er soy fictive glass

8/7/2019 Er Soy Fictive Glass

1/8http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 08 Jul 2010 IP address: 128.36.47.185

1 The Crystal Palace

2 The Glashaus,

Deutsche Form im

Kriegsjahr, die

Ausstellung Kln 1914,

Jahrbuch des

DeutschenWerkbundes 1915

(Munich: F.

Bruckmann A. G.,

1915), p. 77

The fire is burning. Is it burning for me or against me? Willit give tangible shape to my dreams, or will it eat them up? I

know pottery traditions going back thousands of years; all

the potters tricks I know, I have used them all. But we have

not yet reached the end. The spirit of the material has not yet

been overcome.

(Adolf Loos, Pottery)1

These were the words of a potter sitting in front ofhis kiln. May it never be! May the secrets of thematerial always remain mysterious to us,commented Adolf Loos on the thoughts of theartisan.2 Otherwise, he speculated, the potterwould not be sitting in happy torment at his kiln,waiting, hoping, dreaming of new colours and clays,

which God in his wisdom forgot to create, in order toallow mankind to participate in the glorious joy ofcreation.3 For Loos, the spirit of the materials could

be conquered neither at the drawing board nor inthe workshop, regardless of the imprecision ofchance, passion, dreams, and the mystery ofcreation.4

However, historical accounts all too often concludethat the technological breakthrough of glassproduction by the second half of the nineteenthcentury released the inherent character of thematerial, notably its transparency.5 All of theliterature written in this pragmatic framework ofindustrial progress, in general, postulates thescientific advance in manufacturing techniques notas a milestone in the history of glass making but asthe ultimate point in the invention of glass as abuilding material. The priority of transparent glass

in this discourse narrows the boundaries of thedialogue between the material and architects in arestricted frame of reference.6 In addition to thissemantic restriction, the burial of the materials pastin oblivion manipulates its status in culturalmemory. The substance that had been recognised asthe philosophers stone in the hands of the alchemistwas transformed into an industrial commoditybound by the logic and rules of technology.Seemingly, the redefinition of glass as an industrialartifact without any precedent reframed it as anemblem of modern technology in its most advancedform. Problematically, in the twentieth-century

vision of architecture, which oscillates betweeninstrumental and communicative modes ofunderstanding, the association of glass with

theory arq . vol 11 . no 3/4 . 2007 237

theoryJoseph Paxton and Bruno Tauts contrasting attitudes to glass

illustrate a wider argument about the fictive quality of materials

in the making of architecture.

The fictive quality of glassUfuk Ersoy

1 2
http://www.journals.cambridge.org/http://www.journals.cambridge.org/



industrialisation automatically chained it to one sideof the polarity between technology andrepresentation.

Rekindling the memories of two seminal buildingsthat have been frequently referred to as paradigmsfor the use of glass in architecture the CrystalPalace (1851) by Joseph Paxton and the Glashaus

(1914) by Bruno Taut [1, 2] contrary to theentrenched historicist view, this essay aims to revealthat Paxton and Taut did not value glass as acorollary of industrialisation; rather, the substanceappealed to them by virtue of its fictive attributes.The potential of glass to act in the subjunctive modeofas ifand to mask reality offered Paxton and Taut adifferent way of engaging with the environment.Intrigued by its paradoxical character glass beingthe most incorporeal material that urges sensuallimits Paxton and Taut attempted to use glass as asubstitute for traditional stone as they pursuedalternate connections between people and nature.Despite their common point of departure, their

spatial configurations and handling of the substancediffered radically and even conflicted.

