[Urbanstudy] Le Corbusier's 50th death anniversary: Behold the fascist who gave us a cold, joyless Chandigarh

[Himanshu Burte]

Prem, I am glad to be in this discussion too!

I think it is wrong to suggest that I dont take the piece (or the issue)
seriously. I do, and for me this means seeing it in its appropriate
context: a short 'story' on a relatively specialist field filed by a
generalist and journalist. We must extend him the courtesy we require for
Corb and others. Sure, his reliance on second hand quotes (Brolin does not
qualify as that, though - that would be good research and leg work) is
problematic. But given that he aims mainly to raise a question, I do think
this piece is not as objectionable (or intellectually lazy), in the context
of the general media treatment of architecture in India (even specialist
magazines) as you believe. But I am happy to accept that each of us will
apply a different context frame to it, and hence have differing evaluations
of it.

Maybe we should have more such debates privately too :-)

Warmly

Himanshu

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Prem Chandavarkar <prem.cnt at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Himanshu,
> This is interesting, and I enjoy the fact that we are together in
> discussions after a long time.
>
> I make no argument that Corb’s legacy is sacred and beyond any
> questioning.  I just argue that such questioning should measure up to
> certain standards.
>
> You seem to agree that Suroor does not make a definitive argument that
> Corb’s architecture and urban design is completely aligned with his
> leanings towards fascism (and these leanings are not a recent discovery).
> I cannot speak on what Anubha feels, but I agree with you there.  It is
> just that we seem to draw different conclusions from this fact.  Let me
> stress two aspects:
>
>    1. I am not arguing that there are no connections to be drawn between
>    political or other ideologies and a specific work of architecture or urban
>    design.  I am arguing that rigorous criticism must start with the autonomy
>    of the work.  So I find that there is little analysis in Suroor’s piece on
>    the design of Chandigarh, apart from some brief quotations from others.
>    There is nothing new said, and he jumps too quickly to Corb’s political
>    beliefs, and the facile way he makes this jump on the basis of second-hand
>    observations is troubling.
>    2. I feel he should either make a substantive case on the connection
>    between Corb’s fascist beliefs and his work, or he should not speak at
>    all.  This superficial speculation is a dangerous thing, and fails to take
>    the complexities and nuances of history into account.
>
>
> So without disagreeing substantively with Suroor’s statements, it is
> basically his intellectual laziness that I have a problem with.  You agree
> that intellectual laziness is objectionable, and the only objection I can
> come up with is a refusal to treat his piece with either respect or serious
> consideration.
>
> Warm regards,
> Prem
>
>
>
> On 03-Sep-2016, at 5:59 PM, Himanshu Burte <hburte at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Prem
>
>
> When I asked Anubha briefly for a clarification I did not expect to get
> into a longer debate, but thanks for coming in. Also apologies for a
> longish response that the threads you have opened up demand.
>
>
> As I understand it, the core issue in my exchange with Anubha is: Does
> Suroor claim to make a definitive argument that Corb's architecture is
> completely aligned with his now discovered (and perhaps transient)
> fascination with fascism or does he only call for a closer look at it? You
> and Anubha seem to think the former while I see it as the latter. In that
> sense we can agree to disagree, though I will give reasons for my
> interpretation.
>
>
> They are multiple. Suroor introduces his objective thus: 'In the light of
> these revelations, it would be interesting to take a fresh look and ask:
> how much of his allegedly Nazi-inspired approach which led to ghettoisation
> of many parts of Europe--notably in France and Germany-- rubbed off on
> Chandigarh?'. He goes on to do just that and comes up with his own
> answers. I read this part of his argument (the answer to the question he
> poses) as only establishing that asking this question may be fruitful – we
> may well find that fascist beliefs are reflected in the realised
> architecture (or, others might say, we may not, or we may have other things
> to say about such an analytical enterprise). That is all that his analysis
> achieves, and I think that is all it can realistically be expected to do in
> a short piece like this. For me, we don’t have to agree with Suroor’s
> ‘answer’ to be able to agree that he is reasonably successful in arguing
> that the question is worth asking (could he have done it better: sure, but
> that would be equally true of many other such attempts). Finally, he ends
> again with the question about whether we are open to reassessing
> Corbusier's legacy, which is again a call to exploration, and a very
> reasonable one at that. Nowhere does he claim that the matter is settled.
>
>
> Let me turn to the intrinsic merit of Suroor’s argument about Chandigarh’s
> architecture being fascist. For me this is less interesting. After all,
> isn’t this a rerun of similar arguments like those of Brolin’s he cites
> (and even others we have all read some using the word ‘fascist’ decades
> before the recent revelations)? I don’t find anything startlingly new, or
> objectionable in his conclusion that, yes, the architecture is
> manipulative, cold, impersonal etc (which may be one of the weaknesses of
> his piece if it was addressed to specialist readers, which it probably is
> not). Does that mean the architecture becomes ‘fascist’? Does that mean
> that Corb has been completely delegitimised? Of course not, not so fast!
>
>
> I have believed for long that theory and practice do not align neatly, so
> I can easily agree with you on some points you make. Agreed also that one
> must see every artist (or practitioner of any kind) in his historical
> context. And yes, the ‘substance’ of a practice (in this case, designs and
> buildings) must be our starting point for analysing the value of a
> practitioner, and we must guard against taking the short cut of equating
> espoused ideals and values (of the person) with what I call ‘craft values’
> that are evident in the built work in the case of the architect. However,
> this is an incomplete position, and potentially dangerous in its
> incompleteness. The objection to bringing the person and his or her
> politics into the analysis of the work can be overstated and may end up
> preventing a socially grounded critique of a practice from emerging.
>
>
> I am sure you don’t intend to suggest insulating a person’s work from
> being related to his personal, professional and political practice and
> beliefs meaningfully, provided it is done not as a short cut, but through a
> serious consideration of its substance. I trust that your objection is only
> to intellectual laziness and I can agree with you there.
>
>
> Finally, let me say that even if Suroor’s arguments (or similar ones of
> others critical of Corb) were not convincing, even predictable questions of
> the kind he raises are important to raise with new data. Figures like Corb
> are already secure in history and have cast a long shadow extending into
> the present. They don’t need handling with kid gloves - quite the contrary.
> Assuming that we have drawn what benefits there are to be drawn from their
> example and ideas, they must certainly be reassessed critically, and
> enthusiastically, in the light of new data, and yes in the light of
> contemporary perspectives too. After all, they are dead and gone, but their
> example and ideas shape contemporary life in multiple ways.
>
>
> Best
>
> Himanshu
>
>
>
>


-- 
Himanshu Burte

Assistant Professor
Centre for Urban Policy and Governance (CUPG)
School of Habitat Studies
Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS)
Naoroji Campus, Off V. N. Purav Marg
Deonar, MumbaI 400 088
INDIA

Tel (O): (91) 22 2552 5375

*Website of the Centre for Urban Policy and Governance (CUPG): *
http://urk.tiss.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup_mail.sarai.net/attachments/20160903/ef90b9fd/attachment.html>