wigley semper loos corbusier

8/12/2019 Wigley Semper Loos Corbusier

1/13

Lessons on Architectural History AR1A065

Lecures of Hans van DijkSeptember/October 2012

Reader texts # 03

WIGLEY ON SEMPER, LOOS, LE

CORBUSIER

Mark Wigley, Architecture and Philosophy. Le Corbusier and theEmperorrs New Clothes,

From:

Journal of Philosophy and the Visual Arts, London, Academy Group,1990, pp. 84-95.


2/13

M A R K W I G L E YARCHITECTURE AFTER PHILOSOPHY:

Le Corbusier and theE mperor s New Paint

R I P O L IN P O S T E R E U G E N E V A V A S S E U R 1898

Wiiat is tile place of arciiitecture? How is itplaced before itplaces? I mean wiiat is it to write iiere, intiie Journal ofPhilosopiiy and tiie Visual Arts, of Piiilosophy and Arciiitecture ?Wiiat is tiie status oftills familiar and tiiat places arciiitecture in tiie arts and after philosopiiy? But more titan tiiat, tiiatplaces arciiitecture in tiie visual. Tiie and sustains an institutional iiistory wiiicii prescribes wiiere

this 'vi sual art' can beseen,f r o mwhere it can beseen,whatk i ndof vis ion is required and whosees.Of course, this historyneedsto be interrogated. But such questions of visual i ty must be, atleast, doubledherebecausethey are also architectural questions.T o interrogate the institutionalmechanisms that construct architecture asvisibleis to investigate the place of architecture, howi t inhabits culture before culture inhabits it , how it is housed.Indeed, it is a question of its architecture. Architecture isi nvo l ved in the construction of the visual before it is placed inthevisual.It is this convolut ion that organises the domestic l i f eof that old couple philosophy and architecture.

Some of the strange lines that bind visual i ty and architecturecan be traced through Le Corbusier's lesserknown1925 text TlieDecorative Art of Today, w h i c hhe describes, in a preface addedin 1959, as the result of an extended inqui ry which began w i t hthe question 'Where is architecture?'.'T h e L o o k of ModernityTtie Decorative Art of Today examines the objects of contemporaryeveryday l i f e ,condemningthosethat have ornate decorationand praising those wi t hou t it . The lie of decoration is that i t isadded to objects as a k i nd of mask. It is a f o r m of 'disguise', arepresentational layer inserted between the new reality of themodernobjectw h i c h results f r o mmodern techniques of produc-84

t ion and the new reality of modern l i f e those techniques makepossible. Misrepresenting both, it produces historical and spatialalienation by sustaining a nostalgic fantasy in the face ofmodernity. L i k ethe everyday object, architecture has to discardthe representational debris that clutters the surface of its structures and distracts the eye f r o mmodernity.

Thiserasureof decoration isseenas thenecessarygesture of ac i v i l i sed society true toitself.C i v i l i sa t i on is precisely defined asthe elimination of the 'superfluous' in favour of the 'essential'and the paradigm of inessential surplus is decoration. Its removalliberates a new visual order as c i v i l i sa t i on is a gradualpassagef r o mthe sensualto the intellectual, f r o mthe tactile to thevisual. Decoration's 'caresses of the senses' are abandoned infavour of the visual harmony ofproportion. The materiality ofrepresentation is abandoned in favour of the immateriality ofclear vis ion.

This erasure of decoration is a f o r m of pu r i f i ca t i on . Theargument concludes w i t h the chapter A Coat ofWtiitewash: TheLa w ofRipolin w h i c h advocates replacing the degeneratelayerofdecoration that lines buildingsw i t ha coat of whitewash. Thewhitewash is af o r mof architectural hygiene to be carried out inthe name ofvisible t ru th : 'Hishome ismade clean . There are nomore di r ty ,dark corners. Everything is shown as is. ^The truestatusof the object is exposed. Cleansed of its representational


3/13

asks, it is simply present in its pure state, transparent to the'Law of R i p o l i n ,Coat ofWhitewash:Eliminationof the

Concentration of intention on its proper object. concentrated on the object. An object is held to be

only out of necessity, for a specific purpose, and to be wi th perfection.' The look of modernity is that of ut i l i ty function without excess, the smooth naked object

nsed of all representational texture: the architectural maThe apparent consequence of this argument is rehearsed

the canonic interpretation of early Le Corbusier. Thevillasare interpreted in terms of a visuallogicof transpar

function - the machine aesthetic - understood as an f r o m the rationalism of

technology. But surprisingly the striking whiteness ofvillasis not examined as such. It is taken for granted. At the

intoa cannon, the becomes inconspicuous, regardless of its undeniable

inance in practice. At most, i t is referred to in passing asneutral', 'ground', 'pure', ' silent', 'degree-zero', ' reduction' ,essential'. This rhetoric is passedon uncritically into ' c r i t i ca l '

The buildings are understood as objects, machines to be at, inhabited by a viewer who is detached f r o m them,

precisely by being looked at, whether it be by theuser,neighbour, cr i t i c , orreaderof architectural publications.

tacitlyunderstood as part of the look, but its to Le Corbusier's arguments about the status of

opaquenessof the white surface andtransparency of 'modernism' is not problematised. Precisely

being made part of a look, the whitew a l lis looked through. privileging of the look seems to be supported by Le w r i t i n g which everywhere appears to privilege the

But the nature of that look and that privilege is notbecomes as transpar

criticsas the whitew a l l itself.I t is thecriticswho havethat do not see'. But why is itnecessaryfor the whiteness

canon?What is preserved by this blindness?Clearly, Le Corbusier's argument has to be understood in

s of the central role of whiteness in the extended history of which, asVigarello argues, 'consists,

nthe last analysis, of one dominant theme: the establishment, inself-sufficientphysicalsphere,its enlarge

t, and the reinforcement of its frontiers, to the point of thegaseofothers.' 'Whiteness plays a key role in the

of space understood in terms of an economy ofSome k i ndof displacement of that economy is integral to

space. Le Corbusier's argumentsash are arguments aboutvisuality.What cannot be

by thecriticsis a particular theory oflooking that subvertsowninstitutional practices.

For Le Corbusier, thelookof whitewash is notsimplythe look modernity. While the text employs the white walls of a

lineras a model, whitewash is not the mark of thetwentieth century but ofcivilisation as such.

Whitewash exists wherever people have preserved intactthe balanced structure of a harmonious culture. Once anextraneous element opposed to the harmony of the systemhas been introduced, whitewash disappears. . . Whitewashhas been associated w i t h human habitation since the bi r thof mankind. Stones are burnt, crushed and thinned wi thwater - and the walls take on the purestwhite,an extraordinarily beautifulwhite.''

caused by the intrusion ofis identified w i t hthe loss of whitewash anddegenera

t ion intothesensuousexcessesof decoration. The white walls ofthe ocean liner mark the maturing of the very industrial cultureresponsible for'brutally driving out' vernacular whitewash. It isthestatusof the object in the twentieth century that is new, not itscoating w i t hwhitewash. The neutrality of whitewash is thereforemore historical thanformal.Buti t is not a passive neutrality. The whitewash is notsimplywhat is l e f tbehind after the removal of decoration. It is the activemechanism oferasure.More than a clean surface, it is a cleaningagent, cleaning the body in order to liberate the eye. Thewhitewash makes the objects of everyday l i f e visible, as anyimpurity, any decorative excess would leave a 'stain' on itssurface:

Onwhiter i p o l i nwallstheseaccretions of dead thingsf r o mthe past would be intolerable: they would leave a stain.Whereas the stains do not show on the medley of ourdamasks and patterned wallpapers . . . I f the houseis allwhite,the outline of things standsout f r o m itwithout anypossibility of transgression: their volume shows clearly;theircolour is distinct.''

More than just the appropriate setting for the look, a neutralbackground, l i ke a gallery w a l l , and even more than the activeremovalof distractions f r o m the eye, the whitewash is i t sel f aneye: 'Put on it anything dishonest or in bad taste- it hits you inthe eye. It is rather l ikeanX-rayof beauty. It is a court ofassisein permanent session. I t is the eye oftruth.' It is not simply thelookof cleanliness but a cleaning of the look,a focusing of theeye. Not a machine forlookingat but a machine forlooking.

But does this viewing mechanism only focus on the supplements of building: objects placed inside, outside, or on itssurfaces?Whathappenswhen itcatchesthebuildingin its ownlook? Whatdoesit see in architecture?TheClothing of SpaceLe Corbusier's account of civilisation as progress f r o m thesensuality of decoration to the abstraction of f o r m through theprogressive removal of ornament is, of course, taken f r o m A d o l fLoos' notoriouscriminalisationof ornament:

'The lower the culture, the more apparent the ornament.Ornament is something that must be overcome. The Papuanand thecriminalornament theirskin. . . But the bicycle andthe steam engine are free of ornament. The march ofcivilisation systematically liberates object after objectf r o m ornamentation.''

