Langevin Paper BANHEM

0

ReynerBanham,StandardofLivingPackage,1965

ReynerBanham:InSearchofanImageable,InvisibleArchitecture

JaredLangevin

HistoryofArchitecturalTheory

ProfessorKaiGutschow

FinalTermPaper,Spring2008

1

Disillusionedwiththearchitecturalestablishmentinthe1960s,PeterReyner

Banhamwroteoneofthemoresubversivehistoriesofarchitectureunderthetitle

TheArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironment(1969).Holdingtoatraditional

surveyformatfororganization,thebookdrewitsradicalnaturefroma

considerationthatthreatenedtodoawaywiththeusefulnessofbuildings

altogether:theemergenceofamanmadeclimatemadepossiblethroughdeveloping

technologieslikeelectricityanddomesticairconditioning,whichnegated

architecturestimehonoredroleasthesolecreatorofenvironmentsforliving

throughitsphysicality.AndyetevenasBanhamscriticalstandpointallowedhim

tocalltheoperationalloreofarchitectureintoquestion,hestillhadaclear

allegiancetoanevolvingModernaestheticwhichwouldleadhimfirsttopraisethe

consciousimageabilityoftheSmithsonsNewBrutalistbuildingsand

subsequentlythefantasticalpublicationsofArchigram.Bothofthesegroups

espousedtherevisionistidealsthatinspiredBanhamssearchforanarchitecture

autreinthe1950sand60s,butArchigramseffortsinparticulartopursueanew,

popculturallyrelevantimageforarchitectureresultedinworkthatwasonly

symbolicandrepresentationalofnewtechnology,havinglittletodowiththewayit

couldactuallyfunctiontocreateenvironments.1BanhamssupportofArchigrams

1BanhamfirstcoinedthetermarchitectureautreinhisarticleTheNewBrutalism,publishedinDecemberof1955.Itwasanalogoustotheconceptofunartautre,thesubjectandtitleofabookwrittenbytheFrenchartcriticMichelTapieandpublishedinParisin1952.

2

imageablePoparchitecturethereforestandsincontradictiontohisstrongest

pointsinTheWellTemperedEnvironment,revealingthedominanceofan

attachmenttotheveryacademicaestheticismthathiswritingsonartificial

environmentsrespondedagainst.

Banhamsfirstmajorwork,TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge,was

anefforttorevisethewidelypublishedandacceptedaccountsofmodern

architecturalhistory.WrittenashisPhD.dissertationundertheguidanceoffamed

historianNikolausPevsnerattheCourthaldInstituteinLondon,itcalledinto

questiontheselectiveandclassicizingtendenciesofmanyoftheseminalhistoy

textsonModernism,someofwhichwerewrittenbyPevsnerhimself.2Banhamwas

criticaloftextslikePevsnersbecausehebelievedtheirsubstancetobemisleading,a

presentationofclearcutandneatlycategorizedviewsofdevelopmentsinearly

twentiethcenturyarchitecturethatwereinfactfarmessier.Hewasparticularly

suspiciousofPevsnersestablishmentofWalterGropiusasanoriginatingfigurefor

Moderndesign.OfGropius,Banhamwrote,

Hisreestablishmentasoneofthe leadersofModerndesignafterabout1923wasastheheadofaschool devotedtoMachineAgearchitectureandthedesignofmachineproducts, employingaMachineAgeaestheticthathadbeenworkedoutbyother meninotherplaces.3

2Banham,Reyner.MachineAesthetic.ArchitecturalReview(February1959):89.

3Banham,Reyner.TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge.Connecticut:Praeger,1960,p.12

3

BanhamalsocriticizedGropiusforhavingcreatedamyththatBauhausdesigns

werefunctionalwheninfacttheintentclearlyhadmuchmoretodowith

aestheticsthanitdidwitheconomy:

itwasnomoreaninherentlyeconomicalstylethananyother.Thetrueaimofthestylehadbeen,toquoteGropiusswordsaboutBauhausanditsrelationtotheworldoftheMachineAgetoinventandcreateformssymbolizingthatworld.4

ExistinginwhatwastoBanhamacompletelytransformativeMachineAge,most

earlymodernarchitects,likeGropiusandothersattheBauhaus,usedtechnology

andtheMachineasanexcuseforastylisticallymotivatedmachineaesthetic.

Banhambelievedthattheaestheticreflecteditsarchitectssuperficial

understandingofdevelopingtechnologiesandmaterials.Hewrote,forexample,of

howLeCorbusierssmoothwhiteconcretesurfacesdidnotaccuratelyreflectthe

machinetechnologyusedtomakethemandhadmoretodowithilldrawn

analogiesbetweenmachineryandabstractart.5BanhamalsomarveledatLe

Corbusiersstubbornpursuitofdesigndecisionsthatonlycouldhavemadesenseon

anaestheticlevel,suchasadifferencebetweenframeandwallwhichmustbe

mademanifestatallcosts,evenatthecostofcommonsenselogic.6

4Banham,Reyner.TheAgeoftheMasters:APersonalViewofModernArchitecture.NewYork,Evanston,SanFransisco,London:Harper&RowPublishers,1975,p.29

5Banham,Reyner.MachineAesthetes,NewStatesman55(August1958)inBanham,Reyner.ACriticWrites:EssaysbyReynerBanham.Berkeley,LosAngeles,London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1996,p.27

6Banham,Reyner.TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge.Cambridge:TheMITPress,1981,p.262

