Le Corbusier – Lessons in Modernism

Edited by

Giuliana Altea and Antonella Camarda

Le Corbusier

Lessons in Modernism

Scheidegger & Spiess

Edited by

Giuliana Altea and Antonella Camarda

Le Corbusier

Lessons in Modernism

Scheidegger & Spiess

CONTENTS

Cover Étude sur le thème de “La tricoteuse,” c. 1947 Watercolor pastel on paper, 61 x 48 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6346) Page 2 Temporary visa application for Le Corbusier’s second trip to America, October 3, 1945.

FLC 0119. Courtesy Fondation Le Corbusier

8

Giuliana Altea, Antonella Camarda 11

Une petite collection nomade.

Le Corbusier’s “American” Drawings

Edited by Giuliana Altea Antonella Camarda Project management Giuseppina Leone

Foreword

Giuliana Altea 59

“Storm Center of Controversy.”

Copy editor Emanuela Di Lallo

The Reception of Le Corbusier’s Painting

Graphic concept and layout Incipit studio, Milan

in the United States (1932–1965) Antonella Camarda

Translation Sarah Elizabeth Cree Prepress, printing and binding Galli Thierry stampa, Milan © 2020 Verlag Scheidegger & Spiess AG, Zurich © 2020 The authors for their texts © Fondazione Nivola, Orani © FLC / 2020, ProLitteris, Zurich for Le Corbusier’s works © Succession Picasso / 2020, ProLitteris, Zurich for Pablo Picasso’s works © The Willem de Kooning Foundation / 2020, ProLitteris, Zurich for Willem de Kooning’s works © 2020, ProLitteris, Zurich for Fernand Léger’s works Verlag Scheidegger & Spiess Niederdorfstrasse 54 8001 Zurich, Switzerland www.scheidegger-spiess.ch Scheidegger & Spiess is being supported by the Federal Office of Culture with a general subsidy for the years 2016–2020.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the publisher.

ISBN 978-3-85881-848-5 Italian edition: ISBN 978-3-85881-853-9 This book was printed using energy produced through a photovoltaic system for a smaller carbon footprint.

111

Le Corbusier, Nivola, and the “United Nations of America” Richard Ingersoll

125

PLATES

181

Reference Literature

CONTENTS

Cover Étude sur le thème de “La tricoteuse,” c. 1947 Watercolor pastel on paper, 61 x 48 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6346) Page 2 Temporary visa application for Le Corbusier’s second trip to America, October 3, 1945.

FLC 0119. Courtesy Fondation Le Corbusier

8

Giuliana Altea, Antonella Camarda 11

Une petite collection nomade.

Le Corbusier’s “American” Drawings

Edited by Giuliana Altea Antonella Camarda Project management Giuseppina Leone

Foreword

Giuliana Altea 59

“Storm Center of Controversy.”

Copy editor Emanuela Di Lallo

The Reception of Le Corbusier’s Painting

Graphic concept and layout Incipit studio, Milan

in the United States (1932–1965) Antonella Camarda

Translation Sarah Elizabeth Cree Prepress, printing and binding Galli Thierry stampa, Milan © 2020 Verlag Scheidegger & Spiess AG, Zurich © 2020 The authors for their texts © Fondazione Nivola, Orani © FLC / 2020, ProLitteris, Zurich for Le Corbusier’s works © Succession Picasso / 2020, ProLitteris, Zurich for Pablo Picasso’s works © The Willem de Kooning Foundation / 2020, ProLitteris, Zurich for Willem de Kooning’s works © 2020, ProLitteris, Zurich for Fernand Léger’s works Verlag Scheidegger & Spiess Niederdorfstrasse 54 8001 Zurich, Switzerland www.scheidegger-spiess.ch Scheidegger & Spiess is being supported by the Federal Office of Culture with a general subsidy for the years 2016–2020.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the publisher.

ISBN 978-3-85881-848-5 Italian edition: ISBN 978-3-85881-853-9 This book was printed using energy produced through a photovoltaic system for a smaller carbon footprint.

111

Le Corbusier, Nivola, and the “United Nations of America” Richard Ingersoll

125

PLATES

181

Reference Literature

as an architect. Their manifesto, “Après le cubisme,” published in 1918,

seven-day crossing they became fast friends, Le Corbusier converting

was an attack on the disorder of Cubism. They claimed that one could

Claudius-Petit, who was eventually appointed Minister of Reconstruction

obtain a similar sense of layering things in time and space by referring to

in 1948, to his urban vision of the Ville Radieuse and the virtues of his

industry’s recognizable “objets types” and by using the regulating lines of

Modulor proportional system. Claudius-Petit became one of the French

the golden section, known to most architects. Among his comments to

architect’s strongest supporters and his most important patron in France,

Nivola about the Purist method, Le Corbusier remarked that for Cubists

commissioning in 1954 the works for Firminy Vert. One of the great ironies

and others at the time the still life was analogous to the Madonna for

of Le Corbusier’s career is that no one after World War II seems to have

medieval artists, and the dining table with its objects became the paragon

remembered his role as a collaborationist for eighteen months in Marshal

of order/disorder. The idea of setting the table, it turns out, had a strong

Petain’s Vichy Government in 1940–42. His closest colleagues, his cousin

resonance in planning the architecture of the United Nations Headquarters.

Pierre Jeanneret, who signed all of the project drawings in the office, and his

During the period of L’Esprit nouveau, a magazine founded in 1920

furniture designer Charlotte Perriand, were sympathetic to the Resistance

by Le Corbusier, Ozenfant, and the Belgian poet Paul Dermée, the architect

and bitterly abandoned Le Corbusier in 1940. Pierre was later reconciled

5

acquired his pseudonym, based on his mother’s maiden name, which had an amusing assonance with the French word for crow. He would later sign his letters to friends with a monogram of a crow. Throughout the 1920s, he continued to sign his paintings with his own name of Jeanneret, as if

were aware of this dark chapter in the master’s past, which recently has been critically documented by François Chaslin.8 Le Corbusier carefully deleted his participation in Vichy from any official curriculum and quickly

the architect Le Corbusier, about whom he often spoke in the third person,

transformed himself from a supporter of a dictatorial source of patronage

had assumed a fictional status while the real person remained the artist.

allied with the Nazis to a servant of democracy. When confronted with the

This, indeed, was the side of the master’s famously polyhedral personality

issue, Claudius-Petit did not seem particularly upset about the architect’s

that Nivola knew best. During several trips between New York and Paris, Le Corbusier stuffed his suitcase with samples of his artistic methods to show the young Sardinian. These included a few sketches produced on L’Esprit nouveau stationary from the early 1920s, which demonstrated 112

after the war. Neither Claudius-Petit, whom I interviewed in 1987, nor Nivola 86. Le Corbusier, Two Teapots, c. 1927. Pencil and pastel on paper, 27 x 21 cm. Private collection. Courtesy Fondation Le Corbusier

a compositional starting point (fig. 86). Nivola, through his contact with Milanese and Parisian artists, and more recently those of Greenwich Village, was not unaware of contemporary art movements, such as Cubism, Surrealism, and Abstract Impressionism, but he had yet to find his own way as an artist. After his encounter with Le Corbusier, Nivola’s graphic output showed a dramatic change in style, quite visible in the comparison of two family portraits. One, painted shortly before meeting Le Corbusier, was a naïve vision of Nivola’s tiny apartment, with his toddler son, Pietro, perched on a shelf, an easel and a dining table, all crammed together next to the stolid figure of his wife Ruth, dressed in a long Sardinian skirt (fig. 87). The other, painted shortly after the birth of the Nivolas’ daughter Claire, shows a geometric arrangement of planes in which the lines of the bodies of his wife, now nursing her baby, and Pietro, holding a hoop, intersect with those of the surrounding color fields, conforming to a Purist idea of the marriage of contours (fig. 88).6 Le Corbusier had left for New York in the last days of 1945 to join a small group of professionals sent by the French Foreign Ministry to study industrial solutions for postwar reconstruction. He never failed to acknowledge this mission as one “in the name of modern architecture,” although nowhere in the official documents was this insistence on “modern” specifically mentioned.7 The chief representative of the group, Eugène Claudius-Petit, who had been a major figure in the French Resistance, accompanied Le Corbusier on the steamer to New York. During their

87. Costantino Nivola, Ruth and Pietro in the Kitchen, 1946. Oil on canvas, 82 x 73 cm. Museo Nivola, Orani. Long term loan from MAN, Nuoro. Courtesy Fondazione Nivola 88. Costantino Nivola, Ruth with Pietro and Claire, 1948.

Oil on canvas, 97 x 87 cm.

Private collection. Courtesy Fondazione Nivola

involvement with Vichy, commenting: “Le Corbusier was completely irrational toward politics, believing one could be so easily delegated to supervise everything.” Charlotte Perriand put it another way: “He would make a pact with the devil in order to see his projects take form.”9 Nivola often attempted to justify to me Le Corbusier’s flirts with autocracy, his seeking the patronage of both Stalin and Mussolini, as “someone who felt he was like a Renaissance architect, ready to work for a strong-willed patron.”

113

as an architect. Their manifesto, “Après le cubisme,” published in 1918,

seven-day crossing they became fast friends, Le Corbusier converting

was an attack on the disorder of Cubism. They claimed that one could

Claudius-Petit, who was eventually appointed Minister of Reconstruction

obtain a similar sense of layering things in time and space by referring to

in 1948, to his urban vision of the Ville Radieuse and the virtues of his

industry’s recognizable “objets types” and by using the regulating lines of

Modulor proportional system. Claudius-Petit became one of the French

the golden section, known to most architects. Among his comments to

architect’s strongest supporters and his most important patron in France,

Nivola about the Purist method, Le Corbusier remarked that for Cubists

commissioning in 1954 the works for Firminy Vert. One of the great ironies

and others at the time the still life was analogous to the Madonna for

of Le Corbusier’s career is that no one after World War II seems to have

medieval artists, and the dining table with its objects became the paragon

remembered his role as a collaborationist for eighteen months in Marshal

of order/disorder. The idea of setting the table, it turns out, had a strong

Petain’s Vichy Government in 1940–42. His closest colleagues, his cousin

resonance in planning the architecture of the United Nations Headquarters.

Pierre Jeanneret, who signed all of the project drawings in the office, and his

During the period of L’Esprit nouveau, a magazine founded in 1920

furniture designer Charlotte Perriand, were sympathetic to the Resistance

by Le Corbusier, Ozenfant, and the Belgian poet Paul Dermée, the architect

and bitterly abandoned Le Corbusier in 1940. Pierre was later reconciled

5

acquired his pseudonym, based on his mother’s maiden name, which had an amusing assonance with the French word for crow. He would later sign his letters to friends with a monogram of a crow. Throughout the 1920s, he continued to sign his paintings with his own name of Jeanneret, as if

were aware of this dark chapter in the master’s past, which recently has been critically documented by François Chaslin.8 Le Corbusier carefully deleted his participation in Vichy from any official curriculum and quickly

the architect Le Corbusier, about whom he often spoke in the third person,

transformed himself from a supporter of a dictatorial source of patronage

had assumed a fictional status while the real person remained the artist.

allied with the Nazis to a servant of democracy. When confronted with the

This, indeed, was the side of the master’s famously polyhedral personality

issue, Claudius-Petit did not seem particularly upset about the architect’s

that Nivola knew best. During several trips between New York and Paris, Le Corbusier stuffed his suitcase with samples of his artistic methods to show the young Sardinian. These included a few sketches produced on L’Esprit nouveau stationary from the early 1920s, which demonstrated 112

after the war. Neither Claudius-Petit, whom I interviewed in 1987, nor Nivola 86. Le Corbusier, Two Teapots, c. 1927. Pencil and pastel on paper, 27 x 21 cm. Private collection. Courtesy Fondation Le Corbusier

a compositional starting point (fig. 86). Nivola, through his contact with Milanese and Parisian artists, and more recently those of Greenwich Village, was not unaware of contemporary art movements, such as Cubism, Surrealism, and Abstract Impressionism, but he had yet to find his own way as an artist. After his encounter with Le Corbusier, Nivola’s graphic output showed a dramatic change in style, quite visible in the comparison of two family portraits. One, painted shortly before meeting Le Corbusier, was a naïve vision of Nivola’s tiny apartment, with his toddler son, Pietro, perched on a shelf, an easel and a dining table, all crammed together next to the stolid figure of his wife Ruth, dressed in a long Sardinian skirt (fig. 87). The other, painted shortly after the birth of the Nivolas’ daughter Claire, shows a geometric arrangement of planes in which the lines of the bodies of his wife, now nursing her baby, and Pietro, holding a hoop, intersect with those of the surrounding color fields, conforming to a Purist idea of the marriage of contours (fig. 88).6 Le Corbusier had left for New York in the last days of 1945 to join a small group of professionals sent by the French Foreign Ministry to study industrial solutions for postwar reconstruction. He never failed to acknowledge this mission as one “in the name of modern architecture,” although nowhere in the official documents was this insistence on “modern” specifically mentioned.7 The chief representative of the group, Eugène Claudius-Petit, who had been a major figure in the French Resistance, accompanied Le Corbusier on the steamer to New York. During their

87. Costantino Nivola, Ruth and Pietro in the Kitchen, 1946. Oil on canvas, 82 x 73 cm. Museo Nivola, Orani. Long term loan from MAN, Nuoro. Courtesy Fondazione Nivola 88. Costantino Nivola, Ruth with Pietro and Claire, 1948.

Oil on canvas, 97 x 87 cm.

Private collection. Courtesy Fondazione Nivola

involvement with Vichy, commenting: “Le Corbusier was completely irrational toward politics, believing one could be so easily delegated to supervise everything.” Charlotte Perriand put it another way: “He would make a pact with the devil in order to see his projects take form.”9 Nivola often attempted to justify to me Le Corbusier’s flirts with autocracy, his seeking the patronage of both Stalin and Mussolini, as “someone who felt he was like a Renaissance architect, ready to work for a strong-willed patron.”

113

rate volumes, especially the General Assem-

92. Oscar Niemeyer, proposal for the United Nations Headquarters.

Rendering by Hugh Ferris. Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University

bly Hall, leaving a much larger open space.

Le Corbusier responded with a sketch of a nude, like the many he was making in Nivola’s studio, juxtaposing a complete body to a series of body fragments (fig. 93). Eventually the two schemes were synthesized into the final project, 23A—a pure slab, without brise soleils, connected asymmetrically to a prominent volume for the General Assembly (fig. 94). It should be noted that some of Le Corbusier’s best paintings, The Woman at the Window and The Woman with a Rope 93. Le Corbusier, sketch from Carnet de poche ONU (January– June 1947), May 4, p. 59.

Courtesy Fondation Le Corbusier

were produced between February and May, the period of the committee meetings.15 His artistic expressions seemed to compensate his frustration of working with a committee, where he often felt humiliated by the presumption of the younger people working for Harrison (fig. 95).

116

very outset Le Corbusier became the dominant member of a ten-person

The design meetings were often a clash of egos, each member intent

committee and missed very few of the meetings. Le Corbusier and the

on making a permanent mark. And no one was more outspoken than Le

Russian Nikolai Bassov, who were quite compatible, were retained from the

Corbusier. He surprised everyone, however, in a formal speech, on April

Site Selection Committee, and with the British architect Howard Robertson

18, two months before the design was finalized, urging the working group

began the first discussions with Harrison. In the background to assist them

toward unity and anonymity: “To those outside who question us we can

were Louis Skidmore, who would become one of the leading corporate

reply: we are united, we are a team, the World Team of the United Nations,

architects of the age, Ralph Walker, designer of several skyscrapers, and

laying down plans of a world architecture, world, not international, for therein

Hugh Ferris, the great renderer. Harrison’s role in the production of the

we shall respect the human, natural and cosmic laws. Upon reconsider-

Rockefeller Center was an equally important precedent to a project of this

ation of this standard of measurement, modern civilization will establish its

scale. Among the committee members there was never any doubt that the

equilibrium . . . each one of us can give Mr. Harrison the assurance that all

campus would have a high-rise tower. For Le Corbusier, who had never built

will work anonymously.”16 Despite the compromises and his good-natured

anything over seven stories, this was imperative, since much of his urban vision was based on isolated towers. For the others, having their meetings on the 27th floor of the RKO building of Rockefeller Center helped reinforce the notion of building tall in the skyscraper city. One of the major disputes arose over orientation. Le Corbusier placed a tall, narrow slab longitudinally as a means of challenging the Manhattan grid, but this left the broad sides exposed on the east and west. He initially proposed these elevations with facets, forming an elongated hexagon, which he labeled galbe, or entasis.

But he was convinced later of the elegance of a parallelepiped slab. His early project also showed the modulation of brise soleils (sunbreakers) on the west facade. The Swedish architect Sven Markelius proposed to align the tower with 42nd Street, leaving the broad sides on the north and south for better climate performance. But this orientation would have compromised the compositional notion of closure and was eliminated.

The other great design dispute raged between Brazilian architect, Oscar Niemeyer and Le Corbusier (fig. 92). The younger architect, who was a loyal admirer of the master and had worked with him on a project in Rio de Janeiro, proposed to isolate and articulate the functions as sepa-

94. Final design for the United Nations complex, a synthesis of Niemeyer and Le Corbusier. Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University

117

rate volumes, especially the General Assem-

92. Oscar Niemeyer, proposal for the United Nations Headquarters.

Rendering by Hugh Ferris. Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University

bly Hall, leaving a much larger open space.

Le Corbusier responded with a sketch of a nude, like the many he was making in Nivola’s studio, juxtaposing a complete body to a series of body fragments (fig. 93). Eventually the two schemes were synthesized into the final project, 23A—a pure slab, without brise soleils, connected asymmetrically to a prominent volume for the General Assembly (fig. 94). It should be noted that some of Le Corbusier’s best paintings, The Woman at the Window and The Woman with a Rope 93. Le Corbusier, sketch from Carnet de poche ONU (January– June 1947), May 4, p. 59.

Courtesy Fondation Le Corbusier

were produced between February and May, the period of the committee meetings.15 His artistic expressions seemed to compensate his frustration of working with a committee, where he often felt humiliated by the presumption of the younger people working for Harrison (fig. 95).

116

very outset Le Corbusier became the dominant member of a ten-person

The design meetings were often a clash of egos, each member intent

committee and missed very few of the meetings. Le Corbusier and the

on making a permanent mark. And no one was more outspoken than Le

Russian Nikolai Bassov, who were quite compatible, were retained from the

Corbusier. He surprised everyone, however, in a formal speech, on April

Site Selection Committee, and with the British architect Howard Robertson

18, two months before the design was finalized, urging the working group

began the first discussions with Harrison. In the background to assist them

toward unity and anonymity: “To those outside who question us we can

were Louis Skidmore, who would become one of the leading corporate

reply: we are united, we are a team, the World Team of the United Nations,

architects of the age, Ralph Walker, designer of several skyscrapers, and

laying down plans of a world architecture, world, not international, for therein

Hugh Ferris, the great renderer. Harrison’s role in the production of the

we shall respect the human, natural and cosmic laws. Upon reconsider-

Rockefeller Center was an equally important precedent to a project of this

ation of this standard of measurement, modern civilization will establish its

scale. Among the committee members there was never any doubt that the

equilibrium . . . each one of us can give Mr. Harrison the assurance that all

campus would have a high-rise tower. For Le Corbusier, who had never built

will work anonymously.”16 Despite the compromises and his good-natured

anything over seven stories, this was imperative, since much of his urban vision was based on isolated towers. For the others, having their meetings on the 27th floor of the RKO building of Rockefeller Center helped reinforce the notion of building tall in the skyscraper city. One of the major disputes arose over orientation. Le Corbusier placed a tall, narrow slab longitudinally as a means of challenging the Manhattan grid, but this left the broad sides exposed on the east and west. He initially proposed these elevations with facets, forming an elongated hexagon, which he labeled galbe, or entasis.

But he was convinced later of the elegance of a parallelepiped slab. His early project also showed the modulation of brise soleils (sunbreakers) on the west facade. The Swedish architect Sven Markelius proposed to align the tower with 42nd Street, leaving the broad sides on the north and south for better climate performance. But this orientation would have compromised the compositional notion of closure and was eliminated.

The other great design dispute raged between Brazilian architect, Oscar Niemeyer and Le Corbusier (fig. 92). The younger architect, who was a loyal admirer of the master and had worked with him on a project in Rio de Janeiro, proposed to isolate and articulate the functions as sepa-

94. Final design for the United Nations complex, a synthesis of Niemeyer and Le Corbusier. Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University

117

95. Le Corbusier, Figure 1 or Ozon et Georges IV, 1947. Oil on canvas, 114 x 91.5 cm. FLC 260. Courtesy Fondation Le Corbusier

of the UN. The academics may return in force if they find us divided: you alone will not be able to hold against them; you and me together can win the game.” He then proceeded to outline their respective roles, naming Harrison architect in chief and Le Corbusier head of the design office.17 Two months passed with no response to his offer, and Le Corbusier began to suspect that the grand delusion of the League of Nations was returning: in mid-October 1947, he wrote to various friends for advice, including his unanswered letter to Harrison, and expressing his chagrin that what occurred in Geneva twenty years earlier seemed to be repeating itself in New York. Finally, in November, after three months with no response from Harrison, Le Corbusier sent a lengthy, vindictive letter, regularly misspelling Harrison’s name, accusing him of betrayal and usurpation of roles. After threatening to expose the Americans of conspiring to exclude him in a turn of events similar to the League of Nations, he launched a full-scale attack on Harrison’s integrity as a “modern” architect: “You are the author of the 1946 project for Flushing Meadows with cupolas and fountains, etc., I am the author of the project for the East River, the one you finalized by having it made as a model. I demand not that my name be mentioned but that my architecture be correctly produced.”18 A month later Harrison sent a perfunctory letter, with neither a sign of friendship nor a hope of continuing the discussion: “Dear Mr. Corbusier: Your notes have remained unanswered for reasons which you understand perfectly. I am delighted that you feel that you are the one who designed the United Nations Headquarters. It pleases me equally that other members

118

of the Board have that same satisfaction. After all, the combined work was to be symbolic of the unity and selflessness of the United Nations. The decision as to how the building of the Headquarters is to be carried on is in the hands of the United Nations. Whatever they decide I will abide by.”

Le Corbusier subsequently sent copies of his letters to various members of the international community, including the Secretary General Trygve Lie, the French ambassador, the American delegate to the UN, condoning of team-work, he never doubted that the project was his; and

hoping for justice. In January 1948, he mentioned to the French ambassa-

after realizing that his role had been terminated, he will seek recognition.

dor the preparation of a new book to expose the controversy to be called

In July, Le Corbusier left New York, satisfied with the compromises

ONU et l’honnété fondamentale: “the question of copy right is frankly

to his project and confident, thanks to his relationship with Harrison, that

stated to an entity that allegedly defends peace among men.”19 He gained

he would be invited back to supervise the final design. He wrote to Harri-

the sympathy of Walter Gropius, who had earlier criticized the design of

son as a friend, inquiring about whether his insistence on brise soleils was

the project as being too quickly assembled, and his colleague from the

being respected. Harrison responded tactfully in early August: “Due to the

CIAM, Sigfried Giedion. To the latter he wrote that Nivola had sent him a

absence of officials at this time of year, plus the lack of funds, we have not

clipping from The New York Times that made it seem as if the work was

been able to make any progress on having further studies made but as

by Harrison, and he restated his case: “Europe has the ideas; they (the

soon as possible I’ll let you know what can be done regards the study for

Americans) have the means.”20 In his letters to Helena Simkhovitch, one of

brise-soleils.” To which Le Corbusier responded two weeks later: “Dear

the many women artists he befriended while in New York, he constantly

Harrison, faced with such a pressing task that can be truly heavy (and I will

complained of his mistreatment: “I never thought that things and people

do everything I can to help you) you must know that you have in me a friend

could become like this: the men of the gang W-H+Mos.+Rock, etc. have

who has never betrayed you, but at times was very unhappy. Neither you

revealed themselves to be cruel . . . indifferent to everything that does not

nor me are yet ready for what will be the production of the Headquarters

give them American prestige.”21

119

95. Le Corbusier, Figure 1 or Ozon et Georges IV, 1947. Oil on canvas, 114 x 91.5 cm. FLC 260. Courtesy Fondation Le Corbusier

of the UN. The academics may return in force if they find us divided: you alone will not be able to hold against them; you and me together can win the game.” He then proceeded to outline their respective roles, naming Harrison architect in chief and Le Corbusier head of the design office.17 Two months passed with no response to his offer, and Le Corbusier began to suspect that the grand delusion of the League of Nations was returning: in mid-October 1947, he wrote to various friends for advice, including his unanswered letter to Harrison, and expressing his chagrin that what occurred in Geneva twenty years earlier seemed to be repeating itself in New York. Finally, in November, after three months with no response from Harrison, Le Corbusier sent a lengthy, vindictive letter, regularly misspelling Harrison’s name, accusing him of betrayal and usurpation of roles. After threatening to expose the Americans of conspiring to exclude him in a turn of events similar to the League of Nations, he launched a full-scale attack on Harrison’s integrity as a “modern” architect: “You are the author of the 1946 project for Flushing Meadows with cupolas and fountains, etc., I am the author of the project for the East River, the one you finalized by having it made as a model. I demand not that my name be mentioned but that my architecture be correctly produced.”18 A month later Harrison sent a perfunctory letter, with neither a sign of friendship nor a hope of continuing the discussion: “Dear Mr. Corbusier: Your notes have remained unanswered for reasons which you understand perfectly. I am delighted that you feel that you are the one who designed the United Nations Headquarters. It pleases me equally that other members

118

of the Board have that same satisfaction. After all, the combined work was to be symbolic of the unity and selflessness of the United Nations. The decision as to how the building of the Headquarters is to be carried on is in the hands of the United Nations. Whatever they decide I will abide by.”

Le Corbusier subsequently sent copies of his letters to various members of the international community, including the Secretary General Trygve Lie, the French ambassador, the American delegate to the UN, condoning of team-work, he never doubted that the project was his; and

hoping for justice. In January 1948, he mentioned to the French ambassa-

after realizing that his role had been terminated, he will seek recognition.

dor the preparation of a new book to expose the controversy to be called

In July, Le Corbusier left New York, satisfied with the compromises

ONU et l’honnété fondamentale: “the question of copy right is frankly

to his project and confident, thanks to his relationship with Harrison, that

stated to an entity that allegedly defends peace among men.”19 He gained

he would be invited back to supervise the final design. He wrote to Harri-

the sympathy of Walter Gropius, who had earlier criticized the design of

son as a friend, inquiring about whether his insistence on brise soleils was

the project as being too quickly assembled, and his colleague from the

being respected. Harrison responded tactfully in early August: “Due to the

CIAM, Sigfried Giedion. To the latter he wrote that Nivola had sent him a

absence of officials at this time of year, plus the lack of funds, we have not

clipping from The New York Times that made it seem as if the work was

been able to make any progress on having further studies made but as

by Harrison, and he restated his case: “Europe has the ideas; they (the

soon as possible I’ll let you know what can be done regards the study for

Americans) have the means.”20 In his letters to Helena Simkhovitch, one of

brise-soleils.” To which Le Corbusier responded two weeks later: “Dear

the many women artists he befriended while in New York, he constantly

Harrison, faced with such a pressing task that can be truly heavy (and I will

complained of his mistreatment: “I never thought that things and people

do everything I can to help you) you must know that you have in me a friend

could become like this: the men of the gang W-H+Mos.+Rock, etc. have

who has never betrayed you, but at times was very unhappy. Neither you

revealed themselves to be cruel . . . indifferent to everything that does not

nor me are yet ready for what will be the production of the Headquarters

give them American prestige.”21

119

32.

Figures on the Beach, 1940s Ink and watercolor on paper, 31 x 21 cm Private collection

33.

Women at Rest, 1951 Watercolor and pastel on paper, 28 x 35 cm Private collection

163

32.

Figures on the Beach, 1940s Ink and watercolor on paper, 31 x 21 cm Private collection

33.

Women at Rest, 1951 Watercolor and pastel on paper, 28 x 35 cm Private collection

163

34. Étude sur le thème des “Cafetières,” 1927–47 Watercolor pastel on paper, 61 x 48 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6345)

164

34. Étude sur le thème des “Cafetières,” 1927–47 Watercolor pastel on paper, 61 x 48 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6345)

164

35. Étude sur le thème de “La tricoteuse,” c. 1947 Watercolor pastel on paper, 61 x 48 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6346)

166

35. Étude sur le thème de “La tricoteuse,” c. 1947 Watercolor pastel on paper, 61 x 48 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6346)

166

36. Étude sur le thème “Femmes,” 1939–47 Pencil, black ink, and pastel on cardboard, 35 x 20 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6163)

168

37.

Femme allongée, c. 1947 Charcoal and gouache on paper, 48 x 61 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6347)

38.

Reclining Couple, c. 1947 Pastel on paper, 36 x 42 cm Private collection

169

36. Étude sur le thème “Femmes,” 1939–47 Pencil, black ink, and pastel on cardboard, 35 x 20 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6163)

168

37.

Femme allongée, c. 1947 Charcoal and gouache on paper, 48 x 61 cm Fondation Le Corbusier (FLC 6347)

38.

Reclining Couple, c. 1947 Pastel on paper, 36 x 42 cm Private collection

169

39.

Study of a Figure with Seashell, from a 1938 composition Ink graffiti on cardboard, 10 x 13 cm Private collection

170

41.

Two Women on the Beach, from a 1935 composition Ink graffiti on cardboard, 13 x 10 cm Private collection

40.

Standing Woman and Seated Woman, from a 1932 composition Ink graffiti on cardboard, 10 x 13 cm Private collection

Le Corbusier told Nivola that he made these drawings (which are part of a larger group) on advertising cards during the Nazi occupation of Paris, when it was difficult to find materials for painting and drawing. “Since then,” Nivola wrote, “this little collection always traveled with him in his pockets, like a deck of cards, and then in mine, after his death . . .

In New York, during times of solitude in the Grosvenor Hotel or my studio on 8th Street, Corbu looked at the small documents and found the elements he needed for renewing his intimate dialogue with painting and maintaining its continuity uninterrupted. During that period, he used the same ideas to create numerous pastel drawings, watercolors, and oil paintings” (C. Nivola, “Une petite collection nomade,” in Le Corbusier, catalogue of the exhibition at Galleria Il Segno, Rome, 1976).

42.

Composition with a Hand, from a 1943 composition Ink graffiti on cardboard, 13 x 10 cm Private collection

171

39.

Study of a Figure with Seashell, from a 1938 composition Ink graffiti on cardboard, 10 x 13 cm Private collection

170

41.

Two Women on the Beach, from a 1935 composition Ink graffiti on cardboard, 13 x 10 cm Private collection

40.

Standing Woman and Seated Woman, from a 1932 composition Ink graffiti on cardboard, 10 x 13 cm Private collection

Le Corbusier told Nivola that he made these drawings (which are part of a larger group) on advertising cards during the Nazi occupation of Paris, when it was difficult to find materials for painting and drawing. “Since then,” Nivola wrote, “this little collection always traveled with him in his pockets, like a deck of cards, and then in mine, after his death . . .

In New York, during times of solitude in the Grosvenor Hotel or my studio on 8th Street, Corbu looked at the small documents and found the elements he needed for renewing his intimate dialogue with painting and maintaining its continuity uninterrupted. During that period, he used the same ideas to create numerous pastel drawings, watercolors, and oil paintings” (C. Nivola, “Une petite collection nomade,” in Le Corbusier, catalogue of the exhibition at Galleria Il Segno, Rome, 1976).

42.

Composition with a Hand, from a 1943 composition Ink graffiti on cardboard, 13 x 10 cm Private collection

171