# data[].attributes.headline
How the Industrial Revolution changed the world

# data[].attributes.subject
How the Industrial Revolution changed the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Transcript

The Industrial Revolution was the transformation of economies dominated by agriculture and handicrafts to economies dominated by industry and machine manufacturing.
The process began in 18th-century Britain and slowly spread to other parts of the world.
The Industrial Revolution involved technological changes, including the novel use of materials like iron and steel, the intensified use of energy sources like coal and steam, and the use of new inventions like the spinning jenny; socioeconomic changes, including the introduction of the factory system and a wider distribution of wealth; and cultural changes, including the growth of cities and development of worker's rights movements.
But that wasn't all: the period was also marked by the devaluation of skilled work and by unsafe working conditions, long hours, and child labor.
The creation of entirely new industries meant there were little to no standards as to how new workers should be treated, and Arnold Toynbee, the English historian and reformer who popularized the term Industrial Revolution, even called it "a period as disastrous and as terrible as any through which a nation has ever passed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Industrial Revolution Changed the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about the Industrial Revolution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Crystal Palace and iron in architecture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eugène Viollet-le-Duc's Notre-Dame spire was much loved, but it was a fake. A modern replacement could become just as revered, says Tom Ravenscroft.

Notre-Dame Cathedral will be rebuilt. French president Emmanuel Macron has promised as much and the unprecedented donations, which stand at around €850 million, means that the will and the funds are in place. But the billion dollar question is: rebuild what?

The safest option would be to replace what was lost as faithfully as possible, using the closest available materials. Notre-Dame is one of the world's most recorded buildings and the data exists to recreate the cathedral almost exactly as it was, but in better condition with an enhanced structure and improved fire protection. The numerous problems - pressure to rebuild in time for the 2024 Olympics, availability of skilled craftspeople, finding 1,300 mature oak trees - would all be overcome.

Notre-Dame will be restored to its place at the heart of the French capital, but it can not be the same building as before the fire. Even if the cathedral is faithfully restored using materials and techniques from the appropriate time periods, they will be new materials and there is no escaping that it will be a replica.

Replicating what was there before was not the option taken by architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc when he restored the building 150 years ago, and it is not what we should do now.

Viollet-le-Duc chose not replicate the original, but instead to reinvent the building with a new design to better fit his architectural ideals

When Viollet-le-Duc took over the restoration of Notre-Dame cathedral in the mid 19th century, it was, as it is now, in a ruinous state. After centuries of decline, culminating in significant damage during the French Revolution, much of the fabric was disintegrating and the building, just like now, was missing its central spire.

The original 13th-century flèche had been removed 60 years earlier to prevent it from collapsing. Viollet-le-Duc chose not replicate the original, but instead to reinvent the building with a new design to better fit his architectural ideals. It was Viollet-le-Duc's gothic-inspired timber spirelet that was spectacularly lost in last week's devastating fire, and which people are now mourning.

Seven alternative spires for Notre-Dame Cathedral

His spire was something he believed the original builders would have created if they had the technology and the imagination. In his view it made Notre-Dame a more complete work of gothic architecture.

"To restore a building is not to preserve it, to repair, or rebuild it; it is to reinstate it in a condition of completeness which could never have existed at any given time," wrote Viollet-le-Duc in his book the Dictionnaire raisonné de l'architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle (Dictionary of French Architecture from 11th to 16th century).

Viollet-le-Duc's fake spike enhanced one of Paris' most-loved buildings, and became much loved itself. A modern design to replace Viollet-le-Duc's 19th century intervention could do the same.

We can be certain that if he had had to replace the entire 13th century timber roof in the mid 19th century, he would not have faithfully recreated the historic structure

Thanks to the work of the Paris firefighters, much of the gothic cathedral was saved. Most of the original fabric from the 12th, 13th and 14th century still remains. Notre-Dame's most important architectural features - its pioneering flying buttresses, which are early use of the structural technique - still stand, as does its iconic west front.

Faced with the current restoration, what would Viollet-le-Duc do? We can be certain that if he had had to replace the entire 13th-century timber roof in the mid-19th century, he would not have faithfully recreated the historic structure. As he did with his timber needle, he would have utilised modern techniques to create a roof that he believed best embodied gothic ideals, rather than a replica of what was lost.

"In such circumstances the best plan is to suppose one's self in the position of the original architect, and to imagine what he would do if he came back to the world and had the programme with which we have to deal laid before him," wrote Viollet-le-Duc.

Placed in charge of the current restoration, Viollet-le-Duc would not hesitate to build a new roof and spire. This seems to be the course that the French government is embarking on, with prime minister Edouard Philippe announcing a contest to design a new spire that will be "adapted to the techniques and the challenges of our era".

Concr3de proposes using 3D printing to rebuild Notre-Dame

Philippe describes the hunt for a new design as an "evolution of heritage". Just as Viollet-le-Duc added to and improved the cathedral in the 19th century, a contemporary architect should design the next stage of the building's evolution. Viollet-le-Duc was only 30 when he took over the restoration project, and ideally a young architect will design the cathedral's next chapter.

This does not mean that the essence of the cathedral should be lost, or that the new elements should dominate the medieval building - repairing the damaged stone vaults with glass would drench the cathedral in light, ruining its atmosphere and impact of the famous rose windows, while an overly tall tower would completely change the composition of the west face.

Following Viollet-le-Duc's example, the new spire and roof should have an eye on the past but be a design of the present, be based on gothic principles but interpreted with a modern eye.

Many people are already aghast at the proposed replacement spires that are emerging

This will be the most controversial option, given the cultural baggage the building carries and the expectation of donors who have pledged cash expecting restoration. Many people are already aghast at the proposed replacement spires that are emerging. As Viollet-le-Duc warned: "We must admit we are on slippery ground as soon as we deviate from literal reproduction; and that the adoption of such deviation should be reserved for extreme cases."

The combination of the country's most important building and a huge amount of donated money means Notre-Dame cathedral will be one of the most high-profile, most publicly scrutinised projects ever. And the donors, many of whom would have expected their money to be spent on a historically accurate restoration, may also be angered.

But high risk equals high reward. Paris has a history of taking occasional grand architectural leaps. These modern interventions, often into historic contexts, have often become the internationally recognised symbols of the city, none more so than the Eiffel Tower. This powerful 19th-century display of the engineering potential opened only 25 years after Viollet-le-Duc completed the restoration of Notre-Dame.

IM Pei's Pyramid at the Louvre and the Centre Pompidou are two more recent examples of the bold, modern interventions in the city. Building a modern spire at Notre-Dame would continue this tradition and could become just as loved as these monuments, or indeed Viollet-le-Duc's lost erection.