4

BanhamfurtherdistancedhimselffromhistorianslikePevsnerbysupporting

theFuturists,asmallgroupofItalianartistsandarchitectsrespondingtotherapid

industrializationofItalyfollowing1890byembracingmechanizationandallowing

ittoinformtheirtheoreticalstandpoints.BanhamfeltthattheFuturistswerethe

onlygroupthatactuallyunderstoodthevalueoftechnologytoartandarchitecture

inmorethanjustaestheticterms.InTheoryandDesign,hewrotethatchange

overtoatechnologicalsociety.animatedthewholeofFuturistthought,and.

enabledthemtoexploitmorequicklythantheotherEuropeanintellectualsthenew

experiences..7HeaddedinthearticlePrimitivesofaMechanizedArtthatThe

Futuristsdidnotmerelyacceptthefactthattheyhadtoliveinthetwentieth

century:theyvolunteeredtojoinit.8.ForBanham,thatmeantthattheywerefully

awareoftheculturalimplicationsthenewtechnologycarriedwithit.Machineslike

theautomobilewerenowavailabletobeactivelyusedbytheuppertierofsociety,

andartistscouldnowcreatetechnologicalexperienceforthemselvesratherthan

relatetoitpassively.9FuturistpainterBoccionireferredtoanewmechanized

individualandF.T.Marinetti,founderofthegroup,spokeoftheManMultipledby

theMotor10.TheworkoftheFuturistarchitectAntonioSantElia(seeFig.1),

whichwasperformedentirelyonpaper,calledtoahaltthestylisticchangesthat

7Banham,TheoryandDesign,(1981),101

8Banham,Reyner.PrimitivesofaMechanizedArt,TheListener62(December1959)inBanham,ACriticWrites,41



5

hadmodifiedarchitecturetothatpointandadvocatedacompletelynewsetof

forms,lines,andreasonsforlivinginharmonywiththenewageofmachines.11

HistorianslikePevsnerbarelymentionedtheFuturistsintheirhistoriesof

modernarchitecture,andwhentheydid,itwasonlytodownplaytheirsignificance.

InPioneersofModernDesign,PevsnerspokeofSantEliasvisionsasappearing

fantasticalwhensetsidebysidewiththeSachlichkeitoftheworkofthoseGerman

architectswhoagreedwithMuthesius.12.BanhamsawthisdismissalofFuturist

workassymptomaticoftheaforementionedselectivecharacterplaguing

Pevsnerswriting,whichfailedtoaccommodateworkorindividualsthatconflicted

withtheestablishedchronologicandtheoreticalorderofhishistories.

BanhamssupportoftheFuturistsmayhaveputhimatoddswithmanyofhis

contemporaries,buthisattachmenttotheirprovocativevisionsandaesthetic

explorationsstillrevealedhimtobeevaluatingtheFuturistsworkinmuchofthe

samewaythatothercriticsdidthatofthemainstreammodernists.Indeed,though

theirsetsofformsandlinesweremoredirectaproductofthenewMachineAgein

respondingtonewtechnologies,theFuturistswereyetstillagroupofartists

reactingtosocietalchangesthroughprimarilyaestheticmeans.Banhamsattraction

totheirworkinspiteofthisfirstexposeshispreoccupationwiththenotionofa

zeitgeistofanarchitecturethatwasexpressiveoftheculturefromwhichitarose.

ThoughtheFuturistworkwasprimarilyimages,theimageswereappropriatelyof



6

thetwentiethcenturyandindicatedmuchaboutthemachineagethattheywere

createdfor.SimilarreasonssometimesledBanhamtoexpressenthusiasmsforthe

workofthemodernarchitectsthathewasmostcriticalof.Intheconclusionto

TheoryandDesign,forexample,BanhampraisedworksincludingtheVillaSavoye

justpagesafterlevelingtheaforementionedaccusationsagainstLeCorbusier,citing

theworkshighanthropologicalvalue:

Theirstatusasmasterpiecesrests,asitdoeswithmostothermasterpiecesofarchitecture,upontheauthorityandfelicitywithwhichtheygiveexpressiontoaviewofmeninrelationtotheirenvironment.13

Thezeitgeist,andBanhamsfascinationwithit,wouldcontinuetofigure

prominentlyinBanhamsworkofthe1960s,andespeciallyinhissupportofthe

imageableNewBrutalistandArchigramworksinthefaceofradical,rational

beliefsinanotherkindofarchitecture,onethatproposedtodoawaywithaesthetics

altogether.

ForBanham,the1960swereatonceacontinuationofanddeparturefromthe

workheddoneduringthepreviousdecadeonTheoryandDesign,whichwas

publishedin1960.Thebookhadexaminedthearchitecturethatwasbuiltduring

whatBanhamdeemedtobetheFirstMachineAge,whenmachineshadreacheda

humanscalebutwereonlyabletobeexperiencedbytheeliteofsociety.14Italso

claimedthatatthetimeitwasbeingwritten(1950s),aSecondMachineAgehad

alreadybeenusheredintoEnglandthroughuniversallyaccessibledomestic



7

electronics,butnobodyoftheoryhadrisentomeetthenewtechnological

developments.ThenewdecadesawBanhamsearchingforthisbodyoftheory,

drawinguponhispreviouscriticismsofmainstreammodernaestheticismwhilealso

nowbuildingtowardshisownalternativekindofresponsetothecontemporary

MachineAge.

Banhamsdesireforanalternativeorotherarchitectureshowedhimto

beheavilyinfluencedbyinvolvementwithtwogroups.ThefirstwastheFuturists,

whoseappealtoBanhamhasalreadybeendescribed.Banhamtookparticular

interestintheFuturistpainterBoccioni,who,inpursuinganartisticresponse

particulartothenewconditionsofthetwentiethcentury,Banhamsaidhadbecome

thefatherofantiart.InhisbookPitturaSculturaFuturista,Boccioniwrote:

Wewillputintotheresultingvacuumallthegermsofthepowerthataretobefoundintheexampleofprimitivesandbarbariansofeveryrace,andintherudimentsofthatnewsensibilityemerginginalltheantiartisticmanifestationofourepochcafchantant,gramophone,cinema,electricadvertising,mechanisticarchitecture,skyscrapers,nightlife,speed,automobiles,aeroplanesandsoforth.15

Thepursuitofantiartalsopartiallyinspiredtheconveningofthesecondgroupto

influenceBanham,theIndependentGroupofLondon,whichhewasamemberof.

TheIndependentGroupmetatLondonsInstituteofContemporaryArtintwoseries

ofsessions,onein1952andanotherin1955.Thegroupconsistedofartists,

architects,designers,andcriticswithadiversityofsometimesconflictinginterests

rangingfrompopculturetoantiarttoculturaltheory,allofwhichreflecteda

generaldesiretorevisetheestablishedvaluesofhighmodernculture.Banham

15Banham,PrimitivesofaMechanizedArtinBanham,ACriticWrites,4445

8

operatedsomewhereinbetweenthesevariedinterestswhilebringingaparticular

focusontechnologyastheheadchairofthemeetings,startinginfallof1952.

BanhamalsohelpedtostagetheParallelofLifeandArtexhibitinfallof1953atthe

ICA,whichwasprimarilybasedonthecommoninterestofgroupmembersAlison

andPeterSmithson,EduardoPaolozzi,andNigelHendersoninanartautrethat

rejectedformalismandstrictconventionsofbeauty.16Theexhibitfeaturedaseries

offuzzyimagestakenportrayingsubjectsthatdidnotconformtothetypicalhigh

artstandards,includingXRays,primitivearchitecture,andslowmotionstudies.

ThefocusoftheexhibitandthegroupwithintheIGthatauthoreditclearlyhada

majorinfluenceinBanhamsowninterestinarchitectureautreduringthefollowing

decade.

BanhamhadfirstcoinedthetermarchitectureautreinanarticletitledThe

NewBrutalism,publishedinDecember1955intheArchitecturalReview,towhich

wewilllaterreturn.Hisownunderstandingofwhatthisotherarchitecturecould

bebegantocoalescewithhissuddendiscoveryofAmericanBuckminsterFullerat

theendofthe1950s.NigelWhiteleynotesinReynerBanham:Historianofthe

ImmediateFuture,thatindeed,Banhamseemstohaverealizedthesignificanceof

Fulleronlylateinthe1950s;hedoesnotfeatureinhisPh.D.dissertation,noting

thatBanhamdidbrieflymentionFullerinonechapterasanengineerandwould

eventuallyaddresshimatlengthinitsconclusion,addedlateratthetimeof

16Literallyanotherartfororiginofterm,refertofootnote#1

9

publicationin1960.17WhiteleyalsoobservesthatBanhamfirstwroteatlengthon

Fullerin1959,inanarticletitledThoughtisComprehensive,publishedinthe

NewStatesman.18Inthe1960articleStocktaking,Banhamagaindirectly

addressedFullerasonewhowasacceptedasaformgiver,whilehiselaborate

bodyoftheoryandfundamentalresearchintotheshelterneedsofmankindis

mostlydismissedunread.19TheStocktakingarticlewasalsoBanhamsfirst

attempttodefineelementsofhisarchitectureautre,andpositedtechnology

againsttraditionastheprimarycombatantsinthestruggletodetermine

architecturesdevelopingtrajectory.Tradition,Banhamwrote,reliedonwhat

CharlesEamesoriginallytermedtheloreoftheoperationasthecoreofits

argumentagainstotherorantiarchitecturalsources.Operationallorewas

definedherebyBanhamastheintegrationofexperienceratherthanapparent

intelligence(i.e.availableinformation),baseduponthenotionthatfutureprogress

stillmustfallintothecategoryconventionallyunderstoodasarchitecturalevenif

thatmeantoverlookingthepotentialofutilizingnewtechnologies.20Banham

claimedtheloretohavespawnedbackwardslookingmovementslikeNeoLiberty

inItalyandtheFestivalofBritainin1951,bothofwhichsacrificedsensistivityfor

stabilityandthelatterofwhichdrewonfalse,nostalgicVictorianformsasameans

17Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:HistorianoftheImmediateFuture.Cambridge,MA,London,England:TheMITPress,2002,p.156

18Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:Historian,156.

19Banham,Reyner,19601:StocktakingTraditionandTechnology,ArchitecturalReview(February1960)inBanham,ACriticWrites,51,53

20Banham,19601:Stocktakingin"Banham,ACriticWrites,50

10

ofmakingBritainsafefortheModernMovementandexploitingongoing

nationalisticsentiments.21

ThepromiseoftechnologythatBanhamofferedasaformofoppositionto

architecturestraditionwasmuchinspiredbyhisunderstandingofFuller,whoin

1927haddevelopedhisDymaxionHouse(seefig.2)asahumanlifeprotectingand

nurturingscientificdwellingserviceindustry22.Furtherdevelopingthisidea,

Fullerhadturnedtothegeodesicdomeinthelate1940sasastructurecapableof

simplyandefficientlycreatinganartificialenvironmentinwhichhumanscould

live.Banhamusedtheideaofartificialenvironmentsasaprimaryevidenceof

technologyspotentialinStocktakingandseemedtobereferringtoFullerinhis

assessmentofthepotentialforthosepursuingenvironmentstodisruptthepractice

ofarchitectureasitexisted:

Itappearsalwayspossiblethatatanyunpredictablemomenttheunorganizedhordesofuncoordinatedspecialistscouldfloodoverintothearchitectspreservesand,ignorantoftheloreoftheoperation,createanOtherArchitecturebychance,asitwere,outofapparentintelligenceandthetaskofcreatingfitenvironmentsforhumanactivities.23

ElaboratingonFullersstructuralinvestigations,Banhamestablishedhisown

writtenparametersfordefiningafitenvironmentandindoingsointroduceda

radicaltheoreticaloutlookthatwouldcontinuetopervadeinhisworkduringthe

remainderofthe1960s:

21Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,13

22McLuhan,Marshall,BuckminsterFullerChronofile(1967)inMeller,James,ed.,TheBuckminsterFullerReader.London:Pelican,1972,30.

23Banham,19601:StocktakinginBanham,ACriticWrites,61

11

Thewordfitmaybedefinedinthemostgeneroustermsimaginable,butitstilldoesnotnecessarilyimplytheerectionofbuildings.Environmentsmaybemadefitforhumanbeingsbyanynumberofmeans.24

HereBanhamwassuggestingacompletelynewkindofhabitablespace,onethat

shedtheprerequisitesofmassandphysicalityandwasenabledbytechnologies

capableofconditioningfitenvironmentswithouttheaidofarchitectureasithad

traditionallybeenunderstood.Banhamcontinuedtodevelopthisargumentinhis

writingduringtheearly1960s,andin1965,hisalignmentwithFullerontheissue

becameevenmoreapparent.AnexcerptfromaFullerlecturewasthenpublishedin

anissueofMegascope3inwhichFullersaid

Withtheeverincreasingscientificdevelopment,theenvironmentwillbecompletelycontrolledandtheconceptofthehousewillbeeliminatedweareworkingtowardstheinvisiblehousewhatwillyoudowitharchitecturethen?25

Thatsameyear,BanhampublishedhisarticleAHomeIsNotaHousewhich

similarlysuggestedthepossibilityofanunhouse(seefig.3)andquestioned

whetherstructureswerestillnecessarybasedontheprogressbeingmadein

environmentaltechnology:

Whenyourhousecontainssuchacomplexofpiping,flues,ducts,wires,lights,inlets,outlets,ovens,sinks,refuse,disposers,hifireverberators,antennae,conduits,freezers,heaterswhenitcontainssomanyservicesthatthehardwarecouldstandupbyitselfwithoutanyassistancefromthehouse,whyhaveahousetoholditup?26

24Banham,19601:StocktakinginBanham,ACriticWrites,49

25BuckminsterFuller,extractfromlecture,Megascope3(November1965):unpaginatedinWhiteley,Nigel,ReynerBanham,Historian,185.

26Banham,Reyner.AHomeisNotaHouse,ArtinAmerica(April1965):70.

12

BahamsinvolvementwithFullerandenvironmentsduringthe1960sparalleleda

generalinterestinAmerica,whereboomingpostWWIIconsumerismhadledto

revolutionaryproductslikethedomesticairconditioningunit.Histripsthere

beginningin1961allowedBanhamtoconducttheresearchthatwouldeventually

informTheArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironment.

BanhamsloveforAmericabeganlongbeforehisfirsttriptherein1961,when

PhilipJohnsoninvitedhimtoNewYorkCityforapublicdebate.Whiteleytraces

BanhamsinterestinAmericaallthewaybacktohisyouth,writingthathisearly

lifewasamidneitherhighnoraspirationalculture,butAmericanpulps,things

likeMechanixIllustratedandthecomicbooks27Banhamwouldcarrythisaffinity

forAmericanpopcultureintohisyearsasamemberoftheIndependentGroup,who

sharedacommonbeliefinthevalueofAmericanpopcultureandtheviewof

AmericanPopArtasamaximumdevelopmentofaformofcommunicationthatis

commontoallurbanpeople,asIGmemberLawrenceAllowayoncedefinedit.By

thetimeofhisfirstvisittoAmericain1961,Banhamwasalsocarryingwithhiman

interestinAmericastechnologicalprogress,whichhadbeenunparalleled

worldwideinitsdevelopmentfollowingtheSecondWorldWar.Followinghistrip

toNewYork,hewasinvitedtoattendtheAspenDesignConference,begunin1951

byChicagobusinessmanWalterPaepckeasachancetobringtogetherdesigners,

artists,engineers,andbusinessmenforpresentationsonthetheoryandpracticeof

27Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:Historian,5

13

design.28Banhamstartedtoattendtheconferenceannually,andin1964and1965,

wasabletoincreasehistimeinAmericaandfocusspecificallyontechnological

researchastherecipientofaGrahamFoundationAward,whichwasgivento

individualsandorganizationstofosterthedevelopmentandexchangeofdiverse

andchallengingideasaboutarchitectureanditsroleinthearts,culture,and

society.29Hereportedhisfindingsinnumerousarticles,suchasTheGreatGizmo,

publishedinIndustrialDesignMagazinein1965.InTheGreatGizmo,Banham

praisedthedominantroleoftechnologyinAmerica,proclaimingthatThemanwho

changedthefaceofAmericahadagizmo,agadget,agimmick.30Healsomarveled

atthecliponculturethathebelievedhadcolouredAmericanthoughtandaction

farmoredeeplythaniscommonlyunderstood.31InAmerica,Banhamwas

discoveringevidenceoftherevolutionary,accessibletechnologyonamassscale

neededtoimplementhisarchitectureautreanditstaskofcreatingfitenvironments

forhumanactivities.

