matrix of architecture—is born urbanism, the science of the structural and formal transformation of the country. For the same reason was born industrial design, the science of the mass production of objects which, placed in the country, participate in its transformation. The radius of action of architecture has widened enormously, for which reason from now on we must have specific 33

relationships and implies new groups of participants, who disintegrate systems by criticism. This revolution finds Italian architecture unprepared. In the preindustrial era, the fear of having to assume a responsible and committed role is manifested by a series of storms in the teacup of rigid organizational principles. The revolt of the students of

architecture has taken place as a result.

If it has taken place earlier here than elsewhere, it is because here the future appeared even more uncertain.

It is difficult to predict further developments as the situation is open and fluid.

We can only affirm that the judgement has begun and that perhaps the pyramid, can still be overturned.

One1 of the principal reasons why the and the Academy of Fine Arts, has Italian architectural students have led casually combined the professional activthe student unrest is that they are un ity, which is typical of the engineer, and certain of their future. For the moment that of the architect artist. On the technithe agreement that links the architectural cal level, this was fair enough and has profession to society is not clear. All the given the Italian architect an immense professions are based on a non-written professional prestige, but obviously this agreement, passed between the profes double quality of professional man and sional man and society, which accords to artist imposed on the one hand double a certain class of individual thè exclusive rights but also double tasks. While all right to practice a profession, with cer goes well the architect remains in a privtain well defined privileges and tasks. ileged position but after repeated archiAmongst these duties is the professional tectural and town planning errors, the secret, the obligation to seek no profit attacks are made on a double front and from events, the need to maintain a de the architect becomes the scapegoat for cent standard of social conduct and to all the ills that bedevil our towns.

keep up-to-date with technical informa It was a long time before the architect tion; the final task is to be always, day became aware of this negative reaction of and night, at the service of society.

society, a reaction that is for the greater In exchange the professional obtains an part due to the transformation of the exclusive privilege, which implies that he former patronal capitalism into neocan only be judged by those in the same capitalism, as this had a considerable profession. This right begins at Univer effect on the relationships between the sity where the most illustrious profes architect and society. The professional sionals teach the students.

who first of all received a global responOn this fabric of social relationships, of sibility, now finds himself at the mercy which Sandro Giannini has made a thor of the groups in power. His lot depends ough analysis in his essay ‘De Profundis’ on political parties, speculating property (Casabella No 327), is based the balance agents, public administrators, the direcof a profession. If a profession fails in its tors of building firms. This not'only limits task then society removes its privileges the liberty of the architect but also enand its role can be filled by other branches, genders a degradation that reduces him with the various functions economically to the level of the wage-earner.

tariffed. In Italy this occurs frequently.

Architectural students have understood The arts and crafts have escaped these that the neo-capitalistic society tolerates professional rules, and rightly so, be architects as long as they help its progcause neither life nor human society are ress; but slowly they will be reduced to in danger, there are no laws and every a subordinate rank. There are however one evaluates the results according to his unhappily several old clauses in the contastes.

tract: the Italian professional continues The arts differ from the professions by to pay taxes that are 10 times superior to the intrusion óf a new category; that of those of other citizens and this heavy the critics. The critic, who is not neces fiscal burden is a source of exasperation sarily himself an artist, is he who, granted to young architects.

the confidence of a large part of society, 1 The students are aware of thç trap into is delegated to give judgements on the which they will fall once they are qualmerits of a work, to indicate good or ified, therefore they revolt against the bad, in a field where his ability, and \pnly opposition they can easily attack: sometimes his foresight, is particularly the Italian University. Many think of recognized. Within the. profession the Communism as the only salvation, but intrusion of the critic is considered as those who know their history (unfortubunkum; a doctor would not readily nately few) know well that the socialist consent to be judged in the professional society has never thought of giving archisphere by a layman.

tects the freedom for which they ask.

To-day the architectural profession, Lenin did not effectively exterminate which was born in Italy in the 30s by the Russian bureaucracy: he only lopped the union of civil engineers (construction) uppermost branches, while the lesser

swore fidelity to the new regime. Lenin and Trotzky acted without pity towards the professional class as the stronghold of that personal liberty which had to be uprooted to install a world that is totally communist.. A society within which the architect has no important decisions. And the deans of the Faculties in Moscow and Warsaw, Prague and Belgrade have also had difficulty in calming the architectural students who do not like obeying the political and administrative classes in every instance. The formal liberty after the Stalin years seemed a dream but now ten years later it is obvious that it is necessary to obtain more: the most important decisions are those of town planning, and it is there that the Party decides. To-day architects and student architects ask for power from both the neo-capitalist society and the socialist society. Such a demand seems justified by the poor use that society makes of the land in the towns. But it. is absurd to legitimize such requests by acts of violence or, worse, by trying to get a diploma with the least effort if not without any.

It is not enough merely to criticize a poor use of power to obtain that power, one must show that one merits it. Architects as a class, if they wish to increase their power, must produce a definite project which reflects a new and better side of society.

Unfortunately the setbacks that have taken plac,e in Italy, particularly in town planning, have continued to accumulate over the past 20 years: and the rare attempts to climb out of the morass have encountered insurmountable difficulties and this reflects negatively upon architects. The agitations of the students who have as yet produced no definite projects, are transformed into ridiculous attempts to have absurd opportunities during their' studies; this results in a lowering of the status of the architect in public opinion.

If architects and architectural students do not decide to give something before demanding, they take the chance of finding themselves shut out from any kind of society. But to give without asking involves risk and the greatest danger is that the young who declare themselves revolutionaries have unconsciously assumed the anthropological character of the corn

competence based on the targets aimed at and means employed. Above all, a n|w sense of values and a new cultural structure which can undermine the outdated ideological prejudices on which architecture and society continue to rely for support.

v v The great revolution which is spreading on e.arth affects the whole of human

Giovanni Klaus König Position of the Architect in Italy

sumer civilization that they wish to fight.

They who will not stir a finger without making a precise account of their struggle dislike the risk and the decisions that are not taken unanimously. None of them will move unless they feel that they are covered by the group in power, arid in student assemblies the taste for ‘lobbying’ legal battles and organized obstruc-

tion prevails over the interest in propositions for reform.

In conclusion the outlook is very black for the future relationships, between the architect and society; on the part of society, greater demands correspond to a lessening of the desire to accord to the architects a real power of decision on the future of man. Unfortunately we cannot

see how the student movement, which in other faculties makes a positive contribution to the regeneration of theltalian University, can give a plausible indication of the new character of the architect. I agree with Giancarlo di Carlo, who has written ‘the great revolution which is outlined in the world finds Italian architecture once again ill prepared’.

Our country has never had such a need team of specialists who between them for architects. There is new building going keep up-to-date on new ideas.

on everywhere and the deficit in the But in spite of all the innovations one number of architects is felt. Their work factor remains constant, the hours spent cannot be dissociated from that of the on the design, the sculpture, the painting nation. It is the architect who foresees the or the model. To save the students time eventual changes in town planning and the teachers endeavour to utilize the in the habitat. He has a major respon newest technical methods, tape recordings, sibility in using, even though indirectly, films, etc. Modern life brings its ' own the State’s money to the best possible changes one of which over recent years advantage.

has been the creation of new faculties for The architect is more than a creator, he is special subjects such as town planning.

a public figure. His work is only valuable The problem is complex, for not only if it is rational and of a high professional must the pupil be an architect, he must level, the artist and the engineer combined also be a specialist in a specific area, with the organizer and the propagandist. although this does not prevent him from Today one cannot teach the future possessing a wide range of possibilities.

architect everything as science and I feel that what is important for teaching techniques are too different. He must be in the future is a close link between the essentially a man with a wide culture. The instruction and the work of experimental work of the architect has »undergone a '»study and research. Our advanced profound transformation, no longer does institutes have become scientific centres he work alone but gathers round him a where students and teachers do a great

deal of research and experimental work.

This has had a repercussion on the quality of the course and the diploma projects that the students do. The projects now embrace problems beyond those of mere architecture.

Public opinion shows much interest in the evolution of the education of architects. Public reviews of diploma works have become a tradition. Once a year one of the colleges serves as the centre for the Présidence of the USSR Architectural Union and there the best student projects are examined and the prizes and diplomas are distributed.

I would add the social promotion of the architect, the major work of training tomorrow’s specialists are to me factors that open tremendous perspectives for the vast building programme at present under way in the USSR and for the,whole future of our architecture.

V. Bieîooussov The Evolution of the Training of Architects in USSR

Lothar Götz . Théo Ambos The Situation of the Architect Within Today’s Society How does the architect of today fulfil the tasks which are set him? We admit openly that he only fulfils them inqompletely and that he cannot do otherwise, because he only knows and recognizes them partially.

The reasons are many; they begin already during training and with students throughout the world; this has given rise to a wave of discontent that covers nearly all aspects, starting with the qualifications for study and professional knowledge and continuing with the awakening of a sense of duty towards society, both as a citizen and as a representative of a specific profession.

It is not unusual to feel that the presentday architect.has a certain disinterest for anything that relates in any way to politics. It is true that deep within himself, and in the professional journals, thère is general criticism but rarely does one find the architect ready to influence these decisions by an active collaboration, even though very often the most elementary professional interests are seriously af-

fect^d. If the architect seriously contemplates taking part in the formation of new environments for the life of our society, he must give up his passive attitude towards politics and on the contrary adopt an active attitude so that he does not see his possibilities for action always confined to the track that has already been laid down.

In the famous conference ‘Democracy, the proprietor who builds’ which he gave at the Academy of Fine Arts during the Berlin Building Weeks in 1960, A. Arndt satid : ‘The teaching of building was not, originally, an independent branch. The science of construction was part of the political sciences as these are universally understood, in the sense of a science linked to politics.’ For the reasons already given, the possibilities that exist within a democratic society for the artist to be at the same time promoter and builder (with regard to public buildings anyway) are not exploited. The architects remain somewhat hampered in the face of such a situation

and they have not yet found the attitude to adopt which adapts to the ‘democratic client’. This is due to the fact that our society—and here we speak of the German Federal Republic generally, is still not fully aware of democracy.

The centre of gravity for the architect’s work is based essentially on the satisfaction of the need for luxury and on the need for an outward show of vanity; it is often also conditioned by a commeréial attitude, sometimes both on the part of the creator and of the cliènt. Architects must absolutely reflect on and clarify what can, and must, be their mission within society. The situation of the architect within society will depend on how he succeeds in integrating into the image of the profession, which has yet to be redetermined, the complex and partially new problems which belong to our era. This with the help of a precise terminology, the absence of which has not a little contributed to the upheaval in the situation of our present-day architecture.

Walter Gropius has explained it thus in 35

his book ‘Apollon within the Democracy’ : ‘It concerns the adaptation to the realities of 20th century of a professional state that was romantically orientated and jealously individualized.’

If this adaptation is carried out successfully, the architect will certainly occupy a superior rank within our society. If it does not succeed and the architect persists in exhausting himself with formal problems,

which often become problems of belief, perhaps one day we shall build without architects,

Carlos De Miguel Evolution of the Position, and in Consequence, of the Formation of the Architect 1. General

3.2 Students

The second half of the 20th century is unarguably the end of one era and the beginning of another. The signs of this are the following: — Two world wars have shown up certain gaps in the equilibrium of nations.

— The social revolution with as its result the appearance on the world scene of the working classes as a power of first importance.

— Technological revolution, with its incredible progress in all aspects of science.

Once again the following figures are for Madrid, those for Barcelona being approximately half.

1st year (selection) 1800 2nd year (selection) 440 3rd year 80 4th year 95 5th year 100 Total 2510 These come from the following regions: Madrid 49 % Outside Madrid 51 % Barcelona 54 % Outside Barcelona 46 % From these figures it is clear that students from the urban areas predominate which means that there is probably a considerable amount of talent untapped for financial reasons.

2. The Architect 's Place

In these conditions, it is clear that the architect’s position has changed radically, both in Spain and elsewhere. The architect has had to give up a large part of his individuality in group working, which is the only way of solving technical, functional, economic and aesthetic problems which are becoming more and more complex.

3. Architectural Education in Spain

It is clear that it is becoming necessary to reconsider the bases of architectural education, and with this in view, Spanish schools of architecture have for some years been reconsidering their methods.

Some idea of the changes taking place and what has been achieved is given in this article.

There are two full-time schools of architecture in Spain: in Madrid, founded in 1843, and in Barcelona, founded in 1875.

The schools in Seville and Valencia were opened much more recently and there are plans for schools in other towns. All come under the Ministry of Education and Science.

The Pampelune School of Architecture, run by Qpus Dei, is unusual, but its diploma is recognized by the State.

All the following facts are taken from Madrid and Barcelona schools, as they, are the most active and havej the longest experience.

3.1 Staffing

This consists of lecturers and assistant lecturers who are in charge of the courses, plus tutor assistants. The former are appointed for life, in competition, while all the others are selected year by year by the School.

The Madrid School in 1968 is staffed as follows: 24 lecturers, 12 assistant lecturers, and 284 studio tutors, assistants, etc.

Social background

Madrid

Barcelona

Sons of architects or 20% other graduates 18% Sons of industrialists or those in commerce 45 % 59% Sons of civil servants 32% or employees 21 % Sons of workers 3% 2% This distribution is obviously undesirable and shows up the defects of our society.

Who pays?

Family Student by working State aided

Madrid

Barcelona

20% 16% 9%

83% 25% 7%

Students working during their studies

With architects With draughtsmen Teaching

Madrid

Barcelona

30% 10% 18%

49% 36% 23%

Attendance in class

On average 50%. During the first years, the percentage is 65 %.

France ■ Britain • USSR Alvar Aalto Le Corbusier Mies van der Rohe Gropius Kahn Tange

125 104 57 259 250 243 152’ 124 113

128 116 43 214 272 176 119 140 142

We have graded countries and architects on the Madrid column, but the reader will note the differences with Barcelona.

This enquiry was carried out by the architect Frederico Correa in 1964/65.

To be valid, it should be repeated annually, but certain things are apparent.

— Le Corbusier has considerable influence.

— Students in Barcelona are mùch influenced by Italian architecture and those in Madrid by Scandinavian work.

— Madrid students are interested in Mies Van der Rohe who completed several of his most important works in Barcelona.

— An almost complete disinterest in Russian architecture.

3.3 Timetable

Courses last from 1st October to the end of June, including examinations. Students who fail can repeat in September. There are two holiday periods—three weeks at Christmas and two at Easter.

3.4 Plans for Reform

Reforms already undertaken are mainly in the organization of courses—the number of years, for example, until 1957, ' there was a first stage which had to be undertaken before entering the School, which itself lasted six years. In 1957 an attempt was made to eliminate this stage by having a 7-year course in the School of Architecture. This has now been replaced by a 5-year full-time course.

3.5 Problems

Foreign languages known by students

French English German

Madrid

Barcelona

65% 20% 4%

83% 30% 5%

The large growth in student numbers has not been accompanied by a similar growth in the number of lecturers.