Le Corbusier's text appropriates thoseof Loos much more thanits two b r i e f references to Loos indicate.'" It is everywhereindebted to Loos." In Loos' canonic essay 'Ornament andCrime', which Le Corbusier republished in the f i r s t issue ofL Esprit Nouveau in 1920, the removal of ornament is aprocessofpurification whichendsup w i t hthe whitewash:TIte evolutionof culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament fromobjects of daily use. . .We have outgrownornament.. . Soon thestreets of the cities w i l l glow l ike whitewalls ' This concernw i t h whitewash can be traced throughout Loos's w r i t i n g . Thedegeneration of contemporary architecture is repeatedly opposedto the construction of the vernacular house, which concludeswhen thepeasant 'makes a large tub of distemper and paints thehouseabeautifulwhite'.' The aesthetic purity of this traditionalgesture is now guaranteed by principles of modern hygiene. Asw i t h Corbusier, the whitewash is seen as at once the mark ofmodernity and tradition, the erasure of the historical and itsrestoration crucialrole in Le Corbusier's thoughtseemsto havebeen neglected by architectural discourse, should be understoodin a context that precisely undermines that discourse The LawofRipolin is a specific reference to Loos's, Law o/Dressing(Bekleidung). ' W i t h this law. Loos legislates against any

85


4/13

confusion' between a material and its dressing. The dressingsonly

reveal clearly their own mefining as dressing for the wa l l identifying their detachment f r o m a structure without that structure. It must be understood as accessory

revealing that towhich it is added. Consequently, Loosnot simply advocate the removal of decoration in order to

buildingas an object. What is accessoryas such, neither structure nor

ecoration. The perception of a building is the perception itsccessories,its layer of cladding.The idea of the whitewash is bound to this other perception inhich structure is dissimulated by an added layer that can be as

hin as a coat of paint. Indeed, for Loos the coat of paint is thearadigm. The Law of Dressing emerges f r o m a reading of theraditionalwhitewashed w a l l .His argument turns on ananecdote

about the perception of the difference between a window framethat hasbeenstained and one that is paintedwhite.The twentiethcentury invention of wood staining is opposed to the peasanttradition in which pure colors are set against the 'freshlywhitewashed w a l l . 'The transparency of the stain is dismissed infavourof theopaquemask of white paint: 'wood may be paintedany colour except one - the colour of wood. '" Immediately, LeCorbusier has to be thought in terms of a nineteenth century logicof veiling rather than transparency.

The Law of Dressing is, in turn, a specific reference toGottfried Semper's Principle of Dressing which precisely defines theessenceof architecture to be its covering layer.Becauseof this privileging of the supplement, traditionalcriticism hasalways distanced Semper f r o m modern architecture (and evenf r o m Loos)."*Semper retells the story of the or ig in of architecture retold at least since Vitruvius. No longer does architectureoriginate in the construction of material protection, a simplewooden shelter, which is then supplemented and represented bysuccessiveornamental traditions - such that ornament is alwaysrepresentative of, and subordinate to, the original structure (atoncethef i r s tstructure bu i l tby man and the structure that is bui l tf i r s tin a contemporarybuilding).The story of architecture is nolonger one of naked structures graduallydressed w i t h ornament:'Rather, it was w i t h all the simplicity of itsbasicformshighlydecorated and glittering f r o m the start, since itschi ldhood.'"

For Semper,building begins w i t h the use of woven fabrics todefine socialspace. Specifically, the spaceof domesticity. Thetextile are not simply placed w i t h i n space to define a certaininteriority. Rather, they are the production of space itself.Weaving is used 'as ameans to make the 'home', the inner lifeseparated f r o m the outer life, and as the formalcreation of theidea of space.'^" This primordial definition of inside and,therefore, for the f i r s t time, outside, w i t h textiles not onlyprecedesthe construction ofsolidwalls but continues to organisethe building when such construction begins. Solid structurefollows., and is subordinate to, what appear to be merely itsaccessories:

Hanging carpets, remained the true walls, the visibleboundaries of space. The often solid walls behind themwere necessary forreasonsthat had nothing to do w i t h thecreation of space; they were needed for security, forsupporting a load, for theirpermanence and so on. Wherever the need forthese secondary functions did not arise,the carpets remained the original means of separatingspace.Even where building solid wallsbecame necessary,the latter were only the inner, invisible structure hiddenbehind the true and legi timate representatives of the wa l l ,the colourfulwovencarpets.-'

The textile is a mask which dissimulates rather thanrepresentsthe structure. The material w a l l is no more than a prop, a

contingent piece of 'scaffolding',' foreign' to the production ofthe building, merely a supporting player, playing the role ofsupport, supporting preciselybecausei tdoesnot play. Architecture is located w i t h i nthe play of signs.Spaceis produced wi th inlanguage. As its o r i g i nis dissimulation, itsessenceis no longerconstructionbut the masking of construction.Justas the institut ion of the f a m i l y is made possible through the production ofdomestic space w i t h a mask, the larger community is madepossible through the production of public space through masquerade.Public buildings, in the f o r mof monumental architecture, are seento derive f r o m the f i x i n g in one place of the oncemobile 'improvised scaffolding' on which hung the patternedfabrics and decorations of the festivals that defined social l i fe .Thespaceof the public is that ofthosesigns.

Semper identifies the textile essence of architecture, thedissimulating fabric, the fabrication of architecture, w i t h theclothing of the body. He draws on the identity between theGerman words forw a l l (Wand) anddress(Gewand) to establishthe Principle of Dressing as 'true essence' of architecture. Thechapter Correlation of Costume with Architecture explains the'intimate'relationship between clothing and theartsand demonstrates the 'direct influence' of developments in clothing ondevelopments in the arts. But architecture does not f o l l o w orresemble clothing. On the contrary, clothingfollows architecture.

The definitionof domestic interiority precedes the definitionof the interiority of the body. ^ The clothing of the individualfollowsthe clothing of the f a m i l y .The body is onlydefined bybeing covered in the face of language, the surrogate skinof thebuilding.The evolution ofskin,the surface w i t hwhichspatialityisproduced, is the evolution of the social.

In a footnote to his treatise. Semper inverts the ethnocentricteleology of social progress. Civilisationis no longer detachmentf r o m primitive material desire. Primitive desire is recast asdissimulation.Culturedoesnotprecede its masks. I t is no morethan masking. The highest art f o r m is no longer that which ismost distant f r o m the material desiresof the primitive but thatwhich most successful develops the primitive dissimulation ofmaterialityby dissimulat ing even the mechanisms of dissimulat ion:

think that the dressing and the mask are as old as humancivilisation. . . The denial of reality, of material, isnecessary if f o r m is to emerge as a meaningful symbol, as anautonomous creation of man. Let us make forgotten themeans that need be used for the desired artistic effect andnot proclaim them tooloudly,thus missing our part miserab l y .The untaintedfeelingledprimitiveman to the denial ofreality in all early artistic endeavours; the great, truemastersof art in every f i e l dreturned to it- only thesemenin times of high artistic development also masked thematerial of the maskP^

The subordination and dissimulation of materialdoesnot i mp l yignorance or disregard ofmaterial.^* On the contrary, it is the'mastery' of material.Materiality is hidden by being mastered.Onlythrough a detailed understanding of the construction can itbe effaced - reduced to an invisible prop.^'

Repeatedly identifying architecture w i t h clothing. Loos f o l -lows Semper's arguments closely. '' This is nowhere more expl ic i t than in his essay The Principle of Dressing in whicharchitecture emerges f r o m textiles and structure is but thescaffoldingadded tohold them up.

The architect's general task is to provide a warm andlivablespace.Carpetsare warm and livable.Hedecidesforthisreasonto spread out one carpet on thefloorand to hangup four tof o r mthe fourwalls.But you cannot bu i l dahouseout of carpets. Boththe carpet and thefloorand the tapestry

86


5/13

on the w a i l require a structural frame to hold them in thecorrect place. To invent this frame is the architect 's secondtask. This is the correct and logical path to be followedinarchitecture. It was in this sequence that mankindlearnedhow to bu i ld .In the beginning wasdressing.^'

The textilemasks the structure but does not misrepresent it. Ithides the building but does not disguise it.Following Semper,Loos is against l y i n g . The dressing dissimulates in the nameoftruth. It must register its independence without identifying thatf r o m which i t is independent. Materials organise forms but thematerial of the dressing is differentf r o m that of construction,and the f o r mof abuilding isonlyproduced by its cladding. Thestructuralprop is not revealed, even as prop.

