In the “Myth of the Chicago School”, Bruegmann runs his audience through a timeline narrating the story of the term “Chicago School” and its “checkered history”. Through this essay, Bruegmann accentuates the power of language in architecture by throwing light upon the constantly changing perceptions of this phrase with respect to the modernist and the post-modernist eras. Bruegmann opens his argument by stating that the term “Chicago School” had a key position in molding the way the city of Chicago has been seen by the world. He further emphasizes that the questions of whether this term will perish, get deprived of its modernist overtones, or rebirth with its initial polemical overtones are yet to be answered [1]. Bruegmann introduces the first spotted use of this term by critic and author William Dean Howells in 1903. This phrase was used by Howells to describe a group of writers from Chicago who caught the essence of America’s large cities better than their respectable counterparts [2]. The term went through a fall post World War I but was revived in 1964 in “The Chicago School” by Mark Peisch. However, Bruegmann is able to showcase the power of language in architecture by following up with a juxtaposing definition of the term “Chicago School” that was gaining popularity simultaneously. Here, the audience gets a glimpse of Bruegmann’s own opinion as he strongly states that the term used by the European avant-garde architects were often “misleading and inaccurate” [3]. Bruegmann also highlights the open-mindedness and understanding amongst the community of architecture in terms of language ambiguity. He states that the goal of Hitchcock, Johnson and Giedion was to point out work that deserved appreciation but was forgotten. [4] Hence, by reviving these buildings, they justify the work of their avant-garde colleagues who received criticism for having deviated from history. Bruegmann proceeds to post World War II ideologies for the term “Chicago school” and elaborates the efforts of Carl Condit and the fact that he extends Giedion’s comparison of work from Chicago vs. European Modernist. This sort of descriptive timeline narration throws light upon the relation between architectural voice and the time/era. Bruegmann shows how the term had transformed into one that did not advocate for anonymous expression but embodied itself as artistry. The postmodern era shifted the focus of the umbrella the powerful decorative instinct that went into the buildings through the perspectives of differing architects such as Root, Burnham and Sullivan.
Finally, Bruegmann analyses the story of the “Chicago School” and concludes that since the term has had multiple varying meanings, it doesn’t have to be completely discarded. Bruegmann believes that, much like the terms “Gothic” and “baroque”, “Chicago school” will also become a standard term in history by either being overlaid with a variety of polemics or wearing off its negative tones. [5]
To support his arguments, Bruegmann adopts examples of multiple buildings that stand as evidence for his claims. One of the most prominent evidences that he dives upon is the Marquette Building. He displays the varying opinions of the term “Chicago School” by stating the juxtaposing ideas of Condit and Giedion. While Condit believes that the Marquette building falls under a “Chicago school style” due to its mainstream typical nature, Giedion praises its simplicity, proportions and “wide expanse of Chicago windows” [6]. Bruegmann dedicates an entire section of his essay to Condit’s description of the Marquette building. He underlines that Condit felt confident using “formal analysis” to depict the Marquette building as according to Condit, Chicago school architects such as Holabird and Roche were replacing existing historic styles and creating new architecture that was ahistorical in nature. [7] Bruegmann utilizes the Marquette building as an extended metaphor that provides evidence for his argument that the term “Chicago School” will always have varying perspectives and meanings over an extended span of time. To back up his written evidence, Bruegmann also makes use of paired pictures to show a pictorial comparison which enables the audience to not only understand his argument but also registering a visual aid for the same.
Bruegmann adopts ideologies and arguments from his colleagues and other fellow architects in order to assert his claims. He follows a structure that is easy for his audience to follow, that is, he summarizes the changing meanings of the term “Chicago School” while integrating his opinions and providing appropriate evidence to back up his opinions. He uses stimulating stylistic devices such as juxtaposition, imagery and diction that directs the readers to think from Bruegmann’s shoes without enforcing it upon them. By showing the diversity of opinions surrounding the term, Bruegmann devices a diplomatic conclusion stating that the Chicago School will survive, not just as a modernist perspective but also the newly discovered Marquette. His power of language incorporates stylistic devices, clear cut structure with pictorial references, vivid purpose along with a targeted audience whom he’s sure to gain the support of. He ends his essay with a punch line “The Chicago school is dead. Long live the Chicago School”. Readers are able to retain these statements as a gist of the entire essay as it has a ringing effect due to the juxtaposing ideas of each sentence. It symbolizes the recurring cycle of the term dying and rebirthing. Moreover, Bruegmann accentuates that the inventor of the term “Chicago school” did not claim mastery over the term. And over an extended time period, various architects have been able to incorporate their own voice into the term, hence making it one of a kind. Although Bruegmann doesn’t explicitly discuss much of his opinions, his tone and use of the language of architecture makes up an obvious formulation of his opinion, that is aided by good purpose and evidence.