Methods suitable for small groups are hot sufficient for such large numbers.

3.6 The Solution

Interest in modern architecture

Spain Scandinavia • Japan USA Italy

Madrid

Barceldna

290 244 206 171 158

301 173 223 111

268

Some of the problems must, of course, be solyed urgently, although time must be spent on finalizing solutions for longterm problems.

3.7 Professional Practice

The student who qualifies is granted the title of ‘architect’, which allows him to

become a member of the Architects’ Institute and thus practise.

The architect’s work has changed so much that his education is more important than ever. If we don’t succeed in

adapting it, future generations of architects won’t be capable of succeeding in their task. This adaptation can only take place in a spirit of full collaboration.

by all concerned.

The time of sterile and ineffective struggle is past. If we wish to survive, we must replace it by communal effort.

Man is above all a conscious being, and a maximum number have no recreative being who is, according to Bergson, value, hence the week-end traffic jams conscious of his evolution from one state on roads which will never have sufficient \ to another. His most characteristic talent carrying capacity if the home life is not is perhaps that of being able to compare, changed.) of being able to assess things in relation When I speak of space in this context, to one another. He compares, for it is always of the same space: the space example, this tree with the silhouette of between walls and the space between that village on the horizon; or the sun buildings are two aspects of thq same with the mountains; or on the beach, idea, of the same phenomenon.

the movement of waves marrying them Most of our present-day homes are in no selves with the moyement of the sand and way a source of recreation, on the concontrasting these, with the immobility of trary they destroy personal initiative.

the rocks. He compares the mobile with The town is like a painting whose backthe immobile, the traffic with the ground is housing for the greatest number.

If the background is badly done, the buildings.

Man, however, evolves, as does his painting cannot be saved by a few better ability. Against nature, which he does quality buildings (splashes of colour).

not understand—not yet, at least—he In 1947, C.I.A.M., recognizing the needs seeks protection in his home, in a built of young architects after the war, reenvironment; at the same time, however, commended that they work on the he seeks an intimate contact with nature, creation of a physical environment which with universal space. The evolution of would satisfy the emotional and material man and of the built environment' began needs of man in stimulating his spirit.

as a form of defence against nature and In 1958, in Otterlo, Team X suggested has as its aim his familiarization with as an aim the development of an archinature. This is how the urban scene has tecture based on the inter-relation of developed from the fortified town to the functions, identification (grouping), town which opens itself to the country growth and change (the evolving habitat).

side.

More and more, the elements of our At the present time, it seems to me that built environment, such as roofs and the essential question in architecture is: walls, can function directly as ‘transi ‘How can one construct spaces which tional’ elements between man and his give a choice that satisfies the ideas, the existence—the earth, space, the sun, conscience, and even the personal spirlight, movement and energy. In 1924, itual environment of the user? How can the ‘Stijl’ manifesto written by Theo van one offer to every individiial a cell for Doesburg with Mondrian and Rietweld, living in which will be his private corner among others, brought out the idea of the Universe?’ that : ‘the composition of spaces shall be The freedom to choose a personal envidefined by plans corresponding to ronment is a right which will characterize imaginary plans in universal space’.

future society. With architectural prinThere is an obligatory relationship ciples which produce a universal monotbetween man’s idea of universal space ony, however, one cannot satisfy the and architectural expression. The essen anonymous client in his essential need tial factor influencing architectural de of a personal identification in universal cision is the relationship between the space.

idea one has of universal space and the If a disaster such as that of Pompeii were spatial expression of this idea , in built to cover the urban renewal of Amsterdam, Paris, Warsaw or Moscow with ash, elements.

Society is evolving towards a two-part would archeologists of the year 2000 existence: on the one hand a time for find in the ruins the expression of a work which is automated and impersonal ; living democratic society? I believe that on the other free time for relaxation. at present we are building a monotony During this free time, more and more similar to that existing in slave societies.

research must be carried out into Architecture must not be allowed to lose creative and recreative activities. There . itself in bureaucratic laws and prinfore the space defined by built elements ciples. One can introduce, in our Society, such as roof and walls cannot be con by means of the function of architectural sidered to have a recreative function. form, unknown spatial openings which (Present-day homes designed to hold the liberate the user from his enforced

anonymity. The home is in one sense the third skin of the individual (his clothing being the second). This third skin or envelope corresponds to his respiration, his ambitions, his thoughts, his conscience and his own viewpoint of universal space.

What are the acceptable basic principles for a living and dynamic architecture?

1. Internal flexibility.

2. External flexibility.

3. The grouping in visually composed units of the different forms of habitat; on the ground (under the trees), at the horizon (above the trees), and of the ‘transitional’ forms (against the trees).

4. Linear radial growth of existing centres into the country.

5. Three-dimensional structures conditioning private and public circulation and the private ‘home-cells’ (architecturbanism).

These are the principles which have been put into practice during the last 20 years by the office of Van der Broek and Bakema in Rotterdam. There will be others, but these principles are those which I have developed and of which the most important is ‘architecturbanism’.

It must be realized that architectural decision begins with the preparation of programmes and it is here that the social responsibility of the architect appears, showing that architectural expression can be the expression of the art of living.

It is the spatial circuit which allows the user to have spatial experience without a direct participation in the function of the programmes. And it is the spatial cjrcuit which gives a possibility of researching the spatial inter-relationship of a built environment and of choosing the moment of direct involvement in its function. It is the architect’s role, with the client, to decide on providing enough lee-way in the programme to permit the realization of such a circuit.

We are past the time of making mistakes in the analysis of function. Sullivan from 1901 stated that ‘all is function and all is form’, but bureaucracy introduced a false hierarchy by saying that ‘it is the form which follows the function’. Our time is a time of extension and overflowing of function. It is by the function of form that the functions defined by the programme are transferred into conditions propitious to the ai ; of living. By means of the function of the form one can harmonize the large scale produced by industrial, administrative, and urban

J. B. Bakema Man, Society, ‘Architecturbanism’

37 *

concentrations. One can introduce ‘transitional’ elements which relate the largescale elements with the capacity of human perception. One can relate the pedestrian to the vehicle by the use of ‘transitional’ elements, or inter-relate the public transport ‘stops’ by means of

car-parking platforms with vertical, horizontal and diagonal streets between the built volumes. The elements of public open space, traffic lanes and private spaces with internal streets will be like the weave of urban texture (threedimensional).

Will it soon be the case that no economic or political decision can have a social value for the individual without first taking into consideration the consequences for the use of universal space?

If so, we will be living in the era of ‘ architecturbanism’.

concerns the masses who are on the way to attaining this goal. For intensive industrial production forces one to envisage the well-being of the individual and consequently of culture, not as before on a restricted scale, because the artisans’ production was of limited capacity, but on a massive scale. The question is, how should this be achieved? First of all, it is obviously necessary to review the present standards of teaching and of both primary and secondary education for it is there that it woÿld be best to begin. Not with the idea of turning out precocious young artists but of giving to infants and adolescents, in general, a consciousness of the fact of art as a normal manifestawhich the artisan has been dispossessed, and also to gradually reduce the distance which now separates the artist from the worker.

There is in fact a whole wide area of industrial planning which could absorb the activity of artists whose plastic vocation although real, is none the less not of a kind to justify independent artistic creation.

