1. INTRODUCTION: THE INFLUENCE OF FAIRS’ THEMES ON THE PAVILION
The pavilion1 was born from a desire for a place to contemplate and interact with natural surroundings. Over the course of architecture’s long development since the Enlightenment, the pavilion has experienced a radical shift in its usage, which demonstrates both its amplified form and transformation of architecture itself. To understand these shifts, it is helpful to understand the past in order to reveal how the pavilion
transformed from the early 19th Century (when powerful nations used pavilions to promote their imperial propaganda) to the 20th Century (when pavilions were correlated with consumerism representing the multinational corporation sector’s eagerness to advertise products) to the 21st Century (when pavilions were created through individual artistic freedom with collaborative efforts by multiple engineering experts).
The pavilion has therefore represented a significant architectural type throughout human history. It was one of the key components of architecture and art history. In fact, world fairs2 were celebrations of progress, and each fair brought with it architectural innovations and Enlightenment ideas. Historically notable pavilions were mainly showcased at world fairs that had specific purposes and were held in Western countries, and were an exceptional historical phenomenon. The fairs’ design experiments provided driving forces for the development of technology. Although world fairs are now celebrated events, they originally had a political purpose, and individual entrepreneurs were only allowed to participate at later dates. Following the new millennium, another architectural narrative unfolded with the
Past and Present Viable Pavilions Remain in Architecture:
Envisioning New Directions for a Better Future
Research on pavilions within the history of world fairs, from the mid-19
thto the 21
stCentury Sodahm Suzanne Shim, Yoonhie Lee and Chaeshin Yoon
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Architecture, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea Professor, Department of Architecture, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea Professor, Department of Architecture, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea
https://doi.org/10.5659/AIKAR.2019.21.3.79
Abstract The ephemeral and temporal nature of pavilions is the underlying motivation that led to the development of this paper.
From the beginning of the industrial era through contemporary history, there have been many instances of architects attempting to rethink architectural design in the context of modern social, cultural, and technical imperatives. Today, the leading changes in humanity are accompanied by a revolutionary electronic digital medium. The pavilion has been in an amalgamation of architectural integration since the beginning of human history. World’s Fairs/Expos have, since their establishment, served as international presentations of goods and achievements of particular nations. They became a popular stage wherein potential architectural achievements were showcased through the evocative architecture of pavilions. Due to the pavilion’s “temporary nature,” its coverage includes various perspectives: social, historical, geographical, post-colonial, iconographical, temporal, and ephemeral. It has also served as a receptacle due to its representational value at a given time. The pavilion has offered architectural designers, clients, and visitors a place to use their imaginations. Moreover, the architect’s role in creating pavilions cannot be overestimated. Due to fact that they abound in symbolism, contemporary designs, and innovative solutions, pavilions often mirror modern mankind and plan for the next aesthetic revolutions and ideological architectural theories. To understand and appreciate architects’ original intentions with their pavilions, this paper focuses on noteworthy pavilions that were created from the beginning of industrialization through the present. It explores and discusses the pavilion’s characteristics, highlights the significance of its physical form as generated by a specific theme.
Keywords: Pavilion, Temporality, Transformative, World Fairs, Urban Art-Architecture Installation
Corresponding Author : sodahm suzanne shim
Department of Architecture, Engineering Building, A304, 52 Ewhayeodae-Gil, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, South Korea e-mail : sodahm8@gmail.com
©Copyright 2019 Architectural Institute of Korea.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://
creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
development of the new thematic pavilion. Historical national pavilions used to signal innovative milestones in construction and engineering for those industries outside the scope of the fairs. The evolving nature of the pavilion has changed, but it will continue to be interesting, instructive, and influential. The pavil- ion shows the external causes of the evolution of modern human history. It is a multi-layered phenomenon that encompasses eco- nomic, political, social, cultural, and ethical issues. Moreover, the pavilion is uniquely poised, because it clearly demonstrates both the characteristics of its lively, open, aesthetic beauty and its promise of mature, cultural, integrated architectural practice. To fully understand the history of pavilions, it is important to look back in time and location. World fairs, as amalgams of industrial arts displays, were milestones at that time in history.
Kenneth Luckhurst (1951)3 explained that exhibitions were similar to fairs, but were quite different in one aspect: exhibi- tions were used solely to display or exhibit goods, while fairs connoted commerce. Exposition (or expo) was a word that ety- mologically bridged the gap between fair and exhibition. It was first used in 1649 to denote displaying something at a show.4 It is therefore important to distinguish between fairs and exposi- tions (expos), because they are well-known for their large scale and merit, and were highly influential in the past. The interna- tional events described commonly called world fairs, reflecting the spirit of their times, seems a relevant medium to analyze this shifting paradigm in history. Especially, those were held in following list of table in reference, the premise is the power of nation can be further subcategorized into two distinctive criteria the notable cities and the notable architects.
Researchers began focusing on world fairs to understand the historical evolution of pavilions.
Table 1. Notable World Fair and Expo Themes
LOCATIONS/YEARS OFFICIAL MAIN THEMES
London, England: 1851 The Great Exhibition of various industry works from all nations Philadelphia, USA: 1876
Centennial International Exhibitions an international exhibition of soil/
mine arts, manufactured goods and products
Paris, France: 1889 Exposition Universelle internationale Cologne, Germany: 1914 Deutscher Werkbund promote
modern German industrial design in the global marketplace
Paris, France: 1925 Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes Brussels, Belgium: 1958 A World View–A New Humanism New York, USA: 1964 Peace Through Understanding Osaka, Japan: 1970 Progress and Harmony for Mankind Hanover, Germany: 2000 Humankind–Nature–Technology Yverdon-les-Bains,
Switzerland: 2002 I and the Universe
Milan, Italy: 2015 Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life
Each world fairs had an overarching theme, which portrayed the current period and provided an outlook on future devel- opments in technology and civilization. Identifying different types of pavilions designed during various historical transitions showed the significance and versatility of human culture. Table 1 displays the chronological history of the world fairs, highlighting specific trends over time. This study aims is to reveal the consis- tent nature of the pavilion and its evolution. Since specific pa- vilion type is rooted in architectural production, it is important to address why the pavilions were showcased at various world fairs, and the specific message displayed with unique visages.
World fairs signify the temporal, ephemeral, and transformative nature of pavilions. Through examining modern-day pavilions, this study aims to understand the present circumstances of the architectural profession, which has seen a shift toward the com- mercial sector, rather than toward design for sustainability.
The cohesive thesis of this research is that pavilions are interest- ing because of their resilient transformations and temporal nature.
We will gain inspiration by absorbing ideas for aesthetically sus- tainable and resilient design, and substantial architectural knowl- edge by examining the historical transformation of pavilions.
2. FOUNDATIONAL STUDY MEASURES:
TRACKING THE FULL POTENTIAL OF PAVILIONS TO INFLUENCE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS 2.1 Review of the Literature Section
Previous studies on pavilions were limited and focused on classifying and identifying major terminologies in this field of research. As displayed in Table 2, this study used a qualitative comparison approach. First, interpretation of world fairs is divided into two phases: recognizing the specific exhibit, and identifying the exhibition’s main theme. Second, selecting differ- ent pavilion types depends on not only the exhibition’s character but also the exhibitor’s intentions. Third, every pavilion on exhi- bition must be recognizable for its temporality.
The study will explore pavilions to gather architectural prec- edents. The pavilion played a critical role in the history of architecture and helped architects design the most fascinating freestanding objects for public display. This study of pavilions is offered as a contribution to the history of architecture as nor- mally understood, and was produced by fairly conventional modes of researching architectural history articles.
Given that a fair’s success was measured by its architectural works, pavilions were important because they signaled new tech- nological achievements and revolutionary designs. Furthermore, pavilions highlighted the particular architect’s role as a major decision maker, and the structures served as interpretations of the environment. Findling and Pelle’s (2008) widely cited book En- cyclopedia of world’s fairs and expositions focuses on pavilions and exposition fairs, and it identifies pavilions’ names and titles.
Considered as the bible of pavilion study, it illustrates key points by describing national projects in large cities. Based on the pavil- ion examples in the book, we extrapolated that pavilion as a medi- um implied a particular purpose and a self-portrait of society.
An artistic and creative pavilion is an essential element in most urban environments. Regrettably, professional and scholarly literature have focused primarily on the development of expo- sitions and fairs. Small, individual, and unique pavilions were neglected in favor of the mega events. Therefore, we explored the key problems and significant differences between the devel- opment of expos and fairs, as well as the importance of public displays for all, such as outdoor art-museums. For generations, pavilions in urban settings served as traditional gathering places.
Perhaps most importantly, the very identity of a small pavilion is intertwined with the image projected by its surrounding envi- ronment, which happens to an even greater extent than in large pavilions. Despite the importance, most professional and schol- arly literature have neglected the role of small-pavilions.
2.2 Comprehensive Methodology Section
In this phase, we based the study on a national world fairs sur- vey with research covering eight countries and 15 pavilion case studies. Each of these 15 pavilions played a critical role in the his- tory of architectural practice and in the realizations of most fasci- nating freestanding installations. These pavilions were explicitly showcased at world fairs, with specific themes and purposes.
We used various internet research engines for photographs and maps and detailed essential informational descriptions regard- ing each world fair, individual architects, and specific pavilions, accordingly. Architecture can be understood through the gen- eral introduction to technology and construction displayed in a pavilion’s exhibitions. Thus, the original introductions to the present paper recognizes the pavilion’s potential by understand- ing a crucial change in the relationship of world fairs, architects/
designers, and exhibition types. These predisposing causes were 19th Century origin, and categorized under five headings.
Table 2. Shifting paradigm in notable pavilions (created by architects/design firms/
artists). Evolution of pavilion appearances over architectural history timeline
Architect Pavilions Year
I - Pre-modern/Industrialization
Joseph Paxton Crystal Palace 1851
Hermann J.
Schwarzmann Women’s Pavilion 1876
Ferdinand Dutert Machinery Pavilion 1889
II – Early Modern/Cultural Exchange
Bruno Taut Tra¨ger-Kontor Pavilion 1910
Monument to Iron Pavilion 1913
Glass Pavilion 1914
Le Corbusier L’Esprit Nouveau Pavilion 1925 III – Late Modern/Diversely Dual Exchange
Le Corbusier Philips Pavilion 1958
Charles/Ray Eames IBM Pavilion 1964
Renzo Piano Italian Industry Pavilion 1970
IV – Post-New Millennium Modern/Nation Branding
MVRDV Dutch Pavilion 2000
Diller Scofidio Renfro Media Pavilion 2002
Wolfgang Buttress UK Pavilion 2015
V – Contemporary
Escobedo Soliz Studio MoMA PS1 2016
Bjarke Ingels Group Serpentine Gallery Pavilion 2016–19
The following aspects describe the main hierarchal and architectural pavilion elements used to verify each pavilion according to the analytical methodology: the level of the or- ganizing body commission used to create such pavilions, the major characteristics of the fairs, and an understanding of the contemporary circumstances as an entire social cultural as- pect. In summary, organizing a concrete framework (see Table 2) shows which changes were made and addresses the relevant topic accordingly. This labeling reveals the paradigm regarding human history.
As mentioned, the pavilion played the role of the main transmitter in illustrating an exposition’s main issue and influential ideas. There were many pavilion types (national, commercial/corporate, propaganda, thematic, etc.), and the pavilion’s significance was extraordinary for its temporal character. It was a special type of building, designed for specific circumstances and during a time of potential ex- ploitation and manipulation by political regimes to display power and authority. The evolution of pavilions is defined by the five stages of the transitional era:5 pre-modern, early modern, late modern, post-new millennium modern, and contemporary (see Table 2). Expo6 organizers applied certain principles to direct and program the pavilions’ main themes.
The criteria used to select the pavilions were as follows: his- torical uniqueness, sufficiently influential on communal so- ciety, notable size in scale, and temporal, (i.e., short-lived and no longer exists). However, there were a few unusual cases that occurred in which a pavilion either remained after the expo or was rebuilt at a different time and in a different loca- tion. This study investigates the gradual evolution of the idea of installing exhibition pavilions. The following architectural pavilions (Table 2) are important to understanding this topic.
We identify and clearly outline the different pavilion types.
By showcasing and referencing the transition of these pavil- ions were a medium for transferring information and culture to the world.
3. CASE STUDIES OF PAVILIONS SHOWCASED AT PREVIOUS WORLD FAIRS (EXPOS)
Various descriptions of pavilions from a wide range of literature highlight the pavilions’ ideas and the fairs’
main statements. The pavilion architects’ bold movements introduced these designs into world fairs, which ultimately changed today’s architectural design. This was an unprecedented celebration of culture. Under world fairs’
exhibition themes, these architects brought a new type of architectural climate, which led to both individual architecture and collaborative artistic visions using their signature designs.
They strictly followed the fairs’ ground rules and showcased the designated designer’s abilities and the architect’s role.
Thereby, one aim of this study is to demonstrate an advanced understanding of the pavilion’s styles and the pertinent issues arising in design decision-making.
3.1 Pre-Modern/Industrialization: The 19th Century feats 3.1.1 Joseph Paxton and Charles Fox: Crystal Palace (1851)- Powerful nations on display in the age of great engineering
Figure 1. Crystal Palace, 1851 Exterior transept (Left) and Interior (Right) views (sources: duke.edu and archdaily, 2013)
An imperial commission organized the very first world expo- sition (The Great Exhibition), with Britain and France among the driving forces behind this event. The Great Exhibition was housed in the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park.7 This world expo de- livered a powerful message in not only Britain but also abroad, bringing change to many countries. This event coincided with the “take off ” of the continent’s industrialization for the past two decades.8 The earlier Expos from 1851 to the mid-20th Century were strongly influenced by the industrial revolution and the colonial ambition of the time. During this “age of progress” coined by Walter Benjamin, material progress based on technological innovation was at the heart of the exhibitions.9 Paxton joined with Fox and Henderson’s structural ironwork expertise, which led them to build the Crystal Palace for the Great Exhibition of 1851. Due to its innovative modular design and construction techniques, it was ready in nine months. With support from structural engineer Charles Fox, Joseph Paxton designed a cast-iron and plate-glass structure. Its dimensions were impressive; the main nave was 19.5 m high and the cross nave was 41 m high. The Great Exhibition is a symbol and pri- mary source for High Victorian design.
The exhibition committee wanted to design a building that could be dismantled, created by several construction firms.
The committee made extensive use of prefabricated parts seri- ally manufactured and assembled at the building site.10 By the 1850s, the great engineering and technological inventions doc- umented an artistic patrimony in a nation-building climate, which led to the remarkable achievements of an early genera- tion of architectural typology. The Crystal Palace (see Figure 1) by Paxton was an iconic national pavilion, demonstrating Brit- ain’s political strength and power at that time. It was a singular, enormously scaled pavilion, housed along with all kinds of na- tional industrial productions in Hyde Park. Its representation was aggressively engaged by national hierarchy and British bureaucracy; dual legacies joined together leading to the great success of the first official world fair in 1851. The particular feature’s intention was to express both aspects of powerful, na- tional aspirations and the architect’s design statement, as well as a close collaborative partnership with an engineering and construction company.
3.1.2 Hermann J. Schwarzmann: Women’s Pavilion (1876)- Showcasing women’s industrial achievements
Figure 2. Women’s Pavilion, 1876- Exterior (Left) and Interior (Right) views of exhibits (sources: Wikipedia, 1876 and Corn, 2011)
The Centennial International Exhibition of 1876, announced by President Grant11 in 1874, was the first world fair held in the US and it opened after 10 years of planning. The exhibi- tion was meant to be transparent and systematic in that there was order in the arrangement of displays, which meant that the dual system naturally suggested a grid.12 The order of the previous world fairs was adopted and this 1876 fair used the 1851 London and 1867 Paris fairs’ classification system for the centennial by combining features. The grid was a figure of enlightenment rationality,13 and the dual system used gridded displays. Historians claim that the showcased industrialized mass-products transformed the global image of the US. The 1876 fair demonstrates the success of the founding principles of the US, the first republic. It provided a powerful vision for what humanity could achieve. By its very definition, those re- publican principles are universal to all nations and peoples.14 Herman J. Schwarzmann,15 the fair’s chief planner, individually designed 34 out of 249 exhibition buildings, including the Women’s Pavilion (see Figure 2). He adopted the ideas of all previous world fairs: for the first time, the exhibits were not to be presented in one single, central building, according to thematic groups. The fair’s organizer dedicatedly managed the commission16 and followed the official specifications and gen- eral instructions with specific programs.17 This first official fair building, which was devoted to women’s work, was exclusively planned, funded, and managed by the women of Philadelphia.
The Women’s Pavilion provided over 3,720 m2 of exhibition space for the work of nearly 1,500 women from at least 13 countries.
This 1876 fair marked the creation of the thematic pavilions that showcased the US’s leading industrial power by displaying impressive exhibits. A principal characteristic of the architect’s statement was the slightly sculptural, over-scaled detailing em- bodied in the Women’s pavilion. The intention was to facilitate women’s productivity and the US’s industrial development. This pavilion allowed for an expression of the architect’s values and became a medium for illustrating the fair’s theme.
3.1.3 Ferdinand Dutert and Victor Contamin: Machinery Pavilion (1889)- Balancing act between technical engineering achievements and architectural aesthetic retooling
Figure 3. Machinery Pavilion, 1889 – Exterior (Left) and Interior (Right) view of exhibits from balcony (source: www.loc.gov )
At the 1889 Universelle Internationale exposition in Paris, there were fewer national pavilions than that at the 1878 exposi- tion due to the absence of official exhibits from most of Europe’s monarchies.18 Republican president Jules Grévy’s administration organized this event. The Machinery Pavilion was a huge space with steel arches, which was achieved by the development of industrial technologies and steel production processes. With a height of 41 m and grand span of 111 m, it was the longest inte- rior space in the world then, which marked a milestone in the technological development of iron structures (see Figure 3). It used a system of hinged arches made of iron to frame the struc- ture. The structure gave the 1889 exposition a unique way of en- closing an area that was larger than any previous building. It was reused at the 1900 exposition and was then destroyed in 1910.
The construction benefited from the combined knowledge of both field engineers and architects.
In 1889, the use of a three-hinged arch for decks with a large span was widely used for a building’s principal use. However, the building of the Galerie des Machines encouraged an exten- sive, rather than temporal, use of the three-hinged arch.19 The quantity of the wrought iron used in the building was 96.5%.20 It was a wrought iron pavilion, not a steel building; reasons for not using steel in construction was its relative novelty and limited knowledge of its structural application. Located on the Champs de Mars, French architect Ferdinand Dutert designed and executed the Machinery Pavilion, with French structural engineer Victor Contamin’s expertise on the strengths of iron and steel. Dutert won the Grand Prize for Architecture in 1869. Contamin was responsible for the technical design of the huge steel structure, including calculations used to ensure the structural integrity of the immense arches. The pavilion combined two complementary objectives of an aesthetic appearance with engineering function. After the 1851 Crystal Palace’s construction, each World Fair in Paris brought archi- tectural innovations in which new building types utilized new mediums. This pavilion represented an unprecedented archi- tectural achievement and marked a milestone in the spans achieved. The intention was to facilitate industrial productions and to identify France as a powerful nation.
3.2 Early Modern/New Age of Exchange:
The 20th Century, Post-WWI feats
3.2.1 Bruno Taut: Pavilions (1910, 1913, and 1914)- Unifying client measure - From object to object exhibit
Figure 4. Tra¨ger-Kontor Pavilion, 1910 (Left) and Monument to Iron Pavilion, 1913 (Right) (sources: Gutschow, 2006 and Nielsen, 2012)
The very first German Work Federation Labour League or the Deutscher Werkbund,21 exhibition was held in July 1914 at Rhe- inpark in Cologne. It was closed ahead of schedule due to WWI.
Bruno Taut’s two earlier pavilions (see Figure 4) were symmet- rical; the 1910 “Tra¨-ger-Kontor” (steel pavilion) in Berlin and the 1913 ‘‘Monument to Iron’’ in Leipzig both used the material that he had been hired to advertise in order to create an abstract, geometric, and exposed steel construction.
Figure 5. Glass Pavilion, 1914, Plan (Left) and Exterior (Right) view (sources: Nielsen, 2012 and Gutschow, 2006)
The Glass Pavilion structure was placed on a concrete plinth and gave the pavilion a temple-like quality.22
Various ranges of glass products and processing methods were displayed in the German glass industry’s exhibition. This colorful effect was later reconstructed in 1993.23
Taut intended the Glashaus (see Figure 5) to be more of an experimental “object installation” than a functional building. Taut set the tone for this interpretation when he stated in the visitor’s guide, “The Glashaus has no other purpose than to be beautiful.”24 One of the significant factors in its design was the interests of the client. The Luxfer Prism Company wanted a prototype at the exhibition in order to best showcase its products.25
The Glass Pavilion (1914), the “Tra¨-ger-Kontor” steel pavilion (1910), and the ‘‘Monument to Iron’’ pavilion (1913) presented Taut’s intention of free artistic will.
In short, his pavilions were not representations of German nationalism but instead represented a specific industrial group.
Taut’s work revealed symbiotic, iconic modern pavilions. His glass pavilion had a definite use of a temporary marketing pavilion for the glass industry at an exposition full of new products and ideas.
This glass pavilion’s purpose was to be an ephemeral exhibition building. In this era, the alliance between design and industry rose to an unprecedented level with the cooperation between mass production and domestic industries (e.g., steel and glass).
Taut explored modern expressionism in his work, and he was a forerunner in modern architecture through developing strong messages and elevating architecture’s stature.
3.2.2 Le Corbusier: Pavilion de l’Esprit Nouveau (1925)- Examining Art and Design
In 1921, Le Corbusier illustrated provocative architectural and urban ideas originally developed with his cousin Pierre Jeanneret, who was renowned for developing the “Domino frame system.” In 1925, Le Corbusier’s five points described the new style of the international movement: envisage urban housing, a house (cellular unit), reinforced concrete and steel, a machine for living in, standardized mass-production during the purist period, and the concept of truth in the vision of modernist urban city planning. Le Corbusier expressed a re- invention of the house in the magazine “L’Esprit Nouveau” as a
“machine for living in.” For him, the only conceivable basis for architecture that corresponds to the precise world of machines was geometry using prisms, cubes, cylinders, pyramids, and spheres as “pure volumes.”26 In this new in dus trial spirit, he con tributed to a new jour nal that ad vo cated the use of mod ern in dus trial tech niques and strate gies to trans form so ci ety into a more effi cient en vi ron ment with a higher stan dard of liv ing on all so cioe co nomic lev els.
The Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau was built for the 1925 Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, Paris, France. The pavilion was destroyed in 1926 as Le Corbusier’s ideas were considered as too avant-garde for the time. In 1977, an exact replica was built in Bologna, Italy.
Figure 6. L’Esprit Nouveau Pavilion, 1925, Plan (Left) and Exterior view (Right) (sources: ncmodernist.org and fondationlecorbusier.fr)
The pavilion consisted of four floors (mezzanines are counted) and was 16 m high. This two-story living space with a sleeping gallery was furnished with “standard” container elements and was designed by him. The Pavilion de l’Esprit Nouveau was intended to be a “prototype” for villa apartment blocks. All the ideas used were quite unusual at a time when Art Nouveau was considered primarily as a decorative art (Art Deco); therefore, there were hostile reactions to this project. In fact, the exhibition organizers were insulted and hid the pavilion before the opening. It was withdrawn by the Minister of Beaux-Arts at the opening of the exhibition.
European countries were engaged in catastrophic battles during WWI and WWII. From a political vantage point, the fair was a vehicle of nationalistic propaganda, while the expos’ promoters attempted to reconcile art and industrial ideas. Many countries had been pushing nationalist propaganda at the previous fairs, and this continued even later, at the London fair in 1851.27
The pavilion acquired its permanency through its ephemeral
nature and embodied the essence of an artwork that could be repeatedly reconstructed anywhere.28
Since pavilions reflect the spirit of their specific time periods, fairs are an appropriate medium through which to analyze this complex phase in history. This type of ephemeral architecture polarized the public, while it satisfied Le Corbusier’s original intention of showcasing modern ideas and technology. He placed systems of harmony and proportion at the center of his philosophy.
3.3 Late Modern/New Cultural Exchange: 20th Century, Post-WWII Feats
3.3.1 Le Corbusier and Xenakis: Philips Pavilion (1958)- Marketing focus on audiovisual high-techs and credentials
The direction of the 1958 fair held in Brussels, as set by the Expo’s architect-in-chief, determined that the main exhibit halls would be designed along modernist lines. The expo’s promoters tried to provide a balanced demonstration of the modern world.
The fair’s dominant note was optimistic and upbeat.29
After WWII, technology was still the central focus; however, it was no longer seen as an end in itself but instead viewed as a means for human development (i.e., “progress and mankind”).30
Figure 7. Philips Pavilion, 1958, Plan (Left) and Exterior (Right) view (sources: Wikipedia, 1958 and Clarke, 2012)
Philips is an electronics company based in the Netherlands, and therefore the Philips Pavilion housed a multimedia spectacle that celebrated postwar technological progress.
The project management was assigned to Xenakis, an experimental composer, and his design was influenced by his composition Metastasis. His office designed the program of the pavilion to be simple, “Visitors would traverse a short entrance corridor, enter a darkened interior to witness an eight-minute multimedia montage about human history, and exit out the other side.”31
Le Corbusier viewed the concept of the pavilion as a mere container for this spectacle. At first, he suggested that the exterior be nothing more than scaffolding, a total negation of architectural form, possibly with a fabric membrane like his 1937 Pavilion. However, he ultimately proposed a curved plan to efficiently usher masses of people in and out, like a stomach.32
The two designers’ drawings for the Philips Pavilion (see Figure 7) revealed distinct forms of architectural thinking with a well- leveled balancing act. Working closely with Philips’ technicians, and composer Edgard Vare`se, Xenakis settled on a cluster of nine hyperbolic paraboloids constructed in pre-stressed concrete
in a site-specific work. This fundamental concept, approved by Philips, proposed a synthesis that integrated architecture, music, and visual arts, all under a geometrically complex surface.
The pavilion was a specific form that arose by combining popularizing information about ideas and statements matching the corporate sector. This commercial pavilion consisted of ideas that Philips wanted to represent to the world. This is an exemplary work of an architect’s signature design having been combined with interesting, collaborative teamwork.
3.3.2 C harles and R ay E ames: IBM Pav i lion (1964)-Dynamic age of domestic electronics, spectaculars
This was the third major world’s fair to be held in New York City. The theme was dedicated to “Man’s Achievement on a Shrinking Globe in an Expanding Universe.” American compa- nies dominated the exposition as exhibitors.
The fair encouraged effective intercultural communication for the exchange of innovations.
Figure 8. IBM Pavilion, 1964, -Exterior (Left), Close-up (Right) and Selectric Typewriters
(sources: Domus 424, nywf64 and http://mytypewriter.com/ibmselectrics.aspx)
Laissez-Faire (i.e., something for everyone) meant that this fair aimed to keep a majority of the contemptuous art and architecture on display. One standout was the International Business Machine (IBM) pavilion designed by Eero Saarinen and Associates together with Charles and Ray Eames (see Figure 8).The fair was a showcase for future technologies, and the technological cultural aspirations on display were fundamentally oriented toward the past.33
The main feature of the Eames’ IBM pavilion was its, suspended theatre, an ovoid mass raised above the forest of steel tree-like structures that supported the translucent roof over the open-air exhibits.34
At its epicenter was the 27 m ellipsoidal-shaped theater, emblazoned with thousands of I-B-M letters resembling the rapidly rotating ball that was the heart of IBM’s new “Selectric typewriters” that were IBM’s feature fair presentation (a film produced by Charles and Ray Eames).
In short, the IBM pavilion represents a corporate exhibit pavilion. The decision-making authority on this pavilion’s design fell on the corporate executives of IBM’s commercial sector.
These decisions were largely made for marketing advertisements.
During the 20th Century, the US, which was an emerging
world economy at the time, held world fairs. Unlike Europe, where nationalism was popular, the US functioned with commercialism and profit motives, and therefore, architects’
statements specifically matched the corporate sector at US fairs.
Although the architect’s signature design was downplayed, the overall exhibition was conducted by the Eames. Relying on the architect’s intervention, the pavilion specifically accomplished IBM’s advertising needs.
3.3.3 Renzo Piano: Italian Industry Pavilion (1970)- Utilize and modulate a system of optimizing the greater efficiency
The world exposition in Osaka positioned itself as a huge entertainment center and theme park with no intention of providing useful information. Critics described it as a “mega- show with a Disneyworld appeal.”35
The architecture of Expo 70 was spectacular in terms of its visual appeal.36 The organization committee had given no restrictions regarding the construction of individual pavilions.
Figure 9. Italian Industry Pavilion, 1970, -Axonometric plan (Left) and Exterior (Right) view (source: rpbw, 1970)
They asked designers and architects to construct pavilions that were as “individualistic, expressionistic, and colorful as possi- ble.” Many countries chose rather abstract themes, establishing a “corporate image” through artistic means and “infotainment”
presentations. Italian designer Renzo Piano won the competi- tion. Piano’s brother Ermanno constructed the Italian Industry Pavilion.
The basic premise of the open plan offered an extraordinary range of applications. For instance, the light, modular structure, like the Italian Industry Pavilion, was designed according to an open plan. It utilized a steel tension structure with reinforced polyester cladding and roofing panels.
Piano graduated in 1964 with a dissertation on modular co- ordination, supervised by Giuseppe Ciribini. He succeeded and was clearly inspired by 20th century engineering figures, such as Buckminster Fuller, Robert Le Ricolais, Zygmunt Makowski, and Frei Otto. Renzo’s Pavilion (see Figure 9), developed for the Osaka Expo, was tangible proof of his exploration of light mate- rials, tensile structures, and non-Euclidean forms.37
This national pavilion was a unique mixture of an iconic theme and an architect’s ideas of national image and identity.
The pavilion enabled him to experiment with his ideas freely using temporary construction methods and materials.
3.4 Post-New Millennium Modern/21st Century:
Achieving the Sustainability of a New Design Paradigm Branding the new feats evolved mega-events focused on the public
3.4.1 MVRDV: Dutch pavilion (2000) Hanover, Man, Nature and Technology- A sustainable ecological system and innovative national inspirational landscapes
At the turn of the new millennium, the world participated in an unprecedented celebration of culture. Expos took on a significant role in raising awareness on the importance of sustainable development and addressing the crucial challenges of our time. By providing a unique space for discussions, Expo 2000 aimed at being an efficient instrument for progress in all sustainable and human development areas, such as the environment, energy, health, and education.38 In 1994, the city of Hanover, in Germany adopted the Agenda 21 principles.
Figure 10. Dutch Pavilion, Present day exterior views (sources: wikiarquitectura, 2000 and report 2012)
Expo 2000 planned to invite the entire world to participate in demonstrating how mankind could thrive while simultaneously protecting the environment.39
MVRDV (Netherland-based innovative, adventurous architecture and urban design firm found in 1992; the name is an acronym for the founding members; Winy Maas, Jacob van Rijs, and Nathalie de Vries) was commissioned by the Netherlands to design the most popular national pavilion, and the firm created a 36 m high building, the fair’s tallest, with the slogan “Holland Creates Space.” Six Holland eco-system landscapes were stacked to showcase how a country could make the most out of a small space. The objectives were to achieve visions for the future, find a balance among man, nature, and technology, and develop solutions for the coexistence of billions of people on our planet.
The inventive MVRDV included a distilled landscape, which incorporated a vision that incisively executed the expo’s spirit.
With its optimistic fusion of tectonic and greenery landscaping the pavilion characterized a microcosmic ecosystem, suggesting intriguing paradigms for the future.40
MVRDV developed building types based on the juxtaposition and combination of different elements and has since continued to use them. This Dutch pavilion (see Figure 10) was supposed to be both a national and a thematic pavilion. It is noteworthy that this pavilion still stands at its original site, although it has deteriorated and is now covered with graffiti. The pavilion itself
reflected a specific form of sustainable ecology system that spe- cifically demonstrated the expo’s thematic sector. The architect’s signature design combined the original intent with national pride. The expo reflected the future, material mastery, and work- ing with eco-friendly and highly aesthetic materials.
3.4.2 Diller Scofidio+Renfro: Media Pavilion/The Blur (2002)- Postmodernist machines encourage sensory stimulation
In 2002, the sixthSwiss national exposition proclaimed that it had five different themes at different locations as follows: “Nature and Artifice” in Neuchâtel; “I and the Universe” in Yverdon- les-Bains; “Instants and Eternity” in Murten/Morat; “Power and Freedom” in Biel/Bienne; and “Sense and Movement” on a mobile platform.
Figure 11. The Blur Media Pavilion, 2002 Exterior views (sources: archdaily and arcspace, 2002)
The Blur was a media pavilion in Yverdon-les-Bains for Expo 2002 constructed from a tensegrity system of rectilinear struts and rods cantilevered out over the lake. Pedestrian walkways weaved through its system; its unique form based on the work of Buckminster Fuller.
The pavilion was made of filtered lake water shot as a fine mist through 13,000 fog nozzles creating an artificial cloud that mea- sured 91 m wide by 61 m deep by 20 m high.
Astonishingly, the public approached Blur via a 122 m ramped bridge (see Figure 11). Due to the lack of a program allowing DS+Renfro to bridge the worlds of high-art, installing practice continues. Visual and acoustical references were erased along the journey toward the fog, leaving only an optical “white-out”
and the “white-noise” of pulsing water nozzles. The Blur was a barometer of early 21st century sentiment or a neutral response to the conditions of the site.
The sound of the building was perpetually remade through 30,000 high-pressure fog nozzles. Blur41 was the result of noth- ing: no program, no functional requirements, no size definition, no site mandates, and no occupancy targets or public flow rates.
However, DS+Renfro’s blurred genres remade a new paradigm.42 The event was understood as a shift from the space of monument to the behavioral space of the viewer. Blur was pressing down- ward toward no art, a mutual sense of psychologically indifferent decoration, a neutral pleasure of seeing known to everyone.
According to Dan Flavin (1966), the event conformed to cen- tral tendencies in neo-avant-garde practice, toward the anti-au- ratic, the anti-symbolic, the indifferent and the neutral, toward a zero degree of art.43 The dramatic architectural proposal stood for a postmodernist fusion of art and architecture with visual
and performing arts. The pavilion itself was a specific form of experiencing individual memory that conveyed a unique sense of freedom: architect’s idea matched with the expo’s theme.
3.4.3 Artist Wolfgang Buttress: UK Pavilion (2015) at the Expo in Milan, The Beehive- Sustainable National Aspiration and Exploring Food Culture in Bee Colonies
The UK showcased its culture of innovation at the 2015 Expo in Milan with its pavilion inspired by the honeybee’s essential work in the food production process. UK’s theme “Grown in Britain,” was encapsulated how it contributes to the global challenge of feeding the growing population.
Figure 12. 2015 UK Pavilion, Exterior views (source: dezeen, 2015)
This pavilion demonstrated the country’s strengths in science and technology, its talented agri-tech research base, world leadership in international development, and its dynamic food and drinks industry that drives a culture of innovation.
Wolfgang Buttress worked with internationally recognized construction engineer teams Stage One and Rise, and with architect BDP, to produce a concept that fused high-end design and strong ecological credentials with cutting edge science and advanced engineering (see Figure 12). He was inspired by Dr. Martin Benscik’s research on bees. The pavilion was a 14 m high cube with an abstracted honeycomb analog with which a lattice structure was made from 169,300 aluminum and steel pieces. An internal void at its center allowed for a visitor space, lined with 1000 LED lights that were responsive to true beehive conditions. This sculpture was the antithesis of the typical pavilion. The original concept was drawn from Nottingham Trent University research and new technological developments that are better able to monitor the health of hives, providing vital information that might help beekeepers around the world to better protect the bee population. Given that bees are a crucial part of food production, it was necessary to bring the landscaping, art, and architecture together to highlight the importance of bees. This visual expression was complemented by an immersive soundscape, recorded as a kind of symphony between bee and human. The artist’s statements specifically remarked the thematic national representation sector. The artist solely created the signature design and was supported by collaborative engineering teamwork.
Metals in the 21st century become lighter, stronger and smarter, as evident in the UK Pavilion’s aluminum-lattice hive.
The principles of the slow food movement44 and a slow pace of
life were showcased with this pavilion. The pavilion was also a type of education program, informing people about feeding the planet. The intention was to provide educational and productive tools necessary for an instructive, thematic pavilion. Such forward-looking applications require architects to possess “the new metal equipment that handles their new environment,” as said in 1960 by architectural critic, Reyner Banham.
3.5 Elements of Pavilions’ Measures: Multi Spectrum of the Conventional Field of Academic Architecture
To convey the full scope of the argument, it is important to clarify how art installments and architectural objects are displayed at the major world fairs. In this context, the pre- modern/Industrialization exhibitions, the 1851 Crystal Palace in London, the 1876 Women’s Pavilion in Philadelphia, and the 1889 Machinery Pavilion in Paris, were originally manifested with political aims to show the superiority of these advanced countries and highlight their colonial expansions under imperialism.
Next, along with the rise of modernity and Early and Late- Modern/Post-Industrialization, these world fairs at the time became markets for modern consumers and the corporate industry sector, where newly manufactured goods could be advertised to new audiences. Participation at world fairs around this time period was capitalistic in that participators aimed to eagerly sell their newly introduced products for economic profits. In doing so, the clients who commissioned the project to the particular architects were intentionally well-known, advertising their products. Taut, Le Corbusier, Eames, and Renzo Piano represent these exemplary exhibitions.
Since the post-modern age, the contemporary interpretation has been complicated. For example, MVRDV and DS+Renfro both developed architectural projects, which can be categorized as Post-New Millennium Modern designs influenced by Postmodernism. As shown with the pavilions, the norms of modern architecture were simplicity, consistency, and straightforwardness in maximizing efficiency for functional purposes. Thus, this study aims to carefully analyze how the characteristics of these pavilions, situated at various locations in different time periods, affected the expos’ participants and designers. The multivalent and socio-cultural homogeneous mixture of scenes caused the designers to develop creative, optimistic, and transcendental designs that were combined with pragmatic and specific informality. Environmentally, the weather, pollution, and hostile urban conditions resulted in defensive attitudes for the pavilion designers in handling landscapes and public urban spaces. The pavilions’ mobility and temporality also influenced the designers, because these factors gave the perception of ephemeral pavilions. Therefore, the designers tried to emphasize the unique, contextual values of their designs.
Indeed, an interpretation of post-modern contemporary architecture is quite complex. It is unreasonable to use a singular viewpoint to explain a contemporary sense of values. Architects have been vital for developing the expos’ pavilions and have influenced the pavilions with their unique characters.
4. A CONTEMPORARY CASE STUDY:
PAVILIONS AS INDIVIDUAL BRANDING DESIGNS 4.1 MoMA PS1 (2016) Relating to a site-specific design, building a relationship between the people and the community, expanding new capabilities utilizing urbanity
The most recent events have allowed for pavilions that explicitly follow the architect’s style, working with site-specific materials that were selected solely by the architect for design purposes.
Figure 13. MOMA PS1, 2016- Exterior views (source: http://momaps1.org/yap/view/20)
Manhattan’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMa) and Long Island City’s ultra-hip P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center merged in 2010.
The Young Architects Program (YAP) is an annual competition hosted by MoMA PS1, which invites young architects to submit design proposals for a summer courtyard. Escobedo Soliz Studio was the winner in 2016, and MoMa PS1 has committed to offering emerging architectural talent with the opportunity to design and present innovative projects, challenging each winner to develop creative designs for a temporary, outdoor installation that provides shade, seating, and water. The 2016 project was described as “neither an object nor a sculpture standing in the courtyard, but a series of simple, powerful actions that generates new and different atmospheres.”45 The project (see Figure 13) opened in Long Island in early June 2016. The Mexico City- based team developed a deep sense of site-specificity and described architecture as not only registering a product, but also as a catalyst that can improve a given territory where restrictions become opportunities and preexistent conditions of site, climate, and locality should encourage new and practical solutions. This team illustrated a diversity of approaches and refreshing ideas for architecture today. They imaginatively merged public and private spaces. Their project, “Weaving the Courtyard,” was a socially and environmentally responsive structure. Held by tension within the courtyard walls, their project turned visitors into participants who then interacted with its responsiveness to temperature, sunlight, and movement. It sensitively combined these elements with an exuberant collection of “zones and atmospheres,” as mentioned by MOMA’s curator.46 The architects’
intention was to facilitate a wide-open connection between the public and the artist. This current, contemporary pavilion showcases a specific design brand and mediates prevailing contextual themes. It created a specific public space for people to socialize and contemplate within a gathering place. It has essentially localized the global model in a way.
4.2 Serpentine Gallery Pavilion (2016) Expanding new capabilities utilizing a specific manufacturer’s product
Another current exemplary project is the Serpentine Pavilion in London, which is one of the top-ten most visited architectural and design exhibitions in the world. It was established in 1970 and, since 2000, temporary summer pavilions have been commissioned with a leading architect.
The selection of architects, chosen for consistently extending architectural boundaries, is led by the Serpentine’s core curator and introduces contemporary artists and architects to a wider audience. The Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG, Danish firm) was selected to show the pavilion (see Figure 14a). The “Unzipped- wall” pavilion is a wall of translucent blocks that creates a curving, cavernous interior. The structure was situated outside the Gallery in London’s Kensington Gardens.
Figure 14a. Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, 2016-Day views in original location at Kensington Gardens (sources: archeyes and dezeen, 2016)
Figure 14b. Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, 2019-Exterior views at the new locations in Vancouver(Left) and Toronto(Right)
(sources: archdaily and Azure, 2019)
It was created with translucent fiberglass frames, stacked on top of each other in a typical brickwork pattern. This “modular monument” creates a void inside and consists of approximately 1,900 hollow fiberglass blocks. The manufactured products are arranged in a “lay line” design used with three different types of thickness: 10 mm at the bottom, 6 mm at the middle, and 3 mm at the top boxes. The materials used include wooden floors and extruded Fiberline profiles, providing every surface with a warm glow and a linear texture from the mesh of woven glass fibers to the undulating lines of the wood grain. The resulting complex three-dimensional environment can be explored and experienced in various manners, inside and outside.47 The Serpentine Galleries’ most successful installations to date offer inspirations at every scale of architecture, as evidenced by the 2018 showcase in Toronto (see Figure 14b). Gillespie, a founder of Westbank, purchased the Pavilion as a natural extension of the partnership with BIG. The modular, lightweight Lego
structure is to be transported and re-located in Vancouver, where it will become another example of a corporation’s dedication to diversifying a city’s contemporary features.
5. CONCLUSIONS:
PAVILIONS AS EXPRESSION OF ARCHITECTURAL ASPIRATIONS AND PREVAILING PREFERENCES The quest to develop pavilions demonstrates the idea of engaging the present while looking forward to the future. By engaging the rich history of pavilions, it is possible to observe that pavilions returned to their etymological origins after trying to recuperate a presence, and the designers unleashed their imaginations to take on the future.48 In this study, the case study pavilions that were reviewed were mainly selected from existing studies. As noted in Tables 1 and 2, each pavilion focused on the challenges and opportunities of its time with influential wisdom that helped society to further prepare for the future.
This study offers new findings. To completely understand pavilion trend, we argue that the study of pavilions follows new deftness in dual disciplines, exploring the overlap between architects and artists, and that expanded architects’ roles and responsibilities (due diligence) matter in design-oriented decision- making, which is a critical factor for controlling the final product.
Therefore, we conclude several observations. First, the pavilion’s obvious physical appearance is getting smaller by scale and volumetric size, while the number of showcased pavilion types is becoming more versatile. Second, depending on the party in charge of commissioning the pavilion, the intentions are becoming more diverse. Third, the pavilion participants have broadened to include various fields, encouraging teamwork and collaborative efforts. Fourth, branding a new design by retooling a sophisticated technology to become a simpler, low-tech mechanism is a sculptural visual medium of responsive architecture. Finally, the pavilion designers transformed specific ideas of their times and contemplated the exposition themes. The architect’s role, characteristics, and world fairs all changed throughout history.
Now there is evidence that technology is undergoing yet another major shift with profound consequences for future design and construction in architecture. The earlier world fairs and expos continue to have ephemerality and the essence of the pavilion and its zeitgeist sustains as always. The earlier world fairs (under one big-tent of historical exhibitions) sustain as characteristics of pavilions collectively grouped together. Evidently, significant change has occurred from the vernacular to the global. The former temporal reality of traditional regional settlements and historical pavilions opened in grandeur nationally. The latter, today’s contemporary museums and galleries’ pavilions are held in quite site-specific localized urban settings.
Contemporary pavilions are more global than all previous historical world fairs’ pavilions. Indeed, they held annual events designed on a small scale in comparison, and with a site-specific program within the cityscape. Another key issue is that the gap between art and architecture is closing and represents a natural concomitant phenomenon of public empathy in sustainability.
Furthermore, major transformation pertains to sustainable design, and manufacturing innovations concern lightweight fabrication. The study shows that pavilions have been dematerialized as objects containing data (resourceful nature).
The highlight is their envisioning of the future ahead and how to better understand the world. By encouraging research in this area, we may create a much-needed body of sustainability resources and an awareness of standards required to address the architectural and urban needs of everyday people in general populations.
We can extrapolate the following conclusions from the abovementioned information. The current status of the pavilion remains true to its original nature (see Table 2). As Durand reflects in a passage on architecture’s double nature of art and science: “Architecture is a science and an art all at the same time:
like art, it requires talent.”49 This highlights the dual nature of architecture, just as the pavilion’s typology places it between architecture and art. There are exemplary projects that seek their way out of this coexistence, without a bias to either architecture or art. Architectural talents have observed the “Serpentine Gallery Pavilion” and the “MoMA PS1,” and successfully create structures that allow people to experience synthetic spaces.
The shifting role of architects and designers in the 21st Century pavilions (now as fields for experimentation) has created entire new venues for synthetic experiences. In this sense, we will face the two major global sustainability issues and the new digital media world. There is no time like the present to obtain resourceful assistance on the path to develop architecture.
Conclusively, this study will contribute to the scope of a “new hybrid pavilion (NHP)” and will provide new insights into the architectural field. Since some professionals might be skeptical of this outcome, integrating these relevant learning systems is a very difficult task that will raise many systematic complications.
NHPs offer quite valuable elements that an ordinary pavilion cannot, such as abundant resources. Utilizing these advantages will help NHPs with formalizing the system for design criteria, diversification, modularity, mobility, utilizing genuine expertise with a smart division of labor, and realizing the status quo. Accordingly, NHPs induce positive impacts on public agendas and provide opportunities for sustainability for cities throughout the world. In this paper, the findings obtained by reviewing the evolution of pavilions suggest that future research on pavilions should focus on the sustainability of pavilions at any location in any time period. There are some other alarming areas, such as the introduction of electronic digital media technology, which have engendered profound changes in the nature of contemporary pavilions. The new type of digital media accelerates social lifestyle changes. Therefore, it is important to fully understand NHPs in this unprecedented territory. The next steps, which will be taken in a future study, will focus on the digital media world. In these terms of “convergence,”50 there is no longer only a technological process, but instead there are ongoing social, cultural, and economic changes happening today. In short, temporality, an essential aspect of the pavilion, maintains its integrity throughout human history.
REFERENCES
Andrews, Peter Alford (1980). The Felt Tent in Middle Asia.
University of London.
Bergdoil, Barry (2013). The Pavilion and the Expanded Possibil- ities of Architecture. DETAIL, n6.
Calney, Mark (2006). The International Centennial Exhibition of 1876. American Patriot History Project.
Cimadevilaa, Javier Estévez and Césarb, Isaac López (2015). The Palais des Machines of 1889, Historical-structural reflections.
Universidade da Coruña, VLC arquitectura v2(2): 1-30.
Clarke, Joseph (2012). Iannis Xenakis and the Philips Pavilion.
The Journal of Architecture, 17:2, 213-229.
Coles, Alex (2007). Art, design, architecture: PAVILIONS. Whi- techapel and MIT Press, Art Monthly / 308.
Corn, Wanda M. (2011). Women Building History: Public Art at the 1893 Columbia Exposition. University of California Press.
Drew, Philip (2006). A CONUNDRUM IN TIME: Medieval and Modern Pavilions. Architectural Theory Review, 11:2, 53-65.
Foster, Hal (2011). Art-Architecture Complex. Verso, London.
Findling, John E. and Pelle, Kimberly D. (2008). Encyclopedia of World’s Fairs and Expositions. McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina and London.
Giberti, Bruno (2002). Designing the Centennial. The Universi- ty Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Gossel, Peter and Leuthauser, Gabriele (2012). Architecture in the 20th Century. Taschen.
Gutschow, Kai K. (2006). From Object to Installation in Bruno Taut’s Exhibit Pavilions. Carnegie Mellon University, Journal of Architectural Education, 63-70.
Jodidio, Philip (2005). Piano Complete Works. TASCHEN.
Kaltenbach, Frank (2015). Expo Milano 2015-Superficial Entertainment or Global Think Tank. DETAIL, n5.
Kretschmer, Winfried (1999). History of World Expositions. Frankfurt.
Linden, Gorden and Creighton, Paul (2008). The Expo Book.
Gordon Linden.
Madrazo, Leandro (1994). Durand and the Science of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education 48(1).
Nielsen, David and Kumarasuriyar, Anoma (2014). The lily, client and measure of Bruno Taut’s Glashaus. Architectural Research Quarterly, 18(3), 257-266.
Nielsen, David (2012). Client intentions and Bruno Taut’s Glashaus. Queensland University of Technology.
Nightingale, Virginia and Dwyer, Tim (2007). New Media World-Challenges for Convergence. Oxford University.
Stamper, John W. (1989). The Galerie des Machines of the 1889 Paris World’s Fair. Technology & Culture, 30(2).
Udovicki-Selb, Danilo (1997). Le Corbusier and the Paris Exhibition of 1937. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 56(1).
Moonan, Wendy (2007). German Design for an Industrial Age.
The New York Times Company.
Unknown Author (2000). Architectural Review, Hanover 2000.
EMAP Construct, v208, n1243, 42-81.
FURTHER EXTERNAL LINKS
Seoul exhibition puts Korean architect Minsuk Cho in the spotlight (2014) http://www.dezeen.com/2014/11/24 Publication (2015) http://farminarchitecture.org/12097513
ENDNOTES
1 Refer to his article “pavilion” traced to French “pavelium”, from Lat- in “papilionem” for “butterfly”, Bergdoll (2013): 566. Further a very scholarly bibliography, inspired by “Tent” Andrew (1980): i-1, and Drew (2006):64, Drew (2009):53.
2 Detailed account of the execution, wikipedia.org/world’sfairs
3 He clarifies world fairs, Findling and Pelle (2008): 5 and 7.
4 Refer to the first usage of the word, “exposition” Ibid., 8.
5 Types of differing history of expos, See Kirchgeorg, Dornscheidt, Giese and Stoeck, GABLER (2004): 908.
6 Mega events, Linden and Creighton, The Expo Book (2008).
7 Noted insightful descriptions on London 1851 Crystal Palace, Findling and Pelle (2008): 14, by Davis- London, 1851.
8 He argues dual aspects, in London 1851, Kretschmer (1999).
9 New era on cultural exchange, Past Expos: bie-paris.org.
10 Detailed Crystal Palace, Gossel and Leuthauser (1991): 21.
11 Philadelpia, 1876, Findling and Pelle (2008): 55, by Heller.
12 Committees intention, Giberti (2002): Preface x, 16.
13 See the meaning a grid of displays, Ibid., 20 and 23.
14 View on republican knowledge, Calney (2006): 11.
15 Capacity of fair, Findling and Pelle (2008): 53, by Heller.
16 Committee used London and Paris fairs, Giberti (2002): 22.
17 See specific commission directed, Ibid., 16.
18 State-government, Findling and Pelle (2008): 105, by Swift.
19 Structural description, 1889, Paris, Stamper (1989): 339.
20 Balancing act on 1889, Cimadevilaa and Césarb (2015): 20.
21 Moonan on 1907, Encyclopedia of Art and Design (2007).
22 “Temple of Beauty” Gutschow (2006): 66, Nielsen (2012): 7.
23 Glass firm on Glasshaus, Gossel and Leuthauser (2012):167.
24 Noted, his intention Glasshaus, 1914, Gutschow (2006): 68.
25 Glass firm syndicated, Nielsen and Kumarasuriyar (2014): 5.
26 See note on Gossel and Leuthauser (1991): 165.
27 Dominant ideas, ideologies of Expo, Findling and Pelle (2008): 290 and 294, by Chandler and Whalen: Paris, 1937.
28 Pavilion as artwork, Udovicki-Selb (1997): 58.
29 See the dominant trait as capitalism and mass-consumerism, Findling and Pelle (2008): 322, by Rydell; Brussels, 1958.
30 Thematic influences Past Expos: Brussels 1958, bie-paris.org
31 See Visitor guides, Clake (2012): 213.
32 See also designer’s architectural thinking process, Ibid., 217.
33 NY 1964, Findling and Pelle (2008): 331-332, by Uroskie.
34 Ovoid shape tree trunk structure, Domus 424 (1965): 2.
35 Kretschmer argues aspect on Expos (1999): 256. Also, History of me- ga-events, World expositions, GABLER (2004): 908.
36 1970s Expo’s, Findling and Pelle (2008): 346, by Anderson.
37 See further on Renzo Piano’s revelation, Jodidio (2005): 29.
38 Sustainable notions, Past Expos: Hannover 2000, bie-paris.
39 Expo 2000, Findling and Pelle (2008): 394, by Maloney.
40 Ibid., 67.
41 In post-modern design strategies “Blur”, Foster (2011): 100.
42 See also for addressing a key observation, Ibid., 99.
43 The blur, corresponding the new way of built object, Ibid., 204.
44 Noted specific thematic sink into expo: www.slowfood.com
45 See https://www.moma.org/artists/49574
46 Statement by the Architect: momaps1.org
47 Statement by the Architects: www.serpentinegalleries.org
48 This article gives a perspective YAP, Bergdoll (2013): 572.
49 Note on duality, Madrazo (1994): 20, Durand, Precis, vol2, 1.
50 See insightful “convergence” Nightingale and Dwyer (2007): Part1,1.
Further references Jenkins (2006): 282 and 345.
(Received May. 13, 2019/Revised Jun. 20, 2019/Accepted Jun. 20, 2019)
