ARCHITECTURE AND FEMINISM: DISCUSSIONS TOWARDS INCLUSIVE IDEOLOGIES, PEDAGOGIES, AND PRACTICES By ELIZABETH CRONIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2018
2018 Elizabeth Cronin
To Forrest and my wonderful family
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would very much like to thank Forrest and my family for all of their supp ort through this entire process. I absolutely could not have done it without a ll of you I would like to thank Professor Walters for his unending resources architectural awareness, words of wisdom and encouragement, and thoughtful conversations. I would also like to thank Professor Hofer for her endless positivity, late night draft readings, and pedagogical insights. Thank you both for encouraging me to bold and unafraid. You are inspiring educators. I d also like to thank UF GSoA and all the faculty and staff. Finally, Id like to thank my fellow pedagogy students Amanda and Levi. It has been such a wonderful collaboration.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................6 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: ARCHITECTURE AND FEMINISM ...................................................10 2 EVOLVING IDEOLOGIES: FEMINIST REREADINGS OF MODERN DOMESTIC SPACE ....................................................................................................................................15 Mobility and Transparency .....................................................................................................15 Vi lla Moller: Breaking Through the Mask .............................................................................16 Villa Savoye: Delaminating the Mask ....................................................................................23 Farnsworth House: Removing and Abstracting the Mask ......................................................30 Architecture and Ideology ......................................................................................................34 3 A CONVERSATION WITH NINA HOFER: ON THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ARCHITE CTURE CURRICULUM ......................................................................................48 4 REVIEW OF THE GUGGENHEIM NEW YORK EXHIBIT JOSEF ALBERS IN MEXICO .................................................................................................................................61 The Alberses in Mexico ..........................................................................................................61 Mexico: A Collaboration in Monte Alban ..............................................................................64 5 THE ALBERSES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ARCHITECTURE CURRICULUM ......................................................................................................................77 Field and Intervention .............................................................................................................77 Spatial Relationships and Materials ........................................................................................79 Case Study: Design/Build at Seahorse Key, FL .....................................................................82 Anni Albers in Design/Build ..................................................................................................85 6 CONCLUSIONS: ON MORE INCLUSIVE ARCHITECTURE EDUCATION AND PRACTICE .............................................................................................................................96 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................101
6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 11 Womens March on Washington .......................................................................................13 12 Gallery exhibit, Architecture and Feminism Elizabeth Cronin. .......................................14 21 Villa Moller, cut openings in the walls. .............................................................................36 22 Villa Moller, heavy exterior mask. ....................................................................................37 23 Structured Dress interior exposure on the exterior. ..........................................................38 24 Villa Moller, zimmer de dame. .......................................................................................39 25 Villa Moller, plan and section drawings. ...........................................................................40 26 Loose fit Dresses, delaminated exterior layer. ...................................................................41 27 Villa Savoye, floor to ceiling glass wall to courtyard. .......................................................42 28 Villa Savoye, exterior. .......................................................................................................43 29 Villa Savoye, unfolded panorama of delaminated courtyard space. ..................................44 210 Farnworth House. ...............................................................................................................45 211 Subjectivity Dress mask constructed by occupant. ...........................................................46 212 Farnsworth House, abstracted reflections. .........................................................................47 31 Cube Jonathon Haist, Architectural Design One. .............................................................57 32 Matrix Axonometric Daniel Mecca, Architectural Desi gn One. .......................................58 33 Matrix from cube sections Daniel Mecca, Architectural Design One. .............................59 34 Itinerary John Vieweg, Architectural Design One. ..........................................................60 41 Goldrosa, Josef Albers, 1926.............................................................................................69 42 Wall Hanging, Anni Albers, 1926. ....................................................................................70 43 Ancient Writing Anni Albers, 1936. .................................................................................71 44 Monte Alban, Anni Albers, 1936. ......................................................................................72 45 Prismatic II Josef Albers, 1936. .......................................................................................73
7 46 Etude Hot Dry Josef Albers, 1935. ...................................................................................74 47 Monte Alban photo collage Josef Albers, 1937. ...............................................................75 48 Anni Albers at Monte Alban, Josef Albers, 1939. ..............................................................76 51 Ruins Mapping, Tessa Register, Architectural Design Three, 2016. .................................88 52 Building Analysis Cole Altar, Architectural Design Two, 2015. ......................................89 53 Composite Tower Drawings Elizabeth Cronin, Architectural Design Four, 2010. ..........90 54 Plaster and Plexi Tower Emily Mason, Architectural Design Four, 2018. ......................91 55 Concrete Experiments Elizabeth Cronin, Graduate Design One, 2015. ...........................92 56 Stair at Seahorse Key, FL, 2016. .......................................................................................93 57 Build day at Seahorse Key, FL, 2016. ...............................................................................94 58 Mapping of Seahorse Key Elizabeth Cronin, Graduate Design Three, 2016....................95 61 Subjective Dress Gallery exhibit, Architecture and Feminism Elizabeth Cronin. ...........97
8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science in Architectural Studies ARCHITECTURE AND FEMINISM: DISCUSSIONS TOWARDS INCLUSIVE IDEOLOGIES, PEDAGOGIES, AND PRACTICES By Elizabeth Cronin M ay 2018 Chair: Bradley Walters Major: Architecture This research focuses on the intersection between spatial relationships, collaboration, and materiality through the lens of ar chitecture and F eminism. For the last twenty years, Feminism has been dormant in the discourse of architecture. While similar topics, such as w omen in architecture or gender bias in a rchitecture, have been discussed on and off, these topics shy away from the word Feminism and continue to segregate women into their own group rather than identifying them as equal collaborators and contributing members of the profession. This research argues as bell hooks has said, that Feminism is for ever y body. By recognizing and celebrating th e differences amongst individuals, a more diverse and comprehensive understanding of architecture can be achieved. This research explores collabor ation as a method of inclusion, which provides the opportunity to discover richer histories, develop more diverse curriculums, and engage with new mediums. It uncovers more inclusive and diverse narratives as contexts able to present a lternative readings of architecture (both its progressive and regressive qualities) and deve lops a field capable of highlight ing women whose narratives are often s ilent or forgotten. Of particular relevance to this work is the influence of Anni Albers. Here, her narrative is given new life as she is examined as artist, collaborator, and architectural educator. These writings hope to reignite
9 F eminism in the discourse of architecture and begin conversations capable of positively restructuring the ideologies and practices that shape our societies
10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: ARCHITECTURE AND FEMINISM In the Introduction to Architecture and Feminism circa 1996, Debra Coleman identifies feminism as a word rarely used in architecture. Feminism has negative connotations and associations, Coleman notes, like the spinster boomer, the burned out super mom, the childless career woman, and, of course, the manhater, and points out how architectural writers generally opt for phrases like gender gap, ge nder discrimination, gender bias, and gender equity.1 Although the book was published over twenty years ago this still seems to hold true. Eight years later in an article for Harvard Design Magazine architectural feminist Mary McLeod points out that: I n the United States today feminist architecture history like feminism in general has nearly disappeared. The flood of publications during the early 1990s ( Sexuality and Space The Sex of Architecture, Architecture and Feminism ) has by now ground to a halt ; few schools continue to offer classes on gender and architecture; and scholars in their twenties and thirties tend to find other subjects sustainability, digitalization, and g lobalization more compelling.2 Today, outside the architecture discipline, whi le basic reactions to the word feminism might still exist, conversations about gender and discrimination awareness seem to be on the rise. Merriam Websters Word of the Year for 2017 was F eminism, showing a 70% increase in the interest of the word s ince 2016.3 The Womens March on Washington brought together women around the world through a cry for a new wave of Feminism (Figure 1 1) and the #MeToo Movement created a safe space for silenced women to find strength, support, and accountability. 1 Debra Coleman, Introduction to Architecture and Feminism: Yale Publications on Architecture ed. Debra Coleman, Elizabeth Danze, and Carol Henderson (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), x. 2 Mary McLeod, Perriand: Reflections on Feminism and Modern Architecture, Harvard De sign Magazine no. 20(2004): www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/20/perriand r eflections onfeminism andmodernarchitecture. 3 Word of the Year 2017, Merriam Webster, accessed February 25, 2018. https://www.merriam webster.com/words at play/woty2017top looked up words feminism?src=defrecirc explorem w,
11 Sheryl Sandbergs book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead topped the NY Times Best Sellers List and Amazons Top 100 Books, and the dystopian novel The Handmaids Tale a novel rooted in female reproductive rights found a belated rise in popularity both i n print and a television adaptation As a result, ideas about this new feminist culture have begun to leak into popular culture through social media, movies, books, and television (Netflix, HBO, Hulu, etc.). Although these shifts are only whispers, they ma y give some indication of a desire for a conversation long overdue of an ideological structure that may be shifting Yet, Feminism is relatively absent in the current architectural discourse, and its silence is getting louder.4 As of 2017 only three women have been recipients of the Pritzker Prize and only two the AIA Gold Medal. The Missing 32% Project is asking, Where are the women architects?5 Is it time to reintro duce feminism into architecture (Figure 1 2)? This research looks to Feminism as a method of inclusion for all, regardless of gender It uses this lens of Feminism to question existing narratives of architecture and propose new narratives of inclusion and progress, narratives that look towards fields of collaboration, materials and making. It builds on the foundations of Vorkurs:M aking (the publication for the University of Floridas Graduate School of Architecture, Volume 01) and has been structured in much the same way: different written pieces (research paper, interview, exhibit r eview, and essays) each explore a particular topic in relation to "Architecture an d Feminism." Chapter Two, Evolving Ideologies: Feminist Rereadings of Modern Domestic Space, begins by retroactively considering the field of architecture history. It reexamines Modern domestic architecture in terms of its effects on feminine emancipation and looks to narratives 4 Mark Wigley, Untitled: The Housing of Gender, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 329. 5 Why Equity Matters for Everyone, Equity by Design, accessed February 25, 2018. http://eqxdesign.com/or igins/
12 beyond those of the male designer. More inclusive historical narratives like womens dress and entrance into the work force are considered and the a rchitecture, materials, and assemblies of these homes are reread to attain a more complete picture of an evolving ideological arc; an arc situated in a more inclusive historical context than is currently written. Shifting from practice to academia, it is i mportant to recognize that the University of Floridas School of Architecture also sits in a deeply rooted historical context with diverse narr atives of influence. Chapter Three A Conversation with Nina Hofer, delves into this history. This interview ac ts as a joint between the larger discourse of architecture and the University of Florida School of Architecture and not only highlights the pedagogical contributions of an amazing woman to the UF curriculum but inquires of other women whose contributions may have been silent unidentified, or forgotten. The last chapters ( two short essays) examine collaboration as a method of inclusion, whether retroactively to write key players back into the histories they helped make or looking forward to engage in more inclusive design practices, both in academia and the profession. Like the Eamess Powers of Ten, this research begins broadly and continues to narrow from Modernism and ideology to the University of Florida architecture curriculum to Anni Alber ss body of work and finally to a single design/build project at Seahorse Key, FL.6 Through shifting scales of subject matter, these four pieces offer diverse paths of investigation for future research. In this, the hope is that each begins to ask more que stions than it provides answers, in order to mine the possibilities for a more inclusive practice and arrive at a fuller, more complex vision of architecture.7 6 Charles Eames and Ray Eames, Eames Office, Powers of Ten, Youtube, 26 August, 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0. 7 Mary McLeod, Perriand: Reflections on Feminism and Modern Architecture, Harvard Design Magazine no. 20(2004): www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/20/perriand reflections onfeminism andmodernarchitecture.
13 Figure 1 1. Womens March on Washington. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2017.
14 Figure 1 2. Gallery exhibit, Architecture and Feminism Elizabeth Cronin. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2018.
15 CHAPTER 2 EVOLVING IDEOLOGIES: FEMINIST REREADINGS OF MODERN DOMESTIC SPACE Mobility and Transparency This research focuses on ideas of feminism in the domestic space of the house as it pertains to modern architecture. While existing explorations into the subject, like Beatriz Colominas The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism, examine women as objects of spectacle in modern architectural theory, film, and photography, this research looks to examine domestic space not through the gaze of the male spectator but through the architecture, its constructed elements and the social context in which it intervenes (Figure 2 1) .1 It revises these feminist readings of the home by looking at the architecture of the house itself. Here house is the actual architectural construction. Complication[s] of the home can be seen in some current revisions of identity politics, but still the q uestion is not yet architectural home, not house. The house remains unrevised.2 By examining the house as its own object of materials, structure, etc., domestic space can be reevaluated to arrive at a fuller, more complex vision of Modernism one that i ncludes both its regressive and progressive dimensions.3 This will be done by looking at specific works by three architects: Adolf Looss Villa Moller (1929), Le Corbusiers Villa Savoye (1931), and Mies van der Rohes Farnsworth House (1951). These examples present a gradient of modernism through the lens of transparency and mobility: from beginning attempts to utilize more fluid space to entirely blurred boundaries between interior and exterior. They 1 Beatriz Colomina, The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 73 128. 2 Mark Wigley, Untitled: The Housing of Gender, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatri z Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 331. 3 Mary McLeod, Perriand: Reflections on Feminism and Modern Architecture, Harvard Design Magazine no. 20(2004): www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/20/perriand reflections onfeminism andmodernarchitecture.
16 question the boundaries of public to private masculine and feminine and examine the changing role of mask in feminist domestic space as being capable of contributing to emancipatory ideas of domestic life.4 Villa Moller: Breaking Through the Mask Although Adolf Loos (18701933) was not a discrete figure of the modernism movement his influence on the succeeding generation of architects, particularly Le Corbusier, was enormous, and his writings would eventually turn him into the unwitting father figure of the 1920s Modern Movement.5 As a predecessor of modernism, his later work gives early hints to forthcoming changes i n domestic space, and this research will use his Villa Moller as a datum from which to measure these shifts. Villa Moller is located in Vienna and was completed in 1928 for the textile businessman Hans Moller and his wife. It was the penultimate house Loos designed, and, as this analysis will show, it deals with ideas of interior and exterior mobility and transparency using extremely particular methods. First, on the interior: the floors a nd interior walls were used to create what Loos called, a great revolutionary moment in architecture, the transformation of the floor plan into volume.6 In doing this, Loos made use of what he deemed the Raumplan. The Raumplan makes the ground spat ial and works through a variability of changing levels which are negotiated by a complex arrangement of short stair flights.7 This renders the houses occupants as highly controlled in their movement and makes it difficult for those within to 4 Ibid. 5 Alan Colquhoun, Mo dern Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 7374. 6 Ibid., 81. 7 Ibid., 80.
17 move in a nonlinear fashion and form a mental picture of the whole.8 In order to accommodate the inconsistency of the voluminous floor plan, the interior walls become key both phenomenally and structurally.9 They act as thick barriers between rooms and become the continuous vertical structure through the floors of the house. As the main structural elements, the opaque walls enclose each individual room from the others, but, interestingly, some transparency is still achieved in cut out openings made in a few se lect walls (Figure 21). This allows for limited visual links to be made.10 Second, on the exterior: the heavy outer walls mask the interior space from the public sphere (Figure 2 2). As feminist architectural writer and historian Beatriz Colomina points out, modernity is bound up with the question of mask.11 Even Loos, not quite a modernist architect himself, wrote of the mask often, calling Vienna a city of masks.12 In his essay Underclothes (1898), he writes about the mask as the exterio r skin which protects an intimate interior, using fashion and dress to call out clothing as the mask and faade that allows the modern man to integrate into society.13 He points out that the fashionable man dresses in such a way that stands out the least but that all classes of men wear the same underclothes, exclaiming: But woe to us if the top layers of our clothing fell off piece by piece and we stood there in our underclothes! Then everyone would realize that we simply put on our European clothes like a 8 Ibid., 81. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., 8182. 11 Beatriz Colomina, Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994), 23. 12 Ibid., 26. 13 Adolf Loos, Underclothes, in Spoken into the Void: Collected Essays 18971900, trans. Jane O. Newman and John H. Smith (New York: MIT Press, 1982), 72.
18 mask, and that underneath we still wear the national costume.14 15 Fundamentally this becomes a disc ussion of interior and exterior hidden and concealed. From this perspective, the interior of Villa Moller acts as the intimate underclothing. Hidden behind an exterior mask is concealed the modern urban man[to] protect him from the stress of the modern metropolis.16 It is not until he penetrate[s] the external wall of his house that he can remove his masculine mask to become enmeshed in [the] feminine and sensuous complexity of the domestic space.17 It is important to note that, once exposed, the masculine undergarment offered a loose fit, as it was mainly structured by the garments over top. If the tailored and fitted overclothes here, the mask wer e removed, the man was freed and able to move unrestrained within his domain. On the other hand, H. Kristina Haugland (associate curator of Costume and Textiles at the Philadelphia Museum of Art) points out that at the time of Looss essay (1898) corsets were the primary female underclothes.18 Here, the emphasis [is] on a very curvaceous feminine figure, and consequently the opposite was true of the feminine and the mask.19 For a woman, the fit and tailoring of her body in space did not come from the mas king exterior but rather from the interior underclothes themselves. In fact, the corsets and feminine undergarments that curved and so specifically shaped the female body put her form on display shaping breasts, waist, and 14 Ibid., 11. 15 Ibid., 72. 16 Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 83. 17 Ibid. 18 H. Kristina Haugland, Revealing Garments: A Brief History of Womens Underwear (presentation, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Youtube, 48:0348:47, November 15, 2012), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ6eqMgn5u0 19 Ibid., 48:0348:47.
19 hips and helped to create a structure of exposure, where nothing is hidden. Here, the mask produces what it hides.20 It is not the exterior that controls the feminine (like the masculine) but rather the interior (Figure 2 3) In Villa Moller, the exterior mask consists of a thick faade pierced by relatively small openings which [do] not allow any sustained visual contact with the outside world.21 This turns the occupation of this house towards the interior. While this lack of contact with the outside acts as a reprieve for the masculin e from the chaotic exterior he mostly occupies, it serves to confine the feminine within the mask that controls her. With its shifting floor plan, thick walls, and heavy exterior mask, the experience of Looss Villa Moller is almost labyrinthine. Its lin ear circulatory paths accommodate movement from one room to the next but preference the still as the primary mode of occupation. In many ways, this house exposes the opposing male mobility in the exterior [as compared] to female stasis in the interior.22 In order to understand the value of the Loos house in this discussion, we need to look further back in history to achieve a broader understanding of architectures role in the domesticity of the home. In Mark Wigleys Untitled: The Housing of Gender, he looks as far back as Leon Battista Albertis On the Art of Building in Ten Books the first printed book on architecture (1485). Upon examining it, he says: Its fifth book, when discussing the design of private houses, contains an overt reference to architectures complicity in the exercise of patriarchal authority by defining a particular intersection between a spatial order and a system of surveillance which turns on the question of gender. Women are to be confined deep 20 Beatriz Colomina, Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994), 23. 21 Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2002), 82. 22 Mark Wigley, Untitled: The Housing of Gender, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 335.
20 within a sequence of spaces at the greatest distance from the outside world while men are to be exposed to that outside.23 Here, Wigley describes a level of insulation, through the layering of heavy, opaque walls, as playing a huge role in the confinement of women within the house. The use of stone and other heavy, opaque materials to develop the walls as the primary load bearing structure was common at this time period. These thick, heavy walls offered very little mobility in the interior. Each room, structured by its perimeter walls, would act in isolation to create a linear circulatory path throughout the house. With little to no transparency between rooms, boundaries are only established by the intersection between a walled space and a system of surveillance which monitors all the o penings in the walls.24 These houses thus become no more than a nested system of enclos ed spaces containing the women, through complete surveillance, to the thresholds of the house, the doors and windows.25 Also of great importance is the complete priv atization and separation of women from the exterior. Being confined only to the interior and surveyed on all movements within, women had little transparency to the outside. Windows were small and few, housed in the thick external protective shell of the ho use. Interestingly, this relationship of the house to the public sphere is reproduced on its interior.26 While the mask acts to conceal the private interior of the house from the public exterior, the intimacy within the interior is masked as well, further privatizing the women within. 23 Mark Wigley, Untitled: The Housing of Gender, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 332. 24 Ibid., 338. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid., 336.
21 The thickness and insularity of Villa Moller may seem not too dissimilar from the houses described by Wigley in the controlled movement of the inhabitants, opaque layering, and impenetrable mask between the interior and ex terior. Beatriz Colomina, certainly describes this house in such a way in her article The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism. She points out that not only are the windows either opaque or covered with sheer curtains, but the organization of the spaces and d isposition of the built in furniture seems to hinder access to them.27 This, she says, turns the eyetowards the interior and reinforces the confinement of the mask in its stark separation between interior and exterior. She also exposes the precise, sta tic positions occupants would have held, usually indicated by the unoccupied furniture28 and the ease this gives in monitor[ing] any movement in the interior.29 Colomina reads the spatial psychological aspects of the space as the occupant might experi ence through regimes of control inside the house.30 Colomina offers an effective reading of the Villa Moller and the narrative of domestic patriarchal authority asserted at the time of its construction. However, looking to larger historical arcs and readi ng the architecture of the house itself might provide a different, more flexible outcome; an outcome that might suggest the beginnings of an evolution in domestic space. On this, Mary McLeod says: Colominas reading played an important polemical role during a particular time period, but I thinkwe must begin to examine historically what was progressive and what was regressive in their attitudes and practices. I just feel were at a stage of feminist scholarship where we can go beyond earlier reductive readi ngs, and try 27 Beatriz Colomina, The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 74. 28 Beatriz Colomina, Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994), 234. 29 Beatriz Colomina, The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 78. 30 Ibid., 76.
22 to figure out to what extent modern architecture both embodied and challenged traditional gender constructions. Besides considering its oppressive dimensions, we need to ask how modern architecture contributed to emancipatory ideas of domestic life and of the design profession itself.31 Although Loos retained many of the architectural devices used to exercise patriarchal control in his design of Villa Moller, the house itself did begin to make some small changes in the way domestic space was co nstructed. These can be seen (1) in the introduction of some implication of transparency to the interior of the house and (2) in the treatment of the zimmer de dame, the feminine space of command and inner sanctum.32 First, contrasting the private hom es described by Wigley, Adolf Loos begins to inject small moments of transparency into the house by cutting out openings in the walls to visually link certain spaces together. While Colomina would argue this only further supports masculine surveillance (and thus control within the house), the openings in the walls can also be viewed as a first step in an evolutionary process.33 Although these openings do little to improve the womans physical mobility in the house, breaking down some portions of the walls to expose the intimate spaces within (even if only through visual means) is progress from the completely masked interiors described by Wigley. This is most evident in the zimmer de dame. Beatriz Colomina describes the zimmer de dame as the most intimate sequence of living spaces in the house.34 As the raised ladies sitting area, it would be expected that this space would be buried in the center of the house, secured by opaque layers of both interior and 31 Karina Van Herck, First Interlude: On the Nuances of Historical Emancipation, The Journal of Architecture 7, no. 3 (2002): 245. 32 Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 81. 33 Beatriz Colomina, The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 78 34 Beatriz Colomina, Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994), 238.
23 exterior masking as it is in another villa by Loos: Villa Mller. In fact, not only is the zimmer de dame in Villa Moller surrounded by punctuated walls on the interior (Figure 24) it is pushed to the periphery and the only space in the entire house to break through the exterior faades twodimensiona l elevation (Figure 25). Here, if only in section, the most feminine space of the house is pushed over the street and out into the public sphere, providing the occupant with a vantage point to view both the interior and exterior.35 These little details may seem insignificant, but at the time of Villa Mollers construction in 1928when women were beginning to shed their corsets for more mobile underga rments and enter the work forcethe subtlety of these shifts may be early reflections of other movements in society.36 If she is domesticated by internalizing the very spatial order that confines her, what happens when that spatial order begins to change?37 Villa Savoye: Delaminating the Mask Built at a similar time to Villa Moller (1928), Villa Savoye was completed in Poissy, France in 1931. However, while Villa Moller constituted the end of Adolf Looss career, Villa Savoye came halfway through Le Corbusiers. As Colomina points out, Villa Savoye acts as the reverse condition of Looss interiors by using framed views of the exterior to push the occupants to the periphery of the house.38 Le Corbusier always stressed that his architecture was built around a series of unfolding views, encompassing and celebrating the movement of the 35 Ibid., 244. 36 H. Kristina Haugland, Revealing Garments: A Brief History of Womens Underwear (presentation, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Youtube, 1:04:56, November 15, 2012), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ6eqMgn5u0 37 Mark Wigley, Untitled: The Housing of Gender, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bl oomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 340. 38 Beatriz Colomina, The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 98.
24 human body,39 and Colomina acknowledges this, saying, unlike Adolf Looss houses, perception here [at Villa Savoye] occurs in motion.40 In her feminist reading of the house, Colomina examines photographs of Le Corbusiers work and notes that we follow this motion, seemingly only of women, from the point of viewof a voyeur.41 She observes that the women in the photographs often have their backs to the camera and are usually contained by the house [the interior], bounded.42 She also points out that this spatial structure is repeated very often, not only in the photographs but also in the drawings of Le Corbusiers projects turning the woman into an object of anothers gaze.43 While this is an apt analysis of the photographs and drawings, it relies on the narrative of occu pation constructed by Le Corbusier through the media he used to represent his work at the time it was built. Despite the implications of Le Corbusiers representation methods, the architecture of Villa Savoye itself is still worth examining. In this analys is of Villa Savoye, the architecture will be considered through what Le Corbusier called his five points of architecture the free plan, pilotis, the free faade, the horizontal window, and the roof terrace.44 All five of these architectural devices are ess ential to the ways Villa Savoye reshapes the domestic order of the intimate interior of the house, and in looking at the architectural detailing and construction methods used, there are several important things to point out: the fluidity of the interior space, 39 Flora Samuel, Le Co rbusier in Detail (Oxford: Architectural, 2002), 128. 40 Beatriz Colomina, The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992), 98. 41 Ibid., 104. 42 Ibid., 102. 43 Ibid., 104,128. 44 William J.R. Curtis, Le Corbusier: Ideas and Forms (New York: Rizzoli, 1986), 43.
25 the framing of exterior views (and perhaps most importantly) the delamination of the exterior mask. At this point, it is also important to note shifts in womens clothes and underclothes at the time of and in the time leading up to the construction of Villa Savoye. In the 1920s skirt lines were shortened and, for the first time in western history, you could see how women moved aroundyou could see them walking.45 By the 1930s, with the introduction of the brassiere, womens undergarments shifted com pletely. While some women continued to wea r a girdle to slim their bodies a small improvement from the harsh shaping authority of the corset others began to wear only brassieres which offered little support.46 This provided a looser fit between the female b ody and its outermost layer (Figure 2 6) Reprieved of its structuring responsibilities, womens clothing began to move from being a corseted st ructure a shell which preferences the static to a loosely fitted perimeter a delaminated skin that establishes s pace for movement. Here, the shift in the structuring (or lack thereof) of the interior mask leads to greater mobility for the body encased within. This delamination of the overclothes from the underclothes lends itself to a more liberated relationship wit h the exterior and actually in its pulling apart creates a less exposed structure. With this in mind, similar connections can be drawn to Villa Savoye. Whereas Villa Moller introduced visual mobility into the house through cutouts in the thick, opaque wall s, Le Corbusier used a different method. Beginning with the pilotis and the free plan (the first two of his five points of architecture) William J.R. Curtis describes the advantages of this structural system whereby interior walls could be arranged at will to fit 45 H. Kristina Haugland, Revealing Garments: A Brief History of Womens Underwear (presentation, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Youtube, 51:4252:10, Novem ber 15, 2012), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ6eqMgn5u0 46 Ibid., 52:1053:15
26 functional demands, channel movement or create spatial effects.47 This building construction method, an advent of modernism, liberates the wall from the floor and allows each carefully placed wall within the house to act as a partition that divides space rather than enclosing it. Here a floor slab, the first floor slab and a roof garden slab are linkedand supported on slim columns [pilotis] to which the faade and the walls have relinquished their former structural role.48 The relinquishing of the w alls structural responsibility like the w omens underclothes of the time becomes a crucial aspect in the restructuring of domestic space, in that it allows for the ideas of visual mobility seen in Villa Moller to evolve into that of physical mobility. By cutting out portions of the walls, Loos was able to achieve some visual transparency in Villa Moller while retaining the structural integrity of the house. In Villa Savoye, no longer reliant on the wall as structural components, Le Corbusier was abl e to remove entire barriers to encourage movement to pass fluidly through the space of the house. As a result of this construction method the role of transparency should also be reconsidered. As physical transparency is important for the mobility of the fe minine on the interior, visual transparency continues to be significant as a method for feminine access to the exterior. Since the walls are no longer required to be structural, transparency can be achieved by replacing enclosing and opaque spans with tran sparent materials like glass, opening up entire stretches of the faade to the exterior while still providing insulating properties (Figure 2 7). Although Villa Savoye appears to be masked by a thick, uniform exterior wall like Villa Moller a hermetic cub e, difficult to penetrateAlan Colquhoun describes the wall 47 William J.R. Curtis, Le Corbusier: Ideas and Forms (New York: Rizzoli, 1986), 69. 48 Flora Samuel, Le Corbusier in Detail (Oxford: Architectural, 2002), 21.
27 separating the two worlds of inside and outside at Villa Savoye as only a thin membrane.49 Initiated by the introduction of the pilotis, Le Corbusiers third point (the free faade) permitte d for the buildings exterior cladding to be liberated from the traditional weight bearing constraints [to allow] for openings to be arranged at will for light, view, climate or compositional needs ( Figure 28).50 As the thinning and opening up of the barriers on the interior was beneficial so too is it important on the exterior. Flora Samuel, quoting Richard Weston, describes the exterior walls of Le Corbusiers villas as stretched planes and not gravity bound supporting walls.51 In Villa Savoye, Le Corbusiers thinning of the nonload bearing exterior shell and insertion of horizontal strip windows worked to create a new connection to the exterior, particularly when compared to Loos. Unlike Loos, whose main intent was to turn Vill a Mollers occupants towards the interior, Le Corbusier used the architecture of Villa Savoye to frame the exterior. Le Corbusiers fourth point, the horizontal window, is really a subset of the third, since the horizontal glass band was but one version of the free faade.52 Samuel notes one of the most straightforward uses of the architectural frame is to pull the exterior environment into the confines of the building.53 For Le Corbusier, she postulates the horizontal window is perhaps the most succes sful in bringing the environment into the interioras it gives access to the horizon in a long unbroken panorama.54 49 Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 82, 149. 50 William J.R. Curtis, Le Corbusier: Ideas and Forms (New York: Rizzoli, 1986), 69. 51 Flora Samuel, Le Corbusier in Detail (O xford: Architectural, 2002), 77. 52William J.R. Curtis, Le Corbusier: Ideas and Forms (New York: Rizzoli, 1986), 69. 53 Flora Samuel, Le Corbusier in Detail (Oxford: Architectural, 2002), 102. 54 Ibid.
28 Le Corbusier used the horizontal window in many of his buildings, often to frame and draw connections to the exterior. However, it is import ant to note the specific and unique way it is constructed in Villa Savoye: Observing that most of Le Corbusiers contemporaries chose to use steel frames as these were better suited for the creation of simple, seemingly flat, curtains of glass, Ford sugge sts that Le Corbusier favoured the use of timber at the Villa Savoye as the recessed notch at the head, the projecting sill, and the two planes of the sliding window make it possible to see the wall as a series of parallel planes.55 This implies, despite the illusion of the solid, more stereotomic mask (not too dissimilar from Villa Moller) the exterior mask of Villa Savoye is actually a tectonic construction. It is made of an assembly of thin, light pieces, and Le Corbusiers intentional exposure of the pa rallel planes that comprise the exter ior wall present an opportunity a glimpse for the occupant to understand the subtlety of the construction and the delicacy of the layers used to construct the barrier between interior and exterior. With this in mind, the exterior faade of Villa Savoye is actually comprised of two different types of conditions. The first is the exterior to the interior, as described above. This portion of the masking faade acts as the peripheral boundary between the houses interior and the public sphere and encompasses the home in a thin skin cut by a continuous horizontal window.56 The second, manifested in one of the rooftop terraces (Le Corbusiers fifth point), is produced as a hybrid space that is both simul taneously interior and exterior. In Villa Savoye, there are two rooftop terraces. The first, a space on the uppermost roof, is constructed in much the same way as the terrace at Villa Moller. In his terrace space, Loos designed an exterior patio directly o ff of the dining room to sit and view the garden. It is 55 Ibid., 77. 56 Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 82, 149.
29 constructed as a ground plane with no level of enclosure and thus is presented as an exclusively exterior space. Like Villa Moller, the upper rooftop terrace at Villa Savoye is separated from the inte rior of the home and not quite as useful in this discussion. The second terrace, however, offers a much more interesting spatial configuration. Embedded at the heart of the house, this lower terrace questions the relationship between interior and exterior and in so doing creates an occupiable opening in the exterior mask. The way Le Corbusier chooses to construct this embedded terrace integrates it as part of the interior. His blurring of its interior/exterior qualities begins with his continuation of the mask around the external perimeter of the space. This permits the embedded terrace to become a room in the house that is vertically enclosed from the public sphere in much the same way as the rest of the interior. However, as a space without a roof, it ca n be preserved as distinctly exterior in its nonconditioned quality. Le Corbusier continues to reinforce the bleed between interior and exterior, and vice versa, by connecting the embedded terrace space to the internal living room through the thinnest, most transparent membrane in the house; a wall of floor to ceiling glass. As the layers of the exterior mask are cracked open to reveal the space in between, it is as if the exterior plane of the living room space has been stretched and pulled away to a new boundary, leaving behind a transparent layer, an abstracted edge: the mark and remnant of where that external plane used to be. While the roof stops at the interior, the vertical layers of the house pull apart and delaminate from one another to create a new space, one open to the sky. In this embedded terrace, the architecture of Villa Savoye questions the solidity of the mask (Figure 29). Le Corbusier was able to pull the outside to the inside through framed views, tectonic assemblies, and the creation of a space that begins to delaminate the discrete edge between
30 interior and exterior (seen in earlier houses like Villa Moller). In doing so he was able to rethink the relationships between open and closed, structured and loose, insulated and exposed. In V illa Savoye the solid volume is opened up whenever possible by cubes of air, strip windows, immediate transitions to the skyCorbusiers houses are neither spatial nor plasticair flows through them.57 Farnsworth House: Removing and Abstracting the Mask U p to this point, the discussion of the houses selected has been focused around ideas of interior and exterior through mobility, transparency, and the exterior mask. For Loos, the mask is a masculine accoutrement that hides a feminine side, so it stand s to reason the possibility that women should be modernized and join men in the public sphere is predicated on the masculinization of womens clothing, [the] attainment of a mask.58 However, by examining a womans underclothing (her most intimate architec ture) in the context of domestic space, it becomes clear that for the feminine the mask produces what it hides.59 What then would happen if, instead of atta ining a mask as Loos suggests to find lib eration in the masculine public the mask is removed, and the feminine interior becomes no longer hidden but fully exposed? This brings the conversation to the Farnsworth House designed by Mies van der Rohe twenty years after the construction of the Villas Moller and Savoye. 57 Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 82, 149. 58 Charles Rice, Photographys Veil: Reading Gender and Looss Interiors, in Negotiating Domesticity: Spatial Produc tions of Gender in Modern Architecture ed. Hilde Heynen and Gulsum Baydar (London; New York: Routledge, 2005), 287. 59 Beatriz Colomina, Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994), 23.
31 Farnsworth house was completed in 1951 for Edith Farnsworth, an unmarried doctor who lived and worked in Chicago.60 At this moment in history, it was expected that women would return to the domestic positions they held before the war. The more straight lined, boyish, and free figures seen in 1930s womens fashion were replaced with a return to a very curvaceous feminine ideal61 and women were encouraged to embrace motherhood and homemaking in newly built single family houses.62 Edith Farnsworth, a successful nephrologist, was a nonconformis t to these social pressures of 1950s America. Finding herself trapped in the contradiction between family life and singlenesslonely, bored, and overworked she decided to build a weekend house to escape the drudgery of the city and commissioned Mies van der Rohe for the job.63 The product, a floating glass box in the landscape, is as far from the hidden and insulated feminine interior space (seen in the previous examples) as can be conceived and does little to return to traditional domestic space as it was occupied before the war. Described as the perfect embodiment of Miess dictum Less is more, the Farnsworth house is: Eight slender columns of white painted steel support a transparent glass box; two horizontal planes crisp, parallel bands of steel hovering above the ground represent the floor and the roof. Though barely making physical contact with its site, the house seems securely anchored in the green sea that surrounds it; there is a toughness and immutability to the structure, which contrast with the thinness and apparent insubs tantiality of the forms .64 60 Alice T. Friedman, Women and the Making of the Modern House: A Social and Architectural History (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1998), 128. 61 H. Kristina Haugland, Revealing Garments: A Brief History of Womens Underwear (presentation, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Youtube, 55:51 55:06, November 15, 2012), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ6eqMgn5u0 62 Alice T. Friedman, Women and the Making of the Modern House: A Social and Architectural History (New York: Harry N. Abra ms, 1998), 132. 63 Ibid., 131,133. 64 Ibid., 127.
32 This house (Figure 2 10) is different from Villa Moller and Villa Savoye in many ways, but one stands out in particular: the client. Whereas Loos and Le Corbusier built for a family (husband and wife), usually with the husband as the primary client, Mies van der Rohes client was a single woman. As such, Edith Farnsworth was given the opportunity to act as client in [her] own right [and sought] out new architectural solutions to accommodate unc onventional ways of living.65 This not only changed the structure of the client architect relationship but called into question the structuring of domestic space altogether as it would require unconventional and atypical programming challenges because o f the dominance of patriarchal models in design typologies and new forms of design.66 To start, it is important to acknowledge the many issues with the architecture of the house. There were technical issues when Farnsworth moved into the house in December 1950, the roof leaked badly and the heating produced a film that collected on the inside of the windows; legal issues Farnsworths deteriorating relationship with van der Rohe, pressures from family and friends, and disagreements over money eventually led to long drawn out court cases; occu pational issues; privacy issues concerns about privacy, or about sexuality and social life were repressed; and feminist issues, among others.67 Needless to say, in many ways, the house seems to be an architectural and feminist disaster, but it is also widely recognized as one of the masterpieces of modern architecture, not only in the United States but in the world 65 Alice T. Friedman, Women and the Making of the Modern House: A Social and Architectural History (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1998), 16. 66 Ibid., 86. 67 Ibid., 139140.
33 and warrants some attention as a feminine space in both its regressive and progressive qualit ies.68 Although its regressive qualities may almost be too many to name specifically pertaining to issues of feminine occupation and privacy some progressive qualities do also exist. As a completely transparent box, Farnsworth House takes the idea of loose fit to the extreme. It becomes a building almost completely devoid of program, and, as such, has few interior walls besides the opaque core containing the bathroom at the center of the house.69 With the only other walls of the house occupying the transpar ent exterior perimeter, there are few restrictions on interior movement in the house; hence, the more fluid mobility apparent in Villa Savoye evolves into completely open circulation in Farnsworth House. Of the relationship between interior and exterior, Farnworth house progresses beyond Villa Savoye as well. Whereas in Villa Savoye, views to the exterior were framed and a fully glass wall was used to connect only the embedded terrace space to the interior, Farnsworth House implements a thin but seemingly impermeable membrane of glass [to] form the boundary between inside and outside on all four sides of the box.70 Views from the house are framed by the rectilinear structure and ones awareness of the material world is heightened.71 In this way, the boundary between interior and exterior becomes abstracted, the surface of the walla picture plane and the objects behind itimaginary.72 Since the walls are constructed completely of glass, the mask of the house is entirely removed, and, although Farnswor th 68 Ibid., 147. 69 Ibid., 130. 70 Ibid., 128. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid.
34 would later add large curtains to deal with some of the houses privacy issues, these textiles become a mask she can control and put on/remove at will (Figure 2 11) If the mask is [the] masculine accoutrement that constructs the exterior form of th e building as object, then removal of that mask might serve to de objectify the building.73 In Farnsworth House, the removal of the exterior mask completely exposes the structure of the house and its feminine occupant, and so the house must integrate in to the privacy of its suburban setting. The bare object must fade into the context that houses it (Figure 212). In this, Farnworth House becomes largely predicated on the field condition of its site and relies heavily on its natural surroundings to bring a material condition to the unmasked faade; the abstracted reflections become the mask of the field. Architecture and Ideology In his article Narrative and Ideology, Jerry Palmer discusses and questions the relationship between narrative and social s tructure, pointing to links between the consumption of certain art forms and the structure of the society in which they are produced and consumed.74 This research presents a new feminist reading of modern architecture through the reading of the architect ure of three houses and the societal structures set in place at the time of their constructions. It moves away from the static context of the narrative presented by the lone male architect and examines other narratives (in this case those of womens fashio n) to place the architecture in a larger feminine context. It is important to note, however, that these narratives are still restricted and do not consider all of the systems that surve y and control domestic spaces. 73 Charles Rice, Photographys Veil: Reading Gender and Looss Interiors, in Negotiating Domesticity: Spatial Productions of Gender in Modern Architecture ed. Hilde Heynen and Gulsum Baydar (London; New York: Routledge, 2005), 287. 74 Jerry Palmer, Potboilers: Methods, Concepts, and Case Studies in Popular Fiction (London; New York: Routledge, 1991), 89.
35 This paper focuses on the homes of a set of people with si milar socio economic privileges individuals whose houses became prominent examples of architecture which embodied the qualities of the modern movement. ( Future studies hope to examine modernisms effect on housing for a more diverse and c omplex population.) The capacity of the house to resist the displacing effects of sexuality is embedded within a number of systems of control mythological, juridical codes, forms of address, dress codes, writing styles, superstitions, manners, etc. each wh ich takes the form of surveillance over a particular space, whether it be the dinner table, the threshold, the church, the fingertips, the bath, the face, the street. These apparently physical spaces requiring supplementary control in turn participate in a broader ideological field.75 Much like the undergarments of women shifted from a style of structured fit to that of a more loose fit, so too did modern domestic space shift. It evolved from the controlled and static domestic occupation of Villa Moller to the more flexible and mobile occupation of Villa Savoye and Farnsworth House. These examples and their feminist rereadings present a gradient of modernism from its beginning attempts to utilize more fluid space and question the edges of public and private t o completely blurred boundaries between interior and exterior and loose fit mobility. They look to the disintegrating mask as a possible means for domestic liberation and move beyond reductive charges of sexism and victimization and simplistic value jud gements of good and bad, in order to arrive at a fuller, more complex vision of Modernism.76 75 Mark Wigley, Untitled: The Housing of Gender, in Sexuality & Space ed. Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer (New York: Princet on Architectural Press, 1992), 338. 76 Mary McLeod, Perriand: Reflections on Feminism and Modern Architecture, Harvard Design Magazine no. 20(2004): www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/20/perriand reflections onfeminism andmodernarchitecture.
36 Figure 2 1. Villa Moller, cut openings in the walls Source: Ralf Bock and Adolf Loos, Adolf Loos: Works and Projects (Milano; Skira; New York: Rizzoli Interna tional Publications, 2007), 242. Edited by: Elizabeth Cronin
37 Figure 2 2. Villa Moller, heavy exterior mask. Source: Ralf Bock and Adolf Loos, Adolf Loos: Works and Projects (Milano; Skira ; New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 2007), 237. Edited by: Elizabeth Cronin.
38 Figure 2 3. Structured D ress, interior exposure on the exterior. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2017.
39 Figure 2 4. Villa Moller, zimmer de dame. Source: Ralf Bock and Adolf Loos, Adolf Loos: Works and Projects (Milano; Skira; New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 2007), 243.
40 Figure 2 5. Villa Moller, plan and section drawings. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2018.
41 Figure 2 6. Loose fit D resses delaminated exterior layer. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2017.
42 Figure 2 7. Villa Savoye, floor to ceiling glass wall to courtyard. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2018.
43 Figure 2 8. Villa Savoye, exterior Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2018.
44 Figure 2 9. Villa Savoye, unfolded panorama of delaminated courtyard space. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2018.
45 Figure 2 10. Farnworth House. Source: History of the Farnsworth House, Farnsworth, accessed 16 March 2018. https://farnsworthhouse.org/history farnsworth house/ Edited by: Elizabeth Cronin.
46 Figure 2 11. Subjectivity D ress, mask constructed by occupant. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2017.
47 Figure 2 12. Farnsworth House, abstracted reflections. Source: Farnsworth House PLUS, Chicago Architecture Foundation, accessed 16 March 2018. https://www.arc hitecture.org/experiencecaf/tours/detail/farnsworth house plus/ Edited by: Elizabeth Cronin.
48 CHAPTER 3 A CONVERSATION WITH NINA HOFER: ON THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ARCHITECTURE CURRICULUM Nina Hofer (NH) is an Associate Professor at the Uni versity of Florida School of Architecture and Director of UFs MSAS Pedagogy program. She was interviewed by Elizabeth Cronin (EC) on March 1, 2018. This interview be gan with thoughts from Mary McL eod from Perriand: Reflections on Feminism and Modern Architecture: I believe that a deeper knowledge of how gender was constructed, maintained, and challenged would help us address present day inequities in the profession. This means going beyond reductive charges of sexism and victimization and simplistic valu e judgments of good and bad in order to arrive at a fuller, more complex vision of Modernism one that includes both its regressive and progressive dimensions.1 EC: So here, Mary McLeod is discussing the importance of identifying the progressive aspects of Modernism along with the regressive. That was the starting point for my paper on Modern domestic space, to find a fuller, more complex vision of Modernism.2 I think, however, we should begin to adopt this attitude of a more complex and complete picture not just when examining Modernism but when looking at architecture in general. This means looking at architecture education and practice, but it also means looking at a more inclusive narrative, one that might begin to recognize individuals who are often written out of the picture. So I've been looking at Josef and Anni Albers. We know Josef was a huge influence here at UF. We can track it and talk about it. But I also want to talk about the impact of Anni, whether directly or indirectly; that she was another possible vector of influence. NH: Right. EC: And it can be a retroactive thing. Looking at what we're doing now in the Grad program (to me) is very muc h Anni Albers in the way that it works with materials and deals with site and field, particularly in the first semester and design/build. So, I wanted to talk to you today about Josef Albers, and then some of the particular qualities of our curriculum. To begin: Can we talk a little bit about the first semester curriculum (Design One) specifically the Cube and the Matrix projects? I think those are the foundations 1 Mary McLeod, Perriand: Reflections on Feminism and Modern Architecture, Ha rvard Design Magazine no. 20(2004): www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/20/pe rriand reflections onfeminism andmodernarchitecture. 2 Ibid.
