Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Observatory

About
Resources
Submissions
Contact


Featured Writers

Michael Bierut
William Drenttel
John Foster
Jessica Helfand
Alexandra Lange
Mark Lamster
Paul Polak
Rick Poynor
John Thackara
Rob Walker


Departments

Advertisement
Audio
Books
Collections
Dear Bonnie
Dialogues
Essays
Events
Foster Column
From Our Archive
Gallery
Interviews
Miscellaneous
New Ideas
Opinions
Partner News
Photos
Poetry
Primary Sources
Projects
Report
Reviews
Slideshows
The Academy
Today Column
Unusual Suspects
Video


Topics

Advertising
Architecture
Art
Books
Branding
Business
Cities / Places
Community
Craft
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Disaster Relief
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Fashion
Film / Video
Food/Agriculture
Geography
Global / Local
Graphic Design
Health / Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Illustration
India
Industry
Info Design
Infrastructure
Interaction Design
Internet / Blogs
Journalism
Landscape
Literature
Magazines
Media
Museums
Music
Nature
Obituary
Other
Peace
Philanthropy
Photography
Planning
Poetry
Politics / Policy
Popular Culture
Poverty
Preservation
Product Design
Public / Private
Public Art
Religion
Reputations
Science
Shelter
Social Enterprise
Sports
Sustainability
Technology
Theory/Criticism
Transportation
TV / Radio
Typography
Urbanism
Water



Mark Lamster

Yesterday's Future, Today




Last week I travelled up to the Canadian Centre of Architecture, in Montreal, to review Architecture in Uniform, a new exhibition on architecture and World War II, curated by Jean-Louis Cohen. That review is forthcoming (in AR), but for the moment let it be said that this fascinating, disturbing, and provocative show was absolutely worth the trip. Among its discoveries: the modernist landscape architect Dan Kiley designed the courtroom of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

One of the principal contentions of the show is that the war led to the "definitive supremacy of modernism in architecture." Cohen makes a convincing argument for this, but one could argue the opposite is true, as well. One of the final pieces in the show is a model of Bucky Fuller's ill-fated Dymaxion House, a modernist vision of the future that, as Cohen notes, went "nowhere at all." This message is inescapable in Montreal, where the carcass of Fuller's US Pavilion (now, the "Biosphere") sits on the former site of Expo '67, a relic of Fuller's dream of a techno-utopia. That vision never materialized, but a trip out to the pavilion is still a pleasure, and comes with the added bonus, if you travel underground, of a passage through the Jean-Drapeau metro station, a masterpiece of brutalist structure and design by architect Jean Dumontier.

|
Share This Story

Comments (3)   |   JUMP TO MOST RECENT COMMENT >>

I missed not seeing an image of Fuller's Biosphere on fire. There are several amazing shots, any one of which would serve as an interesting comment on where modernism's "definitive supremacy" has taken us. The CCA show sounds great, but you don't have to go very far to "discover" Kiley's role in the design and fit out of the Nuremberg Courtroom. It's covered in Dan Kiley: The Complete Works of America's Master Landscape Architect, (Bulfinch Press, 1999).
javier zeller
04.20.11 at 01:29

I was told by one of his collaborators on the Wichita House after a lecture at the Cooper-Hewitt about 15 years ago that Fuller "got 90% there" and then lost interest, both because the intricacies of tool-making probably didn't interest him much at that point and his near-simultaneous discovery of tensegrity (probably thanks to a model by Kenneth Snelson) and the geodesic dome shortly after. The blaze was a result (as usual) of a welder, who managed to set fire to one of the acrylic panels creating what became an inextinguishable and nasty fire. But it did not burn down. I have no idea to which degree it was disassembled for cleaning, if at all, but I tend to think of this as another triumph of the geodesic structure rather than a failure.

Shoji Sadao told me he thought Fuller's greatest weakness as a designer in practical terms was his assumption of the economies of scale reducing unit costs to near-universal affordability. To me, this makes sense in light of Bucky's reaching maturity about the same time Henry Ford started mass-producing Model Ts. It was the obsession of that generation and an interesting lens through which to view their works.
Russell Flinchum
04.25.11 at 05:54

the idea that bucky was thisclose to realizing the dymaxion dream, but failed due to his inability to stay focussed or properly manage a business, is a part of the standard narrative of his career. it's true that he might have self-sabotaged the wichita program, but it's also hard to believe that it could ever have been more than a blip on the radar of postwar building, for all the reasons prefabs of all sorts have failed. absolutely his generation's preoccupation with mass production is a big part of that story; it's a preoccupation that seems still to be with us today. (see chris hawthorne in the latest metropolis on this subject.)
mark lamster
04.25.11 at 08:41


Design Observer encourages comments to be short and to the point; as a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.
Read Complete Comments Policy >>


Name             

Email address 




Please type the text shown in the graphic.


|
Share This Story



ABOUT THE SLIDESHOW


View Slideshow >>

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mark Lamster is the architecture critic of the Dallas Morning News and a professor at the University of Texas at Arlington School of Architecture. A contributing editor to Architectural Review, he is currently at work on his third book, a biography of the late architect Philip Johnson. Follow: @marklamster.
More Bio >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS