Genius Historiae Christian Norberg-Schulz in a historiographic perspective Mari Hvattum ‘Those who have had the pledsure to hear Christian Norberg-Schulz lecture, will know that he was a brilliant speaker with a very particular lecture style, A talk by Norberg-Schulz was like a concert piece, with crescendo, diminuendi, and sudden, syncopated ‘emphases on individual words and ideas. This musical intonation is echoed in his writing, not least in his frequent use of italics and inverted commas. It is almost difficult to read Norberg-Schulz’s texts without hearing the well known voice insisting — with verve and musicality — on the issue at stake. Christian Norberg-Schulz’ love of a good story may serve as a hint, not only of his abilities as a storyteller, but also of his underlying understanding of history. Norberg-Schul7’s historiography really does constitute a narrative — a story ~ which unfolds by means of distinctly teleological thought-structures. His history writing did not set out to account for past events. Rather, it sought to capture hidden principles of development; principles that would allow past, present and future to be understood 108 with greater clarity. His extensive historical oeuvre notwithstanding, Norberg-Schulz was first and foremost an architect and a theorist, rather than a historian, His engagement with history was always normative: by understanding the past one could understand what needed to be done today and tomorrow. A text which allows Norberg-Schulz’s distinctive take on history to appear with great clarity is the little heeded Roots of Modern Architecture from 1988." ‘Admittedly, the book can hardly be ranked among Notberg-Schulz’s main works. With its glossy presentations of modernist and post-modernist ‘masterpieces, beautifully photographed by Yukio Futagawa, Roots comes across as coffee-table book aimed primarily at arpépular audience. The fact that the book contains one of Norberg-Schulz’s most ‘enthusiastic apologies for figurative postmodernism has hardly contributed to a strengthen its reputation throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. However, the glowy layout should not distract readers from whatROOTS sikcuirecrure Cea es sae ary Christian Norberg-Sechule, Roots of Modern Architecture, Tokyo: ADA Edita, 1988 is in fact an interesting reflection on postmodernism in architecture, considering it the outcome of an evolution stretching from the modernist fiee plan to the re-conguest of the monumental expression in post-war architecture, Furthermore, Roots contains some very interesting historiographic assumptions, enabling a surprisingly precise glimpse into Norberg- Schulz’s thinking on history. Although Roots cannot be considered a main, work within Norberg-Schulz’s oeuvre; it is by no means devoid of ambition. As the preface proclaims: «This is not a history of modern architecture. The aim of the book is theoretical, and represents an 108 attempt at explaining what modern architecture is all about.» This explanation, as the title indicates, isto be established by scrutinizing the roots, development, and felos of the modern movement. It is this triad of germination, growth and fulfilment that structures Norberg-Schulz’s historical narrative: a figure of thought for which history is a living being ~ an organism. In this brief essay I shall look at Norberg Schulz’ organic notion of history and situate it within a historiographic tradition, Beginnings Roots of Modern Architecture is dedicated to Notberg- Schule’ teacher at ETH in Zurich,’ Sigftied Giedion. Mote specifically it points to Giedion’s Space, Time and Architecture which was, in Norberg-Schulzs mind, «another attempt at explaining what modern architecture is all abouts.‘ As the self-appointed chronicler of Modernism, Giedion had construed the modern movement as a afresh starte, «Contemporary architecture had to begin anew ... It had to reconquer the most primitive things, as if nothing had ever been done before» wrote Giedion in 1948,a turn ‘of phrase which reappears several times in Roots Modernism had turned its back on the conceited facades of historicism and re-conquered architecture’ ‘most primeval truths; therein lay its relevance for a new time. This interest in origins and beginnings was not new: 18" century Enlightenment thinking was already fall of such returns. Herder sought the beginnings of language, and Condillac looked for the origin of sensation, Goethe searched untiringly for the primordial plant, while Rousseau attempted to grasp the beginnings of human culture as such.*‘Architecture was not exempt from this interest, and theorists from Laugier to Viollet-le-Duc presented their primitive huts as potential examples of the origin and beginning of architecture.” Giedion and Norberg-Schulz fit seamlessly into this tradition, with their mutual search for uncorrupted origins as the panacea for a disordered present. Giedion’s clean slate Modernism may seem antithetical to Norberg- Schulz’ post-modern emphasis on history, yet they share the notion of history as an organic-teleological structure evolving towards fulfilment.* As Norberg- Schulz. writes in the introduction to Roots In all chapters, the roots of modern architecture are ‘exposed, and the findings are used to obtain a better understanding of the development. The word «root» here refers to acemporal, archetypal structures as well 28 the experience of relevant architectural historical periods. To study roots and beginning is at the same time to study historical structures and their development: the birth, growth, decay, and ultimate death of epochs. Such a study would allow the historian to identify the permanent as well as the mutable aspects of architectural history. For Norberg-Schal, as for Giedion, Modernism was a new response to an age- ‘old quest posed — not by place, but by time; not by Genius Loci but by Genius Historia the spirit of history. Development This «spirit of history» becomes the driving force behind all historical development in architecture for both Giedion and Norberg-Schulz. The spirit of 110 history moves through time as a living force, uniting, the epoch’s multifarious expressions to a unified whole. «Der Geist des Jahrhunderts durchwebte und band - die verschiedensten Eigenschaften - [...] bands zu dem Ganzen» wrote Johann Gottfried Herder in 1774, anticipating the historicist belief in epochal unity with great precision." For Norberg-Schulz, as for Giedion, this epochal unity comes to expression in architecture and establishes the relation between a time and its buile expression. The primary purpose of architecture is to mirror its time in a truthful manner, thus establishing the present as an epoch proper. The task of the historian, on the other hand, is to unveil the origin, development, fulfilment, and decay of the epochal organism, thus revealing principles of evolution that might in turn help to set the course for the fature. The historicist notion of epoch construes history as a living being that germinates, grows and dies. In Norberg-Schule’s texts this happens quite literally. Art Nouveau, for example, «withered away after only a few years of lifer because its elaborately ornamental style could not adequately express the spirit of its time." Historicism, similarly, passed away because it no longer corresponded to the needs of its epoch." It is not only stylistic idioms that are in a continual cycle of birth, growth and death; individual architectural motifs such as the five plan of Modernism are also explained in terms of am ofganic life-cycle: «During, its infancy, the free plan had to be protected against forms which involved the danger of fling back ‘on static self-suffiencys, Norberg-Schulz explains."* In later Modernism, the free plan evolved to a more robust configuration capable of withstandingthe introduction of historical forms. In fact, not only did it withstand such forrs but it craved them: postmodernism’s historical references represent, as Norberg-Schulz sees it, an organic-teleological fulfilment of the free plan. As he puts it: ‘The complex spatial layouts of authentic post-modern architecture do not representa reaction against Modernisin. As interpretations of the free plan they belong to the new tradition and contribute to its growth.” We recognize this insistent Zeitgeist from Giedion, who frequently uses the‘demands of the Zeitgeist as a means to legitimize modernist form. As the subtitle of Space Time and Architecture ~ the Growth of a Naw Tradition ~ indicates, history, for Giedion, was an evolution unfolding itself with the organic regularity of a plant. Norberg-Schulz’s historiography is driven by the wish to explore the life-conditions for this particular organism, ‘The organic metaphor has a long tradition in continental history-writing. German idealism and. romanticism had long construed history as a plant; an organism in a continuous state of development. Herder talks about history as a tree; an organised whole, complete at any given point of its growth, yet evolving according to lawful and regular patterns." Like the tree, history consists of a series of developmental stages, each complete in itself, forming unique and incommensurable epochs. ‘This, of course, is the leading idea in historicist thought; history is an epochal organism, which is continuously evolving yet at the same time always complete.” Art and architecture give this epochal at organism an expression, now understood as the manifestation and realisation of the Zeitgeist. This onganic-aesthetic figure of thought had immediate and considerable consequences for the writing of architectural history. In the same way that the anatomist could see organic form as an indication of the organisms inner workings, the att historian could read epochal style as the expression of the spirit of the time and read stylistic change as examples of a lawfl organic development towards fulfilment. Modernism would adopt this figure of thought wholesale from historicism, making it the very principle for modern thinking on architecture: the primary task of architectuze is to embody the spirit of the time ~ to give direct expression to the Zeitgeist. For the historian, architecture thus became an invaluable «barometer of civilisations, by which ‘one could measure the emergence, growth and fall of any given culture. This historicist paradigm would come to be an essential characteristic of German art-history, fom Goethe’ gothic epiphany in 1772, via Burkhardt’ og Wélffin’s culturally contextual studies of the renaissance and baroque respectively, to Giedion’s modernist manifestoes. Norberg-Schule’s defence of figurative postmodernism in Roots of Modern Architecture must be seen as a continuation of this tradition. Fulttiment . Historicism introduces a form of epochal relativism for which all periods in history are vequal before God»,as the historian Leopold von Ranke put it This equality notwithstanding, each epoch is governed by a strict organic regularity. Historicalperiods, like living beings, develop according to a plan, towards their fal metaphor, then, becomes not only a means by which to understand history but also an instrument of historical critique, insofar as every cultural expression may be measured against the demands of the Zeitgeist. In Norberg-Schulz, this teleology comes to expression in interesting ways, such as within his analysis of Louis Kahn, Norberg-Schulz considered Kahn to be a significant precursor of postmodernism and an architect with a well-developed sense of figurative, symbolic qualities. And yet something was not in place: Iment or ‘elos. The organic And still, something is lacking. Kahn's images are certainly related to the archetypes, and they are easily recognisable, but they do not constitute any. symbol system which responds to the language of architecture."" Measured against the latent ‘elas of modern architecture, striving towards the re-conquest of a figurative language of architecture, Kahn's architecture was yet incomplete. Rather like a seedling develops into a mature plant, history develops towards certain goals, against which every historical expression must be measured. IFarchitecture is not sensitive to the goals towards which its own time is striving, it will by necessity remain deficient. For Norberg-Schulz, Kahn is an example of this, deficiency. The Zeitgeist of post-modernity yearns for the figure, and post-modern architecture moves towards the figurative in a teleological movement. Due to the fact that Kahn, as Norberg-Schulz sees it, lacks a complete, figurative language of architecture, 12 he fails in his attempt to manifest che spirit of his ‘own time. A similar verdict is passed over Frank Lloyd ‘Wright, whose organic architecture is seen as the beginning of a place-specific Modernism. «But a basic element was still lacking: the architectural image», writes Notberg-Schulz.” Note the wording: still something is lacking — something that will undoubtedly come, something that will inevitably burst out «ftom the womb of history», asthe historicist Carl Batticher put it.” Figurative postmodernism is explained a8 a response to a lack: an attempt to complete the modernist project that had not yet reached its falfilment. «Postmodernism came into being ¢© conquer this short-comingy Norberg-Schulz tells us." Cultivating a new sensitivity to the demands of the time, figurative postmodernism was to conclude the Modern project, thereby resolving modernity from its deadening loss of authenticity. In the historicist notion ofa necessary correspondence between epoch and expression, lutks one of modernity’ most hackneyed figures of thought, namely the idea of crisis. Crisis, as understood within this organic-historiographical perspective, signifies a mismatch between time and expression; the idea that we live in a time which no longer displays a true and authentic relation between Zeitgeist and self expression, The French Enlightenment thinker Claude-Henri de Saint Simon, for instance, saw history as an oscillation, between «organics and sihorganic» periods; the former marked by a perfect correlation berween time and expression, the unfortunate latter living in a crisis-ridden incoherence between the real need of the time and its inauthentic expressive possibilities.”Saint-Simon’s notion of «inorganic» periods lives on in historicist thought, and the increasingly desperate debates ~ throughout the 19% century ~ over «which style should we build» can be seen as a direct, ‘outcome of this figure of thought. Norberg-Schulz adopts this idea of epochal incoherence, making it the basis for a critique of different periods in architectural history. The neo-classicism of the late 18 century, for instance, failed because it degenerated into a static typology and principles of composition, rather than expressing the free and critical sprit of the Enlightenment. As Norberg-Schulz writes: Again we face the paradox that the conciete manifestation of the Enlightenment contradicted its very goal:a new human freedom. The teason is evidently a confusion of thinking and feeling.” ‘The Enlightenment could not muster an architecture that truthfilly expressed its particular genius. Instead, 18" century architecture degenerated into a sterile and schematic neo-classicism. For Norberg-Schulz, the Enlightenment failed with resepct to the most basic criteria for historical authenticity, namely in «establishing a seamless coherence between the sprit of the time and its artistic expression. Christian Norberg-Schulz — like his teacher Sigftied Giedion — adopts the historicist notion of Zeitgeist and crisis and makes the ‘genius historiae’ into a kind of super-historical norm against which the achievements and shortcomings of any given epoch may be measured. Indeed, he doesn't shy away from reprimanding agents of history for failing to live up to the demands of their time, as this analysis of Le Corbusier brings out: 113 In the past the conception of space and form were tonited in images which were simultaneously archetypal (general) and local (circumstantial). Such images were the column, the arch, the gable, the cower, che pyramid and the rotunda, Le Corbusier intuited that when he defined architecture as the emasterly, correct and ‘magnificent play of volumes brought together in light cubes, cones, spheres, cylinders and pyramids are the great primary Forms...» although he described the primary forms in too abstract, mathematical terms." Le Corbusier’ mistake, according to Norberg-Schulz, ‘was to not heed the developmental necessity that would, eventually, culminate in the post-modern re~ conquest of the figurative expression. By understanding the primary forms sin too abstract terms», Corbusier failed to nurture the seeds of history; he hindered, or pethaps even harmed, history’s development towards its final fulfilment, What, one may ask, does this fulfilment consist of Norberg Schulz is very clear in Roots about what he considers the telos of modern architecture: «Moder architecture came into being to help man feel at home in a new world. couple of pages later, this is specified further: ¢To heal this ‘Split of thinking and feeling’ was a basic aim of the modern movement in art and architecture.» The diagnose in question is Giedion’s, who in Space,Time and Architecture, firmly established the following perspective: We have behind usa period inawhich thinking and fecling was separated. Ths schism produced individuals ‘whose inner development was uneven, who lacked inner equilibrium: split personalities.” This gloomy verdict did, however, open the possi bility for healing. Accordingly, Norberg-Schulz talksabout Modernism as a cuze. But who is actually the patient here? Ts it the alienated modern individual, as Giedion hints, or is it history itself? In Roots, ic seems as though history itself is the object of concern, Ratherlike Saint-Simon’s «inorganic» periods could be transformed into coherent organic epochs via utopian socialism, history, for Norberg-Schulz, could be cured of its ails thorough the healing power of figurative postmodernism, The ultimate goal of modern architecture — and in this respect Norberg-Schulz saw figurative postmodernism as a direct continuation of the ‘modernist striving — was to heal the Enlightenment split between thought and feeling, time and expression, In figurative postmodernism, for instance that of Michael Graves, Christian Norberg-Schulz saw a kind of Hegelian synthesis between the antithetical positions of Classicism and Modernism. In much the same manner that Borromini had reinvented renaissance architecture for the counter-reformation, Graves had revitalised the classical language for a new cra, thus fulfilling the selos of modern architecture. ‘As Norberg-Schulz writes: ‘The different currents of post-modern architecture [...] have one a in common: the recovery of the symbolic image 48 part of a system of symbolic forms.» As the hopefill heading of the last chapter in Roots — «The New Place» ~ indicates, this was no break, rather a fulfilment of the latent goal of Modernism. Referring to Giedions «new tradition» from Space, Time, and Architecune, Roots end with the following organic teleological proclamation: «(The new tradition indicates, the way towards the new plac [...].‘The post-modern quest for the image also belongs to its growth.» 114 Coda About the same time that Christian Norberg- Schulz signed his preface to Roots of Modern Architecture, Peter Eisenman wrote his famous essay «The End of the Classical, the End of the End, the End of the Beginnings. Published in Perspecta in 1984, Bisenman’s essay pinpointed the organic~ teleological historiography that underlay figurative postmodernism with femarkable precision, «The End of the Classical...» presented a critique as witty as it was piercing, dismantling the belief in origins and fulfilment that had run more or less unbroken throughout 19"and 20% century architectural discourse and had culminated in the organic teleology of figurative postmodernism. Through his conceptual deconstruction of the notions of beginnings and ends, Fisenman attempted to sketch out a radically anti-teleological understanding of architecture ~ an architecture liberated from the demands of the Zeitgeist. This is hardly the place to analyse Eisenman’s contribution, which in itself is far from unproblematic. It is enough to say that Eisenman’s critique highlighted a figure of thought that had been left unquestioned for far too long in modern architectural historiography, namely the idea of architecture as the faithful servant and organic footprint of the Genius Historiae. We owe it to Christian Norberg-Schulz to continue to pose stich critical questions regardipg.those half-hidden thought structures that govern our stories about architectural pasts and presents. Questions that will inevitably affect even Norberg-Schulz’s own grand narrative of the origin, growth and fulfilment of modern architecture.Notes 1" 12 13 4 118 Tokyo: AD.A Eéita, 1988, p. 7. The preface i dated February 1983. Roots, p. 7 Die Eidgendssische Technische Hochschule Zarich. Roots, p.7, Sigtied Giedion, untiled essay from Architectural Review's famous special iseuo «In Search of a naw Menumentalys, September 1948, p. 126. In Roots, this quote appears in ‘several versions, mostly without direct references to Giedion ‘See for instance p, 13, 31, 66, 104, 185 Johann Gottried Herder, Abhandlung Uber den Ursprung der Sprache, Borin 1772, Etine Bonnot de Condilae, Essai sur Frrigin des connoissances humaines: ouvrage ou lon réduit & un seul principe tout ce qui conceme Ientendement hutrain, ‘Amsterdam 1748, Johann Woligang Goethe, Di italianische Reise, 1786-88, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discours sur Torigine ot ls fardemens de Vinegualité parm les homes, ‘Amsterdam 1755, Marc:Antoine Laugier, Essai sur larcitecture Paris 1783, Eugéne-EmmanuelVillat1e-Due, Dietionnare Raisonne de Architecture, Pais 1856. For a thorough discussion on modernist historiography, see Panayotis Tourist, The Historiography of Modern Architec- ‘ure, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press 1999. Roots, p.7 Johann Gottried Herder, Auch eine Philosophie der Ge: schichte zur Bildung der Menschheit (1774), Stuttgart: Reka 1980, p. 48, Roots, p. 58 Roots, p. 177 Roots, p. 43 Roots, p. 43 18 16 ” 18 19 20 2 24 26 7 28 29 ‘Soe for example Gieon’s extato invocation ofthe Zeitgeist of modernity in Baven in Frankreich, Bavon in Eison, Bauer in Eisenbeton 1928), engeic oversettelee ved Sokratis Geor- lads, Building in France, Building in Iron, Building in Fea: concrete, St. Monica: Getty, 1996 for instance p. 18 and 93, ‘Auch eine Phitosophie, op cit p. 64 ‘As discussed by a. Katt Lowith in his books Meaning in History: the theological implications ofthe philosophy of history (Chicago: Univecsity of Chicago Press 1949) and From Hegel to Netzsche: the revolution in Ninetoenth century ‘thought (London: Constable 1964). have investigated the impact of historcit thinking on 19" century architectural discourse ia Mari Hvattum: Gottried Semper and the Problem Of Historicism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004, Roots p. 168 Roots, p. 168 Gar! Batticher, «The Principles ofthe Hellenic and Germanic, Ways of Bulding wth regards to their application to our Pres- lent Way of Building» (1846), fra W. Hermann (red) In what ‘Sle should we Build: the German Debate on Architectural ‘Syle. Getty: t, Monica 1892, p. 157 Roots p. 169 ‘Seo for example Saint Simons On the Industral System (1821), in G,lonescu (ed) The Political Thought of Saint ‘Simon, Oxford: Oxford University Pross 1976, p, 153-86 Roots, p81 Roots, p.17 Roots, 8 Roots, p13 ‘Space Time and Architecture (1941), 8° edition, Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1982, p. 13, Roots, p. 189) Roots, p. 195, my emphasis.