This in no way concerns the ‘decorative’ arts which are part of the artisanal technique and which are only capable of surviving in exceptional cases and on a very limited scale, but the industrial arts themselves, for all the utilitarian objects that are produced—from the largest to the smallest—have a form, different materials, and colours, and their functional principle makes them subject to plastic refinement which brings them nearer in essence to architecture. Now we have reached a subject of the greatest interest for artists, for what it has been agreed to call the ‘synthesis’ of the arts must always begin modestly here. In order that such a communion can be established, it is necessary first of all that architecture should attract more of the young who are artists by vocation because the great majority of the students in architecture are still lamentably devoid of artistic sense. Also the idea that painters and sculptors form about such a synthesis seems to me erroneous ; to hear them one would imagine that they sometimes regarded architecture as a kind of ‘background’ or scenario built expressly for the sake of showing up the real worth of the true work of art, or that they hoped for a somewhat scénographie fusion of the arts like baroque art for example.

In truth however, for such a communion to be established, the essential factor is that architecture itself should be conceived and executed with plastic knowledge, that is to say that the architect himself must be an artist. For only then can the plastic work oFthe painter and of the sculptor be woven into the overall architectural composition as one of its basic elements, although still endowed with an autonomous intrinsic plastic value. It is a question therefore of integration rather than of ‘synthesis’. Synthesis implies the idea of fusion, but such fusion, although possible and even desirable in very exceptional circumstances, will not be

Lucio Costa Art and the Advent of the Masses Except perhaps for the cinema—product of new industrial techniques and consequently the legitimate artistic expression of the new social cycle—one observes amongst artists and art critics almost everywhere a painful feeling of perplexity, nay even frustration. And the fundamental cause of this general uneasiness is always the same: the sudden break .that came about as a result of the industrial revolution which, on the one hand, created new intensive ways of recording, reproducing and of showing works of art, whether they concerned music, the plastic arts or literature, and yet on the other hand, has disrupted the social order which was established by secular means by creating a continually growing public that is composed of two unequal parts.

There is a minority in permanent quest of novelty and which one could ?.say is artificially over-stimulated and ill, and a large majority which is still insufficiently developed and culturally incapable of assimilating the most significant works of modern art.

It is necessary, therefore, to recognize that the present-day artistic crisis is first and foremost a problem whose origin is socio-economic and that, in consequence, the specific solutions that one can foresee still hang on the solution, whatever it may be, of this fundamental problem.

The result is that the possible transitory solutions will always be merely a makeshift in the face of the definite answers that the problem requires. But notwithstanding this character of emergency, these transitory solutions can none the less be very important, for already it is*possible to mark the boundaries and 'define the essential values in the balance, in order to give a sound basis to the effective solution of the problem when a fruitful normality has finally supplanted the confusion in which we find ourselves now.

On the other hand, one should also recognize the fact that, under present circumstances, there can be no intensifying of artistic production. There are already • too many mediocre artists— architects, painters, sculptors, musicians, writers—who bore us with their doubts their fears or their self-conceit and whose production is overburdening. But, in contrast, it is essential to increase the knowledge of art within the public, whether one is thinking of the classes already favoured culturally, or whether it 38

tion of life.

With regard to the plastic arts at the present time, one can see two categories of artists: those who know what they want and pursue their way eagerly or calmly, that is to say according to Picasso, those who ‘do not look but find’, and the huge majority of seekers or of ‘followers’ whose activity is no less legitimate, for it also concerns true artistic temperaments, enlightened, sensitive and impassioned.

I am of the opinion that instead of pleading an artificial life for these artists, maintained by favourable legislation and orders from the State, it would be better to establish laws making their presence obligatory in all schools to ensure not only the teaching of drawing but above all the necessary rudimentary artistic culture, referring in this context to reproductions and projections followed by explanations and graphic demonstrations.

This applies not only in the schools but also to the factories and the yards, to try and fill the gap that has come about between the artist and the working population as result of industrialization. For whilst, in former times, the artists in the different trades also contributed towards the elaboration of a style of the period in the same way as the painters, sculptors and architects today, industrial production has taken away from the proletariat that part of invention and initiative which is inherent in the manual techniques of the craftsman. Thus the seeming gratuitousness of modern art and the related margin of autodidactism which goes with it can contribute effectively to a double social function, to feed the natural desire for invention and the freedom of choice of

the surest and most natural means for to extend to the greatest number the contemporary architecture, at least in benefits of elementary comfort, which is the early stages, for this premature result made possible thanks to modern methods could lead to a precocious decadence.

of construction and to ‘mass production’.

On this subject there is much to be said, Although even now, the average user in because there are a number of apparently view of the general confusion, bewildered well-founded theses, whose very wording by the contradictory opinions of the is doubtful—the ‘mural’ painting for artists themselves, who mutually deny example. During the Renaissance the each other any value, prefers to procure wall was the fundamental element of beautiful reproductions of works that he architecture, from whence followed logi has already learnt to like. However the cally the fresco and the other forms of day will come when, in innumerable wall painting. But modern architecture forms grouped in autonomous ‘habitacan, in the extreme, do without walls, it tion units’, contemporary works will have consists of a structure with the partitions their place once they are freed from the added afterwards. The wall—an element artificial market and become accessible.

of construction that is very beautiful and Finally, recognizing that the contemof which one can still make knowl porary artistic crisis is basically only a edgeable use—is none the less an acces corollary to the socio-economic crisis sory of modern architecture, and it would which has come about as a result of the obviously be illogical to base the desired industrial revolution, it seems natural to integration on an architectural element 'me that we. should all hope for the disthat is superfluous.

entanglement of this situation, which is There will certainly always be large sur already more than a century old, whether faces of ceiling and of continuous parti it is brought about in one way or another, tions that will be available fqr painting for only then art can again take its normal in a symphonic sense, as well as large place in society. Consequently, all actions detached panels like altar-pieces, but there and all attitudes that tend to help the it concerns spatial conceptions of another attainment of this desirable goal should kind which it would be better to put be considered as welcome by the artists, under the heading of architectural paint and especially by those devoid of political ing—the same as for architectural sculpideology. ture—as a counterbalance to what one But how, in the face of the contradictions could call painting and interior sculpture. of the present-day world, to recognize the For these works of art of reduced dimen road that will finally lead us to the true sion which are intended for an intimate Industrial Age. In my opinion the landatmosphere are not transitory manifesta mark is very simple: all action which is tions without social objective as one is fundamentally contrary to the well-being inclined to suppose. On the contrary, and the intellectual and social developthey form a need that becomes more ment of the working masses, which the pressing as the social imposition grows prodigious production capacity of modern industry imposes—or even merely delays it—should be considered as harmful to the interests of art, for it will help to postpone unduly the advent of the new equilibrium, which is indispensable to its fruition. In any case it must also be realized that this advent of the masses, brought about by the intensification of industrial production, will necessarily imply the temporary debasing of artistic taste, for in the same way that the nouveau-riche first of all wallows ostentatiously in his new state, the collective ' nouveau-richisme will also be submitted to the same trial, before it can overcome the inevitable crisis of growth and reach maturity.

This in no way concerns the pretended superiority of the élite in regard to the masses, because everyday experience shows us that for the elected of the arts, be they of the most rustic origin, ‘enlightenment’ is instantaneous, while for the greater part of the non-artistic population—aristocratic or plebeian, no matter which—the appreciation of art comes by gradual stages of assimilation.

If the temporary sacrifice of art is the price that has to be paid so that tocial justice can be established—we already have the technical and material means to make it possible—we must be prepared to submit, particularly as in present circumstances this enfoced fast could have fruitful results. Art reborn and built on even wider foundations, will pick up the threads again, hardy as ever for it is a normal manifestation of life and will live as long as man.

Mathias Goeritz Art and Architecture In the society of today, the architect’s role has taken on an importance which it has probably never had previously. The demographic explosion has seen the conversion into planners and co-ordinators of an ever greater number of specialists.

If at one time one could concert all one’s energy into planning a private house, nowadays groups of engineers, architects, builders, sociologists, etc., come together to attack the enormous planning problems which surround us. Although, for the most part, they specialize in one aspect of the whole, they cannot, and must not lose sight of the whole.

. Parallel to this, there has been the development of préfabrication for architectonic elements, whose size is no longer limited to that of the brick, or even the partition, but can encompass a complete dwelling unit. This only increases the responsibility of the designer.

Apart from the weighty functional technical and social problems which face the architect, there is another, perhaps the

most important. In my opinion, for a building to merit the title ‘Architecture’ it must at the same time be a work of art.

What springs to the mind when one discusses in general terms Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Gothic, or Baroque architecture as it affected the daily life of these periods? There is an automatic association with the buildings of a spiritual character of fhe time, which have remained through the centuries as witnesses to the art of the past.

This type of architecture to all intents and purposes no longer exists. It is modern society which is at fault. I believe that art is not purely aesthetic; but has in addition a spiritual function; therefore an architectural creation which aspires to being a work of art—as I believe that true architecture is—must fulfil the same function.

The modern architect who breathes the air of a heterogeneous and confused society generally has little idea of how to face up to this problem. He 4s neither

sustained by faith, nor by those ideas which remain strong and valid and which unite men.

This architect serves society through the intermediary of public or private organisms, which in both cases insist that he adapts himself primarily to material issues.

It is the same with the design of religious buildings where it is seldom possible for him to approach the problem in sufficient depth as was the case in past centuries, because prevailing conditions oblige him to work towards a purely aesthetic solution, leading only to confusion. Thoughts of a grand society of the future and of the ‘new man’ are only vain hopes or illusions.

Without any doubt, the progressive socialization of modern life has led to a greater unity of ‘style’ in architecture, and despite the many exceptions, such as fantastic or imaginary architecture, in terms of plastic expression, it has a more defined character than any other art.

In this sense, architecture is perhaps the most ‘advanced’ art of our time, in so far 39

■ as it liberates itself—if only partially— by its very practicality from the tyranny of the aesthetic which still pervades painting and sculpture.

These last two also lack a solid basis.

Each artist justifies his own work in his own way. What unites them and distinguishes them fundamentally in the society in which they evolve, is not so much the fact of their ‘artistic’ production, as that of a ‘philosophic’ expression, with its non-conformism or its revolt. That is to say that the artists have opted for the appeal to the conscience of a conformist society. Some do it by their eccentric appearance, others, by the presentation of an unusual work or by adopting an anarchic exterior which obliges them to remain in a continual state of protest. This attitude justifies to a certain extent vanity and extravagance, behind which is hidden the sometimes hopeless (unknowingly) seeking after stable values.

The architect who is worthy of the name, therefore, must also be an artist. He has the advantage òf being able to express himself in one aspect—the utilitarian— of his profession but he loses himself in it, *

or better still he hides himself behind it in order to escape the responsibility implied in the artistic part. And when he happens on a daring vision, for example one of those in the manifesto ‘ Arquitectura Prospectiva’, he is ill-tempered and refuses to recognize its value (relative and disputable, without doubt, as is all modern art) then complains of the excessive importance placed on Utopia. In the eyes of the artist, the architect is the conformist whereas he is considered by the architect to be an unstable dreamer.

While the architect-planner has immense opportunities to create works of’unprecedented grandeur—satellite towns, huge groupings of habitation, industrial and commercial centres, it is essential to recognize that his architecture in no way ‘functions’ spiritually.

One could ask oneself: how should the architect be trained so that he can learn to create art? I don’t believe that this depends on him. The one thing that he can do for the moment is to try and co-ordinate his talent with the disquietudes of the artist and work with him as a team, to the benefit of both. This union won’t

necessarily lead to the production of great works of art, when the spirit of the age does not favour these; but one obtains an improvement in the atmosphere which will favour the birth of a new architecture, which will not be exclusively based on material function or superficial aesthetic criteria.

If on this principle, both of them, architect and artist, concentrate on the organization of ideas, form and colour—from the general conception of overall planning up to the final details which create the environment for man’s habitat—they will arrive at a dimension which will undoubtedly be an improvement on that which prevails, because it will tend to raise up the intrinsic value of life.

I am convinced, however, that the problem cannot be resolved in depth on the basis of the current aesthetic, because its solution demands a morale which today simply does not exist. It is the responsibility of the architect as much as that of the modern artist to try to spiritualize their era or at least to assist in finding thé morale necessary for the formation of a stable foundation for art in the future.

in 1923. The criticism with which their work was received was at once a brake and a stimulus to them and formed a close relationship between them. Jeanneret had a triple role in theirrelationship: he spoke for Le Corbusier, he was the head of the office and was his constant companion outside working hours.

They worked closely and intimately together, and in a building like the Savoy house at Poissy, it is difficult to know which of them contributed any given part of the design, and this was more or less the case during the 27 years they worked together, as the quality and maturity of their work developed.

In 1940, there was little work to be had.

Paris Was occupied. Le Corbusier and Jeanneret were obliged to separate. It was from this time that Pierre Jeanneret showed a remarkable talent for an economic approach to building, which he developed during the rest of his life.

The war created new needs. Those who returned from it needed to be rehoused rapidly and at minimum cost, and during the war he worked on innumerable systems of building, with the emphasis on préfabrication. He was aided in this work by Jean Prouvé, and. they developed dwellings which were demountable, transportable, foldable, extendable, with a high degree of ingenuity. Mobility, ease of assembly and low cost—these are very considerable contributions to architecture, and in this Pierre Jeanneret was a great initiator. ■

In his seeking after a good technical solution, however, he never forgot his responsibility towards the individual, his need for protection; and opening towards the exterior; light and hygiene; intimacy.

Climate and the location of a building were always basic preoccupations. Jean Prouvé has published some projects which were previously unknown, ' in which Jeanneret had designed buildings on a monumental scale from artificial podia integrated with the site, allowing complete freedom for building and using a high degree of industrialization. Nothing as revolutionary has been proposed since.

Jeanneret moved to Grenoble in 1941 where he continued his work with difficulty under the occupation. There was practically no building, so with a few friends he began making furniture. Even this presented great difficulties with the almost total lack of materials at the time.

However he applied himself to his task with great ingenuity and made the best possible use of what was available to him, and this only underlines his great creative talent.

From 1944-51, he returned to Paris and continued his work as architect and planner. He was commissioned to work on a study of grouped dwellings, for which he arrived at a level of sun penetration and daylighting which greatly improved on the norms generally applied.

In his project ‘Circulation verticale’ for Villeneuve Saint-Georges, which was not dissimilar to the Unité d’habitation at

Gilles Barbey Pierre Jeanneret 22nd March 1896-4th December 1967.

Recently, a few architects paid homage to a man whose personality and work are all too little known, despite their remarkable quality. Pierre Jeanneret will probably be better appreciated when his true value is better known.

Jeanneret studied architecture at the Ecole des beaux-arts in Geneva between 1913-15. At that time, Geneva was not an ideal place for the development of a creative mind. Apart from one or two engineering works and some commercial buildings, the work there was solidly 18th century in character. The innovator was unwelcome.

In the Latin countries, some areas exist where new ideas have been able to take root: Barcelona, Northern Italy, Paris.

It was in Paris that a few enlightened men discovered the possibilities of reinforced concrete. In general, these were engineers, untouched by the heavy hand of the Academy.