Even in paying attention to the layer of paint. Loos followsSemper whose whole argument turns on the statusof a coat ofpaint. Semper produces a history of paint w i t h i n which theadditionof a coat of paint to the surface ofbuildingis the way inwhich the original textiletraditionwas maintained in the age ofsolid construction. (In this way, architecture, the 'mother art ',gives bi r th to the art of painting). This simulated textile, thepainted text, becomes at once the new social language, thecontemporary system of communication, and the new meansbywhich spaceis constructed. Architecture is in the layer of paint.Paint sustains the masquerade in the face of the new soliditybecauseit is 'the subtlest, most bodiless coating. It was the mostperfectmeans to do away w i t hreality, forwhile itdressed thematerial, it was itselfimmaterial.'-

Semper's argument wasbased on contemporary archeologicalevidence that the ancient buildings of antiquityonlyappearedtobe naked white stonebecause the layers of coloured paint hadbeenweathered o f f .This undermined thestatusof the materialityof the structures to that of a prop for a layer of paint. Semperargues that white marble was used precisely because it was abetter 'basemater ial' for painting on. It is transformed f r o m thetraditional paradigm of authentic materiality to but a 'naturalstucco', a smooth surface onwhichto paint. Itssmoothnessis nolonger identified w i t h the purity of its material or of its forms,butas the possibi lity for a certain texture. Architecture is not thepainted decoration of a naked structure. Thesenseof the naked isproduced w i t h i n the supplementary layer itself. The buildingnever becomes visible, even where it coincides w i t h the layer:the places 'where the monument was supposed to appearwhitewere by no means l e f t bare, but were covered w i t h a whitepaint'-''.

Loos develops the Principle of Dressing into the Law ofDressing by prohibiting any such coincidence between thestructure and its cladding. While this has the specific consequence of disassociating whiteness and structure, the generalpurpose of Loos' law is to keep the naked/clothed distinctionwith inthe textual economy sustained by the layer of paint ratherthan between the layer and its prop. It is this agenda thatorganises all of Loos's arguments. While his demands for theremoval of ornament and the purification of the sensual in thenameof whitewashappearto be a rejection ofSemper's p r i v i l eg -ing of ornament, they are in fact the maintenance of it . Thewhitewash is the extreme condition, the testcase, of Semper'sargument. Loos is not simply arguing for the abolition ofornament but for collapsing thedistinctionbetween structure andornament into the layer of cladding, a layer between structureand ornament w i t h i n which difference is produced and can beinscribed.Prosthetic FabricationsBut what of Le Corbusier's transformation of the Law ofDressing into the Law of Ripolin, inwhich there is no explicitrehearsal ofSemper's argument? Indeed, itappears to be set up

in direct opposition to Semper. The whitewash removes precisely those accessoriesthatSemperidentifies as the essenceofarchitecture: 'Imagine the results of the Law of R i p o l i n . Everycitizenis required to replace his hangings, hisdamasks,his w a l l -papers, his stencils, w i t h a plain coat of white r i p o l i n . ' Thetextile tradition seems to be exp l i c i t l y abandoned. Surfacetexture iserased. Indeed, decoration has to be removedbecauseit 'clothes' the smooth modern object. Decoration is repeatedlydescribed as clothing to be discarded in the name of the nakedtruth. Whitewash purifies by eliminating the ' superfluous' infavour of the 'essential'. The culture it sustains is one of'rejection,pruning, cleansing; the clear and naked emergenceofthe Essential.''' In order for civilisation to progress f r o m thesensual to the visual, the sensuality of clothes have to beremoved in order to reveal theformaloutline, the visual proport i o n ,of the functionalbody.

But the body cannot be completely naked as thatwould be toreturnto the sensual.There is a need forsome k i n d ofscreen,ave i l neither of the sensuality of decoration nor of the sensualityof the body. A screen that remodels the body as formalproport ion rather than sensual animal. The whitewash is insertedbetween twothreats in order to transform body into f o r m . Themodern savageis not entirely naked. Purification results not inthe naked body but the 'well-cut suit':

Decorationis of a sensorial and elementary order, as is colour,and is suited to simple races, peasants and savages. . . Thepeasant loves ornament and decorates his walls. The civilisedman wears awell-cutsuit and is the owner ofeaselpictures andbooks.Decoration is the essential surplus, the quantum of the peasant;and proportion is the essential surplus, the quantum of thecultivated man.'

Here, as always, Le Corbusier identifies modernity wi thmodern clothes. His lists of exemplary modern objects alwaysincludeclothes. But i t is not just that clothes f o r mpart of the list.Purification i t sel f is explained in terms of the cut of a suit. TheDecorative Art of Today begins by contrasting Louis X I V ' s'coiffure of ostrich feathers, in red, canary, and pale blue;ermine, si lk , brocade and lace; a can ofgold,ebony, i v o r y , anddiamonds' and Lenin's 'bowler hat and a smooth white collar '.Hislists of modern objects always begin wi th clothes."The firs titem in his 'museum of everything', the twentieth centuryarchive, is 'a plainjacket, a bowler hat, a well-madeshoe'.It isnot accidental that the f i r s t thing we know of modern man, thef i r s t piece of evidence for his elevation f r o m the degeneraterealmof the sensesinto the realm of the visual, is his clothing.Indeed, Le Corbusierseemstosuggestthat clothes were the f i r s tobjects of everyday l i f eto lose their decoration:

But at the same time [that household objects were decorated] the railway engines, commerce, calculation, thestruggle for precision, put his f r i l l s in question, and hisclothing tended to become a plain black, or mottled; thebowler hat appeared on thehorison.'"*

But clothing is even more than a historical precedent, LeCorbusier's whole thinking of modern objects is organised interms of clothes. Objects are understood as 'auxiliary limbs',' a r t i f i c i a llimbs', prosthetic additions 'supplementing' the f i x e dstructure of the body.' Diogenes' clothing of the naked bodyw i t h a barrel is cited as ' the primordial cell of the house'.Diogenes serves a model of both purification and the identitybetween clothing and housing . The apparent rejection of decorat ion is therefore not a rejection of clothing . Architecture isclothing. Modern architecture, l ike all the many sciences ofa r t i f i c i a l limbs, is a f o r moftailoring:

He chucks up cornices and baldacchinos andmakeshimselfmore useful as a cutter in a tailor's shop. . . Decorative art

87


6/13

becomes orthopaedic, an activity thatappealsto the imagination, to invention, to sk i l l , but a craf t analogous to thetailor: the client is a man, familiar to us and preciselydefined.'''

Decorative art is the prosthetic 'ar t' of the tailor. It is a mancentred art, but this is no humanism, this is a science of thea r t i f i c i a l ,centred the imperfect body, the 'inadequate', ' i n s u f f i -cient' body in need of protection by 'supportinglimbs'.It is theprosthetic supplements that support the body not the body thatsupports the supplement.

For Le Corbusier, objects are clothes. The story of whitewash,as the endgameof the story of the modern obj ect, is a story ofclothing.The coat of paint is, after all just that, a coat. It is stil ldressing. Even if it is the most simpledress.Semper's argumenthas notbeenabandoned. Evenwithouttexture, the smooth whitesurface remains a fabric." We are stil l are in the domain of thetext.'" Le Corbusier makes a twentieth century reading ofclothes, a displacement of what constitutes clothes rather than adisplacement of clothing as such. Hence the central paradox ofthe text: Modern decorative art is not decorated .

I t is symptomatic that the critics who neglect Le Corbusier's

losophy. It is philosophy's condition ofpossibility. Its not thatrational theory's detachment of the superfluous f r o m theessent ia l leaves simple clothes, the 'essential surplus', but that thedistinction between them is made possible by those clothes.Indeed, the distinctionemergesin the text f r o m a discussion ofthe simplicity of Diogenes' clothes. Thehightheory of philosophy ismadepossible by the low art ofclothing,exceededby thatwhich i t subordinates. I n this sense, the look of the whitewashseems to be that of traditional metaphysics, the eye ofreason.But Le Corbusier is not simply advocating a rational architecture. H i g h theory is not the only institution to emerge f r o mlowart.Reasonfollowsarchitecture but is not its endpoint. Architecturedoesnot simply subordinate i t sel fto the theoretical order itmakespossible.

The whitewash makes possible the reason that may then beapplied to the structure it covers. But it does not exhibit therationalityof that structure nor is it the result of that rationality.The truthmadevisible by the whitewash is not that of structuralmaterials or construction technology but thetruthof modern l i fe .The layer of white paintexposesthe 'structure' of the 'edifice' ofmodern culture rather than the structure of the building.* Le

Articles de s r i e .

LT OR NE WC L O T H E S I L L U S T R A T I O N F R O M THE DECORATIVE ART OF TODAY; L O U I SXI V

arguments about whitewash systematically removeclothingf r o mthe list of everyday objects used as models by the Puristsensibility. Unlike the other objects, clothes can only be understood as supplements. They make explicit the Purist concernw i t h the supplement which is at odds w i t h the ideal of theauthentic, irreducible object transparent to the gase which issustained by traditionalcriticism as a model of both modernarchitecture and of sound historiography.

