'[_"

,, ~· -._';, < '.

'(it
- ~J (

~ ;:,# T<J<~lJ l ,, ,..

,:,'!' '.1 · ~.·

SIMRLICITY
'
and
·coMPLEXITY
 Introduction

·~~-"
' ~.
I I -
~r- -r•, -, 111 I ,.

.J
II I I •~. ••
_'!!II , In 1958. Peter Blake-American architect. critic. educator, editor of Architectural Forum.
·:
1 iii
'lrill~n . !..• l'~,
and once-director of New York's Museum of Modern Art-wrote that "the only trouble
t
'
.
·"t.; ·:;: 1

, ~'' - 1. .':iMij
· I ._
, with a simple little word like 'simple' is that so many people think it is synonymous with

i
'easy.' In real life. of course, 'simple ' often means 'difficult.'"' Blake wrote about Le
'
..... , ,~ ,!M1
3

·~_-· i . :,

:-' . ''..
"' II Corbusier, Phillip Johnson, Fronk Lloyd Wright. Marcel Breuer. Ulrich Franzen. and other

'1L 'L. :.
' I proponents of Modernist architecture and minimalism. Most notably. however. it is in ''The
y I ' T.
I
'.. hf Difficult Art of Simplicity" that Bloke made the aforementioned statement and extensively
~ . '•i 1! ,• \ ,. ,n \
...',,
[ ,· , I ·I1····1·1·,
j ,l
discussed the work of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Regarding Mies's use of the structural

-
4' .; ··- ll!_ I_W
, ,·
, ...Jl'I' ' i ' .• ' • .. I,!.
. steel frame. Bloke wrote, "Mies's system of simplicity_ .. is one of the most important
"-- ~...:
'

-~ · !!At·, L .·~ 1 resources architecture can cloim."

2

. .: :i-t
'1 ,!"
... "-(
,,,_
';_ Mies. among the most renowned of minimalist architects. did not coin the phrase
"Less is more." He did. however, help make it the slogan for a generation of architects.

FIOURI I.I
Photogn,ph or lhe megaliths a1
Stonehenge-, Wiltshire, EnglMd
(co. l000-2500 8.C.E.).
FIOURJ I.J
l'llotoani,h or the Pond and
&allery Pavilion., II the Modem
Art M-.,, or Ft. Wonh, Te,os,
United State. (199!l--2002).
An:hhecr. Tadao Ando.
II \:
'.. 1: Impressive is the fact that Mies wrote relatively little; it was through his large body of
built architectural works that Mies propagated this phrase. Mies ·s work, according to Bloke.
! ~- ·- - .,..,.
) \ ) ) : was also assisted by its place in history. Mies followed an era of great uncertainty and
diverse opinions about aesthetic expression. technological innovation, and style. Mies
provided certainty: "Less is more" provided certainty. Nevertheless, as Bloke recognized.
Mies·s architectural and verbal statements conceal "considerable expense." "thought."
and "trouble." Architecture is influenced by a wide array of issues: tectonics, use, and site:
INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION
! aesthetic and economic trends; architect-client-public relationships: conventions and
innovations; and a variety of other factors. With this diversity of issues, and the conflicts
1.
Of the two images above, which better represents the concept of "sim Plicity" in ! among them , one might say that architecture is inherently "complex."
architecture? Which better represents "complexity" in architecture? Why? .. nd
2. 1 So, which is it-"simple" or "complex"?
What are the various definitions and connotations of the terms ..simplicity o of Consider this question as you explore the texts of this first chapter. Marcel Breuer's
"compl_
exity" in architecture? What are the characteristics of an archit~cture t "Where Do We Stand?" serves as the original text for the chapter. as Breuer articulates 1. Pete< Bloke. "The Difficult Art of
slmphc1ty? What are the characteristics of an architecture of complexity. the theories of what he describes as the "New Architecture." In that essay. Breuer. on S,mp&,oty.~ Alch1tecturol Forum
3.
(Moy 19'>8): 127.
Which Is more appropriate in architecture today, simplicity or complexity? architect and furniture designer, used the ironic phrase "maximum simplicity" to describe
2. lb,d_ 131 .
this "New Architecture" of Modernism. While Breuer's design work clearly demonstrated

17

1 Mltlflk•t}'>or11!)1,, - m ~,tvtt,
- ~ ''"'"°'-""'Y"'
~.\n.:1'1;tt'(rift> (N~'n)! l
1hon'IIII\ t. ltu::hon. XXX> I. )41}
DIALECTICAL READIN GS IN ARCHIT ECTURE· TECTONICS
of.flllollon wit 1, ot he, Modernist!. · he recognized, like Bloke. that Modernist orchltectu,e
wo; ·not wchos Impe I molter," that ··wchltecture Is on alarmingly many-sided cornple• .
.
tnonycm,,, Breuerp~n ..Jn 1 1y stated that he and othe, protagonists of Moderni sm sought
"clarity- byemp1,as11·,ng ·structural low.; and proct lcal functions" and aesthetic "slmpllt1ty
and o rl't1unclot1on of oll lrrotlonol forms:·
on u,e,
lhe 0 hand, on excerpt from Robert Venturl's Complexity ond Contradiction
In Arrlol1'>ftw e serves 01 the reflect Ive te,t In this chapter . In a radical departure from
Mode,nrst ldrols, Venturi turned the slogan of "Less Is more" Into his own "Less Is o bore:
Rother thon arguing for "clollty," as Breuer did, Venturi contended ··ambiguity,'· "corn
plexny," and "contradiction" as essential ports of architectur e.
Con11ng full c11cle, Vltlono Gregotti"s "On Slmpllcll y'" serves as the philosophical text
lo, this choptei. C,1egou 1stoled. "Designing o simple building hos become a ver y corn-
pllmted problem." Srmllor to Venturi, Gregottl Identified that the challenge of slmpllclty
exist, 1n developing o synthetic whole: ··Abuilding Issimple not because Its shapes conform
to elementary geometry. not because all of ll ls Immediately vi sible, or because the logic
1, evident In Its connections, but because all Its ports voice their necessity ... reciprocally."
lt1rough B1euer. Venturi, and Gregott l. you will see that the discussion about
slmpllcltyond complexrty Involves neorlyall aspectsof orchltecture--hlstory, geography,
strua ur e. functlonalrty. tectonics. and. most certainly, aesthetics. There Is maybe no
more fundamcnlal-ond vogue-debate In architecture than the debate regarding
simpliclty vs. complexity. As stated by Adrion Forty, ···simple ' must be one of the most
overworked wo1d1 In the architectural vocabulory.'"3 While hundreds of architects, critics.
and orchrtectur ol educators have 01gued vehemently for ··an architecture of simplicity"
01
"on mchltecture of complexity.'' the debate Is no more resolved today than It was o
century ago.
18
Original Text:
MARCEL BREUER, "WHERE DO WE STAND?"
First Published in 19.15
I would ask my readers lo be resigned to o purely theoretical handling of this question,
since I shall assume that they ore already famlllor with the tenets of the New Architecture
and what it looks like. They will know, for Instance, that these buildings are conceived of
In severe term s-a maximum si mplicity. wide openings for light. air and sunshine:
balconies, flat roofs, minutely studied practical floor-plans, a scientific basis, strong
emphasis on mechanization: Industrial methods of production with o tendency towards
standardization: light colours. new malerlals used for their own sake and a recanceptlon
of housing and town-planning In the light of social and economic research. Therefore I
want to confine myself to a statement of what Is really fundamental In our thought and
work.
In the post I have been opposed to over much of this theorizing about the New
Architectur e, believing that our Job was to build, and that our buildings sufficed. since they
speak plainly enough for themselves. I was, moreover, not a little alienated to observe
that there was often o considerable discrepancy between these theori es and the
persooollties who advanced them. The danger of all theorizing Is that. by carrying one·s
arguments too for. one Is apt to leave the world of realities behind one.
Parts of the principles of the Modern Movement hove been extensively adopted,
but they have been compromised by being used separately without any co-ordinating
relation to the alms of that Movement as a whole. A closer examination of the Ideology
of the New Architecture has therefore become a pressing necessity.
The protagonists of the Modern Movement have been occupied wllh the clas-
slficauon and development of their lnteUectuol principles and the canying out of their
Individual designs. This meant that further pmpaganda was left to chance, Industrial
advert,sements Md the technical press. Much has been distorted, much overlooked, as a
result Modern te<minology has been put under tribute far snappy slogans: and each of
these serves only some isolated detail. A conelation of these heterogeneous parts to
. 19
 nr&DINGS IN ARCHITECTURE: TECTONICS
DIALECTICAL
SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY
. . ,__.,. Wheleas the pioneer> of the Modem Movement ho..
·ful whole is sun..•.,.,ng. . . . ,
their ura, ,.ng . . brood intellectual basis. which 1s tn harmnn. . ....._ in common: the impeMOOI character of their forms: and a tendency to along
eeded in establishing O very . _ . .._.,, .•.,, '
now succ generation still confines itself to ng1d formalization, typieol. rational lines that ore unaffected by passing fashions.
their°"n wort. the youn9ef
. t give O more general survey
tho ·11
t WI cover a Wider 1.~, I It is probably these traits that make genuine peasant art so sympathetic to us-
1
I should ltke, there ore. o . . ''<"Ill
so however. is not such a simple matter. Architecture .. though the sympathy it arouses is a purely platonic one. If we ask ourselves what is the
than these catch-phrases. 1i
0 do · o
source of the solid unselfconscious beauty. the convincing quality and reasonableness of
on o1orm1ngly many-St
•ded complex. and as soon as one leaves the technical 5Phere ... "" 1
peasant wort. we find that the explanation lies in its unconsciously, and therefore
conceptions tend to become \/O(Jue and o\'elklpplng.
genuinely. traditional nature. A given region only has a few traditional crofts and uses a
1intentionally renounce historical comparisons. and leave to others the task of
few definite colours. Roughly speaking, the some things, or variants of the some things.
contrasting our age with epochs of the past and showing us from history what leads to
hove always been mode there. And even these variations ore obedient to a regular
progress QI decoy. what to art or architecture.
and recurrent rhythm. It is their uninterrupted transmission through local and family
What. then, ore the basic impulses of the New Architecture? In the first place an I associations which conditions their development and ultimately stanclardizes them as
absence of prejudice. Secondly. on ability to place oneself in immediate objective contact
type-forms.
with a goven task. problem or form. Thirdly, being unfettered by tradition and the USUci
In one direction at least our efforts offer a parallel-we seek what is typical. the
stod•in-trade of the intellectual departmental store. Let those who prefer respectfu
norm: not the occidental but the definite ad hoc form. These norms ore designed to meet
transition from the principles of one school or style to those of another, adopt them if I the needs. not of a former age. but of our awn age: therefore we naturally realize them.
they will. What we believe is what we have perceived, experienced. thought proved and
not with craftsmen ·stools. but with modern industrial machinery.
calculated for ourselves. If one examines a bona fide example of industrial standardization. one cannot
At this point I should like to consider traditionolism for a moment And by tradition I fail to perceive that it is representative of on ·art· and that that art has only reached this
I do not mean the unconscious continuance and growth of a nation· s culture generation point of perfection by a sort of traditional development which is the result of explofing
by generation. but a conscious dependence on the immediate past. That the type of the some problem over and over again. What has changed is our method: instead of family
men who me descnbed as modern architects have the sincerest admiration and love IOI'
genuine notional art for old peasant houses as for the masterpieces of the great epochs
,n art is a pomt which needs to be stressed. On journeys what interests us most is to find
II traditions and force of habit we employ scientific principles and logical analysis.
Please do not misunderstand me. I do not for o moment mean that peasant art
and the Modern Movement hove any connection in fact with one another. All I wonted
d,stncts where the doily activity of the population hos remained untouched. Nothing 6 to do was to bring out the similarity between certain tendencies which have led. or can
such a relief as to discover a creative aoftsmonship which has been developed ; lead, to relative perfection in each. In any case. we can all odmit that there ore numbers
immernoriolly from father to son, ond is free of the pretentious pomp and empty vanity of old peasant farmsteads that we find far more stimulating than many so-called "modem·
of the architecture of the last century. Here is something from which we con learn, though houses.
not with a view to 1m1tation. For us the attempt to build in a notional tradition or an old- To sum up: it is quite untrue to soy that the Modern Movement is contemptuous
world style would be inadequate and insincere. To pride oneself on such things is a bod 1 of traditional or notional art It is simply that the sympathy we feel for each does not
symptom. For the modern world hos no tradition for its eight-hour day. its electric light toke the form of making us want to use either os a medium for the utterly different
,ts central heating, ,ts water supply, its motor roods and filling stations, its bridges and ,ts purposes of the present day.
Sleel rnot.o1 -lme,s. QI for any of its technical methods. One con roundly damn the whole I should like to divorce the · unbiased" aspect of the New Architecture from
of our age· one can
·
·
commiserate with, QI dissociate oneself from or hope to tronsfQ1rn association with terms like ·new:·original: individual." "imaginative." and "revolutionaiy."
the men and women who hove lost .... , .. _ · ., We are all susceptible to the persuasion of that word "new." Society pays ,ts need of respect
u ""r mental equ1ilbnum in the 1/0rtex of modern lt,e-
but I do not beheve that to dee . I to anything new by granting it a patent It is common knowledge that international potent
. orate their homes with traditional gables and dorrnefS
helps them 1n the least O the - law is based on two principles: "technical improvement" and ·newness.· Thus novelty
and n contrary. this only widens the gulf between appearance
becomes a powerful commercial weapon. But what is the Modern Movement's reel
be.~-and removes them sti1I further from that ideal equilibrium which is. or stioJd
mote object of all thought and action attitude to this business of •newness"? Are we for what is new. unexpected and a change
It rnoy. perhaps seem · at any price. in the some way that we are for on unbiased view at any price? I think we
of vemaruar ... • paradox1COI to establish a parallel between certain aspeets
aruvtecture or llOtJaoal .. con onswe,- this question with on emphatic negative. We ore not out ta create something
tnte-esung to see that~ art and the Modern Movement All the some, ,t 15 new. but something suitable, intrinsically right and as relatively perfect os maybe. The
two diarnetricoly 0pposed teodencies hove two charoctefiStiCS
20 21
 ARCHITECTURE: TECTONICS
DIALECTICAL READINGS IN
SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY
considered simply a means to an end, not
d Movement mus t be an
"new" in the Mo ern , . Whot we aim at and believe ta be possible Is th All this has led some people to believe that the Modern Movement either was, or
• men s fosh1ons. at
end in itself os in wo f f the New Architecture should endure for 1o was bound to become, a political one. Our opponents resuscitated this old accusation
. bodied in the orms o , 20 , 50

