CREATIVE HISTORIES

I don’t know what texts are used to teach architectural history today. What with the information available on the Internet, perhaps paper has become irrelevant. I really don’t know if any history is taught at all other than perhaps some specialised condensed version of modern events that refer to the current quirkiness of styles and preferences, and maybe bits of local history: but in our era, Sir Banister Fletcher’s weighty book was the core reference: A History of Architecture On The Comparative Method B.T. Batsford Ltd., London, 1961 (17th edition): first published 1 January 1896 by B.T. Batsford.## History was presented in regular weekly lectures using much the same format as that used by Flecther: a quick overview of pre-Egyptian; Egyptian; Greek; Roman; Romanesque; Norman; Gothic; etc., (see Fletcher’s tree), fading out into Georgian, sundry other cultures, and more recent times. The lectures were read out and we were trained to sit and take notes on lined foolscap paper that required regurgitation from memory for the annual exam, complete with sketched, memorised sections and elevations of various buildings. The boredom of these classes would be broken by periodic slide shows that illustrated the subject with the lecturer’s shadow constantly gliding over the image from side to side with his habitual parading too and fro across the room, much like a caged tiger, as he monotonously spoke about the slides, one by one: we were still expected to take notes in the dark. These sessions were usually interrupted with some malfunction, with slides jamming, or the Kodak Carousel not operating as flawlessly as it should. These gadgets were all crudely, ‘click-clackedly’ mechanical and lacked the suave, seamless technological solutions we know today. The irony is that, even with this slick change in technologies, architectural talks are still frequently disrupted with failures in the various systems that now have more unknown, mysterious causes, and frequently, many equally puzzling solutions that remain unfathomable even to the tech officer on standby: “Oh, it’s working again!” is the usual statement when things get back to normal. One supposes that we can expect more of these ‘marvels’ in our lives with AI.

It was up to us to undertake our own broader reading on other cultures and modern matters, with Jencks aggressively promoting postmodernism* and other developments, (along with Banham, Smithsons, et. al.); and with ‘other cultures’ usually documented as colourful coffee table books rather than serious architectural studies. Banister Fletcher, as the text was referred to, had been updated through its numerous editions, with the one that we used including a new short section on modernism; (1961). This edition was still produced using the traditional printing techniques; soon after this, in later editions, the book was digitised. The lovely crisp clarity of the early plates gave way to a vague, new, slick, glossy fuzziness in the illustrations.

Archigram.

One discovered in our era that the events shaping recent history were alert, alive and well. Attention to history itself and other theoretical matters was vigilant and interesting, developing intelligently with rigorous theoretical and explanatory texts being regularly published, read, and referenced by architects to help shape an ideas-driven approach to projects. Archaeologists and linguists were cited in these thoughtful works that positioned current events in their context, and spoke about the future: Archigram comes to mind. The 70s/80s was a vibrant time for architectural thinking: it is something that is missed today. Today’s era seems content with self-promotion and indulgent hype rather than bothering about architectural theory and thinking. Exaggerated, random bespoke styling seems to be the main aim today, with any critique being squashed as an irrelevance comparable to ‘fake news.’ There is more interest in AI than in any theoretical basis of meaning in architecture – the title of the Baird/Jencks book published by Barrie & Rockcliff, The Crescent Press, London, 1969. How might meaning have any relevance today? Would the proposition ever stimulate any interest, or just be dismissed as some irrelevant, quirky madness; the ravings of a disillusioned architect? Heatherwick’s The Vessel in New York comes to mind. It stands as a masterpiece in spite of its terrible failures – now closed to the public for safety reasons. Hadid’s Vitra fire station is another example promoted as the work of a genius that failed so badly as a functioning station that it had to be vacated. The heroics appear to drown the critiques with a blaze of blind glory: failure always seems to be someone else’s problem.

Vitra Fire Station.

The Vitra Fire Station thus affirmed Hadid to rise from the title of a ‘paper architect’ and break through the notion of drawings and representation of architectural projects. Her unusual style of imagining built form would go on to assist her to create some of the most dynamic works in the modern architectural world.

The building now serves as an exhibition space, showcasing works of Frank Gehry and other well-known architects.

https://www.stirworld.com/inspire-visits-revisiting-iconic-architect-and-pritzker-laureate-zaha-hadid-s-first-major-project

The Vessel.

The varying sizes of the historical divisions in Bannister Fletcher were an indication of the importance of the subject; the history had a clear western/colonial bias.** One saw copious pages documenting the Egyptian and Classical times, with much the same in the Romanesque and Gothic periods. As with modernism, which read as an ‘additional’ afterthought seeking some semblance of relevance for the 1896 text in the 1960s, the section on eastern architecture was minimal, and was hardly noticed or referenced in any of our history lectures.# One did get told about Istanbul’s Santa Sophia, but not much more. Sinan was never mentioned. The story was that European architecture drew its roots from the Egyptian/Classical times to give us the Romanesque/Gothic era that led to revival periods of the nineteenth century. The reaction to these developments led to the arts and crafts, Art Nouveau, and modernism periods. The rationale was that the grand cathedrals were based on the Roman basilica model that was developed/refined over time, with the pointed arch coming from the east, somehow - (does it really matter?); perhaps, with the crusaders, all to be developed and cleverly refined as specialised European concepts in the Romanesque and Gothic periods after the Dark Ages which were never delved into.

Sigfried Gideon was the other reference for recent historical matters with his Space, Time, and Architecture (Harvard University Press 1941; 1962 4th edition); but his other books were rarely spoken about, just left for one to discover. His work on Egyptian architecture and prehistoric cave paintings was generally ignored - (The Eternal Present, Princeton University Press, 1964 – 2 volumes). Perhaps it was published too late for the lecturers to want to use, because the approach to architectural history was changing; or was it just too specialised, with Flectcher's schematic approach being preferred? Nikolaus Pevsner’s Pengiun edition of Pioneers in Modern Design, (1960; second edition 1974: first published by Faber & Faber in 1936 as Pioneers of the Modern Movement), developed the theme that transitioned into our time, (subtitled From William Morris to Walter Gropius), and was left for general reading, like Gideon’s works were, if the student was interested.

It was Gropius who promoted the significance/relevance of thoroughly understanding architectural history. His idea never caught on, although his Bauhaus model of architectural education became the international standard. For Gropius, the importance of history could be realised only when it was taught in the latter years of the course, so that mature students could truly comprehend the consequences of matters in their complete context, depth, and relevance rather than as decorative styles and 'stories,' and recognise the significance of the various approaches to situations after having grappled personally with their discoveries/experiences in materials research and design issues over some years: Walter Gropius, Scope of Total Architecture, Routledge, 1956. Gropius was arguing for a coherence in history that integrated present and past to create the future with some intellectual rigour and experiential understanding.

In spite of history being a subject that was presented over our early years, the Asian /Eastern architecture was ignored; well, Katsura Palace might have been mentioned, but separately, as something ‘interesting.’ It was never raised in any relevant way or with any detail. Like the glories of Islamic architecture, the Asian works were discovered by the student in the attractive images in coffee table books; while the theory of things eastern/Islamic came to be revealed in the writings of Ananda Coomaraswamy, et. al. - e.g. Christian and Oriental Philosophy of Art, Luzac & Co., 1943, later published as an accessible paperback by Dover, New York, in 1956. The rigours of these works were never integrated into any broader understanding beyond things classic and Gothic. The Japanese influence on modernism got mentioned in a hazy, stylish way: Macintosh and Wright. Sundry writings on things Japanese were appearing, but these were left for the student to discover: e.g. Kenzo Tange, ISE Prototype of Japanese Architecture, MIT Press, 1965. The student was left alone to develop ideas and understandings beyond those articulated in the lectures and standard texts.

Things have not changed very much in this regard. While browsing in the ‘architecture’ section of Waterstones store in Glasgow recently, in amongst the usual, expected publications – the large, boastful tomes full of slick, arty photographs ready for proud display on the coffee table - one discovered something modestly different: Diana Darke, Stealing From The Saracens How Islamic Architecture Shaped Europe, C. Hurst & Co., London, 2020. The book intrigued; it was purchased and read.

It was a real surprise to read Diana Darke describing how it was from the Syrian churches in northern Syria, (Idlib district: Syria’s Dead or Forgotten Cities, now a UNSECO World Heritage site – listed only in 2011), that the model/inspiration for things we now know as Romanesque (1000 to 1150) was discovered. One photograph in her book was used as a reference: ‘the graceful church of Kharrab Shams northwest of Aleppo.’ It is a stunning image, presenting the basilica model in all of its beautiful, ruinous character and detail, complete, (in spite of the recent war): this was the basis of the Romanesque (and Gothic) church – dated 372: over 600 years earlier! Darke notes how the Umayyad church architecture was not merely a copy of the Roman building, but used multiple references almost playfully in its work: The eclectic mix shows clearly how the Umayyads borrowed from Byzantine, Hellenistic, Roman, and Persian Sassanid designs to create their own uniquely busy, high-spirited style. (p.138 Diana Darke, Stealing From The Saracens How Islamic Architecture Shaped Europe). It is this playful, casual, complex character that gives Romanesque its uniquely rich feel of commitment to the ordinary fullness of life; its almost ad hoc love of life that one sees clearly expressed with a fresh enthusiasm in the vibrant Syrian work. It is an approach that one can see in the detailing of the cathedrals where cheeky, sometimes irreverent sculptures appear decoratively in various locations.

'The graceful' Kharab Shams Church, 372AD.

Why were we not told of this connection? Why were we encouraged to see things ‘Romanesque’ as being some vague Roman revival? What else remains ‘dark’ in our period of neglect: our ‘Dark Ages’? Does one seriously suggest that there remains an uneasy tension between Christianity and Islam that is reflected in architectural matters today? Darke suggests this in her work that she published to deliberately highlight the origins of European architecture: stolen from the Saracens. She makes her point bluntly, and backs it up with much detail.

Northern Syria has hundreds of churches that are the models for European Romanesque churches.

 History, it seems, is truly shaped by the preferences of those promoting it. Darke’s book is a quiet revelation and needs to be read just to fill in the gaps left by Banister Fletcher. Relying on fanciful fabrications may make some feel good, but meaning needs rigour for its strength and vitality to challenge, enrich, and sustain with a wholesome coherence; to maintain and sustain its depth. Staying comfortable and safe might be desirable, but one is then left living in a ‘fake’ world of true make-believe which only promises, (com-promises), to confuse and confound those seeking clarity and meaning, while perpetuating preferred myths for others. The danger is the dogged idiot who insists on a special version of facts, 'creative histories,' in spite of everything and anything.

Seeing our heritage with its roots in Islam might help us recognise and understand those now presented to us as backwards, ignorant ‘others’ – promoters of undesirables and terrorists. Knowing our true history can change us, our thinking and feeling, and our understanding of architecture; and people too, complete with all of their perceived differences. We are all a part of the same world and need each other and a committed tolerance to truly understand it.

##

Perhaps architectural history has changed in much the same way as the general approach to architectural education has changed. Our era just missed the classic Beaux Arts approach where students had to study the classic details and reproduce them in detailed, rendered drawings. Maybe history has done likewise?

*

As an aside, Diana Darke, in Stealing form the Saracens, notes that it was Nikolaus Pevsner who first used the term postmodernism some ten years before Charles Jencks, although Jencks is generally given the credit for inventing this title.

#

Asian architectural history was left for the history section of university to promote. One recalls an astonishing lecture on the Japanese house given to architectural students by a history lecturer. This talk was alive with references to ordinary living and its functions, explaining as things rationally function, what we had seen as ‘styled’ design. Such cross-fertilisation between the specialities of the university highlight how important this approach is. Today we see the very opposite: separation; isolation; specialisation, with every section of the university greedily looking after its own interests.

Similarly, on place, one recalls reading Peter Read’s book on lost places, Returning to Nothing: the meaning of lost places, (Cambridge; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1996), being astonished at its inclusiveness of feeling and experience - longing. Architecture seems to have forgotten that it is there to support and enrich life, not to become an artful display for personal acclaim and coffee-table publications in spite of functions for people. It is this indulgent attitude that allows the Vitra fire station and The Vessel to remain iconic architectural projects that almost blame the firemen and the public for their ignorance that fails to recognise genius. Coomaraswamy pointed out how things personal were not only an irrelevance in things traditional, but a blatant perversion.

**

NOTE

The 21^st Edition of Banister Fletcher is titled a Global History of Architecture, and was published by Bloomsbury, London, in 2019:

Sir Banister Fletcher's Global History of Architecture

Celebrating the launch of the all-new 21^st edition of this classic architectural history – commissioned by the RIBA and the University of London and published by Bloomsbury – RIBApix showcases images from the collections reflecting the global scope of the new edition.

A former President of the RIBA (1929-31), Sir Banister Fletcher is primarily remembered not for his buildings, nor his lectureship at the University of London, but for his magnum opus, 'A History of Architecture'. One of the earliest survey texts, 'Sir Banister Fletcher’s History of Architecture' became essential reading for generations of architects and students soon after it was first published in 1896. Yet through its 20 editions it never shook off the historic western bias stemming from its Victorian roots, a bias graphically expressed in Fletcher’s ‘Tree of Architecture’, which treated non-Western architectural traditions as having no influence on the course of history.

https://www.ribapix.com/sir-banister-fletchers-global-history-of-architecture#

https://c20society.org.uk/book-reviews/classic-book-sir-banister-fletchers-history-of-architecture

First published in 1896 by the then-elderly Banister Fletcher, professor of architecture at Kings College London, and his son, Banister Flight Fletcher, A History of Architecture soon became such a well-known standard text book that it was known simply as ‘Banister Fletcher’. Famously a present given to those embarking on an architectural education, the standing joke was that no student opened their copy.

The work’s most enduring component over the decades was its remarkable line drawings, conceived by the Fletchers as a tool for the neutral, comparative analysis of buildings from a given period, architect or constructional method. Many were canny re-drawings of plans, sections and views taken from other learned tomes. Yet the pretence at ‘neutrality’ was inevitably flawed, in the choosing of what and how to draw, and indeed what to leave out.

From the start, the text was serious and learned. Later editions were gradually expanded, but it was not substantially re-written, and its straightforward descriptive manner, which often lapsed into lengthy lists of examples, became increasingly old-fashioned. Coverage was also uneven: fulsome when it came to (say) medieval English cathedrals, but weak on non-Western architecture, or anything after 1800.

This leads us to the work’s real flaw: its pro-Western and indeed colonialist mentality. The first edition was steeped in late-Victorian myths of empire. It covered nothing outside Europe and the (ancient) Middle East. The 4th edition (1901) added some other architectural traditions under the dismissive title of ‘The Non-Historical Styles’. Non-Western architecture was likewise caricatured as the stunted lower branches on the ‘Tree of Architecture’ included in the 5th and 6th editions (1905 and 1921). This attitude was partially tackled by later General Editors, and a centenary 20th edition was published in 1996 under Dan Cruickshank, yet their good intentions did little to resolve the fundamental problem. A fully post-colonial reworking planned by John McKean in the mid-2000s never happened, and post-colonialism itself has since been absorbed into broader concepts of globalisation.

A tentative idea to reinvigorate the work ten years ago was embraced by the Banister Fletcher Trust, and – although initially sceptical – I was encouraged to become General Editor. Pointedly retitled as Sir Banister Fletcher’s Global History of Architecture, we rewrote it completely. Over half of the text is now given to non-Western architecture; there is a wider spectrum of drawings and photographs; and each chapter is written by a leading expert on that topic.

The outcome – one million words in two volumes written by 88 experts – is the most comprehensive survey of global architecture to date, and is also online via the Bloomsbury Architecture Library.

The new ‘Sir Banister Fletcher’s Global History of Architecture’ will be reviewed in a future issue.