STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF ART +73 + Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts Symposium Papers L A Modernist Museum in Perspective: The East Building, National Gallery of Art Edited by Anthony Alofsin National Gallery of Art, Washington Distributed by Yale University Press New Haven and LondonALONA NITZAN-SHIFTAN “Technion Tostiute of Technolgy, Lite Toward a Modernist Civic Monument: Pei’s East Building and the City of Washington “The site was not my first concern. I guess my {iret concern really was the fac that it was on the great Mall of Washington, DC, I was more concerned about symbolism than almost any- thing else =LM. Pei hen a New Yorker writer returned from a visit to the newly opened East Building, an ly eines reporting that he felt “like a happy isosce- les triangle, a joyous tetrahedron, a carefree trapezoid” he was celebrating, as most crit- ics did, ILM. Pei’s triangular solution to the butlding’s trapezoidal site. The building's double-triangle parti, critics exalted, was not only an elegant response to the sym- metrical scheme of the adjacent neoclassi- cal West Building but also an impressive anchor to the challenging nineteea-degree angle convergence of Pennsylvania Avenue and the National Mall But apparently the particularities of the awkward site were not 4s crucial to Pei as the fact that the building was located on the Mall at the foot of Capi tol Hill, Because he had been commissioned to erect a modemist building on 2 site that he felt was “full of tradition and sacred to somany Americans,” his primary concern was with symbolism. Addressing Pei’s modernist, urban, and civic convictions, this essay explores the meansheemployed to express the idea under lying Washington’ symbolism through the turban design of an individual building. The text focuses on a major breakthrough in the building design, when several months of inconclusive experiments with geometric solutions ended in splitting the main isos- celes triangle of the exhibition area into three independent towers, each concept: alized as a “house museum" analogous to Sir John Soane’s Museum in London o the ‘Museo Poldi Pezzoli in Milan. The essay proposes that this early design transition ‘marked the moment when the design ven- tured beyond the geometry of the site to address Washington’s urban form. As a result the building was no longer “just” situated in the city; mote purposefully, the city was brought into the building, allowing Pei to reenact its symbolism by carefully orchestrating what may be called an inter rized urbanism. The three “house muse- tums" became urban anchors within the building. The spatial relationship among them generated purposeful movement that reiterated the symbolism of the city plan in three-dimensional space. This participatory architectural experience communicated the underlying idea of the building through movement and touch, circulation and mate- rials, rather than visual imagery and formal composition, ultimately suggesting a mod- cernist sense of monumentality.‘Modernist Monumentality in Washington In 1968 the trustees of the National Gallery commissioned IM. Pei to build a modernist extension to the existing museum on a neo classical mall at a time when modernism, wwas already seriously questioned and civic movements directed attention away from such institutions and toward social goals. ‘These circumstances required rethinking the concept of a national art institution, the nature of its monumentality, and the kind of architecture that woul hest accommo- date the new concept. Considering the extent to which the mod em movement was criticized during the subsequent decade of the East Building's design and construction, the choice of a modernist expression for the new building ran the risk of ereating outdated architec ture, a complaint leveled at John Russell’ Pope’s National Gallery three decades ear lier. When Pope was commissioned in 1935 to build the original Gallery, he secured his design within aclassical architectural vocab- ulary associated with monumeatality—the ‘grand stairs, the dome and central rotunda, the marble detailing, and the careful sym- ‘metry of the composition —in keeping with the overwhelming classicism of Washing- ton’s federal core. When the West Building ‘opened in 1941, modernist architeets, who refused to follow such academic rules of ‘order and composition, disputed its retat- dataire classicism, which reiterated Pope's already highly controversia] design for the Jeflerson Memorial. Leading voices came from modemist faculty members of Har vvard’s Graduate School of Design, who were struggling to tansform the country's archi- tectural culture® Pei decided to join this ‘modernist camp in 1942. After completin, 4 Beaux-Arts-influenced bachelor of archi tecture program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he enrolled in Gropius’ mas {ers program at Harvard, where he finished his studies and started teaching after World War 11 During the roqos architects and artists began to question whether modern archi- tecture could embody a sense of monu. mentality appropriate to the postwar era, Challenging Lewis Mumford’ famous asser- tion 1938) that “if it isa monument it can- not be modern, and if itismodera, it cannot be a monument,” they wished to express bby modern means what they defined as the collective aspiration of people after World ‘War, to produce symbols for “their ideals, aims, and actions” while rooting them in a sense of continuity and permanence.* Two fundamental questions informed the debate that lay the groandwork for posewar archi- tecture for decades tp follow: how to ereet, in a postfascist era, tivie monuments that would symbolize free people rather than a single ruler or absolute power, and how 0 achieve such monumentality by means of modern architecture The debate gained momentum in the late 1540s and 1950s through advocates such as Sigfried Giedion, whose writings and lec~ tures on “the need for monumentality” were immensely influential.’ For Louis Kahn, Pei’s closest intellectual colleague among, architects, the discourse on new mona ‘mentality was « platform to explore shap- ing civic ideals in urban and architectural form, a lifelong preoccupation he shared ‘with Pei.” During the 1950s, however, when Kahn moved from proposals for urban proj tects such as the unrealized Philadelphia ‘City Hall tothe design of prestigious insti~ tutions, Pei implemented his social ideas ‘inusban redevelopment projects, which he designed as the in-house architect of leg- endary developer William Zeckendorf. He prided himself particularly on his housing projects, through which he attempted t0 better human lives by means of advanced concrete technology and attention to com munal facilities. His “pragmatic days” with Zeckendort, he concluded, taught him not only great lessons in urhanism and diplo- ‘macy, but, more eritially, “the role of the architect as civie leader." By the early 1960s the heroic period of urban redevelopment was over. In 1961 Jane Jacobs published a poweriul and vastly influential critique of modernist urbanism, hich, she claimed, had destroyed the traci- tional patterns of American cities! Devel ‘opment in Washington proved to many the sravity of her critique: Inner-city highways threatened to strangle downtown Washing- ton," while urban renewal projects such as the one Zeckendorf and Pei proposed forsoumhwest Washington met with increasing condemnation. Crisis loomed in an archi- ‘cctural profession that still identified ieself as predominantly modernist. Jacobs published her seminal book the year John F. Kennedy was elected presi dent, Shortly after his election, Kennedy embarked on a campaign to beautify the city of Washington after the controversial development of the 1950s. With its strong interest in American heritage, his fo con the capitals monumental core inaugs: rated a decade of intense planning activity (fig. 1), Late in 1961 he established the Ad Hoe Committee on Federal Office Space t reeammend how new government buildings should be designed. Ip 1962 he created the President's Couneil on Peansy! nue, In a zelated effort the National Park Service proposed a new master plan for the National Mall in 1965 nia Ave Although the era of redevelopment pro} fects in the modernist idiom was largely over, Kennedy endorsed modem architec ture for federal buildings.” The report ofthe ‘Ad Hoe Committee on Federal Office Space, uiding Principles for Federal Architee ture," which his administration issued in June 1962, sought to rellect “the dignity enterprise, vigor and stability of the Arnezi- can National goverment” in contempo- rary architecture." The results were such prajects as Marcel Breuer's Department 6f Housing and Urban Development (now Health and Human Services) and Ludwig Mies van de: Rohe’s Martin Luther Ring, Jt, Memorial Library for the Distriet of Columbia.” Paradoxically, however, this turn to contemporary architecture’ hap- pened exactly at the time when the validity ff the modernist legacy was being seriously questioned In January 1963 a message from President Kennedy opened a special issuc of the Amer- ican Institute of Architects’ magazine, ALA Journal, on the city of Washington, fertur ing Pei as one of the city’s experts. Kennedy asked the archiceets of the aia to create, in their contemporary designs for Washington, “4 geting in which men and women can fully live up to their responsibilities as free citizens” Tn the early postwar period mod: ‘em architects tended to take such exhorta toons with a grain of salt, suspecting that, in the words of José Luis Sert, Fernand Léxer, and Sigiried Giedion, “those who govern and administer a people experience a split between their methods of thinkingand their methods of feeling." Architects, planners, andartists, they asserted, should he empow. ‘ered to bridge this gap. With William Wal: ton as a powerful advisor to Kennedy on issues pertaining to Washington's physical environment, the president's vast initia pointed to great opportunities.” Inspired by Kennedy's leadership, the edi tors of The Architectural Forum also pub- Iisheda special issue dedicated to the capital, which challenged its readership to create “a new kind of monumentality, expressive of ‘owentieth-century Ameriea and its mounting, architectural leadership." Deriving irom the growing etiticism of modernist urban planningand the transition to urban design, architecture was now conceived as ameansof sculpting and enlivening civic spaces. Buiklings were seen aya hierarchical ensem: ble rather than as individual monuments, “Whats civic design?” asked Paul Rudolph, the influential chairman of the department ot architecture at Yale. "A clear understand: ing of the civie design role played by cach building.” he erapathetically answered, was "a prerequisite for welding Washington—or any other city—into a whole, rather than a series of ..unrelated parts.” Buildings, he further asserted, could nu longer stand isolated “in the park” an idea now regarded as “an offense to LEnfant’s concept "2 Pei realized the immense power of this urban concept the hard way. While work- ing with Zeckendorf on Washington's southwest redevelopment, he proposed to develop Tenth Street south of the Mall as a major urban avenue connecting the Smithsonian Castle and the Poromac River (fig. 2). According to Pei the plan failed because its axis interfered with the basic scheme of Washington's barogve plan. After Pei's work drew favorable attention in the capital's professional circies he left Zeckendor''s office and the development industry and crossed over into the privete sector in the nick of time, just before the 1960s antimodemist backlash. His career took + major turn alter the president’ assas sination, when the Kennedy family ushered young Peiinto the American aristocracy by choosing him as the architect for the John F Kennedy Presidential Library. ‘The Keanedys consulted with architect ani edvestor Pietro Belluschi on this occa: sion, as did the trustees of the National Gallery of Art in selecting an architect for the East Building, Advising on the choice, Belluschi admitted, was a daunting task. {lla this period of transition,” he wrote to}. Ca the Gallery, “architecture has not grestly distinguished itsel! in the creation of neble works,” Belluschi, himself a vietim of this transition following the harsh criticism of his and Waker Gropius’ Pan Am Building in Manhattan, was blunt: "Much activity also much vitality, but no gre to point to with special pride” the buildings he proposed to review could clearly address, in his opinion, the chal lenge posed by the new commission: how to construct a modernist monument on a predominantly necelassical National Mall exeetly when the modernist legacy was 80 seriously questioned. own, the future director of 2:1. Be & Parnes, Psat akan tenewalIrownat pres conference foannoutce Eat Balding flan aay tor ‘The question related to the civie role of such ¢ monument os well as to the kind of ‘modern architecture that could best accom: rmodate it. It could have been a subject for ‘great public debate had it been discussed ‘openly. In reviewing Belluschi's appraisal, however, the trustees ofthe Gallery favored commission over competition. They were ‘unwilling to relinguish control to the pro: fessional community and reserved for them- selves the right to choose from among the ‘Americari architectural elite, list tects Edward Larrabee Barnes, Guanar Birk. certs, Marcel Brever, Philip Johnson, Louis Kahn, IM. Pei, Kevin Roche, Hideo Sasaki, and José Luis Sert as their candidates. * B even though most of the conceptual debate ‘eas kept strictly confidential, the clients Concept was nonetheless of a public insticu ‘von that clearly responded to the political atmosphere of the 1960s In 1967, when Paul Mellon and Ailsa Me- Jon Bruce offered their generous donation to design and construct the building, the capital ofthe United States was in the midst Of adecade of unprecedented civicactivity People rather than elite institutions were hhigh on the agenda. Federal officials accord. ingly recommended that instead of “talking about the needs of art historians and of art history.” the Gallery had to show that the new building would support prosrams to “help educate people who would actually affect thellives of Amerscan children.” They fureher suggested talking “about the need for leisure time and the importance of the arts to Americans and to national goals.””* Carter Brown was similarly advised to resist the temptation to call the building “The Ngtional Art Center” because “including thé word ‘education’ might he usefal on the Hill These so-called “christening peob: Jems” testify to the complexity of the East Building’s Iegitimization, as does its pre- ferred name in early 1967: “The National Gallery of Art Educational Services Build- ing.”"