İdil Özenel

MIT 518E
Readings on History of Architecture II
02.05.2024

The Use of Architectural History in Bruno Taut’s Architecture Teaching (1938) and Le
Corbusier’s Towards An Architecture (1923)

Le Corbusier in his 1923 book Towards an Architecture and Bruno Taut in his 1938 book
Architecture Teaching tried to answer the question “What is Architecture?” in terms of the
problems of their periods, current projects, the relationship between architecture and engineering,
and history. In doing so, both architects used architectural history as a tool and produced
arguments to support their own understanding of architecture. Although Le Corbusier's book
does not have a systematic order in terms of the definition of architecture, its relationship with
other disciplines, and its historical interpretation, his work presented pioneering ideas in Taut's
attitude towards historicism and in determining the principles of modern architecture.

In his book, Le Corbusier defends functional and simple structures in contrast to the
traditional and historicist understanding of architecture and expresses his views praising ships,
airplanes, and automobiles. He advocates progress and criticizes structures that imitate the past
in his text, claiming that architects are suppressed by tradition (Günaydın). In the third chapter of
the book, Automobiles, Le Corbusier discusses the Parthenon together with automobiles and
makes comparisons. He sees the Parthenon as a product of standardization and that it’s a
structure that has completed its development. Automobiles, on the other hand, are more "noble"
because they are still in the development stage and are not bound to a standard. In addition, Le
Corbusier claims that it was Phidias who made Parthenon what it is and that he would have
rebuilt the Parthenon had he lived in modern times: “His eyes would see the convincing results
of the hard work of our time. Soon he would repeat the Parthenon experience” (Le Corbusier,
2023, p. 165).
Figure 1:Page layout of Towards An Architecture

Bruno Taut, however, constructs his book in a systematic way and elaborates on issues
such as the view of architecture, how architecture should be analyzed, and the methods and
approaches to be used in evaluating architecture. He identifies the main conditions that create
architecture, which should be considered as the art of proportion, as "Technique, Construction
and Function" and divides his book into chapters. According to Taut, each of these constitutes
architecture, but there is a danger of each of them getting in the way of architecture. Therefore,
the architect must use technique, construction and function as devices for the emergence of
architecture. It is possible to clearly see that Bruno Taut opposes Le Corbusier’s ideas on
Parthenon in his work. Taut considers the Parthenon as the product of a "conception" formed
over the centuries and says that it is a " self-formed tradition". According to him, the Parthenon
is the result of the Greek culture and climate and cannot be separated from its context. In an
allusion to Le Corbusier's comparison, "They cannot be carried everywhere like an automobile or
a train" (Taut, 2021, p. 45). Another reference he makes to Le Corbusier is in the comment of
Phidias as the true architect of the Parthenon. Taut emphasizes the role of locality in the
production of the temple and attributes it to the climate: “The radiantly luminous mind took form
here, under the bright sun against the clear blue sky. It is as if the sun itself, with its active lights
and shadows, created this art of proportion that cannot be further developed, this absolute
architecture that is serene in itself and wants to be nothing but architecture” (Taut, 2021, p. 74).

The most important issue on which the two architects clearly disagree is the use of color
in buildings. Although the use of color in his later works was utilized in spatial divisions, forms,
and decorative elements, before and during the year 1923 when he wrote the book Towards an
Architecture, Le Corbusier wrote about what white color represented in the Modernism
Movement and produced architectural works defending its characteristics. In his essay, The Law
of Ripolin (a popular brand of paint invented at the end of the 19th century, promoted as
anti-bacterial) written in 1925, Le Corbusier declared that whitewashed walls had a spiritual and
moral cleansing power, along with the connotations of physical hygiene the paint brand was
trying to promote. He wrote that every citizen in Paris should be forced to “replace his hangings,
his damasks, his wall-papers, his stencils, with a plain coat of white ripolin. Everything is shown
as it is. Then comes inner cleanliness.'' He argued that white was honest, dependable, and “gave a
power of judgment to the individual” (Wigley). In Towards An Architecture, he talks about the
color use in a historical context in a way that glorifies white. In The Lesson of Rome, where he
talks about the chaos, disorganization, and "fish-stacked" unplannedness of Ancient and
Renaissance Rome, he describes the church of St. Maria in Cosmedin, built in Rome in the 12th
century, as an example of simplification where Greek influence is seen again in Rome. The use
of the color white in this church, which overcomes pretentiousness and with mathematics and
proportion, constitutes a sublimity. "Only white is used as a color; white is always powerful
because it is absolute. (...) So this church was there when the gilded, horribly ornamented palaces
of the Great Renaissance were rampant in Rome."(Le Corbusier, 2023, pp. 179-180)
Figure 2: Le Corbusier, Villa Savoye, Paris, France, 1929. (August Fischer)
Figure 3: Le Corbusier, Villa la Roche, Paris, France, 1923. (Harold Hollingsworth)
Figure 4: Le Corbusier, Unité d’habitation (Housing Unit), Marseille, France, 1947 (Steve de Vriendt)
Figure 5: Le Corbusier, Pavillon Le Corbusier, Zürichhorn, Switzerland, 1960. (Roland Zh.)

In 1931, however, he published Polychrome Architecture where he introduced a “colour

palette” that was intended to be used in specific architectural contexts. He believed that colours
played a significant role in evoking emotions and creating spatial illusions. He described the 43
colours and the “keyboards” (selection method in which a cut-out paper is put on top of four
colours to create a harmonious palette) as “accurate and effective, one which makes it possible to
plan, in the modern home, color harmonies which are architectural and yet suited to the natural
taste and needs." According to his system, there are selected colors that can be used and they can
be used in the right place for the right purpose. Color is not a "subversive element of art". It is a
design element equivalent to form, not an ornament. In fact, Le Corbusier was not against the use
of color, however, he believed the color palette he created was based on a certain logic and that
colour could only be used if it had a purpose and if the right color was chosen.

Figure 6: Le Corbusier, 1931 Colour Palette, Polychrome Architecture (Les Couleurs)

The difference of opinion between Taut and Le Corbusier on color first emerged in 1927
at the Weissenhof Housing Exhibition. In the exhibit, which took place in Stuttgart and consisted
of 33 different houses, prominent architects of the era were asked to design houses that would
show the modernist characteristics of the period. The only requirements for the designs were flat
roofs and a white exterior. Although some architects did not follow this rule, all the houses
appeared white in the photographs published in the press after the exhibition and it was
emphasized that the real modern architecture was "white" (Teckert). One of the architects who
did not follow this rule was Bruno Taut: the architect of house number 19 in the exhibition, used
the color pink on the facade which resulted in Le Corbusier who also designed a house for the
exhibition saying "Bruno Taut must be colorblind!". Based on the Polychrome Architecture
publication, it can be said that Le Corbusier's criticism was because he found Taut's use of color
inappropriate and thought that he was using it as an ornamental element.
Figure 7: Bruno Taut, House no 19, Weissenhof Estate, Stuttgart, Germany 1927. (Architecture Enthusiast)
Figure 8: Le Corbusier & Pierre Jeanneret, House no 14/15, Weissenhof Estate, Stuttgart, Germany 1927. (Hassan
Bagheri)

It can be suggested that Bruno Taut responded to the criticism he received about the use
of color while examining what architecture is and is not in his 1938 book Architecture Teaching.
The fact that the Falkenberg settlement he had previously designed in Berlin was called a "paint
box" strengthened this motivation. In the first chapter of the book, What is Architecture, Taut
emphasizes that the use of color comes after proportion, which is the main element of
architecture, and says that "the architect does not work to make his building look good in
painting" (Taut, 2021, p. 21). Colour can contribute to the plastic effect of the work but certainly
should not override architecture and architecture should dominate everything. Similar to Le
Corbusier, he manipulated his deductions in historical buildings to serve his view on architecture.
In the third chapter of the book, Technic, Taut discussed the use of color in buildings through the
Parthenon and the Royal Palace of Japan. He emphasized the painting of ancient Greek temples
as a choice of aesthetics and argued that colour, a technical tool, did not reduce the structure’s
proportional characteristics. As a matter of fact, the painting of the marble increased the visual
quality as “natural marble, left like that, looks as pale as a corpse” (Taut, 2021, p. 75). Another
example he gave on the subject was the painting of wooden construction parts of Japanese
palaces: “Even the Japanese, whose closeness to nature has become famous, painted those
precious cypress trees in their best classical works. However, natural materials have never been
as slavishly subjugated as today's oppressive attitude, and if the material has a certain value, it
has never been imposed that it must be presented by preserving its natural structure” (Taut, 2021,
p. 78) With this excerpt Taut highlighted the pressure he felt on the “purity and authenticity” of
the exteriors of his period. Likewise, the mentioning of Konzerthaus strengthens his argument.
He claimed that the stone cladding of the facade, which was previously left with plaster, did not
make the building more beautiful. “The formal beauty of the building is so strong that in this
case it transcends material and technique. (...) There is no path from technique to proportion”
(Taut, 2021, p. 87). Once again he stresses that true architecture is above materials and colours.

Figure 9: Bruno Taut Falkenberg Garden City, 1912. (Herbert Turley)

In their books Architecture Teaching and Towards an Architecture, Taut and Le Corbusier
not only used historicism to produce arguments about the issues they disagreed with each other
but also argued similar things on many issues. They chose to refer to the history of architecture
as a method to address the architectural problems of the period from a similar point of view. One
issue they share similarities is the issue of axis and symmetry. While Taut drew attention to the
optical distortions caused by modern constructions consisting only of vertical and horizontal
lines, he emphasized that proportion was not given enough importance in contemporary
architecture. In the fourth chapter of the book, Construction, he argues that the freedoms given
by modern construction techniques distort the proportion of architecture and make the buildings
uncomfortable to look at by not giving importance to the human eye. As a technique that should
be taken as an example, he showed the moldings used in the transition from semicircles to
straight lines in the Paris Pantheon. “All partitions, moldings, and other architectural elements,
even ornaments, were created with the concern of preventing all kinds of optical distortion, that
is, distortions of form caused by the effects of air and light” (Taut, 2021, p. 115). While talking
about this subject Taut also writes about his executions. He emphasized the subtlety of the slight
distortions in the geometry of his buildings and the success and inimitability of their relationship
with light, landscape and environment. Le Corbusier similarly cited the carvings at the
Parthenon as an example, saying that optical considerations should be considered: “It is about
millimetric divisions. There are many molding elements, but they are classified according to the
degree to which they affect the eye. Surprising deformations: Moldings may be hollowed out or
bent over a perpendicular element in order to look better to the eye. Sculpted lines create an edge
to halftones, freeing them from uncertainty.” (Le Corbusier, 2023, p.229)

They have also argued the same principles about placement on axis in architecture and
urban planning. Le Corbusier's main underlining statement is that “The thing to remember when
drawing a plan is that the result is determined by the human eye” (Le Corbusier, 2023, p. 211).
He claimed that the positioning of the architectural works on the same axis created the same
effect of a group of people talking at the same time (p. 202). Emphasizing on the example of
House of The Tragic Poet in Pompei, he argued that even though the spatial organization was
placed in an axis, breakages in the openings made the perception of the space stronger. “An
object placed in the center of a space usually kills that space because it prevents you from
standing in the center and looking around with an axial view” (p. 205). Both Taut and Le
Corbusier refer to the Palace of Versaille as the emergence of symmetry in architectural planning.
When Louis XIV declared himself the "Sun King", the sacred descended to the sovereign, and
the giant axes and star planning in palace planning came into play. But again, because he ignored
the fact that architecture is perceived by the human eye, he "violated architectural truths” (Le
Corbusier, 2023, p. 210). Taut went even further, describing the aim of representing holiness with
the Palace of Versailles as an "act of perversion" (Taut, 2021, p. 155). While Taut directly
compared his own work with the works of the past and the period when dealing with symmetry
and axis, Le Corbusier did not do so explicitly in Towards an Architecture. However, both
architects argued that the gaze of the human eye should be prioritized when designing buildings
and emphasized the importance of the concept of proportion.

Figure 10:Versaille Palace Plan. (Jean Delagrive)

In their books, both architects used architectural history as a tool to support and
legitimize their understanding of architecture while examining what architecture is and what it
should be. In addition to using this method to justify their disagreements, while pointing out
some of the problems of architecture, they also gave similar examples and came to the same
conclusion on issues they agreed on.
References:

Florian, M.C. (2023) The Myth of Pure White Architecture: How Architects of Modernity
Used Color. ArchDaily.

Günaydın, D. H. (2023). Bruno Taut'un Mimarlık Öğretisi (Mimarî Bilgisi) Eserinde Mimarlık
ve Tarih İlişkisi. İstanbul Technical University, Master’s Thesis.

Klinkhammer, B. (2004). Creation of the Myth: "White" Modernism. ACSA. Archipelagos:

Outposts of the Americas. Miami.

Kuban, Z. (2021). Dipnotlar, Mimarlık Öğretisi içerisinde, Arketon Yayınları, İstanbul.

Le Corbusier. (2023) Bir Mimarlığa Doğru, translation: Serpil Merzi, Yapı Kredi Yayınları,
İstanbul.

Özkan, B. (2023). Bruno Taut’un Mimari Bilgisi Kitabından Hareketle Ankara’da Tasarladığı
Eğitim Yapılarının Metin ve Görsel Okuması. Ankara University, Master’s Thesis.

Souza, E. (2023). Le Corbusier's Color Theory: Embracing Polychromy in Architecture.

ArchDaily.

Taut, B. (2021). Mimarlık Öğretisi, translation: Hüseyin Tüzün, Arketon Yayınları, İstanbul.

Teckert, C. (2010). A History of Whiteness in Architecture on Display. ORIS, Magazine for

Architecture and Culture, issue 61, Zagreb.

Wigley, M. (2020). Chronic Whiteness. Sick Architecture.