Book Reviews In an age wher schools ll too often lock ee prisons, and suburban oases aspire to the ron ‘umentay of palaces, such advace seems all the smoce timely. Notes 1. Ado Loos, ree pce, 1897-980 as ao ase Bains Googe Cet Ce, 1920. Te hand ‘dono the book poled he same year, onary ‘ry addon ets "Der tant und dean” (The Scand Arad “Ose Koken” The former ‘sashoraned vesion ofthe foreword Losey ‘0 Rainn fr on Kanon, ube in View by [Richrd Lan sn 1919. The ey on Kaos, whch Loo ero shout 2 edton offends work et be Ke Mahe, a0 pbel w Jnsury 1951, when the Ss eon was ed a es 2: Adal Laat, Spin nt te Cacao 1897-1900, ne. Aldo Ros rans Jone O. Newin Jl H. Sith (Cage MIT Pres 1982) 5. Adel Ls Oran and Cine Skoda [Adolf Opel ne Mics! Mehl Riese, Gti: Ariadne Pres 199) 4 Brenner Vera was owned and operate by Loo Send, Lag on Fick, wo wa so tar of Dor Broser, among he leaking pogesse ear mag sinesof the te 5. For 4 contemporary sneer of Lane raze ee foreamgie Php Laman, “Arisa on Mes- shan ey” Pri Zeg, 8 Fey 193117 6. Bitlis Porter, Pathe Madr Mozemert fom Wiig Mar Wier Grp (Lond, aber ate, 1986, 12 ‘Lada Min nd Gus Kanes, Der Acide Abs ose Darling ins Shona irkrapp/ Cirle Brkoeedns(Ven 08 Mase Scroll, 196) Adal Loos, Sana Sirf, sohune fe Franz lack (Vem Vera Held, 1953, The end velame nee speared 5. ASI Loog, a ae geprten 1997-9000 Ad ‘Opel (Vien Georg Paine Veg, 198) and Loos, Tetzdon 1990-1930 Ablf Opel Vie Goce Prater Vea, 18) See Butharde Baloch, “Oramtse nd Mythos” Aled Pian ed, Ornament wa Atm Zt Jo We do Jbranderoene Vienna Veg Chetan Brande, 1965), 57-8 10. Loos, "Oraeent rie” Les ai aa § ane 113), 47-56 1 Loos, “Onemeneer crm” LB mou? overber 1920, 159-168 12 Lao, Orrin tens” reine ante (Spring 1926, 830 1 Lao, “Orman un Vrbrechen” Fr Zita, 24 Ones 129. The ena wa egy eprinednthe Prager igh in November fe same yer 1. Aolf Opel Igadacon wo Ora and Crime Sd Bay, 15 La Lt, Dy Babee Tate Elbe exe, es. Adolf Opel and Herkert Semi (rani and erin Ulten, 180, 81 17 Orta Koes, My fy ns Dav Bric Ne “Ye Mail 1970 36 crisper Langs an ait rf farina cy and thy the Unrate Ta rn He cy complied ak the View seit Ja Frosh fo be Us f Og re 66 Reviewed by Aina Payne Pioneers of the Modern Movement from William Morris to Walter Gropius yy Motos Povser London: Faber and Faber, 1938. 2d ed, Now York, Museum of Modem At, 1949, 12942: historians postion in times of acste csi is unemiabia. He is at tobe toughe done ‘sh, oscapst, a stagger from the ranks of frogrese Or Gen gvas me the Impression of beng acutely corecious of this and of haung ft ged o write hi history wth one han an base ‘the philosophic drum wt he ther. The dru, Heantess, oores me, But Bc. Gledons history is the rea! tur. ohn Summerson, renew of Space Time and Architecture 1968: Tho dsapoearance of he Wea that Mode tecture 1s going to teceem the world is what most srkingydferertiaes Hachooek’ Book rom carer weatmerts ofthe same period. Ovousiy Modem arenitectre is nat glng to redeem the ori. But hw ingertat this prepestion was, cotn Rowe, ev of HR. Heeock’s Architecture: Nineteen and Twente Century 977 Pesners outook is ister pocaey the Popperian sense. te tie a preocoupd withthe fist. He Beene that aris and shoul be a prouct ofthe eno, skal and otic! ‘ontons under wth its crested: he toiewes that ‘here fs sucha ting a8 the essence ofan ag, end thatthe common essence mare important than it inst manfestatins; ne nes accrsndy dis camed the poses! and socal nos ofthe went tn contr and sists that art reacts must be sana to them, Consequenty Pe can ane doos insist thst he knows what wil id Must bs ‘arcs expressin of re age. Dewi Waster, Moray ana renter £1978: He Pevsner] was Clery fortunate tobe se fon a course by Gropus almost before ne know that ‘00h @ thing as 2 “Modern Movement” mig xs he certain was iflvnta in shaping he ideas of ‘wo no eee generations of artes, hstosang ad ates, 0 tal wer neo maka Ns Prophnies come tbe And at fast one ofthe 5 sons ne was so ifven! was tat his hist! snerlastions looked teat he te, and 0 many lentes st ook ood, The late blackness of ots atos i nt at sue her: Pevsner prrfommance i. He go im. He gtk more rt than Gesion or Hensel feock behooves aryof ue w recogni that he producd 2 pe- tur of te arenes ois oan te which was sof appeable and nas had demonstrable prec- No poor Fit was Whigs istoreism, ofthe ind of moraig that comes natural toa sleds Lumera, that made it possible todo tha, then #8 rh he worse for Butter and Poppe Reyer Bantam, review Of Moray ‘ang Arete 2001: Moray and Arctoctre was tus 20 ‘stamp to expin wy C1 unrecassary Yo ozopt ‘he vacuous