Monday, May 23, 2022

Kenneth Frampton: “The Mask and the Face: Building vs Architecture”

Good afternoon. Considering the temperature in this room Ithink it would be a good idea to get started, even if it's a few minutes early. And the room is packed, it's so great to seethis room filled with people. This is the third lecture in the series onthe subject of the architectural facade. The remaining three lecturers will be takingplace after spring break. Following tonight's lecture, there would beAlexander [indiscernible], then followed by a husband and wife architectural office knownas ensemble from Madrid, and then we will finish the series with a lecture by DanielLeboskein. .

So so I would encourage you to keep your eyesposted for announcements about those lectures after spring break. Well, it is a distinct pleasure of mine tonightto be able to introduce our lecturer. Ken Frampton was I long time friend and myfirst employer. When I finished my undergraduate studies inNew York, Ken had received a commission to do a housing project in Brooklyn, which todayis known as Marcus Garvey Village. It was a groundbreaking project, I think itwas a test project for the viability of low rise, high density housing and it went onto I think receive quite a bit of accolade. It was exhibited in fact in the museum ofmodern art in New York back around 1973, '74, .

I believe. So very fortuitously I secured this positionas a kind of draftsman model builder for Ken Frampton, and the experience of working withhim that summer was I can tell you a formative one. Of. Kenneth Frampton was born in the United Kingdomand trained as an architect at the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London. After practicing for a number of years inthe United Kingdom and in Israel, he served as the editor of the British magazineArchitectural Design. .

In 1972–73 he was a Loeb Fellow at Harvard’sGraduate School of Design. Kenneth Frampton is currently the Ware Professorof Architecture at Columbia GSAPP, where he has taught since 1972. In addition to Columbia,Professor Frampton has taught at a number of leading institutions, including the RoyalCollege of Art in London, the ETH in Zurich,the Berlage Institute in Amsterdam, the EPFL in Lausanne,the Accademia di Architectura in Mendrisioand Princeton University. In the 1970s, he was instrumental in the developmentof the Institute for Architecture and Urban .

Studies in New York and a co founding editorof its magazine Oppositions. His essay “Towards a Critical Regionalism”of 1983 was seminal in defining architectural thought throughout the 1980s. Over the years he has been a leading voicein the history of modernist architecture. Professor Frampton has lectured around theworld. He is the author of numerous articles anda number of well known books including Modern Architecture and the Critical Present, ModernArchitecture: A Critical History (for which he is currently working on a 5thaddition) and Studies in Tectonic Cultural, each ofwhich represent cornerstones of his work. .

In 2005 he received the President’s Medalfrom the Architectural League of New York. In 2012 he was the recipient of the SchellingArchitecture Theory Prize and in 2014 he was awarded the MillenniumLifetime Achievement Award at the Lisbon Triennale. It is my great pleasure to welcome ProfessorKenneth Frampton. [ Applause ]>> Good evening. It's a lot of people. Small space, relatively. Yes. Well, this facade, I've never ever spokenon this topic before, and of course Randall .

Korman is the figure that entered that I mighttry it for once, and so here I am first time. And beginning with the facade, but it's wortha face in any case, that's Gottfried Semper, sort of 1855 when he was the director in Zurichhaving been in London along with Richard Redgrave and the Crystal Palace and previously of courseto that in Frankfurt and in Dresden. And but before I get fully into the stuff,I think I should say that I found it necessary to write this entire thing out, and you willbe happy to hear I'm not going to read it, but in any case, I sort of tried to plod myway through this task of speaking about the facade, and it led me to because actuallyI sort of very preoccupied with Semper, I, you know, he the book studies in tectonicculture takes a lot from Semper, but early .

In his career he was recommended as an architectto the court in Dresden, and there he meets one called whose name was Klem and Klem wasa librarian in this professional German court, in the royal court librarian. As he was royal cart architect, and as Wagnerwas the kapellmeister to the same court. And these images are of tattoos faces of coursefrom the South Pacific, I think, and they appear a book, an early anthropological bookwritten by Klem, I think it's called the history of mankind. And so, you know, here we have a face of coursethat is decorated. It's made into a facade in a way. .

And for essentialismer this question of architectureand clothing was extremely important and also the adornment of the body, for semper, forhim, the primordial architectural work is the dress, in fact, the clothing of the humananimal, so to speak. And, you know, in German that I think theword is giband, and related to the German word for weaving. And so there is this connection between thedress of course adornment and this is also I think from Klem, you know, the Syrian warriorwho is also it's hard to imagine fighting in this gear, but anyway, he is also very,very dressed up, you know. And of course one thinks I could have includedbut I think a bit now, I'm always amazed by .

Japanese armor, how it is on one hand of coursealso involving a mask, rather terrifying but also extremely ritualistic, ornate, woven,also it's woven, of course, as was chainmail, for that matter. This is not exactly a mask, but of courseon the topic of war it is a it's covering a face and echos, you know, the face, themask and the face, that is the title I gave to this talk, I think. And in some ways Semper says there shouldbe a kind of authentic relationship between the face and the mask. The mask is of no quality if it doesn't havesome poetic and structural relationship to .