The Perret brothers, in the Rue Franklin, building the Théâtre des ChampsElysées and the Eglise du Raney developed the concrete structure beyond the limits of a simple framework and despite a certain massiveness created an impression of finesse, lightness and subtlety. Pierre Jeanneret, who worked with the Perrets from 1921-3, was greatly influenced by them, as was Le Corbusier, who had previously worked in their office. He first showed their influence in the Domino project.

Jeanneret joined his cousin Le Corbusier 40

Marseilles, the successive setbacks of the floors in section allow a deep penetration by the sun, as does the oblique setting out of the partitions back from the façade.

A similar approach, but differently applied is used in the Centre technique de Béziers, where the requirements were for good conditions , of lighting and natural ventilation while at the same time protecting the rooms from excessive heat in summer. The solution was a lively composition of heavy concrete sections, contrasting with large areas of opening metal glazing.

Jeanneret travelled to America where he designed a range of furniture. This made no concession to fashion and remains an excellent example of restrained design which was not dated.

It was Claudius Petit, the French Minister of Construction, who suggested that Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret should join forces again for the construction of Chandigarh, the new càpital of the Punjab. Jeanneret left for India where he lived permanently until 1965. The works which he accomplished there during 15 years despite many difficulties, are proof of the strength of his personality.

He was fascinated by the civilization of Northern India—the dignity of the people, the nobility of the landscape, the richness of the artisan tradition. He made a detailed study of the way of life of the people and based his designs on his research.

The climate was one of his greatest preoccupations and he succeeded in using local materials to great effect, despite their limitations. The effects of light and shade; the extending of roofs to provide an area of rest and diversion between the interior' and exterior ; . cool areas of shadow when the sun is at its highest; carefully designed cross ventilation. His preoccupation with economy was more than ever developed in India.

Pierre Jeanneret built with the means available to him the works of Le Corbusier at Chandigarh—the Capitol, the High Court, the Palace of Assembly and the Secretariat. Le Corbusier only spent a few days a year in India, and the correspondence between himself and Jeanneret clearly shows the enthusiasm they shared and their esteem for one another. If Le Corbusier’s work in India gives the impression of a certain spontaneity, it must not be forgotten that this was achieved in large part through the tireless work of Jeanneret.

Jeanneret enjoyed the friendship and confidence of Nehru and the Government, who saw in him a true ally. His office was inundated with work and his output was remarkable.

The houses that he designed in Chandigarh and its surroundings are occupied by all levels of the population. In all of them, however, even the simplest, one finds the same preoccupation with the human dignity of the occupant. This was not achieved through the provision of

mechanical aids, but by giving the individual spirit the opportunity to blossom by the skilful use of light, space and the beauty and harmony of form.

His work shows a subtle appreciation of the Indian way of life, where antiquity is much more relevant to a day-to-day existence in modern times than it is in the West.

When Jeanneret was commissioned to design the project for the Gandhi Memorial at Chandigarh, he produced a work of talent and conviction. The Gandhi Bawan is at once a tribute to a great man and a centre of reference for all the religions of the world. This ‘inhabited sculpture’ grows from a pool of water and symbolizes peace and equilibrium, flight and eternity. Nothing is left to chance and yet the composition is completely free in form.

He was at the same time as being a practising architect, the chief architect and planner to the state of the Punjab, and director of the Chandigarh School of Architecture. He was a very positive influence on his students. His inventiveness knew no bounds and included the design of boats for Lake Chandigarh, timber and. bamboo furniture, raffia work, grain baskets and concrete reinforcement, all of which were within the means of the poorest families. The creative work of Pierre Jeanneret could be summed up in the words : Simplicity, Economy, Beauty and Truth.

area must be reduced as much as possible.

Urbanism Manuscript notes by Pierre Jeanneret The tracing of traffic lanes must be done

Each sector should have sufficient green

by taking into consideration the different

space to ensure that the centre of the town

In Chandigarh, the density for the first

speeds and destinations of vehicles. Their

is never ‘suffocated’, even with constant

stage of 150,000 inhabitants was not as

positioning should depend on

the best

expansion ; this in order to avoid the fate

high as we had hoped, due to the lack of

possible siting and orientation of buildings,

suffered by all our older towns, which have

money and technical know-how in Inditi.

not as in present towns, yvhere the buildyear by year pushed further out into the

ings are placed parallel to

country,

green

In effect, these sectors of 1,200 300 m.

are limited by fast transit traffic routes across the city, which do not serve the

and symmetrically about existing roads.

without

creating

new

This is

spaces in the centre. A village, no matter

a characteristic expression of outdated

how small, surrounded by fields, is viable ;

buildings.

planning.

but if this village grows and becomes a

successes of the planning of Chandigarh,

modern

This system

one

of the

town-planning, there should

town, while conserving the same lines as

and it is a tribute to Le Corbusier and the

never be a main elevation on to the street

the village, the town is destined to die of

local authorities that all these major roads

with a ‘back’ elevation on the other side

congestion.

where they cross one another and are at

of tfie building. There are four elevations

The majority of our towns are like this,

present at ground level, have sufficient

in space, and each should have the same imand the planner must demolish and rebuild in a multi-storey form in order to recreate

space

portance. There is even a fifth, which is the roof of the lower terraces, seen from above.

green zones. He must look ahead, and not

The dignity of the pedestrian is respected

A town should be so divided into sections

be content with re-creating the problems

in the sectors, and movement between

that each inhabitant can undertake his

posed by the past.

daily tasks without needing to resort to

In planning a modern city,

mechanical transport. 1

traffic and green spaces apart, the built

reserved

enable

multi-level

cross-overs to be built at a future date.

them will be assured by means of subways space for

beneath the transit arteries.

i l

Sevinc Hadi Cave Architecture In the middle of Asia Minor, at the foot of Mt. Erciyas, beyond the salt desert, begins the volcanic region that stretches from Urgiip to Nevsehir.

This area which is about 40 km. wide is

formed of neocene tuffs. As a result of the erosion of these soft tuffs through physical and chemical action, capped rocks have been formed which in this area are called ‘fairy chimneys’.

The famous churches of Cappadocia are hiddenwithin the rocks of this area.

The fairy chimneys are the feature that dominates both the natural and the architectural character of the region. To be 41

found singly or in groups, these fairy chimneys have an amazing plasticity and a richness of form that profoundly impresses visitors. In this picturesque setting they sometimes form a dominating fortress. There are rocks with sharp lines and old stones that, after having sheltered generations, are now crumbling.

The fairy chimney is a mass that is very easy to shape and which hardens on contact with the air. Taking advantage of this property, men have for thousands of years hollowed out their dwellings within these rocks. Such dwellings are merely cavities in the rock, hollowed out either downwards or upwards, so that several ’levels have been formed. In all the sections of this area, below the ground or above it, the teaming life of men is present. The first sites began in the fairy chimneys and then later on as needs dictated and according to the direction of the sun and the wind, walls and masonry were added. In such a dwelling, comprising several areas, all the separating elements, links and supports are in the same material as the outer crust. All the cavities are obtained by shaping the rock, the holes for the cupboards, the treads of the stairs, the stairs themselves, the sills, the shelves, the fireplaces and even the beds are made in the same fashion.

The region has the harsh continental climate of Asia Minor. But the hollows in the rocks and caves have a permanent* temperature, in summer they are cool and in winter they maintain their heat.

This material is therefore a certain shelter for man against the inclemencies of the area.