For Le Corbusier, it is precisely such a supplement, the simplefabric,that is thepossibilityof thought: 'The naked mandoesnotwear an embroidered waistcoat; so the saying goes . . . Thenaked man,oncehe is fed andhoused...andclothed,setshismindto work. . . The naked man does not wear an embroideredwaistcoat; he wishes to think.'''' Likewise, his original clothing,the house, is not embroidered. Its woven surface occupies thespacebetween the new savagebody of modern structure and theo ld seductive body of decoration. The th in opaque layer ofwhitewash masters the body in order to liberate the mind. Thediscretely clothed objectmakes pure thought possible by bracketingmateriality.

Architecture is therefore more than simply an agentof phi-88

Corbusier is concerned w i t h the relationship between clothes andeveryday l i f e rather than that between the clothes and the body.He is opposed to the masking of culturall i f ebut not the maskingof the body. Structural conditions are never simply equated wi ththoseof everyday l i f e . It is the prosthetic additions to the bodythat are the possibility of everyday l i f e ,not the body itself.The decorative screenoffolk-culture is 'the perfectmirrorofits people' because itexposes what is infrontof it rather thanwhat is propping it up, thetruthof culture rather than of material.Modern man can only exist in harmony w i t h the realities ofmodern physical l i f e by being isolated f r o m them. The whitewash is a f o r mof defence. It is not an extraordinary addition toeveryday l i f ebut is the representation of the ordinary to a subjectincreasingly anxious in the face of modernity, dissimulatingstructure in order that people canfeel.

Decoration is not removed in favour of pure structure. Theexpression of construction is precisely seen as but a temporary'fashion' that followed the nineteenth century separation ofdecoration f r o m structure and issucceededby the t ru ly modernconcern for the straightforward, simpleworking clothes. For LeCorbusier, construction is mere reason, the rational tool by


7/13

hich man is set free. It is not athingof interest in itself. It is wi th a coat of paint.'' Structure can only be exposed

i t has beenrationalised to theminimum,so reduced that itn only be seen as a subordinate prop. Le Corbusier's central

of the 'f ree plan' and the 'free facade' are precisely no building f r o mbeing 'the slavef the structural walls'. His buildings are multiple layers of

creens suspended in the air. But even where the structure ist is clothed in a layer of paint,purified.Even

bones have skin, a self-denying skin. Following Loos, the l ikeall modern slaves, a' self-effacing'prothesis, wi th

presence', marked only by the absence ofration."" But this is not to say that the object is silent. The is not neutral. The 'aesthetic of purity' speaks about

buildingexhibits the lookof nakedness, the clothes that say

naked'. Nakednessis added andwornas a mask.Construction technology doesnot simply produce new formslighter props forf o r m .Technologicalprogressis the increasreduction of construct ion. Structure is but a frame for askin,

cloth,the clothing of modernity. Thehousemay be a machine

to sentiment in a variety of seemingly incontrovertible ways'*''Theory is organised by and for art. The whitewash does notbracket materiality in order to simply construct aspaceof puretheory. Itscreensof f the object in order to make aspacefor artwhich necessarily employs theory as a prop. It frees an eye forart. But what precisely is the statusof this look which precedesthat of theory? Is the 'detachment', 'disinterest' and 'distance'f r o mmateriality that the whitewash produces simply that of thetraditionalaesthetic?Architectureafter the EyeI tmust recalledherethatSemper'sargument is exp l i c i t l y set upin opposition to the account of architecture sustained by thephilosophy of art. Aesthetics is seen to subordinate art byframing it: 'art appears isolated and shunted o ff to a f i e ldespecially marked out for it.'***For Semper, art and philosophybelonged together i n antiquity. Indeed 'philosophy was, as itwere, an artist itself'*''But itdetaches i t sel f f romart by splittingart w i t h alien categories which f o l l o w f r o m an original splitofthe art objectf r o mitsaccessories.^"This originarysplitis atoncethe possibi lity of the division of the arts and the detachment of

T O : M G A S T O N D O U M B R G U E ; NE WC L O T H E S I L L U S T R A T I O N P R O M THE DECORATIVE ART OF TODAY

in as much as it is architecture, itdoesnotlook l ikeone: 'Artbusiness resembling a machine. But themeansof art are

Illuminated with clarity'**'' The look of the machine is lookat art, a newlookmadepossible by the

hine. The white coat is a 'channelling of our attentiononlytothings worthy of it'*^It is precisely a way of looking away the structure towards art: ' In this mechanical, discreet, authentic comfort, there is a very fine painting on the

Suspended in the v o i d between structure and decoration, strange ground, a 'platform' on which

utilitarian.The lookofsplitinto the utilitarian lookof rational theory

aestheticgaze.Le Corbusier repeatedly separates u t i l i t y f r o m aesthetics and

any ' confusion' between them by placing them in a hierarchy in which art subordinates rational ut i l i ty . objects are the 'platform of art' and reason is the

aesthetics but support in the Semperian sense, acomes after, and is subordinate to, that

it holds up: 'Even before theformulationof a theory, the leading to action can be f e l t : theory later gives support

philosophy f r o m art. Artbecomes an accessory to philosophy.The relationship between architecture and philosophy followsf r o mitsdivisioninto fundamental material structure and contingent accessorieswhich entrapsit:

I nancient and modern times the store of architectural formshas often been portrayed as mainly conditioned by andarising f r o mthe material, yet by regarding construction astheessenceof architecture we,whilebelieving to liberate itf r o m falseaccessories,havethus placed it in fetters."

Not only is architecture subordinated by being detached f r o mitsaccessoriesandidentifiedw i t hitsmateriality,but itbecomestheparadigm of materialitywhile the arts that emerged f r o m it areelevated tohigh art. Hence architecture's 'organising and at thesame time subordinate role' i n the production of high art.Everywhere Semper opposes the placement of architecturethroughitsdivisionby a philosophical regime of distinctions thata ll turnon the originary distinction between essential object andinessential accessory, structure and decoration.

The operation of such a regime can be traced in the canonictext of aesthetics: Kant's Critique of Judgement which establishes an economy of the disinterested eye by splitting architec-

89


8/13

ture in two. On the one hand, building is the paradigm of thatwhichtheaestheticexceedsbecauseit cannot be thought outsideits u t i l i t y . As such, its beauty is merely 'appendant'. On theother hand, the decoration ofbuilding which can be consideredas things in themselves: 'ornamentalgardens','the decoration ofrooms', ' w a l l hangings', 'wall-paper', 'ornamental accessories'- are elevated into 'free' beauty, free precisely f r o m u t i l i t y .The bracketing of materialfunctionliberates an economy of purevision, the uncontaminated eye. Since the building is opposed toitsdecoration as the body is opposed to the eye, it is unsurprisingthat the decoration of abuildingis repeatedly identified w i t h thedecoration of the bodywhichcan be detached f r o mit. Availableforappropriation by the look,they constitute a 'picture':

the decoration of rooms bymeans of hangings, ornamentalaccessories,and all beautiful furni ture the sole functionofwhich is to he looked at, and in the same way the art oftasteful dressing ( w i t h rings, snuff-boxes, etc). For aparterre of various flowers, a room w i t h a variety ofornaments (includingeven the ladies attire) go to make at afestal gathering a sort of picture which, l i kepictures in thetruesenseof theword. . . has nobusinessbeyond appealingto the eye. '

he decoration of buildings is promoted into the highest f o r mofrt: paint ing. The functionalbody, whether that of a person or auilding,on the other hand, cannot participate f u l l yin this visual

because it cannot escape its materiality. This gap building and decoration is maintained by a number of

organised by race, genderandclassdiscriminationssubordinate architecture by separating itf r o mitsaccesso

seemstohaveno problem placing architecture.Butclearly it is not so simple. The question of architecture's

because Kant's argument is not simplyto architecture. Rather, i t is put in place in terms of

itique begins w i t htwo architectural examples which it defines the fundamental disposition of aestheticThe f i r s tseparatestheaestheticeye f r o mthe eye ofreason

opposing the rational cognition of a building to takingdelight in thebuilding.' Theaestheticis detached f r o mrational knowledge it 'accompanies' and placed in a 'sepa

faculty' . The second employs the distinction between a palace and functional buildings l ike simple huts and

housesto establish aestheticdisinterest as a disinterest ince of an object, its purpose or utility.^'*Before we get

epts, we get architecture, one of the arts to which thets are later to be applied. But whydoesarchitecture figure

so insistently? In bothcases,the argument doesnotappearpend on architecture. Any of the arts could be used as an

aestheticeye defined in terms of architecThe appropriation of architcture has already occurred in the

explicit f o r m when it begins by describingf r o m which aesthetics is detached, i t sel fa decoration of thebuildingof A meta-metaphorics of architecture organises the

Architecturepasses between the preface, the introduction w i t h ease." It is not simply framed by

ace, it at once subverts and organises Kant'sReason is understood in terms of construction. Buildings

engage the eye of reason and so compromise the aesthetic eye. But that detachment is i t sel f precisely

ural detachment, detachment f r o m structure. I t cannot be i t sel fstructural.The structural art,

herefore not just another example. Aesthetic f r o mreasonand f r o m u t i l i ty are related through the

figure of a building. Building is not simply an example ofadherent beauty and the decoration ofbuilding an example offree beauty. The opposition is understood in terms of thatbetween building and decoration.=*'The separation between adherent and free is i t sel f understood as structural.Free beauty isdetached f r o m the reason and u t i l i ty on which it is necessarilysupported. Both reason and u t i l i ty are identified w i t h building.The text is organised around an opposition betweenbuildinganditsdecoration whose influence can be traced everywhere.

In the text, architecture is the l ink between the aesthetic eyeand the eye ofreason. It both maintains the gap between themand makes the analogy between them, the contractual 'agreement' that is thebasisof the th i rdcritique,possible. The visual isconstructed. Structure cannot be separated f r o mvision. Both theeye ofreason and theaesthetic eye are understood in structuralterms. Architecture is not simply placed in the visual, the visualis constructed on thebasisof architecture. The economies of thevisual are set up by a theory of architecture as decoratedstructure.

The critique attempts to control and exploit its architecturalexamples byoscillatingbetween establishing an argument on thebasisof architecture and applying that argument to architecturewithoutproducing asenseofcircularity.Architectureundergoesa curious reversal. In metaphysics, buildingis the model of idealstructure and decoration is the model of gratuitous materialseduction. Inaesthetics,buildingis the model ofinferiormaterial i tyand decoration the model of ideal detachment. This reversalis what allows the figure of architecture to pass between thedifferent domains. Both domains attempt to maintain a gapbetween building and decoration. The architectural figure isreversed by turning on this 'axis'.

Kant maintains this gap by splitting ornament, that which liesbetween the grounding of structure and the detachment ofdecoration, between presence and representation. Ornament is'only an adjunct and not an intrinsic constituent in the completerepresentation of the object' but, unlike decoration, it cannot becompletely detached f r o mthe workand understood as an objectin itself. It issplitintoformal 'beauty' and material 'charm' andcanonly 'augment' the workbymeansof its f o r m .

Semper undermines this framing of architecture by invertingthedistinction between highart and low art thatfollowsf r o m it.^ 'Heopposes'the perversity of modern artistic conditions, accordingtowhicha wide gap, unknown to the Greeks, separatesthe socalled smallarts f r o m the so-called high arts'.**This gap isbasedon the one between structure and decoration. Philosophy employs the traditional architectonic in subordinating craft asmerely'applied' but, forSemper,weaving, for example, is not an'applied' art. It is neither applied to something - itprecedesthatonwhichi t is propped - nor is it detached f r o msomethingelse -i tdoesnotprecedethe enclosure itestablishes.Weaving simplyoriginates as building." Semperbases his theory of architectureonthe low decorative arts rather than the monumentalhigh arts.

I n so doing, he inverts the traditional architectonic, subordinating structure to decoration by demonstrating that the 'false'accessories are the 'true' essenceof architecture. This inversionnecessarily distorts the economy of vision organised by thearchitectural trope inwhich what is seen on the outside articulates someinnerunseeable truth.

. . . even where solidwalls become necessarythey remainonly the inner and unseen structure for the true andlegitimate representatives of the spatial idea: namely, themore orless ar t i f i c i a l l ywoven and seamed-together,textilewalls . . . the visible spatial enclosure.''

The truth of architecture is located in its visible outside. TheRoman substitution of unpainted coloured materials for theGreek use of coloured paint, which lets the material 'speakfor


9/13

i t s e l f is condemned as alossof the greek conviction 'that innercontent should conform to outer beauty.' The inside submits tothe authority of the exterior. The 'true' w a l l is its visible' a r t i f i c i a l 'surface. The'invisible'structure is secondary. Everything is reversed to the extent that 'naked architecture' , theabsenceof a coat of paint, is described as a 'disguise'.Having inverted the architectonic. Semper then subverts thegap that divides ornament by undermining the distinction between f o r m and colour. As part of the inversion, he privilegescolour over f o r m , by arguing that it came f i r s t , but thenradically complicates the distinction between them. Since Kantsplits ornament in order to sustain the account of architecturearound which the pure vision of both philosophy and art areorganised, Semper'sfrustration of thesplitnecessarily promotesa differentvisuality. In countering the aestheticians who arguethat applied colour 'must confuse the forms and pamper the eye'heargues that the 'visible w a l l '

brings the eye back to the natural way of seeing, which itlostunder the sway of that mode of abstraction that knowsprecisely how toseparatethe visible and inseparable qualities of bodies, the color f r o m theform.****

Once f o r m cannot be separated f r o m colour, the figure ofarchitecture is displaced. The visuality Semper describes is soentangled wi th a sensuality that cladding materials are analysedin terms of theirfeel, their tact i l i ty , and smellbecomespart ofhe essence of a bu ildi ng .T he 'visible spatial enclosure', thesurface texture that constitutes the architecture of the mask, isroduced by this convolution of vision and sensuality.''* A r c h i -ecture no longer simply occupies the visual. Its sensuality is notscreenedof f in the nameof the uncontaminated eye.Visuality is construction of necessarily sensuous social transactions.''' The

impurity itself.ccupationStrategies is in the context of this displacement of the visual that Leorbusier's appropriation of low culture has to be rethought.''"

convolution of the relationship between the everyday object visuality. In the middle of The Decorative Art of Today,

identified as the new decorative art and the question 'where is architecture?' is reformulated: 'Canspeakof the architecture of decorative art, and consider

of permanent value?' The text attempts to c l a r i f y the question separating art f r o m decorative art and placing them in aThe Permanent value of decorative art? Let us say moreexactly,of the objects that surround us . This is where weexercise our judgement: f i r s t of all the Sistine Chapel,afterwards chairs and f i l i n gcabinets; withoutdoubt this is aquestion of the secondary level, just as the cut of a man'ssuitis of a secondary importance in his l i f e .Hierarchy. Firstof all the Sistine Chapel, that is to say works t ru ly etchedw i t hpassion. Afterwards machines forsitting in, forf i l i n g , 'for l i g h t i ng , type-machines, the problem ofpurification,ofcleanliness, of precision, before the problem of poetry.''' in the aesthetic tradition, art is supported on the utilitarian

whichcome 'before' it butwhich are secondary to it .Arta supplement, af o r mof decoration. Butherethebaseobject is

decorative art. While the model of decorative art is yetman's jacket', the model for art, the Sistine

clothing ofspace.The opposition between them is betweenforms of decoration, two forms of clothing of the object. Inthe difference between them is social. It is a choice between

'mirror' of decorative art or the individual 'mirror' art.Architecture cannot simply be placed in either domain.

LeCorbusier always identifies architecture w i t hboth: 'Architecture is there, concerned w i t h our home, our comfort, and ourheart. Comfort and proportion.Reason andaesthetics. Machineand plastic f o r m . Calm and beauty.'" The question of architecture's place is not answered. The text is unable to simply placearchitecture w i t h i nits own categories.

The same enigma can be found throughout Le Corbusier'sw r i t i n g . The opening of his most famous text: Towards anArchitecture, for example attempts to place architecture bysplitting it f r o m engineering. But the division is immediatelyconfused. On the one hand, architecture exceeds engineering:'ARCHITECTURE is a thing of art, a phenomenon of theemotions l y i n g outside questions of construction and beyondthem''^ but on the other hand, 'engineers produce architecture'.Nevertheless, it is precisely in the face of this displacement ofthe institutionalpractices of architectural discourse by engineering that the possibility of architecture, the 'essential surplus', isannounced:

Nevertheless, there does exist this thing called A R C H I -TECTURE . . . Architecture is in the telephone and in theParthenon. How easily it could be at home in ourhouses "

These overlooked sentences f r o m the beginning of the f i r s tchapter of probably the mostinfluentialtext in twentieth centuryarchitectural discourse atonce raise and complicate the questiono fthe place of architecture. Architecture is i t sel fhoused. It has ahome. But more than that, ithousesitself. The new architectureo f the telephone inhabits the old. The sentences involve morethan just a juxtaposition of high and low art. Its not that thetelephone is now to be thought of as abeautifulobject availableforappropriation by the detached eye. Rather, the Parthenon hasto be thought of as a system of communication l i ke the telephone. And the telephone has to be thought of as a meansofproduction ofspace l i ke the Parthenon. The telephone, l i ke allsystemsof communication, defines a new spatiality and can beinhabited.It is the modern equivalent of the carpet. L i k ethe coato fpaint, it is af o r mof clothing that can be occupied. But not bysome pre-existing culture. It is a new language that producesrather thanrepresentsmodern culture. The telephone institutes anew community in the same way as the carpet instituted thef a m i l y .

In Semper'smodel, the idea of the individualcanonlyemergew i t h i n theinstitutionof domesticity. The interior of the body isproduced for thef i r s ttime when its surface is marked inresponsetothedefinitionof theinterioritythat is thef a m i l ywhichis itselfconstituted by the construction of the textured surface that is thehouse.The idea of aspeaker w i t h an interiorl i f e only emergesw i t h i n language. Interiorityis not simply physical. It is a socialeffectmarked on the newly constituted body of the individual.

Just as the language of the carpet produces the speakingsubject in need of representation through clothing, the newmeans of communication produce a new individual in need ofself-definitionin art. Art being, for Le Corbusier, the mark of theindividual.It is the systems of representation detached f r o m thephysical definition of interior that constitute shelter and makepossible the 'inner l i f e ' he repeatedly identifies as the goal ofarchitecture: 'the human spirit is more at home behind ourforeheads than beneath g i l t and carved baldacchios.' "' Home isan effect of the appropriate decorative art, the art that is, bydefinition, 'something that only touches the surface'. Enclosureis a surface effect.Whilearchitecture is housing, the productionof shelter, this is, for Le Corbusier, as i t would later be forHeidegger, primarily a question of representation.

The terminology employed today is no longer exact. Theword 'architecture' is today more understandable as an ideathan as a material fact; 'architecture': to order, to put inorderJ^

91


10/13

Architectureconstructs throughclassification.The lines it drawsare not simply material. Rather, they are the framing,the 'look'ofdifferentsystemsof representation. The whitewash is but onesuch system. It cannot simply be placed in either equipment orart because it is the mechanism for making the distinctionbetween them. It is a system of classificat ion defined in itsintersection wi th other systems, each of which reframes theothers. The traditionallookof the whitewash, the l i m i tconditionof the painted w a l l , is transformed by its interaction w i t h newsystems.

The whitewash is inserted into the gap between the bodies ofstructure and decoration in order to construct a space forarchitecture which is neither simply bodily or theoretical. Itoccupies the gap in the architectural metaphor that organisestraditional accounts ofvision. An immaterial fabricwhichtracesthe convoluted lines stitching the tactile and the visual, itsvisualityis not that of either theory oraesthetics.The whitewashis produced where the visual cannot be simply detached f r o m thesensualandeachis transformed: 'Our handreachesout to it [themodern object] and our senseof touch looks in its own way asout fingers close around it. ' * Architecture is compacted into the

recording device onwhich other textualities are registered, andw i t h which they are accommodated.

Architectureis to be found inthesenew textiles. Itrespondstotransformations in the systems of communication - railway,automobile, aeroplane, radio, camera, cinema and telephonebefore itresponds to the objects of industrialised everyday l i f e . 'LeCorbusier reinterprets the whitewash of vernacular culture interms of these contemporary mechanisms, new languages thatappear to operate increasingly independently of buildings. LeCorbusierplaces architecture w i t h i n systemsthat do not require'a structural prop. The whitewash dematerialises buildingin orderto make a space for them, a space for new spacings, newsensualities. It is a double gesture. Architecture accommodatesthe new systemsand is, at thesamet ime, accommodated w i t h i nthem.

Because it is the gesture of placing, architecture has nointrinsic place: 'Where does architecture belong? In everything ''" It can only be placed by a specific architecture, anensembleof representational techniques which preservespecificinstitutional agendas. Architecture's placement by philosophyinvolves such an architecture. Le Corbusier 's arguments about

Si Ta quesHuii dcrortiitmfnUf- spinMecofte niiedanscrisdoln fnule,lesgcrbes dcsfaux d'arUfices. esjinMsdc piatrodur jirccdre unc place imyortaale an sd n dcnospraceiipatinns

L TO R PAGE FROM THE DECORATIVE ART OF TODAY THE BAR R EL OF DIOGENES

thickness of the mask where thissensuousvisionoperates.The eye of the whitewash, l ikethe decorative art of thepast,is

a system of representation. Suchsystems changeas technologiesare transformed. Modernity is the production of new ways oflookingbefore it is the production of new forms. Le Corbusierfinds a 'new vision' in low art industrialised buildings whicharchitecture, as a high art, a visual art in the traditionalsense,resists. The newvision is sustained by the thickness of paint intowhich architecture is collapsed, Semper's 'non-bodily surface'between inside and outside. Flattened, it is pure image, a twodimensional projection of modern l i f e .The whitew a l lis ascreenon which culture is projected: 'The white of whitewash isabsolute: everything stands out f r o m it and is recorded absolutely, black on white; it is honest and dependable.'" It is a

whitewash can be understood as a critique of that architecturewhich mobilises new techniques. They translate Semper's argument in the face of the emerging twentieth century systemsofrepresentation, displacing architecture by subverting the accountof architecture w i t h which philosophyorganisesvisualitybeforei tplacesarchitecture w i t h i nthe visual. Displacing the contractual lybound visions of bothhighart and philosophy, Le Corbusiersketchesnot so much a new k i n dof objectw i t ha particular look,but an architecture by which the institution of architecturaldiscourse can occupy the decorative art of today, the sensuousspace of telecommunication - an architecture after philosophyand invisible to its art-historical servants.

Butfor thepresentwe are most certainly not in the agora ofthe philosophers: we are only dealing w i t h decorative art."

92


11/13

Notes

The research for this paper was carried out under a fel lowsh ip at theChicago Institute for Architecture and Urbanism.

1 Le Corbusier,The Decorative Art of Today, transJamesDunnet, MI TPress,Cambridge, 1987, p xi x. [translationshave been m o d i f i e d ]

2 i b i d , p 188.3 i b i d , p 192.4 Most critics not only do not address Le Corbusier's theories about

whiteness, but they do not even refer to the whiteness of the projects,even in the most exhaustive accounts of the early vi l l as ,such as TimBenton's The Viilas of Le Corbusier. Often elaborate argumentsabout Le Corbusier's use of colour are made but they ignore thestatusof whi t e .The whitewash is so taken for granted that it usuallyonly comesup by way of negation. Curtis, for example,discusses thew ay in w h i c h the later Le Corbusier l e f t behind 'the image of thewhi te , machine-age box' ( 'Le Corbusier: Nature and T r a d i t i o n ' , inLe Corbusier: Architect of the Century, Ar t s Cou nci l , London, 1987,p 20.) and Frampton talks of the resistance to t h i n k i n g of LeCorbusier outside the 'Purist-machinist v i s i o n ' of 'the white modern

whitewash f r o mL Esprit Nouveau that were reframed inTiie Decorative Art of Today to explain Le Corbusier's interest in the indust rialvernacular but hegoeson to dismiss The Decorative Art of Today as'a polemical w o r k of only local interest'(TAeocy and Design in theFirst Machine Age, M I TPress,Cambridge, 1960, p. 248).

5 Georges Vi g a r e l l o , Concepts of Cieanliness: Changing Attitudes inFrance since theMiddieAges, trans Jean B i r r e l l , Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge, 1988, p 231.

6 Le Corbusier, op cit, p 189.7 i b i d , p 189.8 i b i d , p 190.9 A d o l f Loos, 'Ladies Fashion', in Spoicen into the Void: Coliected

Essays 1897-1900, trans JaneO. Newman and John H . Smith, MITPress, Cambridge, 1982, p.102. cf.'The lower the cultura l l evel ofpeople, the more extravagant it is w i t h its ornament, its decoration. ..Toseekbeauty only inf o r mand not in ornament is the goal towardw h i c h all humanity is s t r iv ing . ' A d o l f Loos, 'The L u x u r y Vehicle',Spoicen into the Void: Collected Essays 1897-1900, p 40.10 'Decoration: baubles, charming entertainment fo r a savage. . . It