49 for most of the projects we do here (at UF), either by building on or in combination. It seem s like those deal with the field and the object. NH: Yes. The guiding questions for Design One emerged about twenty years ago through developing work. Prior to that I think Design One worked with the Kit of Parts idea. This came out of Hejduk and some ot her people who developed it in Texas, namely Co lin Rowe and John Hejduk, and was an idea (to some extent) about figured space; in other words looking at space as a volume and the construction of space as a volume. Here, where Voichysonk came from [Josef] Albers and Yale, there was a huge, huge emphasis on drawing and on the craft of drawing because it was literally a much more highly crafted thing (then we had Rapidograph pens, Mylar, etc). But also on the ability of the axonometric to begin to both repre sent space and make space ambiguous, thereby opening up possibilities. And so the ability to use the two dimensional drawing as a way to construct the object itself and play off of the relationships that can happen within the page was something that Voichy sonk used a lot. He would look between the elements and the ambiguity of that as being something that spurs your imagination, and I think that came straight from Albers and some of his drawing exercises. Especially the ones in his work with lines that begi n to create space and then shift back and forth. It wasn't an Escher thing, but Bernie [Voichysonk] loved the drawings where you couldn't quite resolve what was in front and what was behind. And it's not that they didn't have li ne weight. They had line wei ght but that line weight could be read more than one way. So Voichysonk encouraged drawings that could be read in multiple ways and would then go back to the model making from those. So, I would say drawing was the medium of translation. And that in and of itself was very [Josef] Albers putting the emphasis on the drawing and its ability to manipulate two dimensional space to make a different three dimensional construct. Then, if you look at [Josef] Albers's color theory (the people I talk to about it seem to think) it has to do merely with color combinations, with looking at color combinations. But when Bernie [Voichysonk] talked about Alberss color theory, it was all about the edge between different colors. So when certain colors are put next to one anot her, yes there's color change, but that color change is something that creates an edge where one pushes forward and the other pushes back (or vice versa). And the fact that you can change the color by putting different things next to it means thatacross t he surface of a construction relationships can be different on one side of the construction than the other side. Where something might seem to step forward here, that same element might seem to push back there. So the ambiguity of that (the relationships a nd edges between colors) and the ambiguity of the axonometric drawings, relative to both their relationships and line weight, have a very close correspondence. But all of that is based on the premise that the drawing is itself a construct, rather than b eing something that refers to something else. Well and you know Bernie and Albers's looked at the two dimensional plane as something that was full of depth. What they were interested in was not the formal relationships across the page in the x /y -
50 dimension but the ability for it to project itself in the z dimension as a three dimensional thing. And that's what Albers's color constructions are completely about. So at a certain point [Bob] MacLeod, [Martin] Gundersen, and I sat down and decided that there were several kinds of space and that the Design One curriculum would introduce what we consider to be all three kinds of space. Have I talked to you about this before? EC: Great! No NH: So, the Cube project was about volumetric space (Figure 3 1) We still used a kind of kit of parts although we eventually stopped assigning nine of this and seven of that and essentially the Cube was something where you began to understand how you could imply spatial volume without completely containing it. So tha t's what the Cube project is simply about: how can a few elements make space? How do you understand volumetric space? How do you begin to imply it? How do you begin to enclose it? How do you begin to create spatial relationships that hinge around volumetric space? Second was the Matrix project, which was more about spatial relationships (Figure 3 2) So the Matrix project very rarely has volume in it. It's not about holding volumes per se, it's about systems of relationships. And that project usual ly started with drawing and then became the model. And it came directly out of the Cube project because the Cube proj ect would start in model and create drawings and the drawings had a certain ambivalence to them. Often we would begin by cutting plans and sections of the Cube model and then we would layer those over each other to begin to get a very complex construction (Figure 3 3) Then we could begin to read systems out of that. T hat's something you (Elizabeth) do all the time, right? You create an enorm ous state of complexity that has internal events, incidents, and systems in it, and by layering those systems together you begin to create a more complex field. So then it's up to the student to edit that more complex field and begin to see how systems can layer within it. So that's the second kind of space. It's not volumetric, it's relational. Th en the thirdwhich we now call Room and Gardenwas really called Itinerary (Figure 3 4 ) Room and Garden sort of came later. But Itinerary was about the occupa tion of space because neither Cube nor Matrix deals with this issue. You can imagine occupying implied volume. You can imagine occupying volume fairly easily, but we carefully made it non occupiable by not having stairs, full enclosure, or any of the thing s that key you into occupying space. Both were scaleless, and neither (at that time) were discussed in terms of occupation at all. Cube was talked about as a construct that created volume, and Matrix was not occupiable at all; although someti mes people mak e the analogy between Matrix and city plans, underlying systems of buildings, etc ( which makes sense) And that's a way of leaping forward and saying Matrix is something that prepares you for aspects of architecture; the Cube volume actual implied volume is
51 something that prepares you for aspect of architecture. But they weren't intended to be occcupiable in that way. Itinerary on the other hand was very much about occupation. Itinerary I would say, used to start with campus. It used to start by wa lking through campus and creating a series of locations or moments from this walk. I think it was mostly like that, and then those were explored diagrammatically rather than explicitly spatially. We would make things that came from the diagrammatic langua ge but sat within the campus and spaces that were observed. EC: So you would make a diagram and then intervene into it? NH: The interventions were generated by the diagrammatic language and sat within the original place of the campus. They were a way of taking a place and interpreting it through an intervening construction that would then be set back into the context. So that was how that started. You have different models in different studios depending on the person teaching, but Itinerary was very mu ch about occupation. It is also important to point out that this third project is very much about time. Neither of the other two projects ( Cube and Matrix ) are about time. They're both simultaneous in terms of their time. In the Cube everything exists at o nce, and you have space that is simultaneously one thing and another; simultaneously large scale and small scale; simultaneously making relationships in this direction and relationships in the other direction. It can be rotated, it can be upside down. Ther e's no orientation and no sequence in a cube at all. It's one simultaneous array of arrangements. Matrix is flatter, but it's all still simultaneous; all relationships exist at once and qualify each other. In Itinerary sequence becomes really important, a nd so time is the third: implied volume, spatial relationships, and the third would be sequence of space and time. So those were the three aspects, the three kinds of space, and it was my contention that those are the only three concepts of space; that eve rything falls into one of those or some combination of those. That every way of thinking about architectures is either Cube Matrix or Itinerary It's one of those three or eventually combines those three in some way. So that's where the first year curric ulum came from. EC: Great! Could you talk a little bit about object (or point) conditions versus field conditions in our curriculum? NH: So what's a point condition? EC: I'm thinking that you have the field and then you are intervening in some way. T he intervention would be the point or object in the field. NH: W ell, Matrix can subsume the other two ( Cube and Itinerary ), and neither of those two can subsume and the other. In other words, Matrix can be found in everything. You can't say that object i ncludes Matrix or Itinerary or Itinerary includes Matrix or object, but you can say Matrix includes object and Itinerary
52 EC: It's like the Eames's "Powers of Ten."3 NH: It's very, very hard for me to use the word object because I think of this curriculum as having nothing to do with objects. EC: I agree with that. NH: The Cooper Union curriculum had to do with objects. Have you seen the Education of an Architect book? I never heard the word "space" in my five years at Cooper. Nobody ever talked about space. They didn't talk about spatial relationships. T hey sometimes talked about path but that was all narrative. They would have used the word narrative, so narrative and object. But things were very much objects. Nobody talked about the kinds of space that were included in them. So it's very easy to say matrix is everything, but, you know, for me I prioritize spatial volume. For me spatial volume is what I want to se e. EC: We also preference ground here (at UF). Ground is a big thing. That, to me, is part of what makes Matrix really evident in lots of things. It's a fragment of something larger. NH: Yes. Context was THE issue during the first half or more of my pe riod here. We talked about context relentlessly. That was where this travel narrative in our curriculum became important. I think it is a narrative that started by looking at the campus in D1. Then by D3 we were going to St. Augustine There used to be a S avannah term and then a Charleston term. (They weren't collapsed into one term.) Then there was a trip to a city, which was nt always New York. It was someplace: Boston, Chicago, or places like that. And then I don't rememberI think the landscape studio ( Architectural Design Five) was an innovation at a certain point. Here the context was not a structu red context or a formal context but relied on having to make a diagram to understand the context in nonformal ways. This was kind of new, and I think that c omes from the growth of phenomenology in architecture. So you have to look at that (phenomenology) as another stream that comes in. It comes in later and is not part of the Bauhaus. It's just something else that comes in. But the context was huge. It was one of the words we used the most, and we sort of described ourselves as a contextual program. I would say that's the point where the Gropius matrix aspects from the Bauhaus probably came in, and I think they came in through two ways: I'd say the first wave was people like Harry Merritt and the Gropius people who were literally Gropius students. The early wa ve of Harvard came through and then MacLeod was part of the second wave that came in. So yeah, I'd say Matrix was everything because even interventio ns were part of the Matrix and figured 3 Charles Eames and Ray Eames, Eames Office, Powers of Ten, Youtube, 26 August, 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0.
53 volumes (objects) were nothing. I mean it was a huge shock to me to come from Cooper to here. Figured volumes are different than objects. EC: I mean, for me, when I think about this, I feel like Josef Albers is figured volumes of space. NH: Yeah. EC: And it's not that you couldn't make a field out of those things or read a field into those things NH: It's not about the field. It's about edges and volumes. EC: Right, and Anni Albers is the opposite of that. That's kind of the more complete picture, that she's more about the field condition. NH: Mhmm. Right. EC: What she does is very much about making three dimensional space in two dimensions. Where Josef Albers is about the edges between things and how you make figured volumes of space, I feel Anni Albers is more about a layered reading of space and spatial systems. NH: Agreed. You know with [Josef] Albers, I'm going to talk about figure ground as opposed to figured volum e per se because [Josef] Albers is all about figure ground and indeterminacy, right? (This kind of flipping back and forth of figure ground.) I mean, when Bernie looked at [Josef] Albers, when he did Alberss color studies or when he looked at these axonom etric drawings, they were very dense. And he saw volume in the depth. I mean really a lot of volume. His eyes could see it much more than other people. I struggled to learn to see as much depth in drawings as he did. He could take subtle things, see a lot of depth in them, and by the time he talked to me about it I thought, "Oh god, there it is!" It's a way of seeing that you have to learn to see. But he saw a lot of depth and volume. EC: When I say object, I mean more the construct of the intervention or of the space. I'm thinking more like a building which is overlapping volumes of space versus the kind of field (or context) that it sits in. NH: Right. EC: So it's not necessarily object as being objective but the node (or moment) pulled out of the fi eld. Could you speak a little bit about that? NH: I mean I'd say with the moments...I mean this school has been so Matrix oriented for a long time, but it wasn't a good thing if you could pull the intervention out of the field. It was a bad thing. You could see it, it was a densification or an emergence, but it wasn't something that you could separate. Things needed to be
54 tied into their context and deeply informed by it. I used to say, "If there's a piece of this that you can pick up and take away, that' s a problem." It should be that if you pulled on it, there would be so many strands connected to what you're pulling from that you couldn't take it out. EC: And that's so Anni Albersbut in a way, its very much how Josef worked too. But I'm sure the two of them talk ed about things in very similar ways Have you seen his stained glass projects? NH: No. EC: There's this stained glass project Josef did at the Bauhaus, and Anni has a set of weavings that are very alike in the way that they are structured ( see Chapter Four ). NH: Oh interesting. So they were in conversation? Well, obviously they were in conversation. EC: Yes, and it has been said that a lot of their early stuff is more intertwined than their later stuff because they kind of veered off on t heir own paths. But, in this, it is important to point out that although Anni elevated weaving to an art (which is a big deal) she was never really allowed to leave that art bubble. Josef is historically remembered as an architecture and design professor, but Anni taught architecture courses at Yale too.4 NH: She did? EC: Yes. She taught architecture seminars but no one ever talks about her as being an architecture educator. I just feel like Josef works at the scale of the building and Anni works at the scale of the context. And so you need both, right? And I feel that we are a school that very particularly deals with both. NH: We are now. EC: Yes. Now, particularly NH: Well, you also have to ask where phenomenology was lurking. Right? And so you know there was the phenomenological theory strain, and there were the phenomenological issues in architecture which is what you're talking about in the craft of making, the object, the impact of materiality, all that stuff. I don't think tha t came out of phenomenological theory, which got very popular. I think that existed and had its places where it showed up, but it was when phenomenological theory came in that it (phenomenology) jumped to the forefront of how architectural education took place. Cooper was one of the places 4 Nicholas Fox Weber and Tabatabai Asbaghi. Anni Al bers (New York: The Solomon R. G uggenheim Foundation, 1999), 174.
55 where a piece of that (the craft piece) was incubating. C raft was incredibly important at Cooper. In terms of the Bauhaus aspect, in the first term at Cooper you had a six credit drawing class, a six credit shop class... (well, shop is not the word for it but basically a shop class), and a four credit studio. And in the shop class you did two or three week apprenticeships in each material. So you did a wood sequence, you did a plastic sequence, you did a plaster sequence, you did a metal sequence, and you learned to use the tools in the shop and were given a specific project. They werent inventive projects. So, you know, we had to turn a perfect cone or cast a light bulb. They were craft projects. So that was lurking at C ooper and spread from Cooper to Columbia, Pratt, etc. I got hired here because everybody wanted a Cooper graduate in their school because that was this particular strain of education that was good and people wanted it. They wanted to add it to their curric ulum. But I very quickly became fascinated by what was going on here as well. So the Bauhaus apprenticeship, material piece was being held at Cooper and maybe at other places. EC: I feel like our school, and it could just be the grad program, really deal s with this aspect of materials and experiential spacebut it (the grad program) is new. NH: Well the grad program is brand new. EC: Exactly. Thats why I think it's interesting to trace some of these things back. And Im fascinated by possibility of all these other influences (known and unknown). Ive been looking at a lot of collaborations, and, for example, they're never the Alberses, not really. Part of that is because they do completely different things and work in different mediums. They're not like the Eames or the Smithsons who collaborate on the same projects. NH: Well, I'm writing out a really important person here which is Mae Lee Foster. EC: Oh, I don't know who that is. NH: So, Mae Lee Foster was here as long as Bernie [Voichysonk]. She came at the same time as Bernie, but she did not go through Yale. I have no ideas about her education background, but she was all about the diagram.5 I mean, all about the diagram, and she was important here. She also was a printmaker, and she was very int erested in Mexico. So my guess would be that she knew or might have been interested in Anni Albers. As to why, I can't tell you, but I know she was a printmaker. EC: That's interesting because that's what Anni did at the end. NH: And her themes were very much about Mexico. 5 Mae Lee Foster received her Master of Fine Arts from Temple University Tyler School of Art in 1969 and her Bachelor of Science in Art Education from the University of Bridgeport in 1964.