In a broad perspective, given the fact that theCrystal Palace and the Glashaus were both designedfor historically significant exhibitions thatinstigated debates on industrialisation, they appearto be two of several consecutive steps in the same lineof thought. In Modern Architecture, published in 1929,however, Taut drew a delicate line that distinguishedhis major concern for architectonic qualityfrom themathematical reasoning of Paxton and engineers.Although he placed the Crystal Palace in the samechapter with his own Glashaus among examples that

deserved to be called forerunners of modern building,surprisingly he simultaneously called attention to ashift of orientation in the architectural discourseprompted by the forceful art critic John Ruskin, whohad declared his aversion to the Crystal Palace andhad never set foot in it.7

Countering the utilitarian circle of the time,which included Paxton, Ruskin rigorously advocateduseless architecture.8 His polemical statement onthe useless aspects of buildings was a call for a turnfrom a knowledge-based outlook for constructionprocedures toward a virtue of architecture thatRuskin reserved for creativity. For Ruskin, just as

good architecture should act well in the sense ofsheltering one from weather or violence, it shouldequally talk well, as it was the practical duty ofchurches, temples, public edifices treated as books[].9 Ruskin verbosely accentuated talking as theforemost virtue of architecture, yet he believed thatthis was a complicated subject that could not begoverned by rules or pursued systematically astechne, or art. Basically, architects need to be aware oftwo methods of expression, some conventional andsome natural.10 However, Ruskin was certain aboutthe helplessness of transparent, colourless glass. Asurface that made the lights transparent and theshadows opaque could not lay claim to the role ofnatural stone, the orthodox medium of expressionin architecture.11 Glass should be recessed from thesurface [3].

To understand the distinction Taut set up withreference to Ruskin, one must question how thesetwo buildings talked and how glass contributed to

this conversation. This hinges on the fundamentalpremise that was upheld by Paul Ricoeur. Similar towritten speech, architecture is a sort of fiction thatexternalises human thoughts through a materialmedium.12 The premise generates a basic question:what could be the impulse behind the choice of glassas a material medium? To answer this question,although the premise diverges from Plato, whorenounced the ability of any material medium torepresent ideas, to refer to a famous episode in whichSocrates discussed the art of speech making with anadmirer of rhetoric, his friend Phaedrus may beconvenient. For Plato, as long as rhetoric was a way

of directing the soul by means of speech, the crucialissue of which orators should be aware was thenature of the soul that they addressed.13 Thisknowledge enabled orators to find an appropriateand plausible kind of speech and to partiallyanticipate its effects. Accordingly, it is essential toassess the kind of speech that Paxton and Tautpresented through their buildings, in view of thesoul of whom they sought to address. Equallyimportantly, a glance at the metaphors that Paxtonand Taut used to decipher the image of architecturethat encouraged them to use glass supports thisassessment. In brief, this essay attempts to identifythe occupant that they imagined and observe themetaphors on which they drew to reconcileindustrialised glass with representational principlesof architecture.

arq . vol 11 . no 3/4 . 2007 theory238

Ufuk Ersoy The fictive quality of glass

3

3 The Oxford Museum,

the sculptor OShea

at work, The Works of

John Ruskin (New York:

G. Allen; Longmans,

Green, and co., 1905),

v. 16, p. 228



Tablecloth

After the construction of the Crystal Palace, Paxtonproudly affirmed that the well-known sketch that hedraughted on a piece of blotting paper during arailway board meeting showed truthfully how he hadpredicted the principal features of the building as it[would stand]14 [4, 5]. Drafting the cross-section on

top, he envisaged the structural layout and itsproportions; the elevation below, showing archedglass bays crowned by a frilly parapet, represented thelayer that he used to cover the structure. To describethe role of this covering layer, Paxton later comparedit to a tablecloth.15Although Paxton handled thetablecloth as a metaphor to explain the correlationbetween the two components of the construction, itmight have had a far-reaching implication inarchitecture because it hints at Paxtons affiliationwith the occupant of the building.

Diagrammatically, Paxton compared the ironframework with a four-legged table. The cover, madeof wood and glass, would dress this quadrupedalbody, like a pliable drape that does not carry anyformal pattern in itself. Likewise, akin to a clothprotecting the surface of the table, wooden sash barswith glass infill panels composed an impermeablelayer resistant to weather conditions, which wouldprevent the corrosion of fragile iron components. Infact, the glass cloth was not essentially built toprotect the iron structure; rather, Paxton conceivedthe structure as a schematic replica of the originalguest at the table. He admitted that the idea of a largeglass house came out of his gardening experience,particularly from the greenhouse that he built forhis Amazonian water lily, Victoria Regia16 [6]. The

Victoria Regias leaf offered Paxton a reasonableexample of natural engineering. Its schematicdiagram proved to him that the ridge and furrowroofing system that he had inherited from JohnClaudius Loudon could easily carry itself and becantilevered with only the support of a fewcrossbeams. The lily house was the structural conceptthrough which the Crystal Palace took shape.

