Geoffrey Scott and Architectural Modernism
GEOFFREY SCOTT AND ARCHITECTURAL MODERNISM
2
3
Introduction In Geoffrey Scott’s book The Architecture of Humanism (1914) formulates a series of arguments against a number of theoretical positions. Scott identifies these theoretical positions as fallacies underlying architectural theory which is not proper to architecture. The four types of fallacy he distinguishes are the ‘Romantic Fallacy’, the ‘Mechanical Fallacy’, the ‘Ethical Fallacy’ and the ‘Biological Fallacy’. This paper is to analyze these ‘fallacies’ with those of the main proponents of the Modernist movement and the subsequent critics of Modernism. In how far would Scott support the views of the critics of modernism and their position? For Scott the ‘romantic fallacy’ lies in overloading attitudes towards architecture with literary associations with its symbolical religious and political implications. The romantic fallacy takes a detail from an era and changes it into a complete vision of that particular era; therefore simultaneously destroying the interest which was felt in its principles, and replaced it by misunderstood concepts out of which no principles of value could ever be recovered. The catastrophe for style was equally a catastrophe for thought 1. This laid on qualities that essentially belonged to literature which associated with significant experiences can be different for every individual spectator in every age, rather than the ‘necessarily direct and sensuous experience’ which Scott claims architecture requires. Modernist architect Le Corbusier 2 concentrated his efforts on redefining artistic standards by glorifying industrial forms and promoting deterministic belief in the advancement of civilization. Le Corbusier selected a concept from his time (machine) and created his own architectural expression for that period. His Villa Savoye 1931 3 is a good modernist example to Scott’s romantic fallacy – representing architecture in its own age as an association with a machine itself
2
3
Introduction In Geoffrey Scott’s book The Architecture of Humanism (1914) formulates a series of arguments against a number of theoretical positions. Scott identifies these theoretical positions as fallacies underlying architectural theory which is not proper to architecture. The four types of fallacy he distinguishes are the ‘Romantic Fallacy’, the ‘Mechanical Fallacy’, the ‘Ethical Fallacy’ and the ‘Biological Fallacy’. This paper is to analyze these ‘fallacies’ with those of the main proponents of the Modernist movement and the subsequent critics of Modernism. In how far would Scott support the views of the critics of modernism and their position? For Scott the ‘romantic fallacy’ lies in overloading attitudes towards architecture with literary associations with its symbolical religious and political implications. The romantic fallacy takes a detail from an era and changes it into a complete vision of that particular era; therefore simultaneously destroying the interest which was felt in its principles, and replaced it by misunderstood concepts out of which no principles of value could ever be recovered. The catastrophe for style was equally a catastrophe for thought 1. This laid on qualities that essentially belonged to literature which associated with significant experiences can be different for every individual spectator in every age, rather than the ‘necessarily direct and sensuous experience’ which Scott claims architecture requires. Modernist architect Le Corbusier 2 concentrated his efforts on redefining artistic standards by glorifying industrial forms and promoting deterministic belief in the advancement of civilization. Le Corbusier selected a concept from his time (machine) and created his own architectural expression for that period. His Villa Savoye 1931 3 is a good modernist example to Scott’s romantic fallacy – representing architecture in its own age as an association with a machine itself