![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhythmaningI have been to two large exhibitions recently. Back in February, I went to the Palladio show at the Royal Academy (which I briefly mentioned back then), and then this week I went to see a big exhibition on Le Corbusier at the Barbican.
I was underwhelmed by the Palladio – it didn’t grab me at all. In contrast, the Le Corbusier was fascinating: even though I prefer Palladian architecture by far, Le Corbusier worked much better as an exhibition.
Intriguingly, I think part of this might be down to the environment: the lighting in the Palladio was kept very dim, to protect centuries old documents. In contrast, the Le Corbusier was bright and accessible. It placed Le Corbusier’s buildings and ideas in context and explained why they were important.
The architectural models used to illustrate Palladian designs felt static and dead, whilst those of Le Corbusier’s buildings seemed vital and energetic (not necessarily a feeling I have of his buildings!) – this may be down to the level of the lighting.
The Barbican recreated some spaces that Le Corbusier had designed, so one could actually experience what it would have been like to inhabit them (in a rather reduced kind of a way) – a very sixties kitchen, for instance.
The Le Corbusier also made a much better use of video than the Palladio. In the exhibition itself, there was little use made of photographs or video in the Palladio: there were some frustratingly small photographs, but the only video I can remember was outside of the main body of the exhibition, with some videos made by living architects on the effect that Palladio’s designs had on them. These were the best bits of the show – the architecture came alive as these architects explored Palladio’s ideas. But they were right at the end, and by then the wish to explore with them had long since gone.
In contrast, the Le Corbusier exhibition made use of a lot of photographs and videos. We saw his designs being built in different parts of the world. We were able to walk through his buildings via videos. (This could have been done with Palladio too – the curators just lacked the means or imagination.) The precious documents included in the show were only seen as slides, which meant the whole thing could be bright, and the details could be seen – if only the Royal Academy had done that!
Both Palladio and Le Corbusier produced designs which were never built. Le Corbusier developed plans for the centre of Paris which would have required knocking down several blocks north of Ile St Louis, replacing the palais and grand buildings with huge tower blocks. I actually gasped when I saw the plans, and then burst into laughter – it seemed so absurd. He also planned a long strip-tower block for (I think) Algiers, a multi-storey block miles long. It looked like a great idea, but an awful actuality – and it reminded me that while Le Corbusier’s idea were interesting, and the buildings he built were fascinating, his influence resulted some of the worst of 20th century social buildings: tall towers, box constructions, anonymous and impersonal urban landscapes – buildings like the infamous Byker Wall, the towers in Glasgow’s Gorbals, the centre of Cumbernauld (a new town that aged prematurely) and throughout Britain.
The ideas might have been interesting, but they were interpreted too strictly, with insufficient investment and fast and shoddy work; they didn’t last – though some, like the Trellick Tower are now highly regarded.
But even here, the Le Corbusier succeeded: they had a section showing these buildings, including emphasising the link between Le Corbusier and the Barbican itself - whilst no mention had been made of the Palladian Royal Academy building, nor any of the Georgian buildings based on his ideas and cherished throughout Britain.
Generally, I’d say I much prefer Palladio’s influence (although Le Corbusier started out as an architect in the classical tradition) – the Georgian splendour of both Bath and Edinburgh, and the beauty of Palladio’s buildings in Venice; but in terms of exhibitions, Le Corbusier won out easily.
I was underwhelmed by the Palladio – it didn’t grab me at all. In contrast, the Le Corbusier was fascinating: even though I prefer Palladian architecture by far, Le Corbusier worked much better as an exhibition.
Intriguingly, I think part of this might be down to the environment: the lighting in the Palladio was kept very dim, to protect centuries old documents. In contrast, the Le Corbusier was bright and accessible. It placed Le Corbusier’s buildings and ideas in context and explained why they were important.
The architectural models used to illustrate Palladian designs felt static and dead, whilst those of Le Corbusier’s buildings seemed vital and energetic (not necessarily a feeling I have of his buildings!) – this may be down to the level of the lighting.
The Barbican recreated some spaces that Le Corbusier had designed, so one could actually experience what it would have been like to inhabit them (in a rather reduced kind of a way) – a very sixties kitchen, for instance.
The Le Corbusier also made a much better use of video than the Palladio. In the exhibition itself, there was little use made of photographs or video in the Palladio: there were some frustratingly small photographs, but the only video I can remember was outside of the main body of the exhibition, with some videos made by living architects on the effect that Palladio’s designs had on them. These were the best bits of the show – the architecture came alive as these architects explored Palladio’s ideas. But they were right at the end, and by then the wish to explore with them had long since gone.
In contrast, the Le Corbusier exhibition made use of a lot of photographs and videos. We saw his designs being built in different parts of the world. We were able to walk through his buildings via videos. (This could have been done with Palladio too – the curators just lacked the means or imagination.) The precious documents included in the show were only seen as slides, which meant the whole thing could be bright, and the details could be seen – if only the Royal Academy had done that!
Both Palladio and Le Corbusier produced designs which were never built. Le Corbusier developed plans for the centre of Paris which would have required knocking down several blocks north of Ile St Louis, replacing the palais and grand buildings with huge tower blocks. I actually gasped when I saw the plans, and then burst into laughter – it seemed so absurd. He also planned a long strip-tower block for (I think) Algiers, a multi-storey block miles long. It looked like a great idea, but an awful actuality – and it reminded me that while Le Corbusier’s idea were interesting, and the buildings he built were fascinating, his influence resulted some of the worst of 20th century social buildings: tall towers, box constructions, anonymous and impersonal urban landscapes – buildings like the infamous Byker Wall, the towers in Glasgow’s Gorbals, the centre of Cumbernauld (a new town that aged prematurely) and throughout Britain.
The ideas might have been interesting, but they were interpreted too strictly, with insufficient investment and fast and shoddy work; they didn’t last – though some, like the Trellick Tower are now highly regarded.
But even here, the Le Corbusier succeeded: they had a section showing these buildings, including emphasising the link between Le Corbusier and the Barbican itself - whilst no mention had been made of the Palladian Royal Academy building, nor any of the Georgian buildings based on his ideas and cherished throughout Britain.
Generally, I’d say I much prefer Palladio’s influence (although Le Corbusier started out as an architect in the classical tradition) – the Georgian splendour of both Bath and Edinburgh, and the beauty of Palladio’s buildings in Venice; but in terms of exhibitions, Le Corbusier won out easily.