FONDREN EXPRESS

Fondren L1brary MS-240

Basement. Rm 837
713-348-2284 I 713-348-4117 (Fax)
1ll@nce edu

ARTICLE/PHOTOCOPY
Call#: NA 2707 .M55 A4 1986a
ILLiad TN: 488491
Location: FONDREN ART

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Item#:

Date Received/Processed: I l,h "n :: ::<lh.l II~ -1.:: I .::-1

/ 1/28/20131:18PM
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Journal Title: M1es Reconsidered

= Volume: Rice' .\ri,·l :: I hX ~~II -1
Issue:
Month/Year: 1986 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Pages: 35-53 DELIVER TO PATRON:
Ron W1tte (rw14i
Article Author: Kenneth Frampton 5306 lnst1tute Lane
Houston. TX 77005
Article Title: Modern1sm and Trad1t1on 1n the Work of
M1es Van Der Rohe 1920-1968 Patron 10
1111111111
Imprint: Research

Thank You for Using Fondren Express!

 Modernism and Tradition in theWark of
Mies van der Rohe, 1920-1968
by KP-nneth £crampton
Adolf Loos once said that an architect is a mason who has
learned a little Latin. Like Loos, whose father was a stone-
mason and who trained as a mason himself before studying
architecture, Mics van der Rohc had a traditional crafi back-
ground, serving a three-year apprenticeship \Vith his stone-
mason father· from the age of fourteen onwards. H was surely
in his father's yard in Aachen that he first acquired the pro-
found respect for masonry which was to remain with him
throughout his life. Mies also worked briefly as a stucco de-
signer before leaving Aachen for Berlin in HlWi at the nge of
nineteen, and these apprenticeships vvere to set the pallern for
those he would subseqLtently serve in Berlin, first with an
architect specializing in timber construction, and then with
the famo\JS designer Bruno Paul.
ln his pursuit of the nn·ious crafis, from masonry to plas-
tenvork, from carpentry to cabinetvrork, Mics established
himself early on as an architect-builder wilh an emphasis on
the intrinsic sensibility of crafiwork., ruther than on aesthetic
speculation. From this training I\lies developed a bias that
artistic expression should arise directly from the exercise of
craft. His initial aUitudc was thus patently antithetical to that
which the Viennese historian-theorist Alois niegl had t•efcrred
to as Kunstwotlen or "will to form." 1 Mies's expressive reserve
was already evident in his first independent work. the pseuclo-
Arts and C-rafts Riehl House, !mill in Rerl in- 'I euha hclshcrg
when he w<lS t\'Ycnty-one years old. This restraint ch<•nw-
lcrized his work until the outbreak of World War I, as is dem-
onstrated by the simplified, neoclassical projects and commis-
sions he designed and carried out uetwecn 1912 and 1914,
inelurl ing the scm ina! Kt·i"•ller-Miiller House projcc:t of l!:J12.
One may argue that apart from his stint wilh Bruno l'aul,
who was ultimately a traditional crnfi-designer, !\lies was not
to come in contact with the practice of artistic will or 1\unst-
wollen until !Je started to work fur Peter Rehrens in 1908. i\Iies,
up to this date, had patently received a traditional rather lhan
a Jugendstil design orientation. Only vvhen he entered Beh-
rens's oi"Jice did he finally come into contact with artistic voli-
35
Lion in sc. ln this ease, it was grounded in the sobrieties of
romantic classicism as exemplified by the work of Karl
Friedrich Schinkel, whose architecture profoundly innueneed
Behrens.
From this point of view, \lies's !"Ole as assistant and site
architect for· nd1rens's CJprmau Embassy in St. Petersburg of
1912 must have been both a decisive and an ambiguous expe-
rience_ \Vhile the finest workmanship and highest craft values
were maintained throughout, and the spirit and evc11 the lcttet·
of Sc!Jinkel were perennial references, the overall work was
nonetheless willt"ul in the extreme. It was, in many >vays, an
exercise in atectonic form, as the bonded Ashlar columns of
the peristylar stone fa<;ade announce all too dearly. vn1ile
something uf Behrens's heavy Schinkelschiilcr manner is evi-
dent in 1\Iir.s's Rismarck Memorial design of 1910, and even in
the more delicate profiles of tile Krollcr-Miiller House, Mies
seems to have distanced himself from the more willful side of
Behrens's artistic personality. Uespite their compositional pic-
turesqueness, l.l1ese early l\Hesian works are classical down to
the last reduced cornice and simplified sty lobate.
This, then, was "-lies van der Rohe in 1914: a tyro archi-
tect of romcmtk elasskal persuasion. Hut he was to emerge
from the crucible of \Vorld War I with a very different artistic
ancl emotional outlook_ AHhoLtgh his initial classical format ion
was to remain, the discipline ol'lectonic form on the one hand
and the modern "wlll-to-f"orm" on the other \Vould hcm:ef(Jrth
provide the characteristic tension in his work. This schism
began in the rl eci sive four OJ' five years or l\tics's activity lot-
lowing the end of World War!. Mics resorted to elassical met-
aphor throughout his life, all the \Vhik playing with the
bourgeois associations that accompany the use of J'ich anrl
hanrlemficd material, yet he did not engage again in the spe-
cil1c syntax of Western classicism. It was as though the reality
or modernization and the traumatic experience of the first
industrialized war had decisively transformed the members or
his generation. \Vhi le something ollen remained in his domes-
tic work of Lhe organic plan-form of Lhe Arts and Cralls house,
 /

/
/
/

/
/
/
/

I. Fril:'clrirhstt·assr Offin' tluilding p rojrrt. Urrli 11, Hl21, prrspe('- 2. Fri rdrie ll :-.lra sse Ollict> H11ilcling projret. platt
li\t' dra\\ing

36
purlicnlnrly in hi s brick Landhiiuscr of t.he 1920s, IVl if's i rnm e •·sed
himsell' im mediately in the postw<•r avant-gardist c lim ate,
focusing, above all , on tlw "othe rness" of moder·n materiuJ, ns
thou gh th e t'mergiu g radica lis m of th e epoch s te mm ed as
much rrom Lhe l'a ets of technica l and m alerinltran s ro•·mation
as fro m th e lH'Om ise ofpolitical and cultural rev olution.
The ullimate mod ern building m aterial, in this rega rd,
was mass-produced hi gh -quality glass. II had already b een
eelehrated a s a millenia! mate rial prior to the wa1· h) th ose
who partic ipate d in th e so-e<~ll e d u topian t:OlTespomle u ce of
the Glass Chain, P<H'ticLtlarl) in the w ritings of l'aul Sch ecrhart
and the visionary works of Bruno Taut and his quasi -expres-
sionist associates of Die Gliisernc Kelle.'2 The two ca n on ical
works in this vola tile de velopm e nt were Sch ecrbart's utopia n
prose-poe m Gla.w.u ·chitektur and Taut's (Jiass Pav il io n r~a l ­
ized fo •· t h ~ Deutscher We rkbund exhibition mount ed in Co-
I o~;ne durin g the firs t year of the war. As Scheerbart wrote in
hi s proto-Dadaist, aph orist ie s tyle: "Building in br·ick onl y
docs w; l wrm. Colored g la ss clcstroys lwt red .... We fee l SOl'J'.Y
for brick culture. Witho ut a g lass palace life become s a bur-
den."3 This vision of a wol'ld m ade pn1·e nnd wh ole again
through the unprecedented eo ns! ruetion of an entirely glass
en vironnwnt that could achi eve both apparent and actuul de -
m a te rializatio n was the expressiun of a n ~l'l' sp iritua lit). T his,
on e may argue, linked the mystic al , pa rt secular, part r elig ious
cult of Die Gliiserne Kctte to th e re demptive visions of romantic
class icis m in it s prime. Sch ee rbarl' s s tate ment evokes th e
landscape paintings of (nspm· David J:'r'i etl ric h : hi s s pires ,
crosses, and mi zzenma sts ris ing like a us picious mira ges li·om
the heig hts of the forest, or s us pe nded like omino us gh osts on
the wastes of a hostil e sea .
Mies' s Gla s s Skyseruper rnockls or th e l9:20s we re ce r-
ta inly SIJe ctr·a J, given th e m ed iev al Colc m -like backgro und
again st. w hi c h they w en~ invaria bly photographed. This de-
m a te ,·ial iz P.d , ominou s , " a lnl() s l not h in g " (bci nahc nichts)
qu a lity could he found in his 1921 com petition entry for the
F r ied rie h s lru s~; e Ol'llcc Huild ing (lig. 1). i\'l ies's la rge wux -
cnt_yo n JWrspective of thi s buildin g presents Lll:i, li ke glass it-
sell', w ith the parad ox of a materialized demateriality or a de-
materia lized nwleriality, depe ndin ~~;, tpti te lilt~rally, o n lh e
point or view. The case ca n be made tha t, from this point
onward s, th e evide n t ten s ion in !\-ties' s work b etwccn class i-
cism (m·trad itio n) and mod e rnis m was par·tia lly halan ccd a nd
poss ihl y resolved in this paradox . All a lm os t realureless hig h-
rise struct ure fa ce d e ntirely in glass wa s cu m ple tl'ly ra dica l
s ixty years u~o. as w as \:lies's per c<'ptiull o f the materia l as a
s ubstan ce ill a ph e Hom en olog i1:a l s ense. lie reg<u·rl cd g lass a s
a II C\v mat e rial which harlt n lw apJH'oa e h!~ d throu~h an inver-
s io n of the trad iti onal m odes or architec t" ral c o11n:pl ion and
]ler-et•pt ion. T h is, no do ubt , acco u nts for the unu s trnl terms in
37
which h e cho se to describe th e prismatic pla n (fig. 2) of hi s
Fried richstrassc proposal:
I place d the g lass walls at s Ught angles to each otheJ' to
avoid the m onoton y of m·c r-lurgc glass surfaces.
I discovered by ,,·orkin~ with actual glass models that
th e important thing is the play of renecti o us an d nul Llw
cll'ccl of Jight and shadow as in ordinary buildings.
Th e results of the se expe rime nts can he seen in U1e .. .
sch eme [forth ~ Glass Skyscrape r pr oject (figs, 3, 4)].. . .
At lirst glan ce the cun:cd outline orthc plan seems arbi-
tmr.v. These c urves, however, were determin ed by three
facto r s: sufficient illumination of the interior, the mass-
ing of the building viewed from th e s treet, and las tly th e
I> Ia)' of •·e fl ecl ion s.~
A s imilarly subtl e intention is surely present in !\'lies's
Seagram Building, l\c\v York , rea lized in 195R. Bro wn-tint ed
glas s is now used in conjunctio n wi th !Jruuze fe n estra tion in
su c h a way as to s uggest that it is of th e s ame opaque and
fra ctious nature as stone. Mies's inte ntion is p e1·h a ps clearer
in the a ll-metal ma que tte of the b uilding, rnarl e du ring th e
penultimate d esig n phas e, where th e curta in -wall g lazing is
represented by m<'t a l s hee ts a s th oug h it were of th e same
nwlerinl order· as the metal mulli o ns and s pandr e ls. Here
ston e , g l as~, and m eta l are rendere d as a sublime e quivalence.
Th e re was an almos t imperr..epti hie yet sit:;nifiea nt sh ifi
in Mies's s ens ibility dmin ~?; tile fo llmvin g yea1·, whe n , havin g
ma de cont nd with the editor s of the m agaz in e G: ,' \faterial zw·
elemenlaren Gcstalltlng - nam e ly, with El Li ssi tzky, Ilans
Ric ht e r, a nd Wcmer (}rneff - h e mover! closer to a Dadaist-
Con stru ctivist vi e w ol' the mod<:rn world, where .111 that r·e-
m a ined of culture und life vvas th e rar!icr:il artis ti c " oth e mes s"
or mode rn tec hnology and mnte ria l l'orm.
This col d a s s ertio n or the t~ lrnost a br as ive factieity o l'
m od c•·n indus trial building m ethods, an d th e a li en ated condi-
ti on s of metr·opu litan life whi ch the_y dis passio na tely serve to
accommodate and even to en ge nd e r, is all too eviden t. in
Mies's Concrete Office Building proposal of 1922 (fi g. 5) , first
p ub li sh e d in tile irw u gura l i ssu e of C in the l'o llowin g year.
Th!' te xt that acrompa nie d lhis publi ca tion, with its r h etorical
a n d typo!-(raph ic st rcss o n Lh t~ wm·cls fk tnn, F.isC'n, and G/as
(eo neJ'l'le, iron, a nd glass) e xpr('SScllthe laco nic objcctivil_y of
!\ties's in cipient tnlllerialis m. O nce ag11in, a ~ in th e e a~·li c r
g lass s kyscrapers, it was the mat!'rial-l eehniqu e an d not th~
l'onu or the l'tmcti o n whi eh carri ed th e esse ntial a r chit ec tural
s ta te m ent. As id e from the s lig ht w id rn in g o f the r ml s t r·n ctur al
bay ill nnkr In int rodu ee a s ublle da ss k<•l "coda" in an othcJ'-
wis t~ uninflect ed int er co lumnar g rid , composition, as su ch,
wa s g iven little import in the design. T h e same m us t be said or
 \
\

)
\
3. G l a~;, Sk.\>Cra pcr pro ject, 1922, m od e l 4. G la ~~ Sk~ scTap t-r proje ct. pla n

58
 5. Co ncre te Office l)uild inl! project, 1Y22-2'i, pet'SJ)('et i,·e flm \\' ing
th e s uppo sed!~ fun r tional nitPria e mpl oye d. parti r ularl y
when orw rrali zrs that the occupant s of thr building would
not haY<' bee n able to ~;ee out. That the form \Hts to ~ l a nd as a
polemical represen tati o n of th e o bdurac~ and po\\ l'l' of can -
til e , e re d eo rwr·ete l'Ortstru ction is evide nt from tlw text Hhic h
accompanied it s initi a l publication.
Tht:> material s: roncrete. s tee l, g lass.
Rrinl'orcecl co nc r ete s tru et ur·es are skP ietons b~ nature.
No g in!!crbrcad. o for·trrss. Co ltunu s and ~ ircl e t·s cl irni -
rta le bearin~ wa ll s. This is sk in i.llld honr construcliou.
~· unt'lional di1 ision of the '' ur·ks)}aee dC'tC'rminrs the
nidth of th e build in g: 16 metPrs. The mos t e<·onomic
systrm was fouud to be t\\O t'O\\ S of co lumns s panning R
meters 11ith 4 m e ters r anlil<' ll' tT d on C'i th r r s ide . Th e
~ ird e r ~ are spaC'rd ') me ters apart. The sC' gi t'dC't's rarr~
the noor s labs, which a t tilL' end of tlw cantilcH·rs arc
turn rd up pei')H'IIdicularly to form the outer s kin of th e
building. Ca bin e ts a re placC'd Hgninst llte sC' \Htll s i n
order to permit free Yisibilit~ in the ce nter of th e r·oo m s.
Abo1e th e cab in e ts, which a rc 2 m e ters hig h , runs a con -
tinuou s bartd ol'windo11 s.'>
39
Two thin gs arc c\idcnl from this puhli ra tion. Th e lirs t is
that the implie d transce nde ntal immate riality or glass h as
bee n large I ~ rep lace d by the o bduratP material it) of corH-rele;
the WHx-cra)o n rf'ndcrin~ used to rt:'JH'C'Se nt tran slucence in
the l>lass Skyscraper proje cts is used hPrc to rpprcsC'nl tC'X-
lured opacity. Th e second is th a t the ~~ ork as a whole uccords
a polemical priority to building as opposed to architecture; a
prioril) which Mi cs Iuter reje c ted as being a mong the more
HarTO\\ -mind ed do~mas )}Ct'p!:'luuled b~ the architects of the
.\eue Sarhlichkeit ("th e nC'\\ ob jectil'ity").
Thr c loseness of 1\lies's sc nsibililj to both the fun r-
tionali s m of th e ,\ eue Sachlicllkeil unci the es tranging effect of
the Da da ist "displaced " objC'cl , as see n in th C' co ns truc tio ns of
\ 'IHdimir T Htlin a nd Kml Sch\\ itters, indi ca tes h is i!ITinity for
lhP the ories of th e llerlin a 1a nl -ganle. Despit e thi s a 111nily, lh P
building \\as to assP r'l itsPif primat·il) as a tf'cto nir pt·ocPdure,
rathe~· than ns n n aestheli P manipul.1lion . Thr followin g trxt,
which ap pea red in 1923 in th e second issu e ul' G. mak es thi s
patenll) clear.
\\·e refu se tu r·ecugn ize problt:>ms of form , but onl y prob-
lems of building.
Fo rm is no t the aim of' our work, but only the result.
 For·m, by itself. dors not exist.
fi'or·m as a n aim is formalism; and that wr rrjcct. . ..
J::ssc nli a ll) ou r task is to free th e praetiee of huildi ng
fro m the control oflhe aesthetie speculat ors and restore
it to w hat it s hould exelus ivC'Iy hC': building.r;
Apart from the typical G )!rou p a tt <rC'k on aestheti c ism
th a t thi s text cons titutes, Mies sec nwd to be search ing here fo r
some substan tial par<r digm rrom which to d to\ rlop a co nve -
ni e nt and technically p ragmatic format for th e modem ho use.
In opting for n pseud o- ltalianatc, flat-roored asse mbl) in brick
for th e \•Volf I louse of 1925-2 7 (11g. o), "'ties temporaril y setll ed
the co nfli ct betwee n modernism and traditiona lism in ra,·or or
traditi on . ln so do ing, Mies returned from his ex pl ora tion of
the polemical P"XtrPmPs of stnr ctures projected C\C'I u si\ Ply in
glass or co nc r ete, to e mbrace tlw crflrt tradition of precisely
bonded, load-bearing brickwork that he had lt-'al'!l ed from hi s
fath er. !\li es's realize d Landhiiuser oft he 1920s are so lid, bour-
geo is, bond ed - briek stnr C'tures of th e hi ~hC'st possible qualit).
Thus, for a ll the picturesque asymm etry or its co mpos i-
tion ami th e polemical use of a dramaticallv ca n tiJe,·e r·ed con-
c re te mof, the b<rsk pl<rn of the Wolf ll ou sC' (Iii!. 7) is l a r~el~
6. Wolf I louse, Gubcn, l!J25-27 ce llular a n d com enlional; that is to say, it is uol in an) respect
ajree plan. T he principal rooms of the \\'olf ll o use interTo n-
nect alonp; a diagonal Iin C'. The same is lrtJC' of the Lange and
J::ste rs houses, buill in Krcl'eld between 192 7 and 1930. Th is
visucrl con tinuity, \\llich cuts across th e I!I'O uncl ll oo r or eaC'h
I .J_ house, is int e rrupt ed by s iC'c l-fr<rmed , pl<rtc-{!:lass donhlc doors
tha t sepa ra te the s lal,!gerecl vo lum es or th e smok ing, li\ ing.
a nd dining rooms . At the sa me I i m e. as \\ E' l'ller Blaser demon-
WJ stnrletl in hi s reco ns tr uct ion of th e br·ick bonding pcrttern used
~ in the Brick Country I louse project of 1924, the treatment or
t:=
::= th e exposed brickwork was basiC'all~ lire sam e in each ca se :
~
a ll th e dimens ions a nd proportions \\('1'(' \\orkccl out in accor
E ~ - I .~
CJ ,-----,
dance\\ ith the h<rsi r brick m odu le. These three \\Ork.s. I he
r- Wolf, La n ge. a nd Es te rs h o u ses, to ~;c th e r with the L Ir ic h
LangC' and llubbe house projects o ft he J!))Os, are pa rt icularly
I re te, aut to a r<'-<'Yaluat ion or '\lit-'s toda .'. The~ impart a nHwil
more com tJie-" iutcnlionalit y to his early German caree r !Iran

I
ll t= WC' co mmonl y recog nize: one\\ hiC'h "as a~ mudr dedicat ed to
~ traclitioual tectonic \a lue:::. as it \HIS innucnccd b.' modc m ist
~ aspirations.

- J ~ \\ hil e there is nothing n'nwtei.' classical abo u t these

.....__..
--
-
7. \'. olf ll ou>e, plan
' -- -
brick' illas. l hC' prese nce of c\posrd, load - bearing brick\\ork
bri ngs thenr '~ ithin the ru br ic or t radiliorwl building cult11rP.
even if the walb a nd openi ngs are occas i ona ll ~ man ipu lated
as though tlwy \\'ere made ou t or a continuou s plasti c s ub-
stance such as co 1rcrctP. <\!though there is li llie here of tlw
str·u cttrr<r lrat iona lis m of th c Dlll<'h ma ster 11.1-'. lkrla~c. \\holll
Mies greatly admired. the wa~ in \\hic h thPs<' ho11 s!'S an• d<>-
tail e d and bu ill estah lis hes litem a s tectouicall ) disciplin ed

40
 8. llarTPiona Pa' ilion. 1929
works. '\ s Philip Juhn~on informs u s, ~lies ''l'n1 ~o far as not
unl) tu calculate fill ctinwnsion:- in bri ck sizcs, hut abo to sepa -
rflte tlw unctcrfircd long brid.s from 1he m erfi r l'd short o nes
tl nd 1o combi ne them in ~ur h tl way as to co m prn~a 1r for th b
disc repa n c~J \!>\lie~. him!>elr. "as to r cmn rk at a lalt:'r sia l!<'
in his c areer:
\rchi1C'C'111rc' begin s '' lwn two br ick s tli'C' put ca rcl'ull~
1ogcllrcr. ,\rchitcr111r(' is a langual!<' hll\ ing tire disci -
pline of u grammar. Lanpwge can IH' u sed for normal
da) to-da~ prrr·poM·:, as prose. -\nrl if~ou an• rcall~ good.
~ou can be a poet.H
T hl' dinra\ of \lie~·:-. Pari) career canw \\it h the thn·P
dinrinulh e ma:-ter \\ o rk~ that h e r ea li zed bel" !'l'n 1929 and
1931: the Germ<rn Pm ilion built for the Barcelona lnlrrna -
1i o n al ~:, hibition or 1929 (rC'C'C'nll~ recon~1r·rrcted). 1lw
'1'11gr·rrdhal llo11sr rcalit.ed at Brno, Czech os lO\ akia, in 1930,
and an r\ hihili on ho use erect!'d fu r thr lkrlin Building E\ -
po:-ition of 1931. In all th!'M' \\orks. 11 pin 1\ hl'eling spCitia l
arTangement co mpriscd or freestanding co l umn~ and planrs
nnnouneed that tlw fr!·e plan had s11d denl~ entered \lir!>'s
41
arch itectural r epertoire. l'vl ies's pe c llliflr· l ~ hori zo n ta l inter-
pretati on of thi s plan li!JI'r (so rnl lrd h ere because i t was de-
rhed fmm L e Co r busier) \\LIS never to ha\l' a rnor·e pure tlrHl
didactic r endering than in the 8arcrlon<l P<l\ ilion.
\n anal) sis of tiH' Barcelona Pa\ ilion ( fig. 8; for plan. set'
Ei1:.ennwn. fig. 8) mu~t ah\a)S com m ence \\ilh th<' !'ight free-
sla ndin g co lumn s, "hieh. loge tlwr '' ilh the free~landing
a!>,\ nrmetrical IJi flnes, eonsti tulC' the rnosl acth l' :-patial ele-
nH•nt s of the co m position. A l read~ we ca n sec hoi\ certain
rlassical and 'enraeular· nwlaphors iii'C' latcn t in "hal is nor
mall~ r egar·ded a~ a qninte~senliall~ modern '' ork. The eil!ht
colu mns, regulflrl~· spaced on a :-quarc grid and <;~ mmrtricfll
"ith rPg<trd to the nat -.Ia I> the~ ~ up port, ma~ hr read as a
metaphor fur a e l <t'>~iral IH'I\C'dPre. \\h ile the ~pati al figurc
implied b\ th !' fiS)Il11lll'trica l l'reestanding \\alb cllld g la:o.:o.
~nce n ~ mfl,\ he read as a reference to tiH' com pr't'sscd and
elo ngat C'd \rt s and C:ml'ts h ouse. as cxcn1pliricd b~ Fr ank
l.l o~d \\ ri~tht"& Hohic ll o11sc (lig. 9), buill in 1908 i n Chil'a~o.
1\ith \\hieh \li es \\US ccrtain l.\ familinr. (Sec \li es's pe r son al
appr ecia ti on of Frank Llo~d \\right \Hillen i n Hl 10).!1
 ..

.,.

!l. I rani- Lim <I\\ l'll!hl, 1\nhu· !lou'('. ( hu·al!n. 190H. Jll'I''>IWI'll\l' and plan fro111lhe \\ n'>lnulh porlrolio.
1910

10. RanTiona Pa\ Ilion

42
 A t'<'fcn' nlia I complexity of thi s order demands that such s pace field is at once checked and tcr·minatcd by trad itiona l
genera lized categories as modernism and traditionalism be cl e ments: marblf'-clad walls, a refle ctin g pool , and a fig urative
brokcn dO\\ n into th e ir s pecilic S) lltaclic and semantic rcfcr- sc ulpture by Georg Kolbe. In the lloor and ceiling or th e 13ar-
<'nts if we arc to arrive at a more precise unders tanding of celona Pa ' ilion, we can see how th e poles of the modernist/
l\1ies's unique se n sib ilit~· . In thi s light, it is possihi P to rPp;ard traditionalist opposition gra\'itate, in ex pressi\e terms, to fun-
thP RlltTelona Pavilion as a proliferation of a number of com- da mental]) diffe rent architectt Jral e lements: to the ceil ing in
plrme ntary opposites: columnar versus planar, tectonic ver- the first instance and to the nom· in the second.
s us atc ctonic, opaque Ycrsus translucent. stiJJ Ycrsus agitated, A similar oppos ition is al so expressed in the Tugendhat
open \'Crsus closed, and, eYcn, architecture vers us building. House, on ly now the split is not bet~\ecn the whitf' linoleum
The firs t oppositio n is largely formal and virtua lly self-<'\ idcnt. floor and th e wh it e plas tered ce iling. since th ey are both ob-
The fourth and fiflh arc best described by the nature of the viously equa lly abstract, but rather betw·ec n the traditionally
v\ater's s urface, nrffied where open and absolutely nat wh e re
!'nclo s!'d. The last opposition may b<' said to dcriv<' from the
!'ad that the "class ical" nuciforrn co lumns imply architecture,
v\hereas the pin-\'1-heeling, planar space-form implies build-
in{if. h~,r re ca ll ing the or~~:ank natur<' oft he vcrnae ular. 10
A detai led anal~ sis or the cruciform steel column of the
Barce lona Pa' ilion indicates that th e modernist/traditionalist
oppositi o n manifes ts it self in vlics's work as much at th<' l<'ve l
of d<'tail as in th e constitution orthe \\hole. Cruciform in plan
and clad in chromium. this dematerialized column co uld
hardl~ be more modernist, particularly whPn Pompar<'d to Lc
Corbusicr's cylindrical whit.P piloti of the same date, a form of
col um n \\'hich ~lies employed. presumably as a demons tra-
tion of a more normali\ e architecture, for thP 1931 Berlin
Building Ex position. While Mies's Harcelona column is, like
any column, essentia ll y a point support, it is al so. by \ irtur of
its cruciform section. paradoxicall~' planar.
othing co uld be morP modernist than thi s de -
materiali zed, pa rtially planar column dad in a shimmering,
rcflrTliV<' surfa ce (rig. 10); yet, at the levP I of CLtltural memory, II. Tui(Pnclhnt Hou se-, Brno. 192t;-30, f)fan o f upper fl oo r
\\hat do these serri ed ' e rtical hi g hlights of varying width re-
mind us of, if not the percept ual ly varying nute-widths of clas-
sical co lumns? \\'h a t is mnemonic in the case orthc columns
is Pqua lly so in the case of the freestanding space di\ider·s,
faced here in polish ed on~x and m arble . Again, nothing cou ld
be more ab st ract and ava rrt-garde than thc s<' m yste rious!)
sus p!'ndf'd wall planes; but the) oncP again recall classica l
fo r m in the nature or the a ssociations arou sed by th e ir s ton<'-
\eneercd s urfaces. V\ hat is tru e or the columns and \Yalls is
also true, in a diffe rent way, or th e planes or the raised floor
and Llw ceiling:" hen· the form er is a travertine podium and,
hence, by definition classica l, its planar counterpart , I he c on-
tinuou~ "hitc plas te red ce iling, could hard!) he more mod-
·-'
ernist and abstract. And .v et the fa ct that the chromium
columns lack any kind of conceptual fixit y in relation to the
11oor and the ceiling (there is not even a vestigial capita l or
12. Tui(C'IIdhal tlousP. plan of ground floor
base) establishes a strange s tat e of equival e nce between those
two parallel la ~ers, des pite their superficial difl'<'l'('rll'l'S. The
vo lume contain ed be twecn them becomes a secmin~l~ un-
limited expanse of abstract, uni~ersa l s pacf'. This modernist

43
I). Tu!-(t'llllhal I lou'!', II\ i Ill( room

1k Tll!!l'lldhalllot"t'.lihran <~nd II\ in !( room

44
planned , cellular vo lum es of the be droo m s o n th e upp er leve l, different co nnotations, fai l to do jus ti ce to the full ran ge of
and the op e n , modernist sp a ce of th e li ving \olumes berwath ocPnsionnl fumitm·p flps igrwcl by \1ies during thi s period.
(fi gs. J I, 12). Jt is, moreo\'er, a poetic imny that this plan libre, Subj ec t in th e late 1920s to ttr c s trOll!-( inllu e n PC' o r thp
re~ularl) modulated b) a grid of e quidi stant columns, can be int pr·ior n rc hit ect Lill.v Reich , \li e s possessed an a s tonis hing
co nYC'rted into a s pace' which is rt•minisccnt of a classical c apacit~ during this period to m ake very delicate a llusio ns a t
beh«:>derP oncP I he e ntire plal e-glass \·~all o n its so uthem face the Je , c l of finis hes umJ furnishings . As n ever bcl"orP o r after,
is low ered i11to the base m en t with the aid of electrica l gt'ar s. he wa s a bl <' to <'X prcss s ubtl e nuan cPs of c hara cle r as h e
Thr pro,·ision of a s ing le nat- bar, c hro mium g uard mil ins ide passed , sa y. fro m pl ea te d to lulled leath er, o r from trans parent
the g la ss multiplies tlH' dialog i<'al rl'fcre nccs s lill furth er: to trans liwc nl glass. Po r all hi s lat e r d e nia l t hat th e Russian
monume ntal podi um ve rs u s u a uticu l ta llra il: antique logg ia a\a ut -gurde h a d an) inlluPn ce o n hi s work (" I \\ilS \erj
\ e r s u s machinl' i1 habiter ( fi g. 13). s tmng l ~ opposed , e\·en to l\lale\ icla," he wus to te ll Peter Blake
If onr adds lo thi s LIH' full ranl!e of associations evoked in 19fl2), '' thcrP was an un c;:wn ~ affiuity belween hi s work or
b) the 'arious finishes c rnplo ~ e d throughout th e li\'ing \·ol - the late 1920s aJI(l the vi s ionary projects of th e neo-Su -
ume of the house, then we mus t concede that th e Tugendhat prrmati st architecl h ·an J.eun ido\·. Aside from th e piny with
I lou se is ju sl as mu r h th e a polh Posis of Mies's German ca ret>r tinted , tran sparPnt, ancl c iPhrcl g lass in th e 13arrelona Pa' iliou,
as th P morP ce lebrate d Barcelona Pavilion. In fact it rna) wPII and th e so m ewhat Ru ssian color schC'm c of black, re el, o ran /Ze,
be the more comp le.1. of the two v~orh. s, for apart from the an d l t> m o n - ~ e ll ow ust> d in th e S ilk a ud Vehet Cafe (fi g. 15) ul
modernist/ traditionalist spa tial differences a lr·eady alluded to, t he 1927 Ex pos itio n dP Ia \loo p in Rel'iin, desig ncd with Lill)
oth Pr d yacls arP inlroclu PPd which raise the wo rk to a hi g her Reich , a numbe r of other e.\ hibili o ns desi,.:ned by 1\'liPs at thi s
lcvP I of s emantic com pl exity. T he exotic co ns en utOI") H hi ch timC' s how th e in ll u e ncc of the Ru ssian a\aut-garde; ubo\e all,
fl unks th e s horl e r s id e o flh e living \·olunw St>P ms to opera te at the G lass Roo m in the 1927 Indu stry a nd Craft Ex hibition in
this levt>l s ince th e s h al low glass h o u sP c ontaining tropical
\·egt>tati o n apppar·s to pos it it se ll"a s a third term: o ne w hi ch is
capable of nlPdiating betH een the cr~ stallized st ru r ture of the
freestanding o nyx plane o n th e intel'i o r ilnd the natural H'gP-
ta tion of th e ga rd e n -la ndscape beyond (li g. 14). Ttw deco-
ra ti ve hPre appPars us nature herse lf, rath er than artis t ic
invention. At another le\ c l, ttw rectangular space-dh·ider sep-
ara ting lhe Ji vin g room fmm the liLH·a r) e\o.h.es th e >\Orldly
disc ourse which a tte ncl s its prPse nce 011 e ither s ick, throul!h
th e refined formality of it s on ~x re\r tmrnt. Similurl). th e
warmpr· '\:lacassar e bony H'neer of the sem icircu lar dinin g
aleo\ e f.' \okes lhe earth-bound socia l ritual that it senes hoth
to Pontilin and s upport (s ee Eisenman, fig. 12). It is nothin g
less than m as t e rl ~· that a ll o r this s hould take place be hind a
dcmaterial izab lc g la ss f~l<;acle thilt , apart from be in g di sarm -
i n g!~ s impi P, is a lso s upre mPh fun ctiona l, si n ct> it is para ll e iPd
b) e hrumium - platecl heatin g t ube s at n oo r le\ PI and b~ c urtain
!racks and co nceal e d roll e r bli nds und er th r continu ous lintt>l
abOVC'. \\l1crc th c Jirs t CO IIlpe nsa tc s !"or the h ea t Joss of th e
15. \li e~ va n dcr llohe \\ ilh Lil l.l Reich, S iJJ.. ;~nd \'chct Cafe,
glass, and tlw s«:>co ncl prO\ id e s for inli111 acy at night, the las t. 1-: \(lOsition de Ia I\ lode, lk rli n. 1927
1"\hen lm\ erecl as a proj ecte d a\\ n in g. scn rs to protect the
intPri o r from l'\ (JOSll i"P to the Sll ll.
Trilditional form a lso pla~ s a m ed iato r~ role in thr ca n - St utt gart, mounted o n th e occas io n of th e \\ erkbund Aus-
oni ca l furniturr pir ces vvhich 1\liP s desi,_:nt>d during this ste llun g. For thi s last, wc need on ly rcad Philip J o hn so n 's de-
pel'iod . Once aga in , a hit> ra rc hica l s hift occurs as o n e pa sses scription of thP matnial s and co lors ernp lo.1 ed b~ 1\-liC's to
from , sa), the more ro rmal Sc hink ele~q u e proliles nf t hc Bar- sense that his concep t of beinalle nichls (almost nothing) W<iS
ce lon a c hnir, with it s tufled Jeutllcr C" u s hi o n s , to thP a n - not s o rar r·t' rn OI't>d from \l a levich's famous Suprnnatist Com-
thropomorphic mudrrni sm of th e cant il eve red sprin,.:~ frame position: /I llite on IJ hile of 1928:" ... chairs, wllile e ll a mo is
of the Tu ge ndhat c hair, " ith its sonPr leather upholster~ in and blac k Po whide ; table, rose~1ood; floor, black and white
pale gn'P n cowhid e. ~~ \PII these Pontrasting piPPPS, with their linole-um ; wnlls, e tc h ed. clrar and g ray OJ)afJliC" glass." 12

45
 ·\ II oft h is p rogressiH:' l~ an d irre' OCI!b l ~ r h a n ~r d ns I\ti es
m o,ed il\\il~ from th e dom estic m ilieu and Ut'IW II tu ta!,e o n
indu strial norh u r large-scal e urba n s tru ctures, as in thE' rasC'
ul' tht• \ erse id ag .\dministr·atio n Ruilding pro ject of 1937 o r Lir e
RC' ich s hank eompc lition e nt ry of 1933 ( fi ~. t6). ln e a c h in -
stan ce. Lire idea of bu ilding, Ba uen, as opp osed to arr hit PrturP
:-.C'<'IllS to rC'-c m c rgc as a fund am e ntal ,·al ue; as s onr e tlrin ~ that
has bet' n r·e di sco ven~ d rath e r tha n im c nt cd . In the RC' iC'hs -
ba nk projrct in pa rti cula r. th e a rti c ula tio n of trad ition ver·sus
m o dC' r n i t ~ sC'c m s to d i' ide ra the r sc h e m at ica ll y a lo n g th e
lines o f a rc hit rrtur·r ' r rsu s buildin g. Whil e th e bowed front is
sy m nwtril'al a nd d ass i c all ~ m odu la ted " ith its mo nume ntAl,
d oubl e-lw ight , e urt r~in -\\ illled piano nobile. and its inlr m a l
"pPri s t) Ie." the !Jach "in ~s uf the block are re nd e r ed as a
nu rmat h e ind ust ri a l buildin g. ll e rC' \\C' a rC' rr mindrd of thC'
stee l offi n• huildin ~ " un -artis ti call)" cons ide re d, rende red in
s imilar terms a s th e laconic Con c rrlC' a nd Glass OffiC'C' Bu ild-
ing p m jC'cts ol'lh e carl ~ 1920s.
As tlw h isto ri a n Lud\\ ig Gl aese r has pointe d out, l\1irs's
mod e l for· llw c urtain "all or th e 1\eic hs ba nk, co mpris in g eorl -
tirru uus runs ol'squa rr-!!ridded ind ustrial sa s h with horizo nt a l
bri c k s pandrels. " as almost certainly de rh e d fro m the Ger -
man i ndu stl'ill l ' C' l'narula r, in whi c h C'XposC'd s tee l fr·aming
was im a ri a bl ~ com!Jin ed \\ilh ori ck a nd glass inlil l. T h is \'C' r-
rra c u la r, d e ri, cd fro m th e tr a diti o na l, tirnbet'- fra m ed Fach
U'erkbrw trn, \\as a co mm on m odC' l for in ex prnsh C' fac t o r~
s ln rc tun· s fro m th e lat e rrinetee nlh centur) 011\Htrds. and nu -
me rous C''\a mplrs o f s u r h industr ia l buildi ngs ca n be fo u nd
lh r·o u ~ h o ul co ntine nta l J:: urupe. p arl ic ul a rl ~ in (; p r·ma n ~ an d
Fra rH·e. 11 <\s it so ha ppe ns, th e Reic h s ban h project, like the
initia l sd wme fo r the Illino is Ins tit u te of TPe hn o l og~ of 1939,
ft·atu n·~ a co nti n u o us r urt a in \\all ra the r th a n a fra m e a nd
infill s~s t e m , alth o ugh th e re is n o d o ubt th at it is thi s last
whi c h 1ies \\ llllld utili ze most in his o\merican ca r·c<'r. Pe r-
ha ps n o one ha s \\ r ill c n m o r t' pcreC' pt h C'l~ o f th e co n -
sc qu e n ct· ~ of th is n e\\ e mp has is o n the fra m e than Col in
RO\\ P.
'vli es's c hara c teris ti c Ge rm a n column \\as eireular· o r
Cl'll c-ifo rm ; hut his n e \\ column beca m e II s ha pPrl, be
c am e tha t I 1Jea111 " h ic h is no\\ a lm ost a perso na l s i ~­
na tu n•. T~p i ca ll ~. his Ge rma n colu mn had hrc n c lea r!)
db ti n~ u is h e d fi'Oill \\ a il s a nd \\i lldO\\S. iso lated fro m
th l' m i n :-.paC'f·; iH HI.t~ )J i ca ll ~. his nc\\ co lumn heC'a rne a n
C' lcnwn t i n trgral \\ it h l hC' ern elope of th r b u ild in~
" he re it ca m e to fun ction as a kind of m ull ion ur rC'si due
of \\ a ll. T hu -. the colum n sectio n \HlS n ot "ith out Mnn c
d r·astie t'fkl'ls o n the clllirC' spact• of th e !Ju ildin g.
Th e c irc u lar or cr uci form sectio n had te nde d to pu s h
p a rtiti o n ~ <.1\\a~ fr o m th e column . T h e nC\\ SC'Clio n
te nd ed lu d rag lh Pm lO\\ards it. The o ld rol umn ha d
46
ofTer e d ;r m inim um of obslmction to a h orizon ta l m o\·c-
mc n t of space; hut th e ne\\ col u m n prese nts a d i slincll ~
m o re substant ia l s top ....
As a n lnt C'rnati onal Style e le m en t, th e colu m n put in its
las t a ppearance in th e m usC' um pro ject of 1942; whil e in
the Library and Adm in is tra tio n B u ildin ~ pr oject of J944,
the e fTects of th e H-s ha pcd co lumn arc alrC'ady appa rl'nl
a nd arc clearl)· exh ibited in th e pu bl is h e d drawings of its
plans. Fr om these drawin gs it is evi d f' nl that the col-
umn s are no l o n ~e r to be allU\\C:'d to be a mbi g u o u s J ~r
bC'n cath a s lab. It is no \\ -a p pare nt! ~ for th e firs t time -
lie d to a n et" ork of bea m s, a n d li1C'sc bC'a m s ha ,·e ap-
point ed de fi n it e posit ions fo r· th r srrrC' n s, an d fo r the
m ost pa rt th f' sc-rePns ha \ P al rPa d ~ lea pt in to thesl' posi-
tions- in fa ct o nl ~ the e\ tra -th ick \\a il s a ro und the Jm·-
a t o ri cs see m t o h a ' c bee n ab lC' to J'C's is t t h e ne \\
a ttra cli on.'4
1\s Rowe indica tes. th is c hange is o r a n ep is le mic na t ur·e,
n ot o nl y because' th r in tegmt ion of th e struct ural fra me \~i t h
th e o uter m e mb ra n r a nd \\il h the in temal partitions serves to
transform th e o nt ological e ha r·aetC' r of t he spncC', but a lso be-
cau se th e d ri\·e to rr\ ca l the s tru e tu ra l jo int bC'twec n colum ns
a nd bC'a m s (o nl) full y arh iC \ C'd in \li es's Min e ral s a nd Me tals
1\C'SC'ili'C h Buildi n g at liT) re tum s liS to ;r p r·i ma r~ ll'eton ic cat-
ego r-y. The conceptua l foc us no\\ !>hills from uni\(· rsa l mod -
l' l'lliSt s pace to the tra di tio nll l prim ae~ of l hf' fra m l' a nd its
joint. T his c h a n ge is J'und llml'ntH I. for th e te ns ion bet\H' e n
m odernity a n d tra dit io n ea n no\\ n o l o n~tC'r be m cdiatC'd, as il
\\as in th e Tuge nd ha t House. b~ p ro,oking subtle semiot ic
e.\chanl!es in th e li tera l "ga p" \\ hi e h sPpa ra lPs llw o rder o f
frees ta nding s upports from lhr s~st C'm of spatial e n dusurC'. \1
th C' sa m e lime. the cC'I lula r homO!-(<' IW i t~ of tradi tional ma-
so nr) is re jected as a n r~I t e l'llath e. \ sa rC'sul t, th r p lastic en -
erg~ o f 1\ties's la te r'' orh ( irTC'S )Jl'<'t h e ol'lhc speci fic program)
tl' nds to g n Hila te tov-. a rd llw pC' rinw tc r of th e buildin~. as is
nid Pnl in the pu!Jlis h ed des ig n s ol' llw u nhui lt liT Li brary a n d
Admi11i s tra ti on Buildin ~ of 194'1. Fro 111 now o n th er<' is a 11 em-
phas is o n c ertain ho no r ific e le m e n ts s u e h as the ent n · rove r
the large public inlema l '>O lunw, th; eo ur·t ) a rcl . a nd. iast .b u;
no t least, the <' '\ posed megas tr u ct u ral fo r m . Apa rt from such
pro min e nt a rliru latioHs as th cse. and lll<' p rm isio n of open
lo ll s pacc \\ he nP\'C'J' il b deemed appropria te, the bud~ o r an~
stru r tu rc is la r gel) f'i llC'd \\ ith tlw hllf'('aucnllic ami operil-
lio nal br~ n a lili l's of e\er~da~ life. a discrimin ation t hat no
dou !Jt prom pted Lo u is 1\a hn to di~tin~u ish , in his O \ \ n \\o r h.
bC't\\ee n scn•ant and st'l'l'rd ~ pae<'. Thi~ dbl inctiuu is an efTe c-
t6. Oppo~itP page: lkichshilnl-. projl'l't, tk rl in, t933. pc r~pccti'c
dnl\\ill~
 th e tool for c;,amrmn~ th e postwar· work of .\lies \illl dcr
RohP, for cv icknll ) ct> rtain pro{!rarnrnalic and tectonic ele -
ments wer·e st>en as mel'iling an articulation which dul ) be-
longe d to the rPalm of architecture, whik others. rele ~a tPd to
the status of repelith e cellular space, "'ere seen as hclongi ng
onl~ to th e catq~or) or building, irres pecti\(' or the sca le at
"hic h the) occur. As l\1ies put it later·, "Eve r~ buildin g has its
position ir~ the s tratum - c\ery lnrih.lin g is not a cathedral."
'rH1ilc Mies more o1·less rPiinqui s hed the liberat i, e, uto-
pian program of thP )JITWar avanl -garde at the beg inning Of'
- { hi s AmPrican career, he repl aced it with the deus e:r machina
of univPrsa l technol ogy. Lnder thi s new aegis, traditional
cultural references could onl) be sustained \\here th e) could
be made to coin c ide with the te chnological imp era tives of the
epoch. Thus, apart from s imple s ingle or two-story indu strial
structures, s uch as the r\oiler llousc which .\lies realized on
the liT eampus in 1950, n ot even the traditionalleetonie ofth e
siPPI franw could be rnad C' manifPst and sustained where th e
technical demands of Jire pruofin g and m ec hani ca l se n ·ices
enforced the enca sement of it s ess(' ntial s uhstarH'<' and thP
use ofsuspendPd cdlings. onelheless, it was as though 1\'lies
sPnsPd that the technulo!);ical imperative vvas th e only di sci-
pline left v\ith which to prc\Tnt the nol'id from dPgPncmting
into kitsch. Thi s vision of technoiOI!) a s the d e miurl!e of the
uge, lat e nt in hi s thou !);hl from lhc bC'(!i nning, was fin a lly cx-
pressed in his 1950 addre ss to th e Illinoi s Inst itute ofTcchnol-
ogy.
Technology is J'ootPd in th<' pa st.
It dominates the JlrC'se nt and tends into the future.
It is a real hi sto ri ca lmo,·c rnC'nt -
one or tlw great 111 0\ e m e nts \\ hich shapP and
reJWC'Senlthf'ir epoPh.
It can I.Je cumpnred on I)\\ ilh th e Classical
di scm<'ry of man as a perso n,
the Homan nillt o power,
and the •·elig iou s mo' em e nl oftlw i\lidcik '\ ges.
T!'c hnolo{!y is far morP than a m ethod ,
it is a'' orld in itse lf.
As a method it is s upcrior in almos t e\ er) res pPct.
Hut unl\ \\he re it is Jell to ilsPlf as in
{!igantic structurf's ofPn~~:irwerin{!, th erP
tech nology re\l'als its tr·up na turc.
ThcrP it is cvidcnlthal il is not o nl) a useful mean s,
Ural it is something, somethin g in ils!'lf,
something thai ha s meaning and a pO\\Crful form -
so po\H'r f'ul in fact, I hat it is not ca~~ to name il.
Is that s tillt cC' hn olog~ or is it archilel'lurc?
And that ma~ he llw rP aso n "h,\ some )Jeopl e
are com ince d tlra l architccliiiT \\iII hP outmoded
and r C' plil C'ed b~ t ech nolo g~.
Such a convklion is not based on clear thin kin~.
48
The opposite hnppen s.
WhPrPver te<'hnology reaches its r('al fulfillment,
ittmnscP nds into arc hitec ture .... 15
llere, twelve y('a rs after he first assumed lh<' didac tic
leade•·ship of the architcclurP df'partment at liT, technology
wns sci for·th as the means with which to co ntinue the culture
of architecltrrC'. This perception, a!'liculutecl in a familiar mi x-
ture of romanticism and rPalism, rna)' go som e \•,;ay toward
accounting for thc " value-free" uni\ e rsa l g rid of Mics's liT
campus plan, imposed upon the availabk site in 1940. Here a
24-foot by 24-foot b~ 12-foot module pre\ ailed throu g hout , ex-
lending to lhP limits of the site as though this grid could be
infinite ly prolonge d. ln part symmetrical , in part a sy m -
metrical, but always rpgular, sm ·p for an ine;,plicable half-
modular innPPlion here and there, the final plan g iYes lillk
indiPation that one part of the campu s may bC' of grPatPr sym-
boli c import than ilnollwr. Lik e lkhrPns bPI'o re him , who had
already conPPi\('(l or industry as the dominaut force of the
~poch , lti !\lies s lro\(.' from the e al'lj 1940s to brin g the ollice
building und e r ll1 e rubri c of the faC'IOI'~ anci \'icp \·crsa, as
thougl1 Loui s Mumford 's nPotcchnics, like the electril'il~ that
,.,·a s its moti\aling forc e. \\as becoming manifest as a uni,·cr-
sal, im is ible g rid. reach in~~: the mo st rPmotl:' corners of our
JiY('S and s tnmping our ve ry being with it s mark.
No building type or ins titution could claim any special
illllllUIIit)' !'rom the imprint or thi s Ulli\'ersa ) matri~ lhilt
r·uthless l) dC'Iermincd the laiC' modern world for Mi es; be it u
C'hllrC'h, a house, a theilll'e, a block or aparlmPnts, or an aca-
demic ins titution. It wa s as though iurorrnation it se lf, as evi -
denced bj the ris e or the se n ic(' indu s try in the po stwar
eronom~ , had aln•ad) trans form<'d e\cry concehuble S)Slem
and ins titution into a sPrnibureaucratizecl dumaiu. This ·'one-
dimensional " percepti on oft he m odern world as a' asl, sca m -
less techuulogical vveh Pchoes, in an uncanny way, 'r\ai1Pr
Be njamin 's obsPnation thut " around the middle of the ninc-
IPcnth century, the ce nter of g ra,·it~ of rc<ilit~ s hilled !'rum th e
home to the offi<'e."r 7
ThP paradoxical proi.Jiern that J\liPS raced lhrou ghoulthP
rPsl of hi s C'ai'Pf'r \\CIS hmv to achicH' a s uhlle )PI adefjual<'
form of hiPrarc h ic inlkct ion '' ithin Ih e res tric tions of hi s mYn ,
self-imposed , ardrilectural s~· nta'l.. li e n is h ed to distiuguish,
as it wpr·e, bctween arch itecture and buildin g. without com-
prom is ing th e probit~ Of lhP strut'lural fl'il fll(' Or log iC' Of it S
nPces snr) infill. Th e s peci fi c scope of the proiliPm is e\ idC' nl
whcn onc co mpill't'S ttw liT 1\linC'ral s and 1\ll'lals H<'SPa rT h
13uildin{! of 1942-4'i (fi g. 17; see Otto, Jig. 9) to \lumrri \lcmo
ri a lllall (li@:. IR; see Olio, fil!. 13), reali zed lhi'C'(' )C'ar·s lat e r. In
tlw l'irs l ins tan ce, the GPrman fnl'lor~ 'ernanrlar i ~ direc tl~
appli<·d in all its technical and tectonic purit y, without an~
manipulnti o n: in the seeond , th e f•·a me is not o nly encasC'd in
COill'J'etl' for tlw purposes of' fire protection. Ullt the " rPprc:-.e n-
17. \lin crab and \ l l'lab lk~card1 Buildin~. liT, Cllica/IO, 1942-43
Ia lion '' of its hidden pre~ e n ce, in term s of da ss icall~ proliled
1>tePI facings a nd feue~ tration mou ldi n f!s, Pnwrges here as the
<'1>1>en tial tecton ic theme o f 1\.lics's American s i.IIf'. One n eed
on I.\ to compa re th e lw ick, s tPcl - frurncd, ~ides oft he two b uild -
in f!s to oiJSl'f\(' th e <;hif1 that has tak e n p lace, 1'0 1' nhere th('
framin g co rnpolH' nts of th e form e r arc J'n tlwr fre e l) disposC'd
ac!'ordinl! to co n ~t ru c ti ona l n eccss it~ , I he lhllllt' ofth f' Ia u er is
ri;.r i dl~ '>\llllnetrical. \part from the dillerent l e~al and tech -
nkal !'on <;t ra inh operat ing in C'ach case, it b df'ill'tha t \lum ni
\knwri a l ll all is the more monumental of the tn o, and wa ~
apparenll~ considc J'NI to he au a ptJropriatl' \t'hi c-lc for archi
lcclurt' o r rather for t hat ll'1 e l of Pxpress ion "hic-h !\lies pre-
feJ'J'I' d to cal l /Jauliullsl - building art. The \lint•rals and
\lt•tal " lksea rch Bu ild ing, o n th f' ol ht•r hand , b 11othin ~ more
!han if la bo ra tor.l. and thu s is worth) of no additiona l lc\el of
tectonic <'labo rati o n than tha t rt•quire d b.\ tlw pm<'<'SS of build-
in~ o r /Jaurn. In th e fi r" ' · then, th e re is an attempt at S) mbolic
l'l'IH't•se ntation , l'l idcnt in th e s tee l co lunnt farinf!S 11 hic h do
not touch th e ~ro und and Lh e reb) d celan· thrir n o n- load -
49
18. ,\ l umni \1 emorial11a ll, liT, C hira~o , 1945-46
braring slalu::.. In thl' seco nd , thl'J't' is s impl~ tlw PIPga nt r e-
fin e ment of' a gil e n set o f technica l component s.
The s~ nla\ l'lll iJI O.\ed IJ~ l\lics in mosl o f Lh f' strurl tll'f'S
lw buill on Lhc li T l'i.l lllpus in Lh P 1940s fa lls so mf'll·herp bf'-
IIH'ell that used in the~e t11 o buildin ~s. In onp bui ldi ng afl.er
another. th l' trea tm en t of e nd walls and tht• re!'ession of c n-
tntnC'cs occurs i.llmost indi l'l'c rpntl~ 11 ithin th e disc ipline of th e
!'\posed :,LeeJ frame a nd the limits of thP campus ~rid. l::\ P n
~o. the necessil.' for firf'p rooling as~JII'Pd that. in the mili n,
'' h at one Sa\\ \\as a re prl'scnlalionil l simulation of the frame
ra thrr than th e frame it:,e ll'.
From th e mid - 19 101> o n11ards, Mi L'~ tri ed to escapp the
limitations impo1>rd h.' hi s Cprma n faC' IOQ aC'sth etir '' it ho u t
rc linquii-.h in g his eo nr n JitJm• n t to tc(' hn o l o~.\ as the on J~ rp-
maining ('O IIel'lile c tho:, of the e poch. In thi ~ Pndem·or hC'
looke d bo th fon1 a J'ds and back 11 a rds: fon1 n rds to a serie~ of
"ide-:. pan s tru c ttn'C'S. '' hi ch, of nf'<'C'SSit) , \\OIIIciiJI" ca pable of
(' l 'ea tin ~ great s~ muolk :,paers a nd \\hie h. m.(' largp c n~i ­
ll l'l' J'in g 11 orks ~ll('h as b riclgf's, would manifest th e m se hTs as
technological form s having a tra nsce nd e ntal and m onum e nta l
character, and bac kward s, to the twin-benighted monwnt s of'
th e German Enlightenment; firs t, to the s hor·t-lived triumph of
Lhe European avant-ga rdP prior to the a po ca lypse of th e Third
Re ich a nd World War II, a nd second , to the even more r·emote
golden age of Schinke lschiilcr dassicis m. Ind eed, th e re m a in -
ing twe nty-fi ve yea rs of his output can be seen as a constant
oscillation between these prospective and retrospective refer-
ences; between the indifre rent but inevitable megateehnology
of an unl'oreseea bl e futltr'P, and an impossible nostalgia fo r the
threa ds of th e los t utopia of the beginning of tbe nine tee nth
century.
Two projects datin g from the mid-1940s seem to estab-
lish these polarities in his w ork in terms of building typ <'s; th e
unre alized twin-truss, lon g-span, drive- in r estaurant d esigned
for Joseph Cantor in 1945 -46 (fig. 19), and the Farnsworth
l!ouse (1946-51), in Plano, Illinois.\\ hcrC' thP Cantor Drive- In
gives rise to th e des ign of a number of long-s pan stru ctures
with exposed trusses, in cluding Crown II a ll (fi g. 20), des igne d
for the I!T campus, a nd the 1952-53 co mpetition project ror the
Na tional Theatre in Mannh ei m (cal. no s. 130- 138); the
1-+' a rnsworth ll ousc r·cturns us, at least in part, to Mies's high
avan t.-gardc pcr·iod or tile late 1920s. Jl crc, hOW<'V<'r, the ab- 19. Ca nto r Uri \c- tn Restaurant. Indianapoli s, 194?-46, nuuJ t>l
s tract s pa ce fi e ld implied by the flo atin g noor and r oof planes
is balanced U) th e pktmesque compos iti on of the work as a
whole, which co ntains both Schinkelschi.iler and llalianate c l-
e ments. At the sam e tim e, Mies attem pt ed to r e duce the
tectonic syste m of th e rarn s>vorth I louse to a sub limPly mini -
mali st statement. thereby evo kin!'; both Supre mali s m and ro-
mantic classicism. This is Pv id c nt in the open-jointed paving
or tile exterior te rraces, where sq uare ston e sla i.Js are laid on
an absolutely flat stl'll ctu ral hed or squflr<', s hall ow, gra\ e l-
fill ed drain pans, whi ch are im erted p) ra rnids of welded stee l.
A similar minimalis m is manifest in th e fa ce mounting of the
11-scclion columns to th e shallow tr imming channels of th e
sus pende d ll oor and roof' s labs. The t<'cto nic purity of thi s joint
(formal!~ minimnl but hard] ~ e ,\.p ress i' e !'rom th e point of
view ofconstmclionallogic) is achiC'H' d b~ g rinding th e 1\Clcl s
flat, a nd by finishing th e st.e eh,urk in nhite throughout.
At this point. 1\:tics bega n to achic \ C a kind of consum-
mate synth<'s is in his work. Hhe re in th e same minimal co m -
po ne nts are ope n to doubl t> ' -readin gs." so that th e six
sy mme trically placed co lumn supports fo r the lol\ er terrace of
the Furnsworth ll uuse turn out (bec·ausc of tlw OYcrlappi ng of
th e te rTflC<' a nd the hou se) to bejour stub co lumns, nhich also
carry in part the ll oor ami roof planes or the hou se. ln a s irrri lar 20. Cnl\\ n It a II , liT. C hi ca~o. t!l·iO-"J6, ~i~rH'd photo pa rH' I
\HI ), of the eight co lumns carry ing the ho us<' itse lf', onl} si.r (cal. no. 105)
e ngage on the ir fl a nges with the plate g lass membrane '' hi ch
e ncl oses the volume. T hese inco ns istenci es a rise out of th e
co mpl ex ovcr·lapping of' te rra ce and house, nnd th e reb) sen e
to ex press this condition as an as) rnm ctrica l to polO!:!;), w hich
r es ists any form of mono-semantic r·esol ution .

50
 \ comparable syntactic fu ion of two separa te proposi-
tions can be found in the twin towcrs rl:'aliz.cd for llerbert S.
Gree n\\ aid in L951: th e 860-880 Lake Shorc Dri\c Apartments
(lif!:s. 21. 22) of '' hic h Peter Carte r hn s made th e following
remarkable anal~ si s:

l\-1ies·s in troduction of projectin~?: stee l mullions at the

quarterpoints of f'ach ba) and on thP column surfaces
cngendC'I"s a ne\\ and unexpected quality from th e sepa-
r<lt<' idPntities of tlw Plernents invoiH• d. Tlw stru<'tnral
frame and its f!:lass infill hPcome architeeturall) fu1>ed,
t•nch losing part of its particular identit~· in establish in~
tlw ne\\ architectural reality. ThP mullion has aciNI as a
kind ofe<~talyst for t hi s <'hangc.
The columns and 111ullion dimensions detC'rmine "in -
dow widths. The two ce ntml windows ar·c, therefore,
"ider th an those adjacent to th e co lumn. ThP1>e ,·ariants
prod u f'e 'isual caderH'<'S o r c.\panding and <·ontracting
in tf'n als .... Fkfor<' Mil'S' "860" solution , there \\C're
t\\ o clear basiC' pos:.ibilitic<; fort he enclosure' of skeleton
fram<' buildings. P.ithcr t hl:' skin (l<'tC'd as an infill bC'-
IW<'<'ll th e stnwtrll'<' or it hun g in front of it. ... \-\ hile
acccptnblC' on their O\\ n pragmatic terms, these so lu-
tion ~ IHI\C', \\ith thf' C''\CCptiou of the Seagram Building,
r<lr<'ly been touched h) the magic of great <l rT hitccture.
2 1. R60-R80 Lake Shore DriH' Apartmrnt.,, Chical(o, 1!)4~ - 'J t , 11nder
\t "860" tlw so lution ha s co me direct!~ out of the prob- construl'tiorr
lem of finding a "tingle architeetuml c~pres~ i o n which
\\OUid <'ntbmce both sk in and slructurP . At "860" th P
~truc tru ·c• and skin retain ntuch ofthf'ir indh idual id ent i -
tit·s but tlw applicatio n orthe mullion has caus<'d a phil -
osop hical trnn s formation !"rom a pluralistic t o a
m ouot h c i ~t i c charactc r.t8

\lies's canonica l long-spn n, <•xposccl lattice truss stntC'-

ture, nhich first apJH'rtrcd with th e Canto r IJrh e-ln RPstau -
ranl, i~ pa1·alleled in the l'(lr l,\ 1950~ by his u se of a
m eg(l<,fru cturnl ~pace - lhune. \\ ith regard to this last, he clC'-
\'P lopcd [\\ 0 diJnTent t) pC!'> of :-ll'll<'lllt'('S f'or the ~Upport OJ" the
square, t\\o ""-' span roo!". In t lw first or thes<', thl' Chil'ago
Corl\ ention llall project of I!J'i1 54, in ,,·hi Ph the 720- foot clear·
span has ch il Pngine<'ring or bridgP- like dimensions, the
1>tccl framC'd roof transmits its load to the ground 'ia stl'el
tru :-~e .... Tlw:-e con tinuous trussed \\ails rl'~t on :-tuh concrete
columns. \\hich equipped \\ith " hingf'd'' column heads. ill'l'
dPpiO)<'d a t·ound thl' p<'rirnetl'r at 120- foot intcr·vals \\ ith GO-
foot <·antileH'r~ at the eonu:'r~. In thr :-l'com1. the ·) 0 b~ 50
I ((HIM' projc\'1 or 1950- •)1 (l"i/!. 23), a 'iO foot-'><)llill"l:' '>)J<(('('-
franH' i;. t'ilt'l'il'd on fortr nrid :-pa n POill lllll '>11ppor·h, ~ielclin~
22. 860-880 I .akt• Shure Dri\1• \partmrnt .,. rrrHIPr' l'lJII'>lnretion
25 foot cantill'\ l'l''> ()! thl' cornC'rs (a lthou gh \li t''> al'>o consid
ered til<' liM' of O\ erhcad plate grrdNs lfi/!. 241). \\ hi le the
Col1\e11tio 11 11;11 1 is the 111ore st ru c tura ll y a111bitious of the h\O
\\Ork .... \liPS \HIS IO 1>.\nllll''>iZC' th l'SC' t\\0 JJI'OIOI~Jll':O, in his Jll'O

51
n. )0 In 30 ll o u ~c prOJCCI, 1950-'5 1. mod <'I Jnland-.ca p(' '><'I ling h~ Philllart and ot l wr~ for··· \ d,anccd
\rehitt•t·ture 1.. at liT

--------------~~ , .
I

2 k 30 b~ )0 llow.. c pro wet. model of pn•llmina1~ ch'''llll ill land~cap(' ~!'ttinp: b~ Phil llarl and ulll('r~
for .. \d' anced \rchilct·ture 1.. al liT

