Viewing page 12 of 26

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

is simply housing. It could be a very ingenious, harmonious housing. But, it is not more than housing and cannot pretend to be the queen of the plastic Arts. I vividly remember my arguments with Corbusier. You know that he built for me my house and studio in Paris long before he was known as [[strikethrough]] an [[/strikethrough]] a great architect. My house was ready in 1924 I think if I am not mistaken, it was the third he had ever built I remember around this time or maybe in 25 or 26, we were [[strikethrough]] in the [[?]] [[/strikethrough]] at place St. Augustin in Paris, discussing life always about [[strikethrough]] that [[/strikethrough]] this matter At that time [[strikethrough]] a building [[/strikethrough]] the circle Militaire, which was near-by, was being finished A very poor building and I remember I said to him, "look at this building that's archetecture, very bad architecture, but nevertheless it is architecture. But what you are trying to do is only housing, very good housing, but only housing." Many years later he probably came to the conclusion that I was right. Because he started to introduce sculpture into his building, but sculpture which he was making himself. Being a poor sculptor his next evolution was to [[strikethrough]] make his architecture lent [[/strikethrough]] approach his architecture as a sculptor approaches his sculpture. Ronchamps is a result of this way of thinking Dispite that [[strikethrough]] this [[/strikethrough]] it is a very interesting building for me it is not a sculpture at all. For me this is a wrong [[strikethrough]] way of [[/strikethrough]] to think[[strikethrough]]ing[[/strikethrough]] about sculpture [[strikethrough]] to take it for a sulpture. [[/strikethrough]] in this way because it is ignoring 
The tendency of Corbusier is reflected in some other buildings

Transcription Notes:
circle Militaire = Cercle Nationale des Armees, Paris or the Cercle National des Armées