Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/991314?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
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.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Society of Architectural Historians and University of California Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians
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
more clear to me and has retained to this day the essential character
which it then assumed.16
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
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
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
READING "- ,
is/
:. *~'*
:.. i~i
~
"" " " 11
Niio-
"........
0 Z~
;..... ..
........ . ... ..
-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
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
appointed while dean was a modernist, Jan Ruhtenberg, aHudnut's reputation as a modern educator and promote
E.. M
.. ..... ...... .. .
...........
.......... N '.
?.,gn
ar
Jii
?. . Wrpa?
r?:? nv
. . . .... . ..
RL
..... . . . . .
.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ..... .
. . . . ...............
M.
........ ..
. ...... ...
x VOR
NEW Kg
4M.:
RMI"
Ito
OR. M
je
%INN,
?? MW
low
EWA
Zr MAO
CAM . . . . . . . .
seem
AM V
Saw'
;*w"W , 7
*Moo
-wow'11,111W IP
V ., . 11,
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
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
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-
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
I i a 4iii:
i CJ MO M,
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
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
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
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,"
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
"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
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
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
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