Away from its possible emotive evocations, thetablecloth was an analogical model that providedPaxton with grounds to confirm and describe thestructural system on which he was working. However,if the lily house is considered allegorically on the

basis of its horticultural function, the image of thetablecloth can also serve to specifically decode thefictive role of glass in Paxtons eyes. Through thismetaphor, Paxton, probably unwittingly, broughttogether an unchanging furnishing element of thedomestic interior, the table, with an overseas guestcoming from a mysterious, unknown world. Similarto a table set for a guest, the primary task of the lilyhouse was to provide space for the nurture of VictoriaRegia and introduce her to the household. As, in theusual course of events, a tablecloth contributes to thefestive character of the dining room by representingthe table in terms of hospitality and care, the glasscloths primary purpose was to rescue the plant fromestrangement and to bring intimacy.

The same year that Paxton built the Crystal Palace,Gottfried Semper completed his Four Elements of

Architecture, in which he argued that the art ofbuilding began with the use of textiles. On thesurface, Sempers principle of dressing Bekleidung might seem to sustain Paxtons metaphor. At the core

of Sempers theory was his basic presumption thatthe origin of monumental architecture could betraced to commemorative drama.17 Similar to themimetic act of masking that enabled actors to

theory arq . vol 11 . no 3/4 . 2007 239

The fictive quality of glass Ufuk Ersoy

4

5

6

6 Paxtons drawing

of the lily house,

J. Paxton, The Industrial

Palace in Hyde Park,

The Illustrated London

News, 16 November

1850, p. 385

4 Paxtons sketch

5 Side view



represent different characters, the dressing ofbuildings corresponded to the annihilation ofreality necessary to make symbolic content appear.Parallel to Sempers theory, in the lily house, thewood and glass covering came before the structure incharge of load-bearing. Furthermore, Paxtonpreferred the impermeable transparent surface,

which admitted sunlight and kept in heat,specifically for its denial of existing climaticconditions. Nevertheless, while for Semper theannihilation of reality implied a creativetransformation of the surface from matter to form,transparent glass visually denied the presence of thewall [7]. Therefore, although it enabled the wateringand heating systems in the greenhouse to mimic atropical climate, the transparent glass could achievesuch a representational role only for a body withouteyes, such as the Victoria Regia. To be more precise,the artificial climate in the lily house was aninvisible mask on the face of the Victoria Regia thatmade her behave intimately, as if she were at home.

Paxtons passionate relationship with theAmazonian water lily developed in two stages.During the first phase, which might be calledacquaintance, the Victoria Regia directed the gesturesof Paxton, who tried to decipher her behaviour. Afterlearning about the needs and demands of the plantthrough an empirical process of trial and error,Paxton became able to prescribe and regulate hergrowth. The lily house was the discrete enclosurethat rendered the plants life and the interioramenable to observation and precise measurement.In short, through glass, Paxton devised a diaphragmthat neutralised the interaction between interior

and exterior and enabled him to treat mostenvironmental factors, except light, as measurablevariables. The controlled and rearranged interiorpersuaded Victoria Regia and displayed Paxtonscapacity to manipulate the laws of nature. CharlesDickens praised Paxtons dexterity with the followingwords: He coaxed the flower into bloom bymanufacturing a Berbician climate in a tiny SouthAmerica, under a glass case; this could be achievedonly by a savant whose alma materwas Nature.18

Crystal

What attracted the attention of Taut, like manypainters, to the Crystal Palace was the aspect of thebuilding of which Paxton had the least control: theeffects of sunlight and atmospheric changes on theglass surface. Tauts only available watercoloursketch of the Glashaus reflected his sensitivity to light