56 But she was a part of Phase One of the curriculum, which was before I got here. Phase Two is when I first arrived. Id say there's a Phase Three that happened under McCarter, and we're now at Phase Four in terms of my sense of the c urriculum; Four being Lisa [Huang] Bradley [Walters] and the start of the new grad school curriculum. And they (Lisa and Bradley) had a lot of practice. Thats another thing you have to recognize. I think what they've done with the grad school has a lot to do with two people who have extremely strong practice backgrounds; the strongest practice backgrounds that we've had in the curriculum as long as I can remember. That's about folding the practice back in, and practices that were very much about phenom enology and material experimentation. Particular l y Lisa. EC: Absolutely. We named it Vorkurs (the graduate publication) for a very particular reason. We felt like what we were doing in Grad One was so Bauhaus; it was so Bauhaus. And I just think now ther es an opportunity to consider the possibility that it's not only the men from the Bauhaus who influenced architecture education. Theres a quote from Gropius saying that he was fundamentally against women being trained as architects and I feel this attitu de has kind of carried forward. NH: Well, and remember this: neither Mae Lee nor Voichysonk were architects. They were both artists. EC: Exactly. Just like the Alberses. Robert McCarter writes about that. Particularly he writes about how modern painting has influenced architecture education. That's what "Spatial Speculations" is all about.6 NH: You had two camps early on. You had the camp who were architects like Harry Merritt, and then you had the camp who were artists. Bernie and Mae Lee, as much as they fought, were in the same camp. Mae Lee is probably pretty important to your discussion. EC: Agreed. I just think it is important to recognize that everyone influences each other. So Josef Albers, I'm sure, was influenced by Anni, just like Anni was influenced by him. You can see it in the work, and that's another vector of this research: the Guggenheim exhibit. I'm very disappointed Anni was written out of it. I think it was a rare chance for the Albersess work to be examined together. It w as a missed opportunity. It could have been a really special moment. NH: So that's where you write. You write what that moment should be. You write the missing text. 6 Robert McCarter, Spatial Speculations, in Constructions ed. Martin Gundersen and Nina Hofer (Gainesville: University of Florida Department of Architecture, 1993), 80 91.
57 Figure 3 1. Cube Image credit: Jonathon Haist, Architectural Design One 2016.
58 Figure 3 2. Matrix Axonometric Image credit: Daniel Mecca, Architectural Design One, 2016.
59 Figure 3 3. Matrix from c ube sections Image credit: Daniel Mecca, Architectural Design On e 2016.
60 Figure 3 4. Itinerary Image credit: John Vieweg, Architectural Design One, 2016.
61 CHAPTER 4 REVIEW OF THE GUGGEN HEIM NEW YORK EXHIBIT JOSEF ALBERS IN MEXICO The Alberses in Mexico We were aware of layer upon layer of former civilization under the ground, she wrote of her visit to the site. Anni Albers Anni Albers1 From November 3, 2017 to April 4, 2018 the Guggenheim Museum New York hosted the exhibit Josef Albers in Mexico It focused primarily on an archive of Josef Alberss photographs and photo collages from his wife Annis and his many trips to Mexico as these innovative works offer a new lens through which to view his major series of prints and paintings from the late 1930s on, including Variant/Adobe (194666) and Homage to the Square (195076).2 In a similar time frame (October 6, 2017January 14, 2018) the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao hosted the exhibit Anni Albers: Touching Vision. This exhibit offer[ed] a focused survey of the work of Anni Albers, an artist distinguished by the originality of her practice, pictorial and textile, and by her profound knowledge of the materials and techniques of weaving.3 These two separate exhibits are meant to consider the individual artistic accomplishments of this husband and wife pair to give a focused image of each. As Josef Alber s in Mexico cura tor Lauren Hinkson notes: Because the Alberses worked and traveled together, their achievements are to a certain extent inseparable. This acknowledgment should not, however, be an excuse for Annis practice to be overshadowed by that of her husband, as has occurred in 1 Nicholas Fox Weber and Tabatabai Asbaghi, Anni Albers (New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1999), 31. 2 Lauren Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017), 16. 3 Anni Albers: Touching Vision Guggenheim Bilbao, accessed 16 March, 2017. https://annialbers.gugge nheim bilbao.eus/en/introduction
62 the past. In recent years, scholars and curators have begun revising the historical record, creating a more accurate, nuanced representation of Annis work as an artist and craftsperson. These efforts, critical in their own rig ht, highlight the importance of examining the depth of the Alberses individual practices.4 While the need to examine each as individual artists (particularly Anni) is justified, these two exhibits do not consider the possibilities of Mexico as a primary source of collaboration between the Alberses. (In Mexico they aimed to revitalize preColumbian traditions within their own Modernist art.5) The exhibit in Bilbao is a wonderful tribute to Annis prolific career as an artist and warrants acknowledgment as a device for elevating her work to the same status as her husbands, but for all it its strengths it seemingly fails to examine the possibilities for her to work extend beyond the boundaries of her craft. Were the exhibit in New York about Josef Albers of a similar quality (an overview of his achievements as a painter, photographer, stained glass artist, furniture designer, or graphic designer), this goal of examining their individual practic es would be defensible. However, as an exhibit about the impact of their trip s to Mexico the absence of Annis work and creative voice renders the picture of the Albersess time there incomplete. The exhibit not only excludes Annis revolutionary works achieved by the techniques she learned in Mexico but insinuates he r work might have been overshadowed by Josefs had the two been exhibited concurrently. Rather than only highlighting their individual practices, it is time to look to the richness and diversity achie ved through their collaborationparticularly in the work of t wo artists in different mediums and the potential it holds as a method of inclusion. It is clear that despite Anni and Josef having little formal collaboration, each greatly influenced the work of the other. However, perhaps because of Annis status a s a feminine designer/artist, their work seems to seldom be examined in conjunction with one another. In a 4 Lauren Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017), 15. 5 Ibid.
63 rare examplean exhibit at the Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum entitled Josef + Anni Albers: Designs for Living (October 1, 2004 Februrary 27, 2005) objects of domestic life created separately throughout the careers of the two artists were paired together: a litt le know n facet of Josefs career his furniture, gr aphic art, and tabletop objects with Annis designs and textiles.6 As Cooper Hewitt director Paul Warwick Thompson points out, Ironically, Josef and Anni never collaborated on a specific project, yet they lived collaboratively.7 The Alberses were unlike other couples of the modernist movement su ch as the Eames and Smithsons in that the y were not co professionals and direct collaborators; however, their work in disparate media, especially at the Bauhaus in the 1920s, ran in closely parallel tracks, with notable cross influences,8 and thus the strength of their collaboration (whether formalized or not) lies in its interdisciplinary quality. Mexico was a large influence for both artists and the work produced from this time (if examined together) might begin to indicate a more direct collaboration, one that spanned decades and mediums. T o the credit of the Guggenheim, Anni is largely acknowledged in the writings for Josef Albers in Mexico in the Albersess thought s, perceptions, and experiences and physically present in many of the photos. Nonetheless, the absence of her corresponding wor k is disappointing. Josef Albers in Mexico examines Josefs photos and photo collages from Mexico as an aspect of his work able to shed new light on two of his series, but these photos and photo collages are so imbued with the spirit of Anni in their use of the f loating weft and layered spacethat they also warrant examination alongside her work. It is important to recognize the 6 Nicholas Fox Weber, Josef and Anni Albers: Designs for Living (London: Merrell, 2004), 6. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., 34.
64 prolific influences of Mexico on the works of both Alberses, so while Anni mastered some of the traditional weaving techniques she observed, and Josef pursued new directions in his paintings, moments of cross pollination between the painted and woven are evident.9 Mexico: A Collaboration in Monte Alban It is important to begin by looking further back than Mexico to the early yea rs of the Alberses work at the Bauhaus. Here can be seen the clearest proof of the interchange of ideas between the two .10 Josef Alberss Goldrosa of c. 1926 [Figure 11], a minimalist composition of sandblasted pink flashed glass with a surface applicat ion of black paint, typifies the restrained qualities of his new process. Its pronounced warpand weft structure, one cannot help thinking, may well reflect the works that his young wifeOr did the influence flow in the opposite direction? There is no ques tion that Anni Alberss horizontally banded textiles of 1925 and 1926 [Figure 42] relate closely to Josef Alberss glass panels of those same years, and they offer the clearest proof of the interchange of ideas between the two.11 Here, Annis weavings (pr e Mexico) tend to rely on harder edges where one color meets the next and the ability to make space through more figural shapes and implied volumes. Although these earlier works are much more related to Josefs in the hardedged quality of the indeterminate volumes, the influence of Annis repetition in the pattern and structuring is also present and lends itself to a more field like construction. The field, or matrix, like quality of her constructions becomes truly evident in her post Mexico weavings, n amely Ancient Writings [Figure 43] and Monte Alban [Figure 4 4]. In an essay entitled Thread as Text: The Woven Work of Anni Albers, Virginia Gardner Troy notes the impact Mexico made on the artist saying, The dramatic changes that occurred in Alberss 9 Laure n Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017), 15 16. 10 Nicholas Fox Weber, Josef and Anni Albers: Designs for Living (London: Merrell, 2004), 37. 11 Nicholas Fox Weber, Josef and Anni Albers: Designs for Living (London: Merrell, 2004), 37.
65 woven work immediately after her first visit to Mexico reflect her deepening understanding of ancient American art.12 These weavings tend to have a more layered quality and are able to ach ieve transparency through the opaque materials. They appear to be more about constructing, reading, and clarifying systems of space in a collapsed, simultaneous time, rather than creating a repetitive pattern. This is most evident in Anni Alberss learning and use of the Andean technique of the floating weft, a technique still widely used in modern Latin America.13 In Monte Alban she employs this technique, of the supplementary, or floating, weft, in which an extra weft thread is threaded, or floated, above the woven surface.14 She uses this method to draw lines of thread that float above the underlying structure of the weave in or der to devote attention to [its] surface.15 This adds another layer of information that physically sits on top of the matr ix below but acts as an integral part of the existing field Monte Alban uses the floating weft to map the ascending and descending steps, the flat plazas, and the underground chambers of the ancient site after which the work is named.16 Here, the constru cted piece becomes less about figural volumes of space and more about depth through layering. Anni Albers is able to map the depth of space and time present in the Monte Alban site through the building up of opaque materials on a two dimensional surface. Interestingly, this depth through layering can also be seen in a piece from Josef Albers Mexico created from their (the Alberses) visit to Monte Alban. It is entitled Etude Dry Hot and is 12 Nicholas Fox Weber and Tabatabai Asbaghi. Anni Albers (New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1999), 31. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid.
66 the only example on display that exhibits a deviation from Josef Al berss usually juxtaposed edges (Figure 4 5) While depth of space in his paintings is usually achieved through the indeterminacy of figure ground and the flipping back and forth of figure ground,17 Etude Hot Dry (Figure 46 ) achieves depth t hrough overla pping layers. He is able, lik e Anni, to find transparency in the opaque paint. He also achieves a texture on the surface that appears to float above the underlying painted volumes, much like Annis use of the floating weft. Here, the ide as from Annis weav ings can breach into the sphere of painting, and vice versa, but no matter which of them was the source of the motif, both artists showed their ability to develop it in a wholly convincing and completely personal matter.18 Looking to the medium of photography, which focused the entire Josef Albers in Mexico exhibit, Hinkson notes, Links between Alberss travels and the work he produced have to be contextualized within his overarching interest in experimental compositional s tructures and repetition.19 As a weaver, this interest in experimental compositional structures and repetition was also shared by Anni. In fact, in The Pliable Plane: Textiles in Architecture she describes weaving as primarily a process of structural or ganization, and in Ancient Writings and Monte Alban her interest in the underlying structure of the weave as capable of floating the weft is clear.20 Her works tend to deal most with context and thus warrant a closer look through this lens of Josefs photos and photo collages, as his photos warrant viewing through the lens of her weavings. 17 A Conversation with Nina Hofer, in Architecture and Feminism: Discussions Towards Inclusive Ideologies, Pedagogies, and Practices transcribed by Elizabeth Cronin (University of Florida, 2018), 49. 18 Nicholas Fox Weber, Josef and Anni Albers: Designs for Living (London: Merrell, 2004), 37. 19 Lauren Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017), 18. 20 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleya n University Press, 2000), 45.
67 Figures 47 shows a specific photo collage of Josef Alber s s time in Monte Alban. It shows images that document the places and artifacts experienced by the Alberses: the details floated on the surface of the Andean ruins, the hard edges dividing space, and the texture and scale of crumbling material. In this collage, however, the composition and structure become an important aspect to analyzing the collaboration and cross pollination between Josef and Anni Albers. Here, close attention should also be paid to the ruins themselves and ornamentation on their surfaces (Figure 4 8 ). This ornamentation can be seen as influencing Josef in the definitive, figural edges it creates. Josefs photographs on the right side of the collage appear to behave in this way. While these photographs create hard edges against the backdrop of white space of the page evoking the figure ground character istics seen in much of his work the images on the left begin to be overlapped and layered. Although transparency is not achieved in layering, as has been shown in several examples of Annis work, the smaller scale images placed on top seem to float resembling the floating weft of her Monte Alban weaving These striking floating wefts can also be found in the ornamentation of the ruinous surfaces, as opaque materials are layered together and seem to float away from the stone structure behind. Like Josef, Anni also pushed outside the boundaries of her art into photography, printmaking, industry, etc. Despite this, she is written out of Josef Albers in Mexico her weavings unable to breach the realm of photography and paint. Like Josefs stained glass and Annis weaving from the Bauhaus, in each medi um the influence of the other can be seen. Anni is just as much in Josefs work in Mexico as he is in her s, and it is disappointing that while their achievements are t o a certain extent inseparablethe Guggenheim still managed to
68 separate them, further w riting Anni out of one of the most revolutionary aspects of her own work.21 21 Lauren Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum P ublications, 2017), 15.
