History in the Age of Interpretation

Author(s): Nicholas Adams

Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Mar., 1994), pp. 5-6
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural
Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/990805
Accessed: 20-12-2015 16:46 UTC

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 support@jstor.org.

Society of Architectural Historians and University of California Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 155.247.166.234 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:46:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 EDITORIAL
HISTORY IN THE AGE OF INTERPRETATION
IN TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR the characterof architectural
history today and the of
origins some of its present difficulties, I
found myself looking back at the Architectural Reviewduring the
period of the rise of modernism, and Oppositions,the magazine
that more than any other opened architecturalstudies to post-
modernism. No two journals could be more different-the one, a
monthly design magazine primarilyfor the architecturalprofes-
sion, the other, a "Journalfor Ideasand Criticism in Architecture."
And yet, as a barometerfor architecturalhistory, the comparison
may be instructive.Both thrived at a criticaltime of transitionfor
architecture.How architecturalhistory fit into each of them tells
us a great deal about architecturalhistory in the last half-century.
On the face of it, the beginnings of modernism in England and
a magazine devoted to the architecturalprofession should not
have offered an especially fruitful location for historical studies.
But in addition to reports on new buildings and new products,
the Architectural Reviewpublished a steady stream of articles on
historic architecture and urban planning. Though the focus
tended to be on English architecturefrom the sixteenth to the
nineteenth centuries, important articles appeared on European
and North American historic architecture,and there were always
reports from Asia, Latin America, and Australia.The historians
who wrote for the Architectural Review were, quite literally,
those who defined the field: Pevsner, Hitchcock, Summerson,
Banham, and many others. The Architectural Reviewwas a lively
forum, too. In the 1930s there were even articlesby Le Corbusier.
One, for example, is a tribute to the Crystal Palace, recently
destroyed by fire at Sydenham: "When two years ago, I saw the
CrystalPalacefor the last time, I could not tear my eyes from the
spectacle of its triumphantharmony. The lesson was so tremen-
dous that it made me feel how puny our own efforts still are"
(ArchitecturalReview,81/483 [1937]: 72).
As J. M. Richards (editor from 1935 to 1971) relates in his
autobiography,Memoirsofan UnjustFella(London, 1980), history's
place in a magazine for the architecturalprofession came about
largelyby good fortune ratherthan planning. Richardswas helped
by the poet and architecturalamateurand preservationadvocate,
John Betjeman, who though not himself an enthusiast for the
new architecture,was eager to give attention to Voysey, Ashbee,
Mackintosh, and the Art Workers' Guild. This suited Richards'
aims perfectly, for an examination of that period "could be
JSAH 53:5-6, MARCH 1994
This content downloaded from 155.247.166.234 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:46:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
employed to enlighten ... readersabout the history and origins of
the new architecture, especially the roots the latter could be
shown to have in the revolution the Arts and Crafts architecture
had created in rejecting the academic conventions of their own
time" (Memoirsof an UnjustFella, 122-23). In Richards' mind,
therefore, the historian'srole was to provide the antecedantsfor
modernism. For example, in one article Betjeman examined the
architectureof nonconformism, seeking the roots of the stripped-
down styles of modernism in Methodist and Baptist chapels
(ArchitecturalReview 88/529 [1940]: 160-74). Later, when Ni-
kolaus Pevsner took over responsibility for history, the same
patternwas followed and, in the most significantseries of articles,
he began the explorationof English eighteenth-centuryarchitec-
ture and the Picturesque as precedents for modernist planning.
Into the fifties and sixties, following the use of organic forms by
Le Corbusier at Ronchamp and elsewhere, there were articleson
Italianbaroquearchitecture.
In short, within the Architectural Reviewhistory was important,
and historians had a well-defined role fleshing out the theory of
modern architectureby writing about its analogical precedents.
But as twentieth centuryarchitecturedeveloped and changed,as it
developed a self-conscious sense of its own narrative,interpreta-
tion began to look much like history as architectstook up pens to
interpret the changes; in effect, their criticism of modernism
became its history. The evidence is there in the 1950s in the
writings of James Stirling about Le Corbusier and Colin Rowe
about Le Corbusier and Palladio in the Architectural Review;and
this is where Oppositionscomes in. History of the analogicalsort,
as originally produced in the Architectural Review,had no place in
Oppositions.Instead, the editors proposed a kind of history of
architecturethat commented criticallyon currentpractice.
Oppositions(1973-84) is remembered especiallyfor its polemi-
cal stance: "with its outline second letter P ... read as both
'positions' and 'oppositions' (or even as) 'zero positions',"asJoan
Ockman reminds us (see note below). Though Oppositionswas
especially interested in the history and historiography of the
modern movement, its influence went well beyond. Oppositions
offered a new style of architecturalwriting basedon the schools of
French structuralism, and post-Marxist or Frankfurt School
theory. It promised discussion of typologies and institutional
history. For the American audience there were new names to
5
6 JSAH 53:1, MARCH 1994