[8, 9]. Unlike Paxton, Taut made this sketch after thebuildings construction had been completed. In it,the white brush line that frames Tauts introspectiveview represents the thick, double-skin, glass wallcomposed of a thin transparent layer and colouredLuxfer prisms. The coloured glass cupola encirclingthe room refracts the sunlight, which remainshomogenous and unvoiced outside the building andmakes it readable in shades of yellow, red, and white.The interplay of light and coloured glass inscribesthe covering surface with bright and sparkling hues.Tauts creation of this afterthought sketch clearlyshows that his coloured glass walls had somethingmore to tell than Taut knew and had anticipated. Heengaged with the building to see what he had notforeseen and experienced what glass revealed to theeyes and body of a visitor.

The pamphlet that Taut prepared for the visitors ofthe Glashaus exclusively declared that [the building]has no other purpose than to be beautiful.19 Thisphrase was the sign of a quest for an architecturefree [] from utilitarian claims.20 Later, in a tonemore reminiscent of Ruskin, Taut explained himselffurther, maintaining that the act of doing is notdetermined merely by finding a solution to what ispragmatically necessary and that what is not surplusis compelled to perish in time. Taut stressed the

impotence of defining architecture merely as amaterial fixation of practical demands.21 By surplus,Taut pointed to the representational faculty ofarchitecture; buildings carrying more than a singlemeaning. However, contra Ruskin, Taut held thatsurplus did not refer to an addition or externalfigure appended to a building; it entailed a variationin signification, a deviation from the literal ormaterialist meaning of a building. Glass, especiallycoloured glass, which can catch and colour thesunlight, could dematerialise the surface while itclad the room Raumumhllung [10]. The colouredglass surface not only rendered the interaction

between light and surface perceivable but also madethe luminosity appear differently than that seen inordinary vision. In this respect, for Taut, glass, whichtranscended ordinary vision, was a complement tothe surplus meaning of architecture. Eagerly, Tautanticipated that, like a garment of hiddeninscriptions, coloured glass could activate thenarrative capacity of architecture.22

It is unquestionable that the impulse thatmotivated Taut was his belief in the necessity of atemple of the arts that, like the Gothic Cathedral,would unite all artists and society[11, 12]. Acontemporary art critic and advocate of Tautsarchitecture, Adolf Behne, defined the ideal ofartistic unity under the leadership of architecture(Gesamtkunstwerk) as an inner transformation of allArt and associated it with the architectonic quality

arq . vol 11 . no 3/4 . 2007 theory240


7

7 Tomb of Midas sketch

by Semper. Der Stil in

den technischen und

tektonischen Knsten,

oder praktische

Aesthetik. 2 vols.

(Frankfurt: Verlag

fr Kunst und

Wissenschaft, 1860),

v. 1, p. 401



that he saw in cubism.23 In German discourse, as analternative to perspective, cubism offered a differentmeans of representation: the process ofcrystallisation, which could bring into expressionthe spiritual laws and cosmic order of the world. Bythe turn of the century, in the visual arts, the crystalwas seen as an earthly reflection of geometric

abstract forms and represented creative power givingshape to dead matter. Under the influence ofRomanticism, Expressionist and Cubist artistsbelieved that they possessed this spiritual,transformative force, which let them see and displayformative energies in the world.24

theory arq . vol 11 . no 3/4 . 2007 241


9

10

8 Tauts sketch

9 Interior view of theglass cupola

10 The crown of the

glass cupola

11 Tauts drawing for

the opening

programme of theexhibition, Glashaus:

Werkbundausstellung

Cln (Cologne:

[n. pub.], 1914)

