Yale University, School of Architecture

Yale University, School of Architecture Mies van der Rohe: A Moral Modernist Model Author(s): Stanley Tigerman Source: Perspecta, Vol. 22, Paradigms ...
Author: Amie Golden
4 downloads 2 Views 14MB Size
Yale University, School of Architecture

Mies van der Rohe: A Moral Modernist Model Author(s): Stanley Tigerman Source: Perspecta, Vol. 22, Paradigms of Architecture (1986), pp. 112-135 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567099 . Accessed: 12/02/2014 15:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Yale University, School of Architecture and The MIT Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspecta.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Introduction (Morality)

112 Mies van der Rohe: A Moral Modernist Model StanleyTigerman

Mies, formally unschooled and entirely self-taught, seems to have possessed an innate moralityas well as an intrinsicgenerosity that imbuedhis work with meaning. Mies' buildings were both expressiveof a moralitypeculiarto postwarAmerica and basic to his own beliefs. Americanarchitects copied Mies with greatboldness;New York'sLexington, Madison, andSixth Avenuesfurnishmany examples of this simulation. Sometimes reasonable, never contextual, and mostly Godawful, these neo-Mies boxes have come to populatemost Americancities. As Mies' work developed and his languagebroadened,his vision establisheda new Americannorm or truth.To see SOM (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) imitatingMies' coping of a clipped steel angle (made symmetricalby Skidmore aboutthe vertical axis) is to understandthat one architectwas engaged in contending with such essentials as gravitywhile the other was engaged in formalismalone (figs. 1, 2). To see an English cross-bond masonrywall by Mies (fig. 3) and then to look at apparentlythe same wall by SOM, only to discover that the headershave been clipped in the latter (fig. 4), is to understandthat Mies was authenticallyresisting naturalforces, while Skidmoreis engaged in a kind of usury, a simulationof sorts. ClearlyMies unlocked the door behind which lay the solution to the buildingneeds following the Second WorldWar,just as his imitatorsunlocked the door to endless and sterile repetitionof Mies' signature. Optimismis never more apparentthan when it appearsin supportof a particularculture. Such a mood existed in 1946, afterthe Second WorldWar,when America attemptedto sustainthe franticzeal of virtue throughthe peace that followed. It was crucial to find a varietyof vehicles to serve as remindersof the correctnessof the political-indeed, ideological- condition that had prevailed againstfascism. One of these was architecture-the overwhelming,visible cultural form that could representnot only the opti-

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

. ,

..

.

3

.

.....' *''.

?

..

?

,"":-. ?s.

?r .*.. ',,*

.'..... i., .. -

,..

4

2)

i_ " [.S;iiill Lll~ h ........

1 Alumni Hall, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, 1945-1946, detail, Mies van der Rohe 2 Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado, detail, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill

4 Simulated English crossbond wall, University of Illinois Medical Research Building, 1967, detail, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill

3 English cross-bond wall, Chapel, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, 1952, detail, Mies van der Rohe

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

:;

..

',.

.......r,.*.,.. , . :l; ' fl .1

'.':,

1?~

,,~~~.,l~H i

,;,,:'..K.~v .. ,.

. ,:'.' ,.

,.l ?

, ,~~"

:..,,.~

....

',.,,

5

7

6

114

V

.... ~~-?;.????~ ::!!.':

. -.'I

'

'/

~"

j'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '~~~~~

?

~ D. .

.

..

_,j%.:.:

.-

1

t,' "~ ?',J.' ,~

d

~~~~~~~~?, .

:. ,~~".:..',

"

~ ,"'

.

g/,, ~~~,. ;?t~~~~~3:

?. '.. ,:.

,.

.1.

~

,

.

_..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. _ 1959

?

?Levittown, 5. Long Island, CadillacFleetwood~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ ,? 6, /~ 1 rabter

??:::r"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.,.. -.:~ Television

7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leittown Iln,r,/ Lon ? Yor

Ne 2 ii1

C ;

;

E

_

l

Cadillac Fleetwood ~~~~~~~~1959 6 rabbit ears ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Television

1 i

_

__

rNewYork

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

mism of the moment, but also the desire to revel in, as well as perpetuate,the legitimacy of patriotism. Architecturehas always been an optimistic pursuit,groundedin the Platonismof beauty, perfection, the ideal. Architecture,however, also shares a benign anti-intellectualism with the middle-Americanethic that holds work (much like patriotism)in and of itself to be sufficient. Anotherconcept that significantlyinfluenced postwarattitudeswas the view of America as a nation of emigres fleeing religious persecution, nationalfamine, and in some cases, legal authority,with all the attendantinsecurities. This disparityof immigrantgroups was now consideredhealed by . victory. It was as if a moderncrusade had forged a new cultureof "the poor and the downtrodden." Victory in the Second WorldWarconfirmed America'smoralcertitude,which seemed both ethically and religiously correct. After all, our way of life had prevailed,proving that democracywas both correct and credible. Immediatelyfollowing the war's conclusion, signs began to confirm the fitness of the Americanway. The industrial giant of war could (and resoundinglydid) direct its attentionto peace - ultimatelya more demandingtaskmaster.Overnightan immense militaryforce turnedinto an equally immense work force requiringproduction for its own consumption.Symbols of a new American attitudeappeared.Automobile tailfins (fig. 5) begat television rabbitears (fig. 6), which in turn begat wingwalls on subdivisionhouses (fig. 7). There was a surfeitof evidence that war made a poor teacher- at least with respect to good taste. What was clearly needed, particularlyas new concepts of urban America were becoming apparent,was a paradigmof good taste-of correctnessand authenticity- provingthat the victorious Americansof the Second WorldWarwere not too immatureto responsiblyreap the benefits of world dominanceand peace. Strangely,and almost withoutprecedent, American society came to look to architecture as a means of establishingcultural credibility.

Adaptation of European Modernism as Appropriate Architectural Style But where, within architecture'scompound, could society look, given the many ebullient new moderniststyles? Which, if any, of modernarchitecture'smethodscontained languageto convey victoriousnesscombined with the solidity of good taste? Surely not that of FLW (FrankLloyd Wright)(fig. 8); he was too patentlyindividualistic,what with his embarrassingtaste in clothes, his unfortunatematrimonialrecord, and worst of all, an architecturethat simply could not be copied. Idiosyncraticat its most normative, FLW's work containedtoo many elements of unpredictability;it was not somethingone either could count on or, worse, would want to representstability (fig. 9). Surely, if America was to elect a style by which to be remembered,it could not be the work of one arrogantarchitect alone-certainly not a self-announcedeccentric genius such as FLW. Even if he could be copied (unlikely), it would be too demeaningfor others to commit themselves to such an idiosyncraticoriginal. What, then, about Le Corbusier?He, in turn, seemed too European,too intellectual; ultimatelyhis architecture,while admittedly artful, seemed too esoteric. His persona was too haughty,too grand, and too selfconsciously inaccessible (fig. 10). Le Corbusier'sapparentdialecticalapproach, in which ideal repetitiousstructureplayed against idiosyncraticpartitioningof space, was too conceptual(fig. 11) and simply inappropriateas a role model for a nation gorged on victory (fig. 12). Socraticdebate was undesirable;a Platonic synthesis was needed. Because both Le Corbusierand Wrightsuffered from unpredictablestylistic shifts within their careers, they did not seem capable of authenticallyrepresentinga culture desiring a zeitgeist mentalityin architecture, one that would not necessarily change its appearancesimply on the basis of aesthetics. Le Corbusier'searly (and seminal)

115

8 Frank Lloyd Wright, c1930 9 Guggenheim Museum, New York City, 1959, Frank Lloyd Wright, exterior view and plan

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

10

13

12

14

116 ;

........

- 'r=J-

-

?---n ti^^ p ^ j^ ^ ^ 4 .._ii ' !~.....................'

ti~

r

ti ___ i

...:-::~

_^____^^h^-^p^ - f j y f j .... .

St. Cloud, 1927, first-floor plan, Le Corbusier ^*^1 2 Harvard Visual Arts Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961-1963, ground-floor plan, Le Corbusier 13 Maison Jaoul, Paris, 1955, Le Corbusier 14 Notre Dame du Haut, Ronchamp near Belfort, France, 1950 -1955 , Corbusier LeCorbusier L^e

