******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/04/philip-johnson-nazi-architect-marc-wortman
I get into this myself:
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/wright.htm
Frank Lloyd Wright
Ken Burns's documentary on Frank Lloyd Wright, that aired over the last
two evenings on PBS, was predictably apolitical. This guy could make a
documentary on the rise of Nazism and spend half his time discussing the
fashion statement embodied in SS uniforms.
That being said, the show did raise a number of interesting questions
that I had never considered before. Although I have toured through some
of Wright's houses, I never gave much thought to what inspired him. As
it turns out, part of the inspiration was the arts and crafts movement
launched by William Morris, the English Marxist, artist and utopian
thinker. (Morris's utopianism was of the best kind. It simply was
presented as a dream about the future.) Morris explained how art and
humanity should interact in "The Lesser Arts of Life":
"You understand that our ground is, that not only is it possible to make
the matters needful to our daily life works of art, but that there is
something wrong in the civilisation that does not do this: if our
houses, our clothes, our household furniture and utensils are not works
of art, they are either wretched make-shifts, or what is worse,
degrading shams of better things.
"Furthermore, if any of these things make any claim to be considered
works of art, they must show obvious traces of the hand of man guided
directly by his brain, without more interposition of machines than is
absolutely necessary to the nature of the work done.
"Again, whatsoever art there is in any of these articles of daily use
must be evolved in a natural and unforced manner from the material that
is dealt with: so that the result will be such as could not be got from
any other material: if we break this law we shall make a triviality, a
toy, not a work of art."
This credo was central to Frank Lloyd Wright's early approach not only
to architecture, but to design as well. He often took pains to design
not only the house in a "natural and unforced manner" but even the
furniture and utensils within the house. For one client's wife, he
designed the dress she was instructed to serve food in, at a dining
table and plates that he also designed!
Wright was also insistent that houses not dominate their natural
environment but meld into them. The documentary quotes his explanation
of why he refused to put one house at the very top of a hill. He said
that the top of the hill belongs to nature and should be enjoyed on its
own terms. The house was placed on the brow of the hill instead.
So it would be fair to say that Wright expresses a certain possibility
for socialist architecture. His designs are an expression of the William
Morris direction in Marxism toward an ecologically sustainable living
environment that abolishes town-country distinctions. Wright, by the
way, was outspokenly anti-urban. He viewed most urban architecture as
hostile to the human spirit.
Now the other dialectical possibility in socialist architecture is
represented by the German Bauhaus. The Bauhaus movement got its
inspiration from the Russian revolution and the Futurism artistic school
which celebrated industrial progress and technology. Bauhaus architects
such as Gropius were inspired by modern industry and had very little
interest in blending in with nature. In fact that insisted on using
unnatural components such as glass and steel in their buildings. They
also were quintessential urbanists. They designed urban apartment houses
for the industrial proletariat, while Wright's clients were suburbanite
millionaires.
Indeed, as Wright became more and more established in his profession, he
became more and more attuned to the overweening ambitions of such
clients, whose life-style he himself began to emulate. The need to
connect to broader humanity, a key element of the arts and crafts
movement, was dumped overboard as Wright became a pyramid-builder for
the ruling-class. By the time he reached middle-age, Wright openly
complained about the "mob-ocracy" that was destroying America. He began
to resemble the libertarian architect hero of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead."
Politically, Wright becomes a typical American eccentric. A life-long
pacifist, he joins America First in opposition to WWII. Some of his
apprentices, who share his beliefs, actually spend time in prison for
refusing to serve in the army. He also learns to exploit his workers
like every other American boss, making them work long hours at low pay
in pursuit of the "higher goals of the firm". There is an added twist in
Wright's exploitation. His third wife, who helps him satisfy his
careerist lusts, is a disciple of the Russian cult-leader Gurdjieff. Her
knowledge of the inner workings of this spiritualist sect surely helped
him create his own cult of worker-bee disciples.
Philip Johnson supplies much of the commentary in the documentary.
Johnson was single-handedly responsible for developing the
post-modernist style. Originally influenced by the modernist/socialist
Bauhaus school, Johnson soon dropped the commitment to working-class
improvement and retained only the industrial aesthetic. David Harvey has
nailed Johnson's pretensions to the wall:
"But the increasing affluence, power, and authority emerging at the
other end of the social scale produces an entirely different ethos. For
while it is hard to see that working in the postmodern AT&T building by
Philip Johnson is any different from working in the modernist Seagram
building by [Bauhauist] Mies van der Rohe, the image projected to the
outside is different. 'AT&T insisted they wanted something other than
just a glass box,' said the architect. 'We were looking for something
that projected the company's image of nobility and strength. No material
does that better than granite' (even though it is double the cost of
glass). With luxury housing and corporate headquarters, aesthetic twists
become an expression of class power."
Like Wright, as Johnson lost his ties to the socialist aesthetic that
originally shaped him, he also went off to cloud-cuckooland. While
Wright opted for America First, Johnson leapt directly from the
frying-pan into the fire and became a fascist sympathizer. This is from
a review of Franz Schulze's biography of Johnson that appeared in the
Los Angeles Times:
"Slender, intense, drop-dead handsome, with a cleft chin to set off his
chiseled features, he was a model of young WASP privilege. Then,
inexplicably, he threw it all over -- except his private fortune -- and
became a camp follower of Huey Long, Gerald L.K. Smith, Father Coughlin
and other home-grown Populist demagogues, returning to Germany before
the outbreak of World War II as a correspondent for Coughlin's Social
Justice. On the eve of the blitzkrieg William L. Shirer spotted him as
'an American fascist' and suspected him of 'spying' on the other foreign
journalists 'for the Nazis.' Philip has never refuted the charge, and
only late in life did he make a tepid apology for his activities.
"Was he a Nazi agent, or simply a sympathizer like Charles Lindbergh? By
his own admission, he was bowled over by the uniforms, the leather
belts, the storm troopers, above all the gigantic Hitlerian rallies
staged by Albert Speer. Schulze, in a major discovery, has found that
Johnson felt something like 'a sexual thrill' when he watched the Nazis
burn and destroy a Polish village."
It would seem that architecture is the art that lends itself most the
task of the socialist transformation of society. Unlike painting or
music, architecture encloses us in our living and working circumstances.
We are part of it and it is part of us. If socialism would combine the
ethos of precapitalist hunting-and-gathering societies such as the kind
so admired by Engels and Benjamin Franklin alike with modern technology,
what more appropriate goal than to create the tipi of the future. The
tipi was the center of the tribe's social life, while it was a unique
artistic statement. The architecture of our socialist future will take
this paradigm to a higher level.
What is clear, however, is that architecture at the service of
capitalist profit is a very corrupting business. Whether characters like
Wright and Johnson were gargoyles to begin with, or were transformed in
the process of interacting with the corporations who paid them is almost
an academic question. What is not academic is the need to abolish the
system which shaped them.
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com