Joseph Hudnut, Harvard and Other Bauhaus - Jill Pearlman

Joseph Hudnut's Other Modernism
at the "Harvard Bauhaus"
bered principally for bringing Gropius to teach at Harvard in

JILL PEARLMAN, Bowdoin College
1937. Some historical accounts of the GSD refer to Gropius as
om the late 1930s to the early 1950s, the Harvard Univer- the founder, dean, or head of the school.2 Even before he left
sity Graduate School of Design (GSD) played a crucial role Harvard, Hudnut was sidelined by Gropius. When Gropius
in defining the nature of American architecture and urban- resigned from the GSD in 1952, he was credited in the na-
ism. Architects, planners, teachers, and students from all over tional press with having been the sole director of the GSD.3
the world looked to the new GSD, with its celebrated faculty The Harvard Crimson hailed Gropius as the GSD's "spiritual
and curriculum, for the path to modern design. Prominent leader": "To the outside world he was the school; to much of the
graduates also helped spread the GSD's modern gospel faculty, he, not... Hudnut, set the policy; and to the students, he
through prestigious commissions and teaching in architecture was the ideal architect, the master mold into which they poured
schools across the United States. The GSD was so successful in
their talents.'"4 For more than forty years, then, the Hudnut/
disseminating a new brand of modern architecture and urban-Gropius era has been remembered as Harvard's Bauhaus era.
ism that it is no exaggeration to say that the school trans- Though Hudnut brought Gropius to Harvard and then
formed the physical landscape worldwide. worked closely with him for several years, Hudnut ultimately
Although the significance of this era at Harvard is widelytried to prevent Gropius and his design philosophy from
recognized today, its history remains piecemeal at best, scat-dominating the school. By the mid-1940s, Hudnut understood
tered in surveys of architectural history, educational histories, that his own modernism-that is, his philosophy of modern
and in alumni and faculty biographies.' Underlying each of architecture and urbanism-differed radically from that of
these studies is a common argument-that Walter GropiusGropius. While Gropius demanded that the GSD adhere to
transformed Harvard's old Beaux-Arts School of Architecture the Bauhaus design approach, Hudnut was trying to root the
into a "Harvard Bauhaus," a radically new school with a single Harvard school in the larger humanistic traditions of architec-
outlook, that of its chairman, Walter Gropius. One purpose of ture and civic design, though without surrendering to the old
this essay is to dispute this argument, to show that Gropius by ways of the Beaux-Arts educational system. Hudnut and Gropius
no means transformed Harvard's program alone and, more- began battling for control of the GSD and the direction of
over, to establish that the GSD was not merely an offshoot of modern architecture and planning in the United States in the
the Bauhaus. Though Gropius's ideas came to dominate the mid-1940s, and they continued to clash throughout their years
GSD, its program-from the late 1930s to the early 1950s-was at Harvard. Hudnut became a fierce and noted critic of the
far richer and more complex than the focus on Gropius and Bauhaus pedagogy, while Gropius dismissed Hudnut's ap-
Bauhaus objectives would suggest. In so arguing, I hope to proach as "applied archaeology.'"' Gropius, of course, won the
offer a missing piece of the Harvard design school's history battle in a decisive victory, and the result was that he, rather
and, consequently, of the history of modern architecture. than Hudnut, decided the direction of modernism at Harvard
The central figure in this history is Joseph Hudnut (Fig- and beyond. As I will show, if the GSD had followed the path
ure 1). Though he is scarcely remembered today, Hudnut Hudnut had wanted to take it, modern architecture and the
played a significant part in making Harvard's school the modern city might well have been different. This essay, in
world's premier school of modern architecture. Hudnut cre- focusing on the role Hudnut played at the Harvard school,
ated the GSD in 1936---before Gropius came to the school- offers an idea of what might have been.
and served as dean until 1953, the year after Gropius resigned.
From the start, Hudnut gave the GSD its modern pedagogical THE EDUCATION OF JOSEPH HUDNUT
direction, and he continued to oversee its curriculum and Before turning to the concept of modernism that Hudnut
staffing for the next seventeen years. Yet Hudnut is remem- brought to the GSD and the battle he fought with Gropius
452 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997
This content downloaded from 45.5.164.144 on Fri, 04 Jan 2019 17:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Paris, which emphasized architectural history, draftsmanship,
precedent, and universal principles of design. At age thirty-
one Hudnut finished his master's degree at Columbia, a
prize-winning student and a firm believer in the methods and
absolute values of the French tradition. He had interrupted
his education twice, first to apprentice in a small firm in
Chicago, and then to teach design and history at the Alabama
Polytechnic Institute. In 1915 in Auburn, Alabama, Hudnut
designed his first building, a grand and refined Federal-style
house for the institute's president, patterned deliberately on
the century-old Homewood, in Baltimore (Figure 2).8
Now-a
From 1919 until 1923, Hudnut built churches and houses

in a range of styles-Georgian, Gothic, Greek Revival, and
Tudor-in his own small firm in New York. All his buildings
........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ....
showed a predilection for careful detail and for fitting into the
natural and built surroundings and historical context. When
he designed a church in Charlottesville, for example, Hudnut
studied Jefferson's sketches and writings and then used a local
brick similar to one Jefferson had used, along with a number
ofJeffersonian details.9 When designing a house for a wooded
site, Hudnut turned to a rough native stone and irregular
Gothic massing. The vertical proportions of his house, its
FIGURE I: Joseph Hudnut, c. 1945 asymmetry, irregular window placement, steep-pitched roof,
and overall rustic simplicity carefully echoed the nature of its
there, it is important first to consider the forces that helped landscape (Figures 3, 4).
Hudnut shape his modern views. Reflecting on his career in In 1950, looking back on his early career, Hudnut recalled
1950, Hudnut (paraphrasing Shakespeare) claimed that "some that he had been a "romantic and promising architect" who
architects are born modern, some achieve modernity, and had earnestly tried to recapture the "thought and feeling"
some have modernity thrust upon them."6 Trained as a Beaux- that lay behind each of the styles. He had believed unequivo-
Arts architect, Hudnut counted himself among those who had cally in "no higher excellence in architecture than the deco-
"achieved modernity." In his view, achieving modernity was rum, the conventional choice, the charm and universality"
the superior way of coming to it, for it implied a commitment which historic styles seemed to offer. Beyond practical objec-
founded "not on argument" but on "experience." Hudnut tives, Hudnut had accepted that architects must seek "the
explained: realization of certain ideals of form" which result from prin-
ciples "more or less absolute in nature."10 But for one encoun-
Because we have lived with the illusions of our time, because we gave
ter, Hudnut's early career was much like those of other archi-
ourselves to these and were formed by them, we progressed with our
tects of the time-fine schooling and a pleasant and
time and that progress has given us that tolerance and humility which
gentlemanly practice.
are the first essentials to a true perspective.7
The encounter that gave Hudnut's career its first distinctive
As we will see, three experiences in particular determined turn occurred just after he finished his studies at Columbia. In
Hudnut's path to modernism: first, his "civic design" work the summer of 1917, Hudnut met the well-known German city
with the German city planner, Werner Hegemann; second, his planner Werner Hegemann (1881-1936), who was then work-
sustained interest in the history of architecture; and third, his ing in Milwaukee.'1 Hegemann had established a planning
engagement with the democratic educational philosophy of and consulting practice in that city in 1916, after the outbreak
John Dewey. To understand the significance of each of these of World War I prevented him from returning to Germany
experiences, it is crucial to remember that Hudnut was first following the completion of a lecture tour in the United States.
educated in the Beaux-Arts tradition. "Keenly curious" about "the new art of city planning" and
Hudnut studied architecture at Harvard, the University of intrigued by the intelligence of this particular planner, Hud-
Michigan, and Columbia University between 1906 and 1917. nut quickly signed on as Hegemann's assistant.12
Like most other American schools at the time, these three had Hudnut had no training in city planning at the time and
fashioned their curricula after the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in little experience in the field. His sole venture into planning
PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 453
the old Museum of Fine Arts and attended by more than
200,000 visitors.14 When Hudnutjoined Hegemann, the plan-
ner was in the midst of one of his first design projects,
. .........................
.................
Washington Highlands, a garden suburb in Milwaukee. Here,

and again in 1921 in Wyomissing Park near Reading, Pennsyl-
lit vania, Hudnut helped Hegemann create picturesque residen-
lwh? tial communities, in the tradition of Letchworth or Welwyn,
using the historical styles of architecture common to each
region (Figure 5). In both suburbs, Hegemann carefully or-
FIGURE 2: Joseph Hudnut, President's House, Alabama State University, Auburn, dered street systems, public squares, vistas, and extensive parks
1915 to accentuate the beauty and irregularity of the natural setting.
To ensure the overall aesthetic quality of the projects and the
congruity of their architecture and landscape with local tradi-
tions, he enforced strict building codes and regulations, much
as New Urbanism planners are doing today.'5
Hudnut worked off and on with Hegemann for four years,
until 1921, when the planner returned to Germany. Hudnut
did not see him again until he came back to New York as a
BlRON,
political refugee in 1933. Though his design work with Hege-
mann lasted only this short while, Hudnut later recounted that
his association with Hegemann was "the critical one in my
professional life."
By this I mean that the view of the world and of the architect's place in it
which I formulated at that time has become continuously and definitely
more clear to me and has retained to this day the essential character
which it then assumed.16
From Hegemann, whose planning work was informed by a

FIGURE 3: Joseph Hudnut, First Methodist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1923-1924 broad education in philosophy, history, political science, and
sociology, Hudnut learned many of the fundamental prin-
had been in 1915, when he entered a Chicago City Club ciples that would inform his ideas about modern architecture
design competition for a "neighborhood center"-a group- and urbanism.
ing of public buildings and outdoor spaces-aimed at stimulat- Hudnut described the important role Hegemann had
ing a sense of community in an area of Chicago. His proposal played in his life in a lengthy tribute to the planner after his
for a cluster of Gothic and Tudor structures-library, theater, untimely death in 1936.17 What most surprised him in Hege-
and coffee house among them-organized around a common mann's work, Hudnut recorded, was his belief that city plan-
nucleus and surrounded by picturesque spaces and play- ning was "the basis of architecture." This idea differed radi-
grounds did not win the competition. But the idea of enhanc- cally from all Hudnut had been taught before. Hegemann saw
ing urban life with buildings and spaces that encouraged the city "not as an arrangement of streets which afford build-
"community organization" and "community consciousness" ing sites to an architect" or as "an arrangement of spaces and
interested Hudnut enough so that he published his first article structures which might assure the architect opportunities for
on neighborhood centers.13 the exploitation of his formal principles." To Hegemann the
At the time Hudnut met Hegemann, the planner was city was "a living and growing organism," forever changing
known in the United States primarily for his work with Bos- and therefore impossible to mold into a predetermined form.
ton's civic improvement movement. In 1909, Hegemann had Hegemann further taught Hudnut that the city's physical
joined a group of other planners (includingJohn Nolen and pattern-of which streets, parks, waterfronts, and buildings
Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.) and wealthy businessmen in an were components-must grow out of the ever-changing "idea-
effort to create a new administrative structure for Boston that pattern" that governs the lives of its citizens.18
would improve neighborhoods throughout the city. Hege- While designing the two suburbs, Hudnut was deeply im-
mann's primary contribution was organizing the much-pressed by Hegemann's commitment to a "socially inte-
publicized "Boston 1915," a city planning exhibition held in grated" architecture and planning. Hudnut recalled that few
-410 WON
Are
%Wly
Jk,
to,
FAR%.
IMF: r5oll .- ilpy
-o 4j
in AM . WI
':4V.W
..... . . . . . .
tro
4--mow,
NI.
,.ww-
W,'*
gw
wzr
a::
44?
t.j
T7
AN
AW
-Aft
FIGURE 4: Joseph Hudnut, house in Charlottesville, Virginia, 1924
understood the social aspect of Hegemann's work, least of all ist himself. Not only did he design in traditional forms, but as
his clients. editor of the prominent Wasmuths Monatsheftefiir Baukunst in
the 1920s, Hegemann proved to be one of the sharpest and
If they were manufacturers and built houses for their employees, they
most eloquent German critics of modern planning and archi-
were astonished to find that Hegemann gave as much thought to the
tecture. On several occasions, he condemned the modernists,
happiness of the workers as to a proper return on their investments. If
including Gropius, for their superficial fashionableness and
they were "real estate men," they thought it eccentric indeed that the
ill-conceived social remedies.21 Hegemann put forth his own
plan for their subdivision should be as closely studied in relation to the
ideas on urban planning in American Vitruvius: An Architects'
life of the community as a whole as it was in relation to the sale of lots.
Handbook on Civic Art (1922), written with landscape architect
And when, as sometimes happened, Hegemann's client was engaged in
Elbert Peets during the years when Hudnut was in his office.
building a private house or garden, he, too, was astonished to learn that
Profusely illustrated with planning projects from ancient to
his architect wished to mitigate the proud insolence which his chateau
modern times (including a few drawings by Hudnut) the book
focussed upon its neighbors. 19
celebrates Vitruvian principles: beauty, commodity, longevity,
Hegemann further taught Hudnut to see architecture and and the idea that so impressed Hudnut, that "the fundamen-
planning as endeavors that unite "science" and the "art of tal unit of design in architecture is not the separate building
expression." Hudnut came to believe that while applying but the whole city."22
"science" to the problems of shelter, traffic, or public health, Hudnut left New York two years after Hegemann, in 1923,
architects and planners must also strive for "aesthetic excel- to head the architecture program at the University of Virginia
lence" by creating integrated patterns of city streets, squares, and to teach architectural history and design there. Appoint-
parks, and buildings. Ultimately, Hudnut accepted, as Hege- ments like Hudnut's worked in an informal way in the 1920s.
mann did, that architecture and planning succeed only "at those Hudnut came on the recommendation of his predecessor, the
rare moments in which its two objects (service and expression) architectural historian Fiske Kimball, who also had strong ties
are seen to be attained as parts of a common process."20 to Hegemann.23 Though Hudnut embraced the Beaux-Arts
Though in many ways Hegemann was responsible for Hud- pedagogical tradition at Virginia, claiming that its competitive
nut's eventual turn to modernism, Hegemann was no modern- system was "by far the best method for giving instruction in
WNYOMISSING
,PN 5 loveKoo"....
PENN oo-
,
PN P A,-"INU
N
,-ENyVEU
READING "- ,
is/
:. *~'*
:.. i~i
~
"" " " 11
Niio-
"........
0 Z~
;..... ..
...... .. . .. .. .. . ....... ......... ...I.SO - .....-.....:.. :
........ . ... ..
-3wM WYOMISSING
____ I P ................... PAR
CAL&; 61So ,'0 1^-& 0 - 5M )A tT?-0cw ', v t:-,
FIGURE 5: Wemer Hegemann and Elbert Peets, Wyomissing Park, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, 1917-1921
architectural design," he also took steps to ritual

simplified modernize the that "threw my composi
and on a budget
program. He introduced a series of design
completely outproblems that to reconcile the issue
of balance."26 Unable
form,
related directly to future practice, and hefunction,
revised economy, and structure as an architect, H
the history
offerings so that students obtained anut set out wider
"much to find another way of reconciling them, as
knowledge
of modern architecture."24 Hudnut teacher
also focused on design
of architectural forging
and history.
Hudnut
curricular links between the liberal arts and realized that as a teacher
professional stud-exclusively, he was free
ies, hoping to encourage "the co-ordinate
explore ideas development of
and new directions in architecture without h
mind and hand." He described himself even then as an ing to defend his own buildings. As he later put it,
educator "always eager for experiment."925 practicing architect who has built half a dozen synagogue
In 1926, Hudnut abandoned his architectural practice
the for
Moorish style might be somewhat embarrassed to dec
himself suddenly a follower of Le Corbusier... but the teac
teaching because he had grown discontent with the historical
is
styles and with his own inability to integrate form withnot thus bound."27 Hudnut's transition to modernism was
new
social uses. In designing churches especially, Hudnutclearly,
recog- not so sudden as this. By the time he gained fame
modern
nized the limitations of approaching architecture as he did, aseducator in 1935, his buildings were mostly forgott
Hudnut never built a modern-style building and, afte
if he were making "pictures rather than buildings." By design-
his time
ing "pictorially," or with a completed picture of structure and with Hegemann, he never worked on another c
plan fixed in his mind, he could not satisfy his clients'plan. Instead, he completed his passage to modernism
chang-
anmid-
ing needs. Looking back, Hudnut explained that by the educational administrator and, ironically, as a teacher
1920s, his church clients had begun demanding new architectural
spaces history. From Virginia, he moved to Colum
in 1926,
for educational and social functions that had no precedent in as professor of the history of architecture. Hud
the traditional church. They sought modernizations came
for to
a Columbia at the invitation of his former teacher and
the school's director, William Boring, a Beaux-Arts stalwart as "an organic creative process" circulated from Teachers Col-
who intended to groom Hudnut as his successor.28 Accord- lege around the Columbia campus.33 As he sought his own
ing to plan, Hudnut took over as acting dean in 1933 educational solutions, Hudnut clearly followed the discussions
and officially replaced Boring the following year. Upon becom- coming out of the school. By 1929, persuaded by the progressive
ing dean, Hudnut abandoned the program Boring had di- view, he explained to an audience of architectural educators
rected for nearly fifteen years and introduced a new modern that "[e] ducation is not instruction but experience.'34
agenda. Hudnut proved himself a committed progressive educator
It may seem unlikely that a modern educator would make when he took over the Columbia deanship in 1934. Dissatis-
history the focus of his teaching. But in fact, Hudnut's appre- fied with the Beaux-Arts system that had been in place at the
ciation of architectural history was an essential component school since its beginnings in 1881, Hudnut dismandtled it and
of his modernism. Studying its history, he maintained, af- replaced it with a new program based on a Deweyan agenda.
forded students an essential "experience of architecture." Though many other architects and students in the Depression
Through history, students learned to see architecture, not as years had also condemned the Beaux-Arts pedagogy for its
an assemblage of individual elements, but as a unified and detachment from economic conditions, client needs, and the
inseparable whole. Seeing buildings or plans with their parts spirit of the modern age, Hudnut was the first to attack the
fused together allowed students to "feel" them with an "imme- French system in a decisive way.5
diate" and "intuitive" sense and to experience what Hudnut Heeding Dewey's call for a democratic education, Hudnut
called their "emotional content."29 Hudnut further claimed began by abolishing the Beaux-Arts competitive method of
that in the modern age, students come to us "already engi- designing wherein students opposed one another for jury
neers," with a far too developed "pragmatical habit of awards that advanced them in the school. In Hudnut's pro-
thought." For these students, who plan to be architects with-gram, students instead worked collaboratively in the design
out having learned the "meaning of architecture," history studios. Hudnut sought to achieve the Deweyan educational
would play a significant role. It would "court them into aes- ideal in every aspect of his school: he not only fostered a
thetic experiences, startle them into observation and new cooperative community of students but worked to encourage
impressions, awaken them to the splendor of the art they have each individual's interests and talents. Also, much as Dewey
so fortuitously embraced.'"30 had done in his Laboratory School, Hudnut tried to relate
Hudnut argued that history also taught students the critical work at the school to the life of the surrounding community.
lesson of viewing time as a "continuous flow." As he explained,To this end, he replaced the typical Beaux-Arts design prob-
students learn from history that they, and their work, belonglems, which elicited lavish monumental schemes such as grand
to a grand continuity. The cities and places they design for aretombs or Mayan temples, with more practical design problems
"not static things" but are "things in process," with a momen-that confronted the exigencies of contemporary life. Colum-
tum generated by events that lie far back in time. From history, bia students now designed housing for workers or low-income
students learn to think contextually and to make their own families while considering the demands of an actual site,
designs elements of a larger, harmonious pattern.3' Finally, economy, and function.36 The new design problems worked
because he viewed history as an endeavor that encouragedmuch like the "project method" progressive educators often
intuition, excellence, art, and continuity, Hudnut included used. This method was aimed at rousing the students' sense of
modern architects in his history courses, seeing them as part moral obligation through projects emphasizing "purposeful
of the continuum of architectural history. activity."37 Also, for the first time in an American architecture
Along with history and the lessons of Hegemann, John school, Hudnut required students to present their work in a
Dewey played an important part in shaping Hudnut's modern- straightforward way, in simple sketches, models, and working
ism. There is no evidence that Hudnut knew Dewey personally drawings, instead of the elaborate and conventionalized render-
and no record of when, exactly, he first encountered theings of the French system. It is important to emphasize that
philosopher's educational ideas. It is quite likely, though, that at Columbia Hudnut focused on shaping the underlying
Hudnut became acquainted with Dewey's ideas as a student atattitudes young architects held toward their craft and that he
Columbia, given that Dewey was an important and visible did not encourage any particular formal or design prefer-
figure on campus then.32 Hudnut was certainly familiar withences.
Dewey's progressive pedagogy by the time he returned to Two principles gleaned from Dewey, and
teach at Columbia in 1926. By that time, several of Dewey's lay at the heart of Hudnut's modern prog
disciples had joined the Teachers College faculty, making To build in a meaningful way, Hudnut mai
Columbia the national center for new educational studies. The
tects must have a wide understanding of t
idea of education as "both life and the preparation for life," and building for, a knowledge of its social, eco
PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDN
cal, and intellectual currents, as well as of its historical roots. young Swedish architect who had apprenticed with Mies van
To this end, he argued for a broad liberal and interdisciplin- der Rohe.42
ary education. Hudnut was also determined to change archi- Though he was an advocate of the new European architec-
tects' "habits of thought" (a Deweyan phrase that he often ture, Hudnut never clearly articulated his position regarding
used), to make them into intelligent reformers-and not European modernism during his years at Columbia. In part,
mere embellishers-who used their art to reconstruct the the fact that he no longer designed or taught design made it
human environment "for the better of the community as him
easy for a to avoid taking a firm position on the formal
whole."38 values of the modernist work. Hudnut did, however, acknowl-
edge that he had first been drawn to the new European
Hudnut found in Dewey a number of the same ideas that
Hegemann had espoused. Indeed, the fact that Dewey rein-
architecture in the late 1920s because it addressed important
social issues. He also admired the modernists for their efforts
forced for him many of Hegemann's principles may even have
encouraged his interest in the philosopher. Hudnut's two men-
to use new technologies to create a contemporary architec-
tural expression.43 But Hudnut was also critical of the new
tors not only taught him to uphold the social aspect of design
architects. He opposed the "doctrine of functionalism" that
and interdisciplinary study; they both emphasized the impor-
"has taken on an almost religious character" among young
tance of speaking out to a broad public on issues that concerned
them. Dewey, of course, was well known for having playedarchitects:
a the idea that beauty simply happens if one builds
signal part in linking the academy to public life. In the end,
logically. If this were the case, Hudnut wrote, then "schools of
Hegemann made his greatest impact not by designing but architecture
by [would] have no need to concern themselves with
bringing his expertise to the public realm: organizing, writing,
beauty. Economics, business, sociology, physics.., ought to be
and speaking out for his cause.39 As dean at Harvard, Hudnut
our preoccupation." Confusing "a condition of beauty for its
would shape his role in a similar way. He would always consider it
source," was a "supreme absurdity" in Hudnut's view.44 Though
his duty to reach outside the university, to educate people
the European modernists seemed to him at times too resolute
and encourage them to participate in the architectural and
or strident in their "assertion of modernity," Hudnut main-
tained that they offered a sound starting point for a truly
planning matters that affected their lives. To this end, he wrote
prolifically for the popular and professional presses, earning
significant modern architecture.45
a reputation for his sharp wit, erudition, and well-turned phrases. In the early 1930s, Hudnut identified himself as a "progres-
He also made his views known as a popular lecturer, an advisor
sive" architect who was seeking to unify building construction
and aesthetics.46 Progressives like himself, he maintained,
on numerous architectural competitions, and an active member
of both local and national urban planning committees.4? avoided the formalism of the "conservatives" who viewed
Though his relationship with Dewey was not a personal"structure and aesthetic effects [as] more or less unrelated."
one, Hudnut admired and identified with the philosopher
In his words, "We not only wish to teach more thoroughly the
throughout his career. Late in life, Hudnut wrote that Dewey
technique of building, but we wish to make this teaching a part
was the "type of humanist.., to which my own thought and
of a teaching of design so that the student will develop his 'art'
feeling are most closely allied." as an inseparable part of his 'science.' "47
This is the humanist whose mind is adjusted to the new truths of the
The new Town Planning Studio was Hudnut's most impor-
natural and social sciences, whose interests are centered not in the tant contribution to the progressive curriculum at Columbia.
In this studio, founded in 1935, Hudnut directed students
Kingdom of God but in the dignity and prestige of man in his earthly
environment, who finds in the science of man a new morale of toward community, reform, interdisciplinary knowledge, and
confidence and security.41

modern design that united "art" with "science." Hudnut
hired Henry Wright, the regionalist designer of Radburn, and
Though Hudnut devoted his efforts to shaping his stu-his own mentor, Werner Hegemann, to teach in the studio.48
dents' "habits of thought" rather than the formal characteris-
Hegemann had been in political exile in the United States for
tics of their work, he was best known as an ardent champion
two years and had been teaching city planning at the New
of the new European architecture. Hudnut was one of
School for Social Research in New York. Since Columbia had
the first-if not the first-American educators to bring the
no money to expand its faculty, Hudnut raised Hegemann's
designs of Le Corbusier, Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, and
salary by soliciting funds himself.49 Hegemann and Wright
others to the attention of students and to present them inaccomplished
a what Hudnut had hoped for in the studio. They
positive light. He was surely ahead of others in allowing his
worked collaboratively with their students designing plans,
students at Columbia to experiment with the modernist aes-
housing developments, and other civic facilities for the neigh-
thetic in the design studios. The one design teacher Hudnut
borhood near Columbia.
appointed while dean was a modernist, Jan Ruhtenberg, aHudnut's reputation as a modern educator and promote
of modern architecture brought him to the attention of Har- all of them specialized and disengaged from one another.
vard's young president,James B. Conant, in 1935. That spring, Despite their autonomy, Hudnut saw the three fields as "mutu-
Hudnut accepted President Conant's offer to become dean of ally dependent," each "a complement of the others." Hudnut
Harvard's Faculty of Architecture. Within only a few years firmly believed that shaping a new modern architecture and a
time, Hudnut would remake the Beaux-Arts architecture school sound modern city hinged on bringing architects, landscape
there into what Conant would justifiably call "the leading architects, and planners together on this common task. The
school of modern architecture on this continent and perhaps process of unifying the professions would begin with his new
in the entire world.''50 education. He came to Harvard proposing to merge the three
schools into a single new school.55
DEPOSING THE GODS The fact that President Conant shared his progressive peda-
President Conant, a former chemistry professor with
gogical views little
and favored modern architecture also influ-
knowledge of architecture, had personally sought out
enced Hudnut
Hudnut's decision to leave Columbia for Harvard.
for the Harvard deanship. Over a period of several

Conantmonths,
had the makings of an important ally, unlike Co
Conant had met with architects and deans from across the bia's president, Nicholas Murray Butler, who cared litt
country to educate himself on issues facing the architectural
new pedagogical methods and not at all about architect
Like Hudnut, Conant was heir to the tradition of liberal
profession and to scout out the best man for the Harvard post.
Conant involved himself in the search for a dean (and all intellectuals
other who, early in the century, had rejected excessiv
tenured appointments at Harvard) to an unusual degree,
abstraction in the academic and professional fields and sought
ignoring the bureaucratic machinery that other university
to bridge the gap between theory and the realities of social life
presidents relied on in the 1930s.51 The first non-Brahmin
As atoscientist, Conant understood the power of cooperative
hold the post, Conant was determined to transform Harvard
research and consistently encouraged the connections be
from a "fast-ossifying gentleman's club to a meritocratic, tween
high- different departments of knowledge, much as Hudnut
intensity" university. He sought to make Harvard a democratic
did. Conant not only had a scientific background but also a
place that, while advancing knowledge and inspiring a deep
"zest interest in German culture and education which furthe
for intellectual adventure," served the nation and the world
inclined him toward modern architecture and, ultimately, th
beyond its gates. His first step toward modernizing was to
Bauhaus.56 As Hudnut anticipated, President Conant would
rebuild the faculty by searching for the "exceptional man" in
provide crucial backing over the years to make Harvard the
every field.52 great institution for modern architects and planners, even
Conant found the architectural profession divided. On the against pressures from conservative alumni, overseers, and
one side, he noted that the "archaeologists"-the name he faculty.
gave to the Beaux-Arts contingent dominating Harvard and When Hudnut arrived in Cambridge in June 1935, he
other schools-relied on past architectures as models for the immediately began sweeping away the Beaux-Arts teaching
future. On the other side, the "modernists" seemed to ally methods-competition,juries, elaborate design problems, and
architecture with contemporary developments in engineer- formal renderings-and ushering in the modern era. In a
ing, economics, and politics. Given his own educational aims short time, he brought Harvard up to the standard he had set
and scientific interests, Conant determined that Harvard must at Columbia, introducing cooperative design studios, more
shift its program to the modernist side.53 Hudnut struck him, practical (and often collaborative) design problems, and experi-
and most of the architects he spoke to, as the obvious leader mentation with materials and techniques of construction. In
for the task. his first year, Hudnut enhanced his modernist credentials by
By the time President Conant approached him for the teaching a history course, "Contemporary Architecture," in
Harvard deanship in 1935, Hudnut felt he had "completed which he related the new architecture and city planning to
about as much damage as I could possibly do" to Columbia's "modern technique and to modern ways of living." Hudnut
program.54 Harvard promised him more freedom and a wider also brought the new spirit directly into the design studio by
field in which to develop a new democratic program for teaching an advanced design studio with G. Holmes Perkins,
architects and planners. Above all else, Hudnut prized the one of the younger and more progressive faculty members.57
opportunity Harvard presented to reshape, not only the archi- Though he continued to teach history, this was the only time
tecture school but the three different schools that made up that Hudnut taught a design studio at Harvard. He preferred
the Faculty of Architecture: Architecture, Landscape Architec- to leave the teaching of design to others and to focus his efforts
ture, and City Planning. When Hudnut was hired, each of the on the larger picture at the GSD: articulating a general peda-
schools operated independently (as they did elsewhere in the gogical direction for the school, shaping its curriculum, and
1930s), with its own pedagogy, teaching methods, and faculty, establishing a strong progressive faculty.
Hudnut gave visible form to his ideas by modernizing creating a common space where students in the three disci-
Robinson Hall, McKim, Mead and White's Beaux-Arts build- plines and at all levels of proficiency could collaborate on their
ing of 1904 that housed the architecture, landscape architec- work. To encourage individual growth, he designed a series of
ture, and planning schools. His first step was to purge the smaller spaces where a teacher could work closely with a small
building of all vestiges of the academy, the conspicuous sym-group or a single student.61
bols and objects from the past that students copied. He de- Along with changes in the spatial organization and decora-
stroyed the plaster casts of antique building fragments and tive detailing of Robinson Hall, Hudnut accomplished the
sculpture that had filled the interior and stripped the walls ofradical administrative restructuring he had proposed when he
Old Master copies and Beaux-Arts envois, repainting them a accepted the Harvard post. In February 1936, less than a year
pristine modernist white (Figure 6). Where the Hall of Castsinto his deanship, the university approved his proposal to
had been, Hudnut installed glass cases and spare white parti-dissolve the old Faculty of Architecture and merge its three
tions for changing exhibitions of contemporary art. A Boston schools into a single new school, the Graduate School of
newspaper commented that, without "an overstuffed feature Design. Hudnut made the three former "schools" into "depart-
or a slanted roof in sight," Robinson Hall was a "trip through ments," each with its own chair who would work closely with
the future, say fifty years hence." It is an interesting fact that, the others, under the guidance of the dean. Hudnut chose the
though Gropius had not yet arrived at Harvard, historians name "Design" for the school to underscore the new unity
have given him the credit for remaking Robinson Hall into a among the different disciplines. He explained that "design"
modern space.58 described the shared and essential activity of the three fields:
In his attack on Beaux-Arts "copyism," Hudnut went so far architects, planners, and landscape architects alike arranged
as to banish history books from Robinson Hall's library- and interpreted ideas, both practical and aesthetic, into visible
"deadwood" books, he called them-converting "a reference patterns.62
library for the use of students in archaeology" into a "working Though zealous in his efforts to clear Robinson Hall of its
library accessory to the laboratories of design and construc- Beaux-Arts past and to unify the three schools, Hudnut was
tion."59 Blueprints of recent buildings, specifications, and cautious in laying out a detailed agenda and curriculum for
manufacturers' catalogues took the place of history books. the new GSD. In part, he moved carefully because he under-
This was a drastic measure, and an almost inexplicable stood the importance of diplomacy at Harvard, where offend-
act, especially given Hudnut's serious interest in architec- ing oversight committees and conservative alumni might af-
tural history. The only explanation would seem to be that fect his school's budget. More significantly, Hudnut determined
when Hudnut first arrived at Harvard, he was so intent on to "proceed somewhat slowly" because he did not have-or
making rapid changes in the way students approached want-an educational master plan for the GSD. His approach
architectural design that he was willing to take radical mea-was, again, like Dewey's, which held that "any notion of a
sures. Ironically, only a few years after Hudnut's purging of perfect or complete reality, finished, existing always the same
Robinson Hall's library, he would become history's greatwithout regard to the vicissitudes of time, will be abhorrent."'63
defender there.
Hudnut would never impose an ideal pedagogical scheme on
Missing no detail in his early efforts to modernize Harvard, his school or apply a fixed approach that failed to consider
Hudnut even overhauled the official catalogue of the Faculty "the particular circumstances which surround us." Under
of Architecture. He streamlined its typeface, text, and, remark-Hudnut, the GSD program would always be "in the making,"'64
ably, the frontispiece photograph of Robinson Hall's exterior,continually changing
with its bas-reliefs and plaques celebrating the Ancients. The
as the conditions governing the professions and the architect's place in
new catalogue showed an old photograph, taken before the
the world change. These factors have been changing so rapidly recently
building was completed and the details were embedded. Re-
and the whole outlook is so uncertain that we, in the schools of
moving the antique details from the building itself had proved
architecture, might as well admit frankly that we do not really know the
too expensive and so Hudnut modernized it with a sleight of
objectives of our teaching.65
hand (Figures 7, 8).6o
Hudnut not only gave Robinson Hall a modern image; he In admitting to uncertainty and, indeed, making it a basic
altered the building's spaces in a way that expressed his principle of his GSD program, Hudnut was also following
commitment to a progressive, democratic architectural educa- Dewey. Dewey had rejected "the quest for certainty" as the
tion. He tore down the walls separating the architecture, basis of democratic practice, and emphasized the "uncertainty
planning, and landscape architecture schools and joined their and contingency" of the modern world. For a "world which is
classrooms and offices to promote cooperation among the not all in, and never will be," Dewey, and now Hudnut,
fields. He similarly removed all partitions in the drafting room, demanded a democratic system of education where students
Q
... ....... ...
E.. M
.. ..... ...... .. .
...........
.......... N '.
.......... . . .... ........
?.,gn
ar
Jii
?. . Wrpa?
r?:? nv
. . . .... . ..
.. ... ...... ... ... R
RL
..... . . . . .
.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ..... .
. . . . ...............
M.
........ ..
. ...... ...
x VOR
NEW Kg
4M.:
RMI"
Ito
OR. M
je
%INN,
FIGURE 6: Robinson Hall, Harvard University, "Hall of Casts," c. 1925
... .. .........
.... i'i '.... .... .. ....... ~ i!!ili~'iiii..............
........... ? !iiiiiiiiiiii!!ii!i i~lii~!i~~iiiiiiii~ iiiii! ?III?iiii!iiii~ i ii~ ii !i ? iiii ? !!?~ i!ii i ii i! il ! i~ iii !i ii ! i i ! ii lii ii i i1 1K q x ....
o i!!!! i~i i il i iii i il~i i iii,i i il' ili : ! i ~i ! ! ~i ii i: i , 4 1'
i ii~!!? " ..... ................. ....i i i il i ~ii i i ii !! iii!ii i iI i! iIi!i ~ iiii,!i i, ~iiii ~ i i ?iliii ! ! i i~~i~ ! i~ iii i~~ ! ~ ii4 5!
FIGURE 7: Robinson Hall, Harvard University, building completed in 1903
?? MW
low
EWA
Zr MAO
CAM . . . . . . . .
seem
AM V
Saw'
;*w"W , 7
*Moo
-wow'11,111W IP
V ., . 11,
............ . . ..... le A rl-lw
g?vgu
'0 mg,
Z4
nica
oll
FIGURE 8: Robinson Hall, Harvard University, before building was completed and details embedded in the exterior, c. 1903
learned from experience, and not by acceding to defeat

absolute
in the battle with Gropius. Gropius had absolute co
truths.66 dence in his views, and he used the force of his charisma
personality
Ultimately, Hudnut's acceptance of an uncertain future for to spread his creed. As Hudnut put it at the en
histo
his school helped lead to his downfall there, or at least career,
his the "religious leader" has every advantage over
"humanist." (It must have seemed fitting to Hudnut that Hudnut asked Barr to discuss the Harvard job informally with
"Pius" had been Gropius's nickname since his Bauhaus days.) each of them. Oud, he noted, seemed to him the "best of the
three" and "the most likely to be successful in this country."71

My students will not applaud me when I thus suggest that there are
Later in the summer of 1936, Hudnut followed the path Barr
many paths leading.., to an understanding of architecture. Our stu-
had set out for him, visiting Mies in Berlin and Gropius in
dents come to us eager for certainty. They will take to themselves every
London. Both expressed great interest in the Harvard post,
instruction which is framed within an assured knowledge of absolute
but Oud was not interested. Hudnut returned to Cambridge
truth, sonorously pronounced.67
clearly impressed with the German architects, but he leaned
According to GSD students in the early 1950s, Gropius gave slightly in favor of Mies.72
design a definite "point of view," while Hudnut had "never Hiring a famous modernist architect for Harvard in 1936
actually made his philosophy of art clear."68 Indeed, Hudnut was a controversial move that required President Conant's
did not manage to communicate his "philosophy of art" to consent, faculty approval, and an official vote by the Govern-
GSD students in the way he had hoped. One of the principal ing Boards. Conant advised Hudnut to submit the names of
reasons that he failed to reach students was that he never two candidates to the boards to better the chances for ap-
designed a single building or plan that exemplified his mod-In response, Hudnut prepared a lengthy memoran-
proval.
ern ideas. The fact, too, that he did not teach a designdum
studio
detailing what Mies and Gropius might each contribute
after his first year at Harvard also limited his effectiveness. InGSD and endorsing neither architect over the other.
to the
other words, Hudnut never offered GSD students any definite
The memo is particularly interesting, for it specifies the three
way to translate his ideas on architecture and planning into Hudnut considered crucial for the post: artistic abil-
qualities
formal terms or design preferences. This is what students were
ity, teaching skill, and a talent for public relations.73
looking for, and Hudnut's failure to provide it gave Gropius a memorandum, Hudnut depicted Mies as the most
In his
supreme advantage. "refined" and "original" of all the modernists, "a person of
vision, unusually informed in aesthetic matters." Hudnut specu-
GROPIUS COMES TO HARVARD lated that whatever Mies might build in the United States
After setting out a progressive pedagogical course in his first
would be superior in quality to what Gropius would produce,
year at Harvard, Hudnut was given the chance to make anMies was a master of the "subtleties of technique."
since
important faculty appointment-a new tenured professor
Unliketo
Gropius, Mies was an intuitive designer-"a sensitive
head the Department of Architecture and teach the advanced
artist with an extraordinary feeling for space and for the
students. Jean-Jacques Haffner, the charismatic Ecole des which divide space"-arriving at his style through
planes
Beaux-Arts alumnus who had held that post at Harvard for experimentation rather than theoretical analysis. Be-
lengthy
fifteen years, had resigned in 1936.69 Hudnut expected
causethat
he was "somewhat extravagant" in his use of expensive
Haffner's successor would play an important role in setting the Hudnut predicted that Mies would "not be appreci-
materials,
character of the school, much as Haffner had. Indeed, given
ated by the masses of manufacturers." Though Gropius might
the strong union between the three fields at the GSD, forge
the new
new ties between architecture and industry, Mies would
professor might even make a greater impact. not. As for Mies's pedagogical ideas, Hudnut concluded that
Hudnut definitely wanted a modernist for the post. they
Ideally,
derived directly from Gropius and that, despite his tenure
he would bring in a famous architect, someone who shared
as headhis
of the Berlin Bauhaus, Mies had contributed little to
views on architecture and education and whose presence
educational theory. Yet Mies would be more inspiring to
would underscore the GSD's commitment to modernism. students. He had a "peculiar quality of developing the latent
Ultimately, Hudnut sought a colleague who could help himpowers of his students," winning their allegiance to an extraor-
lead the course of modern design in America. While Hudnut
dinary degree, much more so than Gropius. Hudnut thought
would oversee educational policy and administrative matters,
Mies vigorous and honest, although an "aristocrat" and "some-
the new professor would bring their common ideas into the what vain."74
design studios.70 Gropius's designs, Hudnut wrote, were more "reasonable"
Hudnut conducted his search for a modernist professor in
than Mies's. Gropius, it seemed, was seeking to "integrate
secrecy. He kept only President Conant (who backed the idea)
aesthetic expression and technique" in his work. He was,
and Alfred Barr, director of the Museum of Modern Art, however, a "less sensitive" and less subtle architect than Mies,
apprised of the details. Hudnut included Barr because he was
"somewhat crude" in the detail of his work. On the subject of
already in Europe meeting about the design of a new museumGropius's educational work, Hudnut praised him for having
building with the same architects Hudnut was considering for
done "more than any other man" to advance a technique and
the post: Walter Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, and J. J. P. Oud.
theory of architectural education (though Hudnut did not
elaborate on the content of his pedagogy). Hudnut also praised the United States, Gropius could return to education, to
Gropius for his deep interest in the philosophy of architecture, teaching-which he loved-and helping Hudnut create a
his knowledge of other arts, and his concern for "social, "new and more rational" architectural pedagogy at Harvard.
economic and political movements" that would certainly bear Significantly, Hudnut had also promised to help Gropius set
on his teaching. Finally, he predicted that Gropius would have up an architectural practice in Cambridge, to find him commis-
a greater impact than Mies on the development of architec- sions and advisory positions on major projects and competi-
tural education in the United States. He had already proved tions, and to help him spread his ideas on modern architec-
himself "an excellent propagandist" and, with his command ture in any way he could. With good reason, Gropius was
of English and ability to write "in a convincing way," he would convinced that Hudnut would help make him an important
certainly wield a vast influence outside the architecture school.75 player on the American architectural scene.78
As he speculated on Gropius's coming to the school, Hud- But the most compelling reason for Gropius to come to
nut misjudged on a few counts, especially in regard to Gropius's Harvard was that he believed that the GSD under Hudnut
personality and his impact on others. Hudnut was mistaken, shared the same basic principles of education and design t
for example, in claiming that Gropius was less skilled than had governed the Bauhaus. Gropius felt certain that he co
Mies in teaching design and less likely to win the "devotion accomplish in Cambridge what he had been unable to in Wei
and personal enthusiasm" of his students than Mies. He was or Dessau-to create the world's premier school for mode
also wrong in predicting that Gropius would be "much easier architects. In Germany the Bauhaus had been under const
to get along with than Mies." As it turned out, of course, both attack from the start, first by conservatives in Weimar, who d
Gropius and Mies proved to be charismatic teachers and both the school out of that city in 1925, and then by the Nazis, w
acquired a huge following among their students in the United forced it out of Dessau in 1932 and caused its final dissolution in
States. And, ultimately, Hudnut would not find Gropius an Berlin a year later.79 Gropius had spent much of his time at the
agreeable colleague. Bauhaus defending the school against government and public
In the end, only Gropius's name was put before the Har- antipathy and was unable to achieve some important goals-
vard Governing Boards. What Hudnut had referred to as including the creation of an architecture department.
Mies's vanity-and his frustration and impatience with the Though the Bauhaus was an entirely different kind of
bureaucratic process-cost him the Harvard professorship. school from Harvard's GSD, and though it operated in a
When Mies had learned that Gropius was also being consid- uniquely charged social and political climate, Gropius had no
ered for the post, he fired off a note to Hudnut stipulating that doubt that its pedagogy would fit well in the American school.
if the GSD wanted him as a candidate, no other person could Indeed, Gropius believed that at Harvard, and in America
be considered. After discussing Mies's demand with Conant, generally, he would have the freedom to pursue both his
Hudnut wrote back that he had never intended to give Mies artistic principles and his social goals-to make good architec-
the impression that he was a "candidate" for a position at ture accessible to all people-in a way he never had in Ger-
Harvard. He soon followed up with another letter, informing many.s80 Gropius had voiced some doubts about universities as
Mies that he would not be appointed to Harvard. At the same "healthy breeding grounds for architects," but Hudnut and
time, Hudnut wrote to Gropius offering him the position and his rejection of the Beaux-Arts system made him feel confident
assuring him that he would be of "the greatest possible value" about "the practicability of my own ideas within the [Harvard]
not only to Harvard but also "to the cause of architecture in framework." In accepting the GSD post, Gropius told Hudnut,
this country.'"76 "I see clearly now that I shall not be isolated with my work at
Gropius was eager to come to the GSD for a number of Harvard as we seem to go in the same direction.'"81
reasons. In part, he was anxious to leave London, where he Gropius had always been a most effective propagandist for
had settled uneasily after departing Nazi Germany in 1934 and his beliefs, a talent he honed to perfection in defending the
where his architecture had never been entirely appreciated-a Bauhaus in Germany.82 The opportunity to hold a prestigious
fact that was both frustrating and difficult for him financially. post at Harvard was not lost on him: it would offer a highly
He felt sure that his work would reach a wider and more visible stage from which to spread his ideas on modern archi-
receptive audience in the United States. Gropius had visitedtecture. Gropius, no doubt, understood too that his offer from
the United States in 1928, in the midst of its postwar prosperity,
Harvard came at a time when American architects had not yet
and prized its freedom from constraints and openness to new filled the void created by the fall of the Beaux-Arts pedagogy
ideas in all areas, including the arts and politics. In Gropius'sand system of design. Indeed, even before he arrived in the
mind America stood in stark contrast to England, where theUnited States, Gropius knew that students and progressive-
"conservative attitude of the Englishman makes it difficult forminded architects awaited his coming with great anticipation.
him to recognize anything new."7 Moreover, in emigrating toWhen the Bauhaus founder arrived in Cambridge in March
FIGURE 9: Walter Gropius surrounded by students, 1946
1937, he was ready to continue where had left off in Germany task that lay before the GSD: to "develop, enrich, and amplify"
a decade earlier.83 It is important to point out that after World what had so far only been "starkly given" in the new European
War II ended, Gropius never considered moving back to Ger- architecture.84
many. Working in the United States clearly met his expecta- Hudnut suggested the direction in which he wanted to take
tions (Figure 9). Unfortunately, Hudnut had different expecta- modern architecture at the GSD in a series of essays written
tions. during Gropius's first years at the school. In these essays-
Though he was eager to have Gropius at Harvard, Hud- which offer his first extensive discussion of modern architec-
nut's appreciation of the new European modern architecture ture-Hudnut also addressed what he believed was missing
remained measured. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Hud- from the new European work. The theme that persists in these
nut maintained that modern architecture and city planning pieces (and in many of his later writings as well) is that
were only "in the process of formation." No one had yet architecture, most importantly, is an "art of expression," or an
achieved a "genuine" modern form. Hudnut admired the art that objectifies "idea and feeling" in constructed form. In
modernists-Gropius, Le Corbusier, Mies, Oud, and others- modern terms, Hudnut insisted that the new architecture
for attempting to make architecture and planning relate boldly must be more than merely "specific to our day... conform-
in forms and materials to modern uses, but to him their efforts able to our technique, adaptable to our uses and obser-
seemed only a first step. In December 1936, only days after vances." Above all, as Hegemann had taught him, it must be
Gropius accepted the Harvard post, Hudnut described the specific to "the pattern of contemporary idea." Hudnut ex-
plained that modern architecture must be shaped by the like Gropius, Mies, and Le Corbusier had pointed the way in
"emotional content" of its era, their projects, Hudnut argued that no one had yet realized the
potential of the new space.90
by whatever vision we may form of the structure of the world, by
whatever explanations of human experience we may accept, by what-

No one had yet taken full advantage either of "human
values" as a material of modern architecture. Hudnut ex-
ever hope or despair is ours as we face the unknown and implications of
that which is known.85 plained that architects not only used "non-human" materials
in their work-the "miracles of machinery" or stone and
No architect, Hudnut believed, had yet addressed the modern wood-as other artists did, but that as builders of the "theaters
experience in a significant way. No one had yet translated intoof life," they in particular must design with "human affections
built form the "clarity, precision, and devotion to objective and aptitudes." Even modern clients, those who prefer a
truth" nor the "sense of an evolving and continuing uni-"collective industrialized scheme of life" and homes that are
verse.., the movement and tense energy" that are the "direct- products of precise mechanization, remain human and in
ing qualities" of the new technological civilization."86 For this need of a way of expression in their environments. Hudnut
reason, Hudnut spoke of modern architecture in the future insisted, then, that modern architects, as all good architects
tense, even as Gropius taught in the studios of Robinson Hall. before them, must find a way to "illuminate the material world
In order to achieve a genuinely expressive modern architec- with inward radiances." Even in the mechanized world, archi-
ture, Hudnut argued that modern architects must emphasize tects must fashion their dwellings from "domestic happi-
the "architectural idea" in their work, a phrase he used to nesses," their warehouses from "commercial enterprise," and
describe those qualities of expressiveness possible to buildings their universities from "a devotion to truth." In his view, they
only. The notion that "architecture will yet be architecture" had not yet managed to do so.91
remained central to Hudnut's conception of modernism Modern architects, Hudnut maintained, had so far failed to
throughout his career.87 give "community" a compelling role in their designs. He
Hudnut pointed to three distinctive opportunities for a explained that architecture had always differed from other
modern architectural expression. First he spoke of space (freedarts in the part it played in cities and regions. And yet, modern
by new technologies from the burdens of weight and mass) as architects had not, so far, taken part in the war against
a unique substance for modern architects. Second, he cited "the mean, disordered, and inhuman shapes" of our con-
"human values" as a distinctive modern architectural mate- temporary cities. In the future, even more than the past,
rial. And third, Hudnut considered "community" a material Hudnut argued-clearly invoking Hegemann-modern archi-
peculiar to modern practice in his field.88 tects must
For Hudnut, space had always been the primary substance

conceive their patterns of space and structure and life as integral parts
of all architectures. As he explained:
of the larger patterns of cities: of cities which are not fortuitous
If the theme of our art is indeed some meaning discovered in the world, complexes of streets and building sites but which are themselves
if the authority of architecture does indeed arise from its power to make evolving and unified works of design, conditioned upon science, di-
the temper of society known and visible, what other media is more rected towards human good.92
apposite to this intention than the enclosed spaces which are moulded
immediately by the uses and preferences of society?89 At the end of the 1930s Hudnut still anticipated the comin
of a genuine modern architecture. In contrast, as we will s
Hudnut asserted that in the modern age, new technologies Gropius believed that he and his fellow modernists had al
allowed architects to command, arrange, and direct the flow of ready achieved a sound modern architecture. As he put it
space in ways unimagined in earlier times. He viewed the new 1936, "the intellectual groundwork of a new architecture
space, not as emptiness or void, but as an actual physical already established.., the benchtests of its components ha
material capable of being shaped or constructed-like a sculp- now been completed."'
tor's mass-in almost limitless ways. The new space could work
to dissolve "the ancient boundary" between architecture and THE GSD AND THE BAUHAUS IDEA
the surrounding natural landscape or built environment, much Hudnut and Gropius worked extraordinarily well toge
as Hudnut was trying to do pedagogically. Buildings could now the first several years. Under their direction, students
reach out into the city or garden "through loggias and courts faculty (with a few old-guard exceptions) easily accep
and wide areas of clear glass, and over roofs and sun-rooms modern architects had a social responsibility to mak
and canopied terraces." Hudnut described the new quality of designs available to all people. They understood that
modern space as "the concordant factor" between buildings clients had a new set of needs, both functional and s
and environment. And yet, although modern practitioners that differed from those of any earlier era. Further, th
ing view at the GSD was that, in designing for the complex shaping an educational program prevented him from ever
modern world, architects must work collectively with col- viewing the Bauhaus-or any other school-as a model for the
leagues from a variety of fields to find the best solutions. Inside GSD. Though he admired some aspects of the German school
the design studios, a modernist aesthetic-flat roofs, ribbon (and found other aspects "not always successful or consis-
windows, roof gardens, and open spaces-ruled unequivocally tent"), divorcing the utopian Bauhaus from its precarious
(Figures 10-12). situation in postwar Germany and rebuilding it at Harvard
Hudnut and Gropius focused on two tasks in particular in was, in his view, a misguided idea. Hudnut explained," It is my
their first years together at the school. They worked on revamp- feeling that any system of education has to be judged in
ing the curriculum, devising new courses and eliminating reference to time, place, and circumstances and that philo-
outmoded ones, so as to ally the GSD's three fields and to give sophic abstractions in respect to it are decidedly dangerous."99
them a pragmatic and modern bent. At the same time, they set From the time he was first appointed to the Harvard post,
out to build a new faculty, to bring in a number of teachers Gropius began urging Hudnut to bring to the GSD two "vital
who all shared a progressive educational philosophy. While personalities" from the Bauhaus: Marcel Breuer, who had
these two tasks went smoothly at first, by the mid-1940s Hud- settled in England, and especiallyJosefAlbers, who was teach-
nut and Gropius began to battle over curriculum and faculty. ing at Black Mountain College in North Carolina. Gropius
By the end of their years together at the school, their battle insisted that both Breuer and Albers could offer GSD students
erupted into a bitter feud. Ultimately Hudnut and Gropius a modern design education that no American instructor could
fought for personal reasons as well as philosophical ones. match. Though he would never present it to Hudnut in that
Hudnut had come to fear that "the whole GSD would be taken way, Gropius considered their coming to Harvard as the first
over and become a Bauhaus."'94
step in transforming the GSD into an American Bauhaus.100
Hudnut's fears were not unjustified. It is true that GropiusBreuer arrived at the GSD only a few months after Gropius.
never claimed that he wanted to rebuild the Bauhaus at
He came to teach architectural design, first as Gropius's assis-
Harvard. But, as Holmes Perkins has explained, "Gropius
tant and then in his own courses. He taught at the GSD until
would never have said directly that he wanted to bring in1946 when, after a falling out with Gropius, he left to start his
something foreign and impose it. The one thing he insisted
own practice in NewYork.1'1 During his nine years at the GSD,
upon was that everything be democratic.., and he tried also,
Breuer had an enormous impact on students, who looked up
in his very best way, to respect American traditions and cul-
to him for his "tremendous design ability." More so than
ture." Nevertheless, "Gropius really wanted to recreate the
Gropius or any other figure at the GSD, Breuer was "the artist"
Bauhaus."95
and "tastemaker" in the design studios.102
When Gropius first came to the GSD in 1937, he describedWhile Gropius continued to lobby for Albers-who ex-
his intentions for the school in the ambiguous way that Perkins
pressed interest in the job---two other noted modernists ar-
remembered. On the one hand, Gropius resolved thatrived he at the school: the German city planner Martin Wagner
would "collect a thorough knowledge of the country first and
(1938), and Christopher Tunnard, the British landscape archi-
its particular circumstances" before presuming to help Hud-
tect and theorist (1939). Gropius had persuaded Hudnut to
nut shape a new pedagogy for the school.96 On the other
hire Wagner, who, though not affiliated with the Bauhaus, had
hand, Gropius regarded the Bauhaus's educational schemeworked
as with Gropius in Berlin when Wagner was the city
a master plan with "universal validity." As he told numerous
building director there.l03s A stalwart socialist with a strong
American audiences, "the Bauhaus education representsmoral an commitment, Wagner developed new courses in hous-
objective method of approach appropriate for any country,ing and planning for the GSD. Until he retired in 1950, he
any individual."97 Gropius's conviction that the Bauhaus imparted
had to students his deep concern for low-cost prefabri-
offered the ideal program ultimately outweighed all other
cated housing and new towns for the twentieth century. Tun-
considerations.
nard, who came on Hudnut's initiative, brought his modern
In contrast, Hudnut's aim in hiring Gropius was to bringmethods
a and theories of landscape architecture into a depart-
modernist architect to the GSD studios and not to import an
ment still steeped in the Beaux-Arts tradition. Though Tun-
educational blueprint. (Indeed, his initial choice, J. J. P. Oud,
nard stayed only three years at the GSD, he introduced land-
would have come to the GSD with no experience at all in a scape students to a host of new concerns: for social
modern school.) Shortly after Gropius arrived in Cambridge,
improvement through landscape design, for science as w
Hudnut explained his views on a "Harvard-Bauhaus" to his
art, for new forms, materials, and methods, and for n
progressive colleagues in the field, claiming that "it is far from
patterns of settlement.1'4
our idea to establish an imitation of the Bauhaus here."'
With Wagner and Tunnard aboard, the majority of G
Hudnut's firm belief in context or setting as a decisive factor in
faculty now favored a modernist point of view. Of the you
i iii~ii? rl
~Itljy
I i a 4iii:
i CJ MO M,
. . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . ....... .....
FIGURE 10: GSD collaborative design problem,
"Civic Square in Cambridge," 1950
FIGURE I I: GSD design problem, nursery school,
Victor Lundy, 1947
faculty in place when Hudnut

separate arrived, architec
from architectur
Perkins and Walter istrators
Bogner more
readily than desig
embraced mod
ture. Among the older changes
tenuredin
faculty, Henry
his program.
taught architectural design
early and construction,
in 1941 after mores
with the new approach. Theupheld
who conservative minor
the Olmsted
two old-guard opposed
professors the
who still idea
held of new
powerfu
the school: Henry Hubbard, head
ultimately of the plan
cooperated wi
ment, and Bremer Pond, in charge
stayed of landscape
until 1950.105
Hubbard, who viewed planning
Hudnut as
wasa highly
clearly spec
eag
Gropius from pursuing his course. Once the war ended,
Gropius finally took up the cause of Basic Design in an active
and outspoken way. If the war had not intervened, Hudnut's
and Gropius's battle would likely have begun years earlier.
00 0
Gropius envisioned Albers as a "form master" at the GSD,
as at the Bauhaus, teaching first-year students about the nature
of materials and the fundamental laws of design. In learning
about the formal aspects of designing, students would experi-
ment with textures, surfaces, colors, and the structural quali-
ties of various materials in a new laboratory-workshop equipped
for the course. They would work wood, paper, stone, and other
media with their hands, exploring their intrinsic qualities and
discovering
FIGURE 12: GSD design problem, model for postwar house, for themselves
F. Weiss, 1944 new ways of expressing these quali-
ties in constructed form.108
Gropius
planners to teach at the GSD, yet he resisted expected that
Gropius's Albers would stress economy of
efforts
means and
to bring Josef Albers to the school. Though the efficient
Hudnut diduse of
notmaterials at the GSD as he had
admit it to Gropius, claiming budgetary in his Bauhaus instead,

problems course. As in
hethe German school, Albers might
did not want Albers at the GSD. From the
ask beginning,
his GSD studentsHudnut
to explore the plastic properties of paper,
had misgivings about the approach to design that
sculpting it byAlbers, who waste from a single sheet. Or, he
cutting without
was primarily a painter and not an architect, might
might ask them to bring to
transform a metal cone by bending, cutting,
the school. stretching or compressing, again without waste. In exercises
To Hudnut, as to Gropius, Albers personified the Bauhaus like these, where he emphasized thriftiness in materials and
idea. For ten years, after completing his studies at the Bauhaus,labor, Albers prepared students to work with the financial
Albers had taught the famous first-year preliminary course constraints of their clients as well as to strive for an economical
known as Basic Design, which had served as the backbone ofmodern aesthetic in their constructions. It was, no doubt, the
the school's curriculum. Now, years later, Gropius wanted emphasis on economy and efficiency in both form and labor
Albers at Harvard in a similar capacity, teaching a Basic Designthat drew Gropius to Albers's version of Basic Design over the
preliminary course. Gropius not only wanted Albers, he wantedversions of others who had taught the course.109
Basic Design to serve its same central role in the curriculum- Gropius (like Albers and other Bauhiusler) considered the
that of the "indispensable prerequisite" to all further study.106Basic Design preliminary course essential in the training of all
As at the Bauhaus, Gropius wanted GSD students to take Basicdesigners, no matter what their future fields of specialization.
Design exclusively for six months before pursuing studies inOnly in Basic Design could students develop their imagina-
their chosen fields. More than any other single course, Basictions to the fullest and discover the path to creativity. As
Design (and especially the way Albers had taught it) embodiedGropius explained, Basic Design allowed for a "personal expe-
Gropius's design philosophy and embraced his two primary rience and self-taught knowledge which finally leads to a
aims at the Bauhaus-to foster individual creativity and to creative attitude." He insisted that Basic Design would "de-
establish a "universal language of form" accessible to allvelop and ripen intelligence, feeling and ideas, with the gen-
people, regardless of their nationality or social status.107 In eral object of evolving 'the complete being' who, from his
bringing the Basic Design course and Albers to the school, biological centre, can approach his problems with instinctive
Gropius hoped to achieve these goals at the GSD. For his part,certainty.""10
Hudnut adamantly disagreed with the fundamental aims and Gropius not only saw Basic Design as the way to creativity;
methods of Basic Design, and he rejected the idea of a he considered the course essential to establishing what he
Bauhaus preliminary course for the school. Each determined called a "common language of visual communication" appro-
to have his way, the two began the battle that marked their lastpriate for the new machine age. Gropius described this new
several years at Harvard. "language" as an "optical key," the visual equivalent of a
Gropius had wanted to initiate his preliminary course as musical key, the familiar twelve-note framework composers use
soon as he arrived at Harvard, but he understood the need toto make their compositions understood. Starting with Basic
be patient for a time. In his first years, there was much else toDesign, Gropius wanted to teach modern visual artists to make
be done to modernize the school and to combat the proteststheir designs accessible in an analogous way, by working within
of the old-guard teachers and alumni. After this initial period, a visual framework or key that all people could grasp. Making
the war brought Harvard to a virtual standstill, preventingdesigns that reached all people was crucial to Gropius's demo-
cratic Bauhaus philosophy. At the Bauhaus, and now at the in Chicago.114 Albers had gone to Yale by then, and Hudnut
GSD, Gropius was seeking to end the "individualistic" era of had not changed his mind on hiring the former Bauhaus
"l'art pour l'art," so "utterly unrelated to the collective life of master.
man." With the new language providing the "common key for Although it took Gropius twelve years to establish his course,
understanding the visual arts," he claimed that people could in an informal way he had already managed to bring many o
"believe again in the basic importance of art and architecture its tenets into the curriculum. Since the late 1930s, Gropiu
for their daily lives." It is important to emphasize that Gropius's and several different instructors who were intrigued by the
new language would not only guide architectural expression, Bauhaus approach had been incorporating Basic Design prin
but would also serve as a "common denominator" for all ciples and exercises into their classes. Gropius's new prelimi-
visual arts.111 nary course was not the students' first introduction to Basic
Gropius argued that in order to integrate art and architec-
Design. Rather, it finally allowed them to learn Bauhaus prin
ture into modern life-to make them intelligible and useful to the systematic and structured way of the original
ciples in
all people-the new language must be "objectively valid"
course. or
Even before Design Fundamentals, then, Hudnut saw
derived from "scientific visual facts"-"biological, physical,
his worst fears about Basic Design being confirmed in GSD
and psychological"-and not from "taste and feeling." He
student work and in projects built by adherents of the Bauhaus
insisted that basing the arts on such subjective criteria had Indeed, in 1946, Hudnut took steps to limit th
approach.
forced the artist and his work into "sad isolation." Now, with of Bauhaus principles in the design studios by hirin
influence
a new "objective approach" toward a language of avision-
young American instructor of his choice, George Le Boutel
representing the "impersonal cumulative experience
lier, toof
teach a design theory course. Le Boutellier's "Theor
successive generations"--designers could finally meet "the
and Practice of Design" introduced students to "the fundamen
spiritual and material needs of human life." Gropius's
tal new
concepts of space, form, and function and the structural
language would be based on "visual facts" pertainingrelationships
to opti- by which these are expressed and controlled."
cal illusions, the relation of solids and voids in space, light and was retitled "Basic Design" in 1948 even though it
The course
shade, color and scale; "scientific facts instead of arbitrary,
drew only loosely on some Bauhaus principles. It was taugh
subjective interpretations or formulae long since stale.""112
until 1950, when Design Fundamentals replaced it."115
Only in Basic Design, Gropius argued, could students could
Hudnut never assigned Le Boutellier's course the role that
begin to discover these facts for themselves and, at the samewanted for his course. Instead, it was offered for
Gropius
singleTo
time, expand the vocabulary of the new modern language. semester each year as an adjunct to Planning I,
guide them, however, they needed an able instructor like course that Hudnut had strongly advocated. In Plan
year-long
Albers.
ning I, students from the three GSD departments studied wit
Gropius considered the two goals of Basic Design, fostering instructors from each department to learn the methods and
creativity and developing a new language of vision, to be theories of each other's fields. They carried out extensive
integrally related. While students would learn in the course to research on an aspect of a particular city or town and then
approach their designs "creatively," they would not do so in an worked collaboratively in designing a comprehensive plan an
unstructured fashion. Rather, they would work within the each of its individual elements. Planning I, which also began i
parameters of the new visual language-or "optical key." He 1946, was the kind of course that Hudnut had wanted from the
insisted that keeping within the boundaries of a "supra- time he first founded the GSD. It promoted the "unity of
individual" objective language would assure students a "foun- process" among architects, planners, and landscape architects
dation of solidarity for [their] spontaneous expression in art." that Hudnut had sought from the start, and it encouraged a
In addition, Gropius offered that "limitation obviously makes firm grasp of the "physical, spatial, social, economic, and
the creative mind inventive."" 3 political environment of contemporary society."116
After the war, Gropius waged a campaign for his course Le Boutellier's version of Basic Design infuriated Gropius
at all levels-from President Conant to the GSD faculty instead of appeasing him. Gropius resented Le Boutellier,
and students-and he spoke on Basic Design to a range of whom he considered "a half-baked teacher [who] was called
audiences interested in modernism and architecture. Despite in above my head" and whose course "has never been sound."
Hudnut's vigorous and open opposition, Gropius finally More than Le Boutellier, Gropius blamed Hudnut for thwart-
achieved his goal in 1950. He tided the new GSD preliminary ing his efforts to establish the Bauhaus course at the GSD.
course "Design Fundamentals." Gropius did not, however, As Gropius related early in 1950, "since [sic] more than
succeed in bringing Josef Albers to Harvard as he had always twelve years I have fought like the dickens in favor of a
hoped. Instead the course was taught by a younger artist, decent Basic Design Course in our School; and, on account
Richard Filipowski, who had trained with LMiszl6 Moholy-Nagy of nonunderstanding on the side of Dean Hudnut, I have
never succeeded.""'117 By then the feud between Hudnut and Design; he opposed the idea of a "common language of visual
Gropius was open, bitter, and well known at the GSD and communication" for all the arts. While Gropius wanted mod-
beyond. ern architecture to share a new machine aesthetic with other
Hudnut opposed Gropius's Basic Design course for a num- arts (which, in his view, made the painter Albers an appropri-
ber of reasons. To begin with, he took issue with the course's ate "form master" for architects), Hudnut absolutely did not.
schismatic approach to designing-the fact that students stud- Hudnut continued to insist that architects must be content "to
ied only formal/artistic problems and that technical/construc- capture only those things which architecture can capture."122
tion issues came separately and afterward, in later courses. As Conveying a unique "architectural idea," as he called it, was
Gropius himself had described it, the whole Bauhaus curricu- more important now-in an era governed by excessive mecha-
lum had been based on a "twofold system," on "the duality of nization, mass production and standardization-than ever be-
the form master and craft master."118 In his Bauhaus days, fore. In Hudnut's view, architecture could only achieve real
Gropius had explained that he employed this two-part system human relevance, or reach people on an emotional or spiri-
because he could not find teachers "competent in craft" who tual plane, if it spoke its own language in an eloquent way. In
were also "powerful artists." Given his deep, lifelong interest the late 1930s, Hudnut had identified space, community, and
in forging a "new unity" between art and technology, and his human values as the qualities that offered architects "peculiar
"alarm" at the "complete separation of design from the opportunities" for expression. By the mid-1940s, he had added
execution of buildings," it is curious that Gropius ever con- to his list: "proportion, relativity, rhythmic disposition" and
ceived the idea to divide artistic and technical studies, even if especially the idea of "civic form." By this last phrase, Hudnut
he could not find the perfect teacher. It is especially curious was referring to the comprehensive pattern and unity that
that Gropius brought this dual system of training over from Hegemann, and now the GSD's Planning I, advanced as "the
the other Bauhaus arts-weaving, woodworking, ceramics, essence of the architectural idea."123
sculpture, glass work, and painting-into architecture. More Having grown skeptical of Gropius's modernist approach,
than any other medium, architecture unites these two spheres Hudnut began focusing in the mid-1940s on the need to satisfy
of form and technique from the very outset.119 It is perhaps "individual preferences" and "inner experiences, unpro-
most remarkable that Gropius still wanted to perpetuate the faned by the collective conscience."124 For Gropius, the collec-
division between artistic and technical studies decades later at
tive was everything and "individuum" had always meant only
the GSD. When he tried to bring this two-part pedagogical "bourgeois narrow-mindedness and egotism."'25 As Hudnut
scheme to the GSD, Hudnut strongly objected. understood this, he grew ever more opposed to Basic Design
Gropius's dual system of educating designers was at odds and Gropius's idea of an objective visual language. It seemed
with Hudnut's definition of design as the "single process" of to Hudnut that Gropius could only translate his collectivism
"imagining and making." Unlike Gropius, Hudnut was look- into "impersonal, taciturn and universal, endlessly standard-
ing for a way of educating that forged an essential unity ized" designs that excluded "every humanist and poetic value-
between the various phases of the design process. Nor did and with these all the joyousness of life."'126
Hudnut view these phases or steps in the same way Gropius Finally, Hudnut resisted Basic Design because Gropius
did, as belonging to two distinct spheres of "craft" and "form." wanted it to take the place of architectural history in the GSD
For Hudnut, design was "first an arrangement of ideas, and curriculum and in the minds of modern architects. Rather
second, an arrangement of visible forms which interpret these than learning from past architectures, Gropius wanted stu-
ideas." Accordingly, he argued that technique or construction dents to learn the fundamental principles of design solely
"is design" and "not a necessary painful adjunct to 'creative
from "practical experience." Gropius had abolished history
design.' "120 Hudnut feared that if Gropius got his course at courses at the Bauhaus, and he wanted to do the same at the
the GSD, students would learn-to an extent even greater GSD; he argued that "so long as we flounder about in a
than they already had-to treat form as something distinct limitless welter of borrowed artistic expression, we shall not
from construction or making. Hudnut stood firm in his belief succeed in giving form and substance to our own culture." In
that form must "lie at the heart of a student's endeavor" and
Gropius's view, history not only inhibited the making of a
was not "something to be added on to functional shapes at an
modern expression; it stifled individual creativity. Gropius
appropriate moment."121 For this reason too, Hudnut argued
warned that "innocent" beginning students especially must
against Basic Design and a "form master" at the GSD. Albers
avoid history because "the awe of the masters of the past is so
especially, since he had never made a building or city plan, great that frustration may develop from timidity." For Gropius,
would surely isolate form from all other aspects of designing Basic Design was the antithesis of history, for it helped to
architecture.
"liberate the student's individuality from the dead-weight of
Hudnut not only objected to the formalistic nature of Basic
conventions." In Basic Design, students were freed from the
past and worked toward achieving the "perception and knowl- his courses, Hudnut traced the relationship between the physi-
edge that are really [their] own."127 cal design and the social and political order of major cities
At its best-when it transcended the "intellectual collecting from ancient times to the present.34 One alumnus described
of facts"-architectural history was to Gropius the study of Hudnut's courses as "the most affecting single learning expe-
"the conditions and reasons which have brought about the rience ... for many of us." And yet, he added, "beyond this
visual expression of the different periods: i.e. the changes in course, [Hudnut's] was not an effective view in the school."'135
philosophy, in politics, and in means of production caused by For the most part, students and faculty found Gropius and his
new inventions."128 Gropius made no place here for the artist antitraditional Bauhaus ideas far more compelling.
or the creative process. He never viewed history as the enlight- In 1950, Hudnut had little choice but to approve Gropius's
ening force that Hudnut did. For Gropius, the past bore no Design Fundamentals preliminary course. Gropius had con-
relation to "present creation in design."129 vinced the GSD faculty to vote in favor of the Bauhaus-inspired
Gropius did not quite succeed in eliminating history from course, and he persuaded President Conant to fund it with
the GSD, though he did help demote it to a minor status. In $25,000 from his discretionary account. It is important to note
1939, the GSD reduced its history requirement from three that Design Fundamentals was approved on a two-year trial
courses to one, and in 1946 it became an elective field.130 basis only. When two years were up, Hudnut would evaluate
Hudnut was likely pressured into allowing this diminished role the course and determine if he wanted to continue it.136
for history after World War II, when he was known as a great Knowing he could not bring Albers to Harvard, Gropius
defender of the subject. Indeed, in describing an ideal design hoped to hire someone else with Bauhaus affiliation to teach
curriculum for the postwar era-which he published for a the new course-preferably Herbert Bayer, Naum Gabo, or
wide readership-he proposed that "ten courses in history" Gyorgy Kepes-but his budget would allow him to pay only a
would serve students well. small salary. For that reason he engaged a younger and less
These are not too numerous or too arduous to create that sense of renowned figure who did not come from the circle of Euro-
continuity, that awareness of past crises and conflicts, of the march

pean modernists. Richard Filipowski was teaching at Chicago's
of
peoples and empires, of the impact of great renowns and ideas, which
Institute of Design when Gropius met him. With examples of
ought to furnish the mind of [the student] and illumine his forward
his work, Filipowski persuaded Gropius that he truly under-
path.'3'
stood the principles and methods of the Bauhaus basic course.
Though better paid in his post in Chicago, Filipowski went to
Hudnut's ardent defense of history raises an important Harvard because "the founder of the Bauhaus asked me
question. Did he "achieve modernity" by the early 1930s only to."137
to reject it ultimately, and return to his original Beaux-Arts Like Gropius, Filipowski considered Basic Design essential
roots? This was the charge his critics leveled against him as he for beginning students at the GSD, and he quickly joined
challenged Gropius's conception of modernism. As one critic ranks with Gropius against Hudnut. In an exhibition catalogue
wrote, "once a strong champion of modern architecture," of student work, Filipowski seemed to dig directly at the dean
grown "increasingly squeamish" on the subject, Dean Hudnut by claiming that "pedantic lectures on aesthetics, spiced with
now "speaks with fond rotundity of his favorite Georgian age delicious historical anecdotes and full of well-turned phrases
and architecture."132 In fact, Hudnut's concept of modernism are obsolete as instruments of architectural education."'138
changed little over the years. His ideas regarding modern Unlike Hudnut, Filipowski was intent on producing Bauhaus-
architecture and education included an emphasis on history like designers at the GSD who combined the "intuitive method
from the very start. What did change markedly was Hudnut's of the arts, the logic of the engineer, and the system of the
way of formulating his position. He would never have de- scientist.'"139
scribed history as a cornerstone of the new education at the Beginning students from each of the three GSD depart-
time he founded the GSD and was removing history books ments took up Filipowski's Design Fundamentals with great
from Robinson Hall's library. The academy was the enemy to enthusiasm. They attended lectures and spent some twenty
counter then, with its "excessive urgencies of romance" and hours weekly in in Robinson Hall's new basement workshop,
rigid "dogmatism" steeped in the Beaux-Arts tradition. But by experimenting in the darkroom or with power and hand
the mid-1940s Hudnut had a different enemy, the "narrower tools.140 Filipowski had modeled his course directly on the
tyrannies" of the antihistorical modernism that Gropius and Bauhaus course, emphasizing a working knowledge of "the
others promoted.'33 elements and concepts of design" through a variety of exer-
Hudnut not only defended history, but in 1942 he began cises. Students explored the inherent qualities of materials by
teaching a new series of courses entitled "History of Civic cutting, bending, scoring, or expanding wood, paper, plaster,
Design," a subject that no other school offered in the 1940s. In wire, and sheet metal. To understand "space relationships,"
they organized different-sized planes and spaces into unified
schemes and made a series of moving sculptures. Working in
two dimensions, students focused on the tactile, structural, rgii:
and spatial properties of various surfaces. With a variety of
media---charcoal, crayon, water, or pastels-they investigated
the emotional nature of color and ways of producing warmth,
coldness or intensity. By the end of the year, Filipowski ex-
pected his students to have discovered a "common denomina-
tor of design" that would assure sound judgment in any
problem they might encounter (Figures 13, 14).141
Design Fundamentals was endorsed by most faculty and
students, who claimed that the course transformed a student's
approach "to creative activity and, indeed, to life."142 Yet FIGURE 13: GSD Design Fundamentals, two-dimensional student projects, 195 I1
Hudnut continued to oppose the course. When the dean

announced in February 1952 that he was canceling Design
Fundamentals at the end of the term, it seemed to stun
students and faculty. Not surprisingly, the response was over-
whelmingly in favor of Gropius and his course.
Furious that Hudnut had canceled the course he had been
fighting for since 1937, Gropius pleaded his case for Design
Fundamentals before a university-wide audience in The Har-
vard Crimson. Gropius argued that, following his example,
most other American architecture schools now had similar
courses modeled after the Bauhaus's and that "my whole

faculty is in favor of Design Fundamentals." The course, he
claimed, was being dropped solely because "the dean is against
it." For his part, Hudnut maintained that he had canceled .. .. ... ...... . ...
Design Fundamentals because the GSD could not afford to

support it. Furthermore, Hudnut asserted that the course was
.. . ....... ..... -awmmw
"not a necessary one" and that it "does not leave enough time
for the students' professional training."143
Basic Design had always been at the center of Hudnut's and
FIGURE 14: GSD Design Fundamentals, three-dimensional student project, I195 I
Gropius's conflict and it now brought their battle to its climax.

A year before he was due to retire, Gropius resigned from the
In 1952, after Gropius left Harvard, The Crimson wrote a
GSD in protest against Hudnut's action in July 1952. Hudnut,
series of articles presenting the widely accepted view that
who was due to retire that year, remained at the GSD for one
Hudnut's and Gropius's dispute was not a philosophical one,
more year at the request of President Conant, who wanted
but was "completely personal." According to The Crimson,
time to designate his successor. "when Hudnut realized that Gropius was receiving all th
Gropius, rather than Hudnut, played the major partcredit
in for the school's success and that the master was obscur-
choosing a new dean for the GSD. On his recommendation,
ing him more and more, it was natural for the dean to resent
Conant hired the Spanish modernistJos6 Luis Sert, whothe
took
other's presence."'145 As I have shown in this essay, how-
over both Hudnut's and Gropius's GSD positions-dean andHudnut's conflict with Gropius was far more complex
ever,
chair of the Architecture Department-in order to avoid theThe Crimson depicted, and his contribution to the GSD's
than
power struggle of the previous decade. In a short time, modern
Sert curriculum far greater than many historians have
assumed.
would give new life to Design Fundamentals, and emphasize,
as Gropius had, the need for modern architects and planners
CONCLUSION
to meet "the social requirements of our times" economically
and with modern technology. Sert would also bring a number
Years after his retirement, Gropius remained a heroic fi
of Gropius's allies to teach at the school, among them Naum
the GSD, with celebrations, symposia, lectures, and exh
held in his honor there. Hudnut, in contrast, ended his
Gabo, Serge Chermayeff, and Reginald Isaacs, Gropius's adula-
tory biographer.144 association with the school abruptly after he retired. He taught
Notes
his Civic Design courses at Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy until the early 1960s, held several major advisory positions I am most grateful to Paul Franco for his careful reading of this article an
overseeing architectural and urban design projects, and contin- his thoughtful comments.
1 Among the studies that discuss or mention the "Harvard Bauhaus," s
ued publishing his critical essays in a range ofjournals. After
William Jordy, "The Aftermath of the Bauhaus in America: Gropius, Mi
his wife's death in 1963, he led a mostly reclusive life.146 Breuer," Perspectives in American History 2 (1968); Klaus Herdeg, The Decora
Hudnut first renewed contact with the GSD thirteen years Diagram: Harvard Architecture and the Failure of the Bauhaus Legacy (Cambri
Mass., 1983); Gwendolyn Wright andJanet Parks, eds., The History of History
after he left, when he was invited to address an alumni meeting
American Schools of Architecture (New York, 1990); Reginald Isaacs, Gropius
and fund-raising event for the school. He accepted with some Mensch und sein Werk, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1984), translated and abridged as Grop
apprehension because of" 'the old dispute between Hudnut An Illustrated Biography of the Creator of the Bauhaus (Boston, 1991); Alexan
Caragonne, The Texas Rangers: Notes from an Architectural Underground (Ca
and Gropius'-that has long been ended and (I hoped) bridge, Mass., 1995). See also biographies of GSD alumni: I. M. Pei, Ph
forgotten."147 By then, Hudnut and Gropius, who were both Johnson, Edward Larabee Barnes, Hugh Stubbins, and others.
2 See Caroline Jones, Modern Art at Harvard (New York, 1985), 7, and t
in their eighties, had established an amiable, though occa-
Harvard University Gazette (9 February 1973). Most recently, Stephanie Ba
sional, correspondence. When Hudnut addressed the alumni
and Franz Schulze refer to Gropius as head of the GSD in Exiles andEmigris (L
meeting in 1966, he found a far more receptive audience than Angeles, 1997), 25 and 225.
3"Retrospect in Boston," Time59 (21January 1952): 58.
he had fifteen years earlier at Harvard. In the years since he
4 Michael Maccoby, "Design-A School without Direction," The Harv
had been at the GSD, the concept of modern architecture and Crimson (11 December 1952): 3.
urbanism that Gropius had promoted at the school had in- 5 Richard Filipowski, interview with author, 9June 1988, Cambridge, Mass
chusetts.
deed flourished, but it had also been subject to careful scrutiny
6Joseph Hudnut, "Confessions of an Architect," Tomorrow (February
and begun to be questioned by Jane Jacobs, Robert Venturi, 1950): 13.
7 Ibid.
and others.148 Indeed, by the time Hudnut addressed the
8 Information on the president's house comes from Gene Geiger, Special
alumni meeting, the so-called postmodern era was beginning.
Collections, Auburn University.
Hudnut's call for a humanistic modern architecture and city- 9 Hudnut to Mrs. John R. Morris, 26 May 1944, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7.4,
for history, spontaneity, contextualism, and individual con- Subseries I, Ib, Harvard University Archives (hereafter cited [HUA]).
10 Hudnut, "Confessions of an Architect," 12; and "Joseph Hudnut, State-
cerns-no longer sounded "squeamish" or anachronistic,
ment on Werner Hegemann," 29July 1936, GSD Papers, UAV 322.7, Subseries
even to Gropius's devoted former students. Jacobs, Venturi, I, [HUA].
and other critics had made a wide audience familiar with the 1 There is no mention in Hudnut's or Hegemann's papers of where this
meeting took place. On Hegemann's background and work before 1922 see
failings of universally valid forms, emphatic functionalism,
Christiane Crasemann Collins, "Hegemann and Peets: Cartographers of an
untouchable perfection, and technological utopianism.149 Imaginary Atlas," in Werner Hegemann and Elbert Peets, American Vitruvius
It is tempting but too easy to put Hudnut forward as (repr.

a New York, 1988), xii-xxii; also Collins, "A Visionary Discipline: Werner
Hegemann and the Quest for the Pragmatic Idea," Center: A Journal for
precursor to the "right" kind of modernism or even postmod-
Architecture in America 5 (January/February 1989): 74-85, and Collins, "Werner
ernism, a term Hudnut had used in an essay, "The Post-Modern
Hegemann (1881-1936): Formative Years in America," Planning Perspectives 11
(1996): 1-21.
House," in 1945.150 I will suggest, though, that Hudnut's
12Joseph Hudnut, Statement on Werner Hegemann. Although Hudnut
criticisms of Gropius's modern architecture anticipated in a
worked exclusively with Hegemann, Hegemann practiced in partnership with
number of ways the postmodernist critique twenty years later.
landscape architect Elbert Peets at the time.
13Joseph Hudnut, "Neighborhood Centers in Chicago," JournaloftheAmeri-
As a critic of the Bauhaus design approach in the 1940s and
can Institute of Architects 4 (February 1916): 68-70.
early 1950s, Hudnut had a more difficult task than those in the
14 C. C. Collins, "A Visionary Discipline," 79, and "Werner Hegemann:
following decades. The later critics attacked "orthodox" mod-
Formative Years in America," 4.
15 Werner Hegemann and Elbert Peets, Washington Highlands (Milwaukee,
ernists for what they had done-with scientific planning,
1919); Hegemann, Wyomissing Park (Wyomissing, 1919), found in Elbert Peets
standardization, and technology-to the postwar landscape;
Papers, #2772, Cornell University Archives.
Hudnut mostly challenged them for what they were about to
16Joseph Hudnut, Statement on Werner Hegemann.
17 Ibid. Hegemann died at the age of fifty-five. Hudnut's tribute was to have
do. Siding with Hudnut in the 1940s required foresight that
served as a preface for Hegemann's posthumous book, City Planning Housing,
few possessed. vol. 2 (NewYork, 1937), but Hudnut felt it was too personal for this purpose.
Though his ideas were not always accepted in his own time,
1sJoseph Hudnut, Statement on Werner Hegemann.
19 Ibid.
Hudnut clearly deserves an important place in the history of
20 Hudnut, preface to Werner Hegemann, City Planning Housing, vol. 2
modern architecture. With his new way of educating archi-
(NewYork, 1937), vii and viii.
tects, he helped to launch the modernist era in the United21 See "Neue Baukunst und Wohnungspolitik," Wasmuths Monatshefle fir
Baukunst 13 (1929): 1-6. Hegemann edited the journal between 1923 and
States in the mid-1930s. He also deserves credit for his other,
1933.
perhaps more challenging, contribution as an early critic of

22 Hegemann and Peets, American Vitruvius: An Architect's Handbook of Civic
modernism from within. Even today, Hudnut's words and

Art (NewYork, 1922), 2. Hudnut's drawings are on page 283. In 1988, American
Vitruvius was reissued with an introductory endorsement by Leon Krier, who
deeds offer suggestive ideas for a humanistic architecture and
presents the book as a humanistic antidote to the sterile inhumanity of
urbanism.
modernist urbanism. In his preface, Krier laments that soon after 1945, when
the flurry of postwar building began, "most schools and authorities were 47 Ibid.
effectively purged of followers of Hegemann and Peets." Significantly, Krier 48On the Town Planning Studio see Hudnut to Nicholas Murray Butler,
has overlooked Hudnut. 19 November 1934 and 21January 1935; Hudnut to the President and Trustees
23Fiske Kimball to Hudnut, 9 January 1923, Kimball Papers, Philadelphia
of the Carnegie Corporation, 16 November 1934, Central Files, Columbia
Museum of Art Archives. University; and "School of Architecture, Report of the Dean (1935)," 183-184.
24Hudnut to President Alderman, 16 April 1925, President's Papers, RRG2/
49Hudnut to Frank Fackenthal, 31 January 1935, and Hudnut to Facken-
1/2.472, Subseries VI, 1919-1925, and Academic Faculty Minutes, Roll 14,thal, 22 March 1935, Central Files, Columbia University. Hudnut solicited
1899-1932, RG 19/2/1, (pp. 164-165), University of Virginia Archives. funds from sympathetic individuals; the Emergency Committee in Aid of
25Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), Minutes
Displaced German Scholars also helped fund for Hegemann's position. For a
(1927), 2. list of the individual funders see "Dedication and Acknowledgments," in
26Hudnut, "Picture, Sentiment, and Symbol: Some Comments on Modern Hegemann, City Planning Housing, vol. 1. Hegemann dedicated this book to
Church Architecture," Architectural Record96 (September 1944): 84. Hudnut and Alvin Johnson, head of the New School.
27Hudnut, "Confessions of an Architect," 14. 50J. B. Conant, "President's Report," Official Register of Harvard University,
28 Richard Snow, transcript of interview with Richard Oliver, February 1981,1938-39, 11.
Columbia University Architecture Centennial Papers, Avery Archive. 51 Laurence Vesey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago, 1965),
29Hudnut, "On Teaching the History of Architecture." Journal of Architec-
304.
tural Education 122 (summer 1957): 6; and Hudnut, "Humanism and the 52James Hershberg, James B. Conant, Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of
Teaching of Architecture," Journal ofArchitecturalEducation 15 (winter 1961), 14.the Nuclear Age (New York, 1993), 79; and Conant, "Harvard, Present and
30 Hudnut, "On Teaching the History of Architecture," 6. Future," School and Society 43 (4 April 1936): 454.
31 Hudnut, "What a Planner Has to Know," American Society of Planning 53James B. Conant to Harold Bush-Brown, 2 May 1935, Conant Papers, UA I
Officials (1946): 159; and Hudnut, "Humanism and the Teaching of Architec-5.168, [HUA].
ture," 14.
54 Hudnut to Ronald Bradbury, 17 February 1936, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7,
32The relevance of Dewey's ideas to architectural education had also been Subseries I, Ib, [HUA].
recognized at this time. See Frederick Ackerman, "The Relation of Art to 55 Hudnut to Frederic Delano, 5 July 1940, GSD Papers, UA V 322.138,
Education," Journal of the American Institute of Architects 4 (May, June, July, and [HUA].
November, 1916): 190-193, 234-238, 281-284, 455-457. 56Conant, "President's Report," Official Register of Harvard University, for the
33 Columbia Spectator (25 October 1933): 3 and (6 October 1930): 4. years 1933-1952; and "Mr. Conant and Germany: A Presidential Autobiogra-
34 Hudnut, "Round Table Discussion, The Teaching of Architectural His-
phy," Harvard Alumni Bulletin 38 (10 April 1936): 812-819. On Butler's
tory," ACSA Minutes, 1929, 29. When the Columbia Spectator announced Hud-
conservatism see Vesey, Emergence of the American University.
nut's appointment as Dean on its front page, it was juxtaposed with another 57 "Description of Courses," Official Register ofHarvard University, 1936-1937,
story, "Dewey Predicts New Education." Columbia Spectator (14 February 1933):
37; "Memorandum for the Visiting Committees of the Graduate School of
1.
Design," Central Files; and "Graduate School of Design," Official Register of
35For an extended discussion of Beaux-Arts pedagogy in America, and of its Harvard University, 1935-1937; also G. Holmes Perkins, interview with author,
proponents and critics, see Jill Pearlman, 'Joseph Hudnut and the Education 31 December 1990, Philadelphia.
of the Modern Architect," Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1990, chapter 1. 58 "Hudnut Whirlwind Comes to Climax," Boston Evening Transcript, un-
On Hudnut at Columbia see Richard Oliver, ed., The Making of an Architect, dated clipping (December 193?) from Edward Bruce Papers, Box 11, National
1881-1981, Columbia University in the City ofNew York (NewYork, 1981). Archives. On Robinson Hall renovations, see Hudnut andJ. W. Lowes correspon-
36 "School of Architecture, Report of the Dean," Columbia University, Annual
dence, 1936, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7, Subseries II, IIa; and Hudnut to R. B.
Report of the President and Treasurer to the Trustees, 1934, 180-190; "Columbia Johnson, 26 October 1935 and 12 February 1936, UA V 322.7, Subseries VII,
University School of Architecture, Design Problems and Sketches, 1926-1927," VIIb, [HUA]. On credit for the Robinson Hall renovation, see, for example,
Central Files, Columbia University. Winfried Nerdinger, who claims that Robinson Hall was modernized "on
37 For discussion of the "project method" and for an overview of American
Gropius's initiative"; Nerdinger, "From Bauhaus to Harvard: Walter Gropius
progressive education, see Lawrence Cremin, The Transformation of the School:. and the Use of History," in The History of History in American Schools of Architec-
Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957 (NewYork, 1961). ture, 1865-1975 (NewYork, 1990), 94.
38 "School of Architecture, Report of the Dean," Columbia University, Annual 59 William Perry, transcript of interview with Richard Chafee, 29 September
Report of the President and Treasurer to the Trustees, 1935, 184; also "School of 1971, American Institute of Architects Archives; also Hudnut to Eric Arthur, 14
Architecture, Report of the Dean" (1934), 180. January 1948, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7.4, Subseries IV, [HUA]; and Hudnut,
39Joseph Hudnut, Statement on Werner Hegemann; Walter Creese to "Memorandum for the Visiting Committees of the Graduate School of De-
author, 28 September 1987. sign," Central Files, Columbia University.
4 For a bibliography of Hudnut's writings see Pearlman, "Joseph Hudnut
60o Hudnut to R_ B. Johnson, 12 February 1936, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7,
and the Education of the Modern Architect." Hudnut's important roles Subseries II, IIa, [HUA]; see "School of Architecture" and the "Graduate
outside Harvard included the founding and presidency of the American School of Design" in various Addenda to the Official Register ofHarvard University,
Society of Planners and Architects, 1945 (a progressive alternative to the AIA) 1935-1950, for Robinson Hall photographs.
and the directorship of the national competition for a new, modern Smithso-
61 For blueprints of Hudnut's restructuring of Robinson Hall see Vertical
nian Gallery of Art in 1939.
File, VF NA6602, Camb-Harv, 1935, Loeb Library, Harvard University; and
41 Hudnut, "Humanism and the Teaching of Architecture," 13. Hudnut toJ. W. Lowes, 24January 1936, GSD Papers.
42 Harmon Goldstone, transcript of interview with Richard Oliver (1980?), 62 In GSD Papers, UAV.322.138, see Hudnut to Frederic Delano, 5July 1940,
Centennial Papers, Avery Archive; and Hudnut to President Nicholas Murray
and Hudnut to John Coolidge, 12 November 1940; also "Minority Report of
Butler, 12June 1934, Central Files, Columbia University. Born in Riga, Latvia,
the Harvard Committee on Regional Planning," 10 September 1940, [HUA].
to Swedish parents, Ruhtenberg came to the United States in 1933.
63 Hudnut to Lawrence Kocher, 29 October 1937, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7,
43 Hudnut, "Preface," in Walter Gropius, The New Architecture and the Bauhaus
Subseries I, Ib, [HUA]; and John Dewey, from "Philosophy and Democracy,"
(New York, 1936).
quoted in Thomas Bender, Intellect and PublicLife (Baltimore, 1993), 138.
4 Hudnut, "The Education of an Architect," Architectural Record 69 (May
1931): 413. 6 Dewey's phrase, quoted in Robert Westbrook, John Dewey and American
Democracy (Ithaca, 1991), 362.
45 Hudnut, "The Modern Spirit Enters Contemporary Church Architec-
65 Hudnut to Abraham Garfield, 3 August 1943, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7.4,
ture," The American Architect 142 (December 1932): 15. Subseries I, [HUA].
46 Hudnut, "Notes on Educational Policy in the School of Architecture,"
6 Dewey, quoted in Westbrook, John Dewey and American Democracy, 3
June 1935, Central Files, Columbia University.
67 Hudnut, "Humanism and the Teaching of Architecture" (see n. 29
68Maccoby, "Design-A School without Direction" (see n. 4), 3.
69G. Holmes Perkins, interview with author (see n. 57). Jean-Jacques Haf- York, 1985) Gropius's
1995 [1991]). and Eva skills
Forgtcs, The Bauhaus
as a publicist Idea(at
date back and Bauhaus
least) Politics
to 1910, when he(Budapest,
fner to Joseph Freedlander, 3 December 1936, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7, issued a well-read manifesto for prefabricated housing.
Subseries III, IIIa, [HUA]. 83Hudnut to Gropius, 24 December 1936, Gropius Papers, [HL]; and
70 "Memorandum: Proposed Appointment of a Professor of Design in the Gropius, transcript of speech delivered in Washington, 9 May 1950, Gropius
Graduate School of Design, Harvard University," undated (c. May 1936), Papers, [AAA]. The Bauhaus Department of Architecture finally opened in
Alfred Barr Papers, Archives of American Art (hereafter cited [AAA]). 1927, the year before Gropius left the school. See Frank Whitford, Bauhaus
71 Hudnut to Barr, 18 May 1936; Hudnut to Barr, undated cable; Hudnut to (London, 1984), 179.
Barr, 10June 1936, Barr Papers, [AAA]. Some of the correspondence between 84Hudnut, "Architecture and the Modern Mind," Magazine ofArt 33 (May
Hudnut and Barr is included in Rona Roob, "1936: The Museum Selects an 1940): 291; and Hudnut, "Preface," in Gropius, The New Architecture and the
Architect," Archives ofAmerican ArtJournal 23 (1983). Throughout the years of Bauhaus, 10.
Hudnut's deanship there were many strong ties between the museum and the 85Hudnut, "Architecture and the Modern Mind," 291.
GSD: Hudnut served for more than a decade on the museum's architecture 86Hudnut, "Architecture Discovers the Present," American Scholar 7 (winter
committee-which oversaw its Department of Architecture-and he was even
1939): 114.
said to have been offered a position as the museum's first paid president in
87Hudnut, "Architecture in a Mechanized World," The Octagon 10 (August
1938):
1937 (Russell Lynes, Good Old Modern [New York, 1973], 177). It is well 6.
known
too that in many exhibitions and publications, the museum was a88great
Ibid.
89 Hudnut, "Can the Modern House Have a Garden?," 11, transcript of
promoter of the Bauhaus and former Bauhafisler. The best known exhibitions
were "Modern Architecture" in 1932, organized by Harvard alumni Henry-
lecture at Horticultural Society of New York, 15 December 1937, Vertical File,
Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson-who later studied with Gropius at Library.
NAB242, Loeb
Harvard-and "Bauhaus 1919-1928" in 1938. 90o Hudnut, "Architecture in a Mechanized World," 4, 5; and Hudnut, "Can
72 Hudnut to Barr, 29 September 1936, Barr Papers, [AAA]. In the
Gropius:
Modern AnHouse Have a Garden?," 13.
Illustrated Biography (see n. 1), 217. Reginald Isaacs claims-without 91 Hudnut,
citing any"Architecture in a Mechanized World," 5, 6.
evidence-that Hudnut was unhappy with Mies's "unmarried state and infor-
92 Ibid., 6.
mal household" and preferred Gropius. I have found no evidence to supportThe New Architecture and the Bauhaus, 111.
93Gropius,
Isaacs's claim. Rather, Hudnut wrote to Barr, "It is my present feeling 94G.
thatHolmes
Mies Perkins, interview with author (see n. 57).
would prove to be the more inspiring and perhaps more valuable man
95 Ibid.inside
the School and that [his architecture] would be superior in quality to the work
96Gropius to Hudnut, 24 December 1936, Gropius Papers, [HL].
which might be done by Gropius." 97 Gropius, "The Bauhaus Contribution, Letter to the Editor," Journal of
71Hudnut, "Memorandum" (September 1936), Conant Papers,Architectural
UAI 5.168, Education 18 (June 1963): 14; see, for example, Gropius, "Lecture
[HUA]. in Concord Academy," 1 December 1938, [HL].
74 Ibid. 98Hudnut to Kocher, 29 October 1937, GSD Papers, UAV 322.7 Subseries I,
75 Ibid. Ib, [HUA].
76Mies to Hudnut, 15 September 1936, and Hudnut to Mies, 16 November 99Hudnut, "Preface," in The New Architecture and the Bauhaus, 9; Hudnut to
1936, Mies Papers, Library of Congress; Hudnut to Gropius, 13 November 1936 Kocher, 29 October 1937, GSD Papers. In his letter to Kocher, Hudnut directly
and 8 December, Gropius Papers, Houghton Library, Harvard University addressed the question of a Bauhaus at Harvard.
(hereafter cited [HL]). Although other authors have discussed Hudnut's '100 G. Holmes Perkins, interview with author. See Gropius's letters to Marcel
attempt to bring Mies to Harvard, none of them has consulted the archives at Breuer during spring 1937, Gropius Papers, [HL] and [AAA], and his letters to
Harvard University: see, for example, Franz Schulze, Mies van derRohe, A Critical Josef Albers, Gropius Papers, [HL] and Josef Albers Papers, Yale University
Biography (Chicago, 1985); Elaine S. Hochman, Architects ofFortune, Mies van der Archives; Hudnut to Gropius, 23 December 1936, Gropius Papers, [HL].
Rohe and the Third Reich (New York, 1989); Kevin Harrington, "Mies's Curricu- 101 Breuer to Gropius, 23 May 1941, and Gropius to Breuer, 25 May 1941,
lum at IIT," in Mies van derRohe: Architect as Educator (Chicago, 1986). Gropius Papers, [HL].
77Gropius to Manon Gropius Burchard, 6 November 1934, quoted in 102John Harkness, interview with author, 14 December 1990, Cambridge,
Reginald Isaacs, Gropius, An Illustrated Biography, 192. Isaacs writes of Gropius's Massachusetts; "Marcel Lajos Breuer As He Is Remembered," Journal of the
impressions of America in 1928 on pages 145-150 and 223. American Institute ofArchitects 70 (August 1981): 11-12.
78 Hudnut to Gropius, 8 December 1936, Gropius Papers, [HL]. Hudnut 103 On Wagner see Barbara Miller Lane, Architecture and Politics in Germany
not only helped Gropius in all the ways he promised; he also helped him (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), and Manfredo Tafuri, The Sphere and the Labyrinth
publicize his earlier Bauhaus work by writing the preface for The New Architecture (Cambridge, Mass., 1987).
and the Bauhaus (NewYork, 1936), and by proposing to the Museum of Modern 104See Gropius/Albers and Gropius/Wagner correspondence in Gropius
Art that it hold the major Bauhaus exhibition in 1938. (Ernestine Fantl to Papers, [HL], and Gropius/Albers correspondence in the Yale University
Hudnut, 15 February 1937, GSD Papers, Subseries I, IB, [HUA]I.) Archives; Hudnut, "Graduate School of Design," Official Register of Harvard
7 On Gropius's relationship to the National Socialists and on the closing of University, 1938-1939, 293; on Tunnard see Marc Treib, ed., Modern Landscape
the Bauhaus in 1933 see Peter Hahn, "Bauhaus and Exile," 211-233, and Architecture: A Critical Review (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), and Peter Walker and
KathleenJames, "Walter Gropius at Harvard, 1937-45," 242-247, in Stephanie Melanie Simo, Invisible Gardens: The Search for Modernism in the American Land-
Barron, ed., Exiles and Emigris (see n. 2). scape (Cambridge, Mass., 1994).
80 At Harvard (as at the Bauhaus), Gropius's social aspirations informed his 105 On the various faculty members see Pearlman, 'Joseph Hudnut and the
teaching and architectural philosophy in significant ways. Some historians have Education of the Modern Architect" (see n. 35), chapter 3.
recently questioned whether Gropius turned away from his social goals to 106 "The Bauhaus in Dessau Curriculum (1925)," reprinted in Wingler,
purely artistic ones after emigrating to America; see, for example, Peter Hahn, Bauhaus, 108.
"Bauhaus and Exile." Thanks to Karen Koehler for making available to me her 107 Naylor, The Bauhaus Reassessed (see n. 82), 9.
forthcoming article on this subject, "The Bauhaus in Exile and the Fear of 10o Wingler, Bauhaus, 8, 142-143.
Reception: The Museum of Modern Art, 1938." '0 Forgics, TheBauhaus Idea and Bauhaus Politics (see n. 82), 140; Naylor, The
81 Hudnut to Gropius, 24 December 1936, and Gropius to Hudnut, 24 Bauhaus Reassessed, 154-155.
December 1936, Gropius Papers, [HL]. 110 "Outline of the Course, Design Fundamentals," 23 October 1950, GSD
82 Many authors who have written on the Bauhaus have addressed Gropius's
Papers, UA V 322.7 Subseries II, Ha, [HUA], and "Basic Design: A Course
longstanding talent for public relations. See, for example, Hans Wingler, Proposed for the First Year of Professional Training in the HGSD," Gropius
Bauhaus: Weima, Dessau, Berlin, Chicago (Cambridge, Mass., 1969) for some of Papers, fAAA].
Gropius's many manifestos; also Gillian Naylor, The Bauhaus Reassessed (New 111 Gropius, "Re: The Education of an Architect," 1939, Gropius Papers,
[AAA]. 136 "GSD Final Report, Committee for the Revision of the Curricula,"
112 Ibid.; Gropius described his scientific visual language in numerous essays Papers, U AV 322.7 Subseries II, IIa, [HUA]; and "Hudnut Drops Desi
and speeches. See, for example, "Suggestions for the Curriculum of An Based on Gropius Ideas," Harvard Crimson (23 February 1952): 1. If H
Architect's Training at Harvard," 1937, and "Address Given by Professor had continued the course, the cost of faculty salaries, equipment, and mate
Walter Gropius to the GSD Visiting Committee," 30 March, 1937, Gropius for the course would have had to be covered by the GSD budget.
Papers, [AAA]; also, "Tuesday Evening Session," Association of Collegiate 137 Gropius to Chermayeff, 15 March 1950, Institute of Design pa
Schools of Architecture Annual Meeting, 9 May 1950, in ACSA/Journal of Richard Filipowski, interview with author (see n. 50).
Architectural Education Proceedings (spring 1951): 81. 138 Quotation is from notes for an exhibition produced in the D
113Gropius, "Re: Education of an Architect," 2; Gropius, "Letter to the Fundamentals course, fall and spring 1950-1951, Filipowski Papers; R
Editor," Journal ofArchitecturalEducation 18 (June 1963): 15. Filipowski, interview with author. Hudnut's lectures were famous for pr
114Gropius, "For the Dean's Annual Report: Outline of the Course, Design the attributes that Filipowski pointed to.
Fundamentals," Filipowski Papers; Gropius to Serge Chermayeff, 21 May 1951, 139 Notes for an exhibition produced in the Design Fundamentals cou
Institute of Design Papers, University of Illinois, Chicago. fall and spring 1950-1951, Filipowski Papers.
115 Gropius to Serge Chermayeff, 16 March 1950, Institute of Design Papers; 140 Gropius, "For the Dean's Annual Report: Outline of the Course, De
"Description of Courses," Official Register of Harvard University, 1949-1950, 27. Fundamentals," Filipowski Papers; Gropius to Serge Chermayeff, 21 May
116 Ibid., 27-28; Hudnut, "Architecture Discovers the Present," 106; Institute of Design Papers.
G. Holmes Perkins, interview with author (see n. 57); and "GSD Final Report, 141 Filipowski, "Three Dimensional Experiments" and "Design Fundam
Committee for the Revision of the Curricula," 22 May 1950, GSD Papers, U AV tals Workshop," 2 September 1950; "Design Fundamentals---Fall-Spring T
322.7, Subseries II, Ila, [HUA]. 1951-52, Graphics and Color"; untitled notes (draft of course outlin
117 Gropius to Chermayeff, 16 March 1950. Dean's Annual Report, c. fall 1950), Filipowski Papers.
118Hudnut, "Foundations," Line Magazine 1 (1952), unpaginated; and 142 "Design for Today," The Harvard Crimson (28 February 1952): 2; "D
Hudnut, "The Anticipation of Order," Journal of Architectural Education (au- School Council Seeks Conant Parley, Poll Says Students Still Want Desig
tumn 1958): 23; Gropius's description of the "twofold" system is quoted in Eva The Harvard Crimson (25 February 1952): 1.
Forgics, The Bauhaus Idea and Bauhaus Politics, 84. 143 "Hudnut Drops Design 1, Based on Gropius Ideas," The Harvard Cri
119 Gropius, quoted in Maccoby, "Design-A School without Direction," 3; (23 February 1952): 1.
Forgics, The Bauhaus Idea and Bauhaus Politics, 84-85. 144 "Sert Made Design Dean; City Architect Gropius' Choice," The Ha
120Hudnut, "The Political Art of Planning," Architectural Record 94 (October Crimson (15 January 1953): 1; Reginald Isaacs, Gropius, An Illustrated Biogr
1943): 45; Hudnut, "Minority Report of the Harvard Committee on Regional (see n. 1).
Planning," GSD Papers, U AV 322.138, 1940, [HUA]; Hudnut, "Foundations." 145 Michael Maccoby, "Design-A School Without Direction" (see n. 4),
121 Hudnut, "The Anticipation of Order," 23. 146 "The Gropius Symposium," Arts and Architecture 69 (May 1952): 2
122Hudnut, The ThreeLamps of Modern Architecture (Ann Arbor, 1952), 1, 7. "BirthdayFete for Gropius," Architectural Record 124 (July 1958): 9,25; "Gro
123Hudnut, "Architectural Values," in Thomas Creighton, Buildingfor Mod- 80th Birthday Marked by Old Friends and Students," Architectural Recor
ern Man (Princeton, 1949), 93; Hudnut, "Architecture in a Mechanized World" (July 1963): 10. Among other positions, Hudnut served on the Nati
(see n. 87), 3; "The Bases ofJudgment," Memo from Hudnut to David Finley, Commission of Fine Arts and on the review board for Baltimore's urban
29 January 1951, Finley Papers, National Archives; Hudnut, "Architecture's renewal program. He also published some fifteen articles after leaving Har-
Place in City Planning," Architectural Record97 (March 1945): 71. vard; G. Holmes Perkins, interview with author.
124Hudnut, "The Invisible City," Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners 15 147 Hudnut to Robert Weinberg, 25 December 1966, Robert Weinberg
(summer 1949): 7, and Hudnut, "The Post-Modern House," Architectural Papers, Long Island University Library, Brooklyn Center.
Record 97 (May 1945): 75; reprinted in Joan Ockman, ed., Architecture Culture, 148 See Ockman, Architecture Culture (see n. 124)) for an excellent overview of
1943-1968 (NewYork, 1993). the period, which she calls "the interregnum between modernism and what i
125Forgics, The Bauhaus Idea and Bauhaus Politics, 126. now called postmodernism."
126Hudnut, "Humanism and the Teaching of Architecture," 15. 149 To name just a few, earlier critics included George Howe, Colin Rowe,
127Gropius, "Basic Design," memorandum, undated, U AV 322.7 Subseries Alison and Peter Smithson, James Stirling, Philip Johnson, and Louis Kahn.
2, 2a, [HUA]; Gropius, "Contemporary Architecture and Training the Archi- Ockman's Architecture Culture contains many interesting documents that ques-
tect," 15, Gropius Papers, [AAA]; Gropius, "Education Should Aim at Combin- tion mainstream modernism in the late 1940s and 1950s.
ing Individual Independence with the Spirit of Cooperation!," Task (summer 150 In this essay, and in many others, Hudnut takes a stand-as many
1941): 34; and "Re: The Education of An Architect," 6; Gropius, "Outline of postmodernists do-against the abstract formalism, internationalism, function-
the Course, 'Design Fundamentals,' " 1950, Richard Filipowski Papers. alism, and passion for technology and progress that many modernists embrace.
128 Gropius made this point often; see, for example, "Blueprint for an Like the later critics, he also calls for spontaneity, irony, pleasure, and familiar
Architect's Training," L'Architecture d'aujourd'hui20 (February 1950): 74. symbols in architecture. Hudnut, "The Post-Modern House" (see n. 124).
129 Ibid., 74.
Others, most notably CharlesJencks, What is Post-Modernism? (London, 1986),
130 See "Graduate School of Design," in the Official Register of Harvard
14, have recognized Hudnut for his use of "post-modern."
University for the years 1936-1952 to trace changes in GSD course require-
ments.
131 Hudnut, "What a Young Planner Ought to Know," Journal of the American
Institute of Architects 7 (February 1947): 60. Illustration Credits
132 "People," ArchitecturalForum 97 (July 1952): 59.
Figure 1. Harvard University Archives
133 Hudnut, "Confessions of an Architect" (see n. 6), 13. Figure 2. Auburn University Libraries, Special Collections
134 Walter Creese to author, 28 September 1987; Hudnut to Carol Aronovici,
Figure 3. Courtesy of First Methodist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia
27January 1945, GSD Papers, UA V 322.7.4 Subseries I, [HUA]; and Figures
"Descrip-
6, 8, 10, 11, 12. The Frances Loeb Library, Graduate School of Design,
tions of Courses," Offwial Register of Harvard University 1946-194 7, 37.
Harvard University
1'5 Henry Cobb, quoted in "Alumni Meet to Discuss Legacy ofFigures
Hudnut/7, 9. Harvard University News Office
Gropius Era," HGSD News 11 (November-December 1982): 6. Figures 4, 13. Courtesy of Richard Filipowski

Joseph Hudnut, Harvard and Other Bauhaus - Jill Pearlman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joseph Hudnut, Harvard and Other Bauhaus - Jill Pearlman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Joseph Hudnut's Other Modernism

at the "Harvard Bauhaus"

bered principally for bringing Gropius to teach at Harvard in

452 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

From 1919 until 1923, Hudnut built churches and houses

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 453

Washington Highlands, a garden suburb in Milwaukee. Here,

which I formulated at that time has become continuously and definitely

From Hegemann, whose planning work was informed by a

454 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

FIGURE 4: Joseph Hudnut, house in Charlottesville, Virginia, 1924

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 455

...... .. . .. .. .. . ....... ......... ...I.SO - .....-.....:.. :

architectural design," he also took steps to ritual

456 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDN

confidence and security.41

458 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

for the Harvard deanship. Over a period of several

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 459

460 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

... ....... ...

.......... . . .... ........

.. ... ...... ... ... R

FIGURE 6: Robinson Hall, Harvard University, "Hall of Casts," c. 1925

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 461

FIGURE 7: Robinson Hall, Harvard University, building completed in 1903

............ . . ..... le A rl-lw

learned from experience, and not by acceding to defeat

462 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

three" and "the most likely to be successful in this country."71

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 463

464 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 465

whatever explanations of human experience we may accept, by what-

For Hudnut, space had always been the primary substance

466 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 467

. . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . ....... .....

FIGURE 10: GSD collaborative design problem,

"Civic Square in Cambridge," 1950

FIGURE I I: GSD design problem, nursery school,

Victor Lundy, 1947

faculty in place when Hudnut

468 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

admit it to Gropius, claiming budgetary in his Bauhaus instead,

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 469

470 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 471

continuity, that awareness of past crises and conflicts, of the march

question. Did he "achieve modernity" by the early 1930s only to."137

472 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

Hudnut continued to oppose the course. When the dean

courses modeled after the Bauhaus's and that "my whole

Design Fundamentals because the GSD could not afford to

Gropius's conflict and it now brought their battle to its climax.

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 473

It is tempting but too easy to put Hudnut forward as (repr.

perhaps more challenging, contribution as an early critic of

modernism from within. Even today, Hudnut's words and

474 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997

PEARLMAN: JOSEPH HUDNUT 475

476 JSAH / 56:4, DECEMBER 1997