I. M. Pei’s Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai, 1946. Modernism, regionalism and the search for an architectural representation of national identity

I. M. PEI’S MUSEUM FOR CHINESE ART, SHANGHAI, 1946 Modernism, regionalism and the search for an architectural representation of national identity Leah Hsiao University of York, York, United Kingdom Abstract My paper looks into the Chinese American architect I. M. Pei’s first museum project, the Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai, conceived as his answer to an architectural representation of national identity in 1946. Although Pei’s project is envisaged for China, I consider it to be a key example that intervenes in the debate between modernism and regionalism in America in the 1940s. In February 1948, the Progressive Architecture published in its latest issue Pei’s graduation project at Harvard Graduate School of Design, finished under the supervision of Walter Gropius. Though unrealised, the design is highly acknowledged in the P/A as a monumental piece of modern museum. The scheme suggests an extremely modernist statement, combined with the theme of a traditional Chinese garden. While the P/A article well presents its modernist vocabulary through architectural plans and close-up photos of the model, the project’s equal consideration of representing local characteristics has not been fully recognised. My paper argues how Pei’s design introduces an architectural representation of national identity through the means of architectural regionalism, apart from its testimony to the canon of modern architecture. In my paper, I will briefly delve into the context of architectural debates between modernism and regionalism in America in the 1940s, and then identify the project’s representation of local elements as a reflection of regional characteristics. Evidence is seen from the fact that Pei intends his museum for a very specific location, the unfinished urban plan of the Civic Centre in the Jiangwan District of Shanghai in 1933, along with the project’s emphasis on characteristic language of the Chinese garden. Placing itself in a Chinese context, Pei’s design offers a distant but alternative view towards understanding the conception of architectural modernism and modernity for American audience. Keywords: Modernism, modern architecture, regionalism, nationalism In February 1948, the American magazine Progressive Architecture presented a museum designed by the Chinese-American architect, I. M. Pei (Figure 1). Titled “Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai,” this was Pei’s graduate work at Harvard Graduate School of Design, finished under the supervision of Walter Gropius two years before. It envisages a Chinese art museum to be located in China, through Regionalism, Nationalism & Modern Architecture Conference Proceedings. Porto, October 25-27, 2018 115 a typically modern structure that is integrated with a theme of the traditional Chinese garden. Figure 1. “Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai, China,” Progressive Architecture, 28 February (1948), 50–1. The editor’s acknowledgment of the modernist credentials of the design is seen from the use of a large-sized word MUSEUM in the title to emphasise the function of building. This is immediately followed by an enthusiastic opening remark, which says, This remarkable graduate-school project strikes us as an excellent synthesis of progressive design in addition to providing a much-needed architectural statement of a proper character for a museum today. (Progressive Architecture, 1948, p. 50) Leah Hisao, I. M. Pei’s Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai, 1946. Modernism, regionalism and the search for an architectural representation of national identity 116 This article introduces Pei’s design through images of the architectural model and the plan, along with some descriptions provided by Pei. It also provides a review by Gropius (1948: 52), which explains how Pei, through the themes of ‘the bare Chinese wall’ and the ‘small individual garden patio’, the ‘two eternal features’ of Chinese architecture, achieved ‘a modern architectural expression on a monumental level.’ Overall, a look at the form and structure of the design immediately reveal its modernist credentials. But meanwhile, I consider it also conveys a strong reference to Chinese culture and a specific concept of national identity that thus challenges the universal standards of modern architecture, and in particular, the so-called International Style. Especially in the context of 1940s America, this Museum for Chinese Art has interestingly combined a testimony to the canon of modern architecture with a representation of national identity through an emphasis on architectural regionalism. I. M. Pei, Museum for Chinese Art, 1946 The presentation of Pei’s project in the article offers the starting point to read the building. The first image is a photo of the architectural model, covering almost half the first page. It presents a distinctive look of the very modernist characters in Pei’s design, with elements that remind viewers of Le Corbusier’s Five Points on Architecture (Le Corbusier, 1926). The entrance is covered by a modern portico and it connects to a modernist slope leading to the open interior of the courtyard. Two more photos present the overall look of the model.1 One is next to the caption; the other is on the top of the next page. It is visible that Pei has envisaged a flat-roofed cubic structure, with many openings asymmetrically arranged to reveal the internal garden as a main feature of the building. There is a short description that tells (1948: 51) how the museum, ‘befitting the dignity of Shanghai,’ is intended to replace an ‘inadequate structure’ in the Civic Centre, the plan of which was finished in 1933. It envisions a two-story gallery space 1 The close-up view shows a combination of columns and a flat roof. The absence of supporting walls provides a view of the open space of the interior that the free plan independent from the structural function of the supporting pilotis. This perspective almost creates a visual effect that the pilotis, seen through the openings of the ceiling, are transformed into mullions of the horizontal windows of the building. Regionalism, Nationalism & Modern Architecture Conference Proceedings. Porto, October 25-27, 2018 117 built in concrete. The structure is designed to be half beneath the ground, thus the building surface is entirely covered by marble so as to eliminate the disadvantage of its lower height comparing to surrounding buildings, while also help ‘enhance the plastic and sculptural quality of the structure.’2 The architectural plan of the museum presents the layout of the inner galleries, along with short descriptions for each floor. The Lower Floor underground featured a Chinese garden, extending the museum space from the centre to the walled courtyard located at the rear end of the building. Pei (1948: 50) gives an account of the philosophy behind this spatial construction, ‘the traditional Chinese garden is literally a garden of walls.’ Pei (1948: 50) further explains how ‘this building is sunk half a level below ground in order to create walls for the main garden while permitting a view into it from outside.’ The plan of the Upper Floor gives an idea of how the exhibiting rooms are arranged by collection type, such as bronze, clay, painting and calligraphy. Items in each room are then displayed in a chronological order. The Chinese garden partitions, while also connecting, the inner galleries. Natural elements such as lotus, bamboos and flowers are scattered around the garden and the tea pavilion. As Pei (1948: 50) considers, this arrangement would help the collections to be ‘best displayed in surroundings which are in tune with them, surroundings which incorporate as much as possible the constituting elements of natural beauty.’ Pei (1948: 51) further explains his arrangement in a nonmodernist manner that ‘all forms of Chinese art are directly or indirectly results of a sensitive observation of nature.’ The section provides a view of the functional construction of the internal gallery space looking through the two-story structure and the Chinese garden (Figure 2). It shows how the gallery is an open space across the upper and lower levels of the building, connected both to the courtyard of the museum and the long corridor. On view are three iconic Chinese objects that manifest an emphasis on Chinese characteristics. The bottom left of the section features a bronze Buddha bust, to the right of which is a statue of a Chinese philosophical figure riding a 2 The placement of the floor level beneath the ground was later best-known in Mies’s design of the Neue Nationalgalerie. Leah Hisao, I. M. Pei’s Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai, 1946. Modernism, regionalism and the search for an architectural representation of national identity 118 buffalo. In the background of the section can be seen a large embroidery of a Chinese dragon that creates a spatial division from the ceiling. Rather than simply being displayed as artworks, these objects create an impression as if being designed as part of the space.3 The construction materials specified in the section, such as marble veneer, sand and concrete consolidated on a slab and installed on the ceiling, evince the sense of modernity and firmness Pei intended for his building. Figure 2. Section Plan, “Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai, China,” Progressive Architecture, 28 February (1948), 52. Below the floor plan, a short description explains that this very specific installation of the Tea Garden is a feature usually situated either in a market as a social place for people of different classes, or around temple architecture as a venue for intellectual conversation. Pei (1948: 52) suggests the Tea Garden 3 The figures beneath the embroidery and at the far end of the aisle (the next exhibiting room), in traditional Chinese outfits, give an idea of the scale and height of the structure and the connectedness of the internal space. Regionalism, Nationalism & Modern Architecture Conference Proceedings. Porto, October 25-27, 2018 119 refers to teahouses in Chinese culture, which helps make his museum ‘a living organism in the life of the people, rather than a cold depository of masterpieces.’ Overall, both the multiple displays of objects originate from Chinese culture and the building’s connection to the Chinese garden contribute to a representation of Chinese symbolism. Mies van der Rohe, Museum for a Small City The project’s modernist credentials are visible from a clear resemblance to Mies van der Rohe’s scheme for a ‘Museum for a Small City,’ which thus reveals Pei’s intentional modelling on a Western modernist prototype (Figure 3) (Conrad, 2001, 3–4). In 1943, two American magazines, Architectural Forum and Fortune, invited twenty-three architects, including Louis Kahn and Mies, to envisage an ideal city in post-war America named “architecture of 194x” (Ozler, 2011; Lambert, 2001, 426–9).4 Each architect was responsible for different segments of infrastructure, including, for instance, library, city hall, museum and office buildings, all of which contributed to creating a new image of community life and urban planning (Ozler, 2011).5 Mies’s proposal came out as a practical and ideal museum space for the enjoyment of the community. This is realised, as Mies (1943: 84) states, through the design of the garden in the centre of the building to eliminate ‘the barrier between the art work and the living community’ in ‘a noble background for the civic and cultural life.’ It is not difficult to identify how the two projects resemble a familiarity not only in terms of design philosophy, but also in aspects of structure, materials and the formation of space. Pei’s emphasis on the socialising and entertaining purpose of his tea pavilion, built for people of different classes, echoes what Mies suggested 4 The prototype of this ideal city was Syracuse, New York. Mies’s museum design was inspired by the thesis project of George Danforth, one of his students at IIT. Mies’s museum design reflected his previous interest in the composition of “continuous floor and roof planes leading to an open horizon.” As it can be noticed from the illustration, Danforth also delineated the drawings of the design. Ozler, L. (July 4, 2011). 5 In the realistic context of American architecture, Mies’s scheme came out when museum architecture had not yet fully begun to thrive, as Barry Bergdoll (2009, 107–123) recognised the museum boom in America only came in the 1960s. Leah Hisao, I. M. Pei’s Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai, 1946. Modernism, regionalism and the search for an architectural representation of national identity 120 as creating a cultural background shared by the whole community.6 The section of Pei’s large gallery conveys a visual equivalence to the interior that Mies created, which indicates a similar spatial composition and the use of artworks as part of the architectural space.7 Finally, the emphasis on constructing technique and materials also suggests how Pei’s modelling on the Museum for the Small City has in a way responded to this modernist and post-war American architectural identity that Mies presented through his steel framed museum structure.8 Figure 3. Museum for the Small City, Mies van der Rohe,” The Architecture Forum, May (1943), 84–85. 6 To achieve this connection with the entire community, Pei develops his scheme around the theme of the central courtyard, while Mies also positioned a garden as a primary element to bridge the gap between artworks and visitors from both aesthetic and cultural considerations. In his gallery design, Mies presented an open space, composed by the modernist elements of a floor slab and a roof plate. The structure is supported by steel roof trusses that minimise the use of columns. Pei’s detailed descriptions of the materials of the slabs for his roofed structure, supported by the main frame, the plinths of which suggested its role as the main columns of the building, nevertheless conveyed a similar idea of modern materials to create a large and free space for exhibiting uses and for a large group. 7 Mies specifically suggests the extra function of Picasso’s Guernica as part of the spatial structure as a freestanding wall that divides the space. 8 The Museum for the Small City reasonably corresponds to the architectural background of postwar American city construction. The use of the steel technique, widely demonstrates in other projects of Mies in Chicago, is a recognition of the American steel industry that nevertheless echoes with the sense of American identity that Mies obtained since he left Germany. The open and flowing space of the Museum for a Small City was also realised through the application of the steel frame, which therefore corresponded to the architectural context of the post-war American city of the 194x. Regionalism, Nationalism & Modern Architecture Conference Proceedings. Porto, October 25-27, 2018 121 The affinity between Pei’s design and Mies’s envisaged museum explains the progressive and modernist attributes of Pei’s design. By blending the modernist form with the theme of a Chinese garden, Pei presents a potential of modernism to develop its language in a Chinese context. This celebration of the modernist prospects of Pei’s museum, however, in a way underestimates the regional context Pei experimented with in his design. In fact, one aspect to consider when it comes to Pei’s modernist identity is that his search for an architectural expression of a national identity was also a question discussed in America throughout the 1940s. The search for American regionalism The Museum of Modern Art was a focus of this prolonged debate on regionalism and modernism. This started from the first architectural exhibition in MoMA in 1932. Entitled Modern Architecture: International Exhibition, it introduced the International Style as the new aesthetics to follow in the development of modern architecture. The principles included the use of modern structure and materials in architectural planning, the emphasis on volume instead of mass of a building, the regular layout of architectural form and proportion, with flexibility in floor planning and, last but not least, the elimination of ornament or decorative pattern in the design (Barr, 1932, 12–17). While the International Style became a way to celebrate modern identity of America, the years between 1934 and 1945 witnessed a prominence of regional characteristics in American architecture, as have been examined by Liane Lefaivre and Alexander Tzonis (Lefaivre, 2003, 44). This was first coined with the 1945 MoMA exhibition Built in USA: 1932–44 (Mock, 1932). In the exhibition catalogue, Philip Goodwin (1945: 5), then Chairman of the Architecture Committee of MoMA, suggested that the International Style was of ‘foreign’ influence, whereas the regional architecture was more a reflection of ‘an Leah Hisao, I. M. Pei’s Museum for Chinese Art, Shanghai, 1946. Modernism, regionalism and the search for an architectural representation of national identity 122 authentic modern American style.’9 This resistance against modernism was further expressed by curator of the exhibition, Elizabeth Mock, who perceived regional structures, with emphases on traditional or local materials, creative forms, meeting individual needs in their architectural settings, have offered a contemporary direction to develop American architectural modernity which departs from European modernism of the 1920s (Lefaivre, 2003, 25; Mock 1945).10 In the same year, Sigfried Giedion, then appointed professor at the GSD, published Nine Points on Monumentality that called for a modern version of architectural monumentality to accord with new city planning. In contrast, Lewis Mumford criticised Giedion’s new monumentality and identified the Bay Region style of the San Franciscan architects as a native form of American modernism in contrast to the European-oriented International Style (Lefaivre, 2003, 25). This was then connected to a round table discussion on “What is happening to Modern Architecture?” in the MoMA to address the tension between the International Style and the Bay Region architecture in February 1948 (Barr et al., 1948).11 My point of mentioning this complicated ongoing process of identifying a modern solution to represent American national and architectural identity is that it must have exerted certain influence on Pei.12 As Pei’s biographer Carter Wiseman (2001: 44) notes, when Pei was working on his graduation project, Pei was also looking for a ‘regional or “national” expression in architecture. Reflected in his design of the Museum for Chinese Art, this search for a national and regional architectural expression concerns with a specific historical context, which 9 Goodwin was also the co-designer of the museum. 10 Before the exhibition, Mock had already openly criticised the International Style as the rigid European modernism that limited the various manifestation of American modernity. Typical examples of regional architecture enlisted in the exhibition included Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water and the wooden superstructure, House for Chamberlain, designed by Gropius and Breuer. 11 The roundtable was held in MoMA in Feb 1948. In 1952, Hitchcock and Arthur Drexler adopted the name of Mock’s exhibition for Built in USA: Post-war Architecture, to reclaim the sovereignty of modern architecture and the International Style. The debate over architectural style and criticism on all of labels of shift-isms only progressed to a more complicated degree, followed by the rivalry between modern and postmodern architecture in the 1960s. 12 As Barry Bergdoll notes (Bergdoll, 2003, 260–306), Gropius and Breuer were also searching for a regional architectural language, experimented through New England architecture. This might suggest a more direct influence on Pei.