Adjusted Techniques by Architects Trained as Craftsmen

(1)

- Cases of Adolf Loos, Mies van der Rohe, Peter Zumthor -

Hayub Song

Department of Architecture, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

Abstract

Many theorists acknowledge that Modern architecture denied the architect’s crafty gesture for the sake of pure formal and compositional status of a building. As well, modern technology in construction has been prevailing as the sole support for modern architecture. But there exists architects who proposed a dialectic development of traditional and modern techniques. This thought was prominent in Germanic circle where technological development was in advance. Throughout 20^th century, the works of Adolf Loos, Mies Van der Rohe, and Peter Zumthor are representatives in each period. A common point begins from their apprenticeships as craftsmen: Loos and Mies as stonemasons, Zumthor as a cabinetmaker. More than this fact, their craftsmanship is embedded in their works and express creativity of architects. While mass production system raises non-participatory practice that merely require assemblage of products, the adjusted techniques with craftsmanship brings forth a participatory practice that does not limit the creativity of architects.

Keywords : Adjusted Technique, Craftsman, John Ruskin, Adolf Loos, Mies van der Rohe, Peter Zumthor

1. INTRODUCTION

In this paper, I will thematize alternative judgment criteria of the creativity in modern and contemporary architecture. As mass production culture becomes common, technology was also regarded as a replaceable item. However, in the beginning of modern architecture, there exist architects who incorporated learning from their craftsman training into modern architecture in order to compensate for the incomplete modern technology. Their works were not against mass production or minimalist aesthetics, and yet added precision to modern construction with the help of craftsmanship. At present, this compensation leads to the adjustment of modern technology and material, and makes us envision a different kind of creativity in architecture.

(1) NON-PARTICIPATORY PRACTICE PRESUMED IN JOHN RUSKIN’S REVOLUTIONARY ORNAMENT

John Ruskin divided the systems of architectural ornament into three types :(1) servile ornament, in which the execution or power of the inferior workman is entirely subjected to the higher intellect of the architect; (2) consti- tutional ornament, in which the inferior labor power is, to a certain point, emancipated and independent, having a will of its own, yet confessing its inferiority and rendering ob- edience to higher powers; and (3) revolutionary ornaments, in which no laborer inferiority is admitted at all.¹ Though

* This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University Research Grants in 2010.

this categorization is written for the ‘savageness’ of Gothic architecture, it addresses a general relationship between architect and builder or craftsman. Especially, revolutionary ornament assumes a modern condition where architects and builders maintain own specialty in design and construction. It is quite similar to the current condition where design and manufacturing have separate specialty.

Often, this leads to non-participatory practices that do not cooperate in detail design and construction.

(2) PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

Against Ruskin’s predict on independent expertise on design and construction, there are architects who intermin- gle intellectual abilities of architect and technique of craftsman into the participatory design that enhances both expertise. I will select architects who were not regarded as obvious examples of practicing as craftsman. Instead, architects who were faithful in architectural design will be introduced. This approach has dual purposes; one is to thematize alternative criteria of creativity, and the other is to reinterpret commonly known examples in a new pers- pective. Throughout modern and contemporary architecture, three architects merit attention in this regard; Adolf Loos, Mies van der Rohe, and Peter Zumthor were trained as craftsman and educated as architect. They did not follow orthodox modern technology, but adjusted modern technique with learning from craftsmanship.

1 John Ruskin, “The Nature of Gothic”, The Stones of Venice, Vol. 2, 1853 (London : Little, Brown & Co., 1981), p.58.

(2)

2. ADOLF LOOS: A STONEMASON WHO CAN SPEAK LATIN

(1) LOOS’ EVALUATION OF CRAFTMANSHIP

Trained as a stonemason, Loos posited an executive equality between architect and builder. Richard Neutra, who is a disciple of Loos in Vienna, recalls Loos’ talk:

“If I(Adolf Loos) want a wood paneling or wainscot to be of a certain height, I stand there, hold my hand at that certain height, and the carpenter makes his pencil mark. Then I step back and look at it from one point and from another, visualiz- ing the finished result with all my powers. This is the only human way to decide the wainscot, or the width of a window.”

