Mies’ Models There are many life-sized reproductions of Mies’ work. The first was his own: a canvas and timber model of the Kröller-Müller House, built to convince the client to choose his scheme over Berlage’s (she didn’t). His Barcelona Pavilion was built in 1929, demolished in 1930 and reconstructed in 1986 from archival photos and plans. In 2013, Robbrecht en Daem consulted archival sketches of an unbuilt golf club to create a 1:1 model, using gloss-treated plywood and stainless-steel to hint, economically, at Mies’ material richness. In 2017, Anna and Eugeni Bach covered the Barcelona Pavilion’s marble and travertine with white vinyl, maintaining it turned the reconstructed pavilion into a 1:1 model while pointing to the sterile whiteness of European modernism. Rem Koolhaas argued the opposite with his ‘casa palestra’ exhibition, bending the plan and confronting a narrative of rigorous, lifeless modernism with health-obsessed hedonism. Staged in 1985, it beat the authorised Spanish reconstruction into existence. The Farnsworth house (1951) was proceeded, according to many, by its own unauthorised copy: Philip Johnson’s Glasshouse (1949). In 2009, Inigo Manglano-Ovalle project, ‘Gravity is a Force to be Reckoned With’ truncated the house and turned it upside down. Bik Van Der Pol seemed to respond ‘Are you really sure that a floor can't also be a ceiling?’ (2010) and filled a Farnsworth installation with butterflies. In 2017, Manuel Peralta Lorca constructed a 1:1 version in pine and plywood, rhetorically refusing to consult a plan. Maybe he should have: he missed the way the wall folds to form a shelf for the bathroom and a space below to store firewood in the living room. According to my research, it makes this the first accurate Farnsworth House bathroom outside Illinois. Our bathroom joins this crowded field of reproductive terminology. An abridged account might go: reconstructions declare a perfect (impossible) fidelity to a lost ‘original’; versions admit, sheepishly, that they’re not quite accurate; commentators (and self-aware artists) label works copies; project might be a cooler, coyer word for installation; exhibitions present an interpretation as archival fact; and models, like this bathroom, reduce the project to essential spatial and conceptual qualities. In doing so, they stake their own kind of authority: we trust they are accurate in the ways they claim because they are so honest about what they leave out. Now a confession. Our unpainted and untrimmed bathroom was described in promotional material as a dimensionally accurate 1:1 model. In fact, we modified it to account for off-the-shelf MDF sizes. The doorway is 200mm too slim. Our solution to the ‘corner problem’ is pilfered instead from the Mies’ Seagram Building where the mullions—taken out of context and swapped for timber studs—pull back from the edge to exaggerate the corner. Mies forgive us. Hamish Longergan

BA

TH

RO

OM

GO

SSIP

The Archival Turn-aw

ay The ‘arch

ival turn’, as it is kno

wn in co

ntemp

orary art, is a

means o

f seeking truth: o

f uncovering

history o

r restoring

cultural m

emo

ry in earnest. H

ere, the archive stands as the

container o

f the past, w

hether it is a garb

age heap

of

material o

r a sparse co

llection filled

with p

rob

ing lacunae.

Our fo

cus is less excavation th

an it is fabricatio

n. Turning

away fro

m the archive, w

e seek relationship

s not id

eas, sp

eculations no

t record

s, and arrive at rum

ours never to

b

e verified.

Bathro

om

G

ossip

’ is

a p

urpo

seful m

isreading

o

f the

archive. It brushes asid

e the stand

ard acco

unt of Lud

wig

M

ies van der R

ohe’s Farnsw

orth H

ouse (1951) —

famo

us for

its transp

arent facad

e an

d

floating

fo

rms—

and

instead

focuses o

n its two

po

key bathro

om

s. Mies w

as rumo

ured

to b

e sleepin

g with the clien

t, Dr E

dith Farnsw

orth, w

ho

w

ould

later

sue him

w

hen the

relationship

fell

apart.

Ap

parently, the architect w

as consum

ed b

y the po

ssibility

of

visitors

seeing

Farnswo

rth in

her d

ressing

go

wn

(a strang

e wo

rry in a house m

ade o

f glass), and

so d

esigned

o

ne bathro

om

for Farnsw

orth and

another fo

r her guests.

These bathro

om

s do

n’t fit w

ith the rest of the ho

use: they are sm

all, closed

, secretive. Ham

ish Lonerg

an recreates o

ne o

f the

roo

ms

at a

1:1 scale,

map

ping

M

eis’s d

imensio

ns onto

Bo

xcop

y’s (already sm

all) gallery space.

And

yet, this life-size study is ever so

slightly o

ff, including

m

inor ad

justments to

match

pre

-cut, B

unnings

timb

er. A

lmo

st true to fo

rm, b

ut not q

uite, the structure contains a

series of w

hite lies.

The b

athroo

m

interior

is littered

w

ith fake

corresp

ond

ence, mag

azine spread

s, pho

tog

raphs, lo

ve letters d

iscarded

in the trash, and

napkins p

assed acro

ss the tab

le. These ob

jects are vacuum-sealed

and stam

ped

w

ith fake

stickers o

f authenticatio

n—p

osing

as

real m

aterial fro

m

the o

fficial M

ies van

der

Ro

he archive

housed

in the MO

MA

Co

llection and

Edith

Farnswo

th P

apers

in C

hicago

, o

r o

btained

und

er FO

IA

request.

Linking

these d

isparate

items

is an

absurd

tim

eline p

rinted o

n the show

er curtain. Fab

ricated b

y Charlie

Do

naldso

n, the faux-artifacts sugg

est that the Farnswo

rth H

ouse w

as also a C

IA-co

ntrolled

site, as part o

f a larger

go

vernment effo

rt to use m

od

ernist houses as fallo

ut shelters

in the

event o

f nuclear

war.

The im

agined

relationship

b

etween

M

ies and

the

CIA

m

irrors

that b

etween M

ies and Farnsw

orth and

, similarly, en

ds in a

catastrop

hic breakd

ow

n.

Like all

go

od

co

nspiracies,

there are

contrad

ictions

betw

een Lo

nergan

and

Do

naldso

n’s sug

gested

narratives.

Lonerg

an’s ad

apted

m

od

el reveals

the ab

surdity o

f the bathro

om

and the jealo

us relationship

it m

anifests;

Do

naldso

n’s

forg

ed

do

cuments

spill

into

consp

iracy, stretching the truth further still. The m

od

el is an exag

geratio

n; the files are a hoax; yet, b

oth m

eet in the b

athroo

m. To

geth

er, they b

lur the bo

undaries b

etween

replicatio

n and

fab

rication,

research and

‘fake

news’.

‘Bathro

om

G

ossip

’ p

rop

oses

an alternative

story

of

tablo

id-m

od

ernism, reinstating

rumo

ur into the archive.

Sop

hie Rose