28Authornotgiven.History.AspenDesignSummit.Onlineavailableat

,accessed08/11/08.

29Authornotgiven.Mission.GrantFoundationAward.Onlineavailableat

,accessed08/11/08.

30Banham,Reyner.TheGreatGizmo,IndustrialDesign12(September1965)inBanham,ACriticWrites,109

31Banham,TheGreatGizmoinBanham,ACriticWrites,113

14

Banhamsresearchandwritingonenvironmentsandtechnologyinthe

1960shadanotableinfluenceoncontemporaryarchitecturalthoughtinhis

hometownofLondon.BanhamworkedtherefortheArchitecturalReviewuntil

1964,amagazinewithenormouslocalandinternationalinfluenceamongst

architecturecircles.Thefirstsignificantprojectthatshowedastrongrelationship

toBanhamsworkwasCedricPricesFunPalaceof1961(seefig.4).Thedesign

calledforanewpublicspacewithoutfloors,walls,orceilings,butinsteadagiant

steelframeworkfromwhichspacescouldbesuspendedorcreatedinanyfashion

thattheusersdesired,usingtechnologyasameansofinstantlycreatingand

modifyingspaceasBanhamhadsuggestedintheStocktakingarticleof1960.It

wasastrategythatwouldbelateradoptedbythegroupArchigram,whohadbegun

publishingtheavantgardeArchigrampamphletsin1961fromtheArchitectural

AssociationinLondon,andlikePrice,wereinterestedinhypotheticalinvestigations

intothepotentialfortechnologytodrivearchitecturesfuture.AsintheFunPalace,

ArchigramsprojectforaPlugInCityin1964(seefig.5)calledforasupporting

megastructureintowhichfullycontrollableunitscouldbeplugged,eachbeing

plannedforobsolescence.32Theprojectimpliedaseriesofenvironmentsbut

focusedmoredirectlyonarchitecturesrelevancetothrowawayconsumerculture

andpowerfulPopimagery,twothingsBanhamwasinitiallyambivalenttowards.

BanhamsinfluenceismoreclearlyseeninArchigramsInstantCityprojectof1969,

32Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:Historian,170

15

whichproposedthataseriesoftouringinstantenclosuresandsoundanddisplay

equipmentcouldquicklyinjectahighintensityboostintomajortownswhich

wouldbefurtheredbythedevelopmentofcommunicationnetworks.33Theproject

markedashiftinArchigramsworkfromwhatWhitelycallshardwareto

software.34FoundingmemberPeterCookexplainedtheirshiftingattitude,

especiallytowardsthenecessityoflargephysicalstructures,in1968:

Thedeterminationofyourenvironmentneednolongerbeleftinthehandsofthedesigneritcanbeturnedovertoyouyourself.Youturntheswitchesandchoosetheconditionstosustainyouatthatpointintime.Thebuildingisreducedtotheroleofcarcassorless.35

ThedesiretonearlyeliminatethebuildingshellrecallsBanhamsAHomeisNota

Houseof1965,andtheliberatingpotentialattributedtotheenvironmental

controlsfollowedBanhamsownfascinationwithappliancesliketheair

conditioningunitthatcouldcreateormodifyanenvironmentalmostinstantly.

ThoughArchigramstheoryandprojectssignificantlyaddressedthe

notionofenvironments,Banhamwassupportiveoftheirworkforadifferent

reason:whathedeemedtobetheirworksimageability.Thiswasatermhedfirst

usedtopraisetheworkoftheSmithsonsinTheNewBrutalism,apreviously

referencedarticletowhichwenowreturn.WiththeirParallelofLifeandArt

Exhibitionof1953,theSmithsonshadintroducedtheirinterestinantiartandina

33Cook,Peter,Herron,Ron.InstantCity,ArchitecturalDesign(November1970)inWhiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,221


35Cook,Peter.ControlandChoice,reprintedinCook,Peter.Archigram,London:StudioVista,1972inWhiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,216

16

cultofugliness,shownintheirrough,grainyphotographs.Sympathizingwithart

brut,astyleofpaintingthatinvolvedrawaestheticsandphysicality,theybegan

usingthesequalitiesintheirarchitectureasareactiontothewhite,idealizedboxes

ofprewarModernism.Banhamfollowedthismovementclosely,whichhasalso

beencreditedtoLeCorbusier,whoBanhamquotedinTheNewBrutalism.Inthe

article,BanhamtriedtooutlinethemaintenetsofNewBrutalism,whichhestated

asbeing1.)MemorabilityasanImage2.)ClearExhibitionofStructure3.)Valuation

ofMaterials.36ThefirstitemintroducedBanhamsconceptofimageability,which

hefurtherdescribedtomeansomethingthatisvisuallyvaluable,butnot

necessarilybythestandardsofclassicalaesthetics.37TheNewBrutalists,hewrote,

understoodtheobligationforgreatarchitecturetopossessthisimageability,and

honestlyconstructedform,anactiontheFunctionalistshadtriedtohidebehind

excusesofstructureandutility.ToBanham,therefore,theNewBrutalistsbuildings

wereatonceimageableandethical,twocharacteristicsthatbecame

synonymousinhiseyesbythelate1950s,whentheSmithsonsworkbeganto

degradeinhiseyesdowntoacontrivedaestheticdevoidofitsonceethical

underpinnings.WhiteleyspecificallynotesBanhamsdistasteforthe1956Patioand

PavilionprojecttheSmithsonsdesignedfortheThisisTomorrowexhibition(see

fig.6),writingthatby1956thesuspicionwasgrowingthattheSmithsonswere

36Banham,Reyner.TheNewBrutalism,TheArchitecturalReview118(December1955)inBanham,ACriticWrites,15