Loos was inclined to use a minimum of paper plans; he car- ried in his head all the details of even the most complex designs, and prided himself on being an architect without a pencil.²

Loos kept his design intention open throughout the process of construction. This practice resembles that of a Gothic master-builder who designs and constructs at the site. In the turning period of modern technique, Loos in a way transgressed modern equality between architect and builder. However, he maintained a difference from an au- thoritative architect who designs and orchestrates techniques in construction, as follows:

I was secretly delighted to hear recently the complaint of a colleague of mine that a potter to whom he had given a drawing had refused outright to follow it. He did not even want to make the attempt…..”The man[potter] was right,” I told the architect.³

Loos assumed that the architect in the above is a

“Ringstrasse architect”, whom was called by Loos as a representative of designer without the insight of culture and technique. A design developed by such an architect does not enhance the sense of authenticity sustained by old method. Loos, instead, respected local craftsman who has a better sense of design and manufacturing artifacts. He applied local and imported craftsmanship to the construction of his buildings.

(2) LOOS’ BUILDINGS

Each construction specialty was employed in Loos’

buildings following the process of construction. Michae- lerhaus’ entrance marble works, steel works, stucco works were the results of separate craftsmanship. As we notice in the cladding, these combinations were abruptly changed from one work to the other work. Local and English craftsmen participated in the cladding construction. This

2 Richard Neutra, Survival through Design, (London: Oxford University Press, 1964),p.300.

3 Adolf Loos, “Glass and Clay”, Spoken into The Void, (Cam- bridge: MIT Press, 1982),p.36.

attitude comes from Loos’ principle of cladding that wrote workers should not imitate other works by substituting materials to minimize the labor time and costs. Loos assembled diverse works without undermining the builder’s authority and independence. The unity is not so much sus- taining a formal and material likeness which gives a sense of continuity of surfaces, as addressing a viewer’s cogni- tive sense through distinctively refined works: the assemblage of marble cladding, stucco cladding, iron work. Loos avoided the ornamental works of molding, since the builder did not need to work on the transitional points of materials. In this context, Michaelerhaus’ façade can be unders- tood as a collection of “good” production skills and well- produced materials, although the overall shape is anony- mously abstract.

In Karrtner Bar, Italian stonemasons were employed in the ceiling work, while other parts of the bar were built by local craftsmen.⁴ Thus, we can assume that Loos gave importance to the quality of construction that emulates old construction in modern buildings. Loos harmonized and united diverse construction processes in the construction of modern buildings. However, Loos’ concept of the collection of various processes is different from traditional sense of harmonizing. In wood cladding in house designs, the ornamentation was minimized such that the molding shape was rectilinear, which was not a profile of traditional re- dundancy. Thus, rather than the presence or absence of ornament, we see that the choice of ornament was important to Loos; cladding with proper materials and technique was his primary concern. It was enough for Loos that builders did their own specialized works without negotiat- ing with architects. Then, where is his role in façade design? Rather than working as a form designer, he provided façade parti and orchestrated façade construction, abiding by builder’s logic. He described himself as “a mason who has studied Latin.” This comment illustrates the intermin-

4 David Leatherbarrow, The roots of Architectural Invention: Site, Enclosures, Materials, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p.208.

Figure 1. Michaelerhaus, Adolf Loos, 1909-11

(3)

gle int tec rea of tha 3.

(1 fab ag be

M ou en Ho wo an ing be dr

ide pu (2

lat sh illu lar

5 F bu

6 R Tra do

ed condition tellectual app chnique in ter action to the a f materiality in

at period.

MIES : ADJU ) MIES, BAU

Mies was in brication of gainst the form e regarded as a

We know n the goal but th for itself. The yes, the most our specific from aesthetic what alone it s

Mies proclaime ur times. This ngineer, and b

owever, Mies ould like to p nd Baukunstle

gs and detail etween his dr ressed this con

Since the m a response to g ical structure not conceal it ways. How, th tion as expres ty?….If Mies pearance. His

Though this eas, in fact m ure status.

) MIES’ BUIL To posit Mie tionship with hould be exam ustrate discor rge span stee

Fritz Neumeyer uilding art, (Cam

Rovin Evans, “ anslations from on: Architectura

of the techniq proach of a m rms of its purp abrupt modern n cheap mode

USTING TEC UKUNSTLER

n the middle building ind malism of mod a builder, Bau

no forms, only b he result of our

truly formal is t elementary ex concern to libe c speculators an should be, name

ed the integra s called for th builder, whic s’ apology for posit Mies in er based on th

ls of building rawings and r nflict in terms

mechanical struct gravity, any arch would surely d t. Yet conceal i hen, have his bu ssions of structur adhered to any buildings aim a

interpretation many details

LDINGS s in the prope h engineers, mined. Haus L

rdance in the l structure. M r, The Artless W mbridge: MIT P

“Mies van der R m Drawing to B al Association, 1

ques of stonem man of letters

pose and mot nization that a ern constructi

CHNIQUE

of mass-prod dustry. Mies dern architectu ukunstler:

building problem r work. There is

conditional, fuse xpression of its erate building a nd make building ely Bauen.⁵

ation of art an he integrated r ch is termed r “Bau-” was n a struggle b he research o gs; there exist

real works. R of rationality

ture of a buildin hitectural expres eclare the transm it Mies does alw uildings maintain

ral truth and stru y logic, it was

t effect.⁶

n can lead to are conceale

er context of t builders, an Lange and Hau

integration o Mies sought a

World: Mies va Press, 1991), p.2 Rohe’s Paradox Building and O 1997)

masonry and s; he conside tive, as a cultu allowed imitat

ion of Vienna

duction and p placed hims ure, preferring

ms. Form is not no form in and ed with the task

solution…..it is activity(Bauerei) g( Bauen) again

nd technology role of archit

as Baukunst not consisten between archit f working dra ts a discrepan Rovin Evans y and irrationa

ng is nothing but ssion of mechan- mission of load ways and in all ned their reputa- uctural rationali- the logic of ap-

binary opting d for creatin

this paper, his d craftsmans us Esters in 19 of brickwork a after a dictato

an der Rohe on 242.

xical Symmetri Other Essays (L

the ered ural tion a of

pre- self g to

t d , s ) n

y in ect, tler.

nt. I tect aw- ncy

ad- ality:

t - , l - - -

g of g a

re- ship

929 and orial n the es,”

Lon-

con com tha me the 7m am tha lib dev ste flo be thi spa sol pro do his be tur aes

7 K MI Wo Ho Fi H

ntrol over det mmented on.

an the require ents. Mies did eir own techn m span, Mies mount is quite at Mies’ engi beral use of P vices.⁷ As str eel beams wer oor loads. (fi ams were use is irrational st aces. Howeve lve “building oblems withou xical position s later works.

am” on the cu ral reason for sthetic. Witho

Kenneth Framp IT Press, 1996) olf Tegethoff, ouses (New Yor Figure 2. Sect

igure 3. Section D Haus Esters,Krefe Mies van der

tails to solve Thus, Mies p ed amount of

d not give bu nique. In Hau

s used many e questionabl neer, Ernst W einer beams a ructure drawi re used to supp

g.2,3) As ma ed and careful teel work was er, this is con

problems,”

ut following t n between arch

In his own e urtain-wall, he this was a pr out this elem

pton, Studies in

),p.167. The fu Mies van der rk: Museum of M

tion Drawing of H

Drawing of eld, 1928,

Rohe

‘building prob produced ove

details for co uilders to fre us Lange, in o y steel beams le. Kenneth F Walther, comp

and other elab ings indicate,

port the thick any as three lly concealed s justified to c nflict with M since he caus the builder’s l hitect and bui explanation of e acknowledge retext and the ment, the cur

n Tectonic Cu ull text of this

Rohe: The Vi Modern Art, 19 Haus Lange, Kref

Figure 4. Wood F Farnsworth

Mies van

blems’ which rwrought deta nstruction do eedom to foll order to creat s of which Frampton wr plained of Mi borate structu many kinds

walls and upp layers of st underneath. A create large sp Mies’ promise sed unnecess logic. This pa ilder persisted f the famous ed that the stru

true reason w rtain-wall wou

lture (Cambrid letter is given Villas and Coun

985),p.61.

feld, 1928

Furniture Detail o House, 1954, n der Rohe

he ails cu- ow e a the rote ies’

ural of per teel All pan to ary ara- d to

“I- uc- was

uld

dge:

n in ntry

of

(4)

ha rad thr

ch wo cra the cra tha su sta me he Th tow ye of

wo tio me in mo ha

of

8 F bu

9 P Mo

ave been a ma doxical positi roughout his c With regard hanges in his ork. In 1924 aftsmanship, “ e point where aftsmanship.”

at industrial m ure the quality

and only in t ent, we cann esitancies to a his proclamati

ward new ind ears, however, f industrializat

Handwork tion of the bui for it is just th It has been d blocks can low eliminates han many advanta fore us is not rather a revolu try. The natur long as we em for they requir

In the previo ork of mediev on by acceptin ention of “res fact, he aspi odern method and work as co

In Farnswort f plug weld on Fritz Neumeyer uilding art, (Cam

Philip Johnson odern Art, 1974

Figure 5. Steel W

ass-produced ion on structu career.

d to craftsm opinion abou , Mies wrote

“We could pe e we obtain re

”⁸ In this rem methods will b y of craftsman

the beginning not compare a highly matu ion of Bauku dustrial metho , he displayed tion and suspe

cannot be elim ilding industry, n his hand work th

demonstrated th wer material and nd labor. Besid ages over these n the rationalizat ution in the who re of the buildi mploy essentiall re hand labor.⁹

ous remark at val craftsmans ng craft work sults comparab

ired to the p d. However, M

oncealing the

th House, Mie n iron to create r , The Artless mbridge: MIT P n, Mies van de

4), p.124.

