The International Style/ Hitchcock and Johnson/ 1932

"Architecture is always a set of actual monuments, not a vague corpus of theory".

The 18th century was a time of revival, chief among which were styles of Classical Revival and Medieval Revival. But the stylistic confusion of combining the styles of revivalism with the new methods and technologies of construction was the

In the 19th century, the revival styles came to be used as decorative elements with no relation to interior space and function. The style of 'Eclecticism' created more chaos. The authors argue that one of the primary reasons that some architects revolted in the 20th century to these styles was that "eclecticism' had broken away from the disciplines of classical architecture, and was simply imitating them. They write that it is possible to imitate the essence of past styles, but imitating their surfaces is problematic.

In this context, they argue, a new style was born -- that which resembled Gothic in terms of structure, and resembled the classical in terms of handling problems.

International Style: Not international in the sense that buildings built in different countries look similar. Neither is it so prescriptive that works of different architects are indistinguishable. This has become distinguishable as a style only after different architects in different countries have carried out similar experiments which share characteristics.
Three characteristics:
conception of architecture as volume and not mass
regularity vs axial symmetry
Proscribing decorative ornamentation

Chapter 2:
The need to break away from existing architectural traditions:
1. availability of new building technologies
2. development of architectural design regardless of limitations

Beginnign of 19th century architects began to move away from revival styles. But stylistic integration did not happen until after world war. Although Industrial architecture of Germany, Berlage at Amsterdam, use of ferroconcrete at paris had initiated principles of International style independently before war.

But it was in America that the International style came into fruition. Walter Gropius, JJ Oud, Mies Van Rohe, Le Corbusier can be considered to be the primary figures of International style. 

Behind the postcolonial/ Abidin Kusno/2000

School of thought: Postcolonial Critique

Others scholars mentioned: Spiro Kostof 'motivation of sequence'; Ben Anderson 'spectre of comparisons'; Anthony King 'colonial modernity'; Paul Rabinow 'social modernity'; Said 'social mission'; Partha Chatterjee 'material and spiritual realms'

Kusno address broad themes in postcolonial architetcure using specific historical examples from Indonesia. He begins the book by laying out the politics of the built environment in postcolonial Indonesia. While the old-order Sukarno's government favored a modern architectural style for newly independent Indonesia, and built a national mosque' symbolizing the narrative of progress, the new-order Suharto's regime favored going back to classical javanese architecture as a symbol of national identity. Several mosques were built across the archipelago in traditional javanese style trying to substitute one national style in place of several indigenous architectural styles. With Kusno argues architectural to be a produce of social and political forces, and as a way of rewriting history. He questions, where Indonesian architecture is rooted, and when should the beginning be placed? He argues architecture and urbanism is not only a lens to understand political and cultural formations of a postcolonial nation, but they are the tools themselves that shape particular social, cultural, and political formations. He uses the theoretical frameworks of Anthony King, Paul Rabinow, and Said to argue that architecture in Indonesia can only be grasped through a serious analysis of political cultures of regimes in power, and the continuing presence of colonialism in today's postcolonial society.

The book divided in three parts examines the architecture, urban spaces, and transnational architectural and political cultures of Indonesia. The primary themes of the book are: colonial origins of contemporary Indonesian architecture, the violent genology of the New Order, and the hybrid modernities that protest the New Order culture.

Part 1: Dutch architects who designed 'Indies architecture' were raised in the colony, and went to Netherland to obtain education. Returning as architects they believed in the colonial mission of modernizing subjects as a 'social mission'. This architecture provided a grammar for postcolonial arhcitects to imagine a national identity. Through the case of Dutch architects working in the Indies, Kusno tries to break away from the narrative of domination (colonizer/colonized binary), and "develop a way to understand the complexity and ambiguity which often formed colonial relation without undermining the importance of power relations."