EGER whieh Hes Hetind me erg Tar on the esttstment, the book ‘aused @ considerable si atthe me, eng passionate pais and passionate ert. Wy tying tout again twertour years ator? Tho reason 's sir that though the goneal pubic sas hos te now as was then to the damage eects of rmodomistarstctu ln histone satings, ho ro ‘essionalsrttetural establishment ssi dint. 4. the same belles. Then as nw the paste ‘of vactonal and etasscal rectus aught inno Bish schoo of sehitestr, ~Devid wethn, Meraty and ventecuro, 2004 eaten ARCHITECTURE AND OBJECTS: ‘THE POWER OF PEVSNER “Taophile Gautier esd to have died ofa beo- sen heare ove the destruction of Paris perpetra= ced by Baron Hausmann. Although aot associated sith Jos of life, the roughly contem- porary Battle of Sries in England was equally heated and personaliy-riven isto, the polemic surrounding moderisarhivecue and 1s advocaes reached no less of en emotional and intelleceualpiech both between the wars and ‘snce. Fach century has its architectural ae tie ‘Yet, a controversies go, the one focused on modernism bas lasted longer than anyone could have predicted. Ith fst eriagues of mod cerns can be traced back to the 1950s Gn England and Tay), and ifsts tenets and vocabu- lary seemed wo receive death blow afer death blow in the 605, "7s and", inthe past Bf teen years it has once agamn drawn the atenton. ofboth scholars and pracucing architects. Ar the remove of more than a generation, madernist arcitectre sill poses important questions [Neverteles, despite and perhaps hecsuse of this renewed interest it eontnues tobe per- ‘ceived as prehlematc! ‘Recent sties of che early accouns of mod emism are a cise in point Treated with suspicion in dhe pas decades, these accounts, ike the atchi- tecture they preset, have become once more the objects ofreassesment and debate? On the face oft, these histories ofthe birt, nse and wesory ‘ofthe "modern movernent”difer lil in their road swokes. All follow a uajecory tht leads from the Indestal Revoluon, through the “American skyserspe, the British tam to the Ars snd Cras the deansing if vkimatey sion intermerzo of Art Nouweas, the development of new technolo and materials the creation of the Werkbund ant demise of Expressionism, 0 the manure work of Gropins, Mies, and Le Cor- ‘aster. Depending on the author, the sight Fine rising to ds climax may include additional ‘names and movements (uch a the Dutch, the FFotsits or the Rusians), but the silanes in the series they tell are swiking. “Thus historiogesphic template—based on progres as fundamental ordering principle—is a familiar one In thie owa way chese narratives perpemate a radon first consecrated by Gior- io Vasari, the begettr of art history, wha in hisslow awakening, the first glimmer, the early scceses, and the race tothe finish ofthe Renaissance. Yer unlike his modern colleagues, ‘Vasari did wonder about the forure and fele ‘some qualms. Where th epgon! would go or ‘what there se le fae them t do once the cl: lective sought aesthesc narm was stained, he did not know; nor did he know (although he feared) if ar, a he knew it, would come to an end and be rehorm once again, but diferent in the cyclical way ofall living things For all hie biases and natural filings, Vaart remains a useful indeed 2 unique source for scholars working on the Rensissunce today. Yet, ‘unlike him inthis respect, dhe exp spologins of modernism—the heroic trinity of Pevsner, Sigied Giedion, and Henry-Rusell Hitcheock that strangely paleied the winity of Mies, Gropias, and Le Cortusie—have not all met with the same fate in she revisionist teraare, (Of the thre, Hitchcock has bad the sist sme offic Pablishing his magnum opus Architecture: [Ninmaomt and Pocnitb Conte inthe late 1950s, he had far fewer barricades to scale chan his two colleagues in arms. Less polemical and proselytizing, he has also ben more realy sccepted 253 historians historian? This is not to diminish the semixalimporeance of his 1929 Modern Arcitcrur: Romantica and Reiser tion-"Yet this work was (rightly o¢ wrongly) cedipsed by Pevsner Pionerof th Madern Mavement (1936), Giedion’s Spa, Te a Architecture (94), and by Hitchcock’ own revised, much enlarged and toned-down ver sion of 1958. Likewise his 19382 MoMA Ineras- tional Ste exibition catalogue, co-authored ‘with Philip Johnson end Alfed Bar, although ingluential o be sure did nor enjoy the cxtcal, fortune and the same phenomenal classroom ‘exposere and rendetship over the years. AS sult Hitcheock did not beoome «bone af o~ tention in te redefinition of modernism, snd it was Pevaner and Giedion who bore the brunt of the porowar critique Of the two, Pevner has kepe the polemical fires burning the longest His Pimeers,pub- lished in 1936, wth new editions in 1949 and 1968, was reviewed, atacked, and defended at all thse ritical moments inthe reception of modern architeerne. So was Giedion’ Spas, Time and Archzctre (edited even more often sand printed unl 1980). Yer while the reevalua- ‘ion of Gidiom atthe hands of Spiro Kostof, Sokratis Georgiadis, and others in the pas teen years hae recovered the intellectual dimaen- sion of his achievement, Pevsner continues to be called to task and presented as an adversary. In bis Morality and Arbiteure,reedited in 2001, David Watkin poins to Peners s wo some form of original sin when he attacks the resistance classicism in contemporary British architectare.* Ifindeed Pevsner has sinned, if he has “led, ‘guided, deluded and deceived ws," as Timothy “Mow also argues, is there anything to be guined Book Reviews Ahnly dogised combative ance wih the cf erence "bat, tls announce the ‘methodological underpinnings of his argument For him the profound artiste dishonesty dat made this comedy posible” was “shone” that masked the ese site dent of che 19th cena. Tha he shold choose this tyle- ‘sed fume fr his angen s perhaps not spring lb bit fellow combatants he was trained a an arth, and the pre-eminent fame for al inquires inthe Bel atthe tine (and for» good while to come)—one that he could not esape ya he might—was se ‘Ofcourse the noon of petod syle i ozely alli w the Hegelian ides of Zeit, being, ait were, the inde fis operation in dhe vnu- al domain. Both ae invoked by Pevsner, dough peshaps more dred is comsemporscy ‘4n Bagiy int Inari Art Elen (1937: ‘Why ae Renisnce ink sands with a ake Sig ur of Jt, why are elghtzeth-centry pats sd Chinese empl stsacrory? Nos becnase ‘here are any ws demanding or forbidding ce- ‘an amount ors cea pe of decoration, bat ‘erase cory period creates om ale acon ing to iin law of ality. hud vo emphasize ‘more thn once that mos modern arches fel st set som a they a ake crest for deoo- aon, for men only (artistic metalwork, abort ccc chandebes, jeweller). Now we ean give a reson fr that, Shoogh one which 1 afraid will no satsly everybody Teste "Zeige of ag, the age of el of ped, of vor or mhitver ne ye, bar see at low for mich ply aed caefe enjoyment, One say rgret ving in sack an age, but one cance. ler certainly 08 by imitating the uae fom of ther periods? Indeed, this promise and the role ofthe indos- ‘tial arts in the development of a modem syle sane the cell starting points of Pimters. And this Js precisely where Pevsner also begins to part company from his colleagues and to revel the ‘unique value of his text. If syle led him to ‘endorse a detrminise conception of history (Grhether Hegelian or Generics in origin) Pevsner has Kept the polemical fires burning the longest. His Pioneers, published in 1938, with new ditions in 1949 and 1968, was reviewed, attacked, and defended at all these critical moments in the reception of modern architectu from reading Pewsnet today2And if this poe sent polemic testifies his book funtion like a perpecsily smoldering, never quite extinct val- teano on the verge of eruption, why does i What was and whats the power of Pevsner? -Much has been impoted to Pevsner for his alltoo-persuasive presentation of reciprocal relationship berween period syle and Zeitgeist Indeed, syle is Pevsner’ starting point—inciden- tally, itis Hitchoock’ and Giedion’ r00—and his endorsement ofa spirc ofthe age i made lea fom ve vey Se Las ofthe bok, which opens with an account afte chen distant Bale ‘of Syl Elipscally ushering in Persners own. complete with ts fallacies and shortcomings, it also led him to identify aspects of modernism that would have passed otherwise unnoticed, ‘Unlike Hitchcock and Giedion, who address some of the arts itis Pevsner who, methodologi= cally, embarks onthe most systematic are historical analysis of modern sje. Each of his capers is more or Jess neatly devoted toa dif ferent class of objec: the decorative arts (chap- ter2 and mot of # and 6) painting (chapter 3: engineering and new materas-based edifices (chapter 5} and architecture (chapter 7). All, together they display (or most display in onder to be perceived by Pevsner se progseein) the ‘cominion features tat give visible form to the 67Book Reviews Zeitgeist of modernity. How things look— defining ther formal qualities in a powerfal vocabulary chat applies equally o all medin—is ‘sential fo Pevsner argument and allows has to move swifly across the arts.° This visual approach alsa allows the reader easy acces ty the argument: picture and words are integrated sno a persuasive marc. ‘Although Pevsner gives all aspects of artistic prodaction equal space im tracing the birch of {modem architecural syle, is his emphasis fon the decorative arts that sets his we of ste apart! Even the bool le conveys this pproéch. Ar shifts fom Pioner ofthe Mader ‘Mscemont (1936) Pioneers of Modern Design in the 1949 MoMA edtuon, and despite che refer~ cence to Walter Gropis itis a statement of dif esablshed bythe Werkbund. The ulate synthesis, however, comes in the work of {Grogmand this true not only of hs bulé- {ngs but also (and especially) of his Bachanseur- tical, which embodied the unity of the as and confirmed the presence ofa Zeitges, “For tore than a decade (che Bauhaus was a paa- ‘mount center of creative energy in Europe, Te vas atthe same ome a laboratory for handira snd for standadizaien, «shoo and 2 work. shop." Urbanism (a principal swe for Gidion snd not addressed by Hitchcock a all 1929) is hardly mentioned by Pevsner, whois con- cemed with the formal qualities of single buld- ings and single obyes not with their ‘metropolitan aglomeration.” Ifthe mod- erniss' bale ery “tom Sofikssen zum Satle- Unlike Hitchcock and @iadion, who address some of the arts, It Is Pevsner who, methodologically, embarks on the most systematic art historical analysis of moder style. ference (rom the pots ofview of Gio, Bitcheock, Gastar Ado Pla nd othe) su sung an exorson of noe ars than ne ‘The o-ealed Kunde (Moris reform) ice he begining of Permers nar an Become the red read wening srough theres oF he bok: Aer the wake-up call othe lw tty ofthe desratv art provided by the 1851 Exhbinon andthe mich needed ensuing reform in art ede, he argues the ind tral bjs the “sal ings of ereyay 2) sn Eagan inthe period 1890-191 dpayed “enone, gracfnesy,reeshing simple, lignes pli orice The dose mow. ere of mdiralom es vine. Living mong sich objec, we reste a ear OF parla portance for he coming “Modem Movement was the expresion of hit ‘new sit in abet making” Ths achieve- snort erly eis shift chen only Ferévablin painting "Olne reeognizes the tendency rowan lrg, beaten srios Song eau putes parallel v9 ‘Cezane or Gangin in punting nde, Cérann shows ta "the sb chem of construc isthe el abet of the pie ‘ors constr i pares wih cds, sphere and cone For Poe, leaders of Earopern pining 1890 ough for some thing tha ad never exited Pore, = On che ‘whole the new ale was fe rom aton, encumbered and uncompromising. (TIbe Teak ws achieved bythe ster exten tye srhtecs™* “Theresir the mraiveunfol along now fein ins, poerfl bose smple. Poe ner’ leadng eros Henry van de Velde, Oxo ‘Wane Ado Los and the Frank Liye Wing ote and Chapt of th Mace 1901) sere decnively samuel in heir hough by England" Bother achievements were sla ed."To have achieved a wide movement pro tnoung these new wens undeniably he mei of German architec and writers” Saliet (obec stp, standardization, at Imachine a ar he dinonguhing fetes the “anverly recognized spe sbnequndy bau” (from the sofa cushion to city design”) Aeserbed a spectrum wider stil than Persner¥, the nonetheless was th one wo give the Sofaluren its due ia the sse of an architecaral vocabulary Although Pevsner’ dependence on the ‘Vienna school’ eur to Geiegebicte filtered through German art hscorins August Schmar- sow and Wilhelm Pinder has been acknowl- ‘ged, his dependence on another Vienna School theme has remained in the shadows eraners move to credie the decorative ats ‘with 2 central role nthe development of ‘moder vocabulary ofthe arts we not new, for althougs he never names him, he clearly owes ‘much wo a tradition consecrated by the Vien- ese are historia Aloss Rigg. In the same way tha his Swiss contemporary Heinrich Wellin can be sensed behind Giedjon’s work ar Har- vard at historian A. Kingsley Porter behind itchoock', and though much has been made ‘of Pinder m Pevsner case, aegis the real force behind his approach. There is ceranly ro question that he knew Regis work. As 2 Gerinan-trsined ar historian, Pevsner literally could not have avoided a thorough aequain ‘ance with his oeuvre, which was no only con- saderable bur also seminal. As far as method is ‘concersed, Regie chef-d'oemyre was and remains Spltromizhe Kanstindyeieof 1901, in ‘which he fully develops and establishes the cox cxpt of Kunervele (a basi willoward-are that characterizes every historical period). However, isnot the Kunrvallen that Pevsner picks wp from Rieg, but his expanded field of objects pertaining to art Indeed, though Riegl covers all bre Roman ar, the decorative arts ae the book’ center of gravity (he also privileges them inthe ste). For Riegl the Kutinduriei the ‘muest sensor of style (@ postion already evident in is Sufragen of 1893) and the repository or ‘essence of dhe Kunsrwllen of a period in its smost naked end raw, and therefore most gen tune state. The ideo nas aleeady present not fully developed in Wlfin’ 1888 Renaisonce send Barock, in which the author nor only als shout the Farmgfidl feeling for form) of «epoch but alo locates its first signs in the objects of daily consumption.” To be sure, Herbert Read 1934 Ar Industry, promotes 2 sinilar aesthene ro Peesner'—pro Bauhaus and ‘Gropivs, pro abstraction snd modernism—and is moreover 4n acknowledged source for Pu seers ins atenton tothe decorative ats. Yet his voice rang a Sear note to an ar strian of Pevsner bckground: Reads own source also seems to ie in the Reg! tradition, in this ‘ease through the agency of German ae histor sa Withelm Worringer Riesl8 most famous follower) whose Farm in Gath one of the very fow works that he cates." Ye even despite this similarity, Reads book remains an mvest- gstion nto the decorative arts in the 1th-cen- ‘hry Brissh tradition initiated by such works a8, Richard Redgrave’ or Henry Cole’ (whose joint brainchild was the 1851 Great Exhiby- ion). Unlike Riegl and Pevsner, Read docs not sim to see a causl relationship between the ts, and he posits no lnk between Kavstindur- trie and archiver, Tnstead, an even more important source for ‘Pevsner was Reg!’ own predecesor, Gothied ‘Semper. Writing hus magnum opus De Sil (1860-1863) as bot architect and archistorian, Ihe had set out the lines of mquiry upon which much of Riegls work was to evolte,parucularly the strong case for Runrsndutrieas the DNA ‘of any enlere. Despee is impact eis work remained on the periphery of art history 25, Kerseeasenshaf (for not being sffcienty hs- ‘torical and had long since been removed from the canon upon which Pevsner’ education had ‘been based. Yer, for Pevsner he offered one fandamental insight: the mass-produced object of daily use isthe point of contac between art and society. And, m2 revolutionary move for ‘he time, Semper claimed that che quality of the “high” and “monumental” arts depends on the health of that relationship. I is thus Sem- ‘per admonstion and edacation-baved solution ‘to hs own mad-1Oth-century criss he devel- oped both an education curriculum and a phi losophy of museum display which was seminal in Britain and Austra) that Pessner iteally lifts without acknowiedgrnent for Pioneers (there is only one fleesng reference to Semper'’s seminal essay, “Industry, Science, and Ar” of 1852 1m the 1968 edition) and for Emgury into Industrial Art Bnglond (1937) Having appropriated a particular notion of seve from the Semper-cam-Riel tradition, Pevsner identified the period recs chat auddcesed the induserial arts and developed his _argoment agrnst this documentary back: ‘ground, Thus he drew heavily on the wings of Herman Muthesius (by contrast Hitchcock thas only two passing mentions of Dar engleshe Haw) and van de Velde (particulaely Dee Rena sancti madre Kunstgewerb of 1903). That these texts also allowed him t» anoint his new fatherland wat a Iadership role in begeting 2 new moder vocabulary was not an signi cant derail, OF course he simplifies matters and ‘obscures some of his soures. For example, in his Mderne Beukwrs of 1908, Karl Scheffler Jnad argued that objects and interior design lay at che origin of che moder archteerual vooab- lary and had elevated Morris amd van de Velde‘lary and had elevated Moms and van de Velde ss exemplary agents" Ie is hard to belie that, vith hi education and anerest, Pevsner had not read this book. Ye, intoguing thoogh such Tapes maybe for todays reader the perusive power of his ook ies preset in i ability {0 tell poser story with» few well-dlin cated characters who cary «Hear plot swifiy ‘eis dime Perhaps even more distrbingly for some of his readers and ne Warhcock and Giedion, Pevsner ls ha a strong left sil message 1 deliver Although Morse agin the parai~ inate igure who idensfed the “one exenial problem, the indsolsble unity ofthe ar of one ge and its socal sma” isa Germany that 2 cally conscious archivecrre was ultimately Conceived, Despite his paean fr his adoptive counay,Perser dino pul his punches, and hae betes the English for resisting the stl agenda of moderns: "One reason was tht) the leveling tendency ofthe coming mass rmovement~and atic arhteetaral syle tnassmorement—was too mich aginst the srainof Enghsh charter A similar antipathy prevented he rubles serapping of eaditions ‘uch was beni othe achievement of he Sing oer century.” This concer o preserve the social tpro0t cof moderns seven more evdnt in Peres’ Jesserincw contempors) and I would argue, companion volume, the 1987 Ax Engnry ats Indus Aron England. Mains source ws Semper, whose own work was deeply informed by dat other rewousonary moment, 1948 “like esbert Read, whose sees inthe ecortive arts never lead him to poi oil roe for che ar, Pevsner almost quotes fom Semper when he develops a whole edveuon program ruse the eel of ase in his society azar the deplorable ste ofthe decors tive arts on a captains ran Fos" sage and appearance of ll products were left. che ~nedveated manafiesster..-. [Tike consumer ‘had no tradition, no edventon, and a leisure, andr ike the producer, cin of this This les poston 1m Pevsner work was not unrelated this coneeption of spenod sive revealed in the objects of iyo. Indes ifhis advocacy of nonaesteacied, snase-otinted modersiam se is story ofthe movement apr, his foes onthe indus ats is methodological counterprt this social ‘conceen, a wae for Semper, the politic! ‘mugé to England following the 1948 revols- tion, Raking the stats of te modest objets of duly consumprion, of the objects that reached the masses, da of ela ions, he also promered a nonkierarehicl, demoeraie con ‘egion ofthe at, The wadton endured throug Rig and the asoaion ofthe Vienna School of art history with the Museum fir Kenst und Indasoe. Bt wlimatly the study of the decorative a bectme separated font the trunk of ae histo a high ar, once again, took center sige fr mort nmi, Both Giedion nd Hitcheoek followed this end, and itis not unl 1948 chat Gestion senouly Gf difereniy) addres the ise of objec as ‘etree: Svea Lamps fo me AEG, 19072 instrunents in his Mecbaniavon Ter Com ‘mand* Indeed, at historical work on the deco- ative arts remained s tributary w the mainstream ofthe disipine wll no oar own day, not dgaifed wit the prestige accorded the other arts and ther genius arts ‘evsacr commitment tothe original, poli cal impulse behind rsodemism made dating smother very imparantisue for him. Aware that modernist forms were beginning to be appropriated devoid oftheir content, he made xt Is object to combat this trend. That has per- ception was correct was borne out by Colin Rowe forey years ter “I modern European architecrure) was introduced in tte United States] largely purged ofits sdeologeal and soc cal content; and it became avaiable, not s an ‘endent manifestanon or cause of socialism, bt rather a a dor dy we for Greenwich, Connoct- ot oF asa suitable veneer forthe corporate actions of enlightened capitalism." eis for this reson that Pevsner places great emphasis ‘on the invention of modernism, on the original modernist reject and its poli rather than aesthetic) roots, For hum the representative of this unaduteraed modernism is Waltze Gropivs in 1914 and, more broadly, the Ger. sans (particularly Peter Behrens). What comes later is developenent—beiliant t be sure-—but emptied of content. This s why Punces ends with the Werkbuad show of 1914, whereas Hitchcock and Johnson extend ther books t 1932 (the fll ile of heir 1932 exhbicon s “The iernasosal Ste: Arebitesure Since 1923), and Hlitcheock' 1929 Modern Arcsturs includes Le Corbusier, J.P, Oud, Robert Mal- Tet Stevens, aad Mies, nd charts modernism into his very own present. Likewise 19 his 1941 ‘Shue, Te and Arcbtcsur, Giedion extends his inguiry tothe late 1930, and, adnough Grapius isthe climax ofa development he traces fom) the Industrial Revolution onward sa ie Le Corbusier, who gets equal biling ‘Yor Pevsner’ project to be succesful how ‘ever, he had to identify the “real” pioneers, and these are Wright, Logs, toa lesser extent Book Reviews (Charles Voysey and van do Velde, bua especally carly Gropiss. Ta fac, Pioneers i really an answer to Le Corbusier’ claims ins then secent Oawore comple which gave Pevsner 8 feeling of urgency to set dhe record straight nd probably also contributed to his polemical ane: "The historian mast emphasize this point, because Le Corbusier, party owing to his mag: nificent ares imagination ad party to cor ‘ain showenanship, has been taken for one of the ereators ofthe Modern Movement. [eis soxpasing how after so short a time of ewenty or thirty years historical faes already tend to ‘become dim and legends to grow up.” This ‘posiuan Pevaner first made clear in his 1931 review (wnten in the summer of 1930) of the Ocvore ample in Garg gelebree Anzeige, where the basic ramework of Pioneers protagonists, arguments, nd syle- ‘sed methodlogy—is already flly formes. ‘This and-Corbusier and aatvaeetesiciam at tude may a)so be the answer to the question of ‘why Pevsner Gurprisingly) never mentions ‘Cobism (which figures hervily in Hitcheock and Giedion). Is it beeause he does not want 10 cro the Cubists with inventing the eraas- parency he credits Gropius with? Is ie because hae percsived Le Corbasier’s Puisn to have picked up where Cubiem left off (a east sm his ‘own eelling ofthe story in pris le cube oF 1918) Is it because Cabstn is French from 1907 to 1914, when he wants the threads of modernism to be all in German hands? Given bis biases all these answers are possible, Indeed, Pevsner’ negative uew of Le Cor- busier and post: WW modernism newer changed. In the 1968 edition of Plone, Pevsner ends on a rousing critique of Corb’ neo-Expresionist manner (presumably at Ronchamp) and subjetvism, which be ees in stark opposition tthe sciliy driven aesthetic he documents and advocates, Cleary in the 1930s historicizing modern archuectue sa common project that unites Hitchoock, Pevsner, nd Giedion. Yet all three are essendlly moving in uncharted seritryBook Reviews Tobe sure they are synthesizers and analyst, since the ltertare documenting modemism in archivetae (Schefler, Paz, Grpius, Le Cor- busier, and early Giedion) was already in place, dnt they fice the sume dilemma: How ean one locate modernism when it does nor yt reveal any clear pares? In ahistorical contour (Eecheoek}? In an “eternal present hat abolishes history (Giedion)? Asa moment of facture within history (Pevsner)? Utimately their collective contribution i that they in their Aitferene ways, participated in dhe lager yet ill fragile project to open up ar history the pre- sent. There were precedents in the work of art Ihtorians atthe tar ofthe century such a) ‘Wolf, Josef Szygowsk, August Schinatsow, Jol Meie-Grefe, Comelins Gut, and oth- 2 Bt this work was ether conceived by ts authors a ar criticism oF was produced by art critics, and dhs was not perceived as legi- rate component ofthe ar historical academic discipline. Thus the systematic approach Pew net, Giedion, and Hitchcock ade, 6 well a3 ‘heir common desire to embed the investigation cof modernity in a historical conten is poneer- ing. That Pevsner’ book vith al its sand ‘omissions—was a more manageable, readable account with a strong and convincing message that survived the ebb and flow of popularity is « ‘testament cit vale. That Pevsner also earned the spotght on an aspect of modern visual cle cure—the decorative ars—which was left vieu- ally untouched by Giedion and Hitchcock isn even more ling contribution. 1.See for eae Wild Rybczyms, Hae: Shr zo fm le (New Yo Vig, 1986), Dard ‘kn Maayan Atte Reed Chg: Univer of Ching Pres 201) nd the rons lee the rece “devlopers ne-veracala” ae sreping North Americ, roping he's and 6 Briere wburba. 1 See the een pina of Hibs 1929 work ‘than anwodation by Vincent Seal (H.R. Hick, Matern Arce Roma ond Reet [New York Ds Capo Pre, 199) he repabstion oF Gitioo’ 1928 Benn Prk, wth an neodacoon by Soles Geoepins Uang Prane, Bulng in Irom, Baling in Fr-Conet Sts Moni, Caria “The Guay Canes, 1995, Pens Phar toned sso Gena, 1983 (eps 1996) Weghriar mor Farman on Mort Gri [Coleg Du Moat, 1983) and mae gene he econ of Smad mi arcsec hstonane 8. Gori Shed Gio ie lee Bp sich, Ama, 199) ayn, “Ralf Winker and Arce] Principles inthe Age of Modem Fura of the Sie of debacle, Seger 1994, 32-342, ‘M Rosso, Lor ile Perino mars el koe Jan Samer ¢ Nia Pner Tai: Bi (Communi 200) P Serrano Sere orci us moderne. Howry Ral Hic «Pines ‘Sole lian: Fanonngel, 201, | "He wll nose for pecootved onsen et ‘thi gre i Sigel Giedion wat odo many yee lee He lores i reve wal ke joa, et ‘ne il ic rte propgud plem* Vine Selly 1993 el of Mao drier: Rano on Rate ssn (New York Ds Capo, Cn Rowe quoted 70 Panoty: “He [thot her ee dsb by oe yng hn Evin Panola engin to he say of resend penomen the ne pet fr hina nebo and concen fr mevelusdocurenain st are regued ofa dy of ose easy ris ‘Secnt-cenary rinse” Calin Rowe, 4 Way Sang (Cambrige MIT Press, 196) Vl 1179 4 New Yk Payne Ces, 1929 5. See al D. Wak, Si Nils Penner Send i ers,” pl, Speer 1992, 169-172 6."This snore aot aad weg book oa ‘Wah Bain? There ar leno Ny OF thane sd 0a athe mack tention. The moe vale ‘auras 81 dean how we ve ber ed, te, (Adaded so dese i th se” Sls Cll Ws Be men vers Pee (Lond: John Mura, 200, 1 1M Bale ofS,” sethingroghiyfrom 1630, 1 1900, cere parc onthe combat” between ‘he neolacal ndthe Gtic 8 (Cambrige Carbadge Unioray Pre 1957, 687 "The arcistoran aso wach sata wel er seoa ques Ony the neracion of hs wi the spit fa ge pogaces te tomplte pre of heart ofan epoch, ae tee” Paes, 188. Uses obere indict all quo ae fom the 1956 en, "Are Noa he Transalp bern His ‘eric ad the Moe Movement. --- But Are Now ‘ea dre he reuerei for he reilof Iandcss ndaplic onthe Caine” (Pima, fy "The leads ofa Nocvena were the fi) sndestand Both ieee cp the new gone of ara service preched by Mors, bt they alo seep ‘Sor age athe machine age" Poner, 157) 10. Penner oe oe edi spec ad ‘iy emfealeprossely Soe andere vl ay naples ror Por ur wrk hace by *oarene nd vale orcrting” 9), “rpeiaoue oie he Mors] sth it of ating pone back to ipl gars, spl ey, sl colour ‘mena choad [ihe] rv f dearest honey” (6) on expiring acter ton ap cls, cet, a sob, een worked wer {he protection of ene” (121); moder ding gly pre fnconal ene” (123) "ndowr and senlicty™ (580m Maca "Bulli in his and Beamer = shoo a both masa and miter? 162-168, “rel of bath andes (16), 11, Although ie Reber, itchonck dl ike ich ting, para of boracin (ater ence by ‘Aled Bar and polished onthe enn detwoen ning ad sete Pang ed Arby 198, wih frei y Aled Bir, em no n= tion ofthe indus at and doe ot nde x angle lunge hie Mode Arbre (1929) Cetin ets {heindral ar soley and inches nly wo sage in hook here highly std 12 Peer mer hie teenth cefeece 2 Vy. sey work nthe ie devine” eden in he ne design Pome 5-1. 1 Md and 7275 eM 7 25,2 16. Thi ancanged a 198 17 Ti, 165-19 Temay ao be se ie one vrasatcerate op 01914 nd the CLAM and the big eas on wae (one Sadlgen te aoe (Gi Radewe, ee) dnt ge ade ay wl ome ‘se afer WW, Perna mion may be ate 16 On Pen andthe Godt aio, st Marie Hatbertna, Nikola Permersnd be Ed of ‘Trion. The Lepay of Wien Pinder Apt Fe ua 1983, 10709 19, Forte poi dimension of aunts redex Shs, “Omament and Spt, Omen and Clas" Hard Dry Magen, Seer 200, 1-84, 20.1. Read rein indy (London bs, 1934115, ‘The input ofthe English pos 1851 nde rs ‘eth own oo in Sep anongehers— ‘so deacly acral, ar his oaneton wo contnena ots when Read mansene he hal of Kae Wit ‘rom she Kunsigeveresear in Calg (119) 21. Fee aap seme whch espe ‘he main dst of Schaar bol "Whe eng sri di not hire design lh ingle Senna amine or other obj fr the ren hati wha the ovement etre eke a. The np es cere tocovfed oman, Fu aaa fart nd ose ere othe western tan the ep een the wir exeroe acheter ship tht es the re ean bong bony th de orate ns movemex” Kat Scheie, Mater Balas (Ce al Zeer, 1908, 15 (ay maaan) Fors ccnp on Mori advan de eee 161-165 22 Penner nds the sane wo be te of in plein in Erland wos ary belie 1925, even 1950, thas pblc pan oak yar the modes role ofthe worn cass nerenovte Abou she ‘ie tne the fares fhe Maden Movemenr began 0 penta ito England, forme which, ewe 1910 snd 1935, ad been developed by German, French, nd ‘Amencan acts” Pours, 165-168, 23. Penne, Eagar, 5S. 24. Now York Onrd Unersty Pres 198, 25. Fe Adit (NewYork Witeborn, 1972) 1. 26, Zarit Stoorv sl Bosse, 1930. 237 Pars 177 2, Hs[LCY| he oad very cen, Cen ojo —Holand and Germs up te Freach noe om 190 on, Wall tis singly nore” 1 Pesey, evi of Le Corbusier 2 Pere Jesnee, 1 gate Werk om 1910 Be 1929 tinge lb Acie, ge 19H, 305312 29 "Thera ofthe rect of he present sec sproporonately prise bse ha of the ach recs of he pst. That he Dison enor hat the pres i peso dine fom and opposed oe st Hier soald bower be eo eon ‘hee soar architect ah rset the ase eid patric hin and ha eve te oe. sdenced contemporary fon oneonie m0 oot phe omenon bot he it pase in angie of ep ‘mene Intodacuon, Madr Abstr 1929, 30. See for empl, Wain’ sot es on Adon "Hdebrnd Joe Seypomsls Di hie Bus der egos i ac fir Jeena (107) Angee Smarsow major infaeneupor Pasne) Who mi vey intrested in contemporary ars Koad Fit, ose ashes were ep asked by is erst (Geren par Hane ron Maes ln Meter Grate Die Beviclngcr der merce Ke (1903) and (Corie Gar, Didnt Kai de XD Jebrdan- ss (etn. Gor Bond, 1899) 08 Zar Bing dor Bouke Zid Tn aber Arce. obra (Ben, Ulin, 1909, Alina Payne rer fae ary ate Uns of “oo 2 ting pyro ard Deng Sh, sul ator f The Arcee! Tete me Flin Reassunce Arcs! Tavenon, Ornament and Litpecnset item t ed of See a Poe aeed Po be ea oe pec wn es sows cy acer sy ro By SS bree aa oo nea tate ms oe ot & Ea epee ate a7 HARDSoft, COOLWarm... peer eer Leen rea Pea Cou eo Sa a Cree ac omar) eee eR eee ee fee eee men eee a ee ed eee Td a eee eed Cee eae ATU HL era ed Pare ee vcr eee ee eee anton ed ee ood Been Perey peeeitece nc! Bene ee oo Ceo eee oo eens cred ee Neer re payee erie Dee Sno) pevere eer carpe oe Remains ee fear ee eS a