The face. So and it brings this African textile of course,it brings up I'm putting it here simply to emphasize this question of weaving, you know. Because the emphasis he places on weavingand on dress and the very word cladding in architecture, for example, is also connectedto the German word, which is also dress in a way. And Semper, when he writes he's part of thiskind of cotary that are the brains behind the Crystal Palace, that is to say the brainsbehind the great exhibition and the aim of the great exhibition, they're not really thebrains behind the building itself because .

That is of course Joseph Paxton. But, I mean, the interesting thing about theCrystal Palace, which is also a kind of woven building in a way is it's extremely dematerialized. And I only recently rediscovered this image,which I which is actually in a book that I was involved in, published by Futagowa, I'dforgotten this image completely. I didn't actually find the image in the firstplace in any case, but I've never seen this image elsewhere very often, which shows thepalace, you know, this totally dematerialize cage full of people but no objects. And up with of the objects in the palace wasthis Caribbean hut which which Semper claims .

This was an inspiration for him in formulatinghis idea of the four elements of architecture, which was in 1852, you know, virtually thesame time as the palace. And we see that this thing point? Yes. Of we see of course well, first of all itdivides in a way into two elements, which is the roof work on the one hand and the earthwork on the other, raising the house out of the ground. And then the roof work is seen as one withthe framework supporting the roof. And the that's one element. .

And the second element as I already said,it's the earth work. And the third element is the fireplace andthe fire. That is one of the most extraordinary thingsabout it. And of course gives it this sort of anthropologicalauthority in a way. And the final element is the internal wall,which is the woven wall. And he then associates different crafts withthe different elements, so that the framework and roof is of course the craft of carpentry. The earth work is the craft of masonry ina way or something equivalent to that, you know, piling up, compressing blocks or, youknow, making a frame in this case and packing .

It with earth. And the fire then is associated with ceramicsand with metalsmithing and so on, jewelry, et cetera. And then of course we come back to weavingin the case of the wool, and the importance he attaches to the knot, actually. Because which he sees as the primordial joint,you know? And so this brings me to a sort of slighthiatus, actually, which ends me up in the Palladian Olympico shown here. Semper conceived of the mask as a poetic fictionwith which to overcome through ritual, the .

Harsh reality of human existence and the finalityof death. In this way both the mask and clothing andthe primordial hut are each dedicated to the creation and representation of an artificialmicrocosmos in order to establish human culture against the always threatening chaos of nature. This conjunction brings us to the origin andthe development of the theater and to its use of costumes and scenery and even the mask,to represent a relatively short lived illusory microcosmos. In terms of occidental cultural history wecannot separate the stage from the invention of perspective as rationalized sight fromthe middle of the 15th century onwards .

And this takes us immediately to Andrea Palladio’sTeatro Olympico constructed in Vicenza in 1584 and to the fixed perspectival stage setsof the period. Which I will show you in a minute. And of course the big issue here is the factthat this is the illusory built constructive perspective, this is the false stage, theonly part in which the actors can actually act, you know, because obviously on the slopingfloor of the perspectival stage they cannot. And here you see the channels of this constructedperspective, which of course you can see how that construction allows, you know, figuresin different parts of the auditorium to have the same more or less the same illusion. .

And here we see it in reality. And here and of course we do see of coursein a Renaissance facade, architectural facade, and here is transsection of the same thing. And this is the one other one which is inSabionetta. Constructed for the Duke of Mantior, muchsmaller theater. But also well with the facade or anyway thekind of columnated amphitheater, equally architectural as the facade. This is the plan of that stage, you know,and here this again, constructed, it's much rougher, of course, in the delineation, therepresentation of the thing is much rougher .

In these drawings than in the one that I showedyou. And the one in Vincenza. This rapport between facade architecture andthe stage in that moment with when the lower leaf facade expresses a flattened depth. One recalls this conjunction, the architectureintellectual. Giulio Carlo Argan, who in his bookThe Renaissance City argued that the Renaissance City as such never existedand that what existed instead was the time honored labyrinthic of medieval urban fabricIn which which set pieces were inserted, yes, by princes, feudal princes, which were recreationsof triumphant battles that were associated .

With the myth of their power or they wereequestrian ballets or actually of course tournaments taking place. And sometimes they were set against, you know,temporary facades and quasi theatrical settings. And other times they were Mrs. the PalazoPiti with the roof over the top. And from the action of the rain. And this whole thing is a kind of recreationof some kind of horrific battle, you know. As an entertainment with the audience piledup in the periphery of the palace itself. And the ultimate kind of Renaissance facade,the most refined Renaissance facade is surely, you know, the san Lorenzo, Michelangelo'slibrary, this being the kind of entry and .

Then what is extraordinary is the rhythmiclow relief, you know, that yes creates a kind of concatenation of classical motifs, youknow, in held into work of art in itself in fact. Almost musical you could say. And this the library of course and this thestaircase feeding up into the library. And all of it being the same syntax basically,variations of the same syntax. Anyway, the earliest use of the word facadein the English language referring to the representational front of a building occurs in 1657. This date virtually coincides with Inigo Jones'Renaissance architecture into Britain, and .

This is the banquet hall in White hall whereit's like a straight transposition of an Italian Renaissance facade to British scene. Which takes us back in a way to Palladio,and to this villa Malcontenta, that it was one of Palladio's masterpieces. Vis à vis facade in front, I mean, this isclearly an honorific front with this sort of deluded idea that it's a kind recreationof a Roman house with monumental staircases going up on both sides. A building, the substance of which the prismis made out of brook. The portico is made out of stone, but thebody of the building itself is made out of .

Brick and plaster and then the plaster's workedand scribed so as to simulate dressed stonework. But in fact also that is a sort of facadeon top of the actual built fabric. And that would be and all of I think I'vegot these slightly out of order because that should I've lost an image here. What the hell did I do with it? It vanished. But anyway, there's a back to this building,and somewhere that's the issue I wanted to make is that in all of Palladio's villas,there is this facade as front and kind of very austere much less rhetorical back sothat the style of course goes on the front .

Of the building in this point of which thisis the canal and the it's the honorific entrance from the Brenta canal. And that would apply to all of his villasexcept this one. The villa Caparolla. Yes, it has four temple fronts on four facadesconsecutively. So there is no back, really, it's just a seriesof endless fronts, you know. And we see it here in plan. And we this is the transposition of exactlythat idea in the 18th century, quite a while later, by Richard Boyle, otherwise known asLord Bellington to London, this is the Chisick .

House and the transposition of Palladioismsomewhat after Jones into the British scene. So this yes, finally, the back. Right? This is the back of the one that, you know,you enter from the canal. And it takes me, this whole question of facadeand these theatrical aspect of facade and also going back to Semper's emphasis upontheater, this poetic fiction as he calls it, making a micro cosmos out of the poetic fiction,to ultimately you know from Palladio's Olympico and the perspective, to this building, whichis the plan of Wagner's opera house in Byrite, it's a total work of arm, the German termGesamtkunstwerk, where poetry, music setting, .

Costumes would be synthesized to create thisoverwhelming total work of art that also should was intended also to be life transformingas a program conceived in this book that that he wrote called the outlook of the future. But the two interesting things about it arethe orchestra pit. And I think maybe and I'm not completely sureof this, it's he who invents the idea of an orchestra pit, but you don't see the orchestraat all, you know. And the point being that his etherial musicshould arise sort of out of nowhere out of the pit. And contribute to this illusion of opera thatis then carried out on a enormous stage where .

Of course displacement in space can be easilyachieved through literal displacement of space without constructive perspective. But where perspective is still floating aroundis here, you know, this very strange provision of these blades coming out with columns onthe ends of them. And because and why, because what he wantedto do is to kind of he wanted to reduce the rupture of the persenium arch and make theaudience think that each of these edges are really the same edge. That somehow or other there is no final edgebefore you are thrust into this unworldly scene of the total work of art. .

And here you see it, this is a this is whatit looks like, you know, these blades are with their columns, their little classicalpieces to this point. I don't have an exterior of the stupidly,of the building because that is actually the most utilitarian thing you ever set your eyeson, there is no temple front no, nothing. All the money and the energy goes into thisto create this interior to complete his illusion, so to speak. And what you realize is that Wagner's totalwork of art is, you know, the beginning of the twentieth century the cinema, film willtake over from Wagner's total work of art, the orchestra will disappear, the audiencewill forget the edges of the screen, you know. .

They will the moving image and then of coursesound gets to be added to it will complete the Wagnerian project, really. And because what I'm showing here is a stillfrom the Lili Riefenstahl's the triumph of the will, and with this architecture and thisin Nuremberg, this is I think circa 1936, you know, all of this is designed by AlbertSpeer, but it's designed as with the idea of this mass still even today, I mean, unbelievablesight, you know, the film is unbelievable, it's the film, the triumph of the wheel isreally worth seeing because of its extreme rhetorical power, I think. And it okay. .

Now we come back to something quite differentbecause, you know, the creation of the music drama, the flying Dutchman is his first operaof a series of operas, coincides within a year or two of Philip Webb's house for WilliamMorris in Kent, which you see here. And here, you know, of course it's totallyand utterly anti classical, anti Renaissance, it there is no the worst thing that couldhappen to the this architect is for a facade to come into existence, you know? [ Laughter ]Because all of these the free juxtaposition of the different roofers coming to differentheights, all of this in a way was inspired by gothic revival where the assembly the ideawas of course the English farmhouse, the random .

Additive, irregular assembly of traditionalEnglish farmhouse. Here of course self consciously created wherethe windows are like particularly this window is by no means medieval, it's a kind of relativelymodern sash window, you know, as opposed to anything medieval, though there is a kindof medieval well head. Anyway, that's what he Philip Webb createdthis so William Morrison and we see that plan is this irregular plan and the beginning ofthe modern free plan. And in fact the work of this period is calledEnglish freestyle. It's another term for it other than arts andcrafts. You enter here, you know, and this is thestair hall already. .

