It was a
good comment. And much appreciated
because it motivated me to finally read Wolfe’s commentary on 20th century
architecture. Considering the short
length, only 143 pages in my copy, I should have read it years ago.
To refresh
your memory, Kunstler argued, with his characteristic self-righteous
indignation, that a post- World War I detour by architecture into the
international/modern style resulted in soulless, unappealing buildings and that
the buildings in turn sapped the vitality of public places resulting in a
diminution of the public realm.
Wolfe,
perhaps because he wrote his book a dozen years earlier (“Bauhaus” is
copyrighted in 1981 compared to the 1993 “Nowhere”) doesn’t touch the public
realm question. But he deals in far more
depth with the evolution of modern architecture. And he does it with more credibility than
Kunstler.
To note a key
point on which Kunstler and Wolfe differ, Kunstler posited that the key turning
point in the ascension of modern architecture was adoption by the Nazis of
classical architecture, which later forced the victors of World War II to adopt
modern architecture to avoid a connection to Nazism.
Wolfe points
elsewhere. He describes that the arrival
of key European architects in the U.S. in the late 1930s, escaping the looming
Nazi conquest. He then argues that the
willingness of the U.S. to accept the dicta brought by immigrants, no matter
how nonsensical, was the key turning point.
Wolfe argues
his scenario more effectively, even noting that the Nazis didn’t adopt pure
classical architecture but an unadorned alternative. And his scenario is more consistent with the
historical timeline.
Wolfe also more
effectively describes the origins of modern architecture in the effort to create
affordable housing for European workers.
And the subsequent absurdity of modern architecture becoming the
reigning style in the U.S. during a century in which the U.S. grew to dominate
the world. In his words:
“In short,
the reigning architectural style in this, the very Babylon of capitalism, became
worker housing. Worker housing, as
developed by a handful of architects, inside the compounds, amid the rubble of
Europe in the early 1920s, was now pitched up high and wide, in the form of Ivy
League art gallery annexes, museums for art patrons, apartments for the rich,
corporate headquarters, city halls, country estates. It was made to serve every purpose, in fact,
except housing for workers”
This isn’t
to say that Wolfe’s exposition is without flaws. Where Kunstler’s efforts are often undermined
by his self-righteousness, Wolfe damages his own credibility with excessive
detached irony. Even down to posing on
the back cover in a white suit with white shoes, Wolf is so committed to being
the cool and nonchalant New Yorker that he overwhelms the reader with phrases
like “O young silver princes set against the rubble!” when talking about the
young European architects in the 1920s and “O white gods!” when the architects
arrive in the U.S.
Both books
are worth reading, with Wolfe’s effort the more intellectually complete and
Kunstler’s the more on point for urbanism issues.
And both
raise legitimate questions about how well-served the public is when architects,
at least those at the upper end of the profession, are focused on ideological
concepts over the design of buildings that serve the commonweal.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment