Scan barcode
scrapespaghetti's review against another edition
3.0
Such a fun read (from a layman perspective), albeit opinionated.
"How very bourgeois"
"How very bourgeois"
tnklaar's review against another edition
3.0
This is an interesting riff on how, according to Wolfe, theory-fetishism destroyed architecture. The looniness of modernist architectural intellectualism is most captivatingly illustrated by what Wolfe describes as "the battle to be the least bourgeois" (20).
Early in "the game" of modernist design, he writes, bringing in simple craftsmen and asking them to make simple details and decorations by hand "seemed very middle class, very non-bourgeois" (20). Only three years later, however, theorist-architects (in that order) from the same school of thought took one look at those honest toilers and said: "how very bourgeois" (21). Only the rich could afford handmade objects, they said. Therefore, to be non-bourgeois, all art "must be machine-made" (22).
The fact that something as Marxist-proof and on the nose anti-commodified as skilled craftsmanship could become a modernist faux pas in the blink of an architectural eye shows how ugly theory can become when it is detached from real life. You know you've taken a wrong turn when you argue for homes to be called "machines for living." Crazy Corbu...
Early in "the game" of modernist design, he writes, bringing in simple craftsmen and asking them to make simple details and decorations by hand "seemed very middle class, very non-bourgeois" (20). Only three years later, however, theorist-architects (in that order) from the same school of thought took one look at those honest toilers and said: "how very bourgeois" (21). Only the rich could afford handmade objects, they said. Therefore, to be non-bourgeois, all art "must be machine-made" (22).
The fact that something as Marxist-proof and on the nose anti-commodified as skilled craftsmanship could become a modernist faux pas in the blink of an architectural eye shows how ugly theory can become when it is detached from real life. You know you've taken a wrong turn when you argue for homes to be called "machines for living." Crazy Corbu...
alisonjfields's review against another edition
2.0
An occasionally entertaining, but now dated to the point of being irrelevant survey of 20th century American architecture written by a snarky man who knows little about aesthetics and less about architecture
dreevesss's review against another edition
4.0
It’s interesting that when Bauhaus started it was essentially in a race with other architectural and art movements (De Stijl, Neoplasticists, Futurists, etc.) to see who could be the most un-bourgeois while being completely bourgeois at the same time. Architecture is basically the most bourgeois of all art forms because it takes a lot of money to build buildings.
To protect their ideology these architects performed Olympic-level mental gymnastics. Theo van Doesburg’s rejection of handmade for machine made—because only the rich could afford handmade—presents an anti-bourgeois and artistic quandary. It’s almost like a logic puzzle in trying to justify each side of the argument. And it’s hilariously predictable that Gropius changed Bauhaus to fit Van Doesburg’s thought process (17).
Like all thin-skinned bourgeoisie obsessed with the proletariat, the architects were offended when the workers didn’t like their ideas. For whatever reason the bourgeoisie always think they know what’s best for everyone else. Le Corbusier even went as far as to say that the workers needed to be “re-educated” to the beauty of his modern architecture. After all, the workers were “intellectually underdeveloped “ as Gropius put it (26).
Can you imagine the elitism and the privilege of these early “anti-bourgeois” architects? “The architect, from his vantage point inside the compound, would decide what was best for the people and what they inevitably should have” (85). This thinking is inherently elitist, and thus most definitely bourgeois.
The story of the Pruitt-Igoe public housing, with its “streets in the air,” highlights this elitism. The ending of that structure was preceded by the residents—you know, the uneducated masses who don’t know what’s best for them—chanting “blow it up!” because the housing had become so dangerous and uninhabitable.
So why the obsession with the worker? The rich always feel the need to boss everyone else around (by birthright even), and this presents an issue of “coolness” and “authenticity” because being rich and a boss is not cool or authentic in most bohemian circles. And everyone knows authenticity is important in art. It’s ridiculous how those that benefit from policies that exploit workers always want to try to appear cool with the workers in some way. Those whose families own the companies and cash in unfairly on their workforce want to act like they know what’s up and are down with radical politics. I know Wolfe gets into this in Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, and I plan on reading that soon as well.
In the end this is an indictment of elitism as much as it is architecture. When Wolfe describes how actually getting architecture work was thought of as inferior to the academic who didn’t get work but stayed true to the compound, I couldn’t help thinking about the “sell out” argument that pervaded all music discussion in the 90s and early 2000s. To elitists, success is secondary to ideology.
Humans are so weird.
To protect their ideology these architects performed Olympic-level mental gymnastics. Theo van Doesburg’s rejection of handmade for machine made—because only the rich could afford handmade—presents an anti-bourgeois and artistic quandary. It’s almost like a logic puzzle in trying to justify each side of the argument. And it’s hilariously predictable that Gropius changed Bauhaus to fit Van Doesburg’s thought process (17).
Like all thin-skinned bourgeoisie obsessed with the proletariat, the architects were offended when the workers didn’t like their ideas. For whatever reason the bourgeoisie always think they know what’s best for everyone else. Le Corbusier even went as far as to say that the workers needed to be “re-educated” to the beauty of his modern architecture. After all, the workers were “intellectually underdeveloped “ as Gropius put it (26).
Can you imagine the elitism and the privilege of these early “anti-bourgeois” architects? “The architect, from his vantage point inside the compound, would decide what was best for the people and what they inevitably should have” (85). This thinking is inherently elitist, and thus most definitely bourgeois.
The story of the Pruitt-Igoe public housing, with its “streets in the air,” highlights this elitism. The ending of that structure was preceded by the residents—you know, the uneducated masses who don’t know what’s best for them—chanting “blow it up!” because the housing had become so dangerous and uninhabitable.
So why the obsession with the worker? The rich always feel the need to boss everyone else around (by birthright even), and this presents an issue of “coolness” and “authenticity” because being rich and a boss is not cool or authentic in most bohemian circles. And everyone knows authenticity is important in art. It’s ridiculous how those that benefit from policies that exploit workers always want to try to appear cool with the workers in some way. Those whose families own the companies and cash in unfairly on their workforce want to act like they know what’s up and are down with radical politics. I know Wolfe gets into this in Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, and I plan on reading that soon as well.
In the end this is an indictment of elitism as much as it is architecture. When Wolfe describes how actually getting architecture work was thought of as inferior to the academic who didn’t get work but stayed true to the compound, I couldn’t help thinking about the “sell out” argument that pervaded all music discussion in the 90s and early 2000s. To elitists, success is secondary to ideology.
Humans are so weird.
bpatterson's review against another edition
5.0
After having taken a course on architecture in college, as well as visiting the Bauhaus in person a few years ago, this book acted as the perfect re-introduction to architecture. While Wolfe does not hold any love for the Bauhaus and its teachings, I still was able to enjoy the book nonetheless, although I did not expect it to be such a scathing critique when I first picked it up. Wolfe chronicles the introduction of the Bauhaus method to the United States, along with the shift in relations between the architect and the client as influenced by said teachings. According to him the effects of the Bauhaus only diminished and diluted the beginnings of a purely American architectural style. As every scholar had fallen prey to the ideas of Mies, Gropius, and Corbusier, the default architectural student only ever learned how to create the "Yale Box", there was no diversity in thought during this period according to Wolfe. And the tenets of the Bauhaus were never truly applied within the United States either. While the belief was to create housing for the every man and to snub the interests and tastes of the bourgeois, the buildings erected in the style in the US were instead utilized for corporations or government operations. And the same designs and materials that were utilized for their cheapness, simply became too mainstream and then too expensive for the every man. As perfectly encapsulated in the chairs that Mies created for the Barcelona Pavilion.
Essentially the Bauhaus became too popular for its own good and the style then became too expensive to fix the problems that it had set out to in the first place. As well as starting to become a mockery of itself. As every single Bauhaus architect could look to another and claim to find some piece of a design that had bourgeois elements or some piece of cornice or ornamentation that did not adhere to the ideal of disposing of decoration.
Personally I think that there are some great pieces of architecture derived from the Bauhaus style, such as the Seagram building or the aforementioned Barcelona Pavilion, but I do in the end agree with Wolfe that, as Americans tend to do, we rode the coattails of the Bauhaus to its not so grand conclusion. Which in the end could have deprived America from coming into its own style such as Frank Lloyd Wright was in the process of developing.
Although I will still always be a little annoyed that the Bauhaus inspired brutalism, which led to the construction of the Gelman Library.
Essentially the Bauhaus became too popular for its own good and the style then became too expensive to fix the problems that it had set out to in the first place. As well as starting to become a mockery of itself. As every single Bauhaus architect could look to another and claim to find some piece of a design that had bourgeois elements or some piece of cornice or ornamentation that did not adhere to the ideal of disposing of decoration.
Personally I think that there are some great pieces of architecture derived from the Bauhaus style, such as the Seagram building or the aforementioned Barcelona Pavilion, but I do in the end agree with Wolfe that, as Americans tend to do, we rode the coattails of the Bauhaus to its not so grand conclusion. Which in the end could have deprived America from coming into its own style such as Frank Lloyd Wright was in the process of developing.
Although I will still always be a little annoyed that the Bauhaus inspired brutalism, which led to the construction of the Gelman Library.
robbstarks's review against another edition
4.0
"what was the best a young architect could hope for in america?"