In this lunar landscape, the host of fairy chimneys of uniform grey makes a harmonious group with the silhouette of the neighbouring sites. In this area one feels that the work of man has added to a nature already rich in visions, a world that is at the same time both hard and sentimental. The static lines of several well-balanced and well-proportioned geometric cones, well placed backing onto the slopes, form a very agreeable contrast to the tormented surroundings of the region. The placing of the sites is determined by the fairy chimneys, the rocky slopes or soil that cannot be used for any

form of culture. The sites are formed in groups according to the possibility of the topography; the large squares in the middle of the houses mark the character of the villages; one proceeds from one square to another by narrow passages fashioned in the tufa. The dwellings built, one above the other, on the slopes, have light in abundance, are well aerated and have a view onto thesquare they surround.

The fairy chimneys, strong, superb, delicate or crumbling, surrounded by ancient houses or by new constructions, the enclosures half destroyed, the terraces uneven and eroded, form a complete plastic group. The buildings, because of the different levels to which they cling, form an uneven composition and afford very lively and varied perspectives. Sometimes the dwellings have no opening on the exterior except a single door. Life takes place behind the walls.

In general the houses are on two levels: the ground floor acts as store, kitchen and stables while the upper floors are kept as living rooms. The plans of the dwellings are made in accordance with the possibilities of the ground available. In the caves, dug out below ground level, foodstuffs can be kept fresh for a long time : apples keep two years, grapes a month, meat a fortnight. The fruits from Southern Anatolia after having been kept for a season in a cave of 100 tons capacity, near Ortahisa, are sold in the big towns at the right season. These caves are natural refrigerated warehouses.

The hearth is called locally the ‘tandir’ and is underground. The ‘tandir’ is hollowed out in the middle of the ‘summer room’ which constitutes a covered space closed on three sides and linked to the inner court, the smoke is removed by a narrow channel also hollowed out of the earth.

On the constructed faces the dominating features are the plain façades. The hollows and flat surfaces deriving from the nature of the material itself give a plastic character which harmonizes with the openings caved out of the rock face. In the buildings which are constructed, the ceiling is formed by vaults or beams ; the covering is made of pounded clay laid horizontally in regular cylinders. The vertical and horizontal thrusts only count in the

large buildings. The cave churches of Göreme, like the rooms in the cave dwellings; benefit from the fact of being sculpted. Architectural organization is born out of static conditions; for small openings the ceiling is sculpted flat and parallel to the ground, when the opening is 3 or 4 metres high a vault is shaped in the rock, if the opening is even larger columns are formed in the same block of rocks. The openings of doors and windows are narrow, merely 80 to 90 cm. ; the flanks of the rocks carrying the openings are hewn in vertical surfaces, thus the mass mural is about a metre thick.

The walls are enriched by decorations— made up of a rhythm of motifs of short straight lines—which form a whole with the architecture. The levels of the floors are visible on the façades, the cliff roads have an air of having been born to fulfil the needs of the building and not of being elements stuck on the façade; the level of the lintels is marked by floral decorations.

The rocks and the fairy chimneys shelter pigeons as well as men. The pigeonhouses are also as important, in this area, as the homes, for the dung of the pigeons makes an excellent fertilizer for an arid land. The Ozenjidere Valley is especially reserved for pigeonries, so that one could call it the valley of the pigeons. Everywhere in the region pigeon-houses have beèn built; uninhabited houses or the upper parts of the fairy chimneys are used as pigeon-houses. The entrances are painted blue and red to attract the pigeons.

The local building material, as well as the social and economic structure of the people of this area has influenced the mode of life, and consequently the organization of the houses and villages. The foremen and the building workers know their material well and use it with mastery, the art of their ancestors is handed down from generation to generation. These master workmen knowing very well the essence of the stone and of man’s struggle with nature, have brought life to these dead rocks. The sites in this area, the organization of the villages and the houses, the ‘fusion’ with nature, are instructive for architectural art, and the country of Urgüp-Göreme-Nevsehir merits thorough study.

Gilles Barbey Research in Architecture \ ♦

Within a few years, research in architecture will be universally considered as indispensable as is research in medicine, physics, biochemistry and many other fields. One could say that such a development would be rather futile, as we manage to live very well in the conditions which surround us, and that research is therefore superfluous. It is, however, just this lack of investigation into new possibilities followed by the absence of any 42

effort to diffuse the results obtained which lead to the general mediocrity which surrounds us.

The efforts of those who are doing active research into broad architectural fields and our way of life generally must be encouraged. Every architect is a research worker, since his work necessitates a high degree of creativity, and the co-ordination of many values to a specific end.

Unfortunately, one cannot classify as

research a delving into technical detail.

In attempting to raise standards of detailing, he loses sight of the whole. The natural cycle of research which includes Documentation + Assimilation + Imagination = Creation is not applied.

There exists today a mountain of information, painstakingly collected. Al-, though one should not completely dismiss this, one should beware of purely technical answers to the questions of tomorrow.

There is a tendency, however, for such research to lend to purely mechanical solutions, yvhich reduce architecture to the level of a pure technical exercise and to the launching of new consumer products.

All architectural research centres itself around the following problem: the conception of a defined space in the most favorable manner. The qualitative aspect is at least as important as the quantitave.

Even if conditions differ considerably from one region to another, there are certain constants in the aspirations of man which should be known. Only accurate information can put us on our guard against the monumental errors which are systematically repeated with such aplomb.

One must constantly refer to the vital functions of man, and realize that the joining, by ingenious means, of a quantity of identical cells, does not necessarily lead to success, even if the cell, considered by itself, is well balanced. There is a belief which is widely accepted that a concept which is well detailed, well proportioned and modular when repeated on a large scale, will be a success. In fact, this is often not true, and if the solution chosen by the architect is technically and economically sound, it often shows a lack of understanding of spiritual values: This is illustrated by the numerous attempts to perfect a dwelling suitable for mass production. The evolution of human needs has not been considered in the plan, which is based on preconceived ideas which have not been questioned.

The result is that one multiplies by a hundred or a thousand the basic error.

Despite this, the person who has to live in this home will have sufficient resource to succeed in living there.

Besides technical aspects which are magnified to the point of hiding the essentials, we know nothing of the way in which human perception reacts to the home’s interior. We do not know exactly how or why a poor quality home reacts on the psychic system of the individual.

We do not know exactly how man apprehends space. We know nothing of the negative effects of bad architecture and we are used in any case to not taking any notice.

Happily, some researchers who are unhappy with the lack of knowledge in such a fundamental field have undertaken to explore man’s comportment in his environment; they have discovered through anthropology, sociology, psychology, ecology, etc., certain facts which they have passed on. It is through this work that a concrete need for environment is understood. The need for space has been gradually defined qualitatively. For man to develop to the full, spatial continuity is,essential. Spatial continuity is particularly well illustrated in nature—in forests, on the plains, the sea coast— where the natural elements succeed one another without conflict. This quality

should be present in our urban conurbations to a greater extent than is the case today. Without it urban dwelling will face a difficult situation and mental illnesses will increase.

Why then is this continuity menaced? Because of the systemization which has led to the multiplication of identical volumes.

These volumes are for the most part cubic in form: rooms consisting of six surfaces —floor, ceiling and four walls, in other words a development exclusively based on the right angle. Each angle signifies rupture and discontinuity in the volume —that is an obstacle. When these characteristics are added to the excessively small size and the haphazard distribution of doors the surroundings become barely tolerable. This is, however, what usually happens.

There are other aspirations to be satisfied: the legitimate device for projection and evasion towards the outside, for instance. But how can one achieve this, when one is barricaded behind a complex of corridors, stairwells and lifts? On opening the entrance door, one is not in the fresh air, and our windows open on to the neighbour’s wall.

Apartments are all too often too similar to one another and not sufficiently varied.

Standard ceiling heights, rooms too like one another, the lack of openings to the outside—these are factors contributing to man’s sense of imprisonment. The home must be de-neutralized and the dimension of direction introduced into it. One speaks of directional spaces while emphasizing that they should be designed in a given direction and that they are not equally emphasized in all directions.