Visualisation is by David Deroo.
Join Dezeen's Notre-Dame Spire chat on Twitter, 15 May at 4 PM UK time with #dezeenchat ›

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Viollet-le-Duc would not hesitate to build a new roof and spire" says Tom Ravenscroft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eugène Viollet-le-Duc's Notre-Dame spire was much loved, but it was a fake. A modern replacement could become just as revered, says Tom Ravenscroft.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The end of the First World War did not mark the end of struggle in Europe. France, as the primary location of the conflict's Western Front, suffered heavy losses in both manpower and industrial productivity; the resulting economic instability would plague the country well into the 1920s.[1] It was in the midst of these uncertain times that the French would signal their intention to look not to their recent troubled past, but to a brighter and more optimistic future. This signal came in the form of the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes (International Exposition of Decorative Arts and Modern Industries) of 1925 - a landmark exhibition which both gave rise to a new international style and, ultimately, provided its name: Art Deco.

World's Fairs were not necessarily new in Europe. Since 1851's seminal Great Exhibition in London's Crystal Palace, a multitude of similar fairs drew millions of visitors. This tradition was abruptly cut short by the outbreak of World War One, an interruption that would last until the British Empire Exhibition of 1924.[2] Planning for the International Exposition actually began in 1911, but debate over exhibitor criteria and, eventually, the war would delay the opening until April of 1925.[3]

The Exposition occupied 57 acres in central Paris, stretching from the Esplanade des Invalides across the Pont Alexandre III to the entrances of the Grand Palais and the Petit Palais.[4] Two-thirds of the allotted land was set aside for various French pavilions; the rest was made available to the other participating nations, most of which were European. Germany was notably unrepresented, as lingering tensions from the war meant they were not invited to join the Exposition until it was too late to organize a national pavilion. The United States was also absent, due to a lack of designers whose work met the requirements laid out for display submissions.[5]

It was these requirements that would set the 1925 Exposition apart from its forebears. The stipulation that ultimately disqualified American participation was that no design could be based on historical styles - everything was required to be exclusively modern. Though it was hoped that the Exposition would reflect the life of the common person, most products displayed were designer goods aimed at the wealthy elite.[6]

As a result of these same requirements, a variety of contemporary architectural styles were utilized in the Exposition's many pavilions. The pavilion for the nascent Soviet Union, designed by Konstantin Melnikov, was an angular red and white monument to Russian Constructivism realized in wood and glass. The Dutch pavilion, designed by J.F. Staal, was an Expressionist building composed of red brick. Victor Horta 's design for the Belgian pavilion, meanwhile, eschewed the florid Art Nouveau style for which he was known in favor of a stepped, rectilinear structure more in line with the majority of the French pavilions.[7]

Despite the presence of these alternative styles, and even a few historicist entries that defied the fair's guidelines, it was French art moderne that would feature most prominently at the Exposition. Though it was already popular in France by 1925, the Exposition was the first time that this style would be introduced to an international audience. The global influence of the fair was unmistakable in the following decades; in 1966, another Parisian exhibition would rename the style Art Deco in honor of the Exposition that had popularized it.[8]

Art Deco, despite its innate glorification of-and preoccupation with-modernity, was not Modernist in the strict definition of the term. It was not founded upon principles of rationalist engineering or scientific efficiency, instead using motifs and symbols of modernity as a decorative statement. This differentiated it not only from foreign schools like Constructivism and the Bauhaus, but even from the International Style supported by France's own Le Corbusier.[9] This difference was readily apparent in Le Corbusier 's L'Esprit Nouveau Pavilion, a model apartment that demonstrated his ruthlessly efficient 'machine à habiter' without the stylization which defined Art Deco.[10]

Due to its ornamental nature, it is perhaps unsurprising that the most prominent Art Deco structures at the Exposition were not those of architects or countries, but of French businesses and decorative artists. Several notable Parisian department stores-including the Galeries Lafayette, Le Bon Marché, and Le Printemps-set up elaborate pavilions intended to lure attendees in to admire rooms furnished and decorated with consumer products. The exterior façades of these pavilions utilized several common Art Deco motifs, including stylized floral elements, stepped forms, sunbursts, and zigzags. Representatives from various applied and decorative arts employed similar tactics, from book publishers to famed glassmaker René Lalique; the latter had also designed a massive tiered, obelisk Fontaine Lumineuse (Luminous Fountain) with molded-glass caryatids that stood at the center of a neighboring square.[11]

The most acclaimed pavilion at the Exposition was the showcase for an individual artist, furniture designer Jacques-Emile Ruhlmann. Designed by Pierre Patout, the Hôtel d'un Collectionneur (House for an Art Collector) consisted of a suite of elegantly-decorated rooms laid out around an ovular Grand Salon at the center. These opulent interiors were contained in a stepped, largely rectilinear building decorated with classical bas-reliefs depicting dancers. Critics admired the elegant modernization of traditional forms which, when paired with the luxurious interiors, ultimately earned the hôtel a reputation as one of the greatest achievements of French Art Deco.[12,13]

During its six month run, the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs attracted roughly sixteen million visitors, creating massive international demand for the style to which it ultimately lent its name. In accordance with the organizer's aims, the Exposition also established France as the arbiter of taste and fashion in the interwar era; Paris itself was put on display as the world's most fashionable city.[14] But the ramifications of the Exposition Internationale would spread far beyond Paris. Though several similar world's fairs would follow in subsequent years (including two more in Paris in 1931 and 1937), none would have such a resounding impact as the one which took place in 1925. Time would eventually move past the frenzy of Art Deco that followed the 1925 Exposition, giving way to Modernism in the wake of the Second World War - but no single event would ever have such a profound effect on global design sensibilities ever again.[15]

References
[1] Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "France", accessed August 09, 2016, [access].
[2] Rydell, Robert W. World of Fairs: The Century-of-progress Expositions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993. p3. Raizman, David Seth. History of Modern Design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2004. p155.
[4] Poulin, Richard. Graphic Design and Architecture, a 20th Century History. Beverly, Mass: Rockport Publishers, 2012. p86.
[5] Windover, Michael. Art Deco: A Mode of Mobility. Québec: Presses De L'Université Du Québec, 2012. p120.
[6] Raizman, p155.
[7] Bayer, Patricia. Art Deco Architecture: Design, Decoration, and Detail from the Twenties and Thirties. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1992. p38-40.
[8] Bayer, p12-37.
[9] Pile, John F. A History of Interior Design. New York: Wiley, 2000. p349.|
[10] Bayer, p21-22.
[11] Bayer, p38-46.
[12] "Art Deco: The 1925 Paris Exhibition." Victoria and Albert Museum. Accessed August 9, 2016. [access].
[13] Bayer, p39.
[14] "Art Deco: The 1925 Paris Exhibition."
[15] Bayer, p37-38.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AD Classics: Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes / Various Architects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Completed in 1925 in Paris, France. The end of the First World War did not mark the end of struggle in Europe. France, as the primary location of the conflict's Western Front, suffered...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stoclet House

When banker and art collector Adolphe Stoclet commissioned this house from one of the leading architects of the Vienna Secession movement, Josef Hoffmann, in 1905, he imposed neither aesthetic nor financial restrictions on the project. The house and garden were completed in 1911 and their austere geometry marked a turning point in Art Nouveau, foreshadowing Art Deco and the Modern Movement in architecture. Stoclet House is one of the most accomplished and homogenous buildings of the Vienna Secession, and features works by Koloman Moser and Gustav Klimt, embodying the aspiration of creating a 'total work of art' (Gesamtkunstwerk). Bearing testimony to artistic renewal in European architecture, the house retains a high level of integrity, both externally and internally as it retains most of its original fixtures and furnishings.

Description is available under license CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0

Palais Stoclet

Le Palais a été conçu en 1905 à la demande du banquier et collectionneur Adolphe Stoclet par l'un des chefs de file du mouvement artistique de la Sécession viennoise, l'architecte Josef Hoffman. Ce dernier a pu travailler sans limite financière ou esthétique. Avec leur géométrisme épuré, le palais et le jardin (terminés en 1911) marquent un changement radical au sein de l'Art nouveau, changement qui annonce l'Art déco et le mouvement moderniste en architecture. Le Palais Stoclet est une des réalisations les plus abouties de la Sécession viennoise. Il abrite des œuvres de Koloman Moser et de Gustav Klimt, liées à la conception du Gesamtkunstwerk (architecture, sculpture, peinture et arts décoratifs s'intègrent dans une même œuvre). Le Palais témoigne du renouveau artistique de l'architecture européenne et présente un haut niveau d'intégrité dans ses dimensions d'architecture extérieure, d'architecture et de décoration intérieures, avec des meubles et objets originaux.

Description is available under license CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0

اسْتوكلِت هاوس

عندما قرر المصرفي ومُجمّع التحف الفنية، أدولف اسْتوكلِت، تكليف أحد أبرز المهندسين المعماريين المنضمين إلى حركة الانفصال الفنية في فيينا، وهو جوزيف هوفمان، في عام 1905، ببناء هذا القصر، فإنه لم يفرض أية قيود جمالية أو مالية لتنفيذ مشروع البناء. وقد اُستكمِل بناء القصر وإقامة الحديقة الملحقة به في عام 1911. ويُعد التصميم الهندسي للقصر والحديقة، الذي يخلو من أي زينة، نقطة تحول في حركة الفن الجديد التي مهدّت السبيل لظهور طراز "الأرت ديكو" والحركة الحديثة في الفن المعماري. ويُعتبر اسْتوكلِت هاوس أحد أكثر الأبنية اكتمالاً وتجانساً التي تتماشى مع أسلوب حركة الانفصال الفنية في فيينا، كما أنه يُبرز أعمال كولومان موسير وجوستاف كليمت، من خلال تجسيد الطموحات الرامية إلى خلق "عمل فني تام" (Gesamtkunstwerk). وما زال هذا القصر، الذي يشهد على حركة فنية تجديدية في الهندسة المعمارية الأوروبية، سليم البنيان إلى حد بعيد، من الداخل والخارج على السواء، حيث بقت معظم عناصره الثابتة وأثاثه على حالها الأصلية.

source: UNESCO/ERI
Description is available under license CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0

Palacio Stoclet

En 1905, cuando Adolphe Stoclet, banquero y coleccionista de obras de arte, encargó la construcción de este edificio a Josef Hoffmann, uno de los arquitectos más destacados del movimiento denominado Secesión de Viena, no le impuso condiciones estéticas ni financieras de ningún tipo. La finalización en 1911 de este palacio y su jardín, caracterizados por su geometría austera, fue un momento decisivo en la historia del Art Nouveau que anunciaba ya la arquitectura del Art Déco y el Movimiento Modernista. El Palacio Stoclet es una de las edificaciones más logradas y homogéneas de la Secesión de Viena, cuenta con obras de Koloman Moser y Gustav Klimt, y encarna la ambición de crear la "obra de arte total" (Gesamtkunstwerk), en la que arquitectura, escultura, pintura y artes decorativas se integran en una misma obra. Este edificio es un testimonio de la renovación artística de la arquitectura europea. Su estado de conservación es excepcional, ya que se han preservado intactas la mayoría de las instalaciones y del mobiliario originales.

source: UNESCO/ERI
Description is available under license CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0

ストックレー邸

銀行家で美術品収集家でもあるアドルフ・ストックレーは、1905年、邸宅の建築をウィーン分離派運動の先駆的建築家ジョセフ・ホフマンに依頼した。芸術的にも金銭的にも制約を受けることなく、邸宅と庭園は1911年に完成した。単純化された幾何学的な設計はアールヌーボーの転換点として注目され、アールデコや建築におけるモダニズム運動の端緒となった。邸宅はウィーン分離派の最も完全で均整のとれた建築のひとつで、"総合芸術"の確立を目指したコロマン・モーゼルやグスタフ・クリムトの作風が取り込まれている。ほとんどの設備や家具什器が当時のまま残されており、外観・内装ともに全体が良好に維持されている。

source: NFUAJ

Stoclet huis

Bankier en kunstverzamelaar Adolphe Stoclet gaf in 1905 Josef Hoffmann - een van de belangrijkste architecten van de Weense Secessie-beweging - de opdracht dit huis te bouwen. Het huis en de tuin werden voltooid in 1911 en hun strakke geometrie betekende een keerpunt in de Art Nouveau en een voorbode van de Art Deco en de Moderne Beweging in de architectuur. Het Stoclet huis - met werk van Koloman Moser en Gustav Klimt - is een van de meest succesvolle gebouwen van de Weense Secessie. Het belichaamt het streven naar een 'totaal kunstwerk' (Gesamtkunstwerk) en getuigt daarmee van artistieke vernieuwing in de Europese architectuur.

Source: unesco.nl

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When banker and art collector Adolphe Stoclet commissioned this house from one of the leading architects of the Vienna Secession movement, Josef Hoffmann, in 1905, he imposed neither aesthetic nor financial ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Outstanding Universal Value
Brief synthesis
The Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta - Hotel Tassel (1893), Hotel Solvay (1894), Hotel van Eetvelde (1895) and the House and Workshop of Victor Horta - located in Brussels, are outstanding examples of Art Nouveau. These four houses, that bear testimony to the immense talent of this Belgian architect, achieve a remarkable sense of unity with meticulous attention to the smallest detail of the building, from the door handle or bell to the least piece of furniture.

