141 

the 

melting-pot 

• 

rex 

martienssen 

sir reginald blomfield hits out 
One is increasingly surprised at the ignorance displayed by writers on architectural subjects. Sweeping statements about "modern architecture" revealing a complete disregard for the most elementary concepts of architectural form appear regularly in the semi-technical press. For example in a review of work at the Royal Academy appeared the following amazing statement: 
Here we have a frankly modernist building, with flat roofs, corner windows, and a complete absence of mouldings. Surely a convenient and accommodating definition! But quite meaningless as recent examples of "modern" architecture in England have shown. For the slick recipe lop off the roof (leaving the chimney lonely projecting into the sky), take two corner windows and let them face opposite ways (that popular faux-pas of the I'll-try-modern-for-a-larkarchitect) and remove the mouldings produces a sorry mutilated thing. Bec&use our clever architect has taken as his basis a trusty symmetrical "traditional" plan and hacked and pulled it about in a furious attempt to modernize the reluctant form. But the house is not the right shape to start with, the plan is not the right plan-so it is uselets to cut and trim from the outside: the change must start further in. We must model outwards, we must conceive the problem clearly, then our house will have shape. Note-the problem. Because the arbitrary limitations imposed by a pre-selected traditional "style" are not flexible enough to embrace the increasingly varied problems which we meet to-day. Therefore the problem is the limiting factor, and it must be included at the outset. The traditional approach is confused-stifled: the forms of architecture will have significance only if they rise unfettered from the testing-ground of humanity. For building is the prerogative of the people- 

the days of the architectural virtuoso are numbered. But let me quote Sir Reginald Blomfield in the "Manchester Guardian" (he was speaking at the British Academy) 
• 
"In recent years there have been unmistakable signs of a break away from the great tradition of the past-and the rift is all the more serious because it is partly to the good and partly to the bad. The new architecture has deliberately turned its back on the past. Now, it is all to the good to throwaway meaningless forms and superfluous ornament, but it seems to be forgotten that the details of architecture are like the words of a language -it all depends how they are used. There is no more reason why an architect should limit the resources of his art to the capabilities of a box of bricks than that a writer should confine himself to words of one syllable. Buildings should be something more than packing cases in which holes are punched for doors and windows; and there are qualities of rhythm and proportion, mass composition, and fine planning such as one finds in the work of the great French architects of the eighteenth century which must still be the Ideal of those who really care for architecture. The new architects seem to have forgotten these things-they have tried to substitute for them a narrow and arbitrary conception of efficiency and have lost sight of the fact that architecture is not engineering, and that beautiful and ordered form is an essential part of its problem. If the new architects would widen and deepen their conception of ‘efficiency’ they might yet make good their claims to have revitalised architecture. They will not make good on the lines they are now following. What is wanted nowadays, in 
143 

architecture and in all the arts is some definite standard, some touchstone by which to test the value of the unending series of experiments which seem to be the penalty of our restless civilisation, and it is in this regard that we have lost so much since the days of the eighteenth century." 
• 
	Sir Reginald is indignant. 	Therefore Sir 
Reginald exaggerates. He likens the contemporary house to "a packing case in which holes are punched for doors and windows." Sir Reginald does not know the laws of organic growth, the laws of simplification, the laws of centrality. There are lessons to be learned from simple things. From the growth and structure of a plant-yes, even from a box of bricks. When a man confuses decoration with structure, when he is convinced that beauty and floridity are synonymous-then it is high time that he played with bricks and studied the cube. For the cube does not become ugly simply because we call it a packing case. 
One is easily led off the track by the use of foolish parallels. A careful consideration of the cube, and of different combinations of cubes will be more fruitful for the creative architect than a note book packed with the richness of his favourite architectural style. One has only to see the results of embodying the styles to rea1ise the sterility, the confusion of the law of application. The law of application would be rather amusing had it not spoiled the face of countless cities. Suppose an architect is asked to design a block of offices. He selects his STYLE. This is rather an arbitrary business, but should he decide on Italian Renaissance or French Renaissance, he will be fairly safe for these are very familiar styles. Tudor is rather less popular to-day, but at one time any form of Gothic was quite de rigueur. He selects his style because as a student he visited Florence or Versailles, and he is convinced that it is the loveliest and purest in architecture. Be it sixteenth, seventeenth, or eighteenth century 
144 

architecture. His favourite buildings are like jars of honey from which he sucks the sweetness. Then he rigs up an approximate framework on the site and-voila, the honey. Of course should he concentrate on the ideas of OFFICES, requirements, efficiency, to-day: he is a bounder, for he has violated tradition. Sir Reginald Blomfield can barely conceal his contempt for work which is not based (the law of application) on the architecture of the eighteenth century in France. It is almost incredible-but it is true. I have before me as I write some photographs of the Haus Tugendhat, by Mies van del' Rhoe. It is not ugly. Its forms are "beautiful and ordered" but these forms are unfamiliar. There is a freedom, a calm merging from room to room-from room to garden. There is a new definition of space. There is breadth and repose; an intellectual stability. And there is fine planning, but it is different planning Sir Reginald, and you don't understand it. 
We have seen your Richelieu and Senlis-and admired them; but why should we copy them. Because you think that architecture reached its high water-mark in France-at a given time? Too arbitrary and personal. Always it is the eighteenth century, the dignity, the grandeur. But think of the vulgarity, the weakness of draping our simple buildings with stolen trifles. The pomp and bombast of colouring our every action with a background of the eighteenth century. One thinks of Regent Street-your Regent Street Sir Reginald, and one dreams of projects.
And this question of a narrow and arbitrary conception of efficiency. Is it so narrow? Perhaps there is more of humanity in an architecture which brings light and space to the small, struggling man. Did the great architects of the past concern themselves very much with the working man. A chateau for a Richelieu, a pavilion, a casino, a toypretty things which we shall build on. No, the process is in the opposite direction. We must simplify through a great complexity not complicate that which is meaningless. For the past will not carry us far-the history of the future is more significant, and we shall find inspiration in sources which are in- 
over 
	
• 
commensurable with the styles. The humanities will give shape to our forms, and passion and strength will flow in. "A touchstone is wanted." A touchstone is here, but the medium has changed, the scene has changed; a revaluation is required, and we must cleanse the dross from our minds to perceive the truth. 
new york 
	proposed 	h 0 u sing development 
	howe & 	lescaze architects 
photo. architectural forum 

145 

typical floor new york 
proposed housing development howe and lescaze architects 

UNIT' " 

	_ 

Ie 

(orbusier 

and Irussia 

The "Architectural Review" for May, 1932, is devoted to a very thorough exposition of Russian architecture. Mr. Robert Byron discusses "The Foundations," and M. Berthold Lubetkin "The Builders." The latter section is illustrated by many fine projects for clubs, flats, polytechnics, industrial works, etc. Some of M. Lubetkin's work is very stimulating and reflects a genius which "represents a union between the analytical and scientific European mind with the boldness and originality of an eastern mind that has been influenced by America." Perhaps the most interesting (and disappointing) section is that illustrating the competitive designs for the new Soviet Palace, at Moscow. 
Disappointing because the award was made to an immature design, while vigorous techniques by Gropius and Le Corbusier were rejected. Even remembering Frank Lloyd 

'Wright's dictum "that the net result of any competition is an average by the average of avelages," one had hoped that the U.S.S.R. jury would not be influenced by sham symmetry. 

At Geneva we had Le Corbusier thinking 

too quickly, and pushing too far ahead on unknown paths for his contemporaries, and now at Moscow-a repetition. It is heartbreaking to think that an architect's value like that of a painter must perforce be recognised after his death. But this is not altogether true of Le Corbusier, for to-day architects are embodying the principles which he laid down ten years ago. His influence is far-reaching, so that perhaps he will eventually be enabled to build a great work, exciting, instinct with contemporary life, and a worthy contribution to the architecture of the world. 

	• his design 	was rejected because It was too practical. not sufficiently ornamented and palatial 	It was the 

choice of the technicians but the award was refused him on a treacherous technicality- -he did not use the proper linking-" from .. new masses" 

146 

recent world architecture 
There is a growing tendency in the "Architectural Forum" (U.S.A.), to illustrate work of an international character. In the March, 1932, issue, in addition to pictures of several of the designs for the new U.S.S.R. Palace there are model/photographs and plans of a Housing Development scheme by Howe and Lescaze (illustrated elsewhere in this issue of the "S.A. Architectural Record"). "The project is a commendable attempt towards raising the standard of city housing conditions." The arrangement of the buildings is such as to provide a maximum of fresh air and sunlight, and to provide large open space for recreational purposes. The old wasteful type of internal court plan has been discarded-and the structure rises cleanly defined and organic. I will quote from the Forum: "The open corridors served by a central elevator at the juncture of the two wings ... secures the advantages of rapid communication, eliminates interior stair halls, and provides each apartment with an open air balcony. The orientation of the units is such that the northern exposure (U.S.A.) is used for service and communication entirely, and apartments have the benefit of east, south and west outlooks. These buildings would lend themselves well to mass 
	production methods . " The construction is simple and each individual apartment is standardized as to design and equipment. 

The whole project has been planned to replace the intolerable slum conditions existing in the Lower East Side of New York City." 
• 
Elsewhere we illustrate two further ex- 
amples of international architecture-both in South Africa. House Munro, in Pretoria, by one of the younger architects marks a very definite stage in the steady growth of an international tendency in this country. That such a house should be built-so far from the centre of things-is in itself a very significant indication of the increasing urge for men to express themselves in terms of a world-wide code. It would be instructive for architects to discuss in the Journal the desirability or otherwise of this tendency. 
• 
The architects' office is a refreshing eSS1Y 
in interior decoration. and the harmonies of colour and form produced by such simple means should stimulate a keen interest in further experiments in this direction. The background of a practising architect must influence favourably or adversely his clients. It is an index of his capabilities and his taste. Let us consider closely the suitability of our offices ... through the eye of the client. For confusion is wasteful. II faut cultiver notre jardin. 

to the editors. The south african architectural record.  
Dear sirs, 
there have been criticisms of the new cover of the Journal and requests to return to the" old style." not only has it been said that the omission of the capitals has made the headings unimportant but it has also been critcised that the com position of the cover shows a lack of .. balance:
though the design of the cover is certainly not symmetrical it is nevertheless balanced. printed and unprinted spaces have different optical values, and it Is the distribution of these values only which makes up the real balance of the whole cover. 
the medallion of the old cover may have historical value but from an CEsthetl< point of view, It is entirely lacking in quality. It is by no means the pewllarlty of the form which to my mind, has mostly Improved the cover, but the idea which is obviously underlying the text and its arrangement (types and colours) and which must have sprung from considerations of the literary importance of the cover rather than from the wish to create a new form. 
It only adds to the Journal. if the fresh spirit expressed within its pages becomes visible on the cover. 
The demand  to go back to the old style: Is only a poor confession that the difference between vital form and style" Is not yet understood. 
One should not attempt to bind the contents of the new record in forms of the past. 
Going with the times, the" new record too, I suppose, will at some future date lay aside. Its present raiment and veil itself in new time moves on.
147