or
=~
the solutions em
100
,--
as circumstances may e
d mond-a thing unthinkable in the world of fashio
I fOllows that. though we have no fear of what Is new, novelt
n
as to be able to assail us with political propaganda. Other bodies of opinion tried to force
us to define our position by such arguments as: "Yau make radical proposals for Improve-
as long as modes are modes. t Y ment which can only be realized in a radically different form of society. Architecture is
. W k what is definite and real, whether old or new.
is not our mm. e see . . . the expression of its age, and so, of the circumstances, social structure and political
·t the retort "Be sincere. Look into your motives without trying
This perhaps 1nv1es · , . conformation of that age. If your work hos no political bias and it is not your main object
. . too moral or positive. Don t all of us get sick of everything
to make your introspection . . to realize a political programme, you are simply Utopians who, as things are today, will
.
ofter a time? Doesn 't eve rything , even architecture, become tiresome 1n the end? Isn't
sooner or later be dragged into impossible compromises."
our thirst for change greater than we core to admit?" To which I would reply:
Here we reach O point where logic ceases to be logical, where consistency lo5e1
sense, and anticipation is impossible, because history provides examples for and against
"It is an error to imagine that architecture in its broadest sense is determined by
It [is] easy, but futile, to indulge in prophesy. I would rather interrogate that unwritten
political considerations. Politics, of course, ploy an immensely important part in
low of our own convictions, the spirit of our age. It answers that we have tired of everything
architecture, but it is a mistake to identify that part with anyone of its different
in architecture which is a matter of fashion: that we find all intentionally new forms
functions. To come down from the general to the particular:
wearisome, and all those based on personal predilections or tendencies equally pointless. The technical and economic potentiality of architecture is independent of
To which con be added the simple consideration that we cannot hope to change our the political views of its exponents. "
buildings or furniture as often as we change, for example, our ties. "It follows that the .esthetic potentiality of architecture is also independent
If by "original," "individual," or "imaginative" artistic caprice, a happy thought or of their political views: and likewise the intensity with which particular architects
an isolated flash of genius is meant, then I must answer that the New Architecture aims may apply themselves to the solution of particular functional problems."
at being neither original, individual, nor imaginative. Here, too, there has been a
transformation in the meaning of terms. According to our ideas, modern architecture is Politics and architecture overlap, first, in the nature of the problems presented to the latter.
"original" when it provides a complete solution of the difficulty concerned. By "individual" and, secondly, in the means that are available for solving them. But even this connection
we understand the degree of intensity or application with which the most various or directly is by no means a definite one. For instance, how does it help us to know that Stalin and
interconnected problems ore disposed of. "Imagination" is no longer expressed in remote the promoters of the Palace of the Soviets competition are Communists: or the reasons
intellectual adventures, but in the tenacity with which formal order is imposed upon the why they became Communists? Their arguments are very much the same as those of
world of realities. The ability to foce a problem objectively brings us to the so-called any primitively-minded capitalistic. or democratic. or fascist. or merely conservative motor-
"revolutionary" side of the Modern Movement. I hove considerable hesitation in using car manufacturer with a hankering for the cruder forms of symbolism. In spite of the
the word at all, since it has recently been annexed by various political parties, and in undeniable influence of politics in every sphere of life and thought, no one can deny that
some countries it is actually inculcated into school-children as an elementary civic virtue. each of these spheres hos a highly important unpolitical side to it, and that that side
In fact, revolution is now in a fairway towards becoming a permanent institution. I believe determines its nature. As an architect, I om content to confine myself to analysing and
thatht O .. II · solving the various questions of architecture and town-planning which arise from their
. w was angina Yrevolutionary in the Movement was simply the principle of putting
,ts own objective views Into practice. It should also be said that our revolutionary attitude several pyscho-physical, co-ordinating and technical-economic aspects. And I believe that
th work of this kind leads to material advances which have nothing to do with politics.
was nei er self-complacency nor propagandist bravura, but the inward, and as for as
possible outward echo of the ·nd 1 ed The second dominant impulse of the Modern Movement is a striving ofter clarity,
• ependence of our work. Although as I have just point
out, to be revolutionary hos s· . ' or, if you prefer it, sincerity. No romantic tendencies are implied in either of these terms.
. . rnce received the sanction of respectability this causes us
cons,derable heart-searchings· the d. . ' . They do not mean that we wear our hearts on our sleeves, or Invite all and sundry to pry
l .
1 · war inevitablyhasapoliticalflavour Inthisconnectron
rs necessary to state that our i · . . · into our homes and private lives through our long horizontal windows.
ore based . . nvest,gat,ans into housing and town-planning problems
pnmanly on sociological h . This particular exemplification of "clarity" hos caused a great deal of harrn-ln
In short that our .d f · rat er th0 n on formal or representational, principles
•
1
eas a what devel I the same way thot the desire to show construction openly arrived at has often led to the
needs of the community. opments were possible were based on the genera
violation of structural principles or their naively childish overemphasis. Clarity interpreted

22 23
 DIALECTICAL READINGS IN ARCHITECTURE: TECTONICS
SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY
Ible for O decidedly uncomfortable world full of screw-hon..
In thisspirit has been respons . . '""' architectural designs of the last century, were at least useful. But we must coll things by
·b·t·onism With O little goodwill and a pinch of crass stupidity ,...._
and lntellectuoI ex hI I I . ' u~ their proper names, and not bamboozle ourselves Into believing that the achievements
. -p1 f ·de out ·exterlorizotion· con be relied upon to conjure up a perf-
fomous pnno e o 1nst · "' of engineering are ipso facto beautiful.
wilderness. To sum up again: clarity to us means the definite expression of the purpose of a
The principle of clarity, as we understand it, expresses itself In the technical Clf1d
building and a sincere expression of Its structure. One can regard this sincerity as a sort
economic fields of architecture, through emphasis on structural laws and proctica
of moral duty, but I feel that above and beyond this it Is a trial of strength for the designer,
functions; and in the aesthetic field by simplicity and a renunciation of all irrational forms, which sets the seal of success on his achievement. Nor do I see any Puritanism in our cult
The New Architecture might be com pored to a crystalline structure in process of formotJoo, of simplicity, but rather a zest for obtaining greater effect with less expenditure; and the
Its forms correspond to human laws and functions, which are other than those of nature satisfaction of fashioning something out of nothing with Intelligence and arrangement
or organic bodies. In its more Immediate conception this New Architecture of ours is the as one's only resources. By which I mean winning colour, plostlcity, and animation from
·container" of men ·s domiciles, the orbit of their lives. a flat white wall. Simplicity in this sense connotes both attainment and quality.
Are our buildings identifiable with descriptions such as "cold,'' "hard," "empty. Where does rationalism end and art begin in the New Architecture? Where Is the
looking." "ultra-logical," "unimaginative and mechanistic in every detail?" Is it our aim to dividing line between them, and how is it fixed? I could not trace that frontier If I tried.
trump the mechanization of offices and factories with the mechanization of home life/ Architecture seems worthy of notice to me, only in proportion as It produces on effect on
Whoever thinks so has either only seen the worst examples of modern architecture, orelse our senses, and our senses ore strangers to rationalizing processes. It is the some to me
hos hod no opportunity to live in or make a closer inspection of the best. Or possibly whether this effect, which we con, if you like, coll "beauty," hos been created byon engineer
there Is some confusion In his ideas. Does he perhaps mean pompous when he so~ or on artist; whether it is the result of what Is called speculative research. or what Is called
"human"; dork-brown wallpapers when he invokes cosiness, empty pretence when he intuition. I care nothing for any differentiation as between these methods, but I core a
demands "peacefulness," and a brothel when he refers to love? Anyhow, he attributes great deal whether I feel at ease in the finished building. Besides, I do not wish to Invalidate
intentions to us which we have never had and con hardly be accused of embodying In the super-rational basis of the Modern Movement which Is Its unwritten low, by any
our work. passionate assertion of principles. All the some, a few of them con be indicated here.
The origin of the Modem Movement was not technological, for technology hod We hove no use for beauty In the form of a foreign body, of ornament, or of a
been developed long before it was thought of. What the New Architecture did was to titivating of undesigned structural elements; nor even as on arbitrary magnification of
civilize technology. Its real genesis was a growing consciousness of the spirit of our age. certain dimensions, a purely transient vogue. We hove no use for architecture that Is
labelled symbolist, cubist, neoplastic or "constructivist.'' We know that the essential and
However, It proved far harder to formulate the intellectual basis and the a'!Sthetic of the
determining elements of a building con be wholly rational without this rationalism in
New Architecture intelligibly than to establish its logic in practical use. I have often found
th any way affecting the question of whether It Is beautiful or ugly.
at something like a functional kitchen equipment has made hypercritical people far
Everyone who hos planned, designed and constructed, knows:
more accessible to our ideas; and that they hove not infrequently ended by becoming
reconciled to our <Bl hetic as a result. The ease of this method of approach led certain
1. That in spite of the most logical volition, the decisive impulse towards co-ordination
modern architects to outbid each other in broadcasting technical progress, and to rely
on thearet1Col deducro 1 -' very often occurs through uncontrollable reflexes.
. ns supported by columns of figures. A deliberately stotistlcu• 2. That even in the most objective exploration of a given problem by the logical
attitude to architecture ens ed wh. h d Id
f . u · IC egeneroted into a competition as to who cou method of procedure, in nearly every case a final, one might almost soy illogical,
go urthest in denying it any sort of th . i,e
.
t rue des,gner, iB et,c moment. The engineer was proclaimed t choice between different combinations hos to be made.
and everythi d
ng was eclored beautiful that was technically efficient 3. That the commanding and so to speak convincing lmpress/venessof really Inspired
I th ,n k we can toke it th t th ·
structures ore by no a . Is te nd ency hos nearly seen its day. Engineertl19 construction is the outcome of on Inflexible tenacity which Is almost passionate,
means necessonly beaut'ful I h the/
moyoftenbebeout·f 1 1
. he quaengineeringstructures,thoug and that that passion transcends mere logic.
u e,t r because the· b 'Id ·n
or asa result of that scient·r, .. or u, ers had a marked talent for formal destg
1 IC trod,tton which · h
I ctorY Perhaps the slogan: "Art and technique as a new unity." which Gropius coined some
industr ial form for everyth·1 in e process of time evolves a satisfo
n9-the norm type th eat years ago, most nearly expresses the idea that In the New Architecture these concepts
deal to be said for the · e standard. There Is of course, a gr
practical objectl -1 Of . • ·aJ
problems. The engineer ha bee v, Y engineering methods in facing techn1 ore no longer separable.
s n respons/ble for several things which, In contrast to [11(JnY
15
24
DIALECTICAL READINGS IN ARCHITECTURE: TECTONICS

r,zy., come to the third dominant impulse of the Modern Movement: the relation
1
of unbroken elements to one another-contrast. Whot is aimed at 1s unschematic design
Whoever supposes thot our preference for flat roofs inclines us to adopt flat tops for OU!
coffee-pots: thot the cubic fofms of our buildings will be echoed in our lighting fixtures;
Of thot our guiding principle of establishing unity and a certain harmonious relation
between all these things can be labeled asa "style.'' has entirely misunde~tood our object;.
There is no hord and fast fofmula fa, doing this or thot in the New Architecture. Wherever
you find identical fo,ms in different places, you can be sure it was due to the adoption ol
a Similar solution fo, a Similar problem. But when a cupboard begins to look like a house.
the house like the pattern of a carpet and the pattern of a carpet like a bedside lamp.
you can be certain thot it is not modern work in the sense that modern is used In th~
article.
We strive to achieve a definite design for all different elements, and we arrange
them Side by Side without dressing them artificially for the purpose. These elements receill'
different forms as a natural consequence of their different structure. Their complete
individuality is intended to establish a kind of balance which seems to me a far more
vital one than the purely superficial "harmony" which can be realized by adopting either
a formal or a structural common denominat0<. We reject the traditional conception of
·style" first because it gainsays Sincere and appropriate design; and secondly, because
the link between quite justifiable differences in appearance produces the sort of contrast
we consider is characteristic of modern life. Contrasts like house and garden, a man's
w0<king and home life, voids and solids. shining metal and soft materials-<>r even living
organisms like animals and plants--<:an all be realized against the stark plain surface of
a wall: also in the opposition of the discipline of standardization to the freedom of
experiment that leads to its development. Such contrasts have become a necessity of
life. They are guarantees of the reality of the basis we have chosen to adopt. The power
to preserve these extremes without modification (that is to say, the extent of their contrast)
1s the real gauge of our strength.
But what about the .esthet'IC Of the New Architecture? Its dogmas are the kind that
cannot be formulated The im . simple contexts, are diverse and conflicting in ways previously unimaginable. The
that 1t f l"I . PO<tant thIng fa, me 1s that the New Architecture exists, and
u n s a vital need for all of us.
Reflective Text
ROBERT VENTURI, EXCERPTS FROM COMPLEXITY
AND CONTRADICT/ON IN ARCHITECTURE.
First Published in 1966
NONSTRAIGHTPORWARD ARCHITBCTURE: A GBNTLB MANIFESTO
I like complexity and contradiction in architecture. I do not like the incoherence or
arbitrariness of incompetent architecture nor the precious intricacies of picturesqueness
0< expressionism. Instead, I speak of a complex and contradictory architecture based on
the richness and ambiguity of modern experience, including that experience which Is
inherent in art. Everywhere, except In architecture, complexity and contradiction have
been acknowledged, from Godel's proof of ultimate inconsistency In mathematics to
T. S. Eliot's analysis of "difficult" poetry and Joseph Albers· definition of the paradoxical
quality of painting.
But architecture Is necessarily complex and contradictory in Its very inclusion of the
traditional Vitruvian elements of commodity, firmness, and delight And today the wonts
of program, structure, mechanical equipment and expression, even in Single buildings in
increasing dimension and scale of architecture In urban and regional planning acid to
the difflculties. I welcome the problems and exploit the uncertainties. By embracing
contradiction as well as complexity, I aim fof vitality as well as validity.
Architects can no longer afford to be intimidated by the puritanically mo,al
language of orthodox Modern architecture. I like elements which are hybrid rather than
"pure," compromising rather than "clean." distorted rather than "stralghtfo,ward,"
ambiguous rather than "articulated," perverse as well as impersonal. boring as well as
"Interesting," conventional rather than "designed." accommodating rather than excluding,
redundant rather than Simple, vestigial as well as innovating, inconsistent and equivocal
rather than direct and clear. I am for messy vitality over obvious unity. I Include the non
sequitur and proclaim the duality.

26 27
 DIALECTICAL READINGS IN ARCHITECTURE : TECTONICS
SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY

I om lo, nchness of meaning rather thonclonty of meaning; fo, the Implicit funct
All problems can never be solved. ... Indeed it is o characteristic of the twentieth
as well os the expliot function. I prefe, ··ooth-ond" to "either-a,," black and white, or,:
IOI
century that architects ore highly selective in determining which problems they
sometimes g,oy, to black 01 white. A valid mchitecture evokes many levels of mean,
want to solve. Mies, for Instance, makes wonderful buildings only because he ignores
and combinations of focus: Its space and ,ts elements become readable and workable;
many aspects of a building. If he solved more problems, his buildings would be for
several ways at once. less potent.•
But on architectu,e of complexity and contradiction hos o special obligation towa,d
the whole: its truth must be In its totality or its imphcotions of totality. It must emlxx!1 The doctrine "less is more" bemoans complexity and justifies exclusion for expressive
the difficult unity of inclusion rathe, than the easy unity of exclusion. More is not l~s. purposes. It does, indeed. permit the architect to be highly selective in determining which
problems he wonts to solve, But if the architect must be committed to his particular woy
COMPLEXITY AND CONTRADICTION VS. SIMPLIFICATION OR of seeing the universe, such o commitment surely means that the architect determines
PJCTURl!SQUl!NESS how problems should be solved. not that he con determine which of the problems he will
Orthodox Modern architects have tended to recognize complexity insufficiently ~ solve. He can exclude important considerations only at the risk of separating architecture
inconsistently. In thei1attempt to break with tradition and start all over again, tht-1 from the experience of life and the needs of society. If some problems prove insoluble,
idealized the primitive and elementary at the expense of the diverse and the sophisticated he can express this: in on inclusive rather than an exclusive kind of architecture there
As participants in a ,evolutionary movement. they acclaimed the newness of modern Is room for the fragment. for contradiction, for improvisation, and for the tensions
functions, ignoring their complicat ions. In their role as reformers, they puritonicolt1 these produce. Mies· exquisite pavilions hove had valuable implications for architec-
advocated the separation and exclusion of elements, rather than the inclusion of vo1100 ture, but their selectiveness of content and language Is their limitation as well as their
requirements and thei1 juxtapositions. As o forerunner of the Modern movement. Fro~ strength.
Lloyd Wnght, who grew up with the motto "Truth ogoinst the World.'" wrote: "Visions rJ I question the relevance of analogies between pavilions and houses, especially
simplicity so broad and fo, -reoching would open to me and such building hormoni~ analogies between Japanese pavilions and recent domestic architecture. They ignore
appear that ... would change and deepen the thinking and culture of the modern wor~ the real complexity and contradiction inherent In the domestic program-the spatial and
So I believed."' And Le Corbusiei, co-founder of Purism, spoke of the "great primary forms' technological possibilities os well as the need for variety In visual experience. Forced
which, he proclaimed, weie "distinct . .. and without ombiguity."I Modern architectswi& simplicity results in oversimplification. In the Wiley House, for instance. in contrast to his
few exceptions eschewed ambiguity. glass house. Philip Johnson attempted to go beyond the simplicities of the elegant pavilion.
But now our position 11 different: "At the some time that the problems increose t He explicitly separated and articulated the enclosed "private functions·· of living on o
quantity, complexity, and difficulty they also change foster than before.''6 and requ iieor ground floor pedestal. thus separating them from the open social functions in the modular
attitude more like that described by August Heckscher: pavilion above, But even here the building becomes o diagram of on oversimplified
program for living-on abstract theory of either-or. Where simplicity cannot work,
slmpleness results. Blatant simplification means bland architecture. Less Is o bore.
The movement from o view of life os essentially simple and orderly too view of i,fe
I. r,ook Lloyd W1t<j',t. An ascomplex and ironic · who e The recognition of complexity in architecture does not negate what Louis Kahn has
Nnt"ricon Nchtt«tu,c ed ,s t every individual posses through in becoming matu• ·
But certain epochs e I0 coiled "the desire for simplicity." But aesthetic simplicity which is a sotlsfoction to the mind
[dg<J, Koofmann (New Voo. . ncouroge th, s development: in them the paradoxico
t-biion Pfffi, 19SS). 107
dramat,c outlook color the wh de< derives, when valid and profound, from inner complexity. The Doric temple's simplicity
,at1onali . bo s oleintellectual scene .... Amldsimplicityond o• to the eye is achieved through the famous subtleties and precision of its distorted geometry
fCJWOfdsoNew
Al<h1tectu,tt (London Tt\f'
sm ,s rn, but rational . t,eo>O
Then equ·i b . ism proves inadequate in any period of up and the contradictions and tensions Inherent in its order. The Doric temple could achieve
Alchrt«tura!Prffi, 1927 ), 31 " num must be created .
must ,ep,esent t . out of oppos,tes. Such inner peace os men g apparent simplicity through real complexity. When complexity disappeared. as in the late
Ovt\lOpher Altxondet, Not es
paradox oil
a ens,on among co t d.
.
r"" lo
n ra Ktions and uncertainties. , .. Afee 1'''
on tt,c Sy,,t~~ of r0tm temples, blandness replaced simplicity.
ows seemingly dissim·1 h. · c()ll
ICarb-odq, Hon.ad Uno,,.-,y g,wty suggest,ng k. 1
or t ings to exist side by side, their very ,n Nor does complexity deny the valid simplification which is part of the process of 8 Poul R:odOlph Pf!fsp«ta- Tht!
P,ffi. 1961.), 4 0 •nd of truth.' Yak!! N chlt«tlKol }Qutnol, 7
analysis, and even a method of achieving complex architecture itself. "We oversimplify o
rt,,PublK (1961): S1
Happ/r,trs1(N<wVoo. Rot1ona11iat1on f given event when we characterize It from the standpoint of a given Interest."" But this kind 9 Kt-nnelh~. Pe t ~
s or S1mplificat1on a,e . ,ey
,\t.henrumPubll'l,hf!f<;, 1%]).
arguments. They ore expo . st,11 current, however, though subtler than the ea of simplification is a method in the analytical process of achieving o complex art. It should and O>ar,g, (Lo, Mm""'""'
102 mo, .. P ns,ons of Mies "l~I ; Pub(icotlC>n\. 19S4), 107
e. aul Rudolph hosc'-- i van der Rohe' s magnificent paradox, not be mistaken for a goal.
n:ur YSlated th ·
e implications of Mies· point of view:
28 29
 DIALECTICAL READINGS IN ARCHITECTURE: TECTONICS
SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY
An architecture of complexity and contradiction, however, does not mean Pie.
of their scope. such as research laboratories, hospitals, and particularly the enormous
·ect·ve expressionism. A false complexity has recently countered••·
turesqueness or su bl 1 . "• projects at the scale of city and regional planning. But even the house. simple in scope.
false simplicity of an earlier Modem architecture. It promotes an architecture of 5Ymmetri(a
Is complex in purpose If the ambiguities of contemporary experience are expressed. This
picturesqueness-which Minoru Yamasaki calls "serene"-but It represents a new formalism
contrast between the means and the goals of a program is significant. Although the means
as unconnected with experience as the former cult of simplicity. Its Intricate forms do not
involved In the program of a rocket to get to the moon. for instance. are almost infinitely
reflect genuinely complex programs, and its Intricate ornament, though dependent on
complex, the goal Is simple and contains few contradictions; although the means involved
industrial techniques for execution, is dryly reminiscent of forms originally created bot
In the program and structure of buildings are far simpler and less sophisticated tech•
handicraft techniques. Gothic tracery and Rococo rocaille were not only expressively vol~ nolaglcally than almost any engineering project. the purpose is more complex and often
in relation to the whole, but came from a valid showing-off of hand skills and expressed 0 inherently ambiguous.
vitality derived from the immediacy and individuality of the method. This kind of complexity
through exuberance, perhaps impossible today, is the antithesis of "serene" architecture,
despite the superficial resemblance between them. But if exuberance is not characterisUc
of our art it is tension. rather than "serenity" that would appear to be so.
The best twentieth-century architects have usually rejected simplification-that
is. simplicity through reduction-in order to promote complexity within the whole. The
works of Alvar Aalto and Le Corbusier (who often disregards his polemical writings) are
examples. But the characteristics of complexity and contradiction In their work are often
ignored or misunderstood. Critics of Aalto, for instance, have liked him mostly for hi1
sensitivity to natural materials and his fine detailing, and have considered his whole
composition willful picturesqueness. I do not consider Aalto 's Imatra church picturesque.
By repeating in the massing the genuine complexity of the triple-divided plan and the
acoustical ceiling pattern, this church represents a justifiable expressionism different from
the willful picturesqueness of the haphazard structure and spaces of Giovanni Michelucci'1
recent church for the Autostrada.10 Aalto ·s complexity is part of the program and structure
of the whole rather than a device justified only by the desire for expression. Though we.
no longer argue over the primacy of form or function (which follows which?), we cannot
ignore their interdependence.
The desire for a complex architecture, with its attendant contradictions, is not only
reaction to th e banality or prettiness of current architecture It is an attitude common
0

in the Mannerist periods· the s·xt

10.1have visited Giovanni
Mtchelucci'\ Church of the
Autostroda since writing these
word\ and I now realize it Is an
extremely beautiful and
effective building. I am
therefore sony I made thi\
unsympathetic comparison.
1 eenth century .In Italy or the Hellenistic
· . .,
. · period in Classicw
art. and Is also a continuous st · · d.
. . rain seen in such diverse architects as Michelangelo, Palla 10·
Borromin,. Vanbrugh Ha k
.
s
· w smoor, oane, Ledoux, Butterfield, same architects of t '
h
Shingle Style, Furness Sulliva L
. · n, utyens, and recently, Le Corbusier, Aalto. Kahn. and others.
Today this attitude is O · I h
. . ga,n re evant to both the medium of architecture and t e
program in architecture.
First, the medium of arch'tect1 f
our architecture as ure mu st be re-examined if the increased scope 0
we 11 as the complext 1 Of • ·red
1 or
superficially complex fo . Y ,ts goals is to be expressed. Simph
rms will not work I t d b. uitY
of visual perception m t · ns ea , the variety inherent in the am 19
us once more be k
Second. the growing .. ac nowledged and exploited.
complex,t,es of f know·
iedged. I refer, of course to th our unctional problems must be ac
. ose programs, unique in our time, which are complex beeause
31
30
 SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY

the tangled web of complication in order to rebuild, in view of the specific situation. 0
hypothesis far a structure that will organize architecture according to the practice of
a meticulous. although consciously provisional, clarity.
It is very difficult today to imagine a return to order that could be more than 0
coat of whitewash over the disorder and conflicts of our times. if it does not confront the

Philosophical Text
unresolvable contradictions placed daily before our eyes by notions such as logic and
reason. Simplicity must make contradiction itself clear and comprehensible without
denying its existence and its value as a material for establishing difference.
The reasons behind a simple building must reveal, not cover, the fissures of doubt:
VITTORIO GREGOTII, "ON SIMPLICITY." they must reconnect and not isolate. They must first address their own limits. and must
limit the risks of instituting a law that lacks the necessary internal order. That is, they
Firs1 Published in 1996
must realize that its balance is precarious, but at the same time pursue it with tenacity.
A simple building must thus compose its own image as the superficial tension of
complexity: for there is no level of complexity that cannot be expressed through the clarity
of simplicity without simplification.
Simplicity. as a process of adhering to the essence of use. to lack of ornament. and to In that sense. a building is never simple enough. To free oneself from the super-
mimesis of the technical reproducibility and expressive rigor of utensils, has. as we know. fluous: that is, to identify what is superfluous without confusing it with the richness of
been the most prominent and common stylistic banner of modernity in this century. curiosity. of a question. of questioning. requires an accurate and difficult effort tOWOid
But if one abandons the idea that a moral. tenacious pride in modesty and on discrimination, even though solely liberating oneself from the superfluous dearly does
egalitarian, sachlich striving can serve as mimeses of collective reason, progress. and not guarantee access to the heart of simplicity.
liberation, then it certainly seems more difficult to enumerate the values of simplicity in A building is simple not because its shapes conform to elementary geometry. not
times of highly complex and intense signals. At the very least. the matter of simplicity because all of it is immediately visible. or because the logic is evident in its connections.
in architecture becomes subject to different possible interpretations. but because all its parts voice their necessity, both reciprocally and with respect to the
Designing a simple building has become a very complicated problem. at least fOI meaning of the specific architectural solution. In simplicity there must be nothing pre-
those who believe thot simplicity in architecture is not something natural or spontaneous. established, nothing immobile. Instead. all must be balance. measurement. relation
does not result from restoring linear deduction, is not tautology, simplification, a retreat between points. vital organization, mysterious transparency.
from the complexity of reality. or, least of all, a relinquishing af invention. It must give the impression that everything contained in the project is absolutely
Simplicity today stands on a dangerous ridge. One slope harbors pure oppositi0/1 inevitable and certain, but that there is still always something essential beyond what has
to market coercion, to contrivances that lack an aim ar an internal reason far expression been organized.
On the other side lie in ambush oversimplification and poverty of invention. aphasia and In that sense, oscillation. cancellation. and the suspended tension of parts can also
th
e mannerism of poetic silence-;n brief, the inarticulate superstition of simplicity. share the rigor of simplicity. and participate in the golden and absolutely general rule of
th economy of expression.
In o er words, to me simplicity is not simplification, and above all not simplification
as a formal model. Eloquent simplicity can be reached through great effort, but it is never On the other hand. to propose simplicity in architecture is not. today. to propose
st a totality, a closure within a benign form of the absolute. Rather, it presents itself as the
a good arting point, nor, above all, an objective at any cost Architecture is not simple:
1t can only become simple. illumination of a brief fragment of truth. like the laborious deciphering of a small phrase
Nor would I like in these r f . mu· of a text whose overall meaning remains unknown.
. . . · imes o noisy, exhibitionistic redundancy of com
nicat1on, to be ideologically for ed t . . · of A simple building can also have an interior whose functions. spaces. uses. and
O
1 · 1 d . . c toke the side of simplicity as an a priori mimesis
ogica an moralistic rigor. That is important b . . distributions are complex: an interior rich in interrelations rather than in form. for which
The fragmentation. in our ti • ut remains transitory. re simplicity is, above all. a triangulation of the experimental field.
well-fastened nails B t I bel· mes certainly calls for some solid points, some seeu ·
1 But a simple building is also the opposite of a car body that covers and unifies a
· u eve that such 11 ·d· h ougn
reduction but rather by h. so ,ty must be reconstructed not t r the
complex motor constructed by a different rationality, a body that denies access to
pus ,ng project research until it succeeds in breaking througn
32 33
DIALECTICAL READINGS IN ARCHITECTURE: TECTONICS

mechanism of function and only reveals the aspect of performance. Rather. the simp~
building simultaneously guards and reveals its essence.
Moreover. a simple building cannot avoid referring to some attempt at refoun-
dation. a refoundation of sense and representat ion that is also constructed as 0

reorganization of the system of functions. a radi cal rethinking of the reasons behind t~
organism and its public and contextual role.
Simple is. in that sense. also the opposite of mixed. combined. It refers to the idea
of unity and homogeneity, of being devoid of possible additions. in which compositional
elements endowed with autonomous life do not figure. It is, in other words. somethi"J
Writing and
that has reached a state in which it seems that nothing can be added or taken away. and
in which all the reasons in its composition have found their own, provisionally definitive
arrangement
Discussion Questions
Architecture-great architecture-has always attempted to reduce the problernl
of construction. use, context. and symbolism to one single reason. The simple buildi"J
carries firmly with it. even when such reasons become remote. the unitary arrangement
of its components as the basis for its own specific identity. ANALYSIS
The simplicity of a building, moreover, has to do with silence. It is the creation of
a pause in the tumult of language: it identifies the divergence of sense among signs: ii 1. What was Breuer arguing for and against? What excerpt/quotation best represents
appears as the proud fixation of an infinite series of hesitations. tests, erasures, experiences: this?
it is the rewriting of what we have always known. The simple project destroys all neuroses 2. What was Venturi arguing for and against' What excerpt/quotation best represents
about the future. gives bock to the past. to paraphrase Merleau-Ponty, not survival. which this>
is a hypocritical form of oblivion, but a new life that takes the noble form of memory. 3. What was Gregotti arguing for and against> What excerpt/quotation best
The simplicity of a building also represents an aspiration to find one ·s place near represents this?
the origin of architecture itself, to look as if one had always been there, firmly fixed
to the earth and to the sky, in an open discussion with the surroundings that starts w,th SYNTHESIS
the recognition and critique of the identities and distances of each.
. A simple building. in other words, rests on a principle of settlement as it does Oil 1. Regarding concepts of simplicity and complexity. discuss one major difference
rts own physical foundations. It is the ability to clearly identify such foundations, includrn<J regarding Breuer's, Venturi's. and Gregotti's texts.
the connection with the earth and the geography that represents its history, that allows 2- Regarding concepts of simplicity and complexity. discuss one primary commonality
an archrtecture to achieve s· r · h . d regarding Breuer's. Venturi's. and Gregotti's texts.
. . rmp rcrty: t at rs, to become necessary in all its parts on
connect rtself drrectly to the principles of its own synthesis.
SELF-REFLECTION

1. For each of the texts. discuss a major issue with which you most agree and most
disagree: reflect upon why you hold these views.
2. Select a recent design project. or a current project on which you are working. Discuss
the characteristics of the project in regards to simplicity and complexity. in light of
the discussion and texts introduced in this chapter. What attitudes regard ing
simplicity and complexity does your work illustrate'

34 35