- Reichlin’s essay tells the story about the disagreement between Auguste Perret and Le Corbusier with regard to some of these modernists formal treatments, reflecting their contrasting opinions between the “new, extraordinary” generation and the”previous traditions.” Among the “faults” these architects made, the form of the openings on the wall surface was the most serious and far-reaching criticism. Perret criticized LeCorbusier for distorting the length and breadth of the openings, whereas the latter believed that “the traditional vertical window is the product of constructional factors which are now obsolete (brick and stone). In addition to the technique aspect, Perret maintained the vertical window shape because he saw a window as a man himself in terms of “an anthropomorphic analogy.” Since he took this window treatment rooted in culture, Perret believed that LeCorbusier was “destroying the fine French tradition.” Further, their disagreement was centered around the different attitudes toward the “framed view.” Perret obviously thought the “panorama” kind of view fails to let people see “a complete space (un espace complet).By “complete space” he meant that the vertical window “allows the eye to wander downwards to the first and closest spatial planes – street and garden – and horizontally to the middle and further planes – houses opposite, trees, hills in the background – and upwards into the limitless reaches of the sky, it displays a detail of maximum perspective depth.” The horizontal window, however,suppressed the depth, in order to bring the landscape into the room. This disagreement happened to the window motif in modern art, too.
- Bruno also directed our attention to the“panorama” view which played an important role in new photography and avant-garde films in Weimar Germany in terms of new angles, scales, and perspectives.
LIYANG DING 