When a space is generously proportioned in one section and narrow at the opposite and a direct and strong relationship exists between the interior and exterior, it can be described as directional. In specifying in this way the character of a room, one must also avoid being too specific. The essential is that a room is there for free movement, action, diversion or repose. A notice on the door restricts the use to which a room is put.

It will no longer be necessary to decorate the walls to give a room its character. On the contrary, this will be explicit in the design. Furniture will no longer necessarily be something which clutters up the floor and restricts movement. It will be more and more integrated in the construction. Perhaps there will be ‘habitable floors’, a succession of plane and broken surfaces, on which the body will be supported in its various activities. The floor and walls will no longer be irredeemably separated, but will be subtly linked. We see that the values of the different parts of the home can change and evolve considerably.

It is necessary, then, by means of appropriate research, to consider man’s deep and essential aspirations in order to be able to provide for a more harmonious

environment in the future. Up to now, only man’s strictly vegetative appetites have been catered for. A plan is drawn up on the basis of movement, sleep, recreation, feeding and sanitation. This is quite insufficient, if man’s psychological function is neutralized or neglected.

Research by numerous doctors, psychiatrists and sociologists shows us that the hastily built buildings of recent years are responsible for many mental problems— broken families, juvenile delinquency, traumas. We can no longer afford to ignore this research and continue with the construction of mediocre dwellings.

We must develop a global and multidisciplinary consciousness of the problem in order to be able to create improved living conditions.

In order to better define such architectural research as has already been undertaken, it is worth studying in greater detail the various approaches which have already been made. The mo^t systematic and plentiful research has been carried out in the United States. This is due to the more rapid commercial and industrial development there compared with Europe, and to the considerable extension of urban centres in relatively few years.

These centres have been subjected to a relatively anarchic growth due to the lack of historic buildings or areas. In 1966 the A.I.A. recognized 58 research groups, of which 41 were centred in universities. The subjects and projects undertaken by these institutions range from climatology to economics, from the habitat to the study of light, planning, history and psychology—always related to architecture. The work is either done by.

individuals or in groups and leads to the preparation of thesis or practical experiments.

Buckminster Fuller, the distinguished engineer, with John McHale, has for many years been a researcher of great talent. Having designed and developed entirely new systems of construction such as the geodesic dome, metal houses which are light and movable, and economical structural frameworks, Fuller decided to undertake fundamental research into the ecology of the earth. This encouraged him to study such phenomena as the acceleration of world population, the development of productivity, the graphs of fatigue of metals, the growth of various means of transport, etc.

For this colossal task, which he has called the ‘World Design Science Decade, 1965-75’ he has asked schools of architecture all over the world to assist him, considering that their students have the time, the capacity and the spirit of synthesis necessary. This overall vision of ecological and evolutionary phenomena has become of vital importance and, according to Fuller, the architect is the one best placed to contribute to its development.

The work of many other groups and in43

dividuals is worthy of note in the fields into practice. Some examples drawn from of communication and perception: men the work of Robert Venturi show clearly such as Edward T. Hall, J. J. Gibson, this desire to imagine interior spaces with and M. McLuhan. The deep analysis a formal richness, giving rise to exterior realized in the communication between volumes of a plasticity characterized by human beings, while keeping in mind a study of a continuous movement betheir constant evolution, opens our eyes tween roofs and walls. This tendency is to all the psychic mechanisms of the progressive in so far as a conventional individual and orients, us to the direct programme of accommodation has not implications which these phenomena have been forcèd into a pre-determined frameon the vital environment which the archi work.

tect imagines and to whose realization he Charles Moore has ajso studied the concontributes. Architectural psychology is tinuity of spaces, synonymous with a revealing itself as a vital science. It stu liberty new found after living with so dies the relationship between man and many oppressive dwellings. He imagines the space in which he lives and moves, the construction of enormous empty volputs forward methods which contribute umes in which a few large scale and brightto the definition of the most appropriate ly coloured elements doubling as partienvelope and operates basic distinctions tions and furniture are placed. Thus is between human comportment which are born the idea of the ‘condominium’—the invaluable to the designer. In his book structure within a structure. It is an ‘Architectural Psychology’, Robert attempt to rediscover a sense of scale Wehrli demonstrates various different within the dwelling unit. Colour plays, approaches which allow the architect to an important part, bdth in linking or be quite certain, from the beginning, that expressing the contrast between surfaces.

he has not ignored man’s fundamental Vast linear motifs several metres long aspirations in his design.

stretch from wall to ceiling. These Robert Bechtel has studied the comport attempts are the first manifestations of ment of individuals in distinguishing be a civilization in which man has appretween habitual locomotion and explora hended space in a new way. One finds in tory locomotion. With the aid of enquir it the desire to escape from the idea of ies made with graphic recorders on the the home being limited to a tiny nest and general public in museums where he has envisage it as a much larger element by •succeeded in measuring the duration and the use of plastic, symbolic and spatial ‘stopping place’ of visitors in front of a motifs from the street, shop windows— work of art, he has succeeded in gather even motorways.

ing precious information on the natural The contribution of the French group movement, and critical distances ob ‘Atchitecture Principe'—Claude Parent, served by the individual. Other research Paul Virilio, Michel Carrade, Morice workers have studied the social comport Lipsi—seems fundamental since it queries ment and the dàily relationship between I the construction of orthogonal buildfamilies occupying different kinds of ings, which can be considered as being home. Others, starting from the exercise hangovers from a past era. We will have of the senses, have studied in depth the to promote an architecture which permits relationship between the occupant and the movement of pedestrians in all direchis home. They have been able to esta tions. It has become necessary to build blish the qualities to be looked for in a a habitable and continuous support inwell-thought-out interior, and have put stead of a stack of floor upon floor. This their finger on the errors which are ac support would be similar in conception cepted through sheer habit, and which to civil engineering works, such as are never re-thought.

motorway fly-overs and junctions, which Besides all this analytic research, one themselves form part of the larger scale must also examine what has been put under discussion. It is therefore in adapting planning and architecture to a better use of space, rather than in seeking the mobility of its component parts that we shall be able to create living conditions adapted to our needs. A fusion between the sedentary and circulatory functions of living will be needed. Some of the work done by the ‘Architecture Principe' group already shows the engagement of architecture in manifestations where dynamics and continuity become basic conditions.

It would perhaps be superfluous to cover here the research at present being undertaken in every country in the world.

Designers such as Paolo Soleri, Yona Friedmann, Paul MaymonV Arthur Quarmby and Walter Jones are known for the many and diverse studies which they have undertaken. Behind their projects is to be found the preoccupation with finding a new type of habitat, appropriate to life in the future.

All forward looking research must be guided by a profound knowledge of human aspirations. It is not sufficient to attempt to solve the problems of the habitat in technical terms parallel to the development of the machine, future means of communicatino and the taming of new forms of energy. In addition to all the apparent advantages resulting from technological perfection, one cannot avoid posing oneself the problem of symbolic values—and their direct repercussions on the occupants—in the environment of the future. Man cannot satisfy himself with a totally artificial and highly mechanized framework in which he can find only the answer to his most immediate problems; he must not, therefore, confuse the seeking after technical progress with the climate of well-being, which emanates from an appropriate adjustment of essential values.

One can remind oneself of the teaching of Jane Jacobs, who has been able to isolate from our existing urban structures all that is richness and all that is danger and refer again to the writings of Gaston Bachelard, who, with an instinctive subtlety has analysed the resonance of such base elements as water, space and light!..

44 !