Architectural History in Schools of Architecture

Author(s): Stanford Anderson

Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 58, No. 3, Architectural
History 1999/2000 (Sep., 1999), pp. 282-290
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/991520 .
Accessed: 10/08/2013 17:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Architectural
History in
Architecture
historythrivesin schoolsof
architectural
Today
architectureand yet its situationis as ambiguous
as ever.This is not to assertsome timeless condi-
tion, for ambiguitycan takemany forms.Andyet again,the
issues underlyingthese ambiguitiesdo displaycertaincon-
sistencies:Is history germane to architecturalproduction,
or education?Or not? Is history an autonomousdiscipline
or a "service"?If the former,is it nonetheless valuableas a
sourceof criticalinsightsinto the position of architecturein
society?If the latter,is it a trove of availableforms,an array
of formal paradigmsawaiting transformation,a breeding
and testing ground for architecturalhypotheses,or ... ?
Our theme is stocktaking at a purportedly epochal
moment, an exercise the timing of which would itself be
appropriatefor historicaldeconstruction.Let this simplybe
a stocktaking,not a millennial one. And let us turn, very
briefly,to reflecton architecturalhistoryin schoolsof archi-
tecture in two preceding eras: prior to, and during, the
period of Modernism.
Whether architecturewas taught in academies,most
notably in France after the Revolution, in polytechnics
French or Germanic, in a professional association as in
London, or in the university-basedschools proliferatingin
the United Statesin the late nineteenthcentury,historywas
in some way integral.Architecturemight be a disciplineof
remarkableautonomy,handed down through the classical
tradition.'History might be a repositoryof both spatialand
tectonic typologies availablefor use and transformation.
This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Schools of
STANFORD ANDERSON
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
History might revealthe rootednessof waysof buildingand
being that inspired national or racialloyalties. One could
not embraceall these ideassimultaneously,but from a time
of the dominance of academic classicism around 1800,
through all the historicisms and eclecticism of the nine-
teenth century,historywas in some way intimatelywedded
to the practiceand teaching of architecture.
The first school of architecturein the United States
was one of the five original departments(along with civil
engineering,mechanicalengineering,mining and geology,
and chemistry)of the MassachusettsInstituteof Technology
(MIT) as it matriculatedits firststudentsin 1865. The head
of the school was William Robert Ware, the designerwith
Henry Van Bruntof Harvard'sRuskinianGothic Memorial
Hall (1868-1880). YetWarequicklybroughthis new school
under the sway of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts.2A series of
graduatesof the Parisschool taughtat MIT, beginningwith
Eugene Letang in 1871. The other new Americanschools
adoptedthe same standard.There was no independentdis-
cipline of history,but it was deeply embeddedin the work
at the draftingboard.3
In Englandthe hold of classicismwaschallengedearlyin
the nineteenth century by the recognition of indigenous
medievalarchitectureand the claims for its greaterappro-
priateness to the land, climate, and mores of northern
Europe. Later it became plausibleto see these concernsas
providingthe root stockfor the new,free architecture,espe-
ciallyof the Englishhouse,in the latterpartof the nineteenth
century.All this made a markon the ArchitecturalAssocia-
tion of London (founded1847);still, architecturaleducation
in England, too, especially again at the beginning of the
twentiethcentury,was stronglymarkedby classicism.4
In Germany,too, the challenge to classicismwas deep
and pervasive.The Rundbogenstil, simultaneouslymedieval-
izing and tectonicallyelemental,offereda compellingalter-
native. Increasinglymarkedwas the relianceon an eclectic
range of medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque forms--
increasinglybasedon northernprecedents.sThe classicism
of KarlFriedrichSchinkelandhis time maintainedits pres-
tige, but the northern alternativesincreasinglydominated
andmarkedthe schoolsandtheirhistoricalinquiriesas well.
Schinkel and Friedrich Gilly themselves-and Goethe,
too-provided the examplefor close and motivatedinquiry
into great medievalworks.6
At the beginning of the twentieth century,Hermann
Muthesius attacked recent eclecticism and the current
Jugendstil,embracingall that was Nordic but especiallythe
English free architecture,which he was in the process of
documenting so well from his position as culturalattache
at the German embassy in London. He examined the
Britishphenomenon lovingly and in detail,yet his proposi-
tion was that Germanyhad not to copy the English works,
but rather to follow a parallel course from Germanic
sources to a rooted Modernism.7
In the same years, the young artist Peter Behrens,
newly made Director of the School of Arts and Crafts
(Kunstgewerbeschule) in Diisseldorf(1903), ambitiouslycon-
tinued his own self-instructionas an architectwhile seeking
to establish an innovative architectural program in his
school. In the present context, the importantmatteris the
examplehe set for historywithinthe school. He did not hire
an architectwith one or another form of commitment to
historybut rathera young arthistorian,Wilhelm Niemeyer,
trainedby August Schmarsowin Dresden. Schmarsowwas
noted for an innovative approachthat sought to identify
what was elementalto each artisticmedium.8The proposi-
tion that sculpturewas essentiallythe occupation of space
while architecturewas the art of the creation of space fun-
damentally cut away conventional stylistic discourse.
Whether in historicalinquiryor creativedesign, the mind
was freed and simultaneouslygiven a fulcrumon which to
shift the load of tradition.Niemeyer also taughtBehrensto
appreciate the thought of Alois Riegl, and especially the
concept of the Kunstwollen. From these two sourcesBehrens
could deriveboth a fresh formalprogramand a conviction
of historicalmission.9
I emphasizethis Europeanand relativelylittle-known
exampleof Behrens'sDiisseldorfschool for three reasons:it
ARCHITECTURAL
This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
may be the first example of a highly trained, academicart
historian playing a programmaticrole in an innovative
architectural program; it shows the telling influence in
architecturaleducationof the abstractionsof "scientific"art
history (Kunstwissenschaft)rather than received stylistic or
even architecturalcommitments;and, finally,the two lead-
ing modernists to direct schools of architecture in the
United States, Walter Gropius and Ludwig Mies van der
Rohe, knew this example from their immediatelyensuing
years in the atelierof Behrens.
WalterGropiuswas invitedto Harvardby DeanJoseph
Hudnut in 1937 and became chairmanof the Department
of Architecturea year later.The new architectureespoused
by Gropius had to make its way in confrontation with
ingrainedconventionalpractice-a consequence of which
was the tendency to distancethe new from historicalroots
and thus to inhibit the study of architecturalhistory by
impressionableyoung student architects.The dismissalof
history from the program of the Graduate School of
Design, emphaticallyclaimedby KlausHerdeg, is an argu-
ment that may need to be tempered.1oStill, I can witness
that, as the bright young graduatesof Harvardand other
East Coast schools of architecturein the 1950s took leading
roles in the change of architecturaleducation in schools
acrossthe country,historywas largelytreatedas bunk.The
use of the library,even the perusalof currentjournals,was
a clear and present dangerto the student'screativity.
In 1938 LudwigMies van der Rohe becamedirectorof
the architecturalschool of the ArmourInstitutein Chicago,
predecessorof the Illinois Institute of Technology. In his
1939 descriptionof the school, Mies began and ended with
the need for culturalandhistoricaleducation.He closedwith:
The buildingsof the past are studiedso thatthe studentwill
acquirefromtheirsignificanceandgreatnessa sense for gen-
uinearchitecturalvalues,andbecausetheirdependenceupona
specifichistorical
situationmustawakeninhimanunderstanding
forthe necessityof hisown architectural
achievement.11
Yet the pervasiveand long-lasting control of Miesian form
givingoverthe studentarchitectsof IIT (stilldebatedtoday)
should assureus that Mies'sopening to historywas to con-
vey a Zeitgeist endorsedby him, with the consequencethat
the student's architectural achievement would emerge
within the form world of Mies.12
As late as 1967, the widespreaddismissalof historywas
noted by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, with characteristicwit:
An inquiryintoa methodologyof teachingarchitectural
history
to studentsof architecture
boilsdownto threedecisivepoints:
HISTORY IN SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE 283
why to teach a disciplinewhichis generallyrejectedby practi- Complexity andContradictionin Architecture,
the manifestoof
tioners;whomto select forsuchan unpopular task;andhowto an architecturaltheory with assertedlyextensivehistorical
implement the ordeal of fourcreditunitsof glazedeyes, chronic roots.19 As with Rowe's urban-design program,Venturi's
absenteeism, and interfacultycondescension.13 broad impact in architecturewas just that, advocacyof an
architecturemore historicallyinformed but not addressed
Given the intelligence and charmof Sibyl, one assumesshe to history per se.
spoke more of a general situationthan of her own experi- From about 1960 anotherchange in architecturalhis-
ence, though one must also assume her experiencewas sim- tory within professionalschools of architecturewas taking
ilarlytinged.Anothercommon model, usuallyaccompanied place: increasingnumbers and broadeningroles of archi-
by the same doubts, involved borrowing history courses tect/historians within the schools, and the related emer-
from the departmentof history of art. In all these cases, as gence of an unprecedented activity-the organized
Spiro Kostof pointed out, the teachers were trained in educationof architecturalhistorianswithin schools of archi-
schools of the historyof artthat treatedarchitectureas one, tecture.20 It is this phenomenonI wish to emphasizeby sur-
but usuallythe lesser,of the visualarts.Their disciplinewas veying the earlier and noted competing programs.In the
little affectedby the practiceof architectureor architectural survey,the diversityof the programswill appear,compli-
education.Little if any considerationwas given to the dif- cating any attempt to offer a collective interpretation of
fering audiencesof liberalarts studentsversusprofessional their motivations and methodologies. Nonetheless I will
architecturalstudents.14Indeed, Moholy-Nagy specifically risk some comments.
inveighed against teachers drawn from "the art-historical Typically,the introduction of advancededucation in
product of our Fine Arts Institutes."15Nonetheless, there history was intended simultaneously to improve profes-
are notable historianswho performedwell within such cir- sionaleducationin architecture.Only the Universityof Vir-
cumstances.JamesAckermandid not see many glazed eyes ginia, successivelybuilding degree programsin the history
as he taught architecturestudents at Berkeley in the late of architecturefrom the baccalaureatethroughthe master's
1950s. By reputation,this must have been true for Vincent and doctorallevels in an independentdivisionof its School
Scully at Yale(and Ackermanagain, after his appointment of Architecture,implicitly endorseda certainautonomyof
at Harvard).The successof these teachersin reachingarchi- historical studies. For the rest, immediate advantagewas
tecturalstudentsdoes not, however,implysharedprograms; seen in attractingand holding well-trained, intellectually
Kostof offerswitness to the effect of Scully'senthusiasms.16 ambitious historians within the professional school. The
Indeed, by 1967 the situationwas not wholly as Sibyl long-term advantagewas the trainingof more such schol-
Moholy-Nagy painted it. One of the indicatorsof change ars who would enhance historical teaching also in profes-
was the organizationby Henry Millon (MIT) of the annual sional schools that did not develop programsof advanced
Cranbrook Seminar of the Association of Collegiate historicalstudies.
Schools of Architecturein 1964 under the title "The His- Some of these new historianscame from traditionalart
tory, Theory, and Criticismof Architecture."Bruno Zevi's history graduate programs, while others held no such
advocacyof an operativearchitecturalhistory and the vir- advanceddegrees.What most of them had in common was
tual takeoverof schools by historiansdid not preciselycarry priortrainingas architects.Such trainingprovideda degree
the day.But a rosterof notables(includingReynerBanham, of technicalcompetencethatwas advantageousto the study
Serge Chermayeff,Peter Collins, Millon, Sibyl Moholy- of architecture,but perhapsmore importantlyit provideda
Nagy, and Colin Rowe) as well as some youngerpeople gave mentality more open to speculation. Whether holding
evidence that historywas in the process of winning a more advanced history degrees or not, these new historians
prominentplace in schools of architecture.17 sharedcertaincriticismsof art history,as then constituted,
With a prehistoryat the Universityof Texasat Austin, and opened new areasof inquiry.
Colin Rowe took a professorshipat Cornell University in The practiceof arthistorywas perceivedas remarkably
1962, where he launched an urban design program.That closed to historiographicor theoreticaldiscussioneven, or
program embraced operative historical studies much as perhapsparticularly,as it was implicit in its own practices.
schools before the advent of the Modern Movement had Colin Rowe and I came independentlyto the epistemolog-
done, but Rowe representedmuch more-brilliant histori- ical analysesand alternativesofferedby the thought of Karl
cal analyses(extendingto Modernism)and criticalpolemics Popper and,later,Imre Lakatos.21Often the rangeof issues
that persuasivelyinfluencedstudentsand facultybeyondhis considered by art historians appearedtoo narrow.If the
urban-designprogram.18In 1966 RobertVenturipublished autonomy of the art object and studies based on connois-
284 JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
seurshipwere alreadyyielding to the more contextualstud-
ies of iconology and iconography, at least two areas of
inquirywere still neglected.The more proximateset of con-
cerns, and perhapsespeciallyimportantfor architectureas
againstthe other arts,involvedthe physicalityof the object,
its production, and its material and social context. To
addressthese issuesrequirednot only a greateropennessto
them but also, as noted, competencethat professionalarchi-
tectural education facilitated.22The second, less evident,
area to be opened was the recognition of theoretical and
critical issues, including those contemporary issues that
could appearanachronisticyet yielded reciprocalbenefits
for theory and history-for the understandingof tempo-
rallyor culturallydistantartifacts.Criticalstudiesof the arts
and of architectureaddressednot only earlierperiodsinno-
cent or repressiveof these issues (or at least so it seemed by
their absence from the standardhistorical literature)but
also contemporaryproductionand society.Both theory and
criticismassumedascendantroles, invokinga new pantheon
of thinkers-most notablyMichel Foucault.23If the critique
of art-historicalpracticesin the early 1960swasjustified,by
the 1980s the situationhad changedradicallyin mattersof
theory and historiography.Even the traditionalschools of
art history had adopted new critical studies with a
vengeance.
One should also note that what I have called the "new
historians" were not monolithic; they held significant
debateswith one another.My first public lecture and pub-
lication was a defense of a Popperianconcept of tradition
againstthe technologicaldeterminismof ReynerBanham.24
Bruno Zevi and ManfredoTafuriwere antagonistson the
issue of operative criticism.25 The advocacy of "critical
regionalism" received much acclaim but also alternative
interpretationsand criticism.26Within the departmentat
Berkeley,Spiro Kostof and Dell Upton competed on the
front of canonicversusvernacularworks.27With the emerg-
ing prominence of criticaltheory, the ground had shifted.
For example, the MIT program that began with a will to
bring theory and criticism into historical studies became
increasinglyconcerned to maintaina historicalsea anchor
for theory and criticism.Nevertheless, what has remained
constantis the persuasionthat history,theory,and criticism
must addressone another.
I turnto a surveyof some of the schoolsin the United States
that have played a role in these debates and especially in
producing the emerging voices in history of architecture.
The criteria for inclusion are that the programs be in
schools of architecture,offer the Ph.D. degree, are of some
duration,and/or have facultythat have notablycontributed
ARCHITECTURAL
This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to the debates.Other candidateschools that I have failedto
include, and to whom I offer my apologies, are Georgia
Instituteof Technology,Universityof CaliforniaLos Ange-
les, University of Colorado Denver, University of Illinois
Urbana, and Universityof TexasAustin.
Cornell
Stephen W. Jacobs, who had taught history in the Depart-
ment of Architectureat Berkeley,came to Cornell in 1960.
By the end of 1961 the faculty had approved a
master's/Ph.D. program in history to train, in Jacobs's
words,"qualified,creative,and productivearchitecturalhis-
torians able to make a contribution of high scholarlycal-
iber to the local educationalscene"in professionalschools.28
However,the programwas developedand approvedonly in
the late 1960s. ChristianE Otto joined the Cornell faculty
in 1970 and has directed the programthrough most of its
course. Colin Rowe served as chair of some committees.
Preservationwas added to the programin the late 1970s,
but was moved to Planningin the mid 1980s.The firstdoc-
torates were grantedin 1973/74. To date there have been
thirty-fourdoctoralgraduates.
MIT
Henry A. Millon, after a brief period as a lecturer earlier,
returned from the AmericanAcademy in Rome to take a
position as an assistantprofessorof historyof architectureat
the MassachusettsInstituteof Technologyin 1960. I joined
Millon in 1963;togetherwe representedMIT'scommitment
to historianswith professionaltrainingin both architecture
and history.In 1964, with the appointmentof the arthisto-
rianWayneV Andersen,joined by RosalindKraussin 1967,
the MIT programassumeda characterthat remainsunique:
art-historicalinstructionat this institutionis joinedwith his-
tory of architecturewithin the Departmentof Architecture.
While these professorswere all graduatesof programsof
historyof art at Harvardor Columbia,they sharedinterests
in historiographicalinquiryand issues of theory and criti-
cism of art and architecture,which they felt were inade-
quately represented in the traditionaldoctoral programs.
Eachof these andsucceedingprofessorsin the programcon-
tributedto the repositioningof the intellectualframeworks
of their disciplines. The art historians, working from an
unusualbase within a departmentof architecture,conduct
their researchandwritingmuch as they would fromanother
base, perhapstemperedby a necessitywithin their teaching
to constructlecturesandseminarsthat entertaina widerand
sometimesprofessionallydefinedset of studentconcerns.
HISTORY IN SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE 285
 Additionally,Millon and Andersonarguedthat archi-
tecture, when subsumedwithin history of art (whether in
liberalartsor professionalarchitecturalprograms,at under-
graduateor graduatelevels),was treatedwithout due atten-
tion to conceptual, physical, technical, social, urban, and
environmentalfactors.It was conceivedthat a doctoralpro-
gram in history within a departmentof architecturemight
addressthese issues more fully while also bringing creden-
tialed,andhopefullyrespected,historiansand architect/his-
toriansinto the orbit of architecturaleducation.
About 1970 these MIT professorsjoined in advocat-
ing doctoral-degree-grantingprivilege for the whole of
a of all doctoral students; the others were structures, the
their department. Finding no shared interest for such a
programin colleagues from other disciplines,the proposal
was submitted solely for the fields of art and architectural
history (History, Theory, and Criticism of Art, Architec-
ture, and Environmental Form-HTC). After rigorous
externalexaminationof the historians'proposal,a general
departmentalPh.D. programwas authorized in 1974. In
that same year,Millon took leave for three years as Direc-
tor of the American Academy in Rome and in 1980
resigned his professorshipto serve as Dean of the Center
for Advanced Study of the Visual Arts (CASVA) at the
National Gallery in Washington. He has sustained a role
as a visiting professor at MIT to the present. Shortly after
the formation of the program, Krauss accepted an
appointmentin art history at Princeton;from 1977 Wayne
Andersen shifted his attention to external activities and
then left MIT in 1986. A distinct advantage of the pro-
gram is MIT/Harvard cross-registration. The Harvard
affiliation serves in many ways, but one may note espe-
cially the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at
Harvardand MIT.29
The first student risked enrolling in 1974, prior to
authorizationof the program.The firstarthistorygraduate
was in 1979 under Andersen; the first in architecturein
1980 underAnderson.To date there are forty-one doctoral
graduates,the largemajorityof whom also hold professional
architecturedegrees. Graduatesin the United States are
dominantly academics,while those from abroadmay also
be involved at high governmentallevels. At the startof the
program,it was assumedthat graduatesin history of archi-
tecturewould be acceptedonly by departmentsof architec-
ture, extending the proposition that history be taught by
peoplewith dualeducationalbackgrounds.While this is still
the most common careerpath of HTC graduates(Colum-
bia, Harvard,MIT, and numerousuniversitiesinternation-
ally), liberalizinginterestsin the renowneddepartmentsof
arthistoryresultedin MIT doctoralgraduatesalso on these
facultiesat Columbia,Harvard,Yale,and elsewhere.30
286 JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999
This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Pennsylvania
The Ph.D. program of the School of Architectureof the
University of Pennsylvaniawas formed in 1964 by Dean
Holmes Perkins, who chaired it for eighteen years. The
degree is authorized by the university rather than by the
School of Architecture;it is, however,offeredonly to those
who hold a professionaldegreein architectureor landscape
architecture.From the beginning, the Pennsylvaniapro-
gram cast a wide net in topics, faculty advisers(including
facultyfrom other institutions),andnumberof students.At
the outset, history/theorywas one of four subjectsrequired
mechanical plant, and design. In 1967 the preliminary
examinationwas reducedfrom these four areasto "history
and theories of architecture"regardlessof the candidate's
field. Despite this emphasisandthe presenceof notablefac-
ulty concernedwith history,there has never been a history
programper se. PeterMcCleary,an engineerwith profound
architecturaland historicalinterests who came to Penn in
1977, chairedthe programfrom 1982 to 1988, encouraging
workat the intersectionsof his interests.From 1988 to 1995
Joseph Rykwertheadedthe programand focused the stud-
ies more concertedlyon history,with a phenomenological
orientation. David Leatherbarrowis now director of the
program.31Of 140 graduatessince 1968, abouthalf are rec-
ognized as emphasizinghistory and theory.
University of California Berkeley
As alreadynoted, in the mid to late fifties,JamesAckerman
(joint appointment Art History and Architecture) and
StephenJacobs taught the introductorysubject in history
of architecturefor the professional program at Berkeley.
This early collaboration of the two departments had,
accordingto Dell Upton, an early falling out, and contact
remainsminimalto this day.
In the mid-sixtiesthe historyfacultyof the Department
of Architecture of the new College of Environmental
Design took shape:Norma Evenson was appointedshortly
beforethe arrivalof SpiroKostofin 1965. StephenTobriner
joined a few yearslater as the departmentalPh.D. program
was formed. In 1983 Dell Upton joined to teach American
and vernacular architecture. At the end of the eighties
Nezar A1Sayyadformed a program of Environmental
Design in Developing Countries.32Workingwithin a gen-
eral departmental Ph.D. program, the "history faculty"
itself has been dominantlynonarchitectsand includespeo-
ple with doctoratesin geographyand Americanstudies as
well as art historiansspecializingin architecture.
From the time of his appointment Kostof held the
emblematic roleof theBerkeley program, assuredbothbyhis Vidler may have conceded as much in saying "anyconsis-
ownbrillianceandhiscommitment to bringingthehistoryof tency would havebeen due to admissions."There havebeen
architecture
to a broadaudiencethroughlecturesandbooks. approximatelytwenty history graduates,the first in 1978
Fundamental intellectualdifferencesbetweenKostofand underVidler.
Upton, in orientationandsubjectmatter,ledto whatUpton
hastermedthe enduring"rightandleftwings"of the pro-
gram-notingtheironythat,inhisview,themodernists were Virginia
on theright.Sincethe deathof Kostofin 1991,it is Upton's The architecture program at the University of Virginia
positionthatmoststronglycolorstheprogram.33 datesfrom 1919,headedby the architectand historianFiske
The firsttwo Ph.D.studentsin historywereadmitted Kimball. A positive orientation toward history continued
in 1970andgraduated in 1974withdissertationsadvisedby under his successors;with the creation of the School of
Evenson.Among 123 departmentaldoctoratesto date, Architecture in the 1950s, a separate "division" (later
therehavebeenthirty-sixin history. department)of architecturalhistory was recognized with
bachelor'sand master'sprogramsbegun in 1958 and 1964,
respectively. Richard Guy Wilson arrived in 1976, Dora
Princeton Wiebenson in 1977, and William CarrollWestfall in 1982
Schoolof Architecture
Princeton's openedin 1919asa "sec- (now at Notre Dame). All three served as chair,with Wil-
tion"of the Departmentof ArtandArchaeology-unique son servinga second term since 1987. All three also partic-
in beingheadedby a historianandarchaeologist, Howard ipatedin a lengthyprocessthat finallyrecognizeda doctoral
Crosby Butler.Doctoral degreeswere offeredat thePrince- programin 1989 (with a first graduatein 1990, thanksto a
ton Schoolof Architecture priorto the developmentof a start in the Departmentof Art History).
doctoralprogramin history-a notableinstanceis thatof With seven full-time faculty,the departmentincludes
CharlesMoorewitha dissertation titled"WaterandArchi- historicpreservation;while in historicalstudies,it attendsto
tecture"underJean Labatutand Donald Drew Egbert vernaculararchitectureand materialculture as well as the
(1957).UnderDeanRobertGeddes,andwiththe arrivalof canonicworksof WesternandFarEasternarchitecture.Only
AnthonyVidlerin 1965,Princetonoffereda jointdoctoral the professorteachingFarEasternarchitecturewastrainedas
programin architectureandurbanplanning,with about an architect.About thirty students are in residence in the
equalnumbersof studentsin each.In the early1970s,the two-yearMasterof Architectural Historyprogram;the Ph.D.
planningprogramof the schoolwasshiftedto the Wilson program,with fourteengraduatesto date,is offeredthrough
School.The architecturedoctoralprogram,chairedby the GraduateCollege of Artsand Sciences.3s5
Vidlerfrom 1973, was recognizedin three areas:His-
tory/Theory(Vidler);SocialStudies(RobertGutman); and
HistoricalStudiesin Technology(RobertMarkandDavid Harvard
From1989Vidlersharedthechairmanship
Billington). with Ph.D. studies in Harvard'sGraduateSchool of Design are
GeorgesTeyssot, who then served alone from September grantedby the universitythrough the GraduateSchool of
1994, after the departureof Vidler for UCLA. Alan Arts and Sciences. Occasional doctoral degrees have been
Colquhounhasbeena continuingfundamental participant. earnedover the years,as in the case of ChristopherAlexan-
Includingthe earlierpresenceof KennethFrampton on the der in 1963.36 There was then a hiatus until 1987. Today
Princetonfaculty,its architectural
historyprogrammaybe the umbrellaterm at the GSD is the doctoral programin
seento havehadlittledirectengagement withthe discipline Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Urban Plan-
of art history: Frampton, Vidler, Robert Maxwell, ning. There is no "historyprogram"per se, but historyand
Colquhoun, and Teyssot are British and European archi- theory emerged as the dominantareawhen Howard Burns
tects who becameadeptsin historyand theory independent and K. Michael Hays began to serve on the Ph.D. com-
of doctoral programs. There is, however, a relation to mittee in 1988. Since 1995, with the departureof Burnsto
Princeton'snoted Departmentof Art and Archaeology.34 Venice, Hays is the programdirector,with increasedfocus
Vidler characterizesthe programas "veryindividually on theory."37 For Harvardstudents there is also the Har-
based,"indicatingthe self-definition of topics by students vard-MIT reciprocity. Thus, research from medieval
and their use of facultyacrossthe universityas appropriate. through modern is available,with two-thirds of the doc-
Viewedfrom the exterior,however,one would certainlyrec- toral students involved in twentieth-century studies-
ognize a strongand distinctivecharacterin the "Vidlerera." dominantlypost-World War II.
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY IN SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE 287

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Following the structuralinterdisciplinarityof the pro- Mary McLeod, and Gwendolyn Wright, as well as several
gram, studentshave two advisers,one at the GSD and one architectswho also teach history.The programhas a strong
from elsewhere.These two areasdefine the student'smajor and diverse facultywith a close relation to the studio pro-
and minor areas,with coursework equallydivided.Despite grams,but it alsohas reciprocityin coursesandadvisingwith
this extensivestudyand researchoutside the GSD, the per- the Departmentof Art History andArchaeology.38 Two stu-
ception is that the Ph.D. studentsat Harvardaremore inte- dents are admittedper year;there is not yet a graduate.
gratedto the professionalstudio programof the GSD than
is the case at MIT and Princeton (at all three schools most It will have been noted that each of these programs is
of the Ph.D. studentshave prior professionaldegrees). markedby accidentsof the history and the structureof its
Accordingto Hays, if the programhas a single style of home institutionand the proclivitiesof its key facultymem-
thought, then it is "a version of Marxian critical theory bers.The core facultymay be architectswithout formalhis-
rewrittenfrom a contemporaryperspective.Two principles tory degrees,or architectswith arthistorydoctorates,or art
alwayshold: alwayshistoricize;use close formalreadingsto historianswho specializein architecture.History of artmay
open up a problembut alwayssearchfor the historicalcon- be held apart,a cooperativeneighboringdiscipline,or inte-
ditions of possibilityfor thinking and makingthat particu- gral to the program.Vernaculararchitectureand material
lar form; and use freely and rigorously categories and cultureare pursuedin some programs.Certainnon-West-
concepts from other fields to open up possible interpreta- ern cultural areas may be significant subprograms.In all
tions but alwayssearch for the specific, irreduciblearchi- cases, these faculties have responsibility for the history
tecturalrepresentationof an idea." requirementsof professional architecturaleducation, but
The first history student admitted graduatedin 1995 their associationwith the studio culturevaries.The endur-
with a dissertationunder EduardSekler,but the first grad- ing questionsof the properrelationof historyto the teach-
uate was in 1994 underBums. Five Ph.D. degreesin history ing and practice of architectureremain matters of debate.
have been earnedto date, with seven nearing completion. Programssuch as those surveyedhere, however,are more
informedand engagedin these debatesandin the substance
of their historicalinquiries than was possible before their
Columbia
development. Even in those schools where the historians
Despite its unrivaled
Avery ArchitecturalLibrary and a long- areengagedwith the studio,theirhistoricalworkis directed
establishedprogramin historic preservation,the school of to their peers in history elsewhere in the academy.The
architectureat ColumbiaUniversity came late to doctoral teachingof historyis now rarelya serviceconductedby pro-
educationin the historyof architecture.Perhapsthis is par- fessors who are not contributiveto the disciplinethey are
tiallyexplainedby the sustained,atypicallystrongdevotionto asked to teach. These observationsstem from the schools
architecturalhistory by the neighboringand distinguished surveyed here. Furthermore,that these schools now pro-
Department of Art History and Archaeology.In 1982 the duce numbersof doctoralgraduates,often with priorarchi-
Buell Center for the Study of AmericanArchitecturewas tectural training, means that this same sense of
founded. In 1994 this enviableset of resourcesbecame the responsibilityto both disciplines,history and architecture,
contextfor a doctoralprogramsolelyin modernarchitecture is increasinglyextendedalso to those professionalschools of
led by noted historianswithin the School of Architecture, architecturethat do not choose to establishgraduatepro-
Planning, and Historic Preservation:Kenneth Frampton, gramsin history.

288 JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes
1. To cite only the Germanexample:David Watkinand Tilman Melling-
hoff, GermanArchitecture andthe Classical Ideal(Cambridge,Mass., 1987).
2. RichardChafee,"The Teachingof Architectureat the Ecole des Beaux-
Arts,"in Arthur Drexler, ed., TheArchitectureof the EcoledesBeaux-Arts
(New York,1977), 61-109.
3. GwendolynWright, "Historyfor Architects,"in G. Wright andJanet
Parks, eds., The History of History in AmericanSchoolsof Architecture
1865-1975, Buell Center Books in AmericanArchitecturalHistory,no. 1
(New York,1990), 13-52. CarolineShillaber,Massachusetts Instituteof Tech-
nologySchoolof Architectureand Planning1861-1961 (Cambridge,Mass.,
1963);J. A. Chewning,"WilliamRobertWareandthe Beginningof Archi-
tecturalEducationin the United States 1861-1881," Ph.D. diss., Massa-
chusettsInstituteof Technology,1986;and"WilliamRobertWareat MIT
and Columbia,"Journal of ArchitecturalEducation33 (November 1979),
25-29. RichardPlunz,"Reflectionson Ware,Hamlin,McKim andthe Pol-
itics of Historyon the Cuspof Historicism,"in Wright andParks,eds.,His-
toryofHistory,53-72.
4. David Watkin,TheRiseofArchitectural History(Chicago, 1980).
5. HeinrichHiibsch et al., In WhatStyleShouldWeBuild?[1828],introduc-
tion and translationby WolfgangHerrmann(SantaMonica, 1992). Char-
acteristicworksfrom throughoutthe nineteenth centurymay be followed
in Manfred Klinkott, Die Backsteinbaukunst der BerlinerSchule:VonK. F
SchinkelbiszumAusgangdesJahrhunderts (Berlin, 1988).
6. Klinkott,Backsteinbaukunst, chap. 1. For theoreticaland historiographi-
cal discussion,see PaulFrankl,TheGothic:LiterarySources andInterpretations
throughEight Centuries(Princeton,N.J., 1960), Secs. III, TV.
7. HermannMuthesius,Das englische Haus,3 vols. (Berlin, 1904/5);abbre-
viatededition, TheEnglishHouse(New York,1987);idem.,Style-Architecture
andBuildingArt: Transformation ofArchitecture in theNineteenthCenturyand
ItsPresentCondition [1902],introductionandtranslationby StanfordAnder-
son (SantaMonica, 1994).
8. August Schmarsow,"The Essence of ArchitecturalCreation[1893],"in
Empathy, Form,andSpace:Problems in GermanAesthetics 1873-1893,introduc-
tionandtranslation byH. E MallgraveandE. Ikonomou(SantaMonica,1994).
9. StanfordAnderson,"PeterBehrensand the New Architectureof Ger-
many 1900-1914," Ph.D. diss., ColumbiaUniversity, 1968 [PeterBehrens
anda NewArchitecture for the TwentiethCentury(Cambridge,Mass., 1999),
chap.4]; GiselaMoeller,PeterBehrensin Diisseldorf. DieJahre1903 bis1907
(Weinheim, 1991).
10. KlausHerdeg, TheDecorated Diagram:HarvardArchitectureandtheFail-
ure of the BauhausLegacy(Cambridge,Mass., 1985). See also Kenneth
FramptonandAlessandraLatour,"Notes on AmericanArchitecturalEdu-
cation from the End of the Nineteenth Centuryuntil the 1970s,"Lotus27
(1980), 9-15, andWinfriedNerdinger,"FromBauhausto Harvard:Walter
Gropiusand the Use of History,"in Wright andParks,eds., HistoryofHis-
tory,89-98.
11. LudwigMies van der Rohe in The Octagon,specialnumber,"Philoso-
phies Underlyingthe Teachingin Our Schools of Architecture"(February
1941):7. Reprintedin WernerBlaser,AfterMies(New York,1977), 31-32,
where it is takenfrom the ArmourInstituteBulletinfor 1939-1940.
12. Framptonand Latour,"Notes on AmericanArchitecturalEducation,"
15-23; Blaser,Afer Mies,offersotherinsightsinto Mies'spedagogy,includ-
ing historical instruction through the drawing of canonic works (pp.
105-111).
13. SibylMoholy-Nagy,"Architectural Historyandthe StudentArchitect--
A Symposium,"JSAH26 (October 1967): 178.
14. SpiroKostof, "The Shapeof Time at Yale,Circa 1960,"in Wright and
Parks,eds., Historyof History,124.
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY IN SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE
This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
15. Moholy-Nagy, "ArchitecturalHistory,"180.
16. Kostof, "Shapeof Time," 132-134.
17. MarcusWhiffen, ed., TheHistory,Theoryand CriticismofArchitecture
(Cambridge,Mass., 1965),recordsthe lecturesof PeterCollins,BrunoZevi,
Serge Chermayeff,SibylMoholy-Nagy, StephenJacobs, StanfordAnder-
son, and ReynerBanham.
18. Framptonand Latour,"Notes on AmericanArchitecturalEducation,"
27-31.
19. RobertVenturi,Complexity andContradictioninArchitecture
(New York,
1966). Within the literature pertinent to the current essay, see Peter
Collins's critique of Venturi in "ArchitecturalHistory and the Student
Architect-A Symposium,"JSAH 26 (October 1967): 198.
20. The desideratumof a teacherof historyas an architectalso trainedas a
historianhad been idealisticallypresented by Carroll L. V. Meeks, "The
Teacherof ArchitecturalHistoryin the ProfessionalSchool-His Training
and Technique,"Journalof theAmericanSocietyofArchitectural Historians2
(April 1942): 14-23. He did not, however,envisionthis historicaltraining
occurringin schools of architecture.
21. KarlRaimundPopper,TheLogicof ScientificDiscovery(London, 1959),
and Conjectures andRefutations(London, 1963).Imre Lakatos,"Falsification
and the Methodology of ScientificResearchProgrammes,"in Lakatosand
Alan Musgrave, eds., Criticismand the Growthof Knowledge(Cambridge,
1970), 91. StanfordAnderson,see n. 17 aboveand"Architectural Design as
a Systemof ResearchProgrammes,"DesignStudies5 (July1984):146-150.
22. This concernwas not new, andpositiveexamplesarenot wholly absent,
but it remainedproblematic.See CarrollL. V. Meeks, "The New History
of Architecture," Journalof theAmericanSocietyofArchitectural
Historians2
(January1942): 3-6, who saw Mumford,Hamlin, and Giedion as already
addressingthis issue.
23. Michel Foucault, The Orderof Things(1966; reprint,London, 1970),
and TheArcheology ofKnowledge (1969;reprint,London, 1972).Of the many
other candidatesfor mention here, I will note only Clifford Geertz, The
Interpretation of Cultures(New York, 1973), and EdwardSaid, Beginnings:
IntentionandMethod(Baltimore,1975) and Orientalism(New York,1978).
24. S. Anderson, "Architectureand Tradition,"in Whiffen, ed., History,
Theory,71-89.
25. BrunoZevi, Architetturae storiografia(Milan, 1951);ManfredoTafuri,
TheoriesandHistoryofArchitecture (New York,1980).
26. The term criticalregionalismwas introducedby Alex Tzonis and Liane
Lefaivrein "The Grid and the Pathway,"Architecture in Greece5 (1981),
and given extendedcurrencyby KennethFramptonin "Towardsa Critical
Regionalism:Six Points for an Architectureof Resistance,"in Hal Foster,
ed., TheAnti-Aesthetic:EssaysonPostmodern Culture(PortTownsend,Wash.,
1983), 16-30, and in other writings. See Alan Colquhoun, "Osservazioni
sul concetto di regionalismo,"Casabella
592 (July-August1992):52-55, and
SpyrosAmourgis,ed., CriticalRegionalism: ThePomonaMeeting(Pomona,
Calif., 1991).
27. See discussionbelow.
28. ChristianE Otto, "OrientationandInvention:History of Architecture
at Cornell,"in Wright and Parks,eds., HistoryofHistory,114-115. See also
S. Jacobs, "History:Orientation for the Architect,"in Whiffen, History,
Theoryand Criticism,47-69. I am indebted to ProfessorsOtto and Mary
Woods for personalcommunicationson the Cornell program.Other core
faculty have been W Wilson Cummer,Martin Kubelik, and MarkJar-
zombek (the lattertwo were trainedas architects).
29. Amongthe othernoted contributorsto the MIT programareBenjamin
Buchloh,KurtForster,RoystonLandau,AkosMoravinszky,FrancescoPas-
santi, Anne Wagner,and, today, Sibel Bozdogan, David Friedman,Mark
Jarzombek,Leila Kinney,Michael Leja,and Nasser Rabbat,as well as Leo
289
Marx and others in the programof Science, Technology and Society,and
the two notable holders of the Aga Khan Professorshipat Harvard,Oleg
Grabarand GulruNecipoglu.
30. On the MIT program,see MarthaPollak,ed., TheEducation oftheArchi-
tect:Historiography,Urbanism,and the Growthof Knowledge(Cambridge,
Mass., 1997);MarkJarzombek,ThePsychologizing ofModernity: Architecture,
Art andHistory(New York,forthcoming),postscript.
31. Other core facultyhave been David Brownlee,Marco Frascari,David
De Long, andJohn Dixon Hunt. Throughoutthe history of the program,
RenataHolod of the Departmentof ArtHistory guidedmanydissertations
in Islamicarchitecture.For the Universityof Pennsylvania,I rely on per-
sonal experienceand communicationswith David Leatherbarrow.
32. Othercore facultyhavebeen KathleenJamesandPaulGrothwho trans-
ferredfromthe Departmentof LandscapeArchitecture.For informationon
Berkeley,I rely especiallyon personalcommunicationsfrom Dell Upton.
33. Both Kostof and Upton characterizedtheir approachesto history in
introducing the survey books they authored-respectively, A Historyof
Architecture:
SettingsandRituals(New York,1985),2-19, andArchitecture in
the UnitedStates(New York,1998), 10-14.
34. Other importantfaculty include Christine Boyer, Beatriz Colomina,
290 JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999
This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:07:09 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AlessandraPonte, andMarkWigley,andfromArtHistoryHal Foster,John
Pinto, and Estherda CostaMeyer.For Princeton,I rely on a personalcom-
munication with Anthony Vidler and information supplied by Georges
Teyssotand the staff of the School of Architecture.
35. Other importantfaculty are Daniel Bluestone and YunshengHuang.
For Virginia,I rely on a personalcommunicationfrom RichardGuy Wil-
son.
36. ChristopherAlexander'sdissertation,underArthurMaass,Serge Cher-
mayeff,andJerome S. Bruner,resultedin the book Noteson theSynthesisof
Form(Cambridge,Mass., 1964).
37. Other membersof the facultyinclude ChristineSmith,SarahKsiaszek,
Mirka BeneS from LandscapeArchitecture,and Alice Jarrardand Neil
Levine from the Departmentof the History of Art and Architecture.For
HarvardGSD I rely on personalcommunicationswith Michael Hays.
38. Other noted facultyparticipantsare BarryBergdoll,RobinMiddleton,
andJoan Ockman.For Columbia,I rely on personalcommunicationsfrom
Kenneth Framptonand Mary McLeod. On the history of the Columbia
department,see Plunz in n. 3 above and RichardOliver, TheMakingof an
Architect1881-1981: ColumbiaUniversityin theCityofNew York(New York,
1981).