Horta, one of the earliest instigators, heralded the modern movement of Art Nouveau architecture. The stylistic revolution represented by these works is characterised by their open plan, diffusion and transformation of light throughout the construction, the creation of a decor that brilliantly illustrates the curved lines of decoration embracing the structure of the building, the use of new materials (steel and glass) and the introduction of modern technical utilities. Through the rational use of the metallic structures, often visible or subtly dissimulated, Victor Horta conceived flexible, light and airy living areas, directly adapted to the personality of their inhabitants.

The principle of a double house connected by a glass-covered circulation area is adopted for the Hotel Tassel and the Hotel van Eetvelde. This area, that generally contains a winter garden, is enchantingly represented at the Hotel Solvay, the most ambitious and spectacular work of Horta in the Art Nouveau period. The staircase of its house-workshop is decorated and enjoys this type of particularly elegant arrangement. The interior decors benefitted from surprising inventiveness, with the motifs flowing smoothly from the mosaic floor to the painted walls, including the wrought iron work and the custom furniture.

These four houses revived the tradition of the Bourgeois houses and private mansions of the 19th century, combining residential and representational functions which require a subtle organization of spaces and differentiated circulation. Revisited by the creative genius of Victor Horta, each one of them represents the personality of their owners and forms a coherent ensemble that illustrates the willingness to treat the architecture and decoration as a whole.

Criterion (i): The Major Town Houses of Architect Victor Horta in Brussels are works of human creative genius, representing the highest expression of the influential Art Nouveau style in art and architecture.

Criterion (ii): The appearance of Art Nouveau in the closing years of the 19th century marked a decisive stage in the evolution of architecture in the West, prefiguring subsequent developments, and the Town Houses of Victor Horta in Brussels bear exceptional witness to its radical new approach.

Criterion (iv): The Major Town Houses of Architect Victor Horta in Brussels are outstanding examples of Art Nouveau architecture brilliantly illustrating the transition from the 19th to the 20th century in art, thought and society.
Integrity
Among the Art Nouveau buildings executed by Victor Horta that have been preserved, this group of four houses stands out due to its quality and its good state of conservation. Through their circulation plan and layout, their luminosity and their decor, they each possess stylistic and technical attributes that highlight the different facets of the creative genius of their architect, a pioneer of Art Nouveau who revolutionised the art of living at the turn of the 20th century.

These buildings are protected as monuments, which guarantee the maintenance of their characteristics. They present all the necessary characteristics to express their Outstanding Universal Value and their role in the history of Western architecture. Indeed, they have undergone very little modification over time, and well-documented careful restoration programmes have enabled the restoration of the integrity of the building when it had been altered by earlier developments, as was the case for the house-workshop of Horta at the Hotel Tassel.
Authenticity
In addition to their outstanding architectural quality, the four town houses in question are well preserved and retain a high degree of authenticity due to the prodigious care of their owners, long convinced of the exceptional interest of their homes. Despite the changes made to the Hotel Tassel, the authenticity of the design, materials and their implementation remains high, while the authenticity of their environment remains entire. Each of the buildings has undergone a change of use, becoming offices (Hotels Tassel and van Edtvelde) or museum (Hotel Solvay and house-workshop of Horta). At the Hotel Solvay, the authenticity of design, materials and their implementation is outstandingly high. Only the authenticity of the environment has undergone change, as the Avenue Louise, elegant residential boulevard of the era, has become a major artery of the city where, under pressure of property development, big office blocks have been built. The authenticity of the Hotel van Eetvelde and the house-workshop of Horta remains high. The authenticity of the district of the Hotel van Eetvelde is extremely high due to excellent environmental protection.

Restoration campaigns undertaken over the last 40 years have been executed according to recognized conservation practices (1964 Venice Charter and ICOMOS Charter of 1987). Since inscription on the World Heritage List, several exemplary campaigns for restoration and recovery of space have been carried out at the house-workshop of Horta, to restore the ensemble of original attributes of the building.
Protection and management requirements
The group of buildings is listed as monuments. Written information on any interventions on these properties must be addressed to the Direction of Monuments and Sites prior to their execution and, with exception, be the subject of a specific procedure following the procedures set by the Brussels Code for Territorial Development (COBAT). In the framework of this procedure, the Royal Commission of Monuments and Sites issues a binding opinion on the project. The preparation of the urbanism permit and the work site are followed by the Direction of Monuments and Sites that manages the concession of regional grants destined to cover a part of the restoration and maintenance costs of the properties, up to 80% of the total cost of the work.

The Government of the Region of Brussels-Capitale provided an important financial contribution and scientific and administrative support to the restoration and maintenance campaigns of the House and Workshop of Victor Horta as well as towards the arrangement of the Visitor Welcome Centre.

Several studies and research concerning the buildings constructed by Horta and included in the framework of restoration campaigns or independent of these, enable the overall understanding of the work of Horta and the techniques implemented.

The integrated furniture and facilities of the Hotel Solvay are listed, with the exception of the non-fixed furniture and works of art, which are original. In order to fully preserve in situ the exceptionally complete furniture heritage, an inventory has been established together with the owner.

The resurfacing of the Avenue Louise, activity requiring major work on one of the most important axes of circulation of the capital, has already been envisaged in theory during incidence studies, but proves to be particularly difficult to carry out under present conditions.

As the buildings inscribed are private properties, the management plans have not yet been established. For the Horta Museum, which is the only building widely open to the public, a master plan is employed to guide the projected restorations and interventions. A development project for the visitor centre in the neighbouring house is underway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta (Brussels)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The four major town houses - Hôtel Tassel, Hôtel Solvay, Hôtel van Eetvelde, and Maison & Atelier Horta - located in Brussels and designed by the architect Victor Horta, one of the earliest ...

# data[].attributes.headline
International Exhibition... Paris 1925 (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
International Exhibition... Paris 1925 (video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A305/11: The International Exhibition of Decorative Arts Paris 1925

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Futurists celebrated the modern city. Rejecting historicism and seeking to revolutionize urban life, architects Mario Chiattone and Antonio Sant'Elia proposed utopian visions for cities of the future in two series of drawings: Buildings for a Modern Metropolis and Città Nuova (both 1914). Embracing new materials and industrial methods that would alleviate the need for internal load-bearing systems, these designs feature soaring, narrow structures outfitted with thin, lightweight facades. External elevators and viaducts shoot up the spare, windowless planes. The Futurist emphasis on speed is accommodated by unimpeded transportation systems, including facilities for both air and rail travel (see Sant'Elia's Station for Trains and Airplanes and Tullio Crali's later plan for a similar center). While Chiattone never defined himself as a Futurist, Sant'Elia outlined the goals of this style in a text that was subsequently edited by Marinetti and issued as "Futurist Architecture: Manifesto" (1914). These early forays into architecture stressed rhetoric rather than execution and pictorial imaginings took precedence over the specifics of implementation. Sant'Elia died in World War I in 1916 and Chiattone moved in another direction, and their Futurist designs were never built.

By the 1930s, the Fascist state was erecting new public buildings in the clean, spare parlance of Rationalism or the Stile Littorio (which references classical Roman architecture). Neither the complex modern metropolis envisioned by architects such as Chiattone and Sant'Elia nor the theatrical urban buildings dreamed up by Virgilio Marchi were realized. Their successor, Alberto Sartoris (a dedicated Fascist), also built few of his designs, and he vacillated between Futurism and Rationalism, exhibiting the same plans under both banners. While he aligned himself with Futurism conceptually, he leaned toward functionalist aesthetics. Sartoris's axonometric projections eschew superfluous forms in favor of structures that alternate massed volumes with empty space. Crali, better known as a visual artist, also imagined modern envelopes for practical structures, as in his multipurpose Sea Air Rail Terminal. Among the few Futurist structures to be built were temporary ones for fairs, such as those conceived by the multifaceted artist Enrico Prampolini.

Please note that Annex Levels 5 and 7 (see Museum Map), which contain Benedetta's murals and major works by Giacomo Balla and Fortunato Depero, close August 20.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Italian Futurism, 1909-1944: Reconstructing the Universe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first comprehensive overview of Italian Futurism to be presented in the United States, this multidisciplinary exhibition examines the historical sweep of the movement from its inception with F. T. Marinetti's Futurist manifesto in 1909 through its demise at the end of World War II.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Expressionism? Art Movements & Styles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Russian Avant-Garde | HOW TO SEE the art movement with MoMA curator Roxana Marcoci

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A leap into space: Malevich's Suprematist Composition | Christie's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
​​A close look at a 1916 Suprematist canvas by Malevich that revolutionised modern art and that looks set to break the world auction record for the artist -​ offered on 15 May at Christie's in New York​ | Christie's'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first actual exhibition of suprematist paintings was in December 1915 in St Petersburg, at an exhibition called O.10. The exhibition included thirty-five abstract paintings by Kazimir Malevich, among them the famous black square on a white ground (The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow) which headed the list of his works in the catalogue.

In 1927 Malevich published his book The Non-Objective World, one of the most important theoretical documents of abstract art. In it he wrote: 'In the year 1913, trying desperately to free art from the dead weight of the real world, I took refuge in the form of the square.' Out of the 'suprematist square' as he called it, Malevich developed a whole range of forms including rectangles, triangles and circles often in intense and beautiful colours. These forms are floated against a usually white ground, and the feeling of colour in space in suprematist painting is a crucial aspect of it.

Suprematism was one of the key movements of modernist art. After the rise of Stalin from 1924 and the imposition of socialist realism, Malevich's career languished. In his last years before his death in 1935 he painted figurative pictures. In 1919 the artist El Lissitzky met Malevich and was strongly influenced by suprematism, as was the Hungarian born Laszlo Moholy-Nagy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tate glossary definition for suprematism: Name given by the Russian artist Kasimir Malevich to the abstract art he developed from 1913 characterised by basic geometric forms, such as circles and lines, painted in a limited range of colours

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vladimir Tatlin, in full Vladimir Yevgrafovich Tatlin, (born December 16 [December 28, New Style], 1885, Kharkov, Russian Empire [now in Ukraine]-died May 31, 1953, Moscow, Russia, U.S.S.R.), Ukrainian painter, sculptor, and architect remembered for his visionary "Monument to the Third International" in Moscow, 1920.

Tatlin was educated at the Moscow Academy of Fine Arts, graduating in 1910. Late in 1913 he went to Paris, where he visited Pablo Picasso, whose reliefs in sheet iron, wood, and cardboard made a deep impression on him. Returning to Moscow, Tatlin created constructions that he called "painting reliefs," which he exhibited at a Futurist exhibition held in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg) in February 1915. He became the leader of a group of Moscow artists who tried to apply engineering techniques to the construction of sculpture. This developed into a movement known as Constructivism.

This type of avant-garde art continued for a brief period after the Russian Revolution of 1917, during which time Tatlin created his most famous work-the " Monument to the Third International," which was one of the first buildings conceived entirely in abstract terms. It was commissioned in 1919 by the department of fine arts and exhibited in the form of a model 22 feet (6.7 metres) high at the exhibition of the VIII Congress of the Soviets in December 1920. A striking design, it consisted of a leaning spiral iron framework supporting a glass cylinder, a glass cone, and a glass cube, each of which could be rotated at different speeds. The monument's interior would have contained halls for lectures, conferences, and other activities. The monument was to be the world's tallest structure-more than 1,300 feet (396 metres) tall-but it was never built owing to the Soviet government's disapproval of nonfigurative art.

About 1927 Tatlin began experimentation with a glider that resembled a giant insect. The glider, which he called Letatlin, never flew, but it engaged his interest throughout his later life. After 1933 he worked largely as a stage designer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vladimir Tatlin | Constructivist, Monument to 3rd International & Suprematism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vladimir Tatlin, Ukrainian painter, sculptor, and architect remembered for his visionary "Monument to the Third International" in Moscow, 1920. Tatlin was educated at the Moscow Academy of Fine Arts, graduating in 1910. Late in 1913 he went to Paris, where he visited Pablo Picasso, whose reliefs in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A New American Architecture: Frank Lloyd Wright and the Prairie Style

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frank Lloyd Wright | HOW TO SEE the "American Home" with Matthew Skjonsberg and Michael Osman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to the Rietveld Schröder House.

Designed in 1924. A private residence until 1985.
Architectural highlight of De Stijl and iconic
landmark in Utrecht.

In 1924, Truus Schröder asked well-known Utrecht furniture designer Gerrit Rietveld to design a new house for her. A recently widowed mother of three, she wanted a dwelling completely attuned to her - and to her unconventional ideas about what a home should be. Having worked with Rietveld in the past, she knew his disdain for tradition. It was a match made in heaven.

Schröder played an important role in the design process. She knew exactly what she wanted: simplicity and a space that freed rather than constrained her.

Until then, Rietveld had created mainly furniture and scale models. His renowned Red and Blue Chair, for example, was designed around 1919. Never before had he been asked to design an entire house.