25. \l''' \ational Gallcr~.lkrlln. 1962-67

52
j('('t for the Hacardi Omcc Huilding in Santiago, C.nha, in 1957.
This squnrc. space- rnune t~ pe, "ith eil!:ht columns distributed
around the perim e ter, is rctur·rwd to in the Schacfrr \lusPum
project of 1960-61 and in the 'le\\ 'lational Galler: in Herlin.
''hich ''as rinall : completed in 1967. l\\o :e(ln, beforc his
death.
The represcntatio11al :,pace-fram e pa\ ilion n hich domi-
nates the podium base of thc 1\e'' :'latiorwl Gallcr~ (11g. 25)
~'as \li<'s's final homecnminl! in more \\a~s than one. ror it
enabled him to r·econci le the polarities of his work: on the orw
hand , the moderni s t, planar space- field: o n thr othrr, the ar
tieulate co ns truct iona l Iogie or the\\ estern tectoni c tradition.
As Ro" e sugl!:rsts. these t\\ o Htlucs n <·n· perhaps nc\ er morc
at 'ari a n cc than in C.ro\\ n 11<111, liT, nher·e, intrrnall~ ut least,
the uninterrupted s uspended ceiling IC'itd~ to repudiate the
tcctorrie pmbit~ or the per·imctcr strut'lure. This dilemma or
the suspended rei lin;r. "hidr occurrrd in 'arious form~
throughout l\1ics's \merican careC'r, is linall~ resoh <'d in the
e\\ 1\ational Galler~· . I INc, llw s~nthesis of thr spaee-franw
n ith its co lumnar- hinged '>llpport dcpends upon the du(l)
na ture oJ'thC' ll[l[lCI'alld Joncrrhords that make up till' \\Pided
s teel plate roofstrueturP. Thus, while the roof as a \\hole ma~
!Je rend ns an irrfinitr float in!! plane, it a lso asserts its tectonic
prcscrwe through it s<'\ ide nl ~tn r ct ural sub!> tanec. In a sim ilar
\otes
I. \lui' Hi<'~J:I. Spatriimiscllc lwnstinduslrie (\ lf'lllla. 190 I).
2. II !>hould be not<'d that \li e' '"" not part orthi~ cit·cle.
3. Thes<' tr;~ns lated neerpts appear in nf'nni -, Sharp's \lodcm . trchi
ter·tun· and E.rpn'.w·unism ( t'\\ )or!,, t!HHl). Th<' C'ompiPit' IP\I b~
Paul Seheerbarr is f'lltitled Glasfu·r·futektur (Bf'rli n, 1914).
-l. The fulltran~lation of I\ lie;.';, remarb onlhf' G t ;~~s SJ,);,crapcrs that
ori~inatt~ appPared in f·riihlirhl I (1922). pp. 122 21, is !:iH'II in Philip
Johnson. \lies t•an derllollr (\l''' ) ork. 19 I 7), p. 1Hi.
'i. li en· al(ain.thc C'O tn pletc translatiuu from(; I (1922). p. I , i., f!i'en in
John~on (note 4-), p. 188.
fl. Tht· nri~J:ina1 tl'\1 rrom r; 2 (1923) is tt·anslatt'cl in Jo lt iiM>n (notP
p. 189.
7. John ~o n (nolt• I). p. 'i'i.
8. \\allt•r F. \\a!(ner. Jr., "LIId\\ig r\lit•s \all clcr Roht': 18Ho- t9fi0 .''
lrrhil!'rluml /kcord I to (Sq:.tll'nlht•r 19()9 ). p. 9.
9. !'rank Llo~d \\ ril(ht'' RohiP llouw or 190H Cilll bt' ;,('(' II ii' a \t'r... ion
of Lht• t~pical "he<td and tail'' \rh anrl Cralh 1HHISP J.llan . \\lwre thc
hf'iHI <lllrl taill1ii\C both I.H'l'll elongalt'd anti placed ~itlt• h~ sidl'. ~lit''
had s un·l~ M't' ll \\right\ \\ork in HJIO "lwn a nwjOI' f'\hihition \\as
mounted 111 13erlin. iiiHilhP \\a ~ muth publis hin;.: hou;.c isslll'd a port -
fo lio of\\ right's rlra\\ in;.: ~. b \he-." rote in W-W for an unpublislwcl
l'ala logJil' of an C\hibi lion al lh(• \ltiSl'lllll or \lodt'l'll \rt, "\I lhi;.
momf'nt IHJIOI, ~o erit ir al for u~. lllf' t'\h ihitiou of lht• \\OI'J.. of FrauJ..
l.lo'd \\ ri~ht cau11• to l:krliu. Thb eontprrlwnsiH· di,pla~ and tilt'
<''-hau,tiH· publiPntio u of his \\OrJ..~ cnablt'd u., to heeonw r·t'all~ m·
wa~. the cnrriform ~tee I megacolumns that carr~ the roof are
able to conH·~ their pragmatic and lll)thical ehnrnrtC' J' in
tcrrns of both techno log~ and dassieism. This e\prPssi\'c S) 11-
thesb atta ins ils apotheos is ill the hingcd. wller- I.H•af'ing joint
separating the spac<'-framr from th e colum n hf'ad (seC' Dal
Co, li~. 9). C lear!) this hinged joint is both a br·idge- beuring
and a mC'tilphol'ical ca pital. \s the' lattcr, it appe(IJ'S to inYer'l
thl' tcehnologica ll.' S) mbolie rolc or tlw s tef'l hinged -joint as it
first appearC'd in a si~nificant architectural conle\t, "ith 11c-
hren!>'s Sehi nkebdr[ile r Turhinenfabrik of 1909. Thc flanges
of thc c hords in !\lies's s pm·e- l'ramc at thc Nn' National Gal-
ler). paintcd matte bl(lck, dcpcnd for their inter11al IC'g ihilit~·
upon thc pia~ of l'('fl('clcd light as it pl'll('l ratcs thc depths or
t hc tolall) blilck cgg- cratc rrame (;.ce SpaC'th , fig. 21). Here
Mie s'~ hlnck-on - black uesthctic returns u~ to the lradition of
the modC'rnist fl\ an1-1!arde. Thus, in his lasl rf'alizcd '' ork,
\lies \0111 dcr HohC' achieH•d a high!) accomplished architec-
tonic integration of I\\O primar~ aspects within thc \\cstem
building tr(ld it ion: structura I rationa Iism on thc one hand , and
ronwntir rlassil'ism on th e othcr. Hc \\as to combine' this S)' n-
thcsis \\ith a rca srrtion oft he subl imit: of the a,·ant- gurde. as
it appears in thc painting~ of \.d Rcinhardl or in 1\lnlc' ich';.
S uprcmalist \\hile- on-V\hitc paintings of thr latr tcen s.
lJUainted "ith the achi<'' C llll' lll ~ of this arl'IJilt·ct.'' The full text ap
rwar~ in Johnson (11011' ·1). pp. 200-201.
10. \lo ,l \rts and Grath hou"'" "f'rr t~ poiO!(ieall~ rP1ated to th e
English 'Po man f;trmhow,e, "hieh p:rC\\ oq~anit'a ll~ in a pin-\\ heel-
in ~( t or 1.-formnti nn, \\ ith IIH• 1-(l't:at hall at tllf' lw:~cl aud the farm
sheds nnd outhou.,l'' at lh e tail. This "as, of eourse, a \t'ntaeular
form .
I I. Set• I'Nl'l' Rlahl'. 1'11e \fastrr Builders: Le Gorbusicr, \firs t•an dt•r
liolu·. Frank Lloyd II riM Ill (\It•\\ ) ork, 19fi0). Sec also Four Grmt
\fakers u.f \lodt' m trchitcc/urt•: (lropius. Lc Curbusirr, \firs l'nn dr r
Rolw. II riMhl (\f'\\ ) orJ... 19()3). a 'e rhati m rt'cord of a .,~ mpo ,i unJ
hl'ld at the School of \rl'ltiteetur<', Columbia t nhcrs it~ . l 9ol.
~). 12 . .Johnson (note ·f·), p. 51.
I1. For a clbeu ~'io n of \lif's'.,choirP of the Gl'rman 'cnuteu lar anrl it~
rPiatwn to the ln11lil wnal Far/ucerkbauiNI. "'e ·•Cpilop:u p: Thirt~
)par' \l1rr" inJoh n'o" (note ·l), pp. 20'\-211.
H . Col in Ho\\e, "1\Jrocla~s i cisn t and ~ l odrrn \rchitecturt•,'' Oppusi
tiuns I (Sf' pt. 1973). p. Ill.
t'i. \lit'' \illl dPr 1\ohl'. ·· \dclrt'!>'> to lllinoh ln-.tilul<' ofT('chnolo!(~ :· \
full t t•a n'l·r·ipt of thb add res~ i., !:h t•n in .lohnStlll (note -l ), pp. 203-20 I.
16. Sec Bt•IH·t-u~·~ l!lOH l' ~~a~ "\\hat is \lonunJPntal Art."
17. \\alter Benjamin. "l'at·i.,. llaup ~ tadt ell'' \1\ Jahrhund crb... in
11/uminationen (Frankfurt. 1ul.).
18. Perc·r Carter, "I\ li Ps 'a11 der 1\olw: \u ,\pprrciation on tht' OtTa-
~iou. Thi~ \1onth , of IIi ~ i'ith Hirthda~ ,'' trcflilectural nesi{{n '\ 1
(\larch 1961), p. 108.
53