The Case of RM Schindler
By Thomas Leerberg
In the late spring of 2001, The Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles held a large exhibition entitled ‘The Architecture of R.M. Schindler’, curated by Elizabeth A. T. Smith and Michael Darling. It was the largest and most extensive exhibition of Schindler’s projects – greatly aided by loans from the Architectural Drawings Collection at University of California, Santa Barbara.
In the pamphlet to the exhibition, Michael Darling writes: “One of the goals of the exhibition is to call attention to Schindler’s restless experimentalism. Scanning the range of his output, one notices that each project differs greatly from the next: evidence of his constant search for architectural solutions to address each commission individually.”(1)
I agree that Schindler was keen on finding new solutions to every new problem, he encountered, especially in the 1920s, with different methods of casting concrete. Every new project in that period demanded a new building technique; the tilt slap castings in the Kings Road House, the slide casting in the Pueblo Ribera Courts, the cantilever concrete beams in the Lovell Beach House and so forth
However, I do not agree that the focus on Schindler should be one of difference. It should rather be one of coherence. Schindler’s projects may seem different from a stylistic point of view, but beneath it all, was a coherent attitude towards architecture. He called this Space Architecture, and it stretched all the way from his article “A Manifesto” in 1912 and Log House from 1917-18 to Erlik House from 1950 and the article “Visual Techniques” from 1952. To see Schindler’s widespread production as eclectic would be to characterize it by its stylistic expression alone – a parameter that had no meaning to Schindler, as he stated: “Modern architecture … is not merely the birth of a new style, or a new version of the old play with sculptural forms, but the subjection of a new medium to serve as a vehicle for human expression.”(2)
Nevertheless, the exhibition presented an impressing collection of original drawings. From these drawings, I made observations regarding Schindler’s use of his Unit System and ‘reference frames in space’ – how he translated his grounding understanding of space and spatial into built rooms:
Martin House in Taos, New Mexico (1915) had a plan grid.
Log House (1916-18) had a spatial grid of 2' (feet) 0'' (inches). It was also used for detailing.
Unidentified project from Oak Park, Illinois (1917) had a symmetric plan and a spatial grid with measurements.
Kings Road House (1921-22) had on the sketch to a perspective, a small drawing of the large fireplace with a recognizable spatial grid.
Pueblo Ribera Court (1923-25) had a 4' spatial grid.
Lowes House (1923) had a 4' grid plan.
Packard House (1924) had a variation between the three 120° parts, the southern part was displaced half a module, the grid provides both dimensional, symmetry and proportioning, which extends to the curved roof 30°.
How House (1925) had on the drawings large numbers like 36000 divided by proportioning numbers like 18, 14, 8, 6 and 3, it had a 6' grid in the façade.
Lovell Beach House (1925-26) had a 4' grid in layers.
Schindler Shelters (1933 and 1939) had 12', 8', 6' and 4' modules.
E. Van Patten House (1934-35) had complex framing plans for the roof with 46 different types of lumber.
Southall House (1938) had a diagonal 45° grid to the lot line, which provided the best direction for the view.
Toole House (1946) had a symmetric main axis and a proportioning axis of 15° to that axis. The grid was not static; the southern part had a rhythm of 6', 6', 2', 8', 8', while the northern part has a rhythm of 14', 8', 8'. The roof frame had a 2' module.
Lechner House (1946-48) had its starting point in the fireplace in the living room with the view.
Therefore, in spite of the diverse ‘stylistic’ expressions – from the clean and elegant white walls of Fitzpatrick House in the Hollywood Hills, to the rough desert masonry in the Toole House in Palm Springs – there were uniting aspects to Schindler’s architecture. One such aspect was the Unit System that framed his design space as well as his buildings. It is remarkable to observe, how the simple 4' space frame that he promoted in the article “Reference Frames in Space” from 1944 could be applied to such a diverse range of sites, climates, materials and budgets.
(1) Darling, Michael (2001), The Architecture of R.M. Schindler (pamphlet to exhibition), Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, n. p.
(2) Schindler, R.M. (1934), “Space Architecture,” in Gebhard, David (1971), Schindler, San Francisco, CA: William Stout Publishers, p. 149-150.
© Thomas Leerberg, 2004
|
|