associatewith architecture(Heidegger, Nietzche, Foucault), and

new authorswere introduced, most notably the Italiansfrom the
Venice School of Architecture.As both historians and designers,
their historical interests necessarily employed history in aid of
practice.As writing architects,they represented a naturalmodel
for other architect-interpretersof the modernist past.
Articles were divided into files labelled "History," "Theory,"
"Oppositions," and "Documents." From Oppositions9 (1977)
forward, a conscious effort was made to link critical practice to
theory, and theory to history through this filing system. The
Documents files were most indicative of the interests of the
editors. Here were gatheredthe raw materialsfor a new history of
modernism; texts, reports, and early articles that could form an
alternativehistory to the tired InternationalStyle epic, what was
called, memorably,in one editorial,"the Enlightenment model of
progress joined to a Darwinian arrow of time." Oppositions
printed the alumni day speech at Yale of Paul Rudolph (1958),
Jean Giraudoux's introductory lecture to The Athens Charter,
documents regardingGruppo Sette, Russianconstructivism,Otto
Wagner,and the youthful Le Corbusier. Questions that had been
answered once, thirty years earlier, such as the academy and
monumentality,were also revisited.
The kind of dialogue between history and design sponsored by
Oppositionswas new and it has produced a second history of
architecture: a history that is operative, that is engaged with TheWhiteHorse,Dublin,Ireland,designedbyJ.M. Richards,1931-32.
Richardswas trained at the ArchitecturalAssociation, London. The only
practice,and with the range of ideas that contemporaryarchitects
work for which he claims credit is "a corner pub on Burgh Quay, across
care about.Whateverelse, it is no longer the analogicalhistory of the Liffey from James Gandon's Customs House. It was a simple,
monuments written by the historians of the Architectural Review. economical building, considered I suppose to be within my capacity."
a of
We are, once again, at point transition. Will there be a new (Memoirsof an UnjustFella,83). This photographwas taken in December
1993.(Photostyle,
Dublin)
field of critical studies in architecture? Will there be new
alignments of history and theory within schools of architecture?
have two architecturalhistories, one based in monuments and
Will future historians of architecturebe recruited from history
linked to arthistory and archaeology,and the other based in ideas
programs? Or will historians have a role in departments of
and linked to architecturalpractice,there is much to be done to
cultural studies? These questions arise, in part, because today
there are many pressures on traditional historical study. These bring them together.
NICHOLAS ADAMS
pressures come not only from designers and their interests, but
from other disciplines as well. Buildings, cities, and architects,the
traditionalsubject matter of the architecturalhistorian, are being
taken up by historians,anthropologists,philosophers, and literary
historianswho offer stimulatingnew approaches. I am indebted
Note: Concerning the history of the magazine Oppositions,
to the essays of Joan Ockman ("Resurrecting the Avant-Garde: The
About two decades ago, at the time Richardsleft the editorship ed. Beatriz
History and Programof Oppositions," in Architectureproduction,
of the Architectural
Reviewand Oppositionsbegan to publish, there Colomina [New York, 1988], 180-99); and Vincent P. Pecora ("Towers
was a "transfigurationof values,"to quote the title of an articleby ed. Diane
of Babel," in Out of Site: A Social Criticismof Architecture,
Ghirardo [Seattle, 1991], 46-76). See also Kurt W. Forster, "Critical
Kurt Forster published in 1972 that now seems remarkably
History of Art, or Transfiguration of Values?" New Literary History 3
prescient of the changes in historical practice since that time. (1972): 459-70. Thanks to Eve Blau and Alina Payne for discussion of
Looking ahead, it seems apparentthat unless we are content to issues raisedhere.

This content downloaded from 155.247.166.234 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:46:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions