Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T09:42:31.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Banham and ‘Otherness’:

Reyner Banham (1922–1988) and his quest for an architecture autre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Nigel Whiteley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the death of Peter Reyner Banham in March 1988 at the age of 66, the architectural world lost one of its most distinguished historians and irrepressible critics. His career, by normal academic standards, was wide-ranging and helps to explain his unconventional and, at times, idiosyncratic approach to architecture. During the war Banham very successfully studied at the Bristol Aeroplane Company’s engine division, thereby acquiring a thorough grounding in the theory and practice of mechanical engineering. An evident enthusiasm for technology was combined with a rigorous training in art history under Nikolaus Pevsner at the Courtauld Institute from where he graduated in 1952.

Type
Research Article
Information
Architectural History , Volume 33 , 1990 , pp. 188 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Banham, R., ‘The New Brutalism’, Architectural Review, December 1955, pp. 355–61.Google Scholar

2 Tapié, Michel, Un art autre (Paris, 1952).Google Scholar

3 Gorky, Arshile quoted in Lucie-Smith’s, Edward Movements in Art Since 1945 (London, 1969), p. 32.Google Scholar

4 Willem de Kooning, ‘Artists’ Session, New York’ (1951) in Chipp, Herschel B., Theories of Modem Art (California, 1968), p. 565.Google Scholar

5 Willem de Kooning, ‘The Renaissance and Order’ (1950) in Chipp, op. cit., p. 556.

6 Jackson Pollock, ‘Statement’ (1951) in Chipp, op. cit., p. 548.

7 Banham, , The New Brutalism (London, 1966), p. 61.Google Scholar

8 Dubuffet quoted in Germain Viatte, ‘Primitivism and Art Brut’ in Aftermath: France 1945–54, New Images of Man, Barbican Art Gallery exhibition catalogue (1982), p. 74.

9 Ibid., p. 74.

10 Jean Dubuffet, ‘Rehabilitation de la boue’ (1946), translated in Aftermath, op. cit., pp. 99–100.

11 Jean Dubuffet (1944), quoted in Viatte in Aftermath, p. 75.

12 For the origins of the Independent Group see Whiteley, , Pop Design — Modernism to Mod: Pop Theory and Design in Britain, 1952–1972 (London, 1987), ch. 3.Google Scholar

13 See Fathers of Pop video by Miranda Films (London, 1979).

14 Ibid.

15 Banham, ‘Futurism for Keeps’, Arts (December 1960), p. 33.

16 Banham, The New Brutalism, p. 62.

17 Banham, The New Brutalism, p. 356.

18 Alison, and Smithson, Peter, ‘Statement’, Architectural Review (April 1954), pp. 274–75.Google Scholar

19 See Banham, The New Brutalism, p. 10.

20 Alison, and Smithson, Peter, Without Rhetoric — An Architectural Aesthetic (London, 1973), p. 2.Google Scholar

21 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘Statement’ (1954), p. 274.

22 Letter from Kenneth Scott to the Editor of Architectural Design reprinted in anon, ‘The New Brutalism’, Architectural Review (April 1954), p. 274.

23 Ibid., p. 274.

24 Banham, , ‘School at Hunstanton, Norfolk’, Architectural Review (September 1954), p. 152.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., p. 153.

26 See Banham ‘The Style for the Job’, New Statesman (14 February 1964), p. 261, and his introduction to James Stirling, RIBA drawings collection (London, 1974).

27 Rowe, Colin, ‘The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa: Palladio and Le Corbusier Compared’, Architectural Review (March 1947), pp. 101–04 Google Scholar; Wittkower, Rudolf, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (London, 1949).Google Scholar

28 Philip Johnson introductory statement in Banham, ‘School at Hunstanton, Norfolk’, p. 151.

29 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘Thoughts in Progress’, Architectural Design (April 1957), p. 113.

30 Ibid., p. 113.

31 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘Cluster City: A New Shape for the Community’, Architectural Review (November 1957), p. 334.

32 Ibid., p. 333.

33 Banham, The New Brutalism, p. 359.

34 Ibid. p. 359.

35 Ibid. p. 359.

36 Ibid. p. 357.

37 Ibid. p. 357.

38 Ibid. p. 357.

39 Ibid. p. 357.

40 Ibid. p. 361.

41 Ibid. p. 361.

42 Ibid. p. 361.

43 Ibid. p. 356.

44 Banham, The New Brutalism, p. 68.

45 Ibid., p. 68.

46 This is Tomorrow exhibition catalogue, Whitechapel Art Gallery (1956), n.p.

47 Banham, The New Brutalism, p. 65.

48 Ibid., p. 67.

49 Ibid., p. 67.

50 Ibid., p. 69.

51 This is Tomorrow.

52 Banham, ‘Not Quite Painting or Sculpture Either’, Architects’ Journal (16 August 1956), p. 219.

53 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘But Today We Collect Ads’ Ark (November 1956), p. 50.

54 Peter and Alison Smithson, ‘Thoughts in Progress’, p. 113.

55 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘Statement’ (1955), reprinted in Without Rhetoric — An Architectural Aesthetic (London, 1973), p. 2.

56 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘But Today We Collect Ads’, p. 50.

57 Two more projects by the Smithsons, both published in 1958, continued this theme — see Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘The Appliance House’, Design (May 1958), pp. 43–47; and ‘The Future of Furniture’, Architectural Design (April 1958), pp. 175–80. In the brief for these projects, the Smithsons set themselves the task that the houses be mass-producible by advanced technological means; be capable of dense grouping; and ‘contain a glamour factor’ (p. 117) so they would appeal to sophisticated taste.

58 Banham, ‘Things to Come?’, Design (June 1956), p. 25.

59 Banham in a letter to the author dated 12 August 1980.

60 Banham, ‘Machine Aesthetic’, Architectural Review (April 1955), p. 255.

61 Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (London, 1960), p. 327.

62 Banham, ‘Machine Aesthetic’, p. 255.

63 Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, p. 328.

64 Banham, ‘Vehicles of Desire’, Art (September 1955), p. 3.

65 Marinetti, F. T., ‘The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism’ (1909), in Apollonio, Umbro (ed.), Futurist Manifestos (London, 1973), p. 22.Google Scholar

66 Ibid., p. 21.

67 For details on the relative contributions of Sant’Elia and Marinetti, see Conrads, Ulrich (ed.), Programs and Manifestos on 20th century Architecture (London, 1970), pp. 34–38.Google Scholar

68 Sant’Elia, ‘Manifesto on Futurist Architecture’ (1914), in Futurist Manifestos, p. 34.

69 Ibid., p. 36.

70 Ibid., p. 38.

71 Banham, ‘Sant’Elia’, Architectural Review (May 1955), p. 301.

72 Ibid., p. 301.

73 Banham, ‘Futurism and Modern Architecture’, RIBA Journal (February 1957), pp. 129–39.

74 Banham, ‘Futurism for Keeps’, Arts (December 1960), pp. 33–39.

75 Ibid., p. 37.

76 Ibid., pp. 37–39.

77 Ibid., p. 39.

78 Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, p. 327.

79 Ibid., p. 327.

80 Fuller, Buckminster, ‘Influences on my Work’ (1955), in Meller, James (ed.), The Buckminster Fuller Reader (London, 1972), pp. 44–68.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., pp. 64–66.

82 Ibid., p. 64.

83 Marshall McLuhan, ‘Buckminster Fuller Chronofile’ (1967), in Meller, p. 30.

84 Banham, The New Brutalismi, p. 69.

85 Philip Johnson, ‘Where We Are At’, Architectural Review (September 1960), p. 175.

86 Banham, ‘Stocktaking’, Architectural Review (February 1960), p. 96.

87 Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, p. 119.

88 Banham, ‘Sant’Elia’, p. 301.

89 Banham, The New Brutalism, p. 358.

90 Alloway, Lawrence, ‘Technology and Sex in Science Fiction’ Ark, no. 17 (1956), p. 20.Google Scholar

91 Banham, ‘Home Thoughts from Abroad’, Industrial Design (August 1963), p. 78.

92 Banham, , Richards, J. M., Pevsner, Nikolaus, Casson, Hugh and Hastings, H. de C., ‘Propositions’, Architectural Review (June 1960), pp. 381–89.Google Scholar

93 Ibid., p. 382.

94 Banham, ‘Stocktaking’, p. 94.

95 Ibid., p. 94.

96 Banham (with A. C. Brothers, M. E. Drummond, R. Llewelyn-Davies), ‘The Science Side’, Architectural Review (March 1960), p. 190.

97 Buckminster Fuller, ‘The Architect as World Planner’ (1961), in Conrads, p. 180.

98 Hannes Meyer, ‘Building’ (1928), in Conrads, p. 120.

99 Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, p. 306.

100 See Conrads, pp. 117–20.

101 Ibid., p. 119.

102 Banham, ‘Propositions’, p. 388.

103 Ibid., p. 388.

104 Ibid., p. 388.

105 Ibid., p. 388.

106 Ibid., p. 388.

107 Ibid., p. 388.

108 Ibid., p. 388.

109 Ibid., p. 388.

110 Ibid., p. 388.

111 Banham, , Design By Choice (London, 1981), p. 7.Google Scholar

112 Banham, ‘The History of the Immediate Future’ RIBA Journal (May 1961), pp. 252–69.

113 Banham, ‘What Architecture of Technology?’, Architectural Review (February 1962), p. 97.

114 Banham quoted in Ann Ferebee, ‘Home Thoughts From Abroad’, Industrial Design (August 1963), p. 78.

115 Banham, ‘A Home is not a House’ (1965), reprinted in Architectural Design (January 1969), p. 45.

116 Banham, The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment (London, 1969), p. 265.

117 Banham, ‘Who is this Pop?’, Motif, no. 10 (1962/3), p. 12.

118 Ibid., p. 52.

119 Banham, ‘A Clip-on Architecture’, Design Quarterly, no. 63 (1965), p. 30.

120 Banham, review of Peter Cook’s Architecture, Action and Plan, Architectural Design (August 1967), p. 352.

121 Banham, ‘The Great Gizmo’, Industrial Design (September 1965), pp. 49–59.

122 Banham, Design by Choice, p. 7.

123 Ibid., p. 7.