From Cubism to Purism - Art and Dwelling in Le Corbusier

8/10/2019 From Cubism to Purism - Art and Dwelling in Le Corbusier

1/18

1

FROM CUBISM TO PURISM: ART AND DWELLING IN LE CORBUSIERS LA ROCHE

HOUSE-GALLERY.

Vincenzo Tiziano Aglieri RinellaIstituto di Arti - IULM University, Milan (Italy)[email protected]

Between 1921 and 1923, during the auctions of the Kahnweiler collection, the Swissbanker and art collector Raoul La Roche purchased a great deal of cubist works of art,thanks to the consulting of Le Corbusier and Amde Ozenfant. As a consequence, hiscollection, that held also purist paintings, became too large to be contained in La Rochesold apartment in Paris and Le Corbusier convinced him to build a new home with artgallery, in order to display his new collection.

La Roche was a bachelor who lived in total independence. His only passion wascontemporary art, to which his great friend Le Corbusier had initiated him.Before meeting Le Corbusier, La Roches old apartment was indeed decorated witheighteenth-century engravings.

After visiting the first Purist exhibition at the Thomas Gallery in 1918, La Roche discoveredin Purism a mirror of his own aesthetic sense.

He completely agreed both on Le Corbusiers art and ideas. The neoplatonic idealism, theformal rigour, the great admiration for the engineer and industry and the explicit referenceto a puritan lifestyle had a great appeal on this austere Swiss Protestant.He immediately started collecting purist paintings, and became one of Le Corbusiers

major supporters.Soon after, La Roche was also one of the financing stakeholders for thefoundation of LEsprit Nouveau.

Thus, as La Roche himself affirmed, this gave to Le Corbusier maximum freedom in thehouse design, allowing him to finally carry out some of his avant-garde ideas inarchitecture.

Le Corbusier had also total freedom in purchasing the paintings at the Kahnweilerauctions, carefully chosen according to the purist sensitivity.

The project for the house, therefore, arose from the fundamental purpose of exhibiting theart collection. The work of art became the reference for an architectural space built around

it, in a mutual relation of valorization, as we can see from the first design sketches. In thehouse, domestic and public spaces were parts of a single exhibition path articulated indifferent levels of privacy and accessibility along an architectural promenade.

The program complexity was submitted to the need of sharing the living space with acollection of works of art, even open to the public. Another issue was the conflict bornbetween La Roches request of a frame for a collection and Le Corbusiers aspiration tomake a poem in walls1, that concerned the balanced presence of an art collection insidea pure work of architecture.


2/18

2

Unfortunately, today the art collection is no longer in the house, because La Rochedonated it to the Basel Kunstmuseum in 1962, before his withdrawal in Switzerland forhealth reasons.

The didactic purpose of the exhibition prepared by Le Corbusier in 1926, after theachievement of La Roche house, intended to demonstrate his personal thesis on art.Indeed, the pictures hanging in 1926 were considered to show the artistic path leading

from the early works of the analytic period of Picassos and Braques Cubism, through thecrystal period, to the final purist synthesis of Le Corbusiers and Ozenfants painting.This attempt was the logical consequence of Le Corbusiers ideas asserted in his book LaPeinture Moderne(1925) and in various articles issued in the Esprit Nouveau, that seem aradical change of mind compared to what he had previously affirmed in Aprs le Cubisme(1918).

Indeed, in Aprs le Cubisme Ozenfant and Jeanneret criticized Cubism harshly, doubtingits theoretical assumptions and asserting that it was unfit for modern times, while Purismwas presented as transcending Cubism and as the right art for modern epoch.In La Peinture Moderne the tone changed completely: criticism was softened in theseparation among the different periods of Cubism, and the crystal period was intended

to be the link that connected Purism to the artistic experience of Cubism.

This change of route was not casual. Le Corbusier understood that, with the project for LaRoches house, he had the great opportunity to display his Purist paintings together withthe masterpieces of Cubism (La Roches collection included works of Picasso, Braque,Gris, Lipschitz and Lger). Therefore, the whole exhibition path (as the entire house) wasdesigned in order to legitimate Purism and demonstrate his personal thesis.According to Le Corbusier, geometrical research and synthetic clearness was the onlyright direction pursued by Cubism. This was clearly expressed by some works of Picasso,Braque and, particularly, Juan Gris. Purism arose from this idea of geometrical perfectionexemplified by crystals in nature.

The original display of La Roches collection may be seen on the photos taken by FredBoissonnas in 1926.

Starting from the beginning of the display path, a photo2of the hall shows the hanging inthis space, that was the presentation of the general display meaning. Cubist and Puristpaintings are programmatically compared directly. On the left, there is Braques Themusician (1917-1918), on the right wall Lipchitzs crystal work Composition with guitar(1920) and, in front of the visitor, Woman and childof Lger (1922). This last one, placedoff-center, seems to indicate the continuation path to the upper floor. Lger wasconsidered by Le Corbusier as a Purist, therefore this also represents, metaphorically, thefuture path of painting.

To complete this cycle, in another Boissonnass photo3we recognize on the right side wallthe large Purist still life The buffet (1925) of Amde Ozenfant, probably painted onpurpose to be exhibited here. Pursuing the path to the upper floor, the transition spacebefore the gallery presents a significant example of mutual interaction between art andarchitecture: two Lipchitzs sculptures are carefully placed on different planes, in order tobe theatrically exposed to the dramatic crossing light of the two side windows.Boissonnass photos of 1926 show the gallery as it was before the renovation works of1928 that changed significantly this space, carried out in collaboration with CharlottePerriand.


3/18

3

In a picture4we see Lipchitzs bas-relief Still Life with Musical Instruments (1918), over aconcrete shelf made on purpose to sustain it on the curved ramp inner wall. This work isalso clearly recognizable in the drawings of the gallery renovation of 1928.

Braques painting Pedestal table, (1911) leans against the same curved wall. This was oneof La Roches favorite paintings, so we find it in many photos, even in different positions.Ozenfants Still Life of 1921 is placed at the beginning of the ramp, on the background

curved wall, as to indicate the pursuing of the promenadeto the library. In the bottom wallwe distinguish Braques Still Life with jag, published on La Peinture Moderne.

In this picture the gallery is still lightened with a provisory system, made with some simpleincandescent lamps, hanged on electrical cables. Besides, La Roche was worried hereabout the strong light coming from the large south-east window, that could damage hispaintings.

Le Corbusier found a solution for both problems in 1928, when he added the long brise-soleil, that worked also as an electrical indirect light source, projected on the ceiling.In another photo5, next to Braques painting, the place of honour is reserved to PicassosBullfighter (1912). At its right, after an unidentifiable painting, there is probably Braques

Still Life harp and violin(1911/12) and the large canvas The white pot, painted on purposeby Ozenfant in 1925 to be displayed in this gallery.

Comparing Boissonnas photos with the ones taken by other photographs sometime later6,differences and invariants allow us to grasp the catalyzing properties of the spaces.For instance, a picture taken upon Le Corbusiers request for the Almanach darchitecturemoderne7 shows, through a calculated shot, a futurist transparence that joins into adramatic visual relation the close-up Lipchitzs Composition with guitar (1920) with thetransatlantic-shaped canopy of the roof-garden.

Going back to Boissonnass photos the display path continues up the ramp, to themezzanine and the library. Before 1928, those spaces where in a closest relation because

of the absence of the glazing door, added with the renovation works.

In the mezzanine8, over the sofa we had Ozenfants Still Life with glass of red wine.On theshelf we distinguish Picassos collage Pipe, Bottle and dice. The shelves of themezzanine, as we see from the picture, were used as casiers tableaux to store smallpaintings. According to Le Corbusiers opinion, the paintings had to be used as books,taking them out only for their contemplation.

The adjoining library9, hermitage of La Roches studies, seems a further approaching stepbetween Cubism and Purism. Here indeed, we identify Lgers Two women at the toiletand Le Corbusiers Book, pipe and glass.

La Roches path from this meditation space, to his bedroom, in the evening, was long andcomplex. He had to go back downstairs through the ramp, pass the bridge overlooking thehall, then go up the staircase again. Here he found, finally in his bedroom, the eulogy ofPurism.

The famous chambre puriste10indeed, conclusion of the exhibition path, was completelydedicated to Purist painting, as already occurred in La Roches old apartment in rueCostantine11.


4/18

4

Here, in this last episode, purist painting finally finds its celebration as the legitimatesuccessor of Cubism.

In this very simple room, with a monastic rarefied atmosphere, there were three paintings.On the front wall, two Ozenfant: Jug, bottle, guitar in a cellar(1919) and a Still Life(1921-23). On the right, in the place of honor over the bed, there was Jeannerets Still Life withwhite jug on blue bottom (1920). La Roche reserved this place, usually occupied by

religious icons in bourgeois houses, to his lay Purist prophet: Le Corbusier.

The role of paintings in this essential room was fundamental for the architecturecompleteness, defining the space.

Even architectural polychromy played a fundamental role in the space characterization. LeCorbusier mentioned, indeed, how his studies on the use of color in architecture came outfrom his experience as a painter12.

La Roche however, was completely faithful to the aesthetic principles of Purism, andpatiently endured all the buildings faults.

He lived his exceptional house with stoicism and living comfort was often sacrificed tonourish his spirituality.

Six months after moving in his new house there was not yet an efficient lighting in manyspaces. In several photos the only visible lighting source are just some small neon Chalieror few incandescent lamps. The lighting levels in 1920s buildings were much lower thantoday, and we can imagine Raoul La Roche at late evening, walking in the semi-darknesslike a devoted monk, throughout the long path from the library to his bedroom. There werealso many problems of thermal insulation, condensation, and even acoustic problems,requiring the addition, in 1936, of some insulation panels in the gallery. This will lead LaRoche to affirm: my house is like a beautiful lady: capricious and expensive.13Focusing on the concept of Le Corbusiers design for La Roche house, it is evident how

the main generating principle was the promenade architecturale, that coincided with thedisplay path.

The works of art played with the architecture a mutual interaction, qualifying the tensionof the space. Thus, the work of art had, in this architecture, quite a metaphysical role.Le Corbusier stated: The painting will come, at the right moment and at the right place, tobring meditative pleasures. In this house, where centres of gravity, of attraction, affirmthemselves, a painting will be, in these places, as the clear crossing of the perfectaccord..14

The presence of the works of art in many drawing details, led us to consider how somespaces were designed on purpose to hold some works of art. It seems evident, as well,that Le Corbusier and Ozenfant made some paintings on purpose to be displayed in thathouse. Thus, La Roches house and its collection can be considered together as anoutstanding example of modern Gesamtkunstwerk.

For a long time, a remarkable contradiction in the La Roche house has been theinterruption of the promenade architecturale (the bedroom was not accessible to thepublic from 1975 until November 2009) and the absence of the La Roche collection.Recently, this masterpiece of Le Corbusiers domestic architecture was restored in itsphysical body, but without taking into consideration the deep metaphysical relations


5/18

5

established with the works of art, so that today this architecture expresses a silentincompleteness.

Nowadays, to recover these lost relations, besides having restored the promenadearchitecturale it would be necessary to reinstate also the display path of 1926.Unfortunately, the original works of art are today scattered among the BaselKunstmuseum, the Centre Pompidou and other private collections. We are aware,

therefore, of the great difficulty to recover them even just for a temporary exhibition. Sucha challenging task, nevertheless, could allow us to finally grasp La Roche houses lostAura.

In addition to this, a further essential and irreplaceable element, is definitely absent in thehouse: its owner, Raoul La Roche.

Passionate art collector, with his radical Purist lifestyle, La Roche was the perfect dwellerfor Le Corbusiers ideological building.

Alone, in his chapel consecrated to an Huguenot worship of beauty, he lived personally theutopian Saint-Simonian project of a synergic collaboration among the elites of art, finance

and industry. In this manner, he emblematically personified the political and culturalprogram of LEsprit Nouveau.


6/18

6

Illustrations

1) La Roche house, above: The entrance hall. Photo Fred Boissonnas, 1926, FLC L2(12)102; below:Gallery access, Photo Fred Boissonnas, 1926, FLC


7/18

7

2) La Roche house, on the left: view of the roof canopy from the gallery (from Almanach dArchitectureModerne); on the right: Gallery view, with Lipschitzs bas-relief, Photo Fred Boissonnas, 1926, FLCL2(12)144

3) La Roche house, above: Gallery view, Photo Fred Boissonnas, 1926, FLC L2(12)148; below: Galleryview in a messy state after the renovation of 1928, Photo Fred Boissonnas, 1928, FLC L2(12)104


8/18

8

4) La Roche house, above: The mezzanine, Photo Fred Boissonnas, 1926, FLC L2(12)146; below: La

Roches bedroom, Photo Fred Boissonnas, 1926, FLC L2(12)145

1Cf. Letter of La Roche to Le Corbusier, may 24

th- FLC P5(1)209

2FLC L2(12)102

3FLC L2(12)81

4FLC L2(12)144

5FLC L2(12)148


9/18

9

6Among them, some interesting photos, taken by Frank Yerbury probably in 1927, represent a more natural

site state.7Le Corbusier, Almanach darchitecture moderne, collection de l'Esprit Nouveau, Ed. Cres, Paris, 1926

8FLC L2(12)146

9FLC L2(12)109

10FLC L2(12)145

11I hanged your large painting in front of my bed, it is really remarkable and it gives me great delight. Purist

painting is concentrated in my bedroom, and it is a whole quite more perfect than the cubist paintings of theliving room. Letter of La Roche to Le Corbusier (FLC E 2-7 (129), may 1923.)12

Le Corbusier Polychromie architecturale, in Arthur Ruegg, Polychromie architecturale, Birkhauser,Basel, 199813

Quoted by Philip Speiser, in Villa La Rocca(Brochure), Bernard Artal Graphisme, Paris 2009, p.414

Le Corbusier, March 1926, Notes la suite in Cahier d'Artn.3, Editions A. Moranc


10/18


11/18


12/18


13/18


14/18


15/18


16/18


17/18


18/18

From Cubism to Purism - Art and Dwelling in Le Corbusier

Documents

Transcript of From Cubism to Purism - Art and Dwelling in Le Corbusier