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

15

16

modernismgave way, somewhattoo easily, to the New Brutalism- a style incorporating rough concrete (beton brut) and unevenly firedbrick, not exactly consonantwith the pretensionsof good taste (fig. 13). Yet, even that experimentwas soon replacedwith expressionisteccentricities, such as the Chapel at Ronchamp(fig. 14). Because Corbuwas stylistically so inexplicable, some came to think of him as a Swiss - or worse, French-FLW. It was bad enough to have a nineteenth-centurynative American architectjump stylistically from one thing to another(PrairieSchool, Usonian, and so on), but when in Corbu'shands the new modernismshowed pluralisttendencies in a culturethat was virtuallyuninterestedin such multiplicitousquirky concepts, that architect could simply not be thoughtof as a paradigm. Then there was WalterGropius.Very early on-in the 1920s, or the Bauhausperiod -he could easily have become the midtwentiethcentury'srole model (fig. 15). Certainlyhe looked the part, urbaneand cultured;he was the leaderof this century's prime-movertechnoaestheticinstitution (fig. 16)-the first to sense that production had a romanticegalitarianpotential. He seemed the right person at the right time, even to the extent of having emigratedto the United States and having acceptedthe leading position at Harvard'sGraduate School of Design. Indeed, until the end of the Second WorldWarand throughthe early 1950s his graduatestudentsbecame the most powerful architectsin the United States. Philip Johnson, Paul Rudolph, Edward Barnes, I M Pei, Ulrich Franzen, Victor Lundy, JohnWarnecke,and Joseph Passonneauare among the many who helped to spreadthe word of Gropius'pedagogically broad methods. The architectural educator, it seemed, never benefitedso greatly from the kind words of so many diverse students. The reason why Gropius neverthelessdid not fill the role of paradigm is a simple one. His work (inexplicably) lacked the overridingclarity or continuity necessary to convey the image favoredat

17

15 Walter Gropius, c1940 16 The Bauhaus, Dessau, East Germany, 1925-1926, Walter Gropius 17 The Architects' Collaborative (TAC) at the Harvard Graduate Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, c 1950

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

117

the time. Worse, his newly formedTAC (The Architects Collaborative),composed mainly of ex-Harvardstudents, seemed excessively (and regionalistically)permissive (fig. 17). No one knew what to make of him, and no particularinterest(or reason) gave the impetus to emulatehim or to imitate work that seemed anythingbut memorable. Even his pedagogical methods appearedintellectuallypermissive insofar as they producedwildly diverse students. There was apparentlynothingto graspthat might express America'spostwarmood.

At a reception for Mies van der Rohe in 1954, he told of the day he closed the Bauhaus. He was called to the Berlin headquarters of the SS, where he was advised that if he did not expel Bauhaus students of Jewish extraction as well as those of Bolshevist persuasion, the SS would close the school. Mies listened, saying nothing. At the end of the interview he went across the street to a wine shop, where he purchased several cases of champagne. He then proceeded to a nearby crystal shop and bought several dozen glasses. He had both the wine and the stemware delivered directly to the school. Walking back

118

slowly,he arrivedto find

both students and faculty wondering about the many cases of champagne and glasses. He saw to their unpacking and pouring champagne for all. Then he toasted, "Gentlemen, I give you the last day of the Bauhaus." He then ordered the school closed permanently. Mies never admitted that being in Chicago had any impact on his architecture. In an interview Katherine Kuh asked him if Chicago had influenced him in any way. He tersely replied, "No." When I was an apprentice architect just setting out in architecture, some believed in Christ and others in Moses; I believed in Mies.

Finally, there was Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a late (1937) emigre from Nazi Germany. On the surface, he would seem anythingbut a potentialparadigm.Son of a stonemasonfrom Aachen, never formally educated beyond the eighth grade, caretaker of the GermanBauhauslong after its initiator (Gropius)had fled and the school's reputationhad been assured, and responsible for its closing in 1934, there was nothing particularlyexemplaryin either the man (fig. 18), or his work to presagethe great power he would wield in another country within just over one decade.' Even when Mies did emigrate, he came to Chicago, a city not renownedas a culturalor media capital. Within the decade spanningthe GreatDepression and the conclusion of the Second WorldWar, American attitudesgreatly changed from feelings of culturaland economic insecurity to self-esteem bordering on arrogance.When Mies' personaand his architecturesurfacednear the end of the first half of the twentiethcentury,he and his work seemed just right for America'snew directions and tastes (fig. 19). He was not ostentatious, and he conformedto America's need to encouragegroupsratherthan personalitycults. His work was elegant and in good taste (fig. 20), and most importantly,his architecturewas not unnecessarily demandingon the functionalor