37Banham,TheNewBrutalisminBanham,ACriticWrites,12

17

becomingseducedbyaestheticsratherthanethics38Whatparticularlytroubled

Banhamherewastheevidentaestheticgoaloftimelessness,whichBanham

believedtobesubmissivetotraditionalvaluesandclosedminded.39Ethical

validitytoBanhamthereforewasanoffshootofgoodimageability,whichincluded

anopenaesthetic,expressiveofandonpacewiththebreakneckdevelopmentofthe

newMachineAges.Bytheendofthe1950sBanhambelievedtheSmithsonsNew

Brutalistbuildingimagestohavelostthisquality.

TheworkofArchigramwasentirelyimagebased,remainingwithinthe

confinesofpaperarchitecture,andinthiswayfulfilledBanhamsstandardof

imageabilitymoreovertlythandidtheNewBrutalistsbuiltwork.InArchigrams

drawings,Banhamsawtheconsciousattempttousewildarchitecturalaestheticsas

aneffective,popculturallydrivenexpressionoftheneweraoftechnology.He

wrotethatArchigram

Makenobonesaboutbeingintheimagebusinessliketherestofustheyurgentlyneedtoknowwhatthecityofthefutureisgoingtolooklike,becauseoneofthemostfrustratingthingstotheartyoldAdaminmostofusisthatthewondersoftechnologyhaveahabitofgoinginvisibleonus.40

Theseweresymbolicrepresentationsofatechnologicallydrivenarchitecture,oras

Banhamputit,thefirsteffectiveimageofthearchitectureoftechnology41In

theirabstract,eyecatching,andcolorfulcharacter,theywereadvertisements





18

specificallydirectedattheaverageconsumer,thefocusofanincreasinglyproduct

drivenculture.LiketheFuturists,Archigramkeptthedetailsofhowtheprojects

technologyactuallyfunctionedintheabstractrealm,andBanham,asinthecaseof

theFuturists,foundArchigramsimagestobeprovocativeenoughtosetasidethe

quibbleswithactualfunctionalitythathehadleveledontheworkofGropuis,Le

Corbusier,andotherModernMasters.Infact,Banhamwentsofarastoworrythat

questionsaboutfunctionalitywouldcompromisetheimpactofArchigramsvisions:

AlotofpofacedtechniciansaregoingtopoohpoohPluginCitystechnologicalimprobabilitiesandbrushitoffasaKookieteenagePopartfrivol,andintheprocesstheformallessonsofthePluginCitymightbemissed.42

Archigramhadntfoundaworkablearchitectureofenvironments,buttheyhad

comeupwithanattractivevisionofwhatthisarchitecturemightlooklike,andin

doingsohadmostsuccessfullyachievedthepowerfulimagebilityBanhamhadso

desiredforanarchitectureparticulartotheSecondMachineAge.

BanhamspreoccupationwithArchigramsimageableworkpresented

anobviousincongruitywithhissimultaneouspursuitofantiaestheticfit

environmentsduringthe1960s,whichhadculminatedwithhispublicationofThe

ArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironmentin1969.Bringingtogethermuchof

thewritingandresearchBanhamhaddonethroughoutthedecade,TheWell

TemperedEnvironmentrejectedthecategorizationofarchitecturalstylesandepochs

baseduponaestheticconsiderations.Instead,itofferedacohesivesurveyof

architecturalhistoryinrelationtotheachievementoffitenvironmentsand


19

examinedthedevicesusedtodoso.Intheintroductiontothebook,Banham

criticizedthedominanceofthevisualandstylisticaspectofarchitecturetheform:

thefactremainsthatthehistoryofarchitecturefoundinthebookscurrently

availablestilldealsalmostexclusivelywiththeexternalformsofhabitablevolumes

asrevealedbythestructuresthatenclosethem.43Hecitedtwoexamplesof

buildingswithprogressiveapproachestomechanicalservicesKahnsRichards

MemorialLaboratoriesinPhiladelphia,andWrightsLarkinAdministration

Building,inBuffalo.Both,heexplained,werewellknownwithinmodernhistories

solelybecausethemechanicalsystemaffectedtheoverallaestheticofthebuilding,

reflectinghistoriansshallowinterestintheprogressionofformalstylesanda

primarilyvisualunderstandingofarchitecture.Hecontinuedbyreiteratinghis

previousdisdainfortheloreoftheoperation,lamentingthatarchitectsstilltried

toregulatetheenvironmentthroughthephysicalityandmassivenessoftheir

structures,atraditionthatheclaimedbecameirrelevantwithnewenvironmental

technologythatmadeheavyenclosuresunnecessary.Hewrote,

Societiesprescribethecreationoffitenvironmentsforhumanactivities;the

architecturalprofessionresponds,reflexively,byproposingenclosedspacesframed

bymassivestructures,becausethatiswhatarchitectshavebeentaughttodo44

AlthoughBanhamwaspublishingthesecriticismsafewyearsafter

ArchigramsprojectforaPlugInCity,muchofhiswritingthatwas

43Banham,Reyner.TheArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironment.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1969,p.12

44Banham,TheArchitectureoftheWellTempered,21

20

contemporaneouswithandevenbeforethetimeofthePlugInCitylikeAHome

isnotaHouseandStocktakingechoedthesesamebeliefsagainstarchitectures

physicalandvisualpriorities,anditseemsshockingthatBanhamcouldhavehad

suchaninterestinnegatingstructureandrejectingaestheticevaluationandwhile

simultaneouslypraisingtheimageabilityofthemonumentalArchigram

megastructures.Indeed,thedominantaspectofArchigramsmegastructureswas

therestrikingphysicalandvisualpresence,eveniftheirmaterialswereindicatedto

bemorelightweightandexpendable.Inaddition,themegastructureswere

emblematicofanothermajorproblemBanhamexposedinTheWellTempered

Environment;theunmitigatedglorificationofarchitectureandthearchitectand

downplayingoftheengineer,whoBanhambelieveddeservedmorecreditforhaving

tocomeupwiththerevolutionarysystemthatmadesuchboldarchitecture

habitable.45InanintroductiontohisbookAgeoftheMasters(1962)writtenafter

thefactin1975,Banhamadmittedthatindeedthemegastructuresstillclungtothe

Modernidealofthemasteryofthearchitect,reconcilingthisneedwiththeneedof

individualfreedoms(thepluginpods),anattemptbythemodernmovementto

saveitselfbyitsowneffortsandoutofitsownresourcesandtraditions.46Asfaras

habitability,themegastructurescertainlycouldnthaveachieveditasdrawn,and

Banhamsdesireheretobringattentiontothosethatmakearchitectureworkwent

againsthispreviouslymentioneddownplayingoffunctionalityinbothArchigram

andtheFuturistswork.

45Banham,TheArchitectureoftheWellTempered,16

46Banham,TheAgeoftheMasters,6

21

Onemustwonder,therefore,bothhowandwhyBanhamwasabletohold

simultaneouslytothesetwoseeminglyopposingbeliefsystemsinhiswritingduring

the1960s,especiallyevidencedthroughhisappraisalofArchigramsprojects

imageabilitywhilestillinpursuitoftheantiarchitecturalenvironmentshe

wroteatgreatestlengthaboutinTheArchitectureoftheWellTempered

Environment.Oneexplanationhasalreadybeentouchedupon:thatunderneathhis

desirestoreviseandrejectconventionalhistoriesofarchitecture,Banhamwasstill

verymuchahistorianhimself,trainedundertheguidanceofoneofthemostnotable

figuresofarchitecturalhistory,NikolasPevsner,andlikePevsner,Banhamwas

fascinatedbythenotionofazeitgeist.ThezeitgeistinBanhamsviewwas

architecturesanthropologicalvalue:howwellitrepresentedthespecificconditions

ofacertaintime,placeandcultureandcouldconveythemtolatercivilizations,as

hebelievedprojectssuchastheVillaSavoyewerecapableofdoing,andbackwards

lookingworkslikePatioandPavilionwerenot.InTheHistoriographyofModern

Architecture,PanayotisTournikiotisexplainsBanhamsbeliefthatArchitecture

shouldbeperceivedasastream(intowhichonecannotsteptwice)ofreflectionsof

thetransformationstakingplaceinotherfields.47Hecontinues:Suchaconcept

allowstheauthortoseethemodernmovementasaneventbelongingdefinitelyto

thepastandtostudyitinordertolearnfromitsexperienceawaytoactinthe

immediatefuture.48Banhamevidentlyclungtothenotionthatthemosteffective

47Tournikiotis,Panayotis.TheHistoriographyofModernArchitecture.Cambridge,MA,London,England:TheMITPress,1999,p.158

48Tournikiotis,TheHistoriographyofModernArchitecture,158

22

wayforthesereflectionstobeperceivedwasasaseriesofpotentanddistinct

imagesdirectarchitecturalrepresentationsofaculturesdefiningtraits.And,

thoughhewasclearlyattractedtotheradicalnatureofaninvisiblearchitectureof

environments,Banhamcouldnevercomeupwithvisionstoaccompanythe

writtentheorythatwereassatisfyinglyimageableandexpressiveoftheSecond

MachineAgezeitgeistastheoutwardlyimageconsciousandpopculturally

relevantpublicationsofArchigram.

Whiteleyexpandsonthisexplanation,claimingBanhamsconflicting

viewstonotonlyreflecthisgeneralpositionasahistorian,butalsoamorepersonal

attachmenttothemodoarchitectorum,orarchitecturesculturalassociations,

whichpreventedhimfromfullycommittingtohispolemicalattractiontothe

radical,antiarchitectureofenvironments:

Itseemsthathowevermuchthepolemicisthatweshouldditcharchitectureanditstraditions,itisarchitectureanditstraditionsthemodoarchitectorumtowhichBanhamremainscommittedandemotionallyattached.Anarchitectureautreneverexistsforlongwithoutversunearchitecture.49

ForBanham,themodoarchitectorumthatWhiteleyreferstoherecanbemore

specificallystatedtobeModernism,whichhadmaturedasastyleduringhisyouth,

andwhichhegenerallyadmiredforitsattempttorespondtoitsculturalcontext,

howeverabstractly.Thepersonalnatureofthisattachmentiseasilyseenin

BanhamsvehementrejectionoftheFestivalofBritain,whichhesaidcompromised

thepurityoftheModernaesthetic,andofPostModernism,whichhedeemedtobe


23

buildingindragdespiteitsconsiderationofissueslikesymbolismand

imageabilitythatBanhamclearlythoughttobeimportant.50

Banhamsdevelopmentoftwoconflictingviewpointsthereforereveals

importantinfluencesfromhispast,whetheritbePevsnerandtheideaofazeitgeist,

asTournikiotissuggests,ortheModernmovementandmodoarchitectorum,as

Whiteleyargues,tohavepreventedhimfromfullycommittingtohisradical

architectureofenvironments.Onalargerscale,however,italsoreflectsBanhams

belongingtotheuniquepresentandemergingfutureofLondonduringthe1960s.

There,athrivingpostwareconomyhadusheredinadecadeoffinancialsuccesses

thatfavoredtheflourishingofyouthcultureand,asWhiteleyobserves,the

dominanceofayoung,hip,flaneurtypeofindividual,supportedthroughthe

financialstabilityoftheirparents.A1966Timearticleproclaimed,Inadecade

dominatedbyyouth,Londonhasburstintobloom.Itswings:itisthescene.51The

overallatmospheresupportedandevenencouragedtheantiestablishment,

revisioniststancesofstrongpersonaslikeBanhams,andofmultipleunderground

publications,ofwhichArchigramwasoneofthemostprominent.Theserevisionist

stanceswereverysuspiciousoftherigid,valueladensystemoftheacademy,and,

asBanhamexpressedinhiscriticismoftheNewBrutalistscontrivedaesthetics,

insteadfavoredanopennesstomultipleandunexpectedviewpoints,ideas,and

influences.Banhamssupportofcontradictingviewpointsreflectshisowndegreeof

50Banham,Reyner.ABlackBox:TheSecretProfessionofArchitecture,NewStatesmenandSociety(October1990)inBanham,ACriticWrites,293


24

opennessasaprominentpartofthisrevisionistcultureofintelligentsia.Insteadof

allowinghisworkonenvironmentstorestricthimtoanarrowlydefined,dogmatic

approachtothemultivariedpromisesoftechnology,Banhamwasabletorunwith

multipleapproachesthatheconsideredbeingequallyviable,usingthem,as

Whiteleywrites,asseparateresponsestoadiversityofdevelopingissuesfacing

architecture:

Itislessacaseofachangedmindthanofbeingoftwominds,andapparentlyofhavingtwoconflictingviewssimultaneously,witheachseemingtobeheldpassionatelyandexclusivelyall(options)werevalidresponsestoparticularsituationsandcouldbeutilizedaccordingly.52

And,thoughBanhamsresultantoeuvreneverquitepresentedaconsistentenough

caseforthereconcilingoffields(architectureandscience)whichhehimself

consideredtobeirreconcilable,itdidmanagetoestablishanopen,theoretical

relationshipbetweenthetwothatdistinctlyrelatedtothespiritofhistimewhile

allowingitsauthortoplayhispartasaprominentmemberoftheheterogenous,

youthdominatedculturesurroundinghiminthe1960s.

52Whiteley,ReynerBanham:Historian,386,188

25

SourcesUsed

Banham,Reyner,(BanhamMary,Barker,Paul,Lyall,Sutherland,Price,Cedric,eds.).ACriticWrites:SelectedEssaysbyReynerBanham.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1999.

Banham,Reyner.GuidetoModernArchitecture.Princeton:D.VanNostrandCompany,Inc.,1962.

Banham,Reyner.TheAgeoftheMasters:APersonalViewofModernArchitecture.NewYork:Harper&Row,1975.

Banham,Reyner.TheArchitectureoftheWellTemperedEnvironment.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1969.

Banham,Reyner.TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge.Connecticut:Praeger,1960.

Banham,Reyner.TheoryandDesignintheFirstMachineAge.London:TheMIT

Press,1980.

Cook,Peter.ExperimentalArchitecture.NewYork:UniverseBooks,1970.

Meller,James,ed.,TheBuckminsterFullerReader.London:Pelican,1972

Pevsner,Nikolaus.AnOutlineofEuropeanArchitecture.NewYork:Charles

ScribnersSons,1948.

Pevsner,Nikolaus.PioneersofModernDesign.NewYork:TheMuseumofModern

Art,1949.

26

Tournikiotis,Panayotis.TheHistoriographyofModernArchitecture.Cambridge,

London:TheMITPress,1999.

Whiteley,Nigel.ReynerBanham:HistorianoftheImmediateFuture.Michigan:The

MITPress,2002.

(Authornotgiven)History.AspenDesignSummit.Onlineavailableat

,accessed08/11/08.

(Authornotgiven)Mission.GrantFoundationAward.Onlineavailableat

,accessed08/11/08.

Figure 1

Buckminster FullerDymaxion House, 1927Elevation

Figure 2

Antonio SantEliaLa Citta Nuova, 1914Perspective

Figure 3

At left:

Reyner BanhamUnhouse, 1965Elevation

At right:

Reyner BanhamStandard of Living Package, 1965Elevation

Figure 4

Cedric PriceFun Palace, 1961Aerial Perspective

Figure 5

Peter CookPlug-In City, 1964Elevation

Figure 6

Peter + Alison SmithsonPatio and Pavilion, 1956Plan

Langevin Paper BANHEM

Documents