4.645 – Spring 2017
Thuy Le
FIRST INTERIM EXAM
1. Museums
Museum is an interesting establishment that arose out of human’s inclination to collect. What distinguishes the mere physical sedimentation of objects and the museum is that the museum inevitably bears the ideology and agenda of its collector or curator. From the very early age of ‘organized collecting,’ the Wunderkammer was limited to the population that had the means for its creation and maintenance. Nineteenth century witnessed the advent of the museum, which was inseparably connected to political developments of the time. The French Revolution and the dawn of Romantic nationalism had enlightened Euporean monarchs opening up their collections to the public. This pronounced the role of collectors (of significance) as ‘educators’ of the general public and “arbiters of taste” (Macintosh, 2012).
The museum of Sir John Soane is a particularly useful example of a private collection turned museum. First of all, it contains all three types of artifact a museum might contain: “antiquity as it currently was,” “antiquity as it was in its perfection imagined to be,” and “antiquity as source” (Elsner, 1994). The museum is coupled with a series of descriptions serving to highlight the most precious artifacts contained in Soane’s rooms. The act of publishing these descriptions in consecutive editions clearly was to bring about a sense of official-ness to the collection. In this sense, the Soane Museum willingly took on the set of practices pertaining to the museum, which is to produce, organize, and structure knowledge. The fact that he negotiated an Act of Parliament in 1833 to preserve the house and collection exactly how it was at the time of his demise further bolsters this point about who gets to have a say about what is relevant enough to be conserved and how. In this case, it is antiquity and gifted architects of England who were following that tradition as Soane consciously set the view of London in the background, put the replicas of Roman, Greek, Istrian & Syrian monuments on top and those of Soanean buildings on the bottom. This also touches upon the issue of museums everywhere in years to come – the fabrication of a storyline and the breakdown of geographical distinction.
2. Picturesque gardens
From the end of seventeenth century, well-off British families prioritized spiritual and educational advancements, thanks to the increasing independence politically and economically from the royal court. The Grand Tour flourished as a custom in this era: “wealthy young Englishmen began taking a post-Oxbridge trek through France and Italy in search of art, culture and the roots of Western civilization” (Gross, 2008). The key aspect of it was exposure to classical antiquity and the Renaissance. Since museums were not yet widespread in Europe before the turn of nineteenth century, the noblemen on the Grand Tour frequently got access to paintings and sculptures throught private collections and many of them were enthusiastic to procure items for their own. The Roman campagna and its Arcadian beauty as portrayed by Claude Lorraine and Nicolas Poussin proved to be a huge influence on the contemporary landscape gardening. The eighteenth century witnessed the surge in popularity of more natural garden settings over the stringent geometric layouts. As architecture gained popularity as an aristocratic pursuit, the Grand Tour-educated Englishmen were inclined to incorporate what they studied about Palladian villas or Roman ruins into their own creations. The fondness for free-growing nature and the reference-laden elements scattered in the landscape were testaments to the wish to assume the culture-arbitrating role traditionally fulfilled by the royal court.
If the picturesque garden in England was the snob’s paradise, America took a somewhat approach to this business. A significant figure was Frederick Law Olmsted, whose opinion was that his work was at a much larger scale than ‘gardening.’ His urban park designs were meant to be a respite for the citizens from city life. A sense of civilization and civic engagement was pursued in that Olmsted aspired to see “the privileges of the garden […] enjoyed about equally by all classes” (Olmsted, 1859). From Central Park’s ingenious organization of different traffic to Emerald Necklace’s engineering solution for sewage-infested mud flats, there is a shift from the focus on aesthetics to a more utilitarian approach to the practice of the garden. It was, however, emphasized to retain the ideals of the harmony in the garden, in this case, some sense of civilizing the tensions of the industrial society.
3. Power
Foucault’s reading of power focuses on knowledge: knowledge or lack thereof generates power dynamics; at the same time, power regulates knowledge through molding knowledge to fit its agenda. It is worthwhile to note that, to Foucault, both power and knowledge are “de-centralised, relativistic, ubiquitous, and unstable” (Clegg et al, 2011).
Take Bentham’s Panopticon as the subject. We all know the iconic setup: watchtower at the center surrounded by tiers of cells arrayed circularly. In this case, it is the knowledge of presence or the lack of such knowledge that plays out the power dynamic. The supervisor cannot effectively oversee all the cells at once but since the inmates cannot tell whether he is looking or if he is not there, they assume themselves to be observed. In this way, the behavior responds to architecture but it would not be apt to claim that architecture determines behavior. We can see this through both the ‘supervisor’ and the ‘inmate.’ Foucault duly noted, “[…] any individual, taken at almost random, can operate the machine” and “it does not matter what motive animates him: the curiosity of the indiscreet, the malice of a child, the thirst for knowledge of a philosopher who wishes to visit this museum of human nature, or the perversity of those who take pleasure in spying and punishing.” If the observer’s motives do not change the effects of power, it is certainly not possible to make claims about the architecture dictateing his/her behavior. On the other hand, the very same architecture of the Panopticon, in the case of a change in the “advances of power,” would give rise to a totally different ‘fate:’ “[…] the incompetent prison governor or workshop manager will be the first victims of an epidemic or a revolt” (Foucault, 1977).
It is especially clear when we consider the concept with a different example: the slave quarters at Monticello. The plantation system, with its master and slave distinction, gave forms to the mansion that housed both. Jefferson had his servants “tucked away” with the introduction of concealed passages. The act is supposed to render the slaves “invisible” and to retaint the “atmosphere of ease and relaxation” (Anthony, 1976). However, one cannot truly believe that these slaves were completely “invisible” because they are obscured from the view. Indeed, Jefferson depended on his servants to upkeep his properties. In that sense, the system of slavery and the slaves themselves to some extents exert this power over Jefferson – making him wrestle with the immorality of slavery and its necessity in his life.
4. Technology
The two key characters of nineteenth century and early twentieth century architecture were the technological advancements in terms of new materials and construction methods as well as the agglomeration of historical styles.
Up to this point, wood and stone were the primary building materials available to architects. Industrial age introduced iron and concrete. These materials distinguished themselves from wood and stone in that they were manufactured using industrial processes with the potential to be massproduced while the latter were involved in processes largely menial. The rise of metal construction marked a significant point where form and structure did not necessarily coincide. In contrast to the massiveness of masonry that clearly indicated which element was under load and which was exerting load; linear, thin members defined iron construction. This meant a shift from the solid, sturdy, and closed mason building towards the linear, articulated, and open frame. Iron, and subsequently steel, also enabled buildings to become taller, with much larger spans, and more flexible ground plans. Glass combined with iron or steel frames can render the whole roof or wall transparent. Reinforced concrete, emerging at the turn of the century, united the tensile strength of metal with the compressive strength of stone. As with architects since Alberti, architects of this era were relatively out of touch with the construction of buildings they designed. Hence, they deferred to engineers. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, architecture and engineering have separated into distinct professions with their own trainings. This had implications to the profession of architecture in that there were opinions speculating the eclipse of architects by the engineer builders. Anatole de Baudot, at the International Congress of Architects in 1889, expressed one instance of such opinion: “For a long time the influence of the architect has declined, and the engineer, I'homme moderne par excellence, is beginning to replace him.”
The early examples of large-scale iron construction were suspension bridges – architects did not build these, engineers did. And then large greenhouses were constructed by gardeners and horticulturists with cast-iron and glasswork. The most impressive example was the Crystal Palace, designed by Joseph Paxton for the 1851 International Exhibition in London. Paxton was a gardener by profession and his building was prefabricated then assembled onsite. The size of it was colossal – 1,848 feet long and 408 feet wide, including two large towers and numerous fountains. But the fact that it was modular and pre-fabricated meant that it could have been built out much further if needed. This situation presented the architect/designer with a new concern: where is the place for classical ratios in an open building system. On the other hand, the Crystal Palace also signifies a different set of concerns depending on how one looks at it. Pierre Francastel, amongst others, retrospectively noted that even though the new industrial civilization with its new materials was promising new architectural forms, new methods of construction, rather than new forms, were brought about. Neither cast iron nor concrete managed to define a form in the nineteenth century, as it was possible to mold them into different figures. Architects adorned steel structures – steel columns received capitals and pedestals like those of stone columns in historical precedents. Apart from that, the very principle of frames could be seen in its primitive form of the tent and its spectacular manifestation of the Gothic cathedrals – it almost as if the only thing new about the iron frame is how much cheaper it can be built. Besides the matter of form, which has never ceased to be a topic of interest in architecture, the question of styles was also controversial. In 1889, Gustav Eiffel designed the entrance to the 1889 World's Fair, now Eiffel Tower, as the tallest man-made structure at the time out of wrought iron lattice. The tower received its fair share of dissent from the art and architecture community. Around the same time, the Galerie des machines was erected for the Universal Exposition of 1889. The largest free span attempted then, the hall has light-looking structures that contradicted how the eyes were accustomed to solid stone arches.
The beginning of the twentieth century witnessed some liberation from literal reference of classical architecture. Architects like Le Corbusier embraced the advent of so-called Age of Machines and the marvelous engineered monuments of the previous century. The question of form, style, and function in relation to technology remains deeply, however. An example is the Erich Mendelsohn’s Einstein Tower at the Astrophysical Institute in Potsdam. A strong believer in the capacity of concrete to create freedom in architectural design, Mendelsohn had to wrestle with the realities of construction and ended up using stucco-covered brick in place of reinforced concrete for most of the above grade components of the building (James, 1994).
WORK CITED
Anthony, Carl. "The Big House and the Slave Quarters. Part I. Prelude to New World Architecture." Landscape 21.1 (1976): 8-19.
Clegg, Stewart R., et al. Strategy: theory and practice. Sage, 2011.
Elsner, John. "A collector's model of desire: the house and museum of Sir John Soane." The cultures of collecting (1994): 155-76.
Gross, Matt., "Lessons From the Frugal Grand Tour." New York Times 5 September 2008.
James, Kathleen. "Expressionism, Relativity, and the Einstein Tower." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 53.4 (1994): 392-413.
Macintosh, Fiona. “Museums, archives and collection.” Wiles, David, and Christine Dymkowski, eds. The Cambridge companion to theatre history. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Olmsted, F. L. Walks and Talks of an America farmer in England (Ist ed. 1852, 2nd ed. 1859, Ann Arbor) p. 51-3