Window Frame D Mies van

factory-like f ure and appe

manship, there ut mass-produ e that with t erfect the indu esults compar mark, he show become perfe nship. He add g phase of ind

the initial im ure culture o nst was steer od and new d skepticism of

ended it for th

minated by chang nor by improvin

at keeps small c hat the use of d labor costs, bu des, the old bric newer methods. T tion of the prese ole nature of the ing process wil ly the same bui

1924, Mies d ship, but he m

in modern con ble to medieva erfection of c Mies acknowle imperfection

es ground aw e planar surfa

World: Mies va Press, 1991),p.2 er Rohe (New Detail of Farnswo n der Rohe

façade. Mies’

earance persis

e were seve uction and ha the end of ha ustrial methods rable to medie wed a firm be ect enough to ded that since dustrial devel mperfections a of craftsmansh ring the Zeitw

spirit. After f f the ideal dre e future:

ges in organiza- ng work methods ontractors going larger masonry ut this in no way ck masonry has The problem be- ent methods, but e building indus- l not change as ilding materials

denied the ha odified this po nstruction. In al craftsmansh craftsmanship edged the role

of details.

way the remna ces. To avoid

an der Rohe on 246.

York: Museum rth House, 1954,

pa- sted

eral and-

and s to eval elief en-

we lop-

and hip.

wille few eam

- s, g.

y y s - t - s

,

and- osi- the hip,”

p in e of

ants the

n the m of

du car rem we ch the wa tha On evi qu pro tec me fac

hit an dy ch rim fic jus the alt inc jus les of 4.

cab wa yo a p his nip der an

10

tur

ull edge of fi refully chose mnants of we elded to I-co annel’s web to e welded spo as said to hav at risks tear-a n this point, M

ident. As Mie uality of mas

oduction. Thi chnique. To g ember might ct, Mies instru In the milieu tectural design d building be ymade objects

oose from A t ment of techni cation guidebo

stment of tech e seamless pe ternative to th controvertible sted technique ss perfection o

a rational-loo PETER ZUM Peter Zumtho binetmaker, w as in stonemas ung cabinetm perfectly fitted s careers, this pulation of m rived from Zu d imagination

It is not the the reality of t act or state of wish to concen of building m reality of the s properties I wi meaning and successful buil as a home for m

His haptic im Peter Zumthor, re, (Baden: Lars

llet weld tha plug weld, in elding. Specifi lumns, plug o the column’

ts were groun ve worried ab apart due to t Mies’ attitude es said, he co s-produced m is led him to grind away th

cause the fail ucted the build of standardiz n became mor ecame more an

s; the archite to Z and the b ique, since eve ook. In this c hnique be jud erfection of c he onslaught fact is that e for his purpo

of craftsmans oking building MTHOR : ADJ or received his while Loos a sonry. One of maker was liste

d cabinet door subtle sense w materials and

umthor’s perc ns it triggers:

e reality of theo the concrete buil f dwelling that ntrate my imagi materials- stone, structures I use t ish to penetrate

sensuousness to lding may be ki man.¹⁰

magination doe , “The Hardcor s Muller Publish

at is normal nstead to min fically, when L

welding of t s flange and a und away. (fig out the instab the unusual g e toward hand ould not be sa material and o defy the bu

he welded sp lure of structu der to make w zation and pre re and more a nd more the a ect had enou builder began

ery product ha context, how dged? Could h

craftsmanship of mechaniz he was an ar ose. He quest ship that assis g.

JUSTED MAT s most import and Mies’ cra f his greatest s ening to the s r as it snapped was revealed ambiences.

eption on the

ories detached fr lding assignmen interests me and inative faculties.

cloth, steel, lea to construct the with my imagin o bear so that th

ndled, a buildin

es not remain re of Beauty”, T

hers, 1998), p.3

otherwise, M nimize the vis L-channels w the holes of after that proc g.5) The buil bility of weldi grinding proce d work becom

atisfied with the mechaniz uilder’s logic pot of structu ure. Despite t what he wanted

efabrication, a matter of cho assembly of r ugh freedom

to lose the exp ad its own spe

could Mies’

his aspiration p be seen as

zation? The o rchitect who

ed for the sea sted the creati

TERIALITY tant training a aftsman traini satisfactions a sucking sound d closed. Later through the m This sense w reality of thin

rom things, it is nt relating to the d upon which I . It is the reality ather…- and the building whose nations, bringing he spark of the ng that can serve

in the sensuo Thinking Archit 34.

Mies ual were L- ess der ing ess.

mes the zed of ural this d.

arc- oice

rea- to pe- eci- ad- n to

an one ad- am- ion

as a ing as a d of r in ma- was

ngs

s e I y e e g e e

us- tec-

(5)

ne ho arc als wa tha ria din ter res am

an tec tia ph his sc

ing Es the ing pr 11

Pa cel ry, of

‘in the in

12

tur wo rep sto Zu

ess of material ome for man’

chitectural se so pursued ‘w armth based u at proposes th als and claddi

ng for some s r to the space sidence. Zum mbiences throu Zumthor wor nd tries to con ctural situatio ated from volu hotograph to r s memory in ale models wo

His design dr g drawings be specially, in w e repetition o gs are handed retation of the

Marcel Proust ast, vol.3 (New l Proust wrote ,’ by which he m f Venice through nvoluntary mem e Princesses’ H front of San M Peter Zumthor re, (Baden: La orking on my d presentation wh op before inesse Figure 6. Elevati umthor Studio, H Zumthor, 1985-6 Drawing of Wo

ls, but rather t

; his craftsma ettings. This warm and liva upon the theo he proper me ing. Through

pecific place, : for example mthor pursues ugh his own m rks in full-sca ncretize memo ns and senses untary rememb

remember ou a new sense, ork until certa

rawings are m ecause of the a woodwork dra of real membe d to a carpent

se types of od t, “Time Rega York: Vintage two kinds of m means purposel h looking at a p mory’; it is until House which rem Marco’s in Venic

r, “The Hardcor ars Muller Pub

drawings until hen the prevail entials start detr ion Drwaing of Haldenstein, Peter

6, Construction ood Paneling

that he aims f anship operat is reminiscen able’ space. L ory of archite ethods of prod the selection Loos gave de , piety to a to s imagination memory and h ale models, d ories. His me s from them c bering, for ex ut something.¹ his design dr ain desired con

meticulous, and ambience the awings, infinit ers. (fig.6) W ter or a stonem dd constructio

ained”, Remem

Books, 1981), memory; one is ly trying to reca photograph, bu l he trips on a st minds him clea

e.

re of Beauty”, lishers, 1998),

they reach the ling mood I se racting from its r

Figure 7. Di Detail of Kun 1997, Pe

for the making tes for provid nt of Loos, w Loos pursued t

ectural enclos duction of ma n of proper cl

esignated char omb, warmth t n to character haptic sense.

delicate drawi emories of arc

ould be differ xample, lookin

1 To reconstr rawings and f

ndition reveal

d look like wo drawing depi te lines articul When these dra mason, the in on drawings d

mbrance of Thi pp.897-921. M

‘voluntary mem apture his mem ut fails; the othe tone in the fron arly of his stand Thinking Archi

p.14. “I conti e delicate poin eek emerges, an

s impact.”

isjointed Corner nsthaus, Bregnez eter Zumthor

g ‘a ding who this sure ate- lad- rac- to a rize

ngs chi- ren- ng a

ruct full-

s.¹²

ork- icts.

late aw- nter- does

ings Mar-

mo- mory

er is nt of ding itec- inue nt of nd I

wo eff in eff Th pro

gla lig tec is n sol al Zu cre thr im Th fac un

cra ma ter Th ack

,

T

Fi

ork in multip fects of detaili

each line of s fect of drawin hus, Zumthor’

ovised creatio In Kunsthaus ass works as ght and heat g ctonic works a

not presumed lid object. (fig

view through umthor’s stack

eates a syne rough the ima mpression that

he open, dis-jo ce of the volu nderstand the c

Zumthor pre aftsman in h ass-produced riality through his adjusted t

knowledged s

Figure 8. Wall Se Thermal Bath, Va Peter Zumth

gure 10. Stacked thau

ple levels; dra ing. To a ston stone stacking ng. Each stack

’s working dr on. (fig.8,9)

s in Austria, a separate en ain within the as a key comp d to be a fragil

g.10) Viewers the gap. (fig.

ked glass, sin sthetic sense aginary proces

the architect ointed corner ume. Its open construction o e-experiences his design pr objects are tr h the adjustme technique ope status-quo con

ection of als, 1996, hor,

Glass of Kuns- us

awings conve nemason, Zum g is as much king is not rep rawings requi

Bregnez, th ntity