12 Tauts sketch of

Collegiate Church at

Stuttgart, 1904

8

11

12



As the bohemian poet Paul Scheerbart, whom Tautcalled his Glaspapa, depicted in his architecturalfantasies, the expressive medium that couldseamlessly bring to light the spirit of the world,similarly to crystal, was glass. Similar to religiouslegends, in which the glass temple symbolised thedivine gnosis, in Scheerbarts tales, the dramatic

effect of the built environment animated bycoloured glass brought about a spiritualtransformation on the social scale. A modernaesthetic culture could take the place of lostcultural and religious unity.25 Like Scheerbart, Taut,who was already interested in seeing the world inanother hue, explored the simultaneously chthonicand phantasmal performance of glass. A glasssurface could alter the face of the earth; it couldmake the soil act as if it were intangible, like air,water, fire, and ice.26 Taut was convinced that,because of its sensuousness, coloured glass, whichcould modulate space and time at the sensory,emotional, and aesthetic levels of experience, could

open a door to the opaque, symbolic depth of theworld; it could reactivate a mysterious vision of theworld similar to the one in Homo religiosuss eyes.

Epideictic speech

Obviously, although Paxton and Taut were bothdriven by an enthusiasm to use glass, their interestsin the material were not fed by the same spring. Evenif it is anachronistic, Paxton and Tauts approaches toarchitecture in these two buildings are reminiscentof the initial episode ofPhaedrus, in which Platocriticises two problematic types of speech. Socrates,who was always reluctant to step out of the walls of

Athens, decided to leave the city for the sake oflearning about the speech of Lysias, whom Phaedruspraised for knowing all the tricks of rhetoric.Walking in the country and searching for a spot tosit, Socrates convinced Phaedrus to read the speechloudly. Meanwhile, Socrates realised that he was nolonger the same person he knew in the city. Seducedby the lyrical beauty of nature, he discovered someparts of himself that he did not discern before.27 Afterhearing Lysias speech on the subject of love andtraining (pederasty), Socrates condemned the speechfor its exaggerated emphasis on the utilitarianaspects of love and training and its epideictic quality,

which had no other purpose than to display thetalent of the orator and the impact of his tongue onhis listeners.28 Lysias forgot that the intention of thespeech was to expand their view to bring them closerto what was good or noble in the subject of which hewas speaking, not to persuade and control theaudience by manipulating their preconceived viewsor beliefs.

Astonishingly, in Phaedrus, to emphasise hisconcern about the reliability of writing which, at thetime, was about to replace the accepted medium ofcommunication speech, Plato talked about theartificial climate in the gardens of Adonis.29 Here, forPlato, the attempt to accelerate the growth of a plantby artificial means and to stimulate it to an earlymaturity did not only evoke the epideictic speech ofLysias, but also exemplified how writing would be

harmful for ideas suited to the old medium.30

Socrates asked Phaedrus, Would a sensible farmer,who cared about his seeds and wanted them to yieldfruit, plant them in all seriousness in the gardens ofAdonis in the middle of the summer and enjoywatching them bear fruit within seven days?31 Yearsafter winning over the Victoria Regia and proving his

talent, Paxton summarised his objective inhorticulture in a utilitarian tone: to enable theowners of gardens to get the greatest amount ofpleasure and satisfaction from their possessions, andto enable the general public to procure the greatestnumber of fruit, flowers and vegetables in thegreatest quantity, of the best kinds, and at thecheapest prices.32 The Crystal Palace was an outcomeof this epideictic speech.

Alternatively, Tauts work seemed to draw a parallelto the counter-response of Socrates to Lysias on thesame subject. A point that distinguishes the twocases is that, unlike Taut, before beginning hisspeech, Socrates realised that out of the city, he was

possessed by the gods and spirits that inhabit theenchanted place and what he said could be neitherhis nor their words.33 Being out of the city, he learnedsome things previously unknown about himself, butinspired by gods and nymphs, he lost his dignity andself-control. After making the speech, he felt itnecessary to correct the rhetorically superior, butstill epideictic narrative immediately with anethically proper one. On the other hand, forenthusiastic young Taut, it would take a while tounderstand that no matter how angelic thearchitectural speech might be, as long as the mainissue remained to be seen merely as aesthetics, the

architect could not reach the public soul. In ModernArchitecture, Taut described the war years with a veiledself-criticism and apology; the young architects ofGermany, he explained, felt forced to give theuttermost and noisiest vent to their own feelings []preaching and rhapsodizing about unity whichneither existed nor could be evolved [... T]his state ofmind, known as Expressionism was abandoned bythe best of them.34 Nevertheless, in his own words,the positive result of this creative exercise was theemancipation of colour and glass which enabledhim to activate the key factor of the architectonicquality, light.

