Humanities and Arts
Cultural Institutions as Formative Elements in the Work of Behrens, Utzon and Kahn
Mark Horn,
Peter Proudfoot
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the role of human institutions as generators of architectural form, with reference to the writings and works of Peter Behrens, Jorn Utzon, and Louis Kahn. In contrast with the narrow functionalist approach promoted by some of their contemporaries, these architects regarded human institutions as living entities that ought to have a determinative influence on the design of the buildings constructed to house them. The paper considers these architects’ assumptions regarding the concept of ‘institution’ within a broad social and political context and offers some suggestions for a more systematic investigation in that respect.The paper begins with a brief outline of functionalist theory, then turns to the theatre as a primary cultural activity and the prominent place it held in Behrens’s thinking during the opening years of the 20th century. Affinities are explored between Behrens’s concept of the theatre and Utzon’s subsequent treatment of the theatre as a central civic institution in his design for the Sydney Opera House. A parallel is seen in Louis Kahn’s insistence that an architectural project should begin with a vision of the human institution which the project is to serve, a perception of their role that was present in utopian and radical schemes from the 19th century onwards. The concluding sections of the paper raise some questions about the doctrines of Behrens, Utzon, and (especially) Kahn, by considering how institutions are adapted to their socio-political settings and how they affect architectural outcomes in practice.
Key Questions
What is the main focus of the paper on Behrens, Utzon, and Kahn?
The paper explores how human institutions, as living entities, shape architectural form. It examines the works and philosophies of Peter Behrens, Jørn Utzon, and Louis Kahn, who viewed institutions as central to architectural design, contrasting their approach with the narrow functionalism of their contemporaries.
How does the paper define the role of institutions in architecture?
The paper defines institutions as dynamic, culturally significant entities that should influence the design of buildings. It argues that Behrens, Utzon, and Kahn saw institutions as central to creating meaningful and functional architectural spaces, rather than treating buildings as mere containers for activities.
What is the significance of the theatre in Behrens’s architectural thinking?
For Peter Behrens, the theatre was a primary cultural institution that reflected societal values. His designs emphasized the theatre’s role as a civic and cultural hub, influencing later architects like Jørn Utzon, who incorporated similar ideas into the Sydney Opera House.
How does Utzon’s Sydney Opera House reflect his view of institutions?
Jørn Utzon’s design for the Sydney Opera House treats the theatre as a central civic institution. His approach emphasizes the building’s role as a cultural and social landmark, reflecting his belief that architecture should embody the values and functions of the institutions it houses.
What is Louis Kahn’s approach to institutions in architecture?
Louis Kahn believed that architectural projects should begin with a vision of the human institution they serve. He saw institutions as living entities that shape the design process, emphasizing the need for buildings to reflect the social and cultural roles of their inhabitants.
How does the paper critique functionalist architecture?
The paper critiques functionalism for its narrow focus on utility, arguing that it often neglects the cultural and social dimensions of architecture. In contrast, Behrens, Utzon, and Kahn prioritized the role of institutions, creating designs that were both functional and deeply connected to their cultural contexts.
What questions does the paper raise about the architects’ doctrines?
The paper questions how institutions adapt to their socio-political settings and how these adaptations influence architectural outcomes. It also explores whether the architects’ visions of institutions align with practical realities and evolving societal needs.
How does the paper connect 19th-century utopian schemes to modern architecture?
The paper draws parallels between 19th-century utopian and radical architectural schemes and the work of Behrens, Utzon, and Kahn. It highlights how these architects inherited and expanded upon the idea that architecture should reflect and serve the ideals of human institutions.