Part 2:

Part 3: Contemporary protests after New Order:
Kusno argues that the creation of Self and Other as Said argues is occuring even after colonialism ended. Modern elites modernizing elites construct categories of “others”in urban spaces. "These “others” were not meant to be modernized. Instead, they were created for the self-formation of the “modern” elites. This formation of “internal” other follows the logic of colonial “civilizing mission” which in its attempt to modernize the colony still maintained a distance or a gap necessary for hierarchal identification." (Kusno interview)

1. Examines the role of architecture and urbanism in formation of collective subjectives in postcolonial Indonesia
2. It is a political history of Indonesian architecture, by studying the colonial origins of postcolonial architecture not only for the past, but to understand it in present and future
3. It transcends the criticism of modernist architecture as colonial and presents an understanding of how it can be nation-specific.
4. Studying the nexus of power that is located outside the east-west paradigm and understanding the different types of modernities.

Rethinking the Nation/ Abidin Kusno/ 2012

Kusno's chapter discusses the "implications of nationalism for architecture by reflecting historically on how architecture  participates in the construction of and contestation over national identities and historical memories" (214). He studies the interaction of architecture with nationalism and the forces of capitalism, colonialism and modernity acting on architecture.

Kusno's chapter has four main objectives:
1.To see architecture plainly as a state's ideological artifact to exercise its power, Kusno argues, limits the ways architecture can be perceived. Instead, he aims to distinguish  between conflated terms of nation and state, to conceive architecture as national narratives or practices.
2. He argues postcolonial nationalism is not an enemy of modern liberalism. It should not be associated with fascism or totalitarianism.
3. To understand the influence of globalization on mega architectural projects across the globe -- he argues these mega projects get incorporated within existing order of capitalism rather than interrogating it like early independent projects.
4.Due to neo-liberalism governmental power now reached deeper into everyday communities, and even these everyday communities have acquired tactics of insurgency

The second part of the essay, surveys the literature on the relationship of architecture and nationalism that have largely seen architecture as a vehicle of the state to exhibit power.
Anthony King, Diane Ghirado, Gwen Wright, Barbara Lane -- impact of western imperialism on nationalism and architecture
Nezar Alsayyad, James Holston, Lawrence Vale -- nationalism and architecture in postcolonial perspective.
In this section he asks two important questions: How does architecture challenge the dominant power of the national regime and help in imagining a nation? And second, how does architecture allow one to imagine a limited sovereign?

In the third part, Kusno uses Vale and Ksiazek's work on capitols and governments to argue that "architecture is never autonomous". he writes as this ideological framework has been well established,  he wants to focus on how architecture is politicized and used by a national regime to legitimize national sentiments. Here, he wants to clarify the difference between nation and nation-state. He suggests using the terms, people-nation and state-apparatus instead.

The fourth section heavily draws from Anderson's 'Imagined Communities'. Kusno writes that the crucial issue in Anderson's argument is not the employment of idealized national culture to imagine communities, but rather how these are represented and experienced. Kusno suggests architecture is also a medium of representation along with maps, museums, census, newspaper, novel etc. Architecture, Kusno writes, is a "technology of power". Architecture can both narrate the themes of nation as idealized by a particular power group, or it can challenge a regulatory regime of a nation state.

Anderson identifies two ways of  how nation was imagined historically: one was through a horizontal comradeship and second was the official nationalism sanctioned by the nation-state. But in Anderson;s formulation, the nation was always conceived through horizontal comradeship. Thus there is a dialectic relationship between a nation and state which invites one to think the role of architecture in not only supporting state power, but challenging it or even transforming the state through the formation of a new national imagination. To demonstrate this he uses the example of The Institute of Technology at Bandung.

The fifth section is a discussion of how histories of colonialism have influenced architecture. In this he identifies two ways in which architecture has been as a form of dominance: One, middling modernism (free from influence of the local). Second, techno-cosmopolitism (using local for inspiration). He argues, territorial power of the west set up boundaries of the colony and and produced symbolic mapping of national space. 

The Institute of Technology at Bandung was a dutch colonial design which brought together disparate elements from various island of the Indonesian archipelago to form a syncretic architectural style called the "indies architecture". This style, Kusno argues, inadvertently gave the colonized a platform to imagine a new nation, with all its different cultures coming together. However, post independence in Sukarno's time, Indies architecture was forgotten and a modern international style was embraced. But when Suharto's regime came in, Indonesian architects went to Indies architecture which was a combination of various architectural styles of the archipelago to oppose Suharto's choice of using javanese architecture as national symbol. Thus, Kusno argues, architecture became a tool for insurgency, and did not remain a vehicle to exercise state's power.

The next sections delve into the relationship between regionalism and nationalism in the west, and in the colonized world. The US adopted international style as "inherits of western civilization". Kusno argued, the leaders of the newly independent world Nehru, Sukarno, Mao Zedong etc. embraced modern architecture for their newly independent cities like Brasilia, Jakarata, Vhandigarh to rise above regionalism and vernacular inspirations, and to provide the people an architecture to imagine themselves as a part of a pan-regional community. He argues these leaders performed insurgency by showcasing modernist architecture as national symbol. But now, modern architecture has been forgotten as the place for utopian visions of nation and has been replaced by market economy.

Architecture, Power, and National Identity/ Lawrence Vale/ 1992

This book, through several case studies, seeks to explore how architecture has been used by national
regimes to express political power, and how the urban built environment has been manipulated to promote a version of identity that would benefit the government in power. Divided in two parts, this book discusses the various agencies influencing the creation of new 'capitals' and the design of new 'capitols'.

Chapter 1 introduces the terms 'capitol' and 'capital', where capital refers to the city housing the government, and capitol refers to the building housing the government. Vale identifies four ways in which buildings 'mean' - denotation (through meanings), exemplification (drama), metaphorically, and through mediated reference. He provides a historic overview of the development and design of modern capitals, and identifies three types of modern capitals:  

a)Evolved capitals  like London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin which have been in continuous use much before becoming the center of power for national administrations. Here, the political capitols are treated as equals with non-government and public institutions.  These capital do not have one single center of architectural focus, but are poly-vocal. At different stages in history, the various ruling regimes have architecturally imprinted the city to signify their power.

b)Evolved capitals 'renewed' like Rome, Moscow, Athens are cities that have been serving as capitals for several centuries, and whose architecture and urban fabric has been renewed time and again to suit the changing needs of subsequent regimes. As power changed from royal families to papal state, from imperialism to democracy, and to socialist and communist regimes, the city's architecture was continually redefined by adding capitols, memorials, and congregational  spaces which helped in spatially and physically anchoring their political ideologies.

c) Designed Capitals are cities that have been clearly designated as a capital. They are either carried forward from a colonial past (Delhi) or designed afresh to suit the image of a newly formed nation-state (Brasilia).

Chapter 2 discusses the role of capital city and capitol buildings in construction of national identity. While the first chapter introduced the terminology and gave a historical overview of the evolution of capital cities, the second chapter focusses specifically on 'postcolonial capitals' and their importance in nation building. For this Vale begins by surveying the academic landscape of 'nations' and 'nationalism'. Quoting postmodern scholars like Gellner, Hobsbawm, and Anderson, Vale suggests Nationalism to be a modern invention. National identity, he says, was born out of a necessity to have a shared cultural, linguistic lineage among the residents of a newly independent nations who found it easier to identify themselves by who they are not, rather than who they are. Vale proposes that even as capitals and capitols are supposed to be representative of a national distinctness, they often represent the culture and power of only the dominant group within a plural society. This group usually is the ruling political power, and becomes especially problematic if the central division of the nation-state is on religious lines. Then, national identity proposed through capitol buildings can be thought of as 'constructed identity'. He identifies three types of identity projected through the construction of capitol complexes:
a) Subnational identity: In postcolonial nations construction of new capitals becomes a mere demonstration of power and a search for legitimacy by a new regime in power. Ex:Brasilia
b) Personal identity: The personality and influences of the designer or the political sponsor overshadows the showcasing of national identity, especially when a non-native architect is imported to design the new capital Ex:Chandigarh
c) Supranational identity: When architecture (often ostentatious) is used by a self-interested political bureaucracy to symbolize the modern aspirations of a new country and its emerging economic development. 

Chapter 3 discusses four capitals which were designed for union, imperialism, and independence. Vale describes them to be representative of early forms of nationalism. While DC was one of the first capitals to be designed by a union, the colonial capitals were European inspired to served the interests of an overseas empire. 

1. Washington DC was the first postcolonial modern capital. Vale traces the history of DC as one of early capitals designed based on French gardens and town plans and Italian renaissance design by Pierre Charles L'Enfant to today's touristy DC which is a 20th century product. He notes the role of the Capitol building as a symbol of unity from its standing as a locus of power.
2. Canberra: In Australian capital Canberra there were debates over an appropriate symbol for democracy, and the relevance of a master plan that spoke an aristocratic and imperial language.
3. New Delhi: Designed as an Imperial capital, the master plan of New Delhi was the physical manifestation of race, rank, and socioeconomic status prevalent in the Indian society. The colonized and the colonizers had distinctly demarcated spaces in the capital.
4. Ankara: Unlike Imperial Delhi which had a history that pre-dated arrival of British, Ankara was chosen over Constantinople (Istanbul) which had a history of over 1500 years. It was symbolically moving away from European ties of Constantinople and centuries of Ottoman rule to a new Turkish republic. 

Chapter 4 provides an in-depth analysis of two post-war 'modern' capitals - Chandigarh and Brasilia where architecture and urbanism was used to symbolize modernism and national identity of new nations.
1. Chandigarh: Vale is largely sympathetic towards Corbusier and admires his efforts on designing a modern Indian capital which is also evocative of India. He marks the architectural convergence of Corbusier's ideas with that of Lutyens, and notes that by detaching Capitol complex from the city Corbusier represented the supremacy of the executive.
2. Brasilia: The capital was moved inland to the geographic center from the port city of Rio De Janeiro to symbolically claim the newly acquired vast expanse of land. Even as the masterplan of the new capital was said to be influenced by the cross of the catholic church, scholars like Holston argue that this was only done to hide the more radical aspects of the city's design. Unlike in Chandigarh where class segregation was consciously pursued in residential design, Brasilia aimed to break the divide by building all residential units alike. But it only ignited riots amongst the residents. The central capitol complex was not designed by bureaucrats, Vale writes, but for them. 

Chapter 5 discusses three capitals (Islamabad, Abuja, Dodoma) that were designed after 1960's and were significantly influenced by the masterplan of Chandigarh and Brasilia. Here, the ideas of the prior capitals were reconsidered and improved upon. Post-war capitals have not only imported western architecture but also western democratic ideologies. 

Chapters 6 to 9 discusses four capitals built after 1980's : Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Bangladesh. Vale brings out the strengths and failures of each of the capitols, and ends every discussion on a hopeful note that the building that is currently unsuited for the people may in future shed its negative connotations and become naturalized in its setting.  

1. The architecture of Papua New Guinea's (PNG) capitol complex was said to be inspired from various aspects of traditional village life of the region. The architecture was drawn from vernacular roof forms, the aesthetics came from ritual objects, and urban form was taken from village men's houses etc. But in all this the political struggle was embedded. The vernacular structure was found only in some parts of the region, which had been traditionally seen as the dominating class, and hence the architecture of capitol complex was accused of favoring one set of people over others. The ritual objects and art pieces were taken out of context and presented as secular indigenous objects which was seen as disrespectful. Vale argues at PNG both subnational and supranational identity were being constructed by the collaboration and cross-pollination of various groups' identities.  

2. Sri Lankan island parliament designed by native architect Geoffery Bawa differs from the previous case studies by embracing indigenous architectural traditions and a  multitude of references from different ethnicities. But being in a country that is plagued by ethnic conflicts and civil war it came to be seen as representative of the unchallenged Sinhalese power on the Island. 

3. Kuwait's National Assembly complex was designed by John Utzon and was inspired by local Arab tents in the the marshlands, but the symbolism was lost in abstraction.

4. Dhaka's National Assembly building designed by Lois Kahn appears to be the most severe failure of all the capitols studies in the book. Being influenced much more by the architect's ideologies than the government's the building appears to a  army stronghold rather than a house of democracy. Kahn's over utilization of the elements of Mosque provoked strong reactions from the 11 million Hindus in the region. 

Chapter 10 brings together all of the case studies where Vale offers a prescriptive conclusion for designing capitals and capitols. He presents three ways to approach the design of a  capitol complex that would symbolize both national identity and the power. a) he argues that capitol complexes should move beyond politics where the designer should consciously steer away from the political intentions of its sponsor. b)Vale questions if it would be possible for one building to be a microcosm of an entire society, and if so who should be the judge of its accuracy. He offers that since it is impossible to have a microcosm the symbolism of the national building is significant and hence must be carefully designed. c) Vale argues that since Capitol complexes end up being instruments of political power, and they cannot be representative of an entire society, the buildings should be designed to reflect an idealized form of governance and intergroup relations in the country. Here again he wonders who would have the power to decide what an ideal representation should be.
Vale concludes his prescription of a 'good capitol' with the thought that even as Capitol complexes have not been ideal buildings and have favored one group, regime, political institution, or even a designer over the interests of the common public, they showcase the the hierarchy of power structure in the country. He writes, "Regimes build capitol complexes chiefly to serve personal, subnational, and supranational interests rather than to advance national identity; designers cannot mold political

change; and governments still find it necessary to demonstrate their power through aesthetic exaggeration." 

Chandigarh's Le Corbusier: The Struggle for Modernity in Postcolonial India/ Vikramaditya Prakash/ 2002

Chapter 1: With Nehru's vision for Chandigarh different from Corbusier's vision, was there a east-west dialectic playing out in the city's design? While for Nehru, the city had to be a symbol of modernism, and reflect the modern aspirations of a newly emerging industrial nation, Corbusier imagined a modern city that was nostalgic for India's poverty and primitivism.

Chapter 2 discusses the element of modernity in the masterplan of the city from its conception to its final form. Where was the design imported from and who were the actors?
 In Postcolonial India, are the terms 'modern' and 'Indian' mutually exclusive? Is Chandigarh perceived as an 'un-Indian' city because it was designed to be modern and by a western architect?Prakash traces the initial idea for Chandigarh, beginning with Fletcher's strong call for a 'Garden City' model, and PL Verma's stronger opposition for it. Verma's opposition ensured that Chandigarh would be a designed as a more typical city but would preserve Ebenezer Howard's 'Garden City' ideas. Albert Mayer, an american town-planner working in Uttar Pradesh was appointed to materialize the garden city idea. Mayer's design promised a city "strongly Indian in feel and function, as well as modern. With Mayer's partner's premature death, Verma approached English husband-wife architects Fry and Drew who in turn referred him to Le Corbusier. Corbusier was initially appointed only to 'advise and actively assist' in construction of Mayer's plans, but he gradually took charge and demanded to re-design the city to reflect his ideology. A 'Capitol' head was put in place, and arterial roads were designed to connect various 'Sectors'. Prakash argues that Corbusier did not design Chandigarh based on Lutyens' New Delhi, even though he admired it.

Chapter 3 discusses the design of the Capitol Complex. By delving into the religious influences in Corbusier's life, it aims to show a human side of a "fallen hero who failed in deliverance". Prakash examines the Biblical and philosophical influences in Corbusier's painting of the Capitol Door, and his idea of rural-utopia.

Chapter 4 offers an in-depth (psycho)analysis of Corbusier's sketches of the high court and the assembly building. He argues that the scale of these buildings seem vast and limitless to human scale because Corbusier measured them against the backdrop of Himalayas. Prakash (through Fruedian principles) analyzes that his design of the assembly building as reminiscent of an Indian bull indicates his eagerness for the villagers to understand his buildings (as he fascinated with noble savages).
[Thankfully, the author ends this chapter with "it is impossible for me to verify whether Le Corbusier ever meant all that I have understood his buildings to be." But sadly, he also adds, "Nonetheless, it would be disingenuous to deny that one always writes, and designs, with the hope of verification."]

Chapter 5 discusses the history of symbolism of Corbusier's 'open hand' icon that was adopted by the city of Chandigarh almost 30 years since its proposal. Prakash does a survey of several of Corbusier's 'Hand' paintings and argues that the inspiration for Chandigarh's open hand came from the monument in memory of the left-wing mayor of Villejuif in France in 1938. Prakash divides the analysis in three parts - He describes the first wave of open hand designs to be Corbusier's personal thoughts and obsessions, with the figure the second wave to reflect India's position as a non-aligned nation during the war.  By the time of the third wave (the time when the open hand was installed in Chandigarh) its meaning entangled with Corbusian ideas and Nehruvian politics was largely forgotten. "The open to give, open to receive"  hand is today only graphically remembered as a symbol of Chandigarh.