THE EVOLUTION OF ARCHITECTURE
By JOHN BETJEMAN
SOMEONE looking at the dust-jacket of this book might imagine that it is a practical volume about how to build a house with the latest materials. So anxious is the author to avoid the word " architecture "—symbol of the academic outlook—that he leads one into this trap. But it is not a practical book. It is theoretical. The inside of the dust-jacket says : " In this persuasive book Dr. Behrendt has written in clear and non-technical language, a summary of architecture during the last hundred years." The language may be clear and non- technical to the students and lecture-goers in America, for whom it was written and in whose country it was printed. But to me it seems to be written in folkculturetalk, if I may be allowed to coin a word. Here are some specimens :
" He [Norman Shaw] . . . built several studios for London artists, delightful little buildings, full of romantic temper and breath- ing the sublime mood of a lyric poem."
"In these products of modern technique [ships, cars, locomotives, &c.], in the works of the engineers, architecture was given a new orientation, not from an esthetic point of view, it goes without saying, but from the point of view of structure ; as pure form of use, adapted to a certain function, all technical form is organic in character • and so by its nature it demonstrates the basic principle of order that the new spirit of building is pursuing."
" It is, indeed, the nature of modem construction, characterised by its elastic structure, that with it the natural statics and its laws of load and support, gained from immediate experience of the human body, have been overcome to the benefit of a rationalistic domination of matter."
Thrusting aside the jewelled word-curtains, one sees what the author wants to mean. But only vaguely. He is so liberal with his " principles," " spirits," " rhythm," and " reality," so many things are " revolutionary," " inter- national," " static " and " dynamic," that this clear non-. technical language may " render effective service to the welfare of the greater Commonwealth " by means of its " cultural consciousness," but the individual is left dazed. Nor will he be helped by a dictionary. The words are all there, but they might mean anything. Think of the varied meanings different people will put to "traditional," "style," "modern." The author has his meaning for them and the reader may have another. This is what makes books on architecture full of generalisations, so valueless.
I do not want to be unkind to Dr. Behrendt. He has been in charge of Government housing in Prussia, he was the first editor of Die Form. He has known those leaders of archi- tecture who Made German building so prominent before and immediately after the War. He is now teaching at Dartmouth College, U.S.A. He dislikes, as heartily as the reviewer dislikes, the Commercial-Renaissance of contemporary office buildings and the fake Queen Anne or Tudor of contemporary building estates. But his reasons for disliking them depend upon a theory which seems odd. He divides strictly in two the styles of architecture called " Gothic " and " Renaissance." Gothic he calls " organic," " irregular," " dynamic." Gothic, he says, " grows on its own . . . adapted to its function and environment as a plant or any other living organism grows." Renaissance, he says, is " mechanical," " static," " regular." It " takes the structure as a mechanism, composed of various elements put into order according to the immutable law of a system a priori." Mechanical architecture is based on Geometry. Gothic, apparently, escapes this curse. He cites the layout of Paris as the triumph of the " mechanical," " static," " regular " method. The New Town at Edinburgh,
Modern Building. Its nature, problems and forms. By Walter Curt Behrendt. (Martin Hopkinson. los. 6d.)
the only city he mentions in these islands, seems to him to be gliding off the slopes on which it is built. This means, I fancy, that he cannot fit it into his theory. How he would explain Bath I do not know. Nor can I comprehend how he would explain English Perpendicular ; or our late Georgian buildings. Dr. Behrendt favours the " organic " method of building, as exemplified by the work of Frank Lloyd Wright.
The progress of western architecture seems to Dr. Behrendt to be a series of revolutions. Possibly this view comes from his experience. We are ever swinging between formative art and fine art. The nineteenth century seems wholly bad, full of hideous mass-produced art objects, relics of the " fine art " period, architects are merely ringing the changes on the five orders (unfortunately he makes no reference to Soane and the staggering productions of the English Regency), then come two terrific revolutions—the Crystal Palace and William Morris. Engineering comes into its organic own, by contrast with " mechanical " classic and " sham Gothic revival." Fired by William Morris's attempt to throw off the shackles of nine- teenth-century formalism comes Part nouveau. (L'art nouveau owes more to Japanese decorations and the Whistler Room than to Morris.) This revolutions leads to " modern " architecture (he does not mention jazz-modern). Cubism, another revolu- tion, creates a geometric architecture of " doubtful esthetic value." Today, having admitted that building is a social art, he awaits a social revolution after which we will all live in organic houses with plenty of country near, " it seems that town and country begin to penetrate each other, fusing the two ways of life, thereby restoring to man a natural and healthful life of work and play." (Does he really mean that the country is only fit for " playing " in ?)
To English minds at any rate, architecture, and I prefer to use that word, evolves. It is not a matter of fits and starts. Gothic and classic are mere surface names to certain streets or buildings. Perhaps that is because our " social structure still remains fairly intact " and Dr. Behrendt wonders whether it is not to some extent because of " our wise and far-sighted housing policy." Does he refer to the Building Societies which have turned millions of us into almost bankrupt capital- ists ?
I think the best answer to Dr. Behrendt's pre-occupation With styles and revolutions comes from Mr. J. N. Comper, the church architect. " There will be no wholesomeness for architecture till, abandoning all this talk about self-expression and the expression of the age, we settle down again to real work and the concentration of all our time and energies, and especially all our time, on meeting our real needs by beauty of proportion and detail in whatevei style We`build. No one expresses the age better than the engineer who designs an aeroplane, and no one is further from any set intention of doing so. His sole pre-occupation is- to make it fly." This comes from a paper called FUrther Thoughts on the English Altar (1932) which, noting Dr. Behrendt's views on religion, I think he will not have read.
There are excellent passages in this book, especially those on Swedish, American, Dutch and Austrian architecture, on Adolf Loos, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier and housing. There is much clear and enthusiastic writing. .There are also a few inaccuracies which it is not necessary to enumerate. The all-important question of planning is only half considered. The book is so worth reading for the good in it, that r feel hesitant at having pointed out so much that seems to me bad.
Previous page
