Fuera de campo

Form and iconic reference

One o f the m ost influential interpretations of Le C orbusier’s architecture is based on phenom ena it evokes outside itself. In a com parison o f Palladio’s Villa M alcontenta, with V illa Stein C olin Rowe suggests that Palladio’s piano nobile, wall, pediment, entrance front and roof and Le C orbusier’s sitting room, facade, front terrace, garden terrace and roof are linked together by organisational differences as well as by analogy and metaphoric substitution'^.

W hile Row e limits such observations to Villa Stein, Alan Colquhoun generalises them to include what Le C orbusier defined as the compositional principles of his work, the ‘five points’. For Colquhoun these result from a displacement of classical elements^.

The second kind o f displacement both Rowe and Colquhoun recognise, refers to elements outside ‘high’ architecture. Fragments of vernacular and monastic architecture, elements of ‘poshe ’ spatial planning, of the technological word and industrial architecture, are all assimilated and metaphorically absorbed in Le C orbusier’s buildings^.

C o lin R o w e . ‘T h e M a th em atics o f the Ideal V illa an d O th er E s s a v s ’. T h e M IT P ress, 1984, p. 6, 7.

C o lq u h o u n c o n s id e rs th e pilotis as a d is p la c e m e n t o f th e c la s s ic a l p o d iu m . T h e fenetre en longeur as a s u b s titu tio n o f th e c la ss ic al w in d o w a ed icu le . T h e roof terrace as re p la c in g th e attic sto re y w ith a n o p e n a ir ro o m . T h e free facade a s e x ch a n g in g th e c la ss ic al w all p ierc ed b y w in d o w s b y a free c o m p o s itio n . F in a lly , h e se e s ihc free plan as re p la cin g a lay o u t c o n stra in e d b y th e lo ad b a rin g w a lls w ith a la y o u t in w h ic h th e in te rn al p a rtitio n s a re free d fro m stru c tu ra l su p p o rts. T h e re is, th u s, an im p licit p ro p o sitio n th at if th is is w h a t th e fiv e p o in ts d o , an d i f th e fiv e p o in ts su m m arise L e C o rb u s ie r’s a rch ite c tu re , th is is w h at L e C o rb u s ie r’s a rc h ite c tu re is ab o u t. A lan C o lq u h o u n . ‘E ssav s in A rc h ite ctu ra l C ritic is m ’. T h e M IT P re ss, 1985, p. 51.

E x a m p le s o f th es e ele m en ts are th e C a ta lan v a u lts, the C a rth u s ia n m o n k g a rd e n s, th e P a risian h o te l’s c o rrid o rs an d ro o m s, e le m e n ts o f tech n o lo g y lik e o cean lin ers and in d u strial p lac es lik e w a reh o u ses, silo s and fa cto rie s, (illu s tra tio n 1.1). A lan C o lq u h o u n . ibid.. p. 51-66.

1

Æ

- itlllM

Literature Review 2 6

Colquhoun suggest that Le Corbusier incorporates also concepts from other areas o f art. In his paintings ‘object types’ like bottles, guitars and pipes, are transform ed to architectural elem ents like staircases, closets and passages. There is a formal kinship between the organisation o f the painting and the house. This is based on a ‘Platonic regular fram e’ and on the ‘hollow containers whose curved convex surfaces project into, and interlock with, the neutral field’^, (illustration 1.2).

Colquhoun constantly points at the ways Le C orbusier’s architecture carries meanings outside itself. His five points refer to classical elements not present in his work. His vaults, religious forms, ramps, decks and roofs refer also to elem ents extrinsic to his architecture. Thus, C olquhoun’s description is a description o f things Le C orbusier’s buildings refer to, rather than o f things they consist o f.

Things are evoked ’in absentia’ through their m etaphoric transform ation into som ething else. The five points are architectural elements or systems o f elements^. Vaults, staircases and ramps are also individual elem ents, like the figures in his paintings. W henever Colquhoun looks at things inside architecture, he looks at elements or sub-systems of elements in isolation rather than at how they are incorporated into an organisational system.

Thus, priority is given not to how they com e together but to how they com m unicate and transform cultural meanings through social convention. In another essay Colquhoun suggests that architecture is an interaction of f o r m s and fig u r e ^ . F o rm is a configuration that is devoid m eaning. F ig u r e is a configuration whose meaning is given by culture. If architecture carries m eaning only through figures it is only through the ways Le Corbusier transforms existing figures that an understanding o f his work is possible.

However, Colquhoun gives a contradictory statement referring to a building as ‘a conceptual and spatial unity that imprints itself into the m ind’^^. In other instances he suggests that Le C orbusier’s houses are descriptions of the structure of architectural space as Cubist paintings were descriptions o f the structure of pictorial space^^. Formal characteristics like the rectangular frame and the interlocking curves explain how stairs and ramps are icons of guitars and pipes. Thus, although m eaning derives from figures, it also derives from form al operations. As though anxious o f his own contradiction C olquhoun quickly

A lan C o lq u h o u n . ‘M o d e rn ity and th e C lassica l T ra d itio n ’. T h e M IT P ress, 1989, p. 170.

W h e re a s th e fe n e tre e n lo n g e u r can b e se e n as an e le m e n t in is o la tio n , th e re s t o f th e fiv e p o in ts , i.e. th e p ilo tis, th e ro o f terra ce , th e free facad e and th e free plan are sy s te m s c o n sistin g o f e le m en ts th at e n te r in a set o f re la tio n s. H o w ev er, th ey are su b -sy stem s w ith in th e to tal sy stem o f th e b u ild in g as a w hole.

A lan C o lq u h o u n . ‘E ssa v s in A rch itectu ral C ritic is m ’. T h e M IT P re ss , 1985, p. 190-202. Ib id ., p. 55.

Literature Review 2 7

proposes: ‘In considering this figurai system, formal analysis m ust give way to an analysis o f content and meaning’.

Stanislauss von Moos examines Le Corbusier from a sim ilar point o f view. He suggests that the ‘five points’ are combinations of form, function and ‘machine-age sym bolism ’ Regardless o f the interaction o f three parameters, it is the last two that attract von M oos’ attention. O f these two, function served as a disguised pretence, as a scientific explanation for forms charged with symbolism

Von Moos concludes that the ‘five points’ are sufficient to understand Le C orbusier’s formal language. As ‘isolated factors’, though, they are insufficient to reconstruct its fram ew ork. W hile C olquhoun proposes a distinction between form and figure, Von M oos proposes a distinction betw een deriving m eaning from a language and reconstructing its fram ew ork. H ow ever, both see Le C o rb u sier’s architecture as being about a distinction of meaningless fo rm and meaningful figure.

F or certain authors Le C orbusier’s architecture refers not only to individual com ponents but also to fragments of a classical canon. Alexander Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre suggest that Le Corbusier employs classicism ‘as means o f questioning a dogmatic or quasi-dogm atic, routine application of the classical order’ In Villa Savoie and in Chandigarh certain facets of the classical taxis, (the grid and tripartition), and symmetry are applied, others are violated while the ‘genera’, (the classical orders), are ignored.

This approach first identifies classical schemata as isolated portions o f a total body o f relationships and second it looks at what these schemata speak about. Thus, from Colquhoun and von M oos to Tzonis and Lefaivre a shift from meaningless fo rm to meaningful geometrical pattern takes place.

In certain cases the overall form o f a building can also be turned into a reference. R obert Trevisiol proposes that B otta’s ‘purified’, elementary forms refer to an abstraction that subscribes to the M odernist tradition and its ‘precursors’^^. B otta’s connection with historic heritage extends also to include forms ‘that man can control’ and through which he can recognise himself. These elements have the ability to speak about the past and this is how one finds them familiar.

^ ^ V o n M o o s a rg u es th a t the pilotis w as a fo rm o f v isu al is o latio n fro m th e g ro u n d , o f fu n c tio n a l s tra tific a tio n , o f s y m b o lis a tio n o f a u n iv ersal a rc h ite c tu re w ith o u t ro o ts an d o f h is to ric a l p ro te s t a g a in st th e c la s s ic a l b u ild in g s ro o te d to th e soil by h eav y p o d iu m s. S im ila rly to th e p ilo tis th e o th e r p o in ts d e v e lo p fro m a fo rm al, fu n c tio n a l a n d sy m b o lic c o n sid e ra tio n s. S ta n isla u ss V on M o o s. L e C o rb u sie r. E le m e n ts o f a S y n th e s is ’. T h e M IT P re ss, p. 6 9 -7 4 .

^ ^ L ik e C o lq u h o u n von M o o s sees th is sy m b o lis m as re fe rrin g to th e re a c tio n a g a in s t th e a c a d e m ic tra d itio n , to th e b o u rg e o is life, to th e M ed iterran ean form s, to o cean lin ers and fa c to rie s, ib id ., p. 6 9-74.

^ ^ A le x a n d e r T z o n is an d L iane L efa iv re . ‘C lassical A rc h ite c tu re ’. T h e M IT P ress, 1986, p. 280. ^ ^ R o b e rt T re v is io l. ‘M ario B otta. L a C asa R o to n d a ’. E dizioni L ’E b ra V o g lio , 1982, p. 82.

Literature Review 2 8

Trevisiol suggests that B otta’s architecture is concerned also with its own ‘structure’ expressed by the geometrical clarity of the plan. There is, thus, a duality at work between structure and historical reference. The key element to structure is the geometrical clarity o f the plan and its constructional process. The key elem ents to history is the overall form seen as a single solid and fragm ents o f forms, like the figure of the skylight. Therefore, with Trevisiol the form-figure duality has been turned to a space, (plan)-form duality. Space is a constructional process. Form, the building’s overall shape, speaks o f M odernism . It has been turned to a figure itself.

A num ber o f other references are read in the overall form o f B otta’s buildings. Kenneth Fram pton finds that it refers to the Ticino l a n d s c a p e ^ I t harmonises with the topography by analogical reference to building types, ‘the traditional tower like country summer houses’, the silos and the barn-like shells. For Fram pton the existing structures of the region serve as prototypes o f the overall form. This form turned into a content, a building ‘type’ is also a figure, a fragm ent of the cultural landscape. For Trevisiol and Fram pton m eaning in B otta’s architecture is external to his building carried by the ways the modern architectural practice or the traditional architecture of the region has interpreted its overall shape.

Form and function

E vans suggests that Le C orbusier him self used oppositions to define his w ork^^. O ne o f these oppositions is architecture as the ‘...magnificent play of volumes assem bled in light’ and architecture as function, engineering and technology. Intrigued by this contradiction a number o f critics exam ine his work in terms of the relationship between form and function.

Colquhoun observes not a dichotomy, as Le Corbusier presents it in his writings, but an interaction^^ betw een these concepts. This is expressed through the classical order o f the exterior and the com plex inform ality o f the interior. The sim ple ‘Platonic’ volum e expresses the form al-classical them e, the ‘prim ary experience o f geometrical solids seen in light’ The regular structural grid expresses also the classical order. This order is hidden behind an irregular surface the openings of which express the practical organisation o f the plan. It is this surface ‘...bounding the volume which, properly speaking, constitutes architecture’^^.

K e n n e th F ra m p to n . ‘M o d ern A rc h ite ctu re . A C ritic al H is to rv ’. T h a m e s and H u d so n , 1992, p. 323.

A s R o b in E v a n s su g g e s ts L e C o rb u s ie r u se d o p p o s itio n s w is h in g to b e p o rtra y e d a s ‘a p o te n tia l u n if ie r o f o p p o s ite s ’. R o b in E v a n s . ‘T h e P ro je ctiv e C a st. Architecture and Its Three G eom etries’. T h e M IT P re ss , 1995, p. 2 7 6 .

1 8 L e C o rb u sie r. ‘T o w a rd s a N ew A rch itectu re’.

* ^ A lan C o lq u h o u n . Ibid., p. 31-50.

2 0 A lan C o lq u h o u n . ‘M o d ern ity and the C lassical T ra d itio n ’. T h e M IT P ress, 1989, p. 169.

1

Literature Review 2 9

C olquhoun interprets the dialectic betw een form and function as a dialectic betw een order and im provisation, sym m etry and asym m etry, classical regularity o f volum e and grid and custom ary irregularity of surface and plan. Thus, there is a direct line that connects regularity with form and irregularity with function. There is also a direct line that connects the form er with a ‘primary experience’ d eprived o f meaning and the latter with a cultural experience endowed with functional expression. In C olq u h o u n 's words: ‘It is necessary to express both the functional and the Platonic systems, since to express only the second would deny the functional reality and assert a form that was em pty of m eaning’

M eaning is carried not through the ways the architectural elem ents com e together to define systems of properties but through the capacity o f these elem ents to carry social purposes. From the opposition betw een form and figure to the opposition between form and function Colquhoun moves along the same border that separates meaningless formfrom meaningful figureand meaningful function.

Stanislauss Von Moos observes the same duality between a simple exterior conceived as a single box and