69 Figure 4 1. Goldros a, Josef Albers, 1926. Source: Nicholas Fox Weber, Josef and Anni Albers: Designs for Living (London: Merrell, 2004), 78.
70 Figure 4 2. Wall Hanging, Anni Albers, 1926. Source: Nicholas Fox Weber, Josef and Anni Albers: Designs for Living (London: Merrell, 2004), 65.
71 Figure 4 3. Ancient Writing Anni Albers, 1936. Source: Nicholas Fox Weber and Tabatabai Asbaghi. Anni Albers (New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1999), 41.
72 Figure 4 4. Monte Alban, Anni Albers, 1936. Source: Nicholas Fox Weber and Tabatabai Asbaghi. Anni Albers (New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1999), 42.
73 Figure 4 5. Prismatic II Josef Albers, 1936. Source : Lauren Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017), 69.
74 Figure 4 6. Etude Hot Dry Josef Albers, 1935. Source: Lauren Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017), 68.
75 Figure 4 7. Monte Alban photo collage Josef Albers, 1937. Source: Lauren Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017), 6061.
76 Figure 4 8. Anni Albers at Monte Alban, Josef Albers, 1939. Source: Lauren Hinkson, Josef Albers in Mexico (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017), 62.
77 CHAPTER 5 THE ALBERSES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ARCHITECTURE CURRICULUM Field and Intervention In her work with textiles, Anni Albers believed in the idea of craft and learning through experience with a material as a design process capable of developing a deeper understanding of the built environment. In Material as Metaphor she says: To make it visible and tangible, we need light and material, any material. And any material can take on the burden of what had been brewing in our consciousness or sub consciousness, in our awareness or in our dreamsIdeas flow from it to us and though we feel to be the creator we are involved in a dialog ue with our medium. The more subtly we are tuned to our medium, the more inventive our actions will becomematerial is a means of communication.1 She developed the woven craft as one that could extend beyond its feminine boundaries and branch off into othe r mediums like drawing, photography architecture, and printmaking and, through her writings, she began to develop weaving as an intellectual craft. Despite these accomplishments, she is seldom able to breach the boundaries of her feminine craft and has r arely been recognized for her contributions to architecture education. On the other hand, Josef Albers is often acknowledged as both an artist and architecture/design pedagogue, and i t is widely accepted that he had a huge influence on the University of Fl orid a architecture curriculum, particularly through his student Bernard Voichysonk. While her direct ties to UF are somewhat unclear (and still under investigation), Anni Alberss profound influence on the Bauhaus (and other Bauhaus professors, like Walter Gropius) is undeniable. In fact, while Josef was teaching at Yale, Walter Gropius commissioned Anni Albers for his Harvard Law School building[to] create bedspreads and partitions for the dormitories, and it has been noted by Charles Sawyer (Dean of th e Y ale School of Art, 1995) that It was ironic in a way that 1 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000), 7375.
78 Harvard was giving her more recognition a s a creative artist than Yale. 2 W hile her ties to Yale ( through her husband Josef ) might at first glance be her gateway to UF, it seems she may have actually had a more impactful influence at Harvard ( which ties to UF can be traced back to Gropius students like Harry Merritt and other Harvard graduates like Bob MacLeod) It is also important to note that, while she may have been given very little reco gnition at Yale, in the 1950s she was often askedat Yale, to give a few seminars to the architectural students.3 Despite this, she has never really been attributed as an architecture educator. It is time to recognize the huge impact she has had on arch itecture education, if even retroactively for she is still often written out of histories where she was definitively impactful and present through the reading of the work at the school as it exists today. If the UF curriculum, and arguably architecture as a whole, can be divided into three id eas of spacevolumetric space ( Cube ); spatial relationships ( Matrix ); and sequencing of space and time ( Itinerary ) Josef can very clearly be seen in UF s approach to volumetric space. Anni on the other hand is most pres ent in the way UF s curriculum deals with materials, fie ld, and spatial relationships ( Matrix ).4 This combination of field ( Matrix ) with intervention (volumetric space/ Cube ) to yield Itinerary exposes the importance of Annis recognition as part of an Albersess collaboration as her voice and methods become critical in attain ing a more complete and inclusive understanding of the University of Floridas architectural curriculum as a whole 2Nicholas Fox Weber and Tabatabai Asbaghi. Anni Albers (New York: The Solomon R. G uggenheim Foundat ion, 1999), 174. 3 Ibid. 4 A Conversation with Nina Hofer, in Architecture and Feminism: Discussions Towards Inclusive Ideologies, Pedagogies, and Practices transcribed by Elizabeth Cronin (University of Florida, 2018).
79 Spatial Relationships and Materials Because Anni Albers worked wi th textiles and printmaking, she is most obviously connected to the two dimensional tool architects employ: the drawing. Both drawings and woven textiles utilize line, tone, and textural qualities to create depth, volume, and implications of three dimensio nal space on a two dimensional surface. On this Anni writes, Our experience of gaining a representational means through the use of different surface qualities leads us to the use of illusions of such qualities graphically produced, though not by the means of representational graphic that is, the modulated line.5 This method of creating depth and illusions of surface quality (particularly in a drawing) is one often used in the University of Florida studios, as we too discourage the use of graphic langua ge in drawing and model. Such graphic language preferences two dimensional objects and lacks any implication of three dimensional volumetric space or depth. It tends to concretize ideas too quickly and develop static forms that work towards a unified a nd singular interpretation.6 Just like Anni Albers describes embroidery, graphic language is a working of just the surface, since it does not demand that we give thought to the engineering task of building up and can become in danger of losing itself i n decorativeness.7 Instead, according to Robert McCarter, the work (abstract drawings) in the University of Florida studios tend towards complexity and multiplicity of spatial interpretations[in] an 5 Anni Albers, Anni Albers :Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000), 72. 6 Robert McCarter, With Obstinate Rigor, in Constructions ed. Martin Gundersen and Nina Hofer (Gainesville: University of Florida Department of Archit ecture, 1993), 6. 7 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000), 72.
80 effort to capture the experiential as opposed to the easily legible.8 He points out that in the drawings from UF one often finds the layering of several spatial interpretations, with the final forms being drawn up from out of the depth of those composite drawings.9 These composite drawing s create field conditions and ma trices that act as the underlying structure of the drawing and implication of structure in the built environment (Figure 51). Using this structure, volumes of space can be embedded and held by the field, not as hard edges, one placed nex t to the other (Josef Albers), but through the layering and building up of line and tone. Many drawings from the current University of Florida studios utilize the method of jellyfish or x ray drawing to further encourage a multiplicity of spatial inte rpretations10 (See Figure 5 2), bringing to mind Anni Alberss woven piece Monte Alban and her use of the supplementary, or floating weft, [as] an extra weft thread floated above the woven surface.11 She used this technique to draw lines and reinforce extractions from the field of underlying woven structure. In much the same way, University of Florida students layer, collage, and draw out order from a composite drawing, allowing each iteration to pull out and float new information on the drawn surface until the final form is extracted (See Figure 5 3). Here, the inner structure together with its effects on the outside are the main considerations.12 8 Robert McCarter, With Obstinate Rigor, in Constructions ed. Martin Gundersen and Nina Hofer (Gainesville : University of Florida Department of Architecture, 1993), 6. 9 Ibid. 10 Robert McCarter, With Obstinate Rigor, in Constructions ed. Martin Gundersen and Nina Hofer (Gainesville: University of Florida Department of Architecture, 1993), 6. 11 Nicholas Fox Weber, Josef and Anni Albers: Designs for Living (London: Merrell, 2004), 31. 12 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000), 73.
81 Although Anni Alberss process of weaving and conceptual development closely follows a similar process to the University of Florida drawings, it is in relation to model making that Robert McCarter makes reference to her work. In With Obstinate Rigor he points out her particular affinity for materials and notes that the models from the University of Florida are also used as instruments for investigating the nature of materials in the making of space.13 This investigation of materials is evident in the undergraduate curriculum (Figure 5 4) but can most clearly be seen in the new graduate curriculum. Developed by Lisa Huang and Bradley Walters, this new curriculum is focused in material experimentation, construction at a 1:1 scale, and particularities of site and context as being capable of enhancing the future of the profession and aiding in the transition from academia to practice. On this they say, it is critical to engage matter hands on to know its characteristics (weight, dimensions, limitations) and its relationship to other materials (joints, intersections, adjacencies).14 The first semester of the new graduate curriculum begins with material testing and the building of a fragment of space at a 1:1 scale (Figure 55). Here students are encouraged to explore the possibilities for attack the material offers in its appearance and in its structural elements to call forth imagination and productiveness.15 Armed with a new understanding of materials, the semester continues with a project at a representative scale and takes on the context of two extreme climates. This is paired with a second semester project that is also deeply rooted in climate and context (Seattle, WA), and so the entire first year of the UF graduate program 13 Robert McCarter, With Obstinate Rigor, in Con structions ed. Martin Gundersen and Nina Hofer (Gainesville: University of Florida Department of Architecture, 1993), 7. 14 Lisa Huang and Bradley Walters, Oculata Manus, in Vorkurs:Making, ed. Elizabeth Cronin and Zachary Wignall (Gainesville: University of Florida School of Architecture, 2017), 36. 15 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000), 8.
82 introduces materials and site as drivers that can inform and shape the design decisions made in an architecture project. In all of these things, Anni Albers is very much present, but nowhere is this presence more palpable than in the work of the third semester, in design/build. Here, at the intersection between material and field, a 1:1 scale construction is woven into the site. This is the moment where the structured diagram lines of th e spatial relationships we can draw but cannot see become built in the material world. Case Study: Design/Build at Seahorse Key, FL Designing todaydeals no longer directly with the medium but vicariously: graphically and verbally. To restore to the desig ner the experience of direct experience of medium is, I think, the task todayThe material itselfis a source of unending stimulation and advises us in most unexpected manner. If we, as designers, cooperate with the material, treat it democratically, you might say, we will reach a less subjective solution of this problem of form and therefore a more inclusive and permanent one. Anni Albers Design: Anonymous and Timeless16 Design/build offers a unique opportunity in architecture education to work with ma terials at a 1:1 scale and complete a project in a site. It join[s] the practical with the pedagogical and makes room for experimentation, which is integral to learning by doing.17 It also provides unique opportunities for collaboration, which plays a critical role for pract icing and teaching design/build, and (in these collaborations) avenues for Feminist design practices.18 Design/build 16 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000), 3 8. 17 Charlie Hailey, Design/Build with Jersey Devil: A Handbook for Education and Practice (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2016), 123. 18 Ibid., 65
83 is hands on and provides experiences for understanding a site, working in groups, handling materials, and listening to clients.19 It also creates space in architecture curriculums for open air studios, labs for experimentation, and learning by doing classrooms.20 In many instances, design/build offers students their first opportunities to work with full scale materials and tools to follow the promptings of material, of color, line, texture; to pursue a thoughtful forecast of function, a cleverly conceived construction, to wherever it would lead them.21 In the University of Florida design/build program collaboration i s a key element and consensus is used as a tool for strengthening and encouraging group dynamics. Here, consensus design insists every individual in the studio agrees with the project design and is able to participate in all decisions being made. Char lie Hailey runs the design/build program at the University of Florida, and on consensus he notes, Unanimity helps keep everyone fully engaged throughout the entire process.22 Thus, through consensus , design/build lends itself as a more inclusive and F eminist design methodology, both in education and practice. It opens up channels of communication and keeps egos in check to encourage the participation of every student and the accompanying diversity of ideas and experiences.23 Another important aspect of design/build is the idea of reflective building. In his book Design/Build with Jersey Devil: A Handbook for Education and Practice Hailey says: Pedagogically, design/build returns students to the basics elemental concepts and techniques first explore d in early design studios. 19 Ibid., 123. 20 Ibid., 65 21 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000), 37. 22 Charlie Hailey, Design/Build with Jersey Devil: A Handbook for Education and Practice (New York: Princeton Architectural Press 2016), 65. 23 Ibid., 66
84 By extension, this context offers students a place of reflectionThe studio offers the time and place for students to consider their educational experiences. It looks backward and forward.24 Design/build becomes the hinge between academia and practice not through the notion of pure practicality what we do in practice and how we do it but through the unique space it occupies in architecture education, pressed between classroom and sitewhy we do things in practice and why we were educated in a particular way. With design/build, making things combines work and play and parallels the mix of intuition with technical skill found in improvisation.25 Improvisation played a huge role in the design/build project at Seahorse Key: a stair for the University of Florida Biology Lab (Figure 5 6). Sited on the beach, many of the design decisions were made in response to building on an island. Materials and people were brought by boat and movement to and from the Key needed to be coordinated wit h tide cycles. After Hurricane Hermine a giant piece of driftwood that once held a lower edge of the site drifted north to destroy the existing stair (and site for the new stair). The sand offered little stability and the ground would change with every gus t of wind. As a result, the site became the largest constraint and driving force in the project. Certain points in the landscape acted as anchors to provide structure to this impermanent site. These points created boundaries and op portunities for wayfinding (visual markers) and movement. The stair embracing this impermanence also developed a series of anchored structure points. These points touched the ground lightly as wooden posts (on the handrail side of the stair) and became a datum off of which to me asure (Figure 57 ). From this datum the rest of the project platforms, stair, and gate could float. By floating the project within the site, the 24 Ibid., 123. 25 Ibid., 68
85 ground was permitted to continue its ritual of constant change and space was created to build around the shifted driftwood. In this, the stair itself became an anchor point in the site as well. In the Seahorse Key project, Hailey implemented aspects of reflective building in the studios constant dialogue between construction and drawing. Plans and section were developed throughout the project (before, during, and after construction), and mappings of Seahorse Key were completed by each student. As part of the reflective building process, these mappings began after the first trip to the site and were re vis ited after every subsequent trip, allowing time and the process of the build to influence each iteration. The mapping exercise was a way to explore the phenomenological aspects of the site through drawing, wayfinding, measure, precision, boundaries, and invisible relationships at first unseen. These drawings served as moments (before and after every build day) to reflect on the site and use the accompanying analysis to influence the things being made. Anni Albers in Design/Build The essentially structural p rinciples that relate the work of building and weaving could form the basis of a new understanding between the arch itect and the inventive weaver. Anni Albers The Pliable Plane: Textiles in Architecture26 And here before us we can recognize the essence of designing, a visually comprehensible, simplified organization of forms that is distinct from natures secretive and complex working. Anni Albers Designing as Visual Organization27 26 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowitz (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000), 51.