intellectuallevels (figs. 21, 22). His architecture could be alteredinternallywithout vitiating the power of its externalappearance. Mies' subtle artfulnessdid nothingto diminish his architecture'sobvious functionality. Justificationsof his work did not seem necessary, since the up-to-date technological basis of his buildings spoke to a futurethat was democratic,if not egalitarian. Mies' essentially withdrawnyet gentlemanly personalitywas ideally suited to project the mystiqueof inexplicability.Unlike others of his time, it was not in his natureto give lectures, participatein architecturaljuries, engage in symposia, and in general "be seen." Mies wrote preciousfew papers. Almost without exception, none of his lectures lasted for more than ten minutes; and even these were few and far between. Feigning a lack of sophistication in the English language suited him well, though it is known that he was fluentin both Germanand English. With the exception of a few hours each week at the architectureschool at IIT, and incomplete days at his office, he was not to be seen at all. When he did speak or write, his statements were epigrammaticand stunninglyto the point; Mies was not a man to use fifty words when five would do. What little he said smacked of moral certitude:"Build, don'ttalk," "God is in the details," "Architecture is the will of an epoch translated into space." 2 When he was photographed,his pose generally reinforcedhis reductivism.Reflective and contemplativeby nature,he genuinely projectedan image of a man deep in thought (fig. 23). CorporateAmericans were enchantedwith Mies' European accent, his modest good graces, his ninehundred-dollarblack silk suits, and his artistry-perhaps in that order.That he was philosophically rigorousabouthis work was insignificant. His architecturalproduction and his genuine humilitywere an unbeatable

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Mies had a simple, direct way of putting things. In 1955, at a party held in his honor in an IIT student's apartment, Mies responded to an inane question about how to become a "designer," a word Mies abhorred-he felt it to be intrinsic to and a trivialization of architecture. "First, you learn how to draw, then you learn how to build, then you are an architect."

18 18 Mies van der Rohe at the Bauhaus, c 1930 19 Mies van der Robe in Chicago, after the Second World War, c 1947 20 Collage Project: Museum for a Small City, 1942, Mies van der Rohe 21 860-880 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, 1951, early scheme, typical floor plan, Mies van der Rohe 22 860-880 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, 1951, typical floor plan as built, Mies van der Rohe

20

23 Mies van der Rohe, c1950

la

21

23 t ,l I I

4

1 tI.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24

24 Seagram Building, New York City, 1957, Mies van der Rohe 25 Diagram of golden section with Vitruvian man and mullionization 26 Fair Store [under construction], Chicago, 1890-1891, William Le Baron Jenney 27 Chicago Stockyards, Chicago, c1905

*'7

.

..,

T

-

27 a

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

^

combination,particularlysince they were drummedhome by a spate of books of humorless accolades:Ludwig Halbersheimer, Philip Johnson, ArthurDrexler, Peter Blake, WernerBlaser, PeterCarterput out "the word." If Mies' own buildingsas well as those by his followers conveyed verification throughrepetition,books abouthim conveyed precisely the same form of legitimation. Ultimately overwhelming,the effort was bound, sooner or later, to fail.3 The Hype of Corporate Correctness America, Americans, and most of all, the image makersof MadisonAvenuewere thoroughlyready to embraceMies van der Rohe and his monumentsas symbols of the "spiritof the age." The look-alike "new wave" celebratedby C WrightMills was at once destined and ready to inhabitreductive black and bronze-tintedglass boxes.4 Like Ivy League collegians and Brooks Brothers clothing, Mies' glass buildings appearedto be well-bred and neatly tailored, and as such, they were much admired.The appropriatenessof Mies' black-box architecture to corporateAmerica was undeniable.On occasion, as in the case of New YorkCity's Seagram Building, it could also suggest majesty (fig. 24). Even as MadisonAvenue manipulatedtrends and tailoredtaste, Mies buildings continuedto demonstratenot only intrinsically good taste, but also permanence - a commodity longingly sought but sparingly achieved. All at once buildings followed proportions that were beyond question;all Mies buildings are studies in the "golden section": 5'0" modules and 8'0" floor-to-ceiling dimensions, the 5:8 ratio accordinglysubdivided; 5:5; 3:5; 1.75:3; and so on (fig. 25). The materialsused in these buildings were clearly meant for the long term: stainless steel, bronze, hard-coatedand anodized aluminum,verde antiquemarble, travertine,and terrazzo. Even as it became

