Tetsuro Yoshida (1894–1956) and architectural interchange between East and West

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 26 Jun 2011 IP address: 130.235.64.24

‘I have long been dreaming a dream: that I am a drop of dewon the leaf of a nameless plant deep in the valley of some far-off mountain range. The dewdrop rolls down into a littlebrook and mingles with its waters; the brook flows into ariver which in turn discharges into the sea, and the waves ofthe sea in their turn lave the coasts of all the countries of theearth. Thus I picture to myself the cultural interchange of allpeoples, and it has been my wish to take part, even if only asone little drop, in this important work.’(Tetsuro Yoshida, 1955)1

Architectural interchange between East and West2 isno longer a new story. Not only was WesternModernism imported to the East, East Asian sourcesalso provoked fashions in Europe such as Chinoiseriein the mid-eighteenth century and Japonisme in themid- to late nineteenth. Frank Lloyd Wright(1867–1959) is considered to have shown thisinfluence most clearly,3 but in European Modernism,too, the East Asian inspiration, especially theJapanese, was significant. European architectsencountered Japan in various ways, but publicationswere the most common source, and among theseTetsuro Yoshida’s Das japanische Wohnhaus (1935)4 wasespecially influential. Its importance is shown by thefact that it was widely circulated immediately afterpublication and also that it was to a large extentwritten at the request of the leading ModernistsHugo Häring and Ludwig Hilberseimer, whomYoshida met during his travels in Europe.5

Tetsuro Yoshida has not had much exposure in theWest. Richard Neutra’s articles in Die Form of 1931

included several photographs of Yoshida’s ElectricalLaboratory (1930) and Baba Residence (1928),6 butthese seem hardly to have been noticed. ReniTürdinger’s obituary of Yoshida in Werk (1956)7 andUdo Kultermann’s half-page description of him inNew Japanese Architecture (1960) and the Epilogue to thePall Mall Press English version (1969) of Das japanischeWohnhaus provide documentation but fall short ofpicturing him adequately.8 To the student of Japanesemodern architecture, he is remembered, at best, asthe designer of the Tokyo Central Post Office buildingas illustrated in Stewart (1987).9 Japanese researchershave accumulated several studies on him,10 but these

remain unknown in the West because of the languagebarrier. More importantly, most studies deal only inpassing with Yoshida’s role as a bridge between Japanand Europe, and fail to describe the effect of hisappearance in the European context.

This paper sees Yoshida as an intermediary, whointroduced Japanese architecture to the West as wellas Western architecture to Japan. It accords with hislife-long dream to be seen as ‘a drop of dew’ for ‘thecultural interchange of all peoples’. To illuminatethis aspect, I will look at his career; consider thebook Das japanische Wohnhaus and its impact; andthen describe his contacts with European Modernistsduring his year-long travels in the West of 1931–32. Iwill follow up these explorations by consideringwhat it was about his conception of architecture thatenabled him to bring one culture to the other, andvice versa.

The architect Tetsuro Yoshida (1894–1956)Born in Toyama Prefecture of Japan in 1894 (Meiji 27),Yoshida belongs to the same generation as the so-called ‘modern masters’ in Europe, being seven yearsyounger than Le Corbusier and four years older than

history arq . vol 12 . no 1 . 2008 43

historyThe Japanese architect Tetsuro Yoshida was a key mediator of

architectural interchange between East and West through his

travel in the West (1931–32) and Das japanische Wohnhaus (1935).

Tetsuro Yoshida (1894–1956) andarchitectural interchange betweenEast and WestHyon-Sob Kim

1 Tetsuro Yoshida inhis early years atTeishinsho1

http://www.journals.cambridge.org


Alvar Aalto [1]. He was the contemporary of ‘Bunri-ha’ or Japanese Secessionist architects like MamoruYamada (1894–1966), Kikuji Ishimoto (1894–1963) andSutemi Horiguchi (1895–1984), and by the time hewas born Japan had already westernised many partsof its social structure following the Meiji Restorationof 1868. The English architect Josiah Conder(1852–1920), who entered Japan in 1877, had playedan important role in educating Japanese architectsand establishing a Western-style architecturaldepartment in the College of Engineering, which wasmerged into Tokyo Imperial University in 1886. ManyWestern style buildings – mainly in historicalrevivalist and eclectic styles – were built by him, his pupils and by others.11 On the other side of theglobe, however, this was a period when interest inJapan increased dramatically. Philippe Burty usedthe term ‘Japonisme’ in 1872 to mean ‘a study of thehistory, culture, and art of Japan’ in response toJapanese arts pouring into Europe during the 1860s.12

In 1893 the famous Japanese Pavilion Ho-o-den wasbuilt at the World’s Columbian Exposition in

Chicago, stimulating many visitors including theyoung Frank Lloyd Wright.

Consequent to the establishment of thearchitectural education system, Yoshida was taughtarchitecture in a modern way at Tokyo ImperialUniversity between 1916 and 1919. The curriculumcomprised four thematic areas taught by differentprofessors: construction and materials, architecturalplanning, aseismatic structure, and architecturalhistory.13 Among the professors, three were admiredmost – Yasushi Tsukamoto in charge of architecturalplanning, Tadashi Sekino who was expert onJapanese Shinto shrine and Buddhist templearchitecture, and Chuta Ito who coveredarchitectural history across Japan, Asia and the West.Especially, the erudite lectures of Professor Ito(1867–1954), the pioneer of Japanese architecturalhistory, aroused the admiration of students.14 Thebest-recorded part of Yoshida’s university educationis his graduation thesis and design. Entitled ‘FutureHouse Architecture in our Country’, it criticised amaterialistic tendency of the time caused by

arq . vol 12 . no 1 . 2008 history44

Hyon-Sob Kim Tetsuro Yoshida (1894–1956) and architectural interchange between East and West

2 Tetsuro Yoshida, ArtAssociation Building,graduation design,1919

3 Tetsuro Yoshida,Kyoto CentralTelephone OfficeShinkumi Branch,

1922–24. Thisbuilding isreminiscent of FritzSchumacher’s worksin Hamburg, in thesteep roof, eyebrowwindow, elaboratebrick works, etc.

2

3



scientific development, and argued for culturalexpression of life’s ideal value in a reformed house,in which personal and social demands could beharmonised.15 The graduation design ‘BijutsuKyokai’, or Art Association Building [2], reflects thecontemporary Secessionist trend in the parabolicdome on the tower and entrance details,16 but thewhole composition, with its symmetrical facade andplan, alludes to Classical taste. This eclectic gestureproves that he was still bound to nineteenth-centuryhistoricism. However, Yoshida’s work has a power inits austere and rigorous organisation, both in planand in elevation, and the arrangement of windows inthe front facade is compact and well-proportioned,anticipating the character of designs to come.17

A week after graduation in July 1919, the 25-year-old Yoshida started working at the Buildings andRepairs Section in ‘Teishinsho’ or Ministry ofCommunications. Newly established, this ministrysought to pursue rationality and progressiveness inits works like the post, telegram and telephoneservices, and therefore it was appropriate thatTeishinsho-related buildings should be the vehiclesfor ‘Shinkenchiku’ or new architecture.18 In thisliberal atmosphere, Yoshida could produce anumber of Modernist buildings.19 His early worksshow some north-German influence from FritzSchumacher, as in Kyoto Central Telephone OfficeShinkumi Branch (1922–24) [3], and also someScandinavian National Romantic details as in BeppuCity Auditorium (1926–28) [4–5]. However, Yoshidasignalled his entry to the modern architecturalstream with the completion of Tokyo Central PostOffice (1927–31) [6–8]. Located just beside TokyoStation, this white-tiled, five-storey steel-reinforcedconcrete building not only pursued the function offast and efficient delivery of mail but also gave asymbolic image to modern Tokyo. Unlike the earlierdesigns, this building does not have any decoration,although the cornice-like horizontal line below thetop storey still remains. The contrast of the white tilewall and the black-framed large window array in thefacade represents the clarity and simplicity ofmodern architecture. Consequently, Tokyo CentralPost Office became not only Yoshida’s firstmasterpiece but also one of the heroic examples thatheralded Japanese Modernism in architecture.

Yoshida’s career as a progressive Modernist cameinto full bloom with the Osaka Central Post Office of1936–39 [9–10]. Like its Tokyo counterpart, it wasbuilt beside the main station as a steel reinforcedconcrete structure covered with tiles – but grey onesthis time, and with an open layout in plan. Yet itsfloors were rectangular thanks to the better-shapedsite and, in elevation, the expression of structure ismore lucid with minimised visible framework. Inother words, Osaka Central Post Office illustrates amuch more distilled Modernist image than theTokyo office, and Yoshida is considered to haveachieved his own mastery of Modernism with thisbuilding. Nonetheless, this Modernist architecturehas many things in common with the traditionalJapanese house in its principles, notably the clearpost-beam structure that echoes Japanese timber-

framed building and allows a maximum size ofopening in the wall as well as a flexible division offloors. The facade is also devoid of ornament, anexpression of frankness and rationality that Yoshida(1935) emphasised as a quality of the Japanese house.In addition, the overhang on the roof of OsakaCentral Post Office is a unique design elementreminiscent of traditional Japanese eaves. With thisbuilding, ‘Japanese modern architecture gave birth


Tetsuro Yoshida (1894–1956) and architectural interchange between East and West Hyon-Sob Kim

4 Tetsuro Yoshida,front facade of BeppuCity Auditorium,1926–28

5 Elevations of BeppuCity Auditorium. The

overall facades anddetails like roundedarches, corbelledbalcony, tower-likestack anddecorations in doorsallude to National

Romantic motifs inScandinaviancountries, such asthose of StockholmTown Hall (1909–23)by Ragnar Östberg

4

5



to its own unique design beyond just a simpleimitation of the West’ as Yakushiji (1968) argued.20

Following the Osaka Central Post Office, Yoshidadesigned several more Teishin buildings, like theTraining School for Senior Mariners (1943) anddormitories for Lighthouse-Keepers (1943), but theywere relatively small projects. Fewer works wereaccomplished in the early 1940s because of war-timeretrenchment, which was one reason why Yoshidaresigned from Teishinsho in 1944.21 However, twoyears later he obtained a professorship from NihonUniversity and proceeded with independent projectslike the Niigata Branch of Hokuriku Bank (1950–51)[11] and Mimatsu Bookstore (1953). Finally, in 1952,he submitted grand but unsuccessful designs toinvited competitions for the Tokyo MunicipalityGovernment Office and the Ministry of ForeignAffairs Office [12]. When he died of a brain tumour in1956, he left almost one hundred designs, most ofwhich were realised.

Along with Mamoru Yamada, whose ElectricalLaboratory in Tokyo (1929) was included in Hitchcockand Johnson’s The International Style (1932), Yoshida isremembered as one of the leaders of ‘TeishinKenchiku’ or Architecture of Teishinsho. He is seen asthe architect of Teishinsho because his career startedin the ministry, he established the architect’sposition there, and a large percentage of his designswere for the ministry-related public works.Nevertheless, Yoshida’s position is not limited to thatof official architect. Even when employed in

Teishinsho, he undertook private projects includingseveral villas for the Baba family [14–20].22 That is tosay, he must be placed within a broader scope, as aJapanese Modern architect. As a Modernist wholearned from Western architectural development, heapplied up-to-date rational building types onJapanese soil. But at the same time, he attempted tocombine traditional Japanese architecturalprinciples with what he learned from contemporaryEuropean architecture. However, Yoshida’sarchitectural work was just one aspect of his career:he was also a prolific writer.23



6

7 8

6 Tetsuro Yoshida,Tokyo Central PostOffice, 1927–31

7 Bird’s-eye view ofTokyo Central PostOffice with TokyoStation at bottomright. This whitereinforced-concretebuilding became asymbol of themodern Tokyo

8 Tokyo Central PostOffice, ground floor(left) and basement(right) plan. In thebasement, there canbe seen a passagewith railway tracksfor the efficientdelivery of mail,which is connected toTokyo Station

9 Tetsuro Yoshida,Osaka Central PostOffice, 1936–39. The framework ofthis building wasmore clearlyexpressed in thefacade than that ofTokyo Post Office

10 Osaka Central PostOffice, rear view. The wholly glazedstaircase and theoverhangs on theroofs are notable

11 Tetsuro Yoshida,Hokuriku BankNiigata Branch,1950–51. The facade of thisbuilding expressesthe structure(column, beam

and spandrel around windows)even more vividlythan that of OsakaCentral Post Office

12 Tetsuro Yoshida,Ministry of ForeignAffairs Office, invitedcompetition entry,1952. For thisbuilding, eightleading architectswere invited,including MamoruYamada and KenzoTange. HideoGozaka’s entry wonthe competition.However, Gozakaaccepted to a largeextent Yoshida’sideas and advice forthe executed design(Mukai, 1981)



Das japanische Wohnhaus and its impactThe first and primary route by which Yoshidaintroduced Japanese architecture to Westernarchitects was the 1935 book Das japanische Wohnhaus.He also published two other books through the samepublisher Ernst Wasmuth: Japanische Architektur(1952) and Der japanische Garten (1957), and thesebecame his German trilogy [13], introducingJapanese architecture to the West. In reverse, he triedto introduce Western architecture to Japan bywriting or translating books such as Sekai-no-Gendai-Kenchiku (World contemporary architecture, 1930), Hokuo-



9

10

11

12



no-Kenchiku (the translation of Nordische Baukunst byRasmussen, 1940; posthumous publication, 1978)and Sweden-no-Kenchikuka (Swedish architects, 1957).