* The need to satisiy public demand hail only increased by the time Pei was com- missioned in July 1988 at a very turbulent time in Washington's history’ ‘The concepts of the existing and the new building were therefore clarified in the preliminary program, which differentiated between “a place directly related to the uniqueness and irreproducibility of great works of art” and the intention to "sym- bolize the sctivities of the Gallery and its dissemination of information at every level, from that of the specialist co the first-grade teacher.”” There is a profound sense of transparency in the promise to reveal to the public “the human activities” which “are kept discreetly out of sight” The national community was invited, so to speak, t0 participate in what Pei defined as a “very important center for social and artistic life in Washington." Carter Brown spoke of the “(djesign of the NCA as a mechanisin to expose art to maximum numbers’”* Both client and architect were “canscious that it has to be open to the public—yeung and lg, families. In this social context,” Pei recalls, “the design emerged” (8g. 3)" This social and political context invites exploration of the kind of monumental expression Pet was seeking for the East Building. When explicitly asked about the building's “monumentality.” he habitually shied awsy from the term, instead offering notions such as community, joy, urba isan, and civie responsibility to explain his motivation.** The parallel he drew becween these notions and monumental expressionseems to have underlain the twofold chal- lenge he faced once commissioned to design the East Building on July 7, 1968: how to translate concepts such as Kennedy's liberal democracy into a participatory architectural lexnerience evocative of civic pride, and how to erect 4 huilding that would contribute to the definition of eivie spaces in the city while at the same time interiorizing the symbolism of this space.’ Design Process: ‘A Building ay an Urban Form Tin working on “possibly the most sensitive site in the United States," Pei’s concerns, headmitted, transcended the constraints of the ungainly parcel created by the L’Entant Plan at the foot of Capitol Hill. His parti however, was initially conceived se 4 solu tion for the geometric particularities of the site, The point is how the geometric solution he proposed not only “fits into its setting,” but, more significantly, encodes ‘Washington's spatial symbolism in order 10 reach what Pei considered the “tnifled civie architecture that we lack today." The site, a trapezoid, is located where Pennsylvania Avenue meets the National Mall at a nineteen-degree angle, next to the National Gallery West Building, with which the new building had to connect (fig. 4) Aspiring to erect a modem build ing at the end of a row of neoclassical pal acesthe only connection Pet could find with Pope’s building was its east-west axis, 4 Revie mare plan or Sosiprenia ete Stell the’ Nato Gly Boiling ante extended vo‘ventana ot ‘Washington survey and iornts “Aodvew Ect, i which he extended to meet Pennsylvania Avenue. “When you reach that point,” he ‘ays, "'You cannot go any further, s0 you then have to shift direction, and the trian ale enabled me to make this turn’ (fig. s)** For Pei che isosceles triangle was thus the ‘oaly possible symmetrical response to this axis on this si The isosceles triangle, however, did not respond to the orthogonal geometry of the Mall. In the gap that was opened between, the diagonal and orthogonal geometries, Pei inserted right angle triangle, with its 19¢ on Third Stzcet and its hypotenuse par allel wo the side of the main isosceles ui- ‘angle. The completed double-triangle parti extended the mass of the building to the full extent of the site's houndaries. It was porticalarly important because asthe only building on the Mall to face directly onto Pennsylvania Avenue,” ic had to anchor “a screct worthy of its ceremonial function as the link between the executive and the leg islative branches of the Government." This division of power informed the fed. eral city’s original (1793) plan, which was “sacred” to Pei and his team. Its author, Pierre Charles LEnfant, envisioned a mali situated in an orthogonal grid intersected by diagonal avenues extending from the Capitol across the city. According to Pamela Scott, L'Enfant’s plan embodies the funda- mental tenets of the U.S Constitution by incorporating in ite matrix the balance of power inherent in American democracy — ‘he separation between the executive andy. islative bianches ofthe government [fg 6)" ‘The major axis of the Mall, starting at the Capitals bisected by the minor axis re sved hy he White Howse. The iusteposiion of,the two divests the baroque plan of its foun oma single sour of powcr. Deriving from the basic premises of the UEnfant Plan, the MeMilian Plan of 9or-1902 perfected the triangular urban form that was created by this juxtaposition. itfitmly anchored the base ofthe icsceles triangle between the White House and the site of the Jefferson Memorial while con- Solidating sts two ses with mow federal buildings that converged at the Capitol. Architects in the 1960s recognized the civic potential of the plan. For Paul Radolph, for Example, such urban form embodied + dem cratic distribution of power. Hi therfore lamented a singular omission, “Where is che Supreme Court” he challenged. “Isntit 2 government of three!” He suguestd lcat- ing the Supreme Court next to the Jefferson Memorial to organize the three branches of the goverment spatially in amannet that swouhl perfec che symboliam embeded in Washington's urban form. Pei took an integral role in these 19608 debates. He acknowledged the symbolicand institutional power of the MeMillan Plan by reiraining from working against icin his ealie plans fox Southwest Washington urhan redevelopment. Looking at Pe’ parts in the context of a model of the MeMllan plan can clarify how he intuitively extracted the plan’s primary logic (figs. 7 and 8). In the model the major axie of the Mall, which stretches all the way from Capitol Hill to the site ofthe Washington Momummens, biseats a triangle that is based on the per. pendicalar minor axis of the White House and peaks at the Capitol. In Pei’s parti for che new huilding, she east-west axisof the cxisting West Building aimilany bisects the main isosceles triangle of the new gallery, which is similar in ts proportions to the grand triangle of the federal city. By incor- porating into his part forthe Ease Building sargan-anrzas 11the composition, proportions, and direction- ality of Washington's primary scheme, Pei thus teckel the idea of the plan conceived by Enfant and consolidated by the MeMil- fan Commission as a symbol of Amer can democracy. The question was how to turn this symbol footprint into a spatial ‘The looeprint and the problems it-was required to colve ware entrusted to: two young archivects*” Yann Weymouth, Peis collaborator on both the East Building and the firm's addition ta the Masée du Louvre, was the soninlaw of Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham and a politi: cal activist campaigning for Robert Ken nedy, William Pedersen, a future founder of Kohn Pedersen Fox, was a brilliant sur ‘graduate whom Pei supported for the Rome Prize when he was a committee member. For several months Weymouth and Peder- sen sketched triangular schemes (Hg 9) In SLM. Fe concep skech forse balding al 968Pedersen’ recollection, triangular geometry ‘was “in the air at the time.” Buckminster Fuller, Louis Kahn, and others were experi- ‘menting with structurally stable triangular forms. The difficulty was to adapt this gcom- etry toan architectural plan of “energetic” acute ‘Moreover, the East Building ‘was the first stone-clad building Pei had designed, and the forms had to agree with the volume necessitated by the material. Following experiments seth alternative ‘massing, layouts, and circulation, the right- ‘triangle (today the Administrative tal Giody Chuo cucedane monolaite form that anchored the building. a back- ‘drop against which the isosceles triangle (che future reception and exhibition area) took different shapes: Once this yolume was set, attention was directed tothe sirect wall Pennsylvania Avenue, the elevations ‘of which were intended to distill the essence of this urban edge. Numerous sketches tes- tify tothe huge effort invested in finding an organizing logic to sublvide the building’s SITZAN-SHLETAN 1334 concepeskech tn ph 12: Cancep hechey independence 134 NITZAN-SHIFTANmajor triangular volume (ig. ro}. Such sub: divisions were organized around abasic unit chat Weymouth achieved by using what he called “grade school calculations” to manip. ulate the nineteen-degree angle where the ‘Mall converged with Pennsylvania Avenue into workable tworby-three triangles, The ‘rganizationof these triangles into plans and volumes was inspired by diverse precedents. Besides the usual suspects —Prank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, and Louis Kabn, t0 ‘whom Pei was particularly indebted—work by Luis Barragin and Paul Rudolph and new proigetssuch as the United States Pavilion at Expo'70 in Osaka were also inspirational, as were Pei’s own museums —the Des Moines ‘Art Center, the Paul Mellon Center for the Arts at Choate School (an urhen gesture ia land of itself), and the Everson Museum of Art in Syracuse, a masterpiece of formal articulation * By mid-February 1969 Weymouth and Pedersen had reached a deadlock. Their experiments with complex geometries did not help them ereate within these triangu- lar footprints spatial experiences of art and study, Pei had just solved the rightangled triangle problem by inserting a triangular libraty space, thus opening vistas all the way from the main entrance to the Capitol (fig. 11), The main isosceles triangle, how- ever, did not fall into place, The momentum for change was created only after Carter Brown returned from a museum directors’ conference in Mexico where behavioral sci entists discussed the “anxiety syndrome! ‘of museum visitors, who felt, according to researchers, either overloaded with infor- mation or frustrated by lack of orientation. Brown further reported on “the ‘erratic, exploratory locomotion’ of museum visitors that recalls...0 rat in amaze,” wanting one thing enly—to get out. The objective was 10 “captivate but not process the visitor,” they said, claiming that the ideal pre-fatigue museum experience should not exceed forty-five minutes tone hour of walking in roughly ten thousand square feet of space Once the meeting was over, Weymouth and Pederson reeall, they rushed to their ‘drafting boards, divided the stubborn thirty thousand square feet imo three independent “house museums,” and located these at ceach corner of the isosceles triangle (fig 12) ‘Thenext morning Pei resolved the diamond shape of the east tower and changed the ‘course of the massum' design. Unimately, by spatializing Pei’ eriangu lac parti, the team initiated a new formal relationship between the building and the city. According to William Pedersen, the “house muscums” were at first conceived asthree independent towers around an open. garden. In this strikingly uthan proposal, ich “herase,” which had its own circula tion, was connected below grade to the oth cers and to the West Building of the National Gallery. The city would thus be propelled {nto the site, as indicatedin Weymouth and Pederser’s early sketch models, prepared. immediately after the meeting with Carter Brown (fig, 13). What Pedersen described as the “maior, maior shift” of breaking the ‘mass of the main isosceles triangle into three strategically located “houses” was 30 ‘crucial because, in between them, Pei and hhis team could emulate an urban spatial relationship, Instead of a closed system per fecting its inner logic of subdivision, the new proposal was open to the city, creating, NITEAN-HMETAN 135pointers in the urban fabric while interior {zing the symbolism ofits layout. Before exploring the efficacy of this design breakthrough, ic is worth considering other turning points in the design process. The new scheme presented programmatic dif ficulties relating wo the eirculation of peo: ple and handling of art. James Ingo Freed, Pai’s partner, thus suggested connecting the towers with bridges wide enough for trans. porting and exhibiting art. This scheme tempered the rudical nature of the "house museum” propcscl, consequently creating a design dialogue berween the foorpriny of the anchoring trapezoidal volume and the inde- pendent towers. Eventually it concentrated the towers into a more unified envelope g. 14). Another programmatic conflict emerged after the frst fall package of the design was completed in May 1969. Appar ently the available square footage in the rightangled triangle of the Study Center was not adequate for the fanctions it was intended to house. The resolution of this ccnilict enforced the building's hal ‘The original triangle of the Seuxly Cen half the size of the main isosceles triangle of the exhibition ares. Instead of main- taining this limiting ratio, the designers stretched the acute tip of the right-angled trangle all the way to the facade along Fourth Street. In so doing they not only gained the required square footage, but, more significantly, created the building's soaring knife edge. ‘Meanwhile, successive schemes for the ‘central atrium space were graphically visu alized in renderings by Paul Stevenson Oles, ‘who was hired to animate the pre-computer design process. In the scheme ultimately submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts inJanuary 1970, the eentral atrium bore eon: siderable resemblance to that of Pei's Ever: son Museum. It consisted of three anchoring, volumes and a coffered ceiling hovering over the main space between them. Above this double height space, on the third level ofthe exhihition ares, was agarden court lit by a concrete framed ckylight (figs. 15, 16. ‘The design for the Mall facade inelusded in the submission was deeply inspired by the architecture of Le Corbusier, displaying a grid of office-size modules that revealed the Function of the Administrative and Study ee ae Center fig. 17) Despite the spproval of the design, Po: adhered to the minority vote of William Walton, the head of the commit tee, who criticized the height and rigiity cf this facade. Carter Brown later admitted that he was also concerned about the com- notation in the initial design of blown-up hotel rooms or office spaces facing the mon: umertal Mall.* Consequently, in his inal Fropcsal Rei not only removed the cornice butalse distanced rows of oifices rom the facade, pushing them away from the Mall ‘0 aliga with the chord ofthe rightangle triangle. The facade was finally free from the constraints of a workplace. Aster elimi nating the evidence of human activity, this facade was expressively seulpted to accom rmodate the monumentalizing demands of the Mall (ig. 1), Once all parties agreed on the building's ‘exterior appearance, design continued on the pesmpective study East Bungeeum, 19,171M. ei Paar, mode rosa forthe East 19. Eaw Balding oath interior. In January 1971, almost two years after the “house museums” first appeared, the coffered ceiling was removed. les! drawings carefully document the gradu: crosion of the gigantic eviling, reminiscent ‘of Kahn's concrete space frames at Yale Art Gallery. As a result, each of the individual museums, by then reierred to as pods, was, ‘exposed in amanner that fully “urbanized” the interior of the building (fig. 10). Carter Brown, who finally revealed the design to the Washington Post's readers, explained: "Then all the space becomes a continuati¢ eee Tae ofthe outdoors, a kind of park area or garden oar, an extension ofthe Mall itsel”” In the final design fi. 20 the intentional ambiguity of the house mascum towers and the spatial imprine of the building make the “three houses” breakthrough, which the Alesigners retzospectively consider as inte- gral to its parti, somewhat obscure. Three thomboid towers are located st the corners of the main isosceles triangle. An exact, prgeisely delineated triangular eoffered Ceiling links thoir most acute angles. Two wide bars extend this wiengle, leaving one se open tothe atrium an its connecting bridges. At the upperlevela bridge connects ‘one poi to the Study Center and the space now known as the Terrace Café, while two offered hars connect the three towers and ‘extendall the way to che facade. A gigantic {lazed space frame above the atrium creates ambiguity in the division between indoor land outdoor space, which places the vis tor in an unexpected zone of interioized urbanism, [At the time Oles drafted numerous options interiorising the outdoors in the East Building, expansive atriuma wore already emexging elsewhere in the United States. Particularly conspicuous were the enclosed, rich, and isolated interior urbanism of john Portman’s Hyatt Regency Hotel in Atlanta {106s-1067) and the hnxurious interiorized park of Rache and Dinkeloo's Ferd Founda. tion Building in New York (1965-1968) The question was how to tanstorm a building type that emerged in the context of work, commerce, and tourism to accommodate not only the experience of art, but, more Significantly, the monumental expressicn required on the National Mall Portman's atriums were analyzed as enctosed toializing spaces, replacements for the world outside from which they were cut off! The Ford Foundation was described as a buifer zone between the ‘sealed environ- ment of a modem office building and the increasingly harsh and uncontrolled wrben landscape outside.”® In shacp oppestion %0 these precedents, and despite the explicit refuge it similarly offers from an insecure environment, the raison dtr of the East Building atrium is contingent on the city of Washington. It is generated by its urban form andauthontaively projectsits purified NITZAN-SHIFFAN 157trderback onto the whan environment. The fractured monolith is not cut off from the city, but rather woven into it, its form and space emanate from the idea of the nacional capital, and its architectural innovations are enlisted in representing that idea Spatial Symbolism and Participatory Experience How does the building, as a work of urban design, connect to the city’ Ifthe underlying idea of the building and its generative force is Washington's symbolic code—L'Enfant’s uushan vision for an American democratic society —how can one erack this eode spe tially? What kind of monumentality does Pe: advance and how is i translaved into a participatory experience evocative of the rhavional cause and civic ideals to which Pei and his clients were committed! Examin- ing the building's external form and interior space, I propose chat in contra neighbors, the unifying East Building is not contingent on archivec tural vocabulary that is already registered in the mind of the visitor as monumental. On the contrary, Pei defamiliarizes the building and thus urges visitors to interpret anew its imposing presence. In providing the visitor with an unme ated monumental experience, one that is liberated from previous knowledge and cultural conventions, Pei operated within what he calls “the artistic ferment of the time,” when close colleagues such as Louis Dubuffee s classi 138 NITZAN-SHEFTAN 2 Animation ails rang theand focusing on their materialit.® Prefer. ring “the tactile over the vissal, the haptic lover the optic,” they intended to liberate objects {rom their instrumentality and to clevate the ordinary into joyous experie Pei sought such qualities in form and space, the entities he investigated with the same intensity that artiste invest in canvases and objects." His resultant exploratory tueatment of the forms and spaces of the East Buulding, however, ventured further. By defamiliarizing the building's external forms and the urban space they bound, as well as the vast atrium and the urkan spa. tial experience it offers, Pet prompted the visitor to investigate the civic code inform: ingthe building through spatial movement and tactile exploration, ‘The urban mandate of the building was clarified even at the very early stages of the design. lt had to help define the capitals most symbolic route—to anchor the tip of Peansylvans the foot of Capitol Hill, where the space “leaks out in a con: fused way." Nathaniel Owings of som, who chaired the prestigious Peansyivania Avenue commission, wanted a fitting ter minus for the ¢ senue connect ing the legislative and executive branches lf government, a building with which to sculpt urban spaces (fl, 21).° Coming, as he saw st, “as close as any to being carved out of solid substance,” Feis monolithic design assured Owings that Pennsylvania Avenue ‘would, in Carter Brown's wards, "no longer rminate with 4 whimper." Yee the ques tion remains: how do people encounter this monolith and what do they make ofits pres cence in the city For postmodernist critics in Progressive Architectuze’s 1978 “P/A on Pei: Roundtable ona Trapezcid” the building “ignores aprime ‘Avencommunicative device of architecture— theelevation Since most people experienc ing the building will be viewing it by foot of by ar, this element is er 1c isstic isthe visitor's encounter with the enveloped monument we most striking fating inthe hendling of the elevations concerrs the nature ofthe four sided site Each side has equal prominence visually The elevations do not live up to this role: while ach elevation is treated eifferently none is designed asa “facade.” Each weadsas partof-something-else, without, howe Ing the vaguest clue the nexe comer icture between the facades, the gued, does not allow the visitor to grasp the building as a whole, but anly as The dis ‘herent fragments. Thebuillingis, indeed, acomposite, From the West Buiklingone encounters an almost symmetrical H-shaped facade, Along Penn: sylvania Avenue the “Street wall” is accer: tuted, Seen from the Capitol, che building presents abstract strips of glass, concrete, snd stone, while fom the Mall ie presents a dramatic play of monolithic volumes tied bya single honzontal beam and stretches of slasssheet fig, 22). Each facet of the building, is thus contextualized in itsown urban se’ ting, andl becomes meaningful oaly in that context, In sharp opposition ta the experi ence of neighboring neoclassical buildings, visitors encountering one of these facedes cannot visually grasp a single formal ik of the building. Failin ras a unified whole they are prompted to move around it, to explore its soaring velumes and to touch edges, They thus engage in an act iphering the fragmented, unfamiliar edifice." While cach facade contextualices th bbuilding ia different yet immediate urbanspace— the West Building's east plaza, Penn Sylvania Avenue, the Mal}, or Capitol Fill — the “house museum” towers address the sites greater ambiguities. For Carter Brown, “the most dramatically deft of the many architectural solutions the overall design offers isthe say in which the three sowers respond precisely to the east-west axis of the Pope building, even though the mass in its centizety is not centered on that axis"? By ‘embedding the towers in the great trapezoi dal mass, the design responds not only to the axis of the West Building but also to wie ofthe city a8 « whole. In the urban ‘context the rhomboid towers become mat crs. Figuratively drawn from the McMillan Plan, they point at monuments along its Rising crystalline and monolithic, the building is vulnerable to one force 0 geometry of the city, which ents de through it (ig. 33), The direction of every slit along the towers or the volume of the nightangled triangle of the Study Center is dictated by the axes of the MeMillan Plan. The encounter with these crevasses, sharp and exact, prompts the viewer’s awareness of the city’s blueprint, imprinted on the building, fracturing its mass, and energiz: ing both its external form and its interior circulation. The retreat from a unifying visual expe rience repeats itsel! inside the building. ‘On crossing the East Building threshold ‘one finds the triangular coffered ceil ing stretched between the three “house museums.” Low and perfectly executed, it demarcites areas of choice between mul tiple weineraries (ig. 24), One can enter any. of the ake an elevaror *9 the upper floors. Alternatively, one can walle from underneath the low cofiered celling to the spacious multistory atrium—a dro: matic transition, the impact of which Pei leqrned from Frank Lloyd Wright” —and go upror down the monomental stairs ‘These seemingly divergent paths are woven into the atrium, its form generated by Washingion’s symbolic wiangular plan, which critics identified with the three branches of the government, Incorporat ing this triangular form into the building produces a nonperspectival space, perhaps the architectural device that most clearly reflects the democra f balance ‘of power. [n such a space there is no single focal point, and hence no primary pointer toa single centralizing power, Against the West Building's static perspective, the East Building offers multiple focal points, none of which is prioritized over the others, though all urge the visitor toward further exploration, Critics pointed to the pitfalls of chcosing three vansage points instead of one, indi cating that “the triangular construction conceptually closed because of converging planes at each angle, while the orthogonal type of construction canbeopen-ended, with an infinite recession of framed spaces.” ‘The closed perspective was arguably inten. tional, and although the space enclosesitself, at the point where the planes converge they do noe quite meet. Instead, the interior space leaks" through the glazed slots that allow ructured views, The “infinite carefully recession of framed spaces ltiple frames of the city This spatial playfulness opposes, accord ing to critics, the experience of the West Building, which is conducive to a sense of containment, contemplation, and repose ‘They lament this loss, complaining that the East Building's archirserure con: is replaced by ely tells visitors t0"“keep moving tothe next event This observation is accurave exactly because the building is geared toward experience through movement. In its interiorizedturban space each of the “house museums” anchoring the entire composition becomes a separate architectural event, While the exhi- bitions are displayed in the “houses,” mov- ing into, cut of, and around them obliges the visitor frequently to change direction and, accordingly, feld of vision. The visiting New Yorker reporter quoted at the beginning of this essay recounted having “an odd sense of both participa- tion and detachment” He felt as though he was “looking at familiar things that had burst forth into liberated forms and newly found freedom," His tale aptly pointed to Pei's defamiliarization techniques, which make bridges, balconies, and stairs, looked at from a different level, seem to flow in space (fg, 25) Infact, any entry to the grand space from any of the “hous: museums” necessitates defining and locating anew the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the sky, and the 142 NITZAN-SHIFTAN boundaries between indoors and outdoors So where does the city stop and the building, start, and vice versa The meaning of the space is produced through this participatory engagement, which exacts from the visitora certain com. plicity inamanner familiar from minimalist ‘works of the period.” Although the atriam Is experienced thiough constantly changing relationships among the visitor, the space, and the elements within, there is nothing arbitrary about these spatial situations. Sim- ilarly, although the architectural elements are estentially nonreferential—slabs, walls, parapets, stairs—they are not at all hound heir objecthood, to Titeral material or symbolic order which Pei derived from tbe city itself. Once the building's triangular scheme is placed on the matrix of the city,26. Eat fading ew of Pei explains, “you are bound to hit some ‘monument that came out of...|the] MeMil- lan Plan.” The subordination of the circulation composition, and architectural eloments of the building to the symbolism of Washing: tonoffers ways to understand how the dem: ‘cratic Heals that compose the American national ethos are communicated through distracted movement in space rather than contemplative experience of literary mont meats, Through reiteration of the genera tive forees of Washington's symbolic plan in thice-dimensional space, the visitor is invited co participate in a spatial national ritual, to activate the building a an efficient tool of nationhood. Here the visitor, who is included in the arch citizen wito lives up to his or her responsi bilities, wham President Kennedy asked the AIA architects to address, Returning to Pei's own observations, one is ‘compelled to examine his reflections on his ‘career in the context of the East Building. An exhibition of the warks of Pablo Picasso ‘and Heani Matisse at the Muscum of Mod em Art in February 200} left him deeply impressed and somewhat reflective. Smil ing, he said: Tam more Matisse than Picasso, Picasso always changes always goes in anew dire tion end innevstes, And Matisse (ie very [The last Matisse andthe easly Matisse are not that diferent and yet sn between he has innevated so many times, 10 many diferent things, br iti comtinaiey that you can sec Pei's ongoing meticulous inquiry into what hhe would call the “elemental nature” of urbanism, matenils (a subject beyond the scope ofthis essay), and politics as challeng- ing the boundaries of his own discipline is, very relevant here®® His venture ino the turban, civic, and national tenets of archi tecture prompted even 4 conservative critic such as Filion Kramer, writing in 978, «© conclu, “The National Gallery has given lusan exemplary symbol of our democratic coleure at its best." Like Matisse, Pei did not incite revolt Rother, he established modernism as the Aeting architectural expression for national ‘monuments, His i arguably the only build ing on the Mall chat succeeds in encoding the timelessness of modernism. While the Hirshhorn Museum, for example, iscleanly a product of the 19703, Peis edifice defies such periodization. Ietherefore gives Americans, according to Kram, not only “a tremen- ous sense of confidence in the culture and the civilization it symbolizes" but an assur ance that that democratic culture and civil: zation are American possessions. A mature architecture of urbanism and diplomacy, it sparks new interest in the ties between John. Kennedy's vision of 2 participatory demoe acy and the concept of modernist mont mental architecture.ores “This cay ie part» manuscript in progress tnt tovly tiled “Towards Modermite Monument L ets East Building o! the National Gallery” The research for this proket was condita during a ‘Simmel H Kress fowdectoral Castovial Fellowship at the Naional Gallery of Arc, Certer fox Advanced ‘Study nthe Visul Art and Gallery Archives and In ecpuration toe the exhibition Te Eas Bald ing: Celebrating Twenty-five Years ae 203-fly 2004), curated by Maygene Daniels and the aher forthe National Gallery of Are ite oes to1.M. Pi, Yan Weymouth, am Pedersen, who pnerously entrusted ‘me with ther Inowlaige and visual materials and {0 Sirah Whiting and Keith Egzener for thet ich ‘Svecemments I thank Elizabeth Cropper, Therese ‘O’Nalley and Peter Lukehar forthe opportunity to sartiipate a ehispublcation and the symposiums {n whichis based and to Caroline Ham, Carla Yanni, and Kevin Chua, smoagoterscblars ram wham my work greatly benefited. Tam particlany Indebted o Maygene Daniels, chief Gallery “Archives, who exper led me through resurces a the ideas and materials ofthe East Building with ‘the supper of Anae Richi, Michele Wiens, nd Fedora and technical ass. ahah, Karen Lew Brac and Mone Geni +. Gero vom Bosh, Coaverstions with IM, Re: Ligh Is the Key [Munich and New York, 2000, 63, 2. "Space" The New Yorker, Match 13, 979, 3. For ‘ontemorary reception ofthe balding se Marilyn Pah "Ease Bailing Naina Gallery of AM"in Conuroversy in Recent Amer tecture ed Tod A. Marde exh ext. ane Nocshees immedi Art Maseura] New Brunswick, NJcand Cambridge, Mass, 1983), 75°86. 4. The official, detaled, and comprehensive ‘ceo of the building design in]. Carver Brown, "The Designing ol the National Glory of Arte et Bling” in The Mall» Watbington,1795~ ‘9p. Richard Longstreth, Stados nthe History cfr wl. 30 Washington, too! rope with new Indrodaction 3203), 376-206 44 LM. Pa in Pople, February 1,197; queted in Michael 7. Cannel, -M. et Matdarinof Medea dam Now ork, 1995) 45 5, Ste Christopher A Thomas, The Architecture of the West Building of che National Galley of Art. (Washington, D.C, 193) {See Amheny Alin, The Stragale for Modern- Jom Architectore. Landscape Achitectore and City Planning et Harvard New York 2003), 7.00 Pets elucaton attr andhis choke to ensll “nthe masters progr of Harvard Graduate ‘School af Design sespite the disapproval of hi str ‘mentor, Dean William Emerton, se “A Chineve ‘Student in Cambridge,” im Caml 1995 69-8. Forsheerticim Joseph Hudnut, dean ofthe os, 4g NIVZAN-sHIFTAN Aieetedat Pope's casicsm on the Mall see Abt 5. Levis Mamion, “The Death ofthe Monument In The Culture of Cities New York, 1938} a3}-14. Fo: cantemporay writings cn the "new monemen tality” sethe 1543 manifesto by fo Luis Set, Fernand Leger and Sigiied Giedion, "Nine Pits on Monumental” in Archivetare Catare. tog3-1968. A Documentary Antbolgy eas (Ocktran and Eawvand Eigen (Now York, 1993) 27-30) also se sgiied Giedion, "The Need for Moraes” ty” new Architecture and City Plannin. 1 Sympontu Pal Zacher (New Yor, 1948) S4y-s80,and In Search ofa Newe Monumental: A'Symposiam® The Arciteceral Review tog (Sep ‘ember ip 117-109. Feeschelalydsctnatne of ‘he divcoore on monementality see Mary MeLeod, "The Rattle forthe Monument: The Veenem Vee trans Memorial" The Experimental Tredon Ecioys om Camputitions Sa Avcitetare el. Helene Listed London and New York, 1980 116-117. Inthe context of Louis Kahn, se Sarah Willis Gedagen, "The Search for Community andthe Turn toward Momumentlity” in Louis Kehr's Stated Moers (New Rasen, 2001, #40, and David Bruce Brownie and David Gisoa De Lor Louis. Kan: In the Realm of Architecture Los [Angels and New York 1991. Gian in Zucker 1944, Fora compuchensve Feview othe monumentaity discourse ards ‘neti woes sce Christane Crasemann Cel- Uns and George Roseboroup’ Collins, “Monumen tality’ ACatieal Matter in Moder Architect,” Hearverd Architecture Review 41984 14-38 fo. 1LM. Pl interview with he author, New Yor, Fehraary 20, 003, Galhagen soo 14-40. Tae est, of Coldhagens hook elaborates on Kas eas com: ering commminity aathenteay, ard democracy. 11. Pas Goldterger, “Winning Ways of. Fe” The Neve York Times Magazine, May 20,197 13. Iane laabs. The Death and Life ef Great Amer. an Cities |New York, 1061, 15.On ctzen opposition to highway construction, ‘6, fer examples Bob Levey sn Jone Freunde! Levey, "Ter Ttighwaye: The Man te Pave Washingten and the People Whe Stopped I,” Wechingtn Post Mags: ie, November 6,000, 30-17, 34-38 1. See "Were Going t Change All This" and Broken Promise," i4Canell 995, 89-195, 12}-15}and Carer Wiseman, “The Zeckenbont Days ig48-6oLearngto Think i,” 1M. oA Profile in Amrcan Architecture |New York, 1990) 46-71 1s. For recent studies f postwar architectural cul ‘ie ineuing moderists'eriigue of ther owe ‘movement, see Ockmen and Eiges 1993 Sarah Wil "tame Goldnagen apd Rejan Legal, Anxious Mod: femisens:Experimentaion ie Poster Architectal Cultre Monreal and Camnbrige, Nas, 2000), fn Ere Paal Mumiord, The Cia Discourse oa Udbanise, 1928-1960 (Cambs, Man, 200015, Forplanning activites in Washington, DC, danngthe 19603, sc, fr example, "Wassington in ‘Transition: Special lsu” ed. Pal Thy, AA Jout- ‘ul 39 January 1963) Presideat’s Counell on en- Syivania Aven, Nathaniel A. Owings, chairman, Penasyfouais dveaue: Report( Washington, DC, 1964, National Panning Commission in oper ‘om with the Distro! Columbia Goverment, “Alternative Approaches to Rebuilding 7th Stes, ath Steet, Mr and Sres NE (Washington, DIC, 1968) and Pestle Temporary Cammicson fn Fennssleamia Avenue, Fennsslvamia Avent Eepaet (Washington, DC, 1960) 1. For modernism and redevelopment, see James C. ‘Stow, Seeing Like State: ow Certain Schemes 0 Improve the Human Geudion Hare Filed (New Heaven, 1998 1, Forthe vext ofthe report, see hep//wwpu, com/content guactteie/pioe/prooo0r hm! 1, Mises building was commissioned Laer, yet ive to cemmission Mies See Megan Floyd Desnosers, Oral History of Bil Waltoa, March 30, 199, Jobs .-Rennedy Presidential Library. 429. Reanedy-cralidemiam also inspited the ‘Namal Endownent forthe Aree’ Ar in Publi Places pregram apd the Gonstal Services Admin ‘straticn’ Att in Architecture program. Fora dit {cassie of these programs in the ight of rowing ‘cite of madera fo federaly fred pie ee Catey Nelo Rake, “Between Civics and iti The Modernist Moment in Feral Publi Art" in A Modern Mossic Art end Moderisn ia ‘the United Staes. ed Townsend Ludingion (Chapel IIL 2000), 356-278 2x. fa F. Kennedy, “A Message from the Pres- ‘ay in “Washington in Teanson, "as. 23. ert Lge, and Giedion in Cekman and igen 1393, 29-30 this top was als covered in Gieien’s "The Neo! for New Monumental” in Zucker 194. See slo Collins and Coins 1084 23, See Walton 1053, 24. The Monumental City: symbelism, Banal 1, and New Disceuion,” in Washington, DC,” spocalinave, Architectural Forum 118 unary Beak 38. 25, Seethe special sues on Washington already (tod: Architcrunl Forum 1963, 7,and AIA Journal 1965. 26 Se Paul Roolp, “A View of Washington a6 + Captal—or What ie Civic Design tn Architec- tual Forum 1068, 78 2. Rodolphn Archiectumal Fore 1963 6s 28. P2003. 29 Sees comtibution 49 ALA Journal 196. 40, Carter Welsman, “The Jon F. Kennedy Library itghj-79: Gateway to fare," in The Architecture of Lia Fe, watson tlasteated Ceti of the Buildings and Projects Loaton rye, 9s-try and Carer Wiseman, “roken Promises" in Canael. 1995, 143-163 41 Pietro Belluschi to |. Carer Brown, February 16 1968, box 1, Ror, History Fills, National Gallery of Art, Gallery Archives (eseaiter Noa/cal $9, Pietro Resch to Carter Brown, Febery 16, r068.On the Pan Am Building sce Meredith L Clausen, Pietro Bellnchi Modern American Arch ‘edt (Cambyidge, tous)-ard Meredith L Clausen, The Pan Ara Building sn the Shattering ofthe Modernist Drsaa (Cambrides, Miss. 2008. 4p: Bellwchit it ichaded tuneup Janson Jove Le Sor Kevin Roche, EM. Pe Maree! rece, and Edward Duell Stone netiew sional buildings by Harey Weese, Loute Kahin Pal alobl, Hogh Scabies, snd Eluardo Calan, nd earoratehulding by Mies vader Rohe 0, Kevin Rech, amd Minoru Yaraaket Orr arch tects and fires listed were Kallman, NeKienell snd Knowles john Johansen laxques Bowenson, tnd Bertand Goldberg See Letter to Carter Brown, ‘Examinatien and Caotce of Architect, February 16 1968, cASVA, box Ra 1, History Files, Nan] ca 4.50 Peto BelluschitJ.CarterHrown, Decem: Ser, 1967 and earlior Dalloschi to Me Heald, Apa jo, 1963,boxes 13 and 9, me 1, History es, ‘ea/a. Eggers and Hite, Hop's succor, ‘wer leno by mest, tbe comand with “ells, Obata & Kassabaam. Nathaniel Owines tnd Cordon Bunthalt of som wote also insted ‘ur were unlikely canuidats for the commission because the latter was at the same time building the Hirshom Mluwum on the ether sie ofthe Nal. |. Carter Brown, Progress Report, May 11968, box 1,R6 11, History les, soa/ca 4. The danation ws proposeon January 17, 1967, “oc am addition o the present National Calery of ‘Artbeilding” which as “outgrown” Novos on Discusion of New Ruling. ip Minates of Trt cow Meetings, box 1,26 14, History les Neale 56.J, Carter Brown, “Notes on Conversation with Havold Howe, 1, Commissioner o Education and ‘Miss Kathryn Bloom, Head of te Ars and Hlamani+ ies Branch of dhe US. Office of Edueatbon, uly 28, "9, bon 13 me 11, History Pies, Noaicn. The setlons quoted were highlighted the onignal document 47. See reported conversation with Rabat Stevens Jn] Carter Browa, A Memorantum to the Diee- tor, January 26,196) box 12,6 1, History Fes, xew/a’ 180}. Career Rinse, A Memerandem tothe Direc: ‘orand Memorandum iorthe Fle Subiect"Chris- {ening Problem, "January 26 1067 and "Possible ‘Names fr the New Building,” February 1, 1987 box 13,n6 11, History les, Nca/cA NITZAN-SHIFTAN. U649. Record of Buiiing Planning and Conse 1 Manning Ofice Pils, 969" 98 (967-980) Preliminary Outline Program lor the Proposed Et Building Navona Gallery of Am Jly a 1968 box 6 Ren History Fes, ncalen 40..M. Fe, smteview, in BabasaeeDlamonsen, ‘Arerien Archccture Now (New Work, 980) 380 44]. Carter Brown, “The Next Thirty Yeast the ‘atonal Gallery” Notesona Talk (0 The Wernen’ Democratic Cin, July 196, ban 3, ne 3, Lectures snd Appearances, 1980-1470, NACA. 42.Pei 3003, 43: Pragresive Architecture focured on the nom ‘renal question exile Inended votes memamentThongh we tod totale if manuments nese this ne definite i 8 ‘monument Ithas been se designed, conceived —and ‘este by she patrons. They were willing spend excessive aumbers of dollars to make sre thit iis ' faomument [shat inaporepiate” See James A ‘Murrby in" on Pet Roundubie on a Trapeze Pragissve Architecture s9 October 578 52 See forexampe, Pl in Diamensteia 1980, 43.Note Pes own comemcats:“Amesies was s0 ‘aoc looking forward to ining coodrn sluion fo pie bildigot hie maere” Alas “The hort architect” wae “the here, the vehe, snl the why thats wok must aes, comenel sete Sil elogaeaty and with tye” Peta von Boehm {46-16 for, quoved in Cannel 995,24. 47-Pe ix Diamonsein 1580, 146. 48 Pa 2003 49.1.Carte own to Me Morea Jal 968, thor, 14 tery Hes, wea/en, 0. Yann Weymouth, telephone interview with the uther Apa 142004, Pamela ott, “This Vast Empire The coe ‘raphy ofthe Mall 17atioet "in Lengsteth {op 47-6. Far eerences orignal documents supporting chs analysis see Wolfang Sonne, Rep resenting the State: Copia City Hanniagin che Eaely Twetieth Ceatry(Manich and New York, 30031 66 43. AIA lournal 196) Robin Archtactus! Foran 96, 64-70,an Richard Guy Wilson, "High [Noon on the Mal! Modernism ven Tactona ‘se, 1910-107," in Longstreth 1991 16. 49 The deccpton oft esi ove fobexed ‘Rinserrows srt UA ot Pet aso Yas Wey ‘ets (Weymouth 206 and Wiliam Pedersen ‘Now York, Apilsy, seas os copies of Weymouths desig notdbook Nec on "National Gallery fof Ar East Wing: A Brief History ofthe Design Process, 1968-1078 alecure Weymouth delivered forthe clebratcn ofthe buildings ata Twenty Five-Year Award and en the extensive collection of 145 NITZAN-SHIFTAN shots and Araeiags tha were donated the Gl lary Arcinenby Pes of. Quotations of Pedersen tod Weymouth here and lowing ate akan ram theimerviews Stns tmerview (004) Pedersen cited she US pvllon for Expo 7 dexgnedby Dav, Brody, {Cheemayo, Geismar and de Hatak For Pe carler ‘works oe Wiseman t99ond Cannel 995, 45 J.Carce own, “Notes on che ntemasional Courei of museums Colloquium on Museum Aghitecure 1 (spomsredby Unesco}, Mente> City, December $s, 968, The numbers change ‘wah the many oval pons of this even. Browns antenpocery opt on this conference ied Shove contains ao numeral valves The sears Iootage of the llding ale changed vere sien {nvhe cause of design This acca shesed on Weymouth cos and federsen 2004, 36: Pedersen 2004 7 Pedersen desribesthis change as one ofthe Imujor breakthroughs in thedesga. Inde i all the eal design sketches the tp ofthe study ceater ‘ees not aig with Fourth Street. The change hat ‘ecu between May 1963 an lanuaty 1970 can Ipeseen i the two consequent st of drawings that, svete prepared forthe Comission of Fine As Submtscon, 047 5 Brown in Longsineth 191,84 oI. Cater own, "A Step by Step Guide to Designing” Washington Pst Pcomac, May 16, "Envitoneneny” 1965-1978" publica pope, 198 (revised seo, (6 See: Fra Jameson, Postmadernisn on, {he Cara Loe of Late Capitals, Post ‘Contemporary Interventions (Durban 1998) 62. See jonathan Barnett, “Innovation and Sym: belism om and Steet” Architectural Record 144 february i968 rom, 6%. Pei ploceshimsalt artiste seneratien slightly Sher the heydays of ean Debulles ure brat ‘Lous Kahn's New Bratalism,parcalrly nhs ‘use of materials Ps 203) He nevrthles testifies {othe ispracioa both represented for Bis work, er Kahn's quest for authentic in the context of bs search ram urmediitel parcipaoy expert fence of are tectre thigh wich civic lacs Ste communicate see Goldhagen 200 or Fels {lationship with Dubulley ce chm 2030, 26, fora tay of extention and Jtomirietion Iimportvararchitcerual cleue, see Goldhapen in Galdssgen and Legale 3900, 75-97 for dealin ‘ation inthe cotemporary buldingof Bras, see Tames Holston, The Modernist Czy: An Anthropol eal Cetiqe of Brasilia Chicago, robo) (64. Sarah Wilians Geldhagen,“Freedem’s Domi: ‘lon Three Projects by Alin and Fotr Smithon” ineldhapn ad LepleSo0e5, Petand Kahn, who wereboch affiliated with Aste eles, ten cseussea space as the primary ‘ium tha difersodatsd architects and at, See Fe 200}. Fei enpasices form andspace as bis rier covceeno materials cone accord Boch 300078. S56]. Cater Bown on Blluschisprdietion of Wiliam Waltons respons, fem Hest mectig with Piette Bellesc March 1, 197), box 13,8681, is tory Hes, ¥ca/ca. 67 Pail Rui composed a vocabulary of bai ings as urban design components see Rudolph in Architectural Foray 1083 8% 9. Nathaniel Alexander Owings, The Spuces 2 Derween: An Avchitece’sFoursey (Beaton, 9731 78) Brown in Longstreth 1991, 293 6, Suzanne Sephens in “PA on Pek Roumtable on 2 Trapeaoi” Progressive Architecture 59 [October isi8hs0- 70, Stephene in rogrssive Archhectue 1978, 50 71.04 may have been inspitedalso bythe wiban Studies af Ketan Lynch, who was prominent ial: ‘ce a arr tthe Gane Pe oceved important ‘commissions on the campus. Se Kevin Lynch, The Inge ofthe City (Camidge, Mas, 1960) 73. Brown in Longstreth (991, 284 Pystmhis eterview Pe 2%, Be pointed to Wiighe's immense infizence on bth hs won and Paul Radel r4,Stephens in Progressive Architecture 197, 75 Stephens ia Progrevsine Architect 197, 76. The New Yorke 1979, 3% 177-Kitk Varndoe connected the architecture othe Ease Buldingto contemporary minimalist work, 4s dos Amtacny Abfsin inthis wolume see Rik Varnedoe, Pirates of Nothing: Abstract Art since Pollock Prineeton, 2006, 137-138 Pei himself has long been eannectel tothe New York at word apd 4 devoted galery visitor who has betiended many, Artists Hisafiity with minimalism i ot a8 ‘explicit as his cannection to abstract expressions, However, he worked s be has sadn "tbe artist ferment ofthe time” (Pet 3003) The minimalist works Lefer ae these that establish constantly ‘hanging relationships between he wath the space ‘andthe bebolder such ao Robert Mores’ mil tytoe instalation se James Sampson Meyer, intemal ‘en’ Art an Polmses i the Sixes (New Haven, sooth The sompliety the work demands rom the [halter isa concept drawn from Michael Fd’ hood tm Minimal Are «Critical Anthology: el Gregory Ratteock (New York, 1968) 13, 78.04 2003. 79.Pi 2003, so, Alona Nitzan Shiftn, “foward a Modern: ‘se Stonument Lat Pers tas Balding” Sanday Ietate, National Gallery of Ary Mastngton, Sep tember 2003 and Kejean Legal, “MPs East Duliding andthe Postwar Culture of Mates this velnee 41, Hikon Keame, Ging Beyond the Eile Complex” The New York Times Magazine, + Nay 788s 3. Kramer 1978 NUTZAN-SHIFTAN 147