For Paxton, the glass envelope was an instrumentused to measure and control the physical qualitiesof interior space. For Taut, glass was an expressive,artistic tool, and it brought on a surplus ofmeaning that went beyond the pragmatic demandsof daily life. While Paxton read the architecturalsurface literally in light of empiricist scientific logic,Taut pursued an architectural narrative. Thetheoretical models to which Paxton and Tautreferred still haunt architectural discourse andcontinue to perform their heuristic function.Therefore, like the potter in front of his kiln, perhapsthe use and exploration of glass or any othermaterial in architecture has never reached itsultimate point. The fictive quality of architectureleaves materials open to further interpretationoutside of the industrial milieu.

arq . vol 11 . no 3/4 . 2007 theory242




theory arq . vol 11 . no 3/4 . 2007 243


werden, weg ja keine menschlicheGesellschaft ohne diesesberflssige bestehen kann.Taut, Glaserzeugung undGlasbau, Qualitt; WirtschaftlicheBildung und Qualittsproduktion no.1/2 (April/May1920), 914 (p. 11).

22. Taut, Glaserzeugung und

Glasbau, 9.23. Adolf Behne, Die Wiederkehr derKunst, in Schriften zur Kunst(Berlin:Gebr. Mann, 1998), pp. 797.

24. August K. Wiedmann, RomanticRoots in Modern Art, Romanticism and

Expressionism: A Study in Comparative

Aesthetics (Surrey: Gresham, 1979),p. 155.

25. Dalibor Vesely, Czech NewArchitecture and Cubism, Umeni 53(2005), 586604.

26. Taut, Glaserzeugung undGlasbau, 12.

27. Alexander Nehamas and PaulWoodruff, Introduction, in Plato,Phaedrus, pp. ixxlvii (p. x).

28. Nehamas and Woodruff, p. xvii.29. Gardens of Adonis were baskets

and pots used to force plantsduring the ancient Athenianfestival of Adonis.

30. Nehamas and Woodruff, p. xxxvi.31. Plato, p. 81 (276b).32. Chadwick, p. 43.33. Nehamas and Woodruff, p. xi.34. Taut, Modern Architecture, p.93.

Acknowledgements

I thank Paul Emmons, Lindsay Falck,Stanislaus Fung, David

Leatherbarrow, Clarissa A. Mendez,Janell E. Robisch and Sebnem YucelYoung for their valuable commentson drafts of this essay.

Illustration credits

arq gratefully acknowledges:Akademie der Knste, Berlin, 8, 9, 12;Bildarchiv Foto Marburg, 10;citizendium.org, 1, 5;The community of inheritors of

Bruno Taut, 11;V&A Images, Victoria and Albert

Museum, 4.

BiographyUfuk Ersoy teaches at the Departmentof Architecture, Izmir Institute ofTechnology, Izmir, and at theProgram of Architecture, University ofNew South Wales, Sydney. Currently,he is completing his PhD. dissertationentitled Seeing through Glass at theUniversity of Pennsylvania.

Authors address

Ufuk ErsoyCalle Gardenia cc-24Borinquen Gardens, San JuanPuerto Rico, [email protected]

Notes

1. Adolf Loos, Ornament and Crime:Selected Essays, trans. by M. Mitchell(Riverside: Ariadne Press, 1997),p. 149.

2. Loos, p. 150.3. For Loos, as stated by Plato, the arts

were given to human beings as

godly skill, yet without fire theycould serve for nothing. Loos,p. 150.

4. Loos, p. 150.5. See, for instance, H. R. Hitchcock,

Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth

Centuries (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1958), p. 169; aswell as Colin Rowe and RobertSlutzky, Transparency: Literal andPhenomenal,8 (1963), 4554. Somemore recent publications may beadded to the list of works writtenin the same framework, includingMichael Wigginton, Glass inArchitecture (London: Phaidon,1996); Catherine Slessor, GlassEvolution, Architectural Review no.1215 (May1998), 45; SusanDawson, Glass Evolution,Architectural Review no. 1254(August 2001), 9497.

6. Casting a glance toward the varietyof ancient terms used to addressglass types in different qualitiesand functions may be enough tounderstand how theannouncement of transparency asthe inherent character limits themeaning of the word glass to asingle determined appearance of

the sand, lime, and soda amalgam.Mary Luella Trowbridge, PhilologicalStudies in Ancient Glass (Urbana:University of Illinois, 1930).

7. Taut cited both buildings in TheEarly Developments of ModernArchitecture chapter, in ModernArchitecture (London: The Studio,1929), pp. 3588.

8. John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps ofArchitecture (London: Smith, Elder,1849; repr. New York: Dover, 1989),p. 9.

9. John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice,3 vols (London: Smith, Elder,

185153; repr. New York: Merrilland Baker, [1897(?)]), I, 37.

10. Apparently, Ruskin made an effortto emphasise the involvement ofnon-technical agents in thearticulation of architecture.Ruskin, The Stones of Venice, I, 37.

11. Ruskin, The Stones of Venice, II, 396.12. Paul Ricoeur, who sees the act of

building as a spatial reflection ofnarrating (which takes place) intime, draws a parallel between theauthor and the architectsinventions. More precisely, Ricoeurtends to interweave thearchitectural configuration ofspace with the narrative

configuration of time. See PaulRicoeur, Architecture etnarrativit, Arquitectonics 4 (2002),929.

13. Plato, Phaedrus, trans. by AlexanderNehamas and Paul Woodruff(Indianapolis: Hackett PublishingCompany, 1995), p. 55 (261a).

14. Paxton admits that the mostremarkable fact connected withthe Crystal Palace is the blottingpaper sketch indicates theprincipal features of the buildingas it now stands, as much as themost finished drawings that havebeen made since. Joseph Paxton,Daily News, August 7, 1851, quotedin C. R. Fay, Palace of Industry(Cambridge: At the UniversityPress, 1951), p. 11.

15. George F. Chadwick, The Works of SirJoseph Paxton 18031865 (London:The Architectural Press, 1961), p. 76.

16. Describing his design procedure ofthe Crystal Palace, Paxton madeclear that it was to this plant andto this circumstance that theCrystal Palace owes its directorigin. Fay, p. 11.

17. Harry Francis Mallgrave,Introduction, in GottfriedSemper, The Four Elements ofArchitecture and Other Writings, trans.by H. F. Mallgrave and WolfgangHerrmann (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1989), p. 40.

18. Charles Dickens, The PrivateHistory of the Palace of Glass,Household Words no. 43 (January18,

1851), 38591 (p. 385).19. Das Glashaus hat keinen anderen

Zweck, als schn zu sein. BrunoTaut, Glashaus: WerkbundausstellungKln (Cologne: [n. pub.], 1914); repr.in Frhe Klner Kunstausstellungen,Sondenburg 1912, Werkbund 1914,

Pressa 1928, ed. by W. Herzogenrath(Cologne: Wienand, 1981), pp.28792.

20. Bruno Taut, Eine Notwendigkeit,Der Sturm no. 196/7 (1914), 17475;repr. Taut, A Necessity, trans. by R.H. Bletter in German Expressionism:Documents from the End of the

Wilhelmine Empire to the Rise ofNational Socialism, ed. by R. Longand others (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1993), pp. 12426.

21. Taut wrote: Das Tun des Menschenbleibt nie beim Notwendigenstehen. Die Welt lebt vom Prinzipdes berflusses, in allen Dingenmu das Ma berlaufen, wenn esvoll sein soll. Was nicht bis zumberlaufen voll ist, geht zugrunde.Wir hoffen doch, solange wirleben, da wir nicht zugrundegehen. Und wenn das nichtgeschieht nun, dann wird auch,vielleicht bald, das berflssigegebaut. Es mu dann gebaut


8/8