For Rietveld, Schröder's project was a dream come true. He pulled out all the stops, trying out new ideas in keeping with De Stijl.

De Stijl was a Dutch artistic movement named after an eponymous modern art magazine first published in 1917. Rietveld was one of the movement's leading exponents.

The Rietveld Schröder House is an embodiment of De Stijl.

Characteristic features include the fluid transitions between interior and exterior, the clean horizontal and vertical lines and the use of all primary colours, alongside white, grey and black.

Rietveld's ideal house was spacious, simple and functional. He came up with all kinds of clever solutions to achieve this.

One such idea involved sliding walls on the first floor. By day, this was an open space, but in the evening, the Schröder family could split it up into three separate rooms. There was one room for the daughters, another for the son, and a living room with a table and stove, giving everyone some privacy.

Another of Rietveld's clever ideas was the iconic corner window on the top floor. Both the large window and the small one perpendicular to it swing open, dissolving the corner to make it feel like one is outdoors.

The staircase is concealed behind a sliding door. This created a quiet spot for the telephone in the hallway and also served to shut out the cold.

Rietveld sought to make the most of the space in and around the house. He did this by incorporating three-dimensionality - height, width and depth - in all facets of the design. Take this lamp, for example.

And do you see the three-dimensionality of his famous Red and Blue Chair?

This chair has become a symbol of De Stijl and is the epitome of functionality, consisting of only 15 beechwood slats and 2 rectangular panels.

Rietveld Schröder House is on Prins Hendriklaan in Utrecht. Back in 1924, it was on the outskirts of the city. Quite literally so, because it looked out on nothing but a vast polder landscape on one side. This beautiful view played a pivotal part in the design.

Truus Schröder lived in the house from 1925 until her death in 1985. Initially with her three children, later with Gerrit Rietveld.

Her favourite spot in the house was the first floor, where she had the best view of the polder landscape and felt as if a weight had been lifted from her. Because she spent so much time there, Rietveld installed a speaking tube that let her talk to visitors at the door without going downstairs.

Rietveld Schröder House Foundation

At her death, Truus Schröder left the management of the house to the Rietveld Schröder House Foundation and the Centraal Museum.

To this day, visitors from every corner of the globe can continue to enjoy this seminal work of art.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the Rietveld Schröder House. Designed in 1924. A private residence until 1985.Architectural highlight of De Stijl and iconiclandmark in Utrecht. In 1924, Truus Schröder asked well-known Utrecht furniture designer Gerrit Rietveld to design a new house for her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After World War I, the Expressionist movement in Eastern Europe gained momentum as a response to the horrors of war. Soon after, Neue Sachlichkeit, or New Objectivity, was responding to Expressionism as a way to bring the people back down to reality and away from the decadence that came with the utopian views of Expressionism. New Objectivity was pioneered by a variety of architects including Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Peter Behrens, and Bruno Taut. The term "Neue Sachlichkeit" quickly became loaded with socio-political connotations involving socialism, and thus the Bauhaus and projects such as the Deutscher Werkbund Weissenhofsiedlung became an integral part of the movement.

The Weissenhofsiedlung and the Bauhaus helped create a more definitive style for the Neue Sachlichkeit. Dressed in simple exteriors of mostly steel framing, glazed concrete, and glass, as seen in figure 1. When compared to an Expressionist building, such as the Einstein Tower in figure 2, the differences become immediately obvious, down to the very form of the building. In doing away with the lavish decor and non-geometric structures of Expressionism, the housing units could be produced more quickly and cheaply allowing for mass housing projects to begin to take their foothold in society via prefabrication methods, leading to some of the first modernist apartment complexes. This helped the housing crisis still present in Germany after World War I immensely, as many of the renowned architects' focus had shifted to cheap, efficient, and public. Furthermore, this simplistic and almost minimalist style eventually led to the development of what is known as the International Style.

With the rise of Nazism, the Neue Sachlichkeit quickly lost its foothold in Germany. The eradication of the social welfare system of the Weimar Republic and the forced emigration of the architects by the Nazis for being deemed socialist, the movement faded and soon after ended. Its legacy, however, is not forgotten between the contributions to social housing, the road it paved for the International Style, as well as the beginnings of modern urban planning. Furthermore, by being such a fundamental force behind the Bauhaus, Neue Sachlichkeit's importance in not only an architectural context, but in a broad artistic context is not to be understated. Focusing on architecture, it is clear that it was precisely Neue Sachlichkeit that allowed for Functionalism to evolve and grow to rapidly and take such a firm hold on modern architecture.

-SR

Featured Image: Veit Mueller & Martin Losberger, Weissenhod-Luftbild-2004.01. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. Available from: Wikimedia, link (accessed November 24, 2015)

Figure 1: Jason Karaian, Le Corbusier Corner, Wiessenhofsiedlung, December 9, 2008. Available from: Flickr, link (accessed November 24, 2015)

Figure 2: Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, Einsteinturm 7443, September 22, 2005. Licensed under Copyrighted free use via Wikimedia Commons. Available from: Wikimedia, link (accessed November 24, 2015)

Notes:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After World War I, the Expressionist movement in Eastern Europe gained momentum as a response to the horrors of war. Soon after, Neue Sachlichkeit, or New Objectivity, was responding to Expressionism as a way to bring the people back down to reality and away from the decadence that came with the utopian views of Expressionism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back to all Styles

The New Objectivity ( Neue Sachlichkeit) emerged as a style in Germany in the 1920s as a challenge to Expressionism. As its name suggests, it offered a return to unsentimental reality and a focus on the objective world, as opposed to the more abstract, romantic, or idealistic tendencies of Expressionism. The style is most often associated with portraiture, and its leading practitioners included Max Beckmann, Otto Dix, and George Grosz. Their mercilessly naturalistic depictions, sometimes reminiscent of the meticulous processes of the Old Masters, frequently portrayed Weimar society in a caustically satirical manner.

The style's name comes from a groundbreaking exhibition organized by curator Gustav Hartlaub in Mannheim in 1925. Hartlaub's original title for the exhibition was Post-Expressionism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MoMA | German Expressionism Styles: New Objectivity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was a shining star of German avant-garde architecture when he joined the Bauhaus as its director. This post enabled the architect to devote his energy to teaching for the first time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was a shining star of German avant-garde architecture when he joined the Bauhaus as its director. This post enabled the architect to devote his energy to teaching for the first time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lyonel Feininger (Illustration), Walter Gropius (Author) Manifesto and programme of the State Bauhaus, April 1919, with illustration "Cathedral" illustration by Lyonel Feininger, 1919 Bauhaus-Archiv Berlin © VG Bild-Kunst Bonn

The Bauhaus only existed for 14 years: from 1919 to 1933. Despite this, it became the twentieth century's most important college of architecture, design and art. For political reasons, fresh starts had to be made repeatedly in Weimar, Dessau and Berlin, but under its three directors - Walter Gropius, Hannes ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bauhaus - Bauhaus-Archiv | Museum für Gestaltung, Berlin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Bauhaus only existed for 14 years: from 1919 to 1933. Despite this, it became the twentieth century's most important college of architecture, design and art. For political reasons, fresh starts had to be made repeatedly in Weimar, Dessau and Berlin, but under its three directors - Walter Gropius, Hannes ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Espacios. Prog 5. Bauhaus. Aires Socialistas. Hannes Meyer en México.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Contact | Copyright | Links | Credits | Mailing list | Plan du site |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier, an Outstanding Contribution to the Modern Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chosen from the work of Le Corbusier, the 17 sites comprising this transnational serial property are spread over seven countries and are a testimonial to the invention of a new architectural language that made a…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Held in 1933 on a ship in the Mediterranian, the fourth CIAM congress and Le Corbusier's subsequent Athens Charter (La Charte d'Athenes) are widely regarded as a defining period in Modernist urban planning, a moment when architects came to an agreement on what the future of our cities should look like. But how correct is this interpretation? Edited by Evelien van Es, Gregor Harbusch, Bruno Maurer, Muriel Perez, Kees Somer and Daniel Weiss, a significant new 480-page book, "Atlas of the Functional City - CIAM 4 and Comparative Urban Analysis" examines the congress in depth. In the following excerpt from the book's introduction, Daniel Weiss, Gregor Harbusch and Bruno Maurer examine the commonly accepted history of the congress, finding that support for the underlying principles of Modernism was perhaps not so unanimous after all.

Few texts in the history of architecture have become established in the collective consciousness - even for a wider audience - in the way that La Charte d'Athenes has. After the Second World War, it was practically regarded as a bible for up-to-date urban planning; since the 1960s at the latest, however, it has increasingly become synonymous with a technocratic, profit-oriented and inhumane form of urban development that led - even before the renewal of interest in the compact, mixed-usage city - to a comprehensive discrediting of modernism in urban planning and its methodological approaches and aims. The fact that the charter is only one specific appropriation and interpretation - by Le Corbusier - of the conclusions of the fourth CIAM congress and that it was first published ten years after the conference itself is more than a mere footnote in publication history in this context. Le Corbusier's initiatives and independent manoeuvres had already repeatedly triggered severe personal disputes and arguments over matters of content inside the Congres Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM), ever since the organization's founding congress in La Sarraz in 1928. The charter, as a publicity seeking manifesto condensed into the form of specific instructions for action, concealed not only the variety of opinions that existed inside the CIAM regarding the challenges of urban development, but also in particular the deliberately open-ended process of analysis with which the organization had been attempting to approach the topic of the city collectively since 1930.

The fourth CIAM congress, held from 29 July to 31 August 1933 under the title "The Functional City" aboard the liner Patris II during a voyage from Marseilles to Athens and back, was intended as a "first stage" in obtaining "an insight into the organization of today's cities and their generally recognized deficits", on the basis of case studies. The 34 urban analyses, which were prepared by the CIAM's individual national groups over many months of work and in accordance with standardized requirements, were intended to provide an initial basis for common discussion and comparative analysis. It was only in the course of subsequent meetings that a "synthesis", formulating specific measures or even deducing a specific urban model, was to be sought - as the guidelines and the official conclusions of the fourth congress clearly show. Although the CIAM never ultimately achieved this goal, the term "CIAM 4" - filtered through La Charte d'Athenes and its unusually hasty reception - generally came to stand for the promises, and even more for the failures, of modern urban planning.

Despite various studies that have painted a more complex picture in recent years, CIAM 4 is even today still primarily associated with a functionalist turn in urban planning - namely, with the demand for a strict and schematic spatial separation of the four functions of housing, working, recreation and traffic. This CIAM "functionalism", it is argued, led, after the revolutionary transformation of the cities caused by industrialization and after the devastation of the Second World War, to further destruction of the intact body of the city and to the development of lifeless, monofunctional zones. What the conclusions of the fourth congress actually focused on, however, was precisely the "interplay" between the individual functional parts of the city. In the context of an integrated approach, the four categories were only conceived as analytical aids, rather than as a set of specific instructions for the design process.
Qualifying the Impact of CIAM 4
In many studies, the extent to which CIAM and the fourth congress actually influenced the practice of modern urban planning has been considerably relativized. When the extent of its influence is being assessed, the self-promotion engaged in by the major figures involved must not be underestimated - since the verbal and pictorial propaganda was in the hands of experienced professionals in the field of discourse hegemony, networking and image production such as Sigfried Giedion, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius and Josep Lluís Sert. They tirelessly took every opportunity to invoke the uniqueness and worldwide significance of the meeting. A paradigmatic paper presented at the first Delos Symposium in 1963, for example - a conference that deliberately continued on from the CIAM both in its content and form - stated quite boldly that the conclusions of CIAM 4 had "directly and indirectly been incorporated into most subsequent town planning legislation, particularly in Europe and many of the 'emerging nations'". The timing and venue for the fourth CIAM congress have also surely contributed a great deal to the way in which it has been almost mystically transfigured: a liner voyaging across the Mediterranean towards Athens, the cradle of civilization and the epitome of the European polis; a closed retreat in which the avant-garde were able to meet and seek reassurance, at the turning-point between the wars as events moved towards the forms of totalitarianism that led to the catastrophe of the Second World War. Hundreds of surviving photographs illustrate the concentrated working atmosphere on board the ship and the enthusiasm for the ancient monuments and vernacular buildings of Greece. The intensity of all these different moments is reflected in extremely lively descriptions of the occasion in the specialist journals and biographical accounts of it. And in his film The Architects' Congress, László Moholy-Nagy also created an impressive monument to CIAM 4 as an event.

There can be no doubt that CIAM 4 was one of the important events in the history of the European architectural avant-garde. At the same time, however, the congress was also a typical product of its time, expressing the basic concepts of modernism. Its universalizing claims, its attraction to positivism and the primacy of a "hygienic" view of the city's "organism" appeared to be common sense at the time, and the way had been prepared for them by late nineteenth century urban planning and its foundations in the modern sciences of engineering and sociology. The CIAM architects shared an unconditional faith in the capabilities of planning and the central role of the modern architect in shaping the society of the future and cities that were capable of functioning. The view that the contemporary city, in its "chaotic state", was no longer able to meet the needs of its residents, and that undesirable trends and deficiencies were being further perpetuated by city authorities and other figures, was widespread not only inside the CIAM. In engaging with the topic of the city, the CIAM was addressing the grand issues of shared human existence and believed itself to be dealing with a problem of overriding importance with which it would be able to exercise influence in both the West and the East - as well as in the southern hemisphere.
Divergent Positions
Despite this, however, there was in no sense any unité de doctrine within the CIAM with regard to expectations of the fourth congress and ideas about methodology and programme. A detailed examination of the debates that took place in advance of the congress shows the way in which quite different positions encountered each other as the architectural avant-garde approached the subject of the city. Debates focused in particular on the question of the relationship between analysis and design, and on the effects of the analytical method used on subsequent planning work that was based on it. These discussions mainly took place at the extraordinary congress held in Berlin in June 1931, which was entirely devoted to preparations for the fourth congress. It was not by chance that the meeting was held during the "Deutsche Bauausstellung", which was attended by all of the leading international figures in the fields of architecture and urban planning and enabled the Weimar Republic to place itself at the centre of contemporary architectural debates again, for one last time.

Thanks to the extensive minutes that were kept of the discussions at the Berlin meeting and to the position papers presented by several national groups on the basis of which the CIAM was organized at that time, the different positions can still be reconstructed in detail today. While the Polish national group, for example, regarded the "synthetic part" as being central for obtaining comparative material for the "reorganization of urban planning" and wanted to restrict the "analytical critical part" to a minimum, the Swiss group voted for "privileging the materialist, deductive method over the idealist, inductive one". This was the only possible basis for collective work, they argued. There was similar dissension on the question of whether the study should be designed on a synchronic or more historical basis, as well as on the issue of whether it was a matter of building new cities or rather of adapting existing cities to contemporary needs.

By contrast, all of the participants shared the conviction that while the problems of the city were known intuitively, a joint investigation based on academic approaches would provide better insights and would also help the CIAM to reach an objective position that would be difficult to challenge - in order to exert greater influence on public decision makers. The formulation of concise and effective hypotheses would of course have been helpful in achieving this. Even during the fifth CIAM congress in Paris in 1937, it was already becoming clear that Le Corbusier in particular was gradually reinterpreting the fourth congress's rather provisional conclusions. Some of the analyses were presented in public again in his Pavillon des Temps Nouveaux at the 1937 World Exhibition, but they were incorporated there into a fundamentally new, highly symbolic narrative universe describing the history, present state and future of the city. The central lecture hall was emblazoned with a large panel on which a keyword summary of the substance of the conclusions could be read under the tendentious title "Charte de l'Urbanisme".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CIAM 4 and the "Unanimous" Origins of Modernist Urban Planning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Held in 1933 on a ship in the Mediterranian, the fourth CIAM congress and Le Corbusier's subsequent Athens Charter (La Charte d'Athenes) are widely...

# data[].attributes.headline
MoMA Modern Architecture: International Exhibition, 1932

# data[].attributes.subject
MoMA Modern Architecture: International Exhibition, 1932

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Modern Architecture: International Exhibition" is the title of an exhibition that took place in 1932 at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Curated by Philip Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock, the exhibition introduced an emerging architectural style characterized by simplified geometry and a lack of ornamentation; known as the "International Style," it was described by Johnson as "probably the first fundamentally original and widely distributed style since the Gothic." The exhibition, along with an accompanying catalogue, laid the principles for the canon of Modern architecture.

In 1930 Alfred Barr, the then director of the MoMA, initiated the museum's first architectural exhibition, claiming that "The Museum of Modern Art has closely followed this international activity in architecture. Although the Museum has until now exhibited only works of painting and sculpture, it has felt the need since its inception for a comprehensive exhibition of modern architecture."[1] To curate the exhibition, Barr asked the historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock and architect Philip Johnson, who both spent the following two years researching and collecting materials in Europe. The exhibition opened on February 10th 1932 in the MoMA's Heckscher building, and was attended by 33 thousand people during its six-week duration.

Through photographs, drawings and specially crafted models, the carefully curated exhibition illustrated the characteristics of the new style which had emerged in Europe since 1922. The main section of the exhibition, titled "Modern Architects," presented projects by the "four leaders of modern architecture": Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe and J.J.P. Oud. The exhibition also included two other sections: "Housing" presented the need for a new domestic environment and "The Extent of Modern Architecture" displayed works by thirty seven architects from fifteen different countries.

The exhibition presented three major principles that laid the foundation of the new "style": the emphasis of volume over mass, the regularity and standardisation of elements, and the avoidance of ornament. These principles were applied through architectural elements such as ribbon windows, flat roofs, screen walls, non-structural partitions, as well as a simple use of color and geometry. By emphasizing and categorizing these repeated aspects of the designs, the exhibition established a new "style" in architecture.

Like many curators who aspire to create a coherent exhibition, Johnson and Hitchcock excluded major aspects of current architecture that did not fall under their strict aesthetic criteria. For example, for the sake of uniformity and categorization, Johnson and Hitchcock ignored significant works of 1920's and 1930's Expressionist and Organic Architecture, whose biomorphic forms had a fundamental influence on modern architecture.

The exhibition was accompanied by an extensive catalogue, which was to serve as an educational tool. Originally published under the title "The International Style: Architecture Since 1922," the book played a crucial role in giving a permanent validity to the exhibition, complementing its content rather than documenting it. The book catalogued the morphological and compositional elements of the new style, thus serving not only as an important historical document, but also as a guide book for Modern architecture.

Although the event awarded the participating architects with worldwide recognition, it also unified them for posterity, an idea which was not favored by all. Insulted by the prospect of being placed alongside "inferior" peers, Frank Lloyd Wright withdrew from the exhibition only one month prior to its opening. He explains his decision in a Telegram to Philip Johnson in January 1932:

"My way has been too long and too lonely to make a belated bow to my people as a modern architect in company with a self advertising amateur [Raymond Hood] and a high powered salesman [Richard Neutra]. no bitterness and sorry but kindly and finally drop me out of your promotion."[2]

The "Modern Architecture: International exhibition" represents the crystallization of a definitive architectural movement. Much like 1988's "Deconstructivist architecture" exhibition at the MoMA, also curated by Philip Johnson, the exhibition marked the first time the "International Style" became institutionalized and officially recognized.

1. T he official MoMA announcement from 1931

2. The Show To End All Shows - Frank Lloyd Wright and the Museum of Modern Art, 1940", John Elderfiel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AD Classics: Modern Architecture International Exhibition / Philip Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Built by Philip Johnson and Henry-Russell Hitchcock in New York City, United States "Modern Architecture: International Exhibition" is the title of an exhibition that took place in 1932 at the Museum o...