In 1<)66 the d irection of architectural discourse was changed by (wo books published just a few months apart: Aldo Ross i's L'ar(hilfllllfr/ dt>f/(/ (ilia and Roben \'~IHLlri 's (,ollJp/fxity alld COII'raoirtioll in A.rrliilfll/1rr. Their simultaneitv marked the climax of a crisis in Mchitccture widely felt among a younger generation of theoreticians and practitioners. \ 'cn wri' s book in particular claimed to be a ITIanifc.;sto (a lbeir a gentle one) for a new beginning. l ronicall~:', thi, rhetoric of renewal was linked (0 a re-examination of architecwr:tl history which - at least on tht:: surface - had been sup pressed by the ;lv<!IH-gardes of the tWL:ntieth cCIHury. Indeed, a largc number of the images reprodu ced in Complexity alld r:ontrodirlioll referenccd the buildings of nunncrisnl and late baroque in England anJ Ital y.' \ 'cIHuri's reconsideration o f the canon of architccrural history. however, was nO( inrcnded to herald a rerum ro the classical language of architecture, as was erroneousl\'. belic\ed h\'. .some larer protagon ists of postmodcrnism. Rather, the point was to illu~rr;.m; the cxistcnce of another tradition of architecture that had nor been acknowledged by the purity and ahistoricism of latc modernism an approach against which t he book was ostcnsibly directed. ("ompiexi/.y and CO/lln/diction rh LIS ma n ifested \ 'cnruri 's u neasc \\'ith the interpretation of modern princ iplc:s in conremporary arehinxwral discourse. But bcneath its iconoclasm, it also represented the inrdlcetual digcst of its author's extensive travels across Europe in the late [9405 and his two-year tenure at the American Academy in Romc between [954 and 1956. Since Vtnwri characte ristically refra ined from sketching or taking nmes o n his uips, the book is in man y ways a somewhat dehlycd collection of imagcs, thoughts and itineraries generated by his European sojourn. By marrying architectural connoisseurship once again to architectural tourism, he resumed the earl it::( tradition of the g rand tour. while by channelling the findings of the trip into a historically rich theory of architt:ct ure relevant to contemporary practice, he established the pJrildoxical nexus that has defineJ his position in more recent architectural history. The 'grand tOur' had traditionally been Cl perennial journey ;lCross France and rtaly des igned ro iniriaw the class ical education of young British aristOcrars.l ' I'he term itself wa~ fi rst lIsed in 1670 by Richard L assels in his l'oyngfoJI/a/y. By the cightcenrh century, the tour had bccome a firm social convcnrion for [he British nobility:, <bs Lllning the character and importance of a rite of rass,-Igc, but by the latc ni ncrccmh century the idea of rhe tour itsc..:!f also toured, with econom ically and cul{Urally aspiring Am L: ri o lll middle classes increasingly see ing in the c itie s of Italy and (;recce a repository for :1 highcr form of cultUral learning. The emergence of a canon of Italian arehircewrc was rhe direct rcsu lt of {hcse ari s(()crat ic gra nd tours; an t:st<lb lished body of blli ld ings and styles soo n supported by European systems of arch it cc rural ~md artistic education. As early as 1663. the French Ac'ldcmie Royale de Pcimure et de Scu lpture established thc Prix dc Rome anJ officially sanctioned the journey to Italy as a m<lndatory parr of an artist's education, J move endorsed three years later when Jean-Baptiste Col ben fOLJnded the Frt;;nch Academy in RaTTle. As far as the LIS was concerned, arch itectura l educat ion in th e nin ctccmh century was heavi ly re liant upon the European academy SY:HC Ill. Before 1865, when the \Ia <;<;ac huscrci In!>titutc of T echnology ( ~IIT) was first to introduct.: ~I COl lr<;e of architecrure
into its curriculum. American archiwt.:tLlfal "iwdents , were forceJ to gain their profcs~ional training abroad. Ir W;)'5 the Ecolt: dCi Beaux-Arts in Paris which set th e standard for American architcctural education well into the twcntieth ccntury. But C\'l:n though the French system accorded a high St~Ull<; [() the iruJy of antiqllir~ in Romc, the l lS lacked an institution which would ha\"c allowed ulcnred art ists and architects to spe nd extended pcriod<.; in the cit~. Thi, changed in IRY7 wht::n architcct Charle~ Follcn .\Id'im founded the American Academy in Rome on the hilsi, of the French model (the American School of Architecture fOllnlkd in lkY4 had heen a precursor, bur was absorbed into rhe ACCldcmy three ycar., later). \ The Academy promi sed J high l.it:grce of '1oci:11 :1110 profes':iional prestige, and th~ imposi ng neo-rcnaiv'iance structurc, huilt in 19'4 hy ~fcKim 's linn \lcl\. im, .\!cad and \\'hite on thL' Janiculum, was evidence of dlC cu lwral se lf-conct.:ption of rhe instiw(ion. \V ith the establishment of the Amcrican Acadcm\' in Romc. the tradition of the grand tour was in<;titmioll<lli'led into American architectural education. For the cmerging ge neration of modern architects ~md lksignt.:rs, the architectural tour remaineu:.In impon<lnt t.:\emclH of j1er. . onal and profess ional education. Le Corbll"iier\ eX((..:n<.;i\路e tr:I\t.:\s :1CWS<; Germany, central and south-easrcrn I': uropc :lIld the r\kditerr~Hlean provided him with an abundance of impres')ions pin>tal (0 hi~ later work. H owcver t [he set.:m ing par:ldoxical oppositioll of the :\\ antgarde to the classical su hjccts of thesL: tour . . ~lITlOuntcd ro a rejection nor only of the established canon, but also of the aCllkmic in stiturion!\ enrrustcd with its di,scmination . This :lpplicd in parricular (0 lhe Prix de Rome and it, inreflutiollal t.:qui\ a\c.;ms, \Vhile in his manifesto 1'f/:5l111r(lIrliitef1I1I'1' I ,c Corbu-;icr acknowledgcd rhe importance of Rome by dcdicJting <.l \\ hole section of his book ro the city, his opinion regarding thc <.:ducuional vallle of:1 Roman rour was much less favourable: 'The lesson of Romc is for wise men, for those v. ha know and C;ln appreci:He, who call resist and <.:an verify. Rome is the damnation of rhe half-edu cated. To 'lend architectural students {() ROOle i~ to cripple thcm for lift.:. The (;r:Jlld Prix de Rome <lnd the \ 'illa .\ l edici arc the: c:Jnccr of Frcnch Architcctllre.' ~ I ,e Cnrbusicr's statcmc.;nr rendered the ACllknn, and (he educat j on~{ll1lodel for which it swot! ineolnpatihle with thc aims of rhe Jvanr-ga rd c. Th~ more the archirceturt.: of modernism heCJIl1C the international standard. the morc the AC;ldemy seclllt.:d IXI ~sc . Thi s ap plied {() the American Acadt.:my a, \\e11. which could on ly claim <l ma rginal position in American architcctllraledllc<ltion after the Sccond \\'mld \Var. Vl:nturi h~l~ rctfO'pt.:cri\ dy commentcd on rh is situation: 'The Academy W<l~ kno\\ n in the archirecrLlral community generally hut it was not fa!-ihionahlc because of thc pure modernist ideology of the time ... l'\'eiehcr Frank Lioyd \\'right nor Le Corbusicr would han: gonc. ' \ 1': \cl1 in rhl.' modcrnist-minded J950S , however, rhe Academy was nO[ as unpopular a. . \ 'c.;n[llri\ statement suggests. Lo ui s KJhn had been there a, an ':\n..: hill:ct in Rc sidence' in the \I,!intcr of ItJ.)u -5 I," and \'clltllri had ro :Ipply three times beforl: finally rccei\'ing a [\\'o-y<..'ar ~cholarship in 19.14. Furthermore, its postwar activities wcre not in the reactionary mould that L,e Corhusier h::ld ascribed to rhc French Acaol:lll\' in the 1<.)20\. The institution eOllnted on the pcr'\on;i1 rL'sponsibility of e~lch fclhl\\ and ha.rdl y pre'\crihed :Iny mandumry ani\ itics. The fellow;, \\ere
4.1