see attached

INSTRUCTIONS: Answer each question separately and number them according to the question number.

Each answer must be roughly between 200 to 400 words.

1. 1959 was a year that changed everything according - historic events included the launching of Soviet

spacecraft, the approval of the birth control pill, the start of racial desegregation, the sale of the first

IBM computer. In architecture, by 1959 a new generation, called Team X, had come to reject modern

architecture in favor of contemporary architecture - a term that was used to distinguish their work from

CIAM modernism. How did Team X distinguish their work and what was their critique of CIAM in the late

1950s and 60s? Describe using specific building examples.

2. Functionalism is traditionally associated with WWII and mechanization. Debates on functionalism

dated back to the 1920s and continued to the 1970s. The Functionalists were critiqued for denying the

role of aesthetics and for failing to fulfill the real utility of function (ie. buildings that deteriorated after

just 5 years, etc). These debates were characterized by a reconciliation and integration of functionalism

with more humanistic concerns - symbolic representation, organicism, aesthetic expressiveness,

contextual relationships, and social, anthropological, and psychological subject matter. Describe how

neglected topics such as history, popular culture, regional traditions, and the city were reconsidered in

the 1960s.

3. “Everybody, everywhere, seems to express the desire to be “modern.” There is no longer a war

between the old and the new - the old, it seems, has ceased to exist. The present is a moment of crisis,

not any longer because we need modern architecture, but because we have got it.” - J.M. Richards.

What does Richards mean by this remark from the early 1960s? Why was modern architecture suddenly

a problem?

4. Philip Johnson’s crutches articulate aspects of architecture that we lean on to “help us walk upright.”

Explain, in your own words, the following two crutches: “The most important crutch in recent times is

not valid now: the Crutch of History. In the old days, you could always rely on books. You could say

“what do you mean you don't like my tower? There it is in Wren.” Or, “They did that on the Subtreasury

building - what can’t I do it?” History doesn’t bother us very much now. The Crutch of the Pretty

Drawing still is with us today (or the cult of the pretty plan). It’s a wonderful crutch because you can give

yourself the illusion that you are creating architecture while you’re making pretty drawings. Architecture

is too hard. Pretty pictures are easier.”

5. According to Reyner Banham, what is the “New Brutalism”? Why was he critical of all the new “-

isms”? Use evidence from the Banham essay.

6. According to Reyner Banham, “the architect who proposes to run with technology knows that he will

be in fast company, and that, in order to keep up, he may have to emulate the Futurists and discard his

whole cultural load, including the professional garments by which he is recognized as an architect.” One

of his primary examples was Archigram, a group of young architects who returned to the modernist idea

of the “machine for living in,” this time assembled from postwar technologies transferred from the

chemicals, electronics, and aeronautic industries. Archigram’s embrace of modernity - the actual stuff of

the contemporary world, from advertising to the space race, made it difficult to write off their work as

divorced from reality. Explain two of their projects in terms of the postwar technologies and in light of

Banham’s warning.

7. Bernard Rudofsky states the following: "Every society has the architecture it deserves. If we are

sometime less than happy about ours, it is because technology and wealth alone do not necessarily

produce the best results. Architecture Without Architects drives home this point by comparing, if only

by implication, the serenity of architecture in the so-called underdeveloped countries with the

progressive chaos and blight of our urbs and suburbs. The exhibition, the first of its kind, approaches

architecture not with a historian's mind but with a naturalist’s sense of wonder. By offering a global,

albeit incomplete, picture of human shelter it makes us realize the shortcomings of our own

architecture. The wisdom to be derived goes beyond economic and esthetic considerations, for it

touches the far tougher and increasingly troublesome problem of how to live and let live, how to keep

peace with one's neighbors, both in the Parochial and universal sense." Using examples from both the

first-world and third-world, explain Rudofsky’s polemical position and its impact on the world of

European and American architecture in the 1960s.