fashionable to damn the tastemakers,the paradigmwas more often than not a Mieslike building, offering a mentalitydedicated to expressing the spirit of the times, with a belief in the possibility of "correctness." The Power of Mies' Chicago That this process unfolded in the heartland of America and that it was profferedby a middle-Europeanimmigrantis, in retrospect, not particularlysurprising.After all, Chicago'spopulationhas alwaysbeen rooted in Europeanvernaculars.The city has effectively been a bastion of middle-classand lower-middle-classemigres engaged in industrialpursuits;the professions and the arts historically played a comparatively insignificantpartin the city's early development: Chicago's first native son trainedas an architect, for example, Howardvan Doren Shaw, died as recentlyas 1927. Chicago (and the rest of middle-America)is solidly groundedin severaltypes of production-agricultural, industrial,and in the case of Chicago, architectural.The "Chicago School" met with welcome acceptance after the 1871 fire destroyedthe heartof the city. It was establishedby such late-nineteenthcentury architectsas William Le Baron Jenney, John WellbornRoot, Daniel Burnham, and DankmarAdler, all practicalmen first and foremost whose commitmentwas towardgetting the job done. The city's desire to matchNew Yorkin commercial prowess needed a no-nonsensearchitecture (fig. 26) to symbolize the directnessfor which Chicago was alreadyknown. Traditional forms in the classical languageof architectureseemed not only unnecessary, but even willful and vainly elegant when used for the "hog butchersof the world." The quality of pragmaticplainness, faithfully representedby Carl Sandburgand by later generationsof writers, including Nelson Algren and Saul Bellow, depicted the classically unsubtleattitudesconnected with Chicago.5Upton Sinclair'sdescription of the venality intrinsic to the meat-packing

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I recall that on one occasion a developer tried to justify to Mies the use of hard-coat aluminum cladding on an office building Mies was designing. Scolding the developer, Mies said, "You know, when we did the Seagram Building we studied the possible use of stainless steel, aluminum, and bronze. Bronze was a million dollars more expensive. You know, Dorfman, Seagram's owner, really got something for nothing."

121

industry in The Jungle suggests an environment (fig. 27) at odds with the style and grace implicit in the classical languageof architecture.Chicago's impatiencewith intellectual quibblingis in keeping with its strong belief in the rewardsemanatingfrom the process of production. Mies van der Rohe's coming to Chicago ratherthan to either of this country'scoastal (and intellectual)regions may be seen as almost an act of predestination.From his arrivalin Chicago in 1937 it took but one short decade for his power as a paradigmatic architectto take root. Using Chicago as a base of operationsand the versatilityof American steel as a tool of production,Mies was able to establisha so-called legitimate architecturethat was indeed "the will of an epoch translatedinto space." The reductiveelegance of his architecturewas destined to representAmerica's culturalmaturityand civility. It seemed possible, after all, to win a world conflict and come out looking like the winner.

122

I remember meeting Herbert Greenwald (a developer) in 1950, when I was twenty years old, and I recall how impressed I was at hearing this exrabbinical student tell me that he was more interested in excellence than in profit, thus explaining his commitment to Mies van der Rohe.

presentedfrom a particularizedrational point of view. Studentsmasteredconstruction methods, detailing, and the dictatesof structure,as well as extraordinarydrafting skills (fig. 28). It was as if an American Bauhaushad been melded with a modernist canonical version of the Ecole des Beaux Arts.

In a way Mies and his professionalcolleagues had uniquely createdan American work force peculiarlytrainedin buildingconstructionmethods. Peripherallyhe and his associates were inevitablytrainingarchitecturaleducatorspreparedto "spreadthe word." Such men as George Danforth,formerly of Case WesternReserve;Anderson Todd of the Universityof Houston;John How Mies First Established, Then Sugden of the Universityof Utah; and Manifested His Power Reginald Malcolmson of the Universityof Michigan were among those sent "abroad" Architects can polemicize their positions in from IIT and Chicagoto teachthe principles three ways: throughpedagogic methods; of Mies modernismin otherclassroomsat othertimes. Finally,andinescapably,practhroughan emulatablework product;and throughan enviable and mysteriousperticing architectstrainedby Mies and his sona-particularly when amply documented followers at IIT were to build in the spirit of their architecturaleducation. Such by others. Mies van der Rohe was capable of and capitalizedon all three. figures as Myron Goldsmith,Jacques Brownson, Gene Summers,JamesSpeyer, When Mies was named Directorof ArchiJames Ingo Freed, David Haid, Arthur tecture at IIT in 1938 by its then President Takeuchi, and even HelmutJahn, are in and one of the two most avid patronsMies varying degrees productsof this educaever had, Henry Heald (the otherpatron tion. Each in his particularapplicationof was the developer, HerbertGreenwald), structuraland constructionalrationalism Mies broughtwith him two otherexbrings luster to the trainingreceived under Bauhausprofessors-Ludwig Hilbersheimer Mies at IIT. (planning)and WalterPeterhans(basic deOf greatest importance,pedagogically sign).6 Thus, in one swoop, architecture, planning, and visual fundamentalsfell speaking, was the methodof recycling under Mies' control. In his firstyear as former students into faculty positions. directorof the school he took over the eduGoldsmith, Brownson, Freed, Speyer, cation of incoming students, apparently Takeuchi, Danforth, Malcolmson, Brenner giving up on the educationof studentsaljoined the school; in fact, virtuallythe enready indoctrinatedwith the school's earlier tire IIT architecturefaculty was composed attitudes. In 1939 he once again taughtthe of IIT graduates.As the years rolled by, an first year, and so on until 1941, by which ever increasingpercentageof IIT's graduate time everyone at the school was effectively studentscame either from IIT's undergraduunderhis tutelage. All courses of study (inate programor from overseas. With the cluding the history of architecture)were possible exception of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, architecturalinbreedinghas never been more prevalentthan at Mies' IIT. It may be that not since AndreaPalladiohas any architecthad such a massive influence on successive architects.Throughoutthe world,morebuildings carryMies' stamp than do those by any of his contemporaries. In Chicago alone there are forty-seven buildings by Mies himself, to say nothingof

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the additionaltwo score by his descendant firm. The early reputationof the young, maturingfirm of SOM was almost solely based on interpretations(and vulgarizations) of Mies' structuralclarity. Such architectsand firms as WeltonBeckett, Emery Roth, SOM, HowardBarnstone,Craig Ellwood, EdwardKillingsworth,Schmidt, Gardenand Erickson, and C F Murphy (now Murphy-Jahn)carry a large debt to Mies, without whom their work would not be what it is. Was his pervasiveinfluence the result of form following function, as both residentialand office buildingprograms became abstracted?Since there was no semiological imperativeto carry the sign of the building as Mies' methodswere best suited to carry out such abstractions,it would certainly seem so. Was Mies able to produce elegant, paradigmaticsolutions far beyond their intrinsiccosts because he understoodboth the possibilities as well as the limitations of Americanindustrialproduction in general, and the steel industryin particular?It certainlyappearsthat way. Was he embracedbecause his buildingsbore traces of civility throughproductionthat led to an understandableurbanfabric, an American urbantypology? It definitely seems so. Finally, in an enchantinglysimple way, was this not an undemandinganonymous architecture,which all architects might interpretand, dependingupon their sensibilities (or commercializingvenality), make their own without obvious homage to Mies? One can only infer the truthof this point. For all of Mies' architectureand its essential capability for apparentemulation, what was really occurringwas simulation.Other architectswere satisfied with simulatingthe authenticitypresent in Mies' work without resorting to the requiredphilosophicalrigor that would only make them appearto be too closely connected with Mies andthus subject to increasingaccusationsof sycophancy. While many architectsof the 1950s and 1960s simulatedMies buildings, precious few appearedcapable of authenticallyreplicating the essential qualitiespresentin Mies' work. Such elements as proportion, which seemed so exquisite in the Seagram building (fig. 29), seem to show up the lack of authenticityin the earlierfenestrationof LeverHouse directlyacrossParkAvenue (fig. 30). Even the attemptby Schmidt, Gar-

28

-

k -t, -

II

II

29

l

II IIl

1/

]i

I 'II

28 Student drawing of twostory row houses with load bearing party walls. 29 Seagram Building, New York City, 1957, Mies van der Rohe

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

123

nA

,,

rr

.

ijIts __

11

I

~iaS

'~ '

?

_

_* u~~~~~~~~~~~~i

.-.-. :s

n

-

s1.s

g

'J .

,~~~~

_

,.1.,~

'!:.

,,,.z,.~... i~111111.;i

ig

' t%E

I1,

I CIal~CEr:?

1

ii

t

iV,._lSl~

l .;.|s

s

h

~lflil

s

s

a _

-

s

..

-

.

_

J


. ,.,

.

.

!_

>

~ _~~

~

_

_

1

------

-----

II

__

32 Lever House, New York City, 1952, Skidmore, Owinp and Merrill 31 Alumni Hall, Illinois Institute of Technology,

Chicago,1945-1946, Mies van der Rohe 32 , Research Tower, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, 1957, Schmidt, Garden & Erikson'_

._,

_i

_I ,

_i-

~~~~~ 'm _n

. .w T P_~~~~~~~~~hY

@0

5wiP~~~~r

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

125

den and Erikson to replicatethe beautiful proportionof mullions to spandrelsin Alumni Hall (fig. 31) in the researchbuilding at IIT seems pedestrianby comparison (fig. 32). No matterhow hardothers tried, there seemed no way they could matchthe impeccable sense of ideal proportionwith which Mies imbued his buildings. It was as if architectswere more interestedin interpretingMies and transforming Mies buildings than in expandingon his language.

126

And yet in the many transformationsthat occurred in the quarter-centurybetween the end of the Second WorldWarand Mies' death in 1969, the only buildings that genuinely transformedMies' ideas about architecturewere those few that remained faithful to an aesthetic sensibility derived from structurallogic. The most seminal example is Chicago's Civic Center,designed by Jacques Brownson workingwith C F Murphy.This brilliantstructuraltour de force seems to transcendMies only because it is stridentlyfaithful to him (fig. 33). The building'sstaggeringstructuralclarity (87'-0" spans in one direction!), its proportion, its lucid detailing, and its potent presence in a structurallyexpressive city make it the preeminentexception to the massive simulationof Mies' work for more than two decades after the war. Thereare, of course, manyotherneo-Miesian examples, but none so comprehensively transcendedor transformed.Each in its own way is flawed. For example, while Philip Johnson'sglass house of 1950, in New Canaan, CT (fig. 34), is beautifulin its abstraction, it is precisely because of this (and its lack of clear structuralrigor) that it seems to fall far short of Mies' Farnsworth House of 1950 in Plano, IL (fig. 35). David Haid's clunkily proportionedbank of 1977 in Evanston, IL (fig. 36), can be compared to Mies' Social Service building at the University of Chicago in 1965, in Chicago (fig. 37). The Haid bank is unbelievably awkward, whereasMies' Social Service building is serene in its setting adjacentto Chicago's MidwayPlaisance. Similarly, SOM's Chase ManhattanBank of 1960 in New York, designed by GordonBunshaft 33 Civic Center, Chicago, 1965, C F Murphy

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

_>0

N-e

-_

35

34

37

36

127

-,,ll

34 Glass House, New Canaan, 1949, Philip Connecticut, Johnson Johnson

37 Social Services Building, University of Chicago, Mies van van 1965, Mies Chicago, Chicago, 1_5,

der Rohe 35 Farnsworth House, Farnsworth House, Plano, Piano, Illinois, 1945-1950, Mies van der Rohe 36 Bank, Evanston, Illinois, 1977, David Haid

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:18:54 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

4 '

,

:i

5 :St :di~-~~ ~~ ~ ~ t_ ~ Z 1: ~ r '.: r: < ai 0'< ;' _';.

(fig.38), is slickwithoutelegance,while

f f

#4,,

, _ , lr .1.

00* '

.)

)_'

1i _lr

Suggest Documents