ABSTRACT This article considers the origins, both scholarly and personal, of The American Renaissance 1876–1917 exhibition (1979) and the accompanying book catalogue, setting them in the context of architectural and cultural developments in the United States from the 1940s to the 1970s. It traces how the exhibition came about, what it was trying to achieve and how it was received, both at the time and subsequently. It shows that the exhibition was not conceived as an attack on modernism as such or as a work of architectural conservatism. Rather, it was an attempt to rescue from obscurity an entire chapter of American architectural history that had been excluded by the modernising narratives of Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Vincent Scully and others, and to reassess what this architecture might contribute to the present.
{"title":"Reflections on The American Renaissance 1876–1917 exhibition","authors":"Richard G. Wilson","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.2","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article considers the origins, both scholarly and personal, of The American Renaissance 1876–1917 exhibition (1979) and the accompanying book catalogue, setting them in the context of architectural and cultural developments in the United States from the 1940s to the 1970s. It traces how the exhibition came about, what it was trying to achieve and how it was received, both at the time and subsequently. It shows that the exhibition was not conceived as an attack on modernism as such or as a work of architectural conservatism. Rather, it was an attempt to rescue from obscurity an entire chapter of American architectural history that had been excluded by the modernising narratives of Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Vincent Scully and others, and to reassess what this architecture might contribute to the present.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"65 1","pages":"23 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85201125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT In the decades around the turn of the twentieth century, New York was seized by a passion for things French in interior decoration. The influx of French eighteenth-century decorative arts from London and Paris exerted a powerful influence over the imaginations of a new millionaire class, while the emergence of the professional dealer-decorator established channels for the incorporation of these materials into the luxury residence. While these interiors were developed in collaboration with leading US architects such as Richard Morris Hunt and George B. Post, they also posed a subtle challenge to the discourse of intellectualism developed on architects’ behalf. Governed by issues of taste and commerce as well as by artistic judgement, these French interiors presented a compelling vision of aristocratic stature that was at once in keeping, and in conflict, with the aspirations of an American Renaissance. This article considers the role of eighteenth-century French-style interiors in the articulation of a ‘civilised’ architectural tradition in the United States during the so-called Gilded Age. Focusing on the private mansion, it reconsiders the notion of the American Renaissance as a principally academic movement by calling attention to the ways in which it also responded to the requirements of the elite class as well as the commercial marketplace.
在二十世纪之交的几十年里，纽约对室内装饰的法式风格充满了热情。18世纪从伦敦和巴黎涌入的法国装饰艺术对新百万富翁阶层的想象力产生了强大的影响，而专业经销商-装饰师的出现为将这些材料整合到豪华住宅中建立了渠道。虽然这些室内设计是与Richard Morris Hunt和George B. Post等美国著名建筑师合作开发的，但它们也对以建筑师的名义发展的理智主义话语提出了微妙的挑战。受品味、商业和艺术判断的影响，这些法国室内设计呈现出一种令人信服的贵族地位的愿景，既与美国文艺复兴的愿望保持一致，又与之相冲突。这篇文章考虑了18世纪法国风格的室内设计在所谓的镀金时代美国“文明”建筑传统中的作用。通过关注美国文艺复兴是如何回应精英阶层和商业市场的需求的，这本书以私人豪宅为重点，重新审视了美国文艺复兴主要是一场学术运动的概念。
{"title":"The Gilded Interior: French Style and American Renaissance","authors":"Laura C. Jenkins","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.5","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the decades around the turn of the twentieth century, New York was seized by a passion for things French in interior decoration. The influx of French eighteenth-century decorative arts from London and Paris exerted a powerful influence over the imaginations of a new millionaire class, while the emergence of the professional dealer-decorator established channels for the incorporation of these materials into the luxury residence. While these interiors were developed in collaboration with leading US architects such as Richard Morris Hunt and George B. Post, they also posed a subtle challenge to the discourse of intellectualism developed on architects’ behalf. Governed by issues of taste and commerce as well as by artistic judgement, these French interiors presented a compelling vision of aristocratic stature that was at once in keeping, and in conflict, with the aspirations of an American Renaissance. This article considers the role of eighteenth-century French-style interiors in the articulation of a ‘civilised’ architectural tradition in the United States during the so-called Gilded Age. Focusing on the private mansion, it reconsiders the notion of the American Renaissance as a principally academic movement by calling attention to the ways in which it also responded to the requirements of the elite class as well as the commercial marketplace.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"8 1","pages":"91 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78719226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Wealth from western investments lit up the Gilded Age. East and West, it financed the mansions, balls and philanthropy that were integral to upper-class culture. Historians of capitalism have argued that a national upper class coalesced during the late nineteenth century and that the development of a common culture was essential to its formation. Much of this work has focused on the Northeast. How did this play out in the Trans-Mississippi West? This article explores the roles that architects and the buildings they designed played in the intertwined processes of class formation, capitalist expansion and the advancement of white settler colonialism in the American West. It begins in the early 1880s, when Henry Villard (1835–1900), president of the Northern Pacific Railway, launched an ambitious plan to complete the transcontinental railroad and enlisted the architects McKim, Mead & White and their assistant, Cass Gilbert (1859–1934), to design buildings of all kinds along the line — an unprecedented move for a new western railroad. It then follows Gilbert back to St Paul to examine two major projects, one for local clients and one for Villard’s colleague, the eastern capitalist William Endicott, Jr (1826–1914). As agents for eastern capitalists and their counterparts in the West, the architects and the buildings they designed activated in the West an elite aesthetic and professional culture initially generated in the Northeast. Operating across local, regional and national scales, they contributed to the expansion of capitalist markets, the formation of a national upper class and, more broadly, the processes of settler colonialism in a rapidly changing region.
{"title":"The American Renaissance in the West: Capital, Class and Culture Along the Northern Pacific Railroad","authors":"Katherine Solomonson","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.7","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Wealth from western investments lit up the Gilded Age. East and West, it financed the mansions, balls and philanthropy that were integral to upper-class culture. Historians of capitalism have argued that a national upper class coalesced during the late nineteenth century and that the development of a common culture was essential to its formation. Much of this work has focused on the Northeast. How did this play out in the Trans-Mississippi West? This article explores the roles that architects and the buildings they designed played in the intertwined processes of class formation, capitalist expansion and the advancement of white settler colonialism in the American West. It begins in the early 1880s, when Henry Villard (1835–1900), president of the Northern Pacific Railway, launched an ambitious plan to complete the transcontinental railroad and enlisted the architects McKim, Mead & White and their assistant, Cass Gilbert (1859–1934), to design buildings of all kinds along the line — an unprecedented move for a new western railroad. It then follows Gilbert back to St Paul to examine two major projects, one for local clients and one for Villard’s colleague, the eastern capitalist William Endicott, Jr (1826–1914). As agents for eastern capitalists and their counterparts in the West, the architects and the buildings they designed activated in the West an elite aesthetic and professional culture initially generated in the Northeast. Operating across local, regional and national scales, they contributed to the expansion of capitalist markets, the formation of a national upper class and, more broadly, the processes of settler colonialism in a rapidly changing region.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"64 1","pages":"137 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87254029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT The identification of the American elite with the Renaissance in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, as seen in the extended Capitol Building and National Mall in Washington DC, can be traced back to architectural, historiographical and cultural trends taking place in Britain. The writings of John Ruskin, Walter Pater and John Addington Symonds framed the debate in the United States. At first Ruskin’s antipathy towards the Renaissance was exacerbated by the Nativist Party’s opposition to Catholic immigration, but then the writings of Pater and, particularly, Symonds achieved what Wallace K. Ferguson described as ‘the thorough naturalization of Renaissancism in the English-speaking world’. Symonds’s Hegelian interpretation of the historical era as a ‘spirit of self-conscious freedom’ enabled Americans from the 1870s onwards to post-rationalise the Renaissance as a national style. Symonds dethroned the Ruskinian cult of the Gothic and celebrated Renaissance classicism and secular individualism. His image of Italian despots as ‘self-made men of commerce’ and an ‘aristocracy of genius and character’ appealed to US capitalists, while his admiration for the sumptuous palaces built by these Renaissance ‘men of power’ reinforced the evolutionary theories of the British sociologist Herbert Spencer, whose principle of ‘the survival of the fittest’ became the creed of American plutocrats as they built their own palatial houses. Finally, his frequent references to the discovery of America by Columbus came to legitimise the image of the US as the heir of Renaissance culture, as proclaimed at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893.
{"title":"‘Who is this Renaissance? Where did he come from?’: Englishness and the Search for an American National Style, 1850–1900","authors":"P. Ricci","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.3","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The identification of the American elite with the Renaissance in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, as seen in the extended Capitol Building and National Mall in Washington DC, can be traced back to architectural, historiographical and cultural trends taking place in Britain. The writings of John Ruskin, Walter Pater and John Addington Symonds framed the debate in the United States. At first Ruskin’s antipathy towards the Renaissance was exacerbated by the Nativist Party’s opposition to Catholic immigration, but then the writings of Pater and, particularly, Symonds achieved what Wallace K. Ferguson described as ‘the thorough naturalization of Renaissancism in the English-speaking world’. Symonds’s Hegelian interpretation of the historical era as a ‘spirit of self-conscious freedom’ enabled Americans from the 1870s onwards to post-rationalise the Renaissance as a national style. Symonds dethroned the Ruskinian cult of the Gothic and celebrated Renaissance classicism and secular individualism. His image of Italian despots as ‘self-made men of commerce’ and an ‘aristocracy of genius and character’ appealed to US capitalists, while his admiration for the sumptuous palaces built by these Renaissance ‘men of power’ reinforced the evolutionary theories of the British sociologist Herbert Spencer, whose principle of ‘the survival of the fittest’ became the creed of American plutocrats as they built their own palatial houses. Finally, his frequent references to the discovery of America by Columbus came to legitimise the image of the US as the heir of Renaissance culture, as proclaimed at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"121 1","pages":"45 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76391977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT In a second career begun in his retirement, Henry Morrison Flagler (1830–1913), the cofounder of Standard Oil and one of the wealthiest citizens in the United States, embarked on the development of the tropical wilderness of Florida. Starting in St Augustine, he built a network of luxury hotels and railroads that became the infrastructure for modern Florida. Creating a counterpart to the premier summer resort of Newport, Rhode Island, Flagler transformed Palm Beach, an undeveloped barrier island, into a winter playground for the new American aristocracy, starting with the Georgian-style Royal Poinciana Hotel. It was Whitehall, however, the mansion built for Flagler in 1900–02 as a wedding gift to his third wife, Mary Lily Kenan, that became the resort community’s monumental showplace. Designed by the New York firm of Carrère & Hastings in the Renaissance-derived classicism of the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, the stately white palace fronting Lake Worth embodied Flagler’s cultural aspirations as a patron of the arts. As the first major client of Carrère & Hastings, Flagler was critical in launching the career of one of the most prominent architectural firms of the Gilded Age. This article examines Whitehall in the context of Flagler’s business practices and personal goals, consistent with Andrew Carnegie’s ‘Gospel of Wealth’. Architectural opulence not only boosted Flagler’s mercantile purposes, but also reflected a belief, nurtured by his relationship with Carrère & Hastings and other close associates, about the importance of classical architecture and the arts in the development of society.
{"title":"Flagler’s Whitehall: Beaux-Arts Grandeur in the American Tropics","authors":"Tamara Morgenstern","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.6","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In a second career begun in his retirement, Henry Morrison Flagler (1830–1913), the cofounder of Standard Oil and one of the wealthiest citizens in the United States, embarked on the development of the tropical wilderness of Florida. Starting in St Augustine, he built a network of luxury hotels and railroads that became the infrastructure for modern Florida. Creating a counterpart to the premier summer resort of Newport, Rhode Island, Flagler transformed Palm Beach, an undeveloped barrier island, into a winter playground for the new American aristocracy, starting with the Georgian-style Royal Poinciana Hotel. It was Whitehall, however, the mansion built for Flagler in 1900–02 as a wedding gift to his third wife, Mary Lily Kenan, that became the resort community’s monumental showplace. Designed by the New York firm of Carrère & Hastings in the Renaissance-derived classicism of the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, the stately white palace fronting Lake Worth embodied Flagler’s cultural aspirations as a patron of the arts. As the first major client of Carrère & Hastings, Flagler was critical in launching the career of one of the most prominent architectural firms of the Gilded Age. This article examines Whitehall in the context of Flagler’s business practices and personal goals, consistent with Andrew Carnegie’s ‘Gospel of Wealth’. Architectural opulence not only boosted Flagler’s mercantile purposes, but also reflected a belief, nurtured by his relationship with Carrère & Hastings and other close associates, about the importance of classical architecture and the arts in the development of society.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"50 1","pages":"113 - 136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91197360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Study and travel in Europe provided a foundation for the establishment of artists and architects in the United States, including landscape architects and urban planners. In the closing decades of the nineteenth century, Charles A. Platt (1859–1933) and Charles Eliot (1861–97), men from privileged backgrounds in New York and Boston respectively, spent years in Europe seeking training and direct knowledge of historic patterns in garden, park and city making. Both shared their observations in influential articles for professional and popular journals and in publications that discussed what they had observed abroad and showed how it could be applied to American needs. Separate publications about their work and ideas further reinforced their influence. Platt, originally trained as an etcher and painter, approached first landscape design and then architecture from the perspective of an artist. He became one of the earliest and most influential figures in the formal garden revival in the United States, especially in landscapes for country houses, for which he also became one of the country’s most admired designers. In contrast, Eliot studied European patterns as a landscape architect who was also interested in both land preservation and regional planning. He led in establishing the Trustees of Public Reservations (1891), America’s first private-sector state-wide landscape trust, and the Boston Metropolitan Park Commission (1893), the country’s earliest regional landscape-planning state agency. The two men and their work represent contrasting methods and objectives, yet their interlocking careers sketch a broader panorama of the European precedents for American conditions at the turn of the twentieth century and beyond.
在欧洲的学习和旅行为在美国建立艺术家和建筑师(包括景观设计师和城市规划师)提供了基础。在19世纪的最后几十年里，分别来自纽约和波士顿的特权背景的查尔斯·a·普拉特(Charles A. Platt, 1859-1933)和查尔斯·艾略特(Charles Eliot, 1861-97)花了数年时间在欧洲寻求培训和直接知识，以了解花园、公园和城市建设的历史模式。两人都在专业和大众杂志上发表了有影响力的文章，并在出版物上分享了他们的观察结果，讨论了他们在国外的观察结果，并展示了如何将其应用于美国的需求。关于他们的工作和思想的单独出版物进一步增强了他们的影响力。普拉特最初是一名蚀刻师和画家，从艺术家的角度开始从事景观设计，然后从事建筑设计。他成为美国正式园林复兴中最早和最有影响力的人物之一，特别是在乡村住宅景观方面，他也因此成为该国最受尊敬的设计师之一。相比之下，艾略特以景观设计师的身份研究欧洲格局，同时对土地保护和区域规划也很感兴趣。他领导建立了公共保留地受托人(1891年)，这是美国第一个私营的全州景观信托基金，以及波士顿大都会公园委员会(1893年)，这是美国最早的区域景观规划国家机构。这两个人和他们的工作代表了截然不同的方法和目标，但他们环环相扣的职业生涯勾勒出了一幅更广阔的全景，即20世纪之交及以后美国的情况与欧洲的先例。
{"title":"Learning from the Landscape: The European Tours of Charles A. Platt and Charles Eliot","authors":"Keith N. Morgan","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.4","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Study and travel in Europe provided a foundation for the establishment of artists and architects in the United States, including landscape architects and urban planners. In the closing decades of the nineteenth century, Charles A. Platt (1859–1933) and Charles Eliot (1861–97), men from privileged backgrounds in New York and Boston respectively, spent years in Europe seeking training and direct knowledge of historic patterns in garden, park and city making. Both shared their observations in influential articles for professional and popular journals and in publications that discussed what they had observed abroad and showed how it could be applied to American needs. Separate publications about their work and ideas further reinforced their influence. Platt, originally trained as an etcher and painter, approached first landscape design and then architecture from the perspective of an artist. He became one of the earliest and most influential figures in the formal garden revival in the United States, especially in landscapes for country houses, for which he also became one of the country’s most admired designers. In contrast, Eliot studied European patterns as a landscape architect who was also interested in both land preservation and regional planning. He led in establishing the Trustees of Public Reservations (1891), America’s first private-sector state-wide landscape trust, and the Boston Metropolitan Park Commission (1893), the country’s earliest regional landscape-planning state agency. The two men and their work represent contrasting methods and objectives, yet their interlocking careers sketch a broader panorama of the European precedents for American conditions at the turn of the twentieth century and beyond.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"4 1","pages":"69 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74575126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Architects and urban planners in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, particularly those working in the City Beautiful style, held lofty ambitions yet struggled to carry them out. In cities such as Washington DC and Chicago, political resistance made executing their plans onerous. In the US colonies, however, they operated with greater liberty. This article follows the spatial vision of Daniel Burnham (1846–1912) from the mainland US to the Philippines. In that colonial setting, Burnham was able to realise his vision far more easily, as neither he nor the officials executing his plans were ultimately accountable to Filipinos. Forced labour, confiscated land, repurposed public money, unchecked political power and wartime social disruption all aided US architectural imperialism. Rather than regretting this, Burnham and his associates celebrated the opportunities that their undemocratic setting provided. This article treats not only Burnham but also William E. Parsons (1872–1939) and Cameron Forbes (1870–1959), who extrapolated and enforced Burnham’s plans, and Juan Arellano (1888–1960), the Filipino architect who, to his later regret, helped remake Manila in the colonisers’ image.
在二十世纪之交的美国，建筑师和城市规划者，特别是那些致力于城市美丽风格的人，有着远大的抱负，但却难以实现。在华盛顿和芝加哥等城市，政治阻力使得他们的计划难以执行。然而，在美国的殖民地，他们的运作更加自由。本文遵循丹尼尔·伯纳姆(Daniel Burnham, 1846-1912)从美国大陆到菲律宾的空间视野。在那个殖民背景下，伯纳姆能够更容易地实现他的愿景，因为他和执行他的计划的官员最终都不对菲律宾人负责。强迫劳动、没收土地、改变公共资金的用途、不受约束的政治权力和战时社会混乱，所有这些都助长了美国的建筑帝国主义。伯纳姆和他的同事们非但没有为此感到遗憾，反而为他们不民主的环境所提供的机会而欢欣鼓舞。这篇文章不仅讨论了伯纳姆，还讨论了威廉·e·帕森斯(William E. Parsons, 1872-1939)和卡梅隆·福布斯(Cameron Forbes, 1870-1959)，他们推测并实施了伯纳姆的计划，以及菲律宾建筑师胡安·阿雷利亚诺(Juan Arellano, 1888-1960)，他帮助按照殖民者的形象重建了马尼拉，这让他后来感到遗憾。
{"title":"The Iron Hand of Power: US Architectural Imperialism in the Philippines","authors":"Daniel Immerwahr","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.8","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Architects and urban planners in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century, particularly those working in the City Beautiful style, held lofty ambitions yet struggled to carry them out. In cities such as Washington DC and Chicago, political resistance made executing their plans onerous. In the US colonies, however, they operated with greater liberty. This article follows the spatial vision of Daniel Burnham (1846–1912) from the mainland US to the Philippines. In that colonial setting, Burnham was able to realise his vision far more easily, as neither he nor the officials executing his plans were ultimately accountable to Filipinos. Forced labour, confiscated land, repurposed public money, unchecked political power and wartime social disruption all aided US architectural imperialism. Rather than regretting this, Burnham and his associates celebrated the opportunities that their undemocratic setting provided. This article treats not only Burnham but also William E. Parsons (1872–1939) and Cameron Forbes (1870–1959), who extrapolated and enforced Burnham’s plans, and Juan Arellano (1888–1960), the Filipino architect who, to his later regret, helped remake Manila in the colonisers’ image.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"39 1","pages":"163 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78601292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT This introduction to the special collection begins with a historiographical overview of the American Renaissance. Here we will see how both popular perception and academic study of the subject have been affected by wider forces, including the advent of modernism, the emergence of the preservation movement and the increased attention given to social inequalities in public discourse today. This is the context in which the articles in the collection are situated and introduced. The final section considers aspects of the subject requiring further work, in particular the American Renaissance as a transnational phenomenon linked to the notion of the ‘Angloworld’.
{"title":"Introduction: Rethinking the American Renaissance","authors":"H. Joyce","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.1","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This introduction to the special collection begins with a historiographical overview of the American Renaissance. Here we will see how both popular perception and academic study of the subject have been affected by wider forces, including the advent of modernism, the emergence of the preservation movement and the increased attention given to social inequalities in public discourse today. This is the context in which the articles in the collection are situated and introduced. The final section considers aspects of the subject requiring further work, in particular the American Renaissance as a transnational phenomenon linked to the notion of the ‘Angloworld’.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"78 1","pages":"1 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84028338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Modern architects in the inter-war period were enthused by the potential of science and technology to inform their work. The educational dimension of this changing mindset was first recognised and explored at the Bauhaus in Germany, the experiments of which were to inspire the teaching of architecture in schools across Europe and the United States, particularly after the end of the second world war. In the United Kingdom, the quest for a more science-based approach to architectural education had an equally important source in the work of the government's Building Research Station (BRS). From the early 1930s, the BRS initiated steps to familiarise architectural students with its methodologies, and in the postwar years such concerns were channelled into a comprehensive pedagogical reform agenda that culminated in the landmark Oxford Conference on Architectural Education of 1958. This article argues that it was William Allen (1914—98), rather than better-known figures such as Leslie Martin and Richard Llewelyn-Davies, who was the driving force behind this agenda. As chief architect to the BRS, Allen took up a pivotal position at the intersection of building science and professional practice. The article shows how, over the course of two decades, Allen used the institutional machinery of both the BRS and the Royal Institute of British Architects to inject a scientific outlook into the training of architects. His success in doing so positions Allen as a major figure in British post-war architecture, even though his own attempt to implement his vision as principal of the Architectural Association (1961-65) ended in failure.
{"title":"William Allen and the 'Scientific Outlook' in Architectural Education, 1936-66","authors":"P. Zamarian","doi":"10.1017/arh.2021.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/arh.2021.15","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Modern architects in the inter-war period were enthused by the potential of science and technology to inform their work. The educational dimension of this changing mindset was first recognised and explored at the Bauhaus in Germany, the experiments of which were to inspire the teaching of architecture in schools across Europe and the United States, particularly after the end of the second world war. In the United Kingdom, the quest for a more science-based approach to architectural education had an equally important source in the work of the government's Building Research Station (BRS). From the early 1930s, the BRS initiated steps to familiarise architectural students with its methodologies, and in the postwar years such concerns were channelled into a comprehensive pedagogical reform agenda that culminated in the landmark Oxford Conference on Architectural Education of 1958. This article argues that it was William Allen (1914—98), rather than better-known figures such as Leslie Martin and Richard Llewelyn-Davies, who was the driving force behind this agenda. As chief architect to the BRS, Allen took up a pivotal position at the intersection of building science and professional practice. The article shows how, over the course of two decades, Allen used the institutional machinery of both the BRS and the Royal Institute of British Architects to inject a scientific outlook into the training of architects. His success in doing so positions Allen as a major figure in British post-war architecture, even though his own attempt to implement his vision as principal of the Architectural Association (1961-65) ended in failure.","PeriodicalId":43293,"journal":{"name":"ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY","volume":"56 1","pages":"379 - 402"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89079845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：