By; Jose G Bridgwater
Le Corbusier’s work evolution, a study that aims to compare and contrast the Villa Savoye to the Carpenter Center.
The aim of this essay is to compare and contrast two buildings by the architect Le Corbusier. The main subject discussed is the progression and transformation of his work from the earlier part of his career towards the end of it. The two buildings considered are the Villa Savoye and the Carpenter Center.
The reason why the Villa Savoye was selected instead of one of Le Corbusier earliest villas or houses is mainly because after careful consideration, it was decided that comparing an earlier building will not demonstrate a true evolution of the work of Le Corbusier, as the earlier projects in his career show signs of his mentor/ teacher Charles L’ Eplattenier’s style and yet do not reflect Le Corbusier’s own.
BUILDINGS VILLA SAVOYE CARPENTER CENTER
YEAR OF COMPLETION 1928-1931 1960-1963
LOCATION Poissy, FRANCE Harvard University, Cambridge U.S.A.
TYPE OF BUILDING “Domestic” Architecture Public Architecture
CURRENT FUNTION Museum/ Monument Center of Visual Arts
CLIENTS Emilie and Pierre Savoye J Luis Sert and Harvard University.
LE CORBUSIER
Before discussing the subject, it is imperative that the reader becomes familiar with the academic back ground and the chronology of Le Corbusier’s artistic development. The formal education of the Swiss-born architect Charles Edourd Jeanneret best known as Le Corbusier ended at the age of 17, in the arts and crafts school. (Russell pp 8)
From 1911-1921 Le Corbusier was travelling, writing, editing and painting (Russell pp 9). During this phase in Le Corbusier’s life one can perceive that he was not directly concerned with architecture. Nevertheless his travel sketches demonstrate the opposite. The sketches show a self-education that Le Corbusier was developing on his own, but most importantly it reflects the broadening experiences that the architect was acquiring.
Travel was, is and will always be an important and desirable chapter in the development of any architect’s career (Russell pp 13). Le Corbusier was able to benefit from this luxurious advantage for a decade.
BIRTH 1887 FORMATIVE YEARS 1905-1919
END OF FORMAL EDUCATION 17 PERIOD OF INVENTION 1919-1922
END OF APPRENTICESHIP 22 FIRST MATURE PHASE 1922-1928
INDEPENDENT PRACTISE 34 PERIOD OF REASSESMENT 1928-1945
MATURITY BEGINS
35 FULFILLMENT 1945 -1965
(Russell pp 9) (Serenyi pp 16)
LE CORBUSIER’S TRADEMARKS
The 1920’s seems to be the time in which Le Corbusier career shows a true sense of development. This decade marked a turning point in his style (Serenyi pp 16). The work produced by the architect reflected the principals and values that were important for Le Corbusier and that later became a Corbusian trademark (Russell pp 11).
The five points was a signature trademark of Le Corbusier’s career introduced in 1926 see table below , until the present day still in resonates in those involve within the profession(Etlin pp275) and (Anderson pp151).
Other trademarks of Le Corbusier’s legacy are;
• The Promenade Architecturale was introduced to his readers in 1923-1924 in Paris (Etlin pp275).
• The brise-soleil a feature introduce in 1933(Serenyi pp 18),
• The window frames were used by the architect to give the effect of a painting (Serenyi pp 18).
Le Corbusier also introduced new architectural/design vocabulary such as “machine a habiter” (Living machine), “machine for exhibiting” (Boralevi pp 179) and the”Vue vol d’oisseu” (bird’s eye view) also known “as fifth façade”.
THE FIVE POINTS OF A NEW ARCHTECTURE 1926 (Etlin pp275)
1) The building elevated off the ground on Pilotis.
2) A roof garden
3) A “free plan” with a grid of structural columns to provide support and non-structural walls to enclose spaces as desired on each floor
4) A “ free facade “ which is no structural
5) The ribbon window; which can extend across the façade for abundant and even illumination
What does Villa Savoye have in common with the Center of Visual Arts?
At this point the reader might be wondering about the unorthodox similarities that a villa (Domestic architecture) could share with a Center of visual arts (Public architecture)? Aside from the fact that they are products of the same architect and the aim of this essay is to study the evolution, growth and the development of Le Corbusier’s work. The Villa Savoye was intended as “domestic architecture” however it never fulfilled the functions that a private residence should, not even the basic ones which are protection/shelter from weather aggressors such as rain and comfort．
From 1930 to 1937 Emilie Savoye began to express the technical flaws of the villa via mail to Le Corbusier. For instance on September 1937 Madame Savoye wrote to the architect; “it’s raining in the hall, it’s raining in the ramp, and the wall of the garage is absolutely soaked. What’s more, it’s still raining in my bathroom which flows every time it rains “ by 1938 the family Savoye moved out of the villa (Murphy pp 72).
The Villa Savoye served briefly and imperfectly as a residence, however it became a site where international visitors travelled to witness the development of modern architecture. The architect himself had plans for the villa to become a museum. Le Corbusier wrote to François Gardien in June 1961 “ it is time to begin the process of taking possession of the villa Savoye and begin the work—which I will direct—to make it into a sort of Le Corbusier museum”( Murphy pp 78).
It can be argued that the Villa Savoye was a constant ongoing project in the back of the mind of the architect until the day of his death on the 29/06/1965 (Boralevi pp 180). After all the Villa Savoye represented for Le Corbusier a carte blanche commission, Le Corbusier was able to express and implement new ideas and elements in this project to a whole new level.
The Villa Savoye is believe to be the most significant and clear manifestation of Le Corbusier’s five points of a new architecture proposed in 1927 (Murphy pp 75).
Further reading makes it even clearer that the architect ̒s agenda was not to provide the family Savoye with a residence as they and usual notions of houses functionality were disregarded and the Savoyes’s comfort was ignored.
The villa confirms to be a building of great importance of the architect’s own work. The domestic concerns of the Savoyes were not only forgotten egoistically by Le Corbusier. The architect used the Villa Savoye to demonstrate his own aesthetic position for the benefit of visiting admirers and potential clients. (Murphy pp 86).
In 1937 Emilie Savoye wrote to the architect “there always seems to be someone in your office to send me visitors... not to reply my letters “(Murphy pp 86).
It is evident that the architect saw Villa Savoye as public architecture. One can declare that the Villa Savoye became piece of art to the eyes of the architect and it ought to be admired for the aesthetic qualities rather than its practical qualities as it failed as a living machine but succeeded as an exhibiting machine.
Jean – Louis Veret an architect in charge of the restoration of Villa Savoye in 1985 concludes “The Villa Savoye has three functions; 1 as a manifesto, 2 a museum and 3 a cultural object” (Murphy pp 86).
It is intentional that the information given above helps the reader to see the Villa Savoye no longer as domestic architecture but as public architecture, in order to be able to compare and contrast it with the Center of Visual Arts. Both of these buildings were built consciously or subconsciously to display and express art in their own right.
WHAT DOES THE PROJECT OF THE CARPENTER CENTER OF VISUAL ARTS IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY SIGNIFY FOR LE CORBUSIER?
The Carpenter Center was Le Corbusier’s only building in North America. He considered it as “small commission from such a large country”. However this commission was unlike any other he had undertaken in his career. Here he was presented with the opportunity to build an institution of liberal arts. This commission translated into the mind of the architect as (Kellett pp 165 states)... an unrealized area of personal research, in which “indispensable, practical, beneficent relations between the hand and the head”.
One peculiar aspect of this commission was the limitations imposed by the site. Le Corbusier, the urbanist, showed a rather flexible side by working in the site. In the Oeuvre Complète it reads "the tightness of the site was a challenge" (Sarkis and Apologia pp 155) see picture below.
In this commission one has the impression that Le Corbusier was thinking about the clients primarily, secondarily in the promenade architectural and thirdly in robust curved shapes and elevation of the building still using elements of the five points introduced in the 1920’s, but now in the fulfilment phase of his career.
As he wrote a formal memorandum; “We shall need to arrange for a path for students passing through the building between class hours. A touristic route, possibly on a spiral if we elevate the building”. The conclusion of the memorandum reads as follows; “...Poème electronique, of open verse calling for an eerie iterative sounding of electronic bell to augment the spatial experience of climbing and descending the ramp” (Kellett pp 166).
In this project a new element is considered and introduced by the architect; sound. Le Corbusier envisions the students promenading along the ramp accompanied by sound. Judging by the words used by the architect “Poème electronique” (electronic poem) it sounds like he had fondly thought about this new element for this project almost as reinventing a new way or adding a feature for the promenade architectural to be experience by the students as they ascend and descend it.
IS THERE AN EVOLUTION OR RECYCLING PROCESS SHOW IN LE CORBUSIER’S WORK THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER?
While exploring the robust shapes found in carpenter Center one can link them to later developments of detailed shapes found in paintings he did in the 1920’s” (Snyder pp 328).
Le Corbusier said “The human brain is made in such a way that it has certain independence; it is a box into which one can pour a bulk of elements of a problem and then let them float, simmer and ferment. Then, one day, something clicks; you pick up a pencil, a stick of charcoal, some colour pencils (colour is the key to the process) and give birth onto the paper; out comes the idea...”(Kellett pp 166).
By the time that the architect was working in the Carpenter Center one can see that Le Corbusier’s understanding of architecture was different, here we can witness a much fuller exploitation of the five points (Anderson pp 158).
CONCLUSION
It is crystal clear that the architect shows dynamic and evolving way of thinking and the evidence is reflected in his projects.
(Kellett pp 165) states; “Le Corbusier drew and painted throughout his career and considered the manual labours of design and drawings his “conscience” in matters of architecture”.
(Snyder pp 329) states; “The fact is, the Center for the Visual Arts is an intelligent, meaningful composition, responsive to both the clients’ requirements (program) and the site; the building demonstrably good”.
Snyder pp 330 states “This building is not just a sculpture which owes its shape to a fifty year old painting and a thirty year old sculpture. The building stands as an affirmation of a man’s life work, it emphasizes the importance of continual, dedicated search for the principles of design. The Carpenter Center (1960-1963) is a relative of the Villa Savoye (1928-1931) and shows that the family has progressed through several generations.”
One aspect that should politely be highlight it is that in the latest project the architect had considered the client’s needs, unlike the Villa Savoye project.
This essay will conclude by asking a rhetorical question. Does the Carpenter Center show a growth development in the architect’s career since the Villa Savoye? The answer is yes! There is visible and conspicuous progression in the development of the architect’s career, but also one can observe that there is re-cycling, re-exploring and re-visiting process of ideas.
Le Corbusier proves to be an architect with an active, innovative and restless mind that is not afraid to revisit a past that is in the form of painting, sculpture, project or even an idea and bring it to the future.
REFERENCES
Richard A. Etlin 1987 Le Corbusier, Choisy and French Hellenism: The Search for a New Architecture, The Art Bulletin,Vol.69,No 2 pp. 264-2278
Masim Sarkis and Giedion’s Apologia 2002, Constants in Motion: Le Corbusier’s “Rule of Movement” at the Carpenter Center, The MIT Press Vol.33 pp.114-125
Alberto Boralevi 1983, The Architectural Conception of the Museum in the Work of Le Corbusier, The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol 2 pp. 177-189
Ron Kellett 1990, Le Corbusier’s design for the Carpenter Center: a documentary analysis of the design media in architecture, Design studies, Vol 11 No 3 pp. 164-179
Stanford Anderson, 1984 Architectural research programmes in the work of Le Corbusier, Design studies Vol 5 No 3 pp.151-158
Kevin D. Murphy 2002, The Villa Savoye and the Modernist Historic Monument, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 61 No 1 pp.68-89
Henry-Russell Hitchcock 1952, The evolution of Wright, Mies & Le Corbusier, The MIT Press Vol. 1 pp. 8-15
Peter Serenyi 1965, Le Corbusier Changing Attitude toward Form, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 24 No 1 pp 15-23
James Snyder 1979, Le Corbusier at work: The genesis of the Carpenter Center for the visual arts by Eduard Sekler; William Curtis, Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 14 No. 3 pp. 328-330.
BIBIOGRAPHY
Danilo Udovicki- Selb 1937, The temps Nouveaux Pavillion, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 56, No 1 pp. 42-63
Roger Herz-Fischler 1927, Le Corbusier’s “Regulating Lines” for the Villa at Garches 1927 and other early works, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 43 No 1, pp 53-59
Luis E Carranza 1994, Le Corbusier and the problems of Representation, Journal of Architectural Education Vol. 48 No 2 pp. 70-81
