BBC Culture
Connaissez-vous les peintures de Le Corbusier ?
En 1900, il étudie à l'école d'art de La Chaux-de-fond où il produit ses premières toiles. Il côtoie ensuite Amédée Ozenfant qui lui enseigne la peinture à l'huile. Ensemble, ils créent un mouvement : le purisme.
https://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/resource/coy8gny/rBgezq6
Le Corbusier, Guitare verticale (1ère version), 1920
Huile sur toile, 100 x 81cm
© FLC, ADAGP, Paris 2015
Connaissez-vous les peintures de Le Corbusier ?
En 1900, il étudie à l'école d'art de La Chaux-de-fond où il produit ses premières toiles. Il côtoie ensuite Amédée Ozenfant qui lui enseigne la peinture à l'huile. Ensemble, ils créent un mouvement : le purisme.
https://www.centrepompidou.fr/cpv/resource/coy8gny/rBgezq6
Le Corbusier, Guitare verticale (1ère version), 1920
Huile sur toile, 100 x 81cm
© FLC, ADAGP, Paris 2015
Huile sur toile, 100 x 81cm
© FLC, ADAGP, Paris 2015
[Exposition] Architecte et urbaniste, mais aussi peintre et sculpteur, découvrez dès aujourd'hui notre exposition dédiée à Le Corbusier !https://www.centrepompidou.fr/id/coy8gny/rzyodRb/fr
塞勒弗,勒 · 柯布西耶在他的工作室,巴黎,1961 [Anniversaire] Il y a 127 ans naissant l'architecte helvète Le Corbusierà qui nous consacrons une radieuse exposition à partir d'avril 2015.
- - -
Photo : Gisèle Freund, Le Corbusier dans son studio, Paris, 1961
© Georges Meguerditchian - Centre Pompidou, MNAM-CCI (diffusion RMN)
© Estate Gisèle Freund / fonds MCC / IMEC Images
- - -
Photo : Gisèle Freund, Le Corbusier dans son studio, Paris, 1961
© Georges Meguerditchian - Centre Pompidou, MNAM-CCI (diffusion RMN)
© Estate Gisèle Freund / fonds MCC / IMEC Images
Photo : Gisèle Freund, Le Corbusier dans son studio, Paris, 1961
© Georges Meguerditchian - Centre Pompidou, MNAM-CCI (diffusion RMN)
© Estate Gisèle Freund / fonds MCC / IMEC Images
Architecture Review
Celebrating a Poet of 3 Dimensions
‘Le Corbusier’ Exhibition Opens at Museum of Modern Art
Photograph by Richard Pare, 2013 Artists Rights Society, New York/ADAGP, Paris/FLC.
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
Published: June 17, 2013
“Le Corbusier: An Atlas of Modern Landscapes,”
newly installed at the Museum of Modern Art, is really two exhibitions.
It’s on the one hand a sprawling introduction to the life and work of
this Swiss-born giant, on a scale that MoMA, hard though it may be to
believe, has never previously organized. A little pruning might have
helped. Hypnotic videos sometimes get noisy, distractingly so. But as an
omnibus, long overdue, the show is riveting, fun, a landmark.
Multimedia
At the same time it makes an extended and tendentious argument, defying
conventional wisdom and in some cases basic logic, that Le Corbusier,
the Cartesian aesthete, maker of “machines for living in,” celebrant of
automobiles, biplanes and what he called the “White World,” was in fact
an architect “profoundly rooted in nature and landscape,” as the opening
text panel to the exhibition announces.
First things first: the show’s curators, Jean-Louis Cohen and Barry
Bergdoll, have marshaled hundreds of drawings, watercolors, paintings,
models and films, a cornucopia gleaned to a large extent from the Fondation Le Corbusier.
They’ve commissioned large-scale photographs by Richard Pare, which are
fine but don’t add a great deal, and fabricated full-size reproductions
of furnished rooms, which do. There’s nearly everything that could
practically be exhibited here, including the proverbial sink, albeit not
a kitchen sink but one from the architect’s teeny seaside cabin,
abreast the gulf of Monte Carlo, where, in late summer, 1965, when he
was 77, after a swim against doctor’s orders, his dead body washed onto
the beach.
I thought of that beach while gazing at seashells he collected (a few
are in the show), which inspired various paintings and buildings,
including the French mountaintop chapel
at Ronchamp, with its swooping roof that Le Corbusier likened to a
shell, poised atop curved walls of sculptured concrete. “An acoustic
landscape,” he once said about the magical relationship of chapel to
surroundings.
Born Charles-Édouard Jeanneret in a provincial Alpine village in 1887,
Le Corbusier, as he came to call himself, was one of those deeply
insecure, self-heroizing young men, a restless provincial and voracious
consumer of everything new. I love his small plein-air landscapes, in
imitation of Franz Marc, Klimt and other Modernists, that he painted
during his early travels, and also his drawings from Istanbul and
Athens: Hagia Sophia and the Acropolis as ghostly outcroppings on
pedestal-like hills, the Parthenon a phalanx of towering pillars
marching toward the sea. This became his model: pure form raised and set
above a clear landscape. When he came upon an old map of Rome, he
sketched some of that city’s key monuments extracted from the melee of
ancient streets, the city redrawn as if it were a clean slate.
And then he painted a lone white cube above a gray field in 1918 (the
Parthenon redux), his touch as delicate as Morandi’s. Le Corbusier
became a maker of pure, Cubist form, having evolved his voice from the
whitewashed walls and Pentelic marble that he had admired. Everything
had been on the table for him from the beginning, including the garden
city movement, which he would expunge from his biography like other
inconvenient enthusiasms. Now he had a project for life — born, like
him, from a place where the air was very thin — and its ambition can
still take your breath away, notwithstanding the toll it took on the
last century, and this one, too.
To be clear, although he was a whipping boy for Modernism’s failures, Le
Corbusier was neither the first to suggest bulldozing Europe’s clotted
and decaying capitals in the name of hygiene and urban renewal, nor can
he be held any more responsible for the calamitous and sterile housing
projects and office parks erected after his death than Michelangelo can
be blamed for souvenir “David” boxer shorts. But the architectural
historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock, as early as 1929, had reason to fret
about Le Corbusier’s polemical writings and the dire influence of his
“megalomaniacal” (Hitchcock’s word) plan to level part of central Paris.
The buildings Le Corbusier built were one thing, Hitchcock rightly saw;
their refinement, rhythm and serendipity made a three-dimensional poetry
at least equal to anything by Picasso. Stripped of ornament, composed
from a geometry of ramps, cylinders, columns, ribbon windows and
paper-thin walls that act as screens enclosing irregular, immaculate
volumes — or rough-hewed walls that conjure up cliffs or caves — his
signature buildings are profound modern creations. The Villa Savoye, outside Paris, and the Unité d’Habitation, his housing block in Marseille, only masquerade as formulaic.
“You know, it is always life that is right and the architect who is
wrong,” Le Corbusier famously said, acknowledging that ideology mustn’t
trump messy reality. But then he also preached the glory of highways and
superblocks in denuded landscapes, and in retrospect it’s hard to
believe generations of architects, politicians and planners took him to
heart. It’s the usual case of nongeniuses fumbling the moves of a
virtuoso. They did so partly because he made architecture sound not just
utopian and uplifting but also easy; he invented a virtual
paint-by-numbers template to which his own singular and subtle buildings
gave the lie.
Which gets back to the show’s “rooted in nature” argument. Le Corbusier
did think of nature and landscape, in his way. Not just by alluding to
shells or orienting a chapel to its perch in a forest. You can see a
link to nature on the roof of l’Unité, an immense Cubist sculpture,
geology abstracted in concrete, with a raised parapet that brackets a
vista of Marseille so that the building becomes a noble kind of
mini-city between mountains and sea.
An awareness of surroundings, however ruthless, is apparent in his model for a Palace of the Soviets
(1931-32), its high-low mix of forms alluding to the river and the
towers of the Kremlin, next door. The four blocks Le Corbusier
envisioned on the shore of Buenos Aires strive to exploit a watery
approach to the city from the Rio de la Plata.
And from the Villa Savoye to the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts at
Harvard (whose curving ramp summons to mind aerial drawings he did
years earlier of meandering rivers), his buildings forever orchestrate
views and the interplay of indoor and outdoor space.
But this landscape argument only goes so far with someone whose notion
of context also extended to demolishing the Rue de Rivoli, the Opéra,
Les Halles and the Place de la Madeleine and replacing them with a
tabula rasa for giant cruciform towers, a sea of housing blocks and
motorways — not to mention what he had in mind for the waterfront of
Algiers.
The exhibition is a provocation, which is healthy. That said, Le
Corbusier is too contradictory and controlling a genius to conform to
nature or any curator’s thesis.
So he lives on through the clarity and eloquence of his best buildings,
whose ideas resonate, even while progressive city planners have left
his more outrageous proposals behind. The cultish popularity of his
cell-like apartments in Marseille and Berlin, harbingers of
micro-housing that cities now struggle to reinvent, suggests that while
he’s no longer the influence he used to be, he’s an architect for our
time.
He lives on because we still can’t live without him.
沒有留言:
張貼留言