86 Patterns in the sand briefly hold memories of tide cycles, gusts of wi nd, and interactions with plant and animal life. These memories however are fleeting and impermanent. The motion of these encounters activates the sand and just as quickly sets into motion changes, one after the other, into its surface. Deep water has the capacity to hold these patterns for a moment longer, a frozen moment in time, but reflections from below mirror light and cause the pattern of the fluid surface to ripple and become as impermanent as sand in the wind. This mapping (Figure 58) is an exercise in understanding the impermanent experience of place. It acts as a filter for discoveries and encounters at Seahorse Key and uses visual representation as a method for unpacking the latent forces in the site. Seahorse Key is in a constant state of flu x. The lower sand and wrack move with every swipe of the tides, some cyclical and others out of the ordinary (Hurricane Hermine). Plant life and constructed ground are eroded away, while materials weather under salt and sun. The history of this place is co nstantly being re placed, leaving few permanent indicators of what came before; the ground of this site changes every day, every hour, every minute. Thus this project needed to rely upon materials, phenomenon, and experience of place to provide a structure d field capable of anchoring the intervening stair. Of particular influence on this mapping is Anni Alberss woven piece Monte Alban and its use of the Andean technique of the floating weft (discussed in previous chapters). Here, as a study of the subtle changes at Seahorse Key during our time on site, the idea of floating weft is used to anchor and clarify the most present systems of the project. The rhythm of the moving water acts as the warp of the drawing moving in a horizontal timeline along the bottom of the 27 Anni Albers, Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, ed. Brenda Danilowit z (Middletown: Wesle yan University Press, 2000), 58.
87 page and vertical strands pull up to document the rhythm and movement of the changing tide. The ephemeral details of the site views, light, shadow, textures, patterns in the sandact as the weft of the project and become built up like a palimps est over time. Therefore, our constructed stair, which floats so delicately above the sand, becomes a floating weft. It is structured by the experience of the place and relies on the field of phenomenonits rhythms, cycles, and ephemeral details to secur e it as the most tangible addition to the site. Building the stair over several weeks provided the unique opportunity for new iterations of the mapping drawing to document the most recent accumulation of construction. In every iteration the new construction would sit at the top of the mapping surface, as the floating weft, while previous iterations faded back into the experiential weft of the site. This produced a surface that was constantly changing and being reshaped with each new pass, much like the s urface of the Seahorse Key beach. The final drawing (shown here) presents a field created over weeks of buildup. It incorporates a variety of scales from the context of lighthouse trail to the joint between hill and beach to the detail of the handrail construction and rhythm of the board spacing and documents our memory of the site as it slowly adapted the stair into its system. It is here, in design/build, where field meets material; where academia meets practice; where the latent forces of diverse contex ts can become the mater ial realities of a built world.
88 Figure 5 1. Ruins Mapping. Image credit: Tessa Register, Architectural Design Three, 2016
89 Figure 5 2. Building Analysis Image credit: Cole Altar, Architectural Design Two, 2015.
90 Figure 5 3. Composite Tower Drawings Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, Architectural Design Four, 2010.
91 Figure 5 4. Plaster and Plexi Tower Image credit: Emily Mason, Architectural Design Four, 2018.
92 Fi gure 5 5. Concrete Experiments Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, Graduate Design One, 2015.
93 Figure 56. Stair at Seahorse Key, FL. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2016.
94 Figure 5 7. Build day at Seahorse Key, FL. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2016.
95 Figure 5 8. Mapping of Seahorse Key. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, Graduate Design Three, 2016.
96 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS : ON MORE INCLUSIVE ARCHITECTURE EDUCATION AND PRACTICE Design/build is a collaborative design and education method and warrants examination as a Feminist process of design. It is here that collaboration, communication, and construction infuse objectives for curriculum and community alike.1 It addresses communal education and emphasizes learning through making as it pertains to 1:1 scale assemblies and specificities of site and embraces feminine methods of design as being capable of extending into the realm of architecture. Design/build has provided a starting point for long er term research goals of engaging more inc lusive and feminist design practices, both in academia and the profession; practices based in collaborative design methodologies and engagement with the community. This research focused on the intersection between architecture history, pedagogy, feminine design processes, and materials and making as they pertain to architecture and feminism (Figure 6 1) .2 It looked to more inclusive, diverse narratives and contexts as being able to present alternative readings of domes tic space and highlight women who are often written out of history. It also explored collaboration as a method of inclusion; one that provides the opportunity to discover richer histories, develop more diverse curriculums, and engage with new mediums. Thes e writings offer a humble beginning to reignite conversations about architecture and feminism, but in order to truly arrive at a fuller, more complex [and inclusive] vision of architecture, we need to look at all aspects history, theory, education, pract ice, etc. and continue to carry on conversations capable of reshaping our cultures ideologies.3 1 Charlie Hailey, Design/Build with Jersey Devil: A Handbook for Education and Practice (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2016), 21. 2 Reference Figure 6 1. Photo credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2018. 3 Mary McLeod, Perriand: Reflections on Feminism and Modern Architecture, Harvard Design Magazine no. 20(2004): www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/20/perriand reflections onfeminism andmodernarchitecture.
97 Figure 6 1. Subjective Dress Gallery exhibit, Architecture and Feminism Elizabeth Cronin. Image credit: Elizabeth Cronin, 2018.
98 LIST OF REFERENCES Albers, Anni. Anni Albers:Selected Writings on Design, Edited by Brenda Danilowitz. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2000. Anni Albers: Touching Vision. Gugge nheim Bilbao. Accessed 16 March 2017. https://annialbers.guggenheim bilbao.eus/e n/introduction Bock, Ralf and Adolf Loos. Adolf Loos: Works and Projects Milano; Skira; New York: Rizzoli Internat ional Publications, 2007. Coleman, Debra. Introduction to Architecture and Feminism: Yale Publications on Architecture ix xvi. Edited by Debra Coleman, Elizabeth Danze, and Carol Henderson. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Colomina, Beatriz. Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994. Colomina Beatriz. The Split Wall: Domestic Voyeurism. In Sexuality & Space edited by Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer, 73128. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1992. Colquhoun, Alan. Modern Architecture Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Curt is, Willam J.R. Le Corbusier: Ideas and Forms New York: Rizzoli, 1986.Carodine, K., Almond, K. F., & Gratto, K. K. (2001). College student athlete success both in and out of the classroom. New Directions for Student Services, 93, 1933. Eames, Charles an d Ray Eames, E ames Office. Powers of Ten . Youtube. 26 August 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0. Farnsworth House PLUS, Chicago Architecture Foundation. Accessed 16 March 2018. https://www.architecture.org/experience caf/tours/detail/farnsworth house plus/ Friedman, Alice T. Shifting Paradigm: Houses Built for Women. In Design and Feminism: Re visioning Spaces, Places, and Everyday Things edited by Joan Rothschild, 8597. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1999. Friedman, Alice T. Women and the Making of the Modern House: A Social and Architectural History New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1998. Hailey, Charlie. Design/Build with Jersey Devil: A Handbook for Education and Practice. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2016. Haugland, H. Kristina. Revealing Garments: A Brief History of Womens Underwear. Presentation at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Youtube, 1:04:56. 15 November 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ6eqMgn5u0.
99 Hinkson, Lauren. Josef Albers in Mexico New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2017. History of the Farnsworth House, Farnsworth. Accessed 16 March 2018. https://farnsworthhouse.org/history farnsworth house/ Huang, Lisa and Bradley Walters. Oculata Manus. In Vorkurs:Making, edited by Elizabeth Cronin and Zachary Wignall, 3647. Gainesvill e: University of Florida School of Architecture, 2017). Loos, Adolf. Spoken into the Void: Collected Essays 18971900. Translated by Jane O. Newman and John H. Smith. New York: MIT Press, 1982. See esp. essay Underclothes, 7075. McCarter, Robert. With Obstinate Rigor. I n Constructions edited by Martin Gundersen and Nina Hofer, 49. Gainesville: University of Florida Department of Architecture, 1993. McCarter, Robert. Spatial Speculations . I n Constructions edited by Martin Gundersen and Nina Hofer, 8091. Gainesville: University of Florida Department of Architecture, 1993. McLeod, Mary. Perriand: Reflections on Feminism and Modern Architecture. Harvard Design Magazine no. 20 (2004): www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/20/perriandreflections onfeminismand modernarchitecture. Palmer, Jerry. Potboilers: Methods, Concepts, and Case Studie s in Popular Fiction. London; New York: Routledge, 1991. Rice, Charles. Photographys Veil: Reading Gender in Looss Interiors. In Negotiating Domesticity: Spatial Productions of Gender in Modern Architecture edited by Hilde Heynen and Gulsum Baydar, 281295. London; New York: Routledge, 2005. Samuel, Flora. Le Corbusier in Detail Oxford : Architectural, 2007. Van Herck, Karina. First Interlude: On the Nuances of Historical Emancipation. The Journal of Architecture 7 no. 3 (2002): 245247. Weber, N icholas Fox. Josef and Anni Albers: Designs for Living. London: Merrell, 2004. Weber, Nich olas Fox, and Tabatabai Asbaghi. Anni Albers New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1999. Why Equity Matters for Everyone. Equity by Design. Accessed Febr uary 25, 2018. http://eqxdesign.com/origins/ Wigley, Mark. Untitled: The Housing of Gender . In Sexuality & Space edited by Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer, 327389. New York: Princeton Architectural Pr ess, 1992.
100 Word of the Year 2017. Merriam Webster. Accessed 25 February 2018. https://www.merriamwebster.com/words at play/woty2 017 toplookedupwords feminism?src=defrecirc explorem w
101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Elizabeth Cronin graduated from the University of Florida with a Master of Science in Architectural Studies in the spring of 2018. She also received a Master of Architect ure from the University of Florida in 2017 and a Bachelor of Design in architecture in 2014. As a graduate student she was a Graduate Teaching Assistant for first year architecture design studios and Executive Editor for Vorkurs:Making (UFs Graduate Schoo l of Architecture publication). As a post graduate student she taught lower division design studios and cotaught in the design/build program. Her research lies at the intersection between architectural pedagogy, materials and making, inclusive design meth odologies, and F eminism in architecture.