Exhibitionist Revisionism
Exposing Architectural History
S
ituated at the intersection of practice and history,
architecture exhibitions have increased dramatically
in number since the 1960s. Once rather an exception
in art museums, they have played a central role in architec­
tural education in the twentieth century, both in schools still
based on the traditional Beaux-Arts model, however mod­
emized, and in those derived from Bauhaus pedagogy. Such
exhibitions were, however, relatively rare in cultural insti­
tutions, where architecture was featured only during cele­
brations of major fi gures past or present, or within the
framework of the world's fairs and universal expositions. In
the past three decades, however, architecture exhibitions
have experienced exponential growth, while at the same
rime becoming the privileged site for unveiling scholarly
research. Catalogues, the publication of which is made pos­
sible by such events, are steadily becoming primary ourlets
for historiographie discoveries. Previously episodie, the
direct involvement of architectural historians in exhibitions
has evolved rapidly from a mere extension of a historian's
primary professional activity to become, at rimes, its pri­
mary vehicle. Indeed, a veritable curatorial market has
emerged, in which academics, museum curators, and free­
lance historians compete for the limited resources of spe­
cialized museums of architecture and the architecture and
design departments created within art museums since 1980.
Thousands of shows, from the largest, with blockbuster
appeal, to the much more modest monographie exhibits,
have thus found their way into galleries in schools, muse-
JEAN-LOUIS COHEN
lnstitute of Fine Arts, New York
Institut Français d'Architecture, Paris
ums, and emerging architecture centers. 1 Once we acknowl­
edge that the most popular of these exhibitions attract an
audience that has little in common with the audience for
scholarly publications, we realize the extent to which we are
dealing with a major point of contact between the intellec­
tual community and the public at large. At first glance, one
might argue that exhibitions lend a certain social legitimacy
to the collective work of historical research. In this respect,
the corpus of recent exhibitions deserves analysis, not the
least for the edification of academie authorities prone to
judge the careers and perspectives of scholarly disciplines
in market terms.
Taken as a group, the impressive ensemble of recent
exhibitions is extraordinarily heterogeneous, so much so
that one might wonder whether they might legitimately be
counted as part of a single field of cultural production
(Figures 1-3). What does a major retrospective of the work
of an American hero such as Frank Lloyd Wright (MoMA,
1994), with all of its drawings and models, have in common
with a small show of modest presentation boards honoring
the French architects of Algiers (Ecole Polytechnique d'Al­
ger, 1998), the latter a delicate operation in an Algeria con­
fronting the temptations of nationalism? What do the
intellectual speculations of Das Abenteuer der Ideen (The
adventure of ideas, National Gallery, West Berlin, 1987)2
have in common with the displays of building permits and
construction files from municipal archives so often mounted
by local history societies? Nothing other than the fact that

all of these exhibitions dialogue within a kind of museum
without walls, one infinitely flexible and in which hierar­
chies can at cimes become jumbled.
The functions that architectural exhibitions take on are,
in fact, eminently variable. They can set out to highlight con­
temporary or recent work that has been overlooked or that
has developed outside of the mainstream. The Carlo Scarpa
retrospective (Venice, 1984) exemplifies this type of belated
reparation. 3 They may also serve to resurrect a forgotten
work of architecture, or a neglected aspect of a great artist's
oeuvre. For instance, the 1967 Rudolph Schindler exhibition
in Santa Barbara presented the architecture of Los Angeles in
Figure 1 Alvar Aalto: Between
Humanism and Materialism, The
Museum of Modern Art, New York,
1998. Photograph courtesy Museum
of Modern Art, New York
Figure 2 Frank Lloyd Wright: Designs
for an American Landscape
1922-1932, Canadian Centre for
Architecture, Montréal, 1996. Photo­
graph courtesy Canadian Centre for
Architecture, Montreal
a new light, while Raffaello architetto (Palazzo dei Conserva­
tori, Rome, 1984) led to the reevaluation of some works by
Raphael previously considered minor. 4
And much progress in the intellectual underpinnings
of exhibitions can be observed. Since the 1960s, rather
superficial interrogations, such as the Sources du XXe siècle
(Sources of the twentieth century, Musée National d'Art
Moderne, Paris, 1960- 196 1) 5 have given way to thematic
cross sections of specific artistic and architectural move­
ments that open new questions and present new material.
Sorne of these have been research operations on a national
scale, such as the cluster of four exhibitions on Dutch archi-
E X HI BIT I0 NIST REVISIONISM 317

Figure 3 L'Amour des villes, Institut Français d'Architecture, Paris,
1995. Photograph courtesy Bruno Fortier and Institut français d'archi­
tecture, Paris
tecture ( 1975), and even of a European-wide scale, as in the
case of the major reevalutation of the 1920s in the arts, Ten­
denzen der Zwanziger Jahre (Nationalgalerie, Berlin, 1977), 6
One particularly fertile approach has been the setting up of
bilateral relations to study cultural crosscurrents in a broad
range of disciplines, so that architecture is examined in par­
allel with art, literature, and music. Perhaps the most ambi­
tious of these was the much noted series organized by
Pontus Hulten during his early years at the Centre Pompi­
dou in Paris: Paris-New York (1977), Paris-Berlin (1978), and
Paris-Moscou ( 1979; Figure 4). 7 Adapting the formula at the
very limit of paradox, Paris-Paris ( 198 1) fell short of the
complexity and mystery of the earlier pairings, which
inspired other curators as well, for instance Berlin-Moskau
1900-1950 held at the Berlinische Galerie, Berlin, in 1995. 8
Given a sufficiently provocative set of questions to
explore, exhibitions focused on the urban scene and culture
of a single city have also been successful and intellectually
rewarding. This was the case with Vienna 1880-1938, first
presented at the Centre Georges Pompidou, 1985- 1986, and
then at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which
echoed the historical interpretations of Carl Schorske, result­
ing not in the reconstitution of a "period" but, rather, in the
reconstruction of a conjuncture of urban culture within
which architecture plays a major role. 9 Metropole London:
318 JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999
Macht und Glanz einer Weltstadt (Villa Hugel, Essen, 1992), an
exhibition that explored various dimensions of the British
capital's urban explosion, is another example of this type. 10
Beginning with the salon in eighteenth-century Paris,
exhibitions of current architectural work-a class of cultural
production that must be distinguished from historically
framed exhibitions of architecture-have been the privi­
leged means for the institutionalization of a given genera­
tion or group of architects and have thus provided materials
for the history of the contemporary scene. This remains
true of classic episodes in the radical architecture of the
twentieth century, such as Die unbekannte Architekten
(Unknown architects, Berlin, 1918), of the "plan and model
exhibition" held in Stuttgart in parallel with the construc­
tion of the Weissenhofsiedlung ( 1927), and the first OSA
exhibition (Moscow, 1927). After 1960, the most effective
exhibitions in this regard were two held in 1973: Five Archi­
tects (New York) marked the reemergence of a radically crit­
ical architecture in North America. The very same year,
Architettura razionale (Milan Triennale), like many other
presentations aimed at consecrating a specific intellectual
orientation (here that of Aldo Rossi, Massimo Scolari, and
Giorgio Grassi), foregrounded carefully chosen historical
references.11
As a general rule, critics or architects who prompted
paradigm shifts in contemporary theory did so by evoking
legitimizing pathways leading to their work. In the thirteen
years between The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts
( 1975) and Deconstructivist Architecture ( 1988), New York's
Museum of Modern Art marked bath the dawn of post­
modern historicism and its dusk with the return of a prob­
lematic informed by the positions of radical modernity. 12
The by-now famous assembly of various architects' "bou­
tiques" in Paolo Portoghesi's Strada nuovissima at the Venice
Biennale in 1980 represented the return to studying the
street as an urban system, as well as the reevaluation of the
façade as a legitimate design concern, both preoccupations
of postmodernism.13
Presenting an architectural theme, or inquiry, to a
broad range of the general public as well as to an emerging
generation of students has on occasion been achieved by
long-term itinerant exhibitions. Bernard Rudofsky's Archi­
tecture Without Architects, a stunning sequence of pho­
tographs shown over a period of ten years in scores of
institutions after opening at the Museum of Modern Art
( 1964), nourished the defiance of architecture students in
the face of the profession's triumphalist discourse.14 By pre­
senting a kind of transhistorical vernacular continuum,
Rudofsky's installation stimulated the latent populism of the
1960s. In the same vein of long-lasting itinerant exhibitions,
Figure 4 Paris-Moscou 1900-1930, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1979. Photograph courtesy Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris
one might cite the popular undertakings organized by Jean
Dethier at the Centre Georges Pompidou, such as Le Temps
des gares ( 1979) and Architectures de terre ( 198 1), both of
which traveled for years in reduced versions. 15
More refined in terms of exhibition strategy are those
expositions with an agenda of critique, or even denuncia­
tion. The Modern Movement made significant use of this
polemical weapon, crossing out with great red Xs images of
bourgeois salons or eclectic palaces, in order to pass judg­
ment graphically. One memorable example of this strategy
is the "Tavolo degli orrori" (Panel of horrors) collaged by
Pier Maria Bardi for the Second Italian Exhibition of Ratio­
nal Architecture (Milan, 193 1); this predated the Nazis'
famous reversai of the scheme with the Entartete Kunst
(Degenerate art) exhibition (Munich, 1938). Recent years
have seen the denunciation of the denunciation with the
reconstruction of the Degenerate Art exhibition at the Los
Angeles County Museum of Art (1991). 16 This type of his­
torical reconstruction has proven infinitely more stimulat­
ing than exhibitions such as Art and Power (Hayward
Gallery, London, 1995), a somewhat confused denunciation
of certain collusions or troubling convergences between
radical architects and totalitarian systems. 17 But one might
also question the practice of enclosing oneself within the
corpus of exhibitions, viewed as a sort of microcosm within
which political, intellectual, and artistic change would be
self-explanatory. The commemoration of great fairs such as
those held in Paris ( 1889, 1925, 193 1, 1937) as well as
Chicago and New York (1893, 1933, and 1939) in exhibi­
tions documenting the pavilions and their displays has car­
ried such a risk of narcissism and self-referentiality rather
than historie analysis. Of course, it is easy to find original
material on the world's fairs, since they have usually been
well preserved, and exhibitions produce exceptional
encounters between mass culture and architecture, but they
are not necessarily the moments of rupture that an overly
schematic historical interpretation based simply on the
larger-scale public moments would allow one to believe.
Nor must we overlook the impact-at least in terms of
sheer numbers-of what I would call "legitimizing exhibi-
E X HI BIT 10 NIST REVISIONISM 319

Figure 5 The Renaissance: from Brunef/eschi to Miche/ange/a: the
Representation of Architecture, as shown at the Musée des Monu­
ments Français, Paris, 1995. Photograph courtesy Musée des monu­
ments français, Paris
rions," which take up the lion's share of historical research
undertaken for the purposes of public display. Here history
becomes a sort of service industry, producing useful narra­
tives, extracting comforting "lessons" from the interpreta­
tion of the past. Such exhibitions tend toward an
instrumentalization of history in order to justify a particu­
lar policy agenda. Such is notably the case in presentations
of historical commentary on urban projects or buildings.
They are, however, not only manipulative; frequently such
historical preludes in the guise of background to contem­
porary design can open the way for important historical dis­
coveries.
Even the most modest genre of architectural exhibi­
tion, the straightforward display of a newly acquired or
granted archive, though lacking in spectacular ambition,
still makes a valuable contribution to furthering research.
Such projects participate in the cumulative process of
knowledge, without which the most innovative interpreta­
tions would be difficult to make. A new generation of exhi­
bitions created in situ has recently been popular as a
complement to touring certain monuments or sites. These
aim to trace the genesis of a building experienced at first
320 JSAH / 58:3, SEPTEMBER, 1999
hand, to inscribe the project within the unfolding of an
architect's oeuvre or within the historical frame of its
period. Among the most successful recent examples are
didactic presentations in H. P. Berlage's Amsterdam Stock
Exchange, in the attic of the Château de Chambord, or in
the little Espai Gaudî located under the roof of Casa Milâ
in Barcelona. 18
In the last thirty years, a significant change in the mate­
rials displayed in exhibitions has taken place. The photo­
graphie medium, which essentially dominated in exhibitions
right up to the 1970s, has given way to a preference for orig­
inal documents and drawings; in this, architecture exhibi­
tions have paralleled and set in relief the much vaunted
return to the archives undertaken by historians. These doc­
uments must still be contextualized, organized into intelli­
gible sequences, and connected to specific narratives of
causality, in order that they be treated in both a scholarly
and a didactic manner.
And it is precisely here that the work of mounting an
exhibition goes beyond the simple display of documents,
incorporating historical interpretation through curatorship.
The most stimulating exhibitions of the last three decades
are precisely those whose body of documentary or argu­
mentative materials has been organized according to clear
hyp otheses, and not simply according to a monographie
ordering system. Alhough they have had very different lev­
els of ambition, these exhibitions have all made evident the
very issues involved in architectural thinking. The question
here is less one of physical installation than of narrative con­
struction where sequence (historical or genealogical), scale
(city to construction detail), and media (sketches to working
drawings, models to films) are nothing but systems of coor­
dinates allowing for the mapping of a particular historical
territory. A perspective of this kind stems from the partic­
ular status of the documents presented, inscribed as they
are in a double register between the design and the built
work itself. With the exception of building exhibitions, such
as lnterbau in Berlin in the 1950s or the Weissenhofsied­
lung of 192 7, exhibitions rely generally on representations
produced within the framework of the design process, and
thus they rely on a very specific kind of approach to the use
of documents often created without the idea of exhibition.
lt might be said that exhibitions penetrate into the very inti­
macy of the design process, revealing its discontinuities and
distortions.
The most provocative recent exhibitions are those that
have led to the excavation of particular design strategies
through the reconstruction of sequences of conception or
the revelation of guiding paradigms. Equally stimulating
have been exhibitions that have revealed interactions

between disciplines within or at the limits of architecture
itself. These investigations have profoundly rejuvenated the
monograph as a tool of research, leading to critical recon­
structions of biographical itineraries. Between the exhibi­
tions dedicated to Le Corbusier or to Mies van der Rohe in
the early 1970s and those opened less than fifteen years
later, a space made up of doubts, of reconsiderations, and
of more complex interpretations has opened up. They have
revealed new genealogies for fi gures once considered great
originating genuises. It was exhibitions that underscored
the importance of such father figures as Peter Behrens and
Auguste Perret, and revealed the interesting relationship of
Modernism to earlier traditions-Le Corbusier's indebted­
ness in the concept of the promenade architecturale to
Au guste Choisy's analysis of the Acropolis in his Histoire de
l'architecture ( 1899), or Mies van der Rohe's multifaceted
relationship to Schinkel.
The monographie approach to an architect's work or
to an individual building has been revitalized recently. Such
monographie exhibitions are different from those prevalent
in art museums, which set out to corne to terms with a
painter's or sculptor's entire body of work. To the extent
that they provoke encounters among specialists from adja­
cent if often mutually indifferent fields, these operations
help to undermine the tendencies of architectural history
to bury itself in its own world.
The new interpretive or narrative constructs built in
this way also rely on contemporary technical means, which
reframe the respective roles of drawings, photographs, and
archival documents. With a certain time lag, exhibitions
Figure 6 Giuseppe Terragni and Pietro
Lingeri, project for the Danteum, Rome,
1938, computer reconstruction by the
Team Unbuilt, Massachusetts lnstitute
of Technology, for At the End of the Cen­
tury: One Hundred Years of Architecture,
Museum of Contemporary Art, Los
Angeles, 1998 (first opened in Tokyo in
July 1998). Photograph courtesy Mass­
achusetts lnstitute of Technology, Cam­
bridge, Mass.
digest the technological transformations taking place in
professional practice, revolutionized by computers. Initially
used in order to highlight geometric features or load-bear­
ing structures, computers have more recently made it pos­
sible to reconstruct entire environments and to simulate
urban integration. And this has made possible interpretive
hypotheses and even reconstructions of sequences of design
transformations of a sort limited previously to very special­
ized conceptual models, such as Luigi Moretti's studies of
Renaissance and Baroque buildings published in Spazio in
1952. 19 The use of groups of models all at the same scale­
a major innovation of the early 1970s used brilliantly in the
memorable Palladio exhibition held in the Basilica at
Vicenza ( 1973)--has enhanced the capacity to measure con­
stants and variations in a given architect's work (Figure 5). 20
More recently, the possibility of completing and simulating
theoretical or unrealized projects has corne within reach.
The virtual reconstructions by MIT's Team Unbuilt for At
the End of the Century: One Hundred Years ofArchitecture, an
exhibition produced by the Los Angeles Museum of Con­
temporary Art ( 1998), mark an important threshold in
respect to finesse and tectonic realism, which will soon be
made obsolete by the sheer progress of computing (Figures
6, 7). 21 Recourse to computers facilitates the reconstruction
and presentation of the design and the construction
processes, a task difficult to accomplish with finite
sequences of two-dimensional documents. And it creates a
world of representations with great potential for commu­
nicating to nonprofessional audiences. But there is an obvi­
ous risk that must be avoided, namely, transforming
EXHIBITIONIST REVISIONISM 321
 Figure 7 Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret, project for the Palace of the Soviets, Moscow, 1939, computer
reconstruction by the Team Unbuilt, Massachusetts lnstitute of Technology, for At the End of the Century:
One Hundred Years of Architecture, Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, 1998 (first opened in Tokyo
in July 1998). Photograph courtesy Massachusetts lnstitute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

Figure 8 L'art de l'ingénieur, constructeur, entrepreneur, inventeur, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, 1997.
Photograph courtesy Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris

322 JSA H / 5 8: 3, SEPT E M BE R, 1 999


exhibition galleries into boring reproductions of architec­
ture studios; rather, visual pleasure must be allied with dis­
covery. This dangerous desiccation returns to the question
of modes of assembly and orchestration of documents in
expository narration. Computers can condense the narra­
tion, extend it via hyperimage links, or contextualize it.
The possibility of re-creating the very process of con­
struction was given rather spectacular form in the installa­
tion of images projected onto large-scale screens for L'art de
Figure 9 Cités-Cinés, Grande Halle de la
Villette, Paris, 1987-1988. Photograph
courtesy Grande Halle de la Villette,
Paris
Figure 10 B/ueprints for Modern Living:
History and Legacy of the Case Study
Houses, Museum of Contemporary Art,
Los Angeles, 1989. Photograph courtesy
Museum of Contemporary Art,
Los Angeles
l'ingénieur (Centre Georges Pompidou, 1997; Figure 8).22
For evoking actual built spaces, the realism of movie sets in
the exhibition Cités-Cinés (Grande Halle de la Villette, 1988)
remains unequaled in its poetry and freshness (Fi gure 9).
The exhibition was based on the projection of film excerpts
inside full-sized reconstructions of the sets where they had
been shot, whether based on real cities, like Alexandre
Trauner's Paris, or on fictional ones, like Erich Kettelhut's
Metropolis. More mundane but nonetheless effective, some
EXH IBITIONIST REVISIONISM 323

exhibitions have reconstructed fragments of buildings, as in
Blueprintsfor Modern L iving (Museum of Contemporary Art,
Los Angeles, 1990), to place on exhibition structural solu­
tions and spatial qualities of particular buildings (Figure 10).23
But no matter what the exhibition format, the question
of space remains crucial in any exhibition in which the his­
tory of architecture is concerned (Figure 1 1). Yves Michaud
has discussed the ambiguous relationship between the artist
and the curator in art exhibitions. In architectural exhibi­
tions the addition of a designer turns this mad couple into
a hellish threesome. 24 In addition to the architectural work
exhibited, a new work is layered on top. This can take
diverse forms, from Boris Podrecca's contribution to the
Venice Scarpa retrospective (Galleria dell' Accademia,
Venice, 1984) to the Mastering the City exhibition (Nether­
lands Art Institute, Rotterdam, 1998). Scenography, as
exhibition design is now somewhat pompously called, is
indissociable from contemporary museographic undertak­
ings, to the point where it develops sometimes
autonomously from, or even in conflict with, the architec­
ture of the museum itself. The scenography of an architec­
tural exhibition thus has a problematic status: Is it the
humble servant of a scholarly agenda, a commentary upon
it, an act of taking distance, a three-dimensional demon­
stration of that which is difficult to discern in two-dimen­
sional documents? In contesting the envelope that is the
museum, the scenography of exhibitions devoted to con­
temporary works is capable of condensing an architectural
strategy. This was the case of the labyrinth introduced into
the sober enclosure of the Canadian Centre for Architec-
324 JSAH / 58: 3, SEPTEMBER, 1 999
Figure 1 1 Paris, la ville et ses projets,
permanent exhibition, Pavillon de
!'Arsenal. Paris, 1988. Photograph cour­
tesy Pavillon de L'Arsenal, Paris
ture by Peter Eisenman for the exhibition of his own work,
the Cities ofArtificial Excavation of 1994. 25 In a similar vein,
Daniel Libeskind reproduced the experience of his spaces
within the large Brutalist container of the Dutch Architec­
ture Museum in Rotterdam (Unfolding , 1998). 26
These undertakings run the risk, as in some recent his­
torical exhibitions, of a kind of mannerism-to use an
admittedly debatable art-historical concept that I will
employ in relationship to the use of architectural elements
that are deformed or extracted from their original context;
one might even speak of the anamorphosis of the architect's
work. It is critical distance that is in question here. In the
Louis I. Kahn exhibition, seen at two sites located 7,000
miles apart, Arata Isozaki did not resist the temptation of
producing a Kahnesque design. 27 The opposite approach
was taken in the Le Corbusier centenary exhibition, L'aven­
ture Le Corbusier (Centre Georges Pompidou, 1987), where
Vittorio Gregotti used the pattern of a type of giant super­
market to re-create the manifold aspects of the work of the
architect, pamphleteer, and artist.
Just how can one assess the specific contribution of this
rich field of exhibitions to the enterprise of architectural
and cultural history? The exhibition is but one moment in
the sequence of events that comprise research, in its trajec­
tory from an initial definition of a problem or issue to the
diffusion of findings. Yet the exhibition is only very rarely
the end of the journey. Nevertheless, it often constitutes a
major step in the research process, because it provokes a
kind of crystallization of results that themselves trigger new
developments. This step is rendered more vital when
preparatory discussions and conferences that precede exhi­
bitions become themselves occasions for collective research,
something rather rare in traditional architectural scholar­
ship, a milieu characterized by strong individualistic incli­
nations. 28 This is all the more si gnificant when one
considers the catalogues this collaborative process produces
as documents that have a unique place and role in the
panorama of scholarly publication. They provide a locus for
the intersection of multiple perspectives and problematics,
and they are agents, in an economic sense, for mobilizing
funds to which books not associated with exhibitions have
no access. And most importantly, exhibitions benefit from
press and public relations coverage that no book can elicit
on its own.
The inevitable pitfalls of this marriage of research and
exhibitions are obvious: there is a tendency toward the spec­
tacular that sometimes results in a certain reduction in the
complexity of scholarly argument; the fetishization of orig­
inal and rare documents can have a negative effect; and,
finally, what I call "narrative abuse" can yield entertaining
but lamentable misrepresentations. Above all, there is the
risk of instrumentalizing the very goals of research, which
might be limited to exhibitable findings, conditioning the
practice of history according to public demands. This does
not, however, diminish the extraordinary stimulus that exhi­
bitions have provided in the thrust of architectural history.
For architectural exhibitions continue to represent more
than a remote horiwn line for the history of architecture;
they function as a kind of therapy which-not without
risk-reconciles the field with the reality of the society in
which it is inscribed.
Notes
My thanks to Ariela Katz for translating this essay.
1 . In France alone 600 exhibitions of significant size have been organized
during the past twenty years, including 1 5 0 at the Centre Georges Pompi­
dou, 1 5 0 at the Institut Français d'Architecture, and 1 5 0 in municipally
based institutions; some fifty exhibitions are opened each year in Paris
(statistics courtesy ofJean Dethier).
2. Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, Das Abenteuer der Ideen; Architektur und
Philosophie seit der industriel/en R.evolution (Berlin, 1 987). The following notes
relate to the catalogues published in parallel with exhibitions, which some­
how synthesize, in condensed form, the scholarly contribution they repre­
sent.
3 . Francesco Dai Co and Giuseppe Mazzariol, Carlo Scarpa: the Complete
Works (Milan and New York, 1 984).
4. David Gebhard, R. M. Schindler; an &hibition of the Architecture ofR. M.
Schindler 1 887-1953 (Santa Barbara, 1 967); Christoph Frommel et al., Raf
faello architetto (Milan, 1 984).
5. Jean Cassou, Les Sources du XXe siècle; les arts en Europe de 18 84 à 1914
(Paris, 1 960).
6. Manfred Bock, ed., Nederlandse architectuur 1 893-1918: Architectura
(Amsterdam, 1 975); Fons Asselbergs, Nederlandse architectuur 1 880-1930:
Americana (Amsterdam, 1 97 5); Ellinoor Bergvelt et al., Nederlandse archi­
tectuur 1910-1930: Amsterdamse school (Amsterdam, 1 975); Pieter Singelen­
berg et al., Nederlandse architectuur 18 56-1934: Berlage (The Hague, 1 97 5);
Stephan Waetzold and Verena Haas, Tendenzen der Zwanziger Jahre (Berlin,
1 977).
7 . Pontus Hulten, ed., Paris-New York 1908-1 968 (Paris, 1 977); idem,
Paris-Berlin 1900-1933 (Paris, 1 978); idem, Paris-Mosc()U 1900-1930 (Paris,
1 979).
8. Pontus Hulten and Annick Lionel-Marie, eds., Paris 1937-Paris 1957:
créations en France: arts plastiques, littérature, théâtre, cinéma, vie quotidienne et
environnement, archives sonores et visuelles, photographie (Paris, 1 98 1 ); Irina
Antonowa and Jorn Merkert, Berlin-Moskau, 1900-1950 (Munich and New
York, 1 995).
9. Jean Clair, ed., Vienne 1 880-1938: l'apocalypsejoyeuse (Paris, 1 986).
1 O. Celina Fox et al., London-World City, 1 800-1 840 (New Haven, 1 992).
1 1 . Ezio Bonfanti et al., Architettura razionale (Milan, 1 973).
12. Arthur Drexler, ed., The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts (New
York, 1 977); Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture (New York, 1 988).
1 3 . Gabriella Borsano, ed., Architecture, 1980: the Presence ofthe Past (New
York, 1 980).
14. Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture Without Architects: a Short Introduction to
Non-Pedigreed Architecture (Albuquerque, 1 964).
1 5 . Jean Dethier, ed., Ail Statiom: a Journey Through 1 50 Yean- of Railway
History (New York, 198 1); idem, Down to Earth: Adobe Architecture, an Old
ldea, a New Future (New York, 1983).
16. Stephanie Barron, ed., "Degenerate Art": the Fate of the Avant-Garde in
Nazi Germany (Los Angeles and New York, 1991).
17. Dawn Acles and Tim Benton, eds., Art and Power; Europe Under the Dic­
taton- 1930-1945 (London, 1 995).
18. Daniel Giral-Miracle and Fernando Marza, Espai Gaudi (Barcelona,
1 997).
19. Luigi Moretti, "Strutture e sequenze di spazi," Spazio 3, no. 7
(1 952-1953): 9-20 and 1 07-108.
20. Renato Cevese, ed., Mostra del Palladio (Venice, 1973).
2 1 . Richard Koshalek and Elisabeth Smith, At the End of the Century: One
Hundred Yean- ofArchitecture (Los Angeles and New York, 1 998).
22. Antoine Picon, ed., L'art de l'ingénieur, comtructeur, entrepreneur, inven­
teur (Paris, 1 997).
2 3 . Elisabeth Smith, ed., Blueprints for Modern Living: History and Legacy of
the Case Study Houses (Los Angeles and Cambridge, Mass., 1 989).
24. Yves Michaud, L'artiste et les commissaires (Nîmes, 1991).
2 5. Jean François Bédard, ed., Cities ofArtificial &cavation; The Work ofPeter
Eisenman, 1978-1988 (Montreal and New York, 1 994).
26. Daniel Libeskind, Unfolding (Rotterdam, 1 997).
27. David B. Brownlee and David G. De Long, Louis 1. Kahn, in the Realm
ofArchitecture (New York and Los Angeles, 1991 ).
28. For instance, since 1 998, in the Senior Research Grants category, the
Getty Grant Program funds preliminary research for exhibitions, revealing
their centrality in the shaping of a production at the crossroads between
the scholarly world and the museums.
EXH I B ITIONJST REVISIONJSM 325