As soon as it appeared, Das japanische Wohnhaus waswidely read and reviewed and Kultermann latersummarised its impact as bringing about ‘aconsiderable stir in Europe and America’,24 whileManfred Speidel in a recent paper (2005) praised thebook as ‘something like the solution to a thirty yearslong mystery about the Japanese House’.25 Owing toincreasing demand, the revised edition (1954) andthe English version, The Japanese House and Garden(1955), appeared two decades later, and the book wasestablished as a classic on traditional Japanesearchitecture. But it was not the first. By the time of itspublication, several books on Japanese architecturehad already been published in the West, includingChristopher Dresser’s Japan, its Architecture, Art and ArtManufactures (London, 1882), E. S. Morse’s JapaneseHomes and their Surroundings (Boston, 1886), F. Baltzer’sDas japanische Haus (Berlin, 1903), and R. A. Cram’sImpressions of Japanese Architecture and Allied Arts (NewYork, 1905).26 Why, then, was Yoshida’s book sosuccessful? Above all, it was written by a ‘Japanese’architect who had been educated and practised inJapan, and actually built several houses. He digestedover thirty references – most of which, naturally,were Japanese sources27 – and tried to describe theJapanese house as correctly and concisely as possible,from the historic background through to thestructural and technical details. Also, it waspublished when interest in Japanese architecturewas keenest among the European architectsparticipating in the Modern Movement. He claimedin his preface that he was surprised at their stronginterest in the ‘japanischen Wohnungsbau’, or Japanesehouse building, during his travels in Europe betweenSeptember 1931 and June 1932, and that he wasrecommended to write a book on this theme byHäring and Hilberseimer in Berlin. Publication bythe internationally renowned Wasmuth may havedoubled its impact.

However, the book’s content is no less importantthan the circumstantial factors. It is composed ofnine chapters – I Introduction, II Historicaldevelopment, III Plan, room allocation and interiordesign, IV Examples of plan, V Building timbers, VIConstruction and constructional details, VIIVentilation, heating, lighting and water supply anddrainage, VIII Garden, IX Problem of urban planningand housing – and an appendix of standardisationand workmanship. The organisation is very practical,and the whole composition and Yoshida’s literarystyle are clear and concise with high-quality

illustrations [14–15], making it accessible to foreignarchitects and even laymen. Yoshida mentionsvarious advantages of the traditional Japanesehouse: for example, the intimate relationshipbetween architecture and nature, its flexibility,rationality, structural beauty, and standardisation.28

He emphasised particularly, ‘Sauberkeit(übertriebene Reinlichkeit)’ or purity (exaggeratedcleanliness)29 as Japanese aesthetics, whichcorresponds with Bruno Taut’s impression of Japan.30

As well as introducing the Japanese house to theWest, he argued that the merits of the traditionalJapanese house should be synthesised with a modernlife style as the European influence becomes strongerin the contemporary Japanese house. As examples ofthe ‘contemporary’ traditional Japanese house, heincluded over twenty photographs of his owndesigns – Baba Nasu Villa (1927) and Baba UshigomeResidence (1928).31 The implicit message of the bookwas that the values of the traditional Japanese house,such as ‘rationality’ and ‘standardisation’, could alsobe applied to modern architecture. So to speak, heaimed at the modern rational through thetraditional Japanese.

Response to the book was not completelyfavourable. Some of the harshest criticism came,surprisingly, from Bruno Taut (1880–1938), who livedin Japan between 1933 and 1936 and praised Yoshidaas the most excellent architect in Japan.32 His firstobjection was to the excessive descriptions oftechnical details: ‘Can there be any German architectthat is going to build a Japanese house in Berlin onthe basis of the size and detail of the Japanesearchitecture? Even if there is one, this book lacksdescriptions of some important details like theceiling structure or the roof construction method.’33

He also criticised the inclusion of extravagant



14

15

13





16

17

13 Book jackets ofYoshida’s Germantrilogy on Japanesearchitecturepublished by VerlagErnst Wasmuth. Fromleft, Das japanischeWohnhaus (1935),Japanische Architektur(1952) and Derjapanische Garten(1957)

14 First image of Das japanischeWohnhaus (1935) and ‘Introduction’.The image, captioned‘Reception room of a house in Tokyo,1928’, is the interiorof Baba Residence at Ushigome, Tokyoby Yoshida

15 Inside of Dasjapanische Wohnhaus(1935). The top leftimage, captioned‘Open veranda in acountry house, 1927’is that of Baba Villa atNasu by Yoshida; andbottom left is anoutside view of BabaResidence atUshigome

16 Site plan of BabaResidence atUshigome (1, mainentrance; 2, kitchenentrance; 3, frontgarden; 4, maingarden; 5, teahouse;6, tea-garden; 7, backgarden; 8, lightgarden; 9, kitchenyard). Garden designby Tamura

17 Outside view of Baba Residence atUshigome (thereception room part)from the maingarden, no. 4 in thesite plan [16]



illustrations of Katsura and aristocratic villas tobeautify a text mainly concerned with ordinarypeople’s houses. And further criticism followedagainst the idealisation of Japan, and the way itdiffered from the reality he had experienced.34

Despite their validity, Taut’s arguments did notsuppress the book’s popularity, but even added to it.Alvar Aalto is one of the most notable architects tohave been influenced by the book. Juhani Pallasmaa’sinterview with one of Aalto’s assistants revealed thathe referred to it for some details in the Villa Mairea(1937–39) [21] – such as ‘the main entrance, thesliding door next to the main staircase and the glassdoor to the flower room’.35 In addition, Pallasmaasuggested similarities between the shelf of theMairea flower room and Yoshida’s illustration ofvarious ‘tana’, and also between the Mairea gardenwith its hillock and his illustration of ‘tsukiyama’garden.36 I have proposed a further possibility thatthe art display concept in the house came from theJapanese tradition of the ‘tokonoma’ or picturerecess.37 This argument is credible because Aalto’sadoption of this art display custom exactlycorresponds with Yoshida’s explanation of theJapanese tokonoma tradition – displaying only one



18

21

19 20

18 Tetsuro Yoshida, BabaVilla at Nasu, 1927. Themain building locatedon a ridge of amountain and the bathhut below the steepslope are connected bya staircase. This photowas not included in theillustrations of Dasjapanische Wohnhaus.From Shin-Nihon-Jutaku-Zushu (1931)

19 Cover page of Shin-Nihon-Jutaku-Zushu(Illustrations of NewJapanese Houses; 1931)by Yoshida. As a

portfolio of the twoBaba houses, certainlyit was used tointroduce the Japanesehouse to Europeanarchitects. Yoshida hadused his pen name‘Tetsuro Shima’ untilthis publication

20 Inside page of Shin-Nihon-Jutaku-Zushuthat shows the verandaimage of Baba Villa atNasu. This photographwas to be publishedagain by Asplund (1931)[21] and also by Yoshidahimself (1935) [15]

21 Published version of Gunnar Asplund’sinaugural lecture at Stockholm’s Royal Institute ofTechnology inNovember 1931(Byggmästaren:Arkitektupplagan,1931). Asplund used Yoshida’s Baba Nasu Villaveranda image as the openingillustration. Thisphoto symbolisesAsplund’s adoptionof Spenglerian‘infinite space’



or a few pictures and seasonally changing them.Considering the importance of the art displayfunction in the art collector’s house, this conceptuallink is critical in the design. Another architectinfluenced by the book was Egon Eiermann(1904–70), who is usually regarded as ‘the mostimportant German architect in the Miesiandirection’ of the post-war period.38 In his lectures asprofessor at Karlsruhe he mentioned it so often thathis students said he must have slept with the bookunder his pillow.39 Arguably, Eiermann’s own house-cum-atelier (1959–62) [22] in Baden-Baden wasindebted to Yoshida from concept to detail. These arejust two possible examples: many more architectswere impressed by the book.

Yoshida’s travels in EuropeBefore writing Das japanische Wohnhaus, Yoshidainteracted with Western architects by meeting thempersonally. Mention of his stay in Europe and of thespecific Berlin architects in the preface raisesquestions about his travels.40 Why was he there,where did he visit, and whom did he meet? Evenmore crucially, what was the effect of his travel interms of the East-West interchange? Satoru Mukai’sYoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, a compilation ofYoshida’s diaries and letters with annotations, is theessential source. Yet, Mukai’s assessment was carriedout to confirm what was inherited from Europe byJapanese modern architecture, not to ascertain what

Yoshida brought to Europe, and it is unbalancedfrom the viewpoint of this research. Here we areconcerned with the transfers both ways.

Yoshida travelled around Europe and America forexactly one year, departing from Tokyo on 29 July1931 and arriving in Yokohama on 28 July 1932, buthe spent only September 1931 to June 1932 in Europe,as mentioned in Das japanische Wohnhaus. As a kind ofcivil servant, he was sent out to the West by thegovernment, ‘ORDERED TO GO TO FRANCE ANDCANADA (TRAVEL EXPENSES SEVEN THOUSAND YENPAID) TEISHINSHO’.41 His official duty was toinvestigate Western broadcasting facilities. Indeed,he made a report entitled ‘Hamburg-Hosokyoku-Chosa-Hokokusho’ (Report on Investigation intoHamburg Broadcasting Station) on his return.42

However, he seems personally to have been moreinterested in seeing European buildings and inmeeting their architects. For almost a year beforemoving on to the United States he traversed Europeextensively from his base-camp in Berlin, visitingSwitzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany,Italy, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria, Holland,Belgium, England, France, etc. He met manyprominent architects, including Werner Moser,Rudolf Steiger, Max Ernst Haefeli, and SigfriedGiedion (Zurich), Gunnar Asplund and RagnarÖstberg (Stockholm), Alfred Fischer (Karlsruhe),Richard Döcker (Stuttgart), Robert Vorhölzer(Munich), Wilhelm Kreis (Dresden), Josef Frank(Vienna), Ernst Wiesener (Brno).

It remains uncertain whom Yoshida met elsewhere,because there is no diary for those days. Butaccording to the schedule in his notebook, it isprobable that he met Johannes Duiker in Amsterdam,Johannes Brinkman in Rotterdam, Gerrit Rietveld in



22 Alvar Aalto, wintergarden or flowerroom of Villa Mairea,Noormarkku,1937–39. This roomillustrates Japanesecharacteristics most

vividly, forexample, in thesliding door, theJapanese stylewindow lattice andthe paperlampshade

22



Utrecht, Victor Bourgeois in Brussels, and F. R.Yerbury in London. Similarly, he did not leave a diaryof his four and a half months in Berlin, but he notedthe following architects’ addresses: Hans Poelzig,Walter Gropius, Bruno Taut, Franz Hoffmann, HugoHäring, Erich Mendelsohn, Alfons Anker, WassiliLuckhardt, Hans Luckhardt, Hans Scharoun and Miesvan der Rohe. Presumably, there were many morearchitects with whom Yoshida had a relationship inBerlin, as evinced by the case of Hilberseimer. Häringwas the central figure among the Berliners forYoshida to contact, not only because of his position asthe secretary of Der Ring but also because of hisintellectual interest in broad themes including EastAsian aesthetics.43 He had already entertained Yamadatwo years before,44 whose travels became an invitingprecedent for his colleague Yoshida.

In undertaking this trip, Yoshida knew what to see.He had perused many Western magazines in Japan45

and even published the book Sekai-no-Gendai-Kenchiku(World Contemporary Architecture, 1930), which dealswith modern buildings in 13 Western countries.46

Also, he carried for reference his university lecturenotes of Professor Ito. Yoshida’s diaries illustrate hisopinions about buildings and architects that he sawand met. Most of all, he was obsessed with the beautyof Swedish architecture, especially Östberg’sStockholm Town Hall (1909–23) [23], which was thereason for his visiting Stockholm for his firstexcursion (18–24 October 1931) after settling inBerlin. In the diary of 19 October, he described it indetail and praised its high aesthetic value thatovercomes the contemporary functionalist ideology;and he vividly revealed his admiration for itsdesigner Ragnar Östberg (1866–1945): ‘When Ideparted from Japan, I hoped to meet Östberg. Afterseeing the City Hall, however, I didn’t feel likemeeting him because I was overwhelmed by thegreatness of the designer and felt severely my ownshortcomings. But […] I plucked up the courage […] towrite him a letter.’47

It is not clear what sparked his fascination withSwedish architecture, but his connection with thecountry could be traced back to his university

graduation thesis referring to the Swedish feministwriter Ellen Key (1849–1926) in support of hisargument about the house’s meaning.48 Influencedby Key but rejecting the American feminist CharlottePerkins Gilman, he noted that ‘as a container offamily life, the home is the place of rest, of a woman’sresidence and a child’s education on the one hand,and the place of the social round on the other’. Alsoin some of his early works like the above-mentionedBeppu City Auditorium, he showed a clearindebtedness to Swedish National Romanticism. Inthe preface of his posthumous publication Sweden-no-Kenchikuka, he again expressed a deep affection forSwedish architecture, regarding it as his ‘mentalpabulum’ and ‘spiritual home’.49 Another notablecomment was on the Weissenhofsiedlung inStuttgart (1927) [24]. Because it is composed of over ascore of blocks by 16 different architects, it presents agood indication of Yoshida’s architectural leanings.50

He showed little interest in the houses by LeCorbusier, Taut and Poelzig, but he thought that‘Gropius’s was very good as expected’ and Mart Stam’salso pretty good.51 Although Yoshida enjoyed cordialrelations with architects like Häring and Taut, heclearly preferred the more rational direction indesign. With its prefabrication module, Gropius’sblock embraces standardisation, which Yoshidaemphasised as a merit of Japanese architecture in Dasjapanische Wohnhaus, while Stam’s simple andmodular design appealed to him for the samereason. This tendency had already been evident in hisearly distinction from Japanese Secessionistarchitects, and it continued throughout his laterwork. His disregard for Le Corbusier is ratherunexpected, but he fully respected Corbusier’smaster Auguste Perret, whose reinforced concretetectonic demonstrated affinity with Japanese timber-framed structure. The less eye-catching but lastingbeauty of his work exactly corresponds to Yoshida’spersonality. That was perhaps the reason for visitingPerret’s buildings in Paris but not Le Corbusier’s.52

Soon after landing in Europe, Yoshida found thatmany Western architects were eager to know aboutJapanese architecture. In a letter to one assistant



23



architect in Teishinsho on 27 September, he reportedthis and asked to be sent some detail drawings of theJapanese house: ‘I met quite a few Swiss architects andwas guided to their architecture, but all were keenlyinterested in Japan. Because they want the actual sizeof the (Japanese style) sliding window, please makevarious drawings of it with wheels and others, andsend them to me’.53 In Stockholm, too, he was askedabout Japanese architecture, particularly about thesliding window, by Asplund (22 October).54 Accordingto Hideo Yahagi (1975), Yoshida carried with himsome copies of his recently published Shin-Nihon-Jutaku-Zushu (Illustrations of New Japanese Houses, 1931),55

a private compilation of drawings and photographsof the two Baba residences [17–20]. Probably, heshowed or gave copies of this book to thoseexpressing a strong interest in the Japanese house.This presumably raised further questions about theJapanese house among European architects,prompting them to ask him to write his book.

During his stay in Berlin, Yoshida visited theDessau Bauhaus and delivered a short lecture thereabout Japanese architecture (7 November), but it isunlikely that many students attended because it wasunscheduled and took place on a Saturday.56 The firstdirect effect of Yoshida’s contact with Europeanarchitects was manifested by Asplund. About amonth after his visit (19 November), Asplund gave hisinaugural lecture on becoming professor atStockholm’s Royal Institute of Technology. Heemphasised ‘infinite space’, the conception of spacein Oswald Spengler’s Der Untergang des Abendlandes(The Decline of the West, 1918) and concluded with theprediction that European architects would adopt theflexibility of the Japanese house: ‘Maybe we inWestern Europe are coming closer to the Japaneseidea of the house, as a not too fixed, heavy, andpermanent object. Maybe we will adopt what haslong been practised in Japan, changing our housesfrom one season to the next, from one inhabitant tothe next, according to requirements. Remove entirewalls during the summer for increased ventilation,just as the Japanese do.’57 It is uncertain whenAsplund started accepting these Japanese

architectural characteristics so positively, butcertainly his discussion with Yoshida encouragedhim. Interestingly, when this lecture manuscript waspublished in the leading Swedish architecturaljournal Byggmästaren (1931), Asplund inserted as theopening illustration the veranda photograph ofYoshida’s Baba Villa at Nasu, which had beenincluded in Yoshida’s Shin-Nihon-Jutaku-Zushu[20–21] –Yoshida must have given his book to Asplund, andthe same photograph was to be published again inDas japanische Wohnhaus [15]. The inside-out andoutside-in transition that this veranda photosymbolises exactly accords with the spatial conceptthat Asplund emphasised in the lecture, and thesliding door/ window which he was so interested in isa practical tool for the spatial transition and for theflexible structure. Therefore, we can say thatYoshida’s role in Asplund’s lecture was critical.

Yoshida’s meeting with Josef Frank (1885–1967) inVienna was also fruitful. The leading AustrianModernist and disciple of Adolf Loos had carried outinteriors for the Museum for East Asian art inCologne (1912)58 and illustrated a Japaneseatmosphere in his interior furnishings shop ‘Haus &Garten’ (1925).59 He had also shown a favourableattitude towards East Asia in Architektur als Symbol(1931): ‘Japan has freed us from the curse ofmonumentality, the earth embraces us again. Ourhouse is our castle, but it no longer needs to besurrounded by wall and moat. The gifts of East Asiawere dreams come true. The influence began withthe smallest thing but finally led to a revision of theconcepts of humanity, of nature and of art, whichthrough this influence became something else.’60 AsKarin Lindegren has claimed (1996), Frank’s view ofChina and Japan was significant despite hissomewhat romantic attitude, because it disclosed‘his second confession of identity’.61 To Frank, themeeting with Yoshida (9–13 February 1932)62 becameone more catalyst in his attraction to Far Easternculture. When he emigrated to Sweden in 1933, hetook with him ‘an understanding of Asian design’according to Penny Sparke (1996).63

Modern rationality and traditional JapanYoshida’s interaction with the West occurred boththrough travel and publication, but what was hisunderlying motive? There were perhaps two needsthat he had to satisfy. One was to receive and to digestWestern Modernism with its developed science andtechnology, and the other was to preserve the valuesof traditional Japanese architecture. These were theduties naturally assigned to Japanese architects ofthe time – also to all architects outside the West. Thisattitude might be comparable to the Meiji Japanesenotion of ‘Wakon Yosai’, or Japanese spirit plusWestern technology,64 but it was more positive inreflecting the latest social developments than themore passive former generation’s ethos. Considering



24

23 Egon Eiermann’shouse-cum-atelier,Baden-Baden,1959–62

24 Ragnar Östberg,Stockholm Town Hall,1909–23



his career and personality, there seems little doubtthat Yoshida was earnest regarding these matters.Educated in the modernised system, he had soughtShinkenchiku as other Japanese colleagues did, andhe tried not to be out of date in international terms.He passionately studied Western models and appliedthe new architecture to his buildings. The one-yearstay in the West was an invaluable chance for him tokeep up with contemporary trends. At the sametime, he took pride in his country’s architecturalheritage and worked hard to publish the Germantrilogy about Japanese architecture. While most ofhis public buildings are presented as modern, heretained the traditional method of building formany private houses.

He needed a strategy to reconcile the twoseemingly contradictory attitudes, and perhaps theway forward was theoretically to identify themodern rational architectural principle with thetraditional Japanese. This point of view is confirmedmost clearly by the preface of Sekai-no-Gendai-Kenchikupublished one year before his travels abroad. Notsurprisingly, Yoshida showed a favourable attitudetowards modern rational architecture, which hebelieved ‘healthiest, most efficient and mosteconomic’. To him, the decline of individualism andthe rise of social consciousness in architecture afterthe First World War seemed very desirable, and hispraise for the contemporary architectural stream inthe West was coloured by the way he sensedtraditional Japanese architectural principles there.He emphasised the simple and clear expression ofrationalist architecture as ‘the traditional taste’ ofJapan. Therefore, the gradual internationalisation ofthe trend was meaningful to him not only because itwas healthy, efficient and economic, but also becauseit could be supposed to be Japanese in principle. Thebest example showing the parallel between modernrationalism and Japanese tradition is the post andbeam structure, the former made with reinforcedconcrete, the latter with timber. This was the basis ofYoshida’s admiration of Perret, the pioneer of clearconcrete structure in the West. But the morefundamental aspect in common that Yoshida wantedto see was the character of ‘jiyokusei’ or self-restraint.He (1942) defined this quality as ‘the attitude ofharmonising with others by controlling the self’ andargued that it brings together all adjectives thatdescribe Japanese architecture, such as, ‘natural’,‘humble’, ‘simple’, ‘pure’, ‘intermediate’, and‘connotative’. Though he extracted these features ascontrasting with the ‘supposedly’ Westerncharacteristics or the general Eastern conception ofthe West,65 he detected the same quality in theWestern modern architect’s struggle to createrational architecture ‘sacrificing the small self’.66 Atthis point, he saw the possibility of an intersection ofthe modern rational and the traditional Japanese. Itwas this double-faced standpoint that motivated himto play the crucial role in the architecturalinterchange between East and West as well as toparticipate in forming the Japanese modern.

ConclusionIn research on East-West exchange in architecture,Yoshida’s position is important because he fills a voidin history. Although there has been much researchon Japanese contributions to Western architecture,most of it has focused on American architects,especially Wright, while studies concerning Europehave been limited mainly to Art Nouveauarchitecture.67 There is as yet relatively little materialon what East Asia meant for European Modernists inthe 1920s and early 1930s, during the time when theso-called International Style was formed andproclaimed. We can suggest two reasons for this lackof research. First, it was easy for EuropeanModernists to neglect other cultural sourcesincluding the Japanese68 because they pursued an idea of universality that could be appliedanywhere in the world, and valued a machineaesthetic that reflected the latest technology for its own sake. In this context, the story from a FarEastern country might sound like a fairytale.Influenced by Nikolaus Pevsner, Chisaburoh Yamada(1976) judged that ‘the Japanese contribution to thedevelopment of Western architecture prior to WorldWar II was insignificant except in the United States’because modern architecture was born of ‘faith inEuropean civilization’.69 But along with theincreasing criticism against the narrowness ofPevsner’s view, this attitude has lost credibility. From another aspect, Japanese architecture was notnew to European Modernists, for Japanese fashionhad swept European art circles for decades around1900. Coming through the Art Nouveau period, it was easily absorbed by European Modernism.Moreover, Western publications on Japanesearchitecture since the late nineteenth century had always reminded Europeans of the existence of Japan. In the meantime, the influence of Wrighton Europe played an additional role in passing over to European Modernists the East Asian spatialconcept that he had digested, so it was hardlypossible to distinguish Japanese space from themodern one.

For these reasons, discussion about the Japaneserole in European modern architecture between thetwo World Wars has been limited, and it seems thatlittle evidence had been discovered by the time ofYamada’s remark. However, material is accruing toshow that for leading modern architects in Europe,East Asian aesthetics was an important inspiration.Apart from the invisible Japanese sources alreadyadopted by Modernism, we have found that theModernists looked at Japan and other cultures timeand again, inspired by what they found. Architectslike Häring, Asplund and Aalto are prime examples,and behind them all was the hidden effort ofYoshida. Certainly, he was a key mediator ofarchitectural interchange between East and West,which became possible through his travel andpublications. Thereafter, it provided fertile soil tomake possible a more active cross-cultural exchangein architecture. That was his dream.





Notes1. Tetsuro Yoshida, ‘Preface’, The

Japanese House and Garden, 2nd rev.edn., trans. by Marcus G. Sims(London: Architectural Press, 1955),p. 7.

2. This paper uses the opposition of‘East and West’ to highlight culturaldifferences as well as geographicaldistance. Japan has represented theEast (Asia) since late nineteenthcentury, just as Europe has been acultural centre of the West, so inthis research, the relation betweenJapan and Europe extends into thatof ‘East and West’. I have adoptedthe term ‘East Asia’ rather than theEuro-centric ‘Far East’ to indicateChina, Korea and Japan, and havebeen reluctant to use the word‘Orient’ owing to its negativeimplications, as in Edward Said’s‘Orientalism’ (1978). Nevertheless, Ihope this research will suggest onepossibility of a ‘positiveOrientalism’ (Arthur Versluis, 1993)that tries to find value in ‘theOther’ culture.

3. See Frank Lloyd Wright, An OrganicArchitecture (London: LundHumphries, 1939) and The NaturalHouse (New York: Horizon Press,1954), and Kevin Nute, Frank LloydWright and Japan (London:Routledge, 2000).

4. Tetsuro Yoshida, Das japanischeWohnhaus (Berlin: Verlag ErnstWasmuth, 1935).

5. Yoshida, ‘Vorwort’, Das japanischeWohnhaus, p. v.

6. Richard Neutra, ‘GegenwärtigeBauarbeit in Japan’ and ‘JapanischeWohnung, Ableitung,Schwierigkeiten’, Die Form, 6 (1931),22–28 and 92–97.

7. Reni Türdinger, ‘Nachrufe:Architekt Tetsuro Yoshida’, Werk(November 1956).

8. Udo Kultermann, New JapaneseArchitecture (London: ArchitecturalPress, 1960), pp. 25–26, and‘Epilogue’, in The Japanese House andGarden (London: Pall Mall Press,1969), pp. 194–212.

9. David Stewart, The Making of AModern Japanese Architecture (Tokyo:Kodansha, 1987), pp. 13–15.

10.See, for example, Hiroshi Yakushijiand others, Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kenchiku-Sakuhinshu (Tokyo: Tokaidaigaku-Shuppankai, 1968); Kenchikuka-Yoshida-Tetsuro-no-Tegami, ed. bySatoru Mukai and YoshichikaUchida (Tokyo: Kajima-Shuppankai,1969); Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi,ed. by Satoru Mukai (Tokyo:Tsushin-Kenchiku-Kenkyusho,1980); and Satoru Mukai,Kenchikuka-Yoshida-Tetsuro-to-Sono-Shuhen (Tokyo: Somoshobo, 1981).Besides these books, there are manyarticles and papers, especially byHideo Yahagi, Yoshida’s archive

holder and one of his pupils.

11.See Terunobu Fujimori, Nihon-no-Kindaikenchiku (Japanese ModernArchitecture), 2 vols. (Tokyo: IwanamiShoten, 1993), I, and Stewart, pp.13–62.

12.Gabriel P. Weisberg and others,Japonisme: Japanese Influence on FrenchArt 1854–1910 (Cleveland: ClevelandMuseum of Art, 1975), p. xi and 15.

13. Mukai, Kenchikuka-Yoshida-Tetsuro-to-Sono-Shuhen, pp. 57–59.

14.Ibid., p. 57.15. Ibid., p. 64.16.Hiroshi Yakushiji, ‘Kaisetsu –

Sakuhin-to-sono-Hensen’(Interpretation – Works and theirTransition), in Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kenchiku-Sakuhinshu, pp. 8–15 (p. 10).

17. Hideo Yahagi, ‘Yoshida-Tetsuro-no-Sotsugyo-Setke-ni-Tsuite’. (OnTetsuro Yoshida’s GraduationDesign) (paper presented at theconference of ArchitecturalInstitute of Japan, Kanto, August1970), 773–774.

18.Mukai, pp. 70–71.19. For the first proper account of

Yoshida’s works, see Yakushiji’s‘Kaisetsu – Sakuhin-to-sono-Hensen’(1968).

20.Yakushiji, p. 12.21.Mukai, pp. 180–183.22.For the Baba family alone, he

designed five villas at Ushigome(1928), Nasu (1928), Yamanote (1936),Karasuyama (1937) and Atami(1940).

23.He translated four books on Japanby Bruno Taut including Houses andPeople of Japan (1937; co-translationwith Hideo Shinoda, 1949) and SteelEiler Rasmussen’s Nordische Baukunst(1940) into Japanese; wrote severalarticles like ‘Kuzukago’ (Trash can,1950) and ‘Saikin-no-Sekai-no-Kenchiku’ (World ContemporaryArchitecture Nowadays, 1954); andpublished Japanische Architektur(1952), the remarkably changededition of Das japanische Wohnhaus(1954), Der japanische Garten (1957)and Sweden-no-Kenchikuka (1957).

24.Kultermann, p. 26.25.Manfred Speidel, ‘The Presence of

Japanese Architecture in GermanMagazines and Books 1900–1950’(paper presented at Japan-Germanyarchitectural exchangesymposium, Dreams of the Other: AHundred Years of Japanese Architectureand German Town Planning in a MutualView, Kobe, 24–25 September 2005).

26.See a series of papers by HiroshiAdachi and his students in Kobe:‘Information of Japanesearchitecture in the Western Worldsince recent 19th century’,Nihonkenchikukakai-Kinkishibu-Kenkyuhokokushu (2000), 941–944.

27.Among them, two Western

references were included: Baltzer’sDas japanische Haus (Berlin, 1903) andKümmel’s ‘Japanische Baukunst’ inWasmuth Lexikon der Baukunst (Berlin,1929). As for the former, Yoshidafound it in New York Library andmade some notes on it, of whichstructure and view became astarting point of his book. Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 132, andMitsuo Okawa and ShinnosukeTadokoro, ‘Nihon-no-Jutaku-no-Konnichisei’ (Contemporaneity of Dasjapanische Wohnhaus), Nihon-no-Jutaku (Japanese version of Dasjapanische Wohnhaus) (Tokyo: Kajima,2002), pp. 203–214.

28.He categorised these into ninepoints in the introduction. SeeYoshida, Das japanische Wohnhaus, p. 3.

29.Yoshida, Das japanische Wohnhaus, p. 6.

30.Taut praised ‘seijunsei’ (Sauberkeit)as ‘the quality that Japanese artcontributed to humankind butwhich should also be achieved in allworld art’. Yoshida, ‘Kenchiku-Yisho-to-Jiyokusei’ (Architecturaldesign and jiyokusei or self-restraint), Kenchiku-Zasshi, 1129

(1977; originally written 1942),61–64.

31.For the analysis of the book, seeOkawa and Tadokoro.

32.Taut wrote in his diary: ‘Mr. Yoshidais one of the most excellentarchitects – no, we can say that he isthe most excellent architect,’ (15

September 1933); ‘Mr. Yoshida is themost excellent Japanese architectalong with Mr. Ueno. And he is verykind.’ (8 February 1934), etc. Cited inMukai, pp. 170–171. (Author’stranslation from Japanese.)

33.Taut’s diary of 12 September 1935,cited in Mukai, p. 175. (Author’stranslation from Japanese.)

34.Yoshida’s responses to the latter twocriticisms were respectively: ‘Theillustration aimed at the effect ofphotographs. In Germanmagazines, too, only works withwonderful views are selected’; and‘It is not proper to write criticallyabout my own country’s thing’.(Author’s translation.) For thedetailed description, see Taut’sdiary of 29 September 1935, whichwas published in Japanese in Mukai,p. 175.

35.Juhani Pallasmaa, ‘Image andMeaning’, in Villa Mairea 1938–39, ed.by Juhani Pallasmaa (Helsinki: AlvarAalto Foundation, 1998), pp. 70–103

(p. 98).36.Pallasmaa, p. 99.37.Hyon-Sob Kim, The Unknown Wheel:

Japanese Tokonoma Concept in AlvarAalto’s Villa Mairea (Pori: Pori ArtMuseum, 2007).

38.Peter Blundell Jones and EamonnCanniffe, Modern Architecture Through





1931), pp. 146–147. Translation byPeter Blundell Jones.

61.Karin Lindegren, ‘Architektur alsSymbol: Theory and Polemic’, inJosef Frank: Architect and Designer, ed.by Nina Stritzler-Levine (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1996),pp. 96–101 (p. 101).

62.Frank guided Yoshida to severalplaces including WerkbundSiedlung (9 Feb.), which had notbeen completed yet, rang him toinvite him out (11 Feb.), sent himthree issues of Innen Dekoration(12 Feb.), and entertained him athis house for lunch and presentedhim with his own book (whichmust be Architektur als Symbol) (13 Feb.). Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, pp. 104–108.

63.Penny Sparke, ‘Josef Frank and theSwedish Modern Movement inDesign’, in Josef Frank: Architect andDesigner, pp. 118–127.

64.In the nineteenth-centurymodernisation period, the otherEast Asian countries also had thesimilar ethos, ‘Zhongti Xiyong’ inChina (Chinese essence andWestern function) and ‘DongdoSeogi’ in Korea (Eastern spirit andWestern instrument).

65.Yoshida constructed his theory ofJapaneseness in architecture onthe premise that Westerners areinclined more to conquer naturethan to accommodate themselvesto it: ‘According to Westernphilosophy, nature does not haveany value in herself. It is the thingthat man has to conquer to formculture and the thing that shouldbe used.’ Yoshida, ‘Kenchiku-Yisho-to-Jiyokusei’. (Author’stranslation.)

66.Yoshida, Sekai-no-Gendai-Kenchiku,p. 1.

67.As symptomatic in Clay Lancaster’sstudies on Oriental influence onthe West, few studies have focusedon Europe of 1920s–30s. A series ofarticles in Chisaburoh Yamada(ed.) also reflect this situation. SeeClay Lancaster, ‘Oriental Forms inAmerican Architecture 1800–1870’,The Art Bulletin, 29 (1947), 183–193;‘Oriental Contributions to ArtNouveau’, The Art Bulletin, 34 (1952),297–310; ‘Japanese Building in theUnited States before 1900: TheirInfluence upon AmericanDomestic Architecture’, The ArtBulletin, 35 (1953), 217–224; and TheJapanese Influence in America (NewYork: Walton Rawls, 1963). Dialoguein Art: Japan and the West, ed. byChisaburoh F. Yamada (Tokyo:Kodansha, 1976).

68.One simple example can be foundin Giovanni Bernasconi’s Futuristwriting, ‘Messaggiosull’architettura moderna’ (1914):‘[…] we must resolve the problem

Case Studies 1945 to 1990 (Oxford:Architectural Press, 2007), p. 5.

39.Karin Kirsch, Die Neue Wohnung unddas Alte Japan (Stuttgart: DeutscheVerlags-Anstalt, 1996), p. 160.

40.This section basically follows onepart (Chapter 3) of my formerarticle published in Korea inKorean. Hyon-Sob Kim,‘Geonchukga Yoshida Tetsuro-uiHaeoechuljjang-i ganneunGeonchuksa-jeok Uiui’ (TheHistorical Significance of theArchitect Tetsuro Yoshida’s TravelAbroad),Daehangeonchukhakhoenonmunjip:Gyehoekgye (Journal ofArchitectural Institute of Korea:Planning and Design), 225 (2007),199–206.

41.Travel record dated 1 July 1931.Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 5.(Author’s translation.)

42.Later, he published a book entitledHosokaikan-Kenchiku (BroadcastingHall Architecture) (1938) on thebasis of this report. Yakushiji,‘Kaisetsu – Sakuhin-to-sono-Hensen’, p. 10.

43.Peter Blundell Jones, ‘Scharounand Häring and East-WestConnections’ (paper presented atthe 60th Annual Meeting of Societyof Architectural Historians,Pittsburgh, 11–15 April 2007).

44.Häring met Yamada at least fivetimes and guided him to SiedlungSiemensstadt. Kenchikuka-Yamada-Mamoru-no-Tegami, ed. by SatoruMukai (Tokyo: Yamada-Mamoru-Kenchiku-Jimusho, 1982), pp.217–219.

45.According to Yamada, Japanesearchitects of the time lookedthrough Western magazines everymonth, to keep up to date with thelatest developments. Yakushiji, p.9. And this was especially the casefor Yoshida, though it is notknown which magazines he hadread. Mukai, pp. 88–89.

46.This book, which he edited underthe pseudonym of Tetsuro Shima,is a compilation of pamphlets thathad been published every monthsince the year before. It deals withmodern architecture in Germany,France, Holland, Austria,Switzerland, Italy, Czechslovakia,America, Russia, England,Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden inthat order.

47.Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 26.(Author’s translation.)

48.Concerning his graduation thesis,‘Wagakuni-Shorai-no-Jutaku-Kenchiku’ (Future housearchitecture in our country), seeMukai, pp. 63–66 and HideoYahagi, ‘Yoshida-Tetsuro-no-Daigaku-Sotsugyo-Ronbun-ni-tsuite’. (On Tetsuro Yoshida’sGraduation Thesis) (paper

presented at the conference ofArchitectural Institute of Japan,Hokkaido, August 1969), 861–862.

49.Tetsuro Yoshida, Sweden-no-Kenchikuka (Tokyo: Shokokusha,1957), p. 1.

50.Guided by Richard Döcker (5December 1931), the designer oftwo houses and the site architectduring the construction, he wasclearly well informed. Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 64.

51. ‘I didn’t care about Corbusier.Gropius’s was good as expected.Mart Stam’s was quite good, too. Idon’t care about Taut’s andPoelzig’s. Anyway, I was interestedin houses, of which exterior colourwas good as a whole.’ (Diary of 5December; author’s translation.)Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 64.

52.Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, pp.121–122. Yoshida’s view of Perretwas well described in his article‘Kuzukago’. After comparingarchitecture with music, hedescribes: ‘If you seek after thegenuine architecture like this[genuine music] in contemporaryarchitecture, I cannot but raiseAuguste Perret’s architecture as thebest.’ (Author’s translation.)Tetsuro Yoshida, ‘Kuzukago’,Kenchiku-Zasshi (March 1950), 27–31.

53.Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 20.(Author’s translation.)

54.‘I met Asplund at his office for thefirst time. […] We talked about thenew architecture in Germany andSweden. He was interested inJapanese architecture, especiallythe sliding window, and asked mevarious questions about it.’(Author’s translation.) Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 30.

55.Tetsuro Shima (pseudonym ofYoshida), Shin-Nihon-Jutaku-Zushu(Tokyo: Koyosha, 1931).

56.Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 46.57.Erik Gunnar Asplund, ‘Var

Arkitektoniska rumsuppfattning’,Byggmästaren: Arkitektupplagan(1931), 203–210, trans. by SimonUnwin and Christina Johnsson as‘Our architectural conception ofspace’ in Architectural ResearchQuarterly, 4 (2000), 151–160.

58.Though Frank’s role in thisinterior design was rather limited,his play with ‘spare black woodenmoldings’ in some rooms wasclearly reminiscent of thetraditional Japanese interior.Christopher Long, Frank: Life andWork (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 2002), pp. 27–31.

59.After visiting the shop (13

February), Yoshida wrote in hisdiary that ‘it imitates Japan verymuch’. Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kaigai-no-Tabi, p. 108.

60.Josef Frank, ‘Ostasien’, Architekturals Symbol (Vienna: Löcker Verlag,







BiographyHyon-Sob Kim completed his doctoral thesis on Alvar Aalto’s VillaMairea at the School of Architecture,University of Sheffield, in 2005 and is currently researching ‘East Asianinfluence on modern architecture in Europe, 1918–39’ at the sameinstitution on a research grant from the AHRC.

Author’s addressDr. Hyon-Sob KimSchool of ArchitectureUniversity of SheffieldThe Arts TowerWestern BankSheffields10 2tn

uk

[email protected]

of Modern architecture withoutcribbing photographs of China,Persia or Japan’. Cited in ReynerBanham, Theory and Design in theFirst Machine Age (London:Architectural Press, 1960), p. 129.

69.Yamada, ‘Introduction’, in Dialoguein Art: Japan and the West, pp. 9–24

(p. 16).

Illustration creditsarq gratefully acknowledges:Author, 9, 22

Peter Blundell Jones, 24

Byggmästaren: Arkitektupplagan (1931),21

SAAI, Werkarchiv Egon Eiermann, 23

Hiroshi Yakushiji and others, Yoshida-Tetsuro-Kenchiku-Sakuhinshu (Tokyo:Tokaidaigaku-Shuppankai, 1968),1–8, 10–13, 16

Tetsuro Yoshida, Das japanischeWohnhaus (Berlin: Verlag ErnstWasmuth, 1935), 14–15

Tetsuro Yoshida, Shin-Nihon-Jutaku-Zushu(Tokyo: Koyosha, 1931), 17–20

AcknowledgementsMy sincere thanks should be given tothe AHRC, whose grant (AR119293)made this research possible, and toProfessor Peter Blundell Jones, whohas faithfully encouraged myresearches including this project forthe last six years. Mr. Yahagi Hideo,Yoshida archive holder and one of hispupils, opened his house and let mefreely use his materials, and Mr.Katsuhira Kannon provided me withmany documents concerning TeishinKenchiku. I deeply appreciate theirkind support.


Tetsuro Yoshida (1894–1956) and architectural interchange between East and West

Documents

Transcript of Tetsuro Yoshida (1894–1956) and architectural interchange between East and West