LT OR I N T E R N A T I O N A L T E L E P H O N E N E T W O R K ; OL DC L O T H E S F R O M THE DECOR TIVE ART OF TOD Y

architecture of the f i r s t ha l fof the twentieth century' ('The Other LeCorbusier: P r i m i t i v e Form and the Linear Ci ty 1929-52', in LeCorbusier: Architect of tlie Century, p 29.) Those who refer to thewhiteness do so in passing, employing the unquestioned rhetoric ofthe neutral surface whi l emaking other points. Some br i ef ly ident i fythe whiteness w i t h the mediterranean vernacular. Curtis , fo r example, refers to the 'stark white forms, a purist version of thevernacular' ( W i l l i a m J. R. Curtis,Le Corbusier: Ideas and Forms,R i z z o l i , New Y o r k , 1986,p 67.) It is in aseriesintended forreadersoutside architecture that this point assumes the most importance.Gardiner argues that Le Corbusier's whit e walls was as important asany other factor in making him the 'leader' of modern architecture.QuotingThe Decorative Art of Today on thepresenceof whitewashin all mature vernacular culture, he compares the aesthetic l inksbetween the buildings in a mediteranean vil lage to the l inks betweenthe buildings of modern architecture: 'whitewash was also a visualbond between the buildings of the island villages; l ike the bareessentialsthat h o l dpeople together, whitewash was a bond that heldaesthetics together... Thus white became the bond between LeCorbusier's early buildings. In consequence, it became the bondbetween all the European architectural modern movements of the1920s and 1930s,white was the theme that held the total picture together.' (Stephen Gardiner, Le Corbusier, The V i k i n g Press, NewY o r k , 1974, p 40.) Banham cites somepassagesof dealing w i t h the

seemsj u s t i f i e d to a f f i r m :the more cultivated apeople becomes, themore decoration disappears, (surely it was Loos who put it soneatly).' Le Corbusier, ib id p 85. 'elsewhere, around 1912, Looswrote that sensational article. Ornament and Crime,. . .', i b i d , pi34.

11 cf. Beatris Colomina, L Esprit Nouveau, Archite cture andPubiicite , Architecture production, Princeton ArchitecturalPress,1988. p 77. Stanislaus von Moos, 'Le Corbusier and Loos ', Assemblage 4. 1987, p 25-38.

1 2 A d o l f Loos, 'Ornament and Crime', trans W i l f r e d Wang in TheArchitecture of Adolf Loos, Ar t s Cou nci l , 1985, p 100.

13A d o l f Loos, 'Architecture 1910', trans W i l f r e d Wang inThe Architecture of Adolf Loos, p 104.

14For expl i c i t references to the Law of Ripolin in recent scholarship,see: L i o n Murand and Patrick Sylberman's entry 'Decor (1925): I Is'agit d'une epaisseur deblanc' inLe Corbusier, une encyclopedic,CentreGeorges Pompidou, 1987, 116-1 18; and Bruno R e i c h l i n , 'Lapetite maison' a Corseaux. Uneanalyse structurale', inLe Corbusiera Geneve 1922-1932: Projets et Realisations, Payot, Lausanne,1987, p 119-134.

15Belcleidung is being rendered hereas 'dressing' f o l l o w i n gMallgraveand Herrmann's translation rather than Newman and Smith's translat ion as 'cladding'. For the respective notes on this issue, seeG o t t f r i e d Semper, The Four elements of Architecture and otherWridngs, trans Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann,

93


12/13

Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1989, p 293. and A d o l fLoos, Spoken into tiie Void, p 139.

16A d o l fLoos, 'Principle of Dressing', Spoken into tlie Void: CollectedEssays 1897-1900, p 67.

17ibid, p67.18Mallgrave and Herrmann usePeterBehrens' (for whom Le Corbusier

i n i t i a l l yworked) rejection ofSemperin a 1910essayas marking thedetachment of twentieth century architectural discourse f r o m Semper. This detachment followedthe misreading ofSemperby arthisto-rians, even though it had already been set up by Otto Wagner'sdisplacement ofSemper'sconcepts inModern Arciiitecture. Behrenscites A l o i sRiegel's reading ofSemperto dismiss his thought. On thesuccessivemisreadings ofSemper w i t h i narchitectural and arthis tori-cal discourse, see: Magaret Ivenson, 'Riegel Versus Semper',Daida70s29, 1988, 46-49; Michael Podro, Tlie Critical Historians ofArt, Yale Universit yPress, New Haven, 1982, p 44-55; RosemarieHaag Bletter, 'On M a r t i n Frochlich's Gottfried Semper', Oppositions 4, 1974, p 146-153; and Wolfgang Herrmann, Gottfried Semper: In Search of Architecture, MI TPress, Cambridge, 1984.

9Gottfried Semper, 'Preliminary Remarks on Polychrome Architecture', inThefour Elements ofArchitecture and other Writings, p52.

0GottfriedSemper, 'Style: The TextileA r t ' , inThe Four Elements ofArchitecture and other Writings, p 254.

1GottfriedSemper, 'The Four Elements ofArchitecture', inThe FourElements ofArchitecture and other Writings, p 104.

2 'The art of dressing the body's nakedness ( if we do not count theornamental painting ofone'sownskindiscussed above) is probably alater invention than the use of covering for encampments and spatialenclosures.' 'Style: The Textile art ', p 254. 'tribes in an early stageo f their development apply their budding artistic instinct to thebraiding and weaving ofmats and covers (even when they s t i l l goaround completely naked).' 'The Four Elements of Architec ture' , p103.

3GottfriedSemper, 'Style: the TextileA r t ' ,p 257.4 The artist must not 'violate the material to meet halfway an artistic

intent that demands the impossible f r o m the material.' GottfriedSemper, 'Style: Prolegomenon', p 189.

5 'Maskingdoesnot help, however whenbehind the mask the thing isfalse or the mask is no good. In order that the material, theindispensable (in the usual sense of the expression) be completelydenied in the artistic creation, its complete mastery is the imperativeprecondition. Only by complete technical perfect ion, by judiciousand proper treatment of the material according to its properties, andbytakingtheseproperties into considerationwhilecreating f o r mcanthe material be forgotten,...'Gottfried Semper, 'Style: The TextileA r i ' , p 257.

6 'Buthaveyou ever noticed the strangecorrespondence between theexterior dressof people and the exterior of buildings? ...But do ourcontemporary houses correspond w i t h our clothes?' A d o l f Loos,'Architecture 1910'.

7A d o l fLoos, 'Principle of Dressing', p 66.8Gottfried Semper, 'Style; vol. 1', p. 445. cited by Henry Francis

Mallgrave, 'Gottfried Semper:Architecture and the PrimitiveHut',Reflections 3(1), Fall 1985, p 65.

9Gottfried Semper, 'Preliminary Remarks on Polychrome Architecture',p 59.0Le Corbusier, The Decorative Art of Today, p 188. cf. 'The time ispastwhen we...can lounge on ottomans and divans among orchids inthe scented atmosphere of a seraglio and behave l ike so manyornamental animals or humming-birds in impeccable evening dress,pinnedthrough the trunkl i k eacollectionofbutterfliesto theswathesofgold,lacquer or brocade on ourwall-panellingand hangings', ib id ,p 192.

1Le Corbusier, Towards an Architecture, trans Frederick Etchells,John Rodker, London,1931,p 138. (translationshave beenmodified)

2 i b i d , p 143.3 For example, Le Corbusier, Towards anArchitecture, p 95.4 Le Corbusier, TheDecorative Art of Today, p 54.

cf Beatris Colomina, ' L Esprit Nouveau, Architecture andPub7icite .

TheDecorative Art of Today, p 72.cf. Osenfant, for whom white is thenecessaryframe against which

colour is seen: London requuires linen collars. The old Londonarchitects provided whites. Why have they been almost totallyabandoned?', 'Colour and Method',Architectural Review, vol 81, p90.

The role of white linen is crucial to the concept of cleanliness.Viagarello traces how the wearing of white fabric constitutedcleanliness before the body i t s e l f was cleaned. Georges Vigarello,Concepts of Cleanliness: Changing Attitudes in France since theMiddle Ages.

38Even his earliest readings of the vernacular whitewash understand i tas decorative: 'its whitearcades bring comfort, and the three greatwhitewashed walls, whichare paintedeachspring, make ascreen asdecorative as the background of Persian ceramics.' Le Corbusier,Journey to theEast, trans IvanSaknic, M I TPress, Cambridge, 1987.

39 Le Corbusier,TheDecorative Art ofToday, p 23.40 Gratuitous decoration not onlycovers over flaws in the structure of

the object, it also covers over flaws in the structure of contemporaryl i f e : 'Then background noise to f i l l in the holes, the emptiness.Musicalnoise, embroidered noise or batiked noise.' i b i d ,p 30.

41Architecture has another meaning and other ends to pursue thanshowing construction and responding to needs'. Towards anArchitecture, p 110The Parthenon isseenas a climax of the gradualpassage ' f r o mconstruction to architecture', i b i d , p 139.

42This masking is often crit icised as a departure f r o m the rigoroustheory of modern architecture in order to sustain thecriticalideal oftransparency to the essential statusof an object. Kenneth Framptondescribes the way the early villas 'masqueraded as white, homogenous, machine-made forms,whereas they were in fact b u i l tofconcrete block -work held in place by a reinforced concrete frame. 'Modern Architecture: A Critical History, Thames and Hudson,London, 1985, 248. Here, the theory is understood to be preciselythat of the necessity of such amasquerade.Likewise, John Winterargues that, in the early 'white stucco boxtradition', 'the feel of themachine-made was more image than reali ty . . . all stuccoed andpainted to try to give it the precision of machine products . . .traditional buildings decorated to look machine-made . . . themachine-age image.' in 'Le Corbusier's Technological Dilemma' , inRussell Walden ed.The Open Hand: Essays on Le Corbusier, MITPress,Cambridge, 1977, p 326. Here, the reality of the machine-ageisunderstood to be image.

43 The human-limb object is a docile servant. A good servant is discreetand self -ef fac ing in order to leave his master free.' Le Corbusier,The Decorative Art of Today, dec 79. cf.A d o l fLoos: 'Rather, it is aquestion of beingdressedin a way that standsout theleast', 'Men'sFashion', in Spoken into the Void: Collected Essays 7597-1900, p.11 'Primitiveman had todifferentiatethemselves by various colours,modern manneeds his clothes as a mask,' 'Ornament and Crime' , p102.

44 Le Corbusier, The Decorative Art ofToday, p 114.45 i b i d ,p 76.46 i b i d ,p 77.47 i b i d ,p 163. 'feeling dominates. . .Reasongives feeling thepurified

meansi tneedstoexpress i t s e l f i b i d , p 168.48GottfriedSemper, 'Style: Prolegomenon', p 194.49i b i d , p 194.50 'What is the purpose of this constant separation anddifferentiationthat characterises ourpresent theory of art? Would it not be better

and more useful tostressthe ascending and descending integration ofa work into its surroundings and w i t h its accessories, rather thanalways to distinguish and divide? . . . must we again rob it of itsaccessories?' Gottfried Semper, 'The Four Elements of Archi tecture', p 89.

51ibid, p 102.52 'In architecture thechiefpoint is a certain use of the artistic object to

which,as thecondition,theaesthetic ideasare l i m i t e d ... adaption ofthe product to a particular use is the essential element in a workofarchitecture.' Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement, trans JamesCreed Meredith,OxfordUniversityPress,London, 1952, p 183.

53 i b i d , p 188.54 'Much might be added to abuilding that would immediatelyplease

the eye, were it not intended for a church. A figure might beidentifiedw i t h all manner of flourishes and l i g h tbut regular lines, as


13/13

isdone by the NewSealanders w i t h their tattooing, were wedeaUngw i t hanything but the figure of a human being. Andhereis one whoserugged features might be softened and given a more pleasing aspect,onlyhe has got to be a man, or is,perhaps,a warrior that has tohavea warlike appearance.', i b i d ,p 73.

55 'To apprehend a regular and appropriate building w i t h one'scognitive faculties, be the mode of representation clear or confused, isquite a differentthing f r o m being conscious of this representationw i t h an accompanying sensation of delight.' i b i d ,p 42.

56 I f any one asksme whether thepalaceI see before me isbeautiful,Imay,perhaps,reply that I do notcare for things of that sort that aremerelymadeto be gaped at. Or I may reply in thesame strain as thatIroquois Sachem who said that nothing in Paris pleased him betterthan the eating-houses. I may go astepfurther and inveigh w i t h thevigour of a Rousseau against the vanity of the great who spend thesweat of the people on such superfluous things. Or, in fine, I mayquite easilypersuagemyself that if I foundmyselfon an uninhabitedisland, without hope of ever again coming among men, and couldconjure such apalaceinto existence by a mere wish,I should s t i l lnottrouble to do so, so long as I had a hut there that was comfortableenough for me. A l l this may be admitted and approved; onlyit is notthe point now at issue. Al l one wants to know is whether the mererepresentation of the object is to my l i k i n g ,no matter howindifferent

may be to the real existence of the object of this representation.'i b i d ,p 43.

57 Bearing in mind the entanglement of architecture, institution, andpreface: 'There has never been an architecture without preface'

'The preface is not aninstitutional phenomenon amongst others. Itpresents i tsel f as an institution through and through; the institutionpar excellence.' Jacques Derrida, '52 Aphorisms for a fore word' ,trans Andrew Benjamin,Deconstruction: Omnibus Volume, Academy Editions, London, 1989, 67-69. See Derrida's reading of thet hr id critique: 'The Parergon', inThe Truth inPainting, trans GeoffBenningtonand Ian McCleod, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1988,p 37-82.

58 The opening opposition between thefunctionalhut and the decoratedpalacewhichestablishes aestheticdisinterest punctuates the body ofthe text: ' W i t h a thing that owes its possibil ity to a purpose, abuilding or even an animal, its regularity,which consists in symmet ry,mustexpresstheunityof the in tu i t i on accornpanying the conceptof its end, and belongs w i t h it to cognition. But where al l that isintended is the maintenance of a free play of the powers ofrepresentation...inornamentalgardens,in the decoration of rooms, inal l kinds of furniture that shows good taste, etc, regularity in theshape of constraint is to be avoided as far as possible . . . Al ls t if fregularity . . . is inherently repugnant to taste.' Immanuel Kant,Critique of Judgement, p 88.

59 'Before this separation our grandmothers were indeed not membersof the academy of fine arts or album collectors or an audience foraesthetic lectures, but they knew what to do when it came todesigning an embroidery. There's the rub ', Gottfried Semper,'Style:The TextileA r t ' ,p 234.

60GottfriedSemper, 'Style: Prolegomenon', p 184.61'I t remains certain tliat tlie origin of huiiding coincides with the

beginning of textiles. GottfriedSemper, 'Style: The Textile Ar t' , p

254.62i b i d ,p 255.63 '. . . it ranks among the earliest of a ll inventionsbecausethe instinct

forpleasure, as it were, inspired man.Delightin color was developedearlier than delight in f o r m . . .', i b i d ,p 234.

64Gottfried Semper, 'Preliminary Remarks on Polychrome Archi tecture', p 61 .

65 'To complete the image of an orientalresidence one has to imaginethe costly furnishings of gold-plated couches and chairs, divans,candelabras, all kinds of vases, carpets, and the fragrance of in cense.' Gottfried Semper, 'Structural Elements of Assyrian-ChaldeanArchitec ture ', trans Wolfgang Herrmann, Gottfried Semper: InSearch ofArciiitecture, 216.Semper cites Bruno Kaiser on speculative aesthetics: ' I ff o r m , colour, and quantity can only be properlyappreciated after they have been sublimated in a test tube ofcategories, i f the sensual no longer makes sense, i f the body (as inthis aesthetics) must f i r s tcommit suicide to reveal itstreasures-doesthis not deprive art of the basis for its independent existence?' ,'Style: Prolegomenon', p 194.

66In the play between the visual and the tactile in A d o l f Loos, seeBeatris Colomina, 'Int imacy and Spectacle: Constructions of theModern Subject' a paper presented at the Chicago Insti tute forArchitecture and Urbanism conference on architectural theory in1988,forthcomingi nA A FUes 19, Spring 1990.

67Semper recovers the sensuality of the sign rejected by Kant. ForKant, clothing and the decoration of buildings are become language.W i t h the passage of civilisation, this 'work of communication'

becomes independent of the body of the building and the body ofman. While the aesthetic interest in the decorative depends on thisindependence, it is precisely not an interest in decoration as conventional language as, fo r Kant , language is i tsel futilitarian. The socialreappropriates the decorative (that which is detached f r o m purpose)as purposive. Semper describes architecture as language and embraces the social as sensual.

68 On Le Corbusier's transformation of thestatusof the artwork inmassculture, see: Beatris Colomina, L Esprit Nouveau, Architecture andPubiicite. ; and Stanislaus von Moos,Le Corbusier: Elements of aSynthesis, trans-JamesDunnett, Cambridge, 1979.

69Le Corbusier, The Decorative Art of Today, p 76.70 'Theworkof art, the l i v i n gdouble' of a being, whether s t i l lpresent,

or departed, or unknown; that f a i t h f u l mirror of an individualpassion' i b i d , p 118.versus the decorative art 'i nwhichparticular isabsorbed in the general' , i b i d , p 121.

71ibid, p 137.72Le Corbusier, Towards anArchitecture, p 19.73 i b i d , p 15.74Le Corbusier, TheDecorative Art of Today, p 117.75Le Corbusier, Wiien the Catiiedrals Were White, trans Francis E .

Hyslop,Reynal and Hitchcock, 1947, p 202.76Le Corbusier, The Decorative Art of Today, p 112.77ibid, pl90.78 see Beatris Colomina, 'Le Corbusier and Photography', Assemblage

4, 1987, 7-24.79Le Corbusier, When the Cathedrals were White, p 118.80Le Corbusier, TheDecorative Art of Today, p 170.

wigley semper loos corbusier

Documents