Modernism + The Vernacular

This class explores the intersections between modern architecture and what is sometimes called “vernacular” building from the early twentieth century to the present. Broadly speaking, “vernacular architecture” refers to “the buildings of and by the people” (Paul Oliver, 2006)—that, is buildings in which architects or design professions were not involved. Other adjectives that have been used to describe buildings erected by non-architects (though often with considerable qualification) are “indigenous,” “spontaneous,” “anonymous,” “informal,” “folk,” “popular,” “rural,” and “primitive.” This interest in vernacular forms also relates directly to concerns for “tradition” and “regionalism,” which modern architects have either embraced or dismissed with seemingly equal fervor.

The working hypothesis of the seminar is that modern architecture, despite its commitment to technology and modernization, was deeply involved with ideas about vernacular buildings, and that the nature and meaning of this fascination with indigenous structures changed in the course of the century. In other words, the vernacular was a constituent part of modern architecture, and modernism more generally. In the early twentieth century, architects such as Le Corbusier and Adolf Loos saw these “non-designed” buildings as models of functionalism and aesthetic simplicity: both traditional residences and industrial buildings represented a kind of “truth value” in contrast to the artifice and eclecticism of nineteenth-century academic architecture. The interest in traditional domestic architecture gained even greater force during the Depression and political crises of the 1930s, when many saw rural and non-Western cultures as an alternative to and critique of European and North American materialism and technological modernization. After World War II, the interest in indigenous buildings became even more widespread among Western architects and the general public, resulting in a series of books and exhibitions, which culminated in the 1960s with the publication of Bernard Rudofsky’s Architecture without Architects (1964) and Paul Oliver’s Shelter and Society (1969). Shortly thereafter, however, an appreciation of what is sometimes called the “commercial vernacular” emerged, especially in the United States, spurred by the publication of Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour’s Learning from Las Vegas(1972). The rise of postmodern architecture in the 1970s and 1980s also brought a new interest in regionalism and tradition, leading many architects to consider other qualities besides functionalism and volumetric simplicity in vernacular buildings, such as ornament and decoration, materials and craft techniques, and urban configurations. In non-western and postcolonial societies, an interest in regionalism and tradition also led to a rediscovery and renewed appreciation of indigenous architecture, though often taking on a different meaning than it did in Europe and North America: it became a symbol of both cultural identity and resistance. In some cases, it also represented a more realistic way to build, one that was less expensive, that employed readily available materials, and that relied on local labor and existing construction practices. The concluding section of the class will be devoted to the work of some contemporary architects working outside of Europe and North America, such as that Amateur Architecture Studio (Wang Shu and Lu Wenyu), Francis Kéré, and Marina Tabassum; these architects often use and adapt vernacular forms, materials, and building techniques while exploring distinctly modern approaches to design and construction.

The objective of this course is to examine these diverse interpretations and uses of the vernacular and to examine critically their role in modern architecture, whether as inspiration, validation, or critique. To what extent are concepts of vernacular architecture the constructions of European and North American modernists? What do their notions of the vernacular include and exclude? How do they intersect with issues of race and class? How is the use of vernacular forms by architects practicing in postcolonial societies similar or different from those used by European or North American architects? Like notions of modern architecture itself, ideas about the role and value of vernacular buildings have changed significantly over the course of the twentieth century, and it will be important in this seminar to explore those changes, and how they are related to different historical and geographical contexts.