2002-11-12 23:34
At Garches the ground is conceived of as a vertical surface traversed by a horizontal range of windows (Fig. 11); at the Bauhaus it is given the appearance of a solid wall extensively punctured by glazing. At Garches it offers an explicit indication of the frame which carries the cantilevers above; at the Bauhaus it shows somewhat stubby piers which one does not automatically connect with the idea of a skeleton structure. In this workshop wing of tile Bauhaus one might say that Gropius is absorbed with the idea of establishing a plinth upon which to dispose an arrangement of horizontal planes (Fig. 12), and that his principal concern appears to be the wish that two of these planes should be seen through a veil of glass (Fig. 8). But glass would hardly seem to have held such fascination for Le Corbusier; and although one can obviously see through his windows, it is not precisely here that the transparency of his building is to be found. At Garches the recessed surface of the ground floor is redefined on the roof by the two freestanding walls which terminate the terrace; and the same statement of depth is taken up in the side elevations by the glazed doors which act as conclusions to the fenestration. In these ways Le Corbusier proposes the idea that immediately behind his glazing there lies a narrow slot of space traveling parallel to it; and of course, in consequence of this, he implies a further idea-that bounding this slot of space, and behind it, there lies a plane of which the ground floor, the freestanding walls, and the inner reveals of the doors all form a part; and although this plane may be dismissed as very obviously a conceptual convenience rather than a physical fact, its obtrusive presence is undeniable. Recognizing the physical plane of glass and concrete and this imaginary (though scarcely less real) plane that lies behind it, we become aware that here a transparency is effected not through the agency of a window but rather through our being made conscious of primary concepts which "inte~0enetrate without optical destruction of each other". These two planes are not all; a third and equally distinct parallel surface is both introduced and implied. It defines the rear wall of the terrace and the penthouse, and is further reiterated by other parallel dimensions: the parapets of the garden stairs, the terrace, and the second-floor balcony (Fig. 10). Each of these planes is incomplete in itself or perhaps even fragmentary; yet it is with these parallel planes as points of reference that the facade is organized, and the implication of all is of a vertical, layerlike stratification of the interior space of the building, a succession of laterally extended spaces traveling one behind the other. This system of spatial stratification brings Le Corbusier's facade into the closest relationship with the Leger we have already examined. In Three Faces Leger conceives of his canvas as a field modeled in low relief. Of his three major panels (which overlap, dovetail, and alternatively comprise and exclude each other), two are closely implicated in an almost equivalent depth relationship, while the third constitutes a coulisse disclosing a location which both advances and recedes. At Garches, Le Corbusier replaces Leger's concern for the picture plane with a most highly developed regard for the frontal viewpoint (the preferred views include only the slightest deviations from parallel perspective); Leger's canvas becomes Le Corbusier's second plane; other planes are either imposed upon, or subtracted from, this basic datum. Deep space is contrived in similar coulisse fashion with the facade cut open and depth inserted in the ensuing slot (Fig. 11).