4 ms·

> His view of life was moral. He was loyal to mathematics, to order, to living the life he thought worth living. Le Corbusier dreamed of "cleaning and purging

> His view of life was moral. He was loyal to mathematics, to order, to living the life he thought worth living. Le Corbusier dreamed of "cleaning and purging cities of disorder" with "calm and powerful architecture." (his words) His plan for Paris was never realized, though his ideals are apparent internationally, unfortunately. He was addicted to a certain kind of untested, abstract knowledge. I tried to articulate some of my distaste for the forces that propelled him and others, here: https://simonsarris.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-the-gods https://simonsarris.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-the-gods

adamjb 6y ago
FWIW the one opportunity he got to execute on his ideas on a city scale (Chandigarh), it turned out fine. > Le Corbusier dreamed of "cleaning and purging cities of disorder" with "calm and powerful architecture." (his words) His plan for Paris was never realized I can't help but point out that today's Paris is very much the product of a 19th C. rationalisation with broadly similar motivations and goals (including a desire for abundant parkland)
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  There is a huge difference between the Haussmann's renovation of Paris and the ideas of Le Corbusier. The goal of Haussmann was not to abolish everything that had been discovered and learnt by architects and city planners during the centuries before him, but instead to modernize and get rid of the obviously impractical designs. Pretty much like refactoring an old and messy code-base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...
  - adamjb 6y ago
    Yeah of course there's a wealth of difference between Haussmann and Corbusier, 70 years will do that. But if someone had that it was Haussmann that dreamt of "cleaning and purging cities of disorder" with "calm and powerful architecture" I wouldn't've blinked. >The goal of Haussman was [...] to modernize and get rid of the obviously impractical designs. That, and make the city easier to pacify with military force. Also it wasn't so obviously impractical. There was a lot written at the time about how Haussmann was destroying Paris by tearing out her heart and splitting her up and so on and so forth. Corbusier's central thesis was that the world had progressed but architecture had not, to the point where previous architecture was obsolete. With the nostalgic and excessive neoclassical style of the beaux-arts dominating the 19th C. it wouldn't've been hard to get that impression. From the tellingly titled "Towards a New Architecture": "Engineers have been busy with barrages, with bridges, with Atlantic liners, with mines, with railways. Architects have been asleep." He was not alone in that conception. He wasn't even the first of the modernists to articulate it. This desire to make a clean break with existing tradition (which you cast as the unique and defining sin of Corbusier) is more or less the foundation and the entire point of Modernism. Here's two examples that spring to mind. Loos writing in 1910ish alleged with new industrial processes the waste encouraged by the fact that styles go out of style made ornament criminally wasteful, so he advocated for architecture free of ornament. Theo van Doesberg and the rest of De Stijl gang took it in another direction around 1917, attempting to distil everything into category or continuum. In art and architecture this meant right angles and straight lines only (because angles are binary duh, though sometimes 45-degrees was okay), only black, white and the primary colours allowed, and the inside and outside of the building, painting, etc. existed as a continuum (Mondrian was a member for a while)
    - stephc_int13 6y ago
      The problem with Le Corbusier, in my opinion, is not about art style or aesthetics but about city planning and urbanism, or rather his disregard and even disdain for everything that worked for millennia.
pembrook 6y ago
Whether Le Corbusier's vision for Paris was stupid or not, I'm not sure it means we need to go back to some hyper-idealized vision of the past (which I'm not sure ever existed). In glorifying western ideals of history with flowery language, I think you've forgotten to examine what daily life was like living under the power structures that financed those "magnificent decorative artworks." You romanticize the idea of a peasant walking past ornamental buildings in an old town square, while forgetting that, those buildings were created as a statement of power and influence by the aristocracy who controlled daily life. The peasants did not go home to one of those "beautifully" decorative buildings. They went home to a shack with no running water and died of some hilariously curable illness at the age of 35. One of their children probably died before the age of 10. But oh, they had the wonderful mysticism of religion and ornamental wallpapers to gaze upon! Sure, I guess you could call the 7 layers of crown molding and statues carved into statues "enchanting." As an endeavor of sheer human man hours and craftsmanship, its definitely interesting. But I wouldn't call the rationalist forces that led to overthrowing those practices bad. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I would enjoy having 3 generations of my family enslaved as "artisans" for the sole purpose of carving patterns in a ceiling so one rich guy can impress his buddies.
caycep 6y ago
There was an undergrad art history course where the professor contrasted his ideals here w/ Venturi and Scott-Brown's "messy vitality" as encoded in their "Learning from Las Vegas" project

adamjb 6y ago

FWIW the one opportunity he got to execute on his ideas on a city scale (Chandigarh), it turned out fine. > Le Corbusier dreamed of "cleaning and purging cities of disorder" with "calm and powerful architecture." (his words) His plan for Paris was never realized I can't help but point out that today's Paris is very much the product of a 19th C. rationalisation with broadly similar motivations and goals (including a desire for abundant parkland)

stephc_int13 6y ago
There is a huge difference between the Haussmann's renovation of Paris and the ideas of Le Corbusier. The goal of Haussmann was not to abolish everything that had been discovered and learnt by architects and city planners during the centuries before him, but instead to modernize and get rid of the obviously impractical designs. Pretty much like refactoring an old and messy code-base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Pa...
- adamjb 6y ago
  Yeah of course there's a wealth of difference between Haussmann and Corbusier, 70 years will do that. But if someone had that it was Haussmann that dreamt of "cleaning and purging cities of disorder" with "calm and powerful architecture" I wouldn't've blinked. >The goal of Haussman was [...] to modernize and get rid of the obviously impractical designs. That, and make the city easier to pacify with military force. Also it wasn't so obviously impractical. There was a lot written at the time about how Haussmann was destroying Paris by tearing out her heart and splitting her up and so on and so forth. Corbusier's central thesis was that the world had progressed but architecture had not, to the point where previous architecture was obsolete. With the nostalgic and excessive neoclassical style of the beaux-arts dominating the 19th C. it wouldn't've been hard to get that impression. From the tellingly titled "Towards a New Architecture": "Engineers have been busy with barrages, with bridges, with Atlantic liners, with mines, with railways. Architects have been asleep." He was not alone in that conception. He wasn't even the first of the modernists to articulate it. This desire to make a clean break with existing tradition (which you cast as the unique and defining sin of Corbusier) is more or less the foundation and the entire point of Modernism. Here's two examples that spring to mind. Loos writing in 1910ish alleged with new industrial processes the waste encouraged by the fact that styles go out of style made ornament criminally wasteful, so he advocated for architecture free of ornament. Theo van Doesberg and the rest of De Stijl gang took it in another direction around 1917, attempting to distil everything into category or continuum. In art and architecture this meant right angles and straight lines only (because angles are binary duh, though sometimes 45-degrees was okay), only black, white and the primary colours allowed, and the inside and outside of the building, painting, etc. existed as a continuum (Mondrian was a member for a while)
  - stephc_int13 6y ago
    The problem with Le Corbusier, in my opinion, is not about art style or aesthetics but about city planning and urbanism, or rather his disregard and even disdain for everything that worked for millennia.

pembrook 6y ago

Whether Le Corbusier's vision for Paris was stupid or not, I'm not sure it means we need to go back to some hyper-idealized vision of the past (which I'm not sure ever existed). In glorifying western ideals of history with flowery language, I think you've forgotten to examine what daily life was like living under the power structures that financed those "magnificent decorative artworks." You romanticize the idea of a peasant walking past ornamental buildings in an old town square, while forgetting that, those buildings were created as a statement of power and influence by the aristocracy who controlled daily life. The peasants did not go home to one of those "beautifully" decorative buildings. They went home to a shack with no running water and died of some hilariously curable illness at the age of 35. One of their children probably died before the age of 10. But oh, they had the wonderful mysticism of religion and ornamental wallpapers to gaze upon! Sure, I guess you could call the 7 layers of crown molding and statues carved into statues "enchanting." As an endeavor of sheer human man hours and craftsmanship, its definitely interesting. But I wouldn't call the rationalist forces that led to overthrowing those practices bad. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I would enjoy having 3 generations of my family enslaved as "artisans" for the sole purpose of carving patterns in a ceiling so one rich guy can impress his buddies.

caycep 6y ago

There was an undergrad art history course where the professor contrasted his ideals here w/ Venturi and Scott-Brown's "messy vitality" as encoded in their "Learning from Las Vegas" project