The stair hall is as a void had in it goingup through the whole extent of the building. This asymmetrically placed stair hall is alsopart of the whole story. And the plan, you know, is this L shaped somewhatirregular plan with bits sticking out as though and you see the stairs, change of level here. It's as though the whole thing has been accruedover time, you know. It's an aggregation in a way. Or it pretends to be an aggregation. And ten years later in 1869 Richard NormanShaw creates this building in Sussex for some obviously extremely wealthy Victorian gentleman. .

And here, you know, you get I suppose thingsthat might be facades, such as this, but it's a again, it's a totally irregular, randomplan with chimneys all over the place. It's a picturesque composition to an extraordinarydegree, and this is this is the other side which is even more extraordinary and moreromantic. These are drawings by Richard Norman Shawhimself and the chimneys of course and the bay windows, all of this is extremely brilliantin a way, you know. And I should have at this point, and I haveto confess another missing item, is maybe a shingle style building or two, you know,that might make an appropriate transition to what I but I somehow forgot. .

To this. Which is Frank Lloyd Wright in 1901. First ladies home journal house. And it's also can be seen as the especiallyembryonic liberative free plan. So that you enter here, you know, you thisis the door, this is the kind of foyer, really, rather elaborate foyer and the stair hall. And then the central fireplace, but the mostimportant aspect of all of this is this continuity between the library, the living room, andthe dining room, and of course there's a terrace that you can go out onto in summer. .

And behind a rather cramped in fact are theservice facilities. And the architecture is reserved for multiplefront so that this symmetry here in relation to the library or this symmetry in the hiproof in relation to the living and again the terrace in relation to the dining, you know,are there's definitely an earth work in all of this, for example, and a roof work goingto Semper's categories. But when you get to here, you know, you cansee that this is just walls with pierce windows, I mean, he's no longer interested it's nolonger architecture at that point, you know. And the other thing about Wright's domesticwork is it's not so easy to find the entrance. I suppose maybe you can get the message thisis the entrance, but in a way it's unclear .

Where the entrance is, and of course alongwith this goes which is also really against the facade because this long roof and thisroof, you know, this whole obsession horizontality, and long windows, in fact, create this situationin which there is no facade and the sheer emphasis on the horizon is against the frontalityof the facade. Though it's still using some classical elements,you know, these sort of basins and of course these string courses. But we see as in the first this is 1909, it'seight years after the lady's home journal house, and you do have this open plan, notso much maybe a free plan as on open plan around this central double sided fireplace. .

You have two levels, one is the billiard room,children's playroom, and you enter at this level but you see the way you enter is notso self evident. It's kind of hidden, in a way, and the staircaseis here. And well, the staircase is the main servantstair and primary stair, mixed up with the chimney. And then the main roof of course was hippedform emphasizes again the two primary spaces on the floor above, which are also open plan. But when we come to this part, although there'sstill a hip roof on this part, you can see how the quality of the expression of the buildingsomehow is reduced. .

It's not this is where the garage is, of coursehere, you know, there's a court really and the boiler room, laundry, garage, and thenabove, kitchen and so on, service elements and they're treated in that way. While this is just a beautiful shot of thishouse, which is still masterpiece, but here you feel or emphasizes the way in which youdon't quite know how to get into this building, you know. You have to kind of find the entrance. That brings me to the other thing, which isthat relatively speaking with his horizontal windows and his outriding terraces and hiproofs, Wright's buildings were open to nature. .

And had, you know, invited invited a kindof rapport with nature. It saw nature as a yes, as a benevolent context. But when it came to his public buildings,which and they do public buildings, this is unity temple, do have vestiges of a facade,actually, it's a very strange texture on this image, which is ridiculous because it makesyou think it's made of brick, but it isn't, it's made of concrete. And actually it's for him a bad experience. He I've been getting quality of finish outof the concrete was something he found very difficult to do and he generally put him offconcrete for a long time. .

This is actually 1906. But the expressive representational facadeis in fact within. It's not without. This is true of all of Wright's public buildings,I think. That the and I've often wondered why is this,you know? It occurs again of course in the unity templewhere there is some representative features on the outside of the building, but in it'slargely blank, you know? And that also then applies to the contrastis also here. This is this internal atrium. .

And up here are inscriptions and capitals,you know, the representative facade is really on the inside of the building and not theoutside. And that will remain case until the end ofhis life. So that the Guggenheim, you know, while there'ssome expressivity, for some people of course too much expressivity, but in fact it's stillnot well, first of all, it's still not a facade, it can't be a facade because of the plan shapeand the whole idea, but it's also somewhat empty, you know, there's no content, really,compared to, let's say, the Renaissance facade. And inside of course it has spiraling spaceup in the inside. And the richer kind of core experiences againwithin rather than without. .

It's one little detail which might be of interestis that the image is based on kind of spiraling pyramid. This is the word well, he actually turns ithere I think he turns it around. This is the word zigorat and he turns it intotargoriz on this drawing. It's like a it relates to his strong automobileobject in the middle of the Midwest as a sort of object to which he would drive for a Sundayafternoon. Which brings me to of course how could I couldn'tavoid him much longer. No, that's the interior. Right, there you are. .

So the richer interior is even this of courseis very simple, there's no ornament. But there is a symbolic pool at the bottomof this. A kind of containing, you know, representationthe Louis Sullivan's seed germ. This of course has it's totally and utterlyremoved from all of this. Also against facade. I could and a ought to have elaborated onthis guy at great length, which is Adolf Loos, the this isn't the steina villa, it's a degreezero of architecture. It's a cubic form plastered over, it's white,and this building, which is in the same moment, you know, is also a cubic form plastered overwhite. .

And the richness is on the interior. You can't really call it's not of course Loosis concept of the round or space plan is certainly not a facade but it's still you know, themore interesting part of the building is the volume, is the liberative dynamic space inside. And I think modernity going back to Wright'sfirst moves towards an open plan and involving also of course the idea of the five elementsof a new architecture, you know, and also these four compositions, the five elementsof a new architecture is 926 and the four compositions are 929. And the fact that space is the all importantthing. .

The exterior of the building is a kind ofdegree zero. The space which is of course well, the fivepoints are of course the free plan, the free facade, the long window, the pilotis, thecolumns underneath the house, and the roof garden are the five points. And the connection between this and classismis very fascinating because at some point when they are first published there are sixpoints. And one of these points is the eliminationof the cornice. And he gets rid of that point. Because he wants there's no text that provesthis, but I do know .

[ Laughter ]I do know there are six points and then there are five points. And the the one that's eliminated is the onethat talks about eliminating the cornice. And it's my supposition that one of the reasonshe does this is he wants to present the five points as though they are technological, scientific,consequential new architecture based on modern principles. Well, if you talk about eliminating cornicesyou already reveal your dependency on the classical past, so I think he gets rid ofit. But in these four compositions he actuallyshows here, you know, in this so called and .

I never know quite why, Pyramidal composition,this additive plan very much like the Anglo American or Anglo Saxon free plan arts andcrafts house. And then here he shows had this second proposition,which is just a cubic proposition and he just writes very difficult, satisfying to the spirit,you know. This one is very convenient, easy, picturesque,one can easily place clearly all the different functional parts according to the hierarchy. And then of course the free plan pilotis,and the irregular the fact that the subdivision of the space is completely independent ofthe load bearing aspect, because the load bearing is carried by the columns, allowshim to combine, you see, he puts these two .

Together, composition cubi, cubic purism. This of course is the [indiscernible] in 1939,this is otherwise known as the [indiscernible] of 927, 27, 29, and here this what you couldsay in the sense is this additive picturesque configuration is reinserted into the top ofthe prism. And he has a lot to say about this, very generous,affirming in the interior, satisfying to the intentions and all the functional needs, insulation,et cetera, et cetera. So he in the late '20s posits this ultimateabstract modernity. In 1948 Rudolf Wittkower publishes a bookarchitectural principles in the age of humanism. Which is an analysis of the work of Palladio. .

And in that same year, and I think scandalbeyond scandal, even before the book itself is published his prime pupil, Colin Rowe,published the mathematics of the ideal villa. I think he beats the old man to it, actually. And all of the argumention of Colin Rowe isderived from [indiscernible] but it is anyway as a stroke of extraordinary brilliance. And it changes then the entire view of it,and I think it is a fact that he acknowledges the validity of the argument, I guess there'sno way for him to have refuted it. But the point being that it's the comparisonbetween the Villa Malcontenta. By the way, this image better than the oneI previously showed you, shows only too clearly .

How this is brickwork and the plaster stillhere but it's fallen off this part, you know, closer to the water, et cetera, et cetera. You know? So that the poetic fiction of a building facedin stone is here wearing a bit thin. But this is the issue, because this is I'msure you probably are familiar with it, but I'm probably going over old ground, but thisis the plan of the villa Malcontenta, the staircases and so on. And this is the plan of the Villa Stein DeMonzie, most extraordinary of all a, it's structural base, two, one, two, one, two. .

And of course it's the same structural bayin the villa Malcontenta, in other direction with the free plan these are cantilevers soit's .5 of a module. And then something fallen off here, but it's1.5, 1.5, 1.5. And here .5 again. So there's cantilevers front and back, whichof course are not present on the Palladium villa. And this brings me up I should have and Idon't have, you know, the I'm going back, one second. The garden facade the entry facade here ofthe Villa Stein de Monzie is absolutely flat, .

There's only a large cantilevered wing likeform that comes out to indicate what is the main entrance. But the you know, the fact is that the smallerbay carry staircases, even this smaller bay would have carried another staircase but thestaircase is displaced to one side in order to allow it to function as a sort of majorstaircase as opposed to a service staircase. But anyway, the approach to the building isnot, you know, if you establish the idea of the front and the back in the palladium assoon as and the front is the temple portico and the front is the back non rhetorical faceand you enter through the ideally you enter through the front through the from the canalthrough the portico, the temple portico. .

Here, you know, you're entering from the back,vis à vis this idea of front and back, and the front faces the garden. This is the front. And on the front the dynamic organizationof the space inside means that, you know, you're looking at an asymmetrical buildingand also with enormous special displacement, the terrace is is set back into the facade. These are these glass windows advanced. And this drawing is beautiful because it sortof combines the rhythm of the Palladium plan where he has to contrive like mad to makethe staircase have the same angle to correspond .

To the diagonal of the golden section. And that is you'd think it is the more rhetoricalfront. But it's the back. So the back and the front get to be inverted. And where am I going with this? Good question. All right. Well, I think I okay. Let me another image would be helpful, I think,yes, okay. .

So this is Bernard Hoeshi, close colleagueof Colin Rowe, who makes this drawing which is a sort of yes, it's an axe in a metricshowing the planes that are compose the garden facade. This is the staircase, these are advanceds,the terrace is is going back here, and these are additional planes as you go back finallyto the rear facade. And he likens that to the same layering ofspace in this purist painting in 1920, still life with a pile of plates, where the illusionthat brings up the issue of cubism. You see it's clear that cubism was categoricallyanti prospectival. And the idea was to flatten the picture plainas much as possible and of course purism deliberately .

Categorically influenced by cubism and denouncedas a sort of alternative in the yes, in [ Laughter ]good moment. Yes. It posits itself as an alternative to cubism. Yes. [ Laughter ]Yeah, because it's still this idea of flattened space. And what Hoeshi does is show the illusoryspace of the purist painting is to the actually placements inside the house. .

That's the whole point of these two diagrams. And the only other thing to be added to itis as opposed to cubism, they were trying to represent there is a representational function,you know, the anonymous objects produced by industrial machined civilization, you know,the industrial produced wine bottles and clay pipes and plates and into which is woven aguitar, of course, kind of almost obligatory cubist icon. Which brings me to this. Which is this comparison between two buildings,the I've used this comparison on many occasionsand in fact this comes from this book genealogy .

Of modern architecture. And where I tried to put together the resultsof a course that I gave over a long period of time on comparative critical analysis,in which I asked students to compare different types of buildings answering more or lessthe same program, institutionally comparable programs. In this case of course what is in a way theequivalent of a municipal administration under fascism, the casa del Fascio, and in the Swedishcase, both kind of institutional buildings, and in this case both involving facades. And both involving asymmetrical facades. .

Which I think relates to the symmetry of theirplan formation. You know, in other words, they both embodya kind of dynamic deliberative space inside them and this dynamic liberative space ostensiblyfunctional is what is the driving force of the asymmetrical character. And you can see that in the case of the casadel fascio what am I doing that? That's the wrong thing. Back. Do I have that still? Yes. .

You can see the three bay entry, for example,corresponds to a courtyard inside the building, an atrium. This corresponds to a terrace on the roof,which is also virtually void on top of the atrium so that the presence of this atriuminside the building is indicated on the facade and is part of the asymmetry of the facade. And here the asymmetry arises in large partof course out of the fact this is an addition to an existing neoclassical building. This is the addition. And inside this addition there is also a kindof atrium space, which is indicated by these .

Four panels and also by these low relief sculpturalpanels, the doors open inwards and form a kind of little I know set balcony. And of course in this case, you know, there'sa masonry base and it's actually fire proof steel frame construction and there's evendetailed moulding at the top and sort of echos classical base and capital. And here also of course we're using stone. Dressed stone. And so and the two buildings relate to publicspace in an interesting way because this one is related to the back of the cathedral inComo here it's a kind of sort of axial relationship. .

And here it's this is the neoclassical building,this is a public square, you can see it here, for example, this is the public square andthere's a canal that goes by. And this is actually the Gustophplats, sothey are both situated somewhat classically in relation to the fabric, and right. So and when you compare the two plans youcan see that these four windows, which I spoke about before, you know, are meant to representthis space behind them. This atrium space, top lit or partly top litpaved in stone and, you know, you pass through the old building and you turn here througha revolving door. And there's another elevation here which Isuppose one really couldn't call a facade, .

Which is much simplified in relation to theclassical facades that surround it. And so you see that here, for example. These are the classical facades. And for a long time tried to give the additionits own kind of front equal to the classical front, many alternative schemes go in thatdirection. And here, you know, the facade is I thinkone has to think about the elevation, you know, I mean, this of course is strictly speakingthe facade, but then it's cutaway at this point with dressed stone underneath, and thereis a battery of electrically operated doors, which permit the militia to come from theinterior of the building and sort of rush .

Out into the street, you know, you enter justfrom here normally and there's a control point here. With a major staircase in this position. And you can see from this drawing, for example,that there is this strange kind of tension between the three bays of the atrium, althoughthe atrium is in fact more than three bays wide at this point, you know. But the three bays are designed to representthe atrium. This is actually an early projection of theatrium. And, yes, so when you go up the big staircasehere and all well, blue shows public. .

These plans have been coded so that the publicspace is shown blue. Semi public is shown green. The private is shown yellow. The argument, the distinguishing between privateand semi public and public is the public space is a space like this space, for example, wherea number of people gathering together, you know, they're kind of they are caught, theyare in fact courtrooms in each case here. This is a small courtroom. And so that they are collective. They are public in the sense that they arecollective, you know. .

And the same applies in this building becausealthough you could raise you can sort of raise a question about the coding, the endless problemsI got into with students arguing over what is public and what is private, you know, andwhen I look that the drawing I think I don't think we got this right because this spacehere is this space here. It's the main meeting room of the the casadel Fascio, and this relief, all the rest, this is a facade, and I think when I lookat it from this distance again I think it should have been blue, you know? Because I mean, yes, what involved here ofcourse is the idea of private, meaning exclusive and the idea of private referring to a kindof condition, you know, where you have like .

Two people in an office or but here, you know,again, the question is with this number of people in this space should this have reallybeen considered also public, in the sense that public is sort of quasi political space. Here I think it works it's consistent in thecase of the court. This is the facade I was talking about, thekind of degree zero glass wall that is, you know, in where where am I here? I have to go back again. Where am I now? Yes. .

This is the degree zero glass wall is here. Right. And so now in a way I've kind of talked myselfout of facade altogether. Because this and I think it brings up theissue that the kind of dynamic liberative space that was the driving force of the modernmovement and is still very much present is one that is always in conflict with the ideaof a facade, you know. And so it makes a modern facade a complexthing to achieve, I think. And so vis à vis talking myself out of facadesaltogether. Here I'm discussing this comparison is reallycomparing two different staircases and two .

Different spaces, you know. So of course this staircase is entirely enclosedand also made out of dressed stone with glass ballistrade and so on with glass block andis very kind of precise and you can see that from the way that is this thing yes, thisthing here. This bent glass. And this one is uses wood and the ballistrading,the actually going of the staircase is extremely gentle. It has a particularly relationship to thestructure, which is also cantilevered going to the upper level here. .

And so they are very different interiors andvery different the detailing is different, the space formis different, but they all have a certain of dynamic space form. And one of the things that I do in showingbecause I don't have the exterior image, but here you see this is the plan, the pent ultimateplan of the building, and here is a staircase that brings you up to the pentultimate floor. And there is one floor above which is servedonly by this staircase. And then the space that was previously occupiedby the stair is covered over with an office. But in fact if you study the elevation, thisis also still a glass block wall. .

So the glass block wall that signified thestair in this case here is the is a glass is continued but what's behind the glass ifyou say, you know, the glass block wall represented the stair, the main stair, then at the topof the building the glass block wall is continued for four more reasons, but the main stair,the relationship between the mask and the face, so to speak, is now one and the same. And the detailing, very very contrasted atthe level of detailing, of course detailing of this ballistrade versus the main stair. And then, you know, facade to facade, thedifference between this facade and this low relief above the wooden fenestration, plasterand also two different kinds of plaster used .

To indicate the main structural frame andthe infill. And here it's all faced in dressed stone. And there are also wooden windows. But it depends upon the rhythmic articulationof the stone. Here of course there's also glass block beingused. But the material is very different. I mean, here you see that the steel frameis enclosed in this fashion in the at the lower level to give this kind of organic columnalsupport to the building. And that I mean, it's fascinating that theoriginal idea for this space, you know, was .

A kind of almost neoclassical idea of thisspace, you know, before it's developed further. And here the facade is combined with a photomontage, a photo montage of the two things. Photo montage of these militia in the foregroundand actual I think the project was never carried out, but this was a project for pasting upparty leaders onto the stone face of the building. I mean, making a kind of graphic out of it. And you can see from this, you know, withthis slogan order, authority justice, militia, the med Mussolini, the iconography is is allof the piece, including this extraordinary photograph, where it's no longer facade, it'san image, of course. And anyway, all of these are images, but thistypewriter, in fact, you know, is shown as .

Floating on this glass plane where the cathedralis reflected in the glass top of the desk of the administration. The relationship between the church and thestate of course in that case. And then the furniture follows through onthat, you know, the values implicit in the wooden furniture of designed by Asplund whichalso relates to tradition, or the organic light fittings, and this use of a glass, thisis a water fountain. Or the fact that the workers that built thebuilding put their initials into this tapestry, it was embroidered, their individual signatureswere individual yes, the letters of their name were embroidered into the tapestry. .

So the attitude there are two there are definitedifferent political attitudes involved here. You know, the a that you aretoriry generalfascist state on the one hand, and the social democratic Swedish state on the other. And here of course I'm making some connectionbetween Decurico's metaphysical painting and the way Teranni would project it when it wasfirst put together. All right. So that's my little no, I didn't quite finish. No, no. [ Laughter ]No, I didn't. .

Because yes. Louis Kahn, all right. We get into this problem of the front andthe back. Because this is the hypothetical front ofthe Kimbell Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. And this is this rather beautiful shot, whichI think is actually a shot I took myself. I can't believe it. Anyway[ Laughter ] I mean, I don't think I can do this anymore. Meaning I don't think I can take photographsanymore. .

I'm not sure I can lecture anymore either. But[ Laughter ] this in fact, you know, I received my obituarytoday, you know. My wife is going to love that. I mean, I think I should sort of keep thatunder wraps. [ Laughter ]You know. I have a year to go, you know? That's it. It's over. .

All right. Well, this is the front and I suppose it wouldn'trate by common standards this would not be a facade, however, it is a front. It is a kind of facade. And it has this honorific grove of Holly treesand also they're put on top of gravel so when you walk, actually these maybe you know it,but these galleries, corridors open. They have a stone floor, of course, and there'san echo in the inside of the vault. So you hear your footsteps as you walk towardsthe center axis where all the youpon Holly trees shoulder height and a kind of sandygravel. .

So when you come off, the echo ceases. And also your own body, the gait of your bodyis thrown off because, you know, you're walking on gravel after having walked on very resonancestone paving. And you're thrown off, you know, and alsothe trees are it's a slightly strange it's a very it's a kind of one could say it's akind of mystical entry. And the thing is that, you know, this is thepark I ought to say this was park because they made an addition, I don't have that plan,and because this is the honorific entrance to the building, this is the front in thissense, rhetorically speaking. But of course it's the suburbs, after all,and people drive to this building, mostly .

They drive. And they enter here, you see, into this parkinglot. The front is over here. You know. And this part, very beautiful, in fact, thisrelationship between the front and the park, which in a sense has gone. It's gone because Renzo added to to the buildingand the to all intents and purposes, the park no longer exists. And this yeah, well, this shows you how youwell, I just described, you're walking and .

Also the sound of the water. It's acoustically very special place. And of course it involves travertine and alsoconcrete shell. This space here. And but by car you enter here into this blackhole, you know, and you go up a staircase, you don't see this in the section, and youarrive at the same point as if you'd come from the park through the main entrance. If you as if you had come through this entrance,you know. And so you enter a bit like the Villa Steinde Monzie, enter the back in you come by automobile, .

And you don't enter through the honorificfront mostly. And this is the kind of contradiction of thebuilding. You know, I Kahn never drove a car, he hatedautomobiles, I think. I once probably with good reason. You know, I once spoke to a young studentwho came from Harvard to go to visit Lou Kahn and he told me Kahn said to him take the train,don't come by the plane. And he said I never understood why did hetell me that, I could never understand. I said I think I know why. For Kahn you could only enter Philadelphia,his beloved Philadelphia through the Bozar .

Hall of thirtieth street station. You couldn't enter it from the airport becausethere was no point in which you ever entered it, you know, you just that kind of and Ithink he must have known when he designed Kimbell that, you know, most of the peopleare going to come by car. He had to provide for this entrance by automobileand so on. And I think what did I say here? I do have something this is the last word,so to speak. I can't hardly read it. Because as always of course I don't have mywhere is it? .

Do I have it? No. Don't think I have everything else but. [ Laughter ]I just give up. [ Laughter ]I'll just read it. All right. I can still read it despite the fact thatI'm disappearing next year. [ Laughter ]Oh, God. Randy reminded me it's 20 years since I'vebeen here. .

I think I'm not coming again. [ Laughter ]Oh, dear God. All right. And unfortunately of course another slidemissing is Renzo's extension, because he actually amazing piece. Anyway I'll read it. Very clever. He did long span laminated wood beams insteadof long span concrete vaults or bent beams as they are in the main body of the building. .

And anyway, let me read okay. It is bizarre irony thatRenzo Piano's addition to Kimbell comprising a massive provision of subterraneanparking at an even lower level should enable the automotive visitor to confront the mainprincipal of the original building from the Parking for the first time. Because before they had to come, you know,up the stairs from behind, but now they pop out there's an enormous amount of parkingprovided, much more than before, and the elevator coming to the primary level and the doorsopen and the visitor sees the Loos main honorific facade for the first time, you know, relativelyspeaking if they had previously come by car .

To Kimbell, you know. And I wrote this is the last. All of which was achievedone might note, at the price of loss the park. The one that gave the Kahn honorific entryfrom the land scape it's ultimate meaning. Thanks. [ Applause ]>> Folks, it's getting a little late and it's warm in here, but Professor Frampton wouldbe happy to entertain two or three questions, after which we will adjourn to the atriumwhere there is a wonderful buffet and reception waiting for you down there. .

Where you can continue to meet with ProfessorFrampton if you wish. So any questions then? We must mic the questions because there arepeople in 402 upstairs that will not hear you if you don't speak into the microphone. So any questions? Can you turn this microphone on, please? Just raise your hand if you have a question. >> Too hot. >> I think they're ready for that receptiondownstairs. .

>> Yes, well>> Good. >> Okay, wonderful. >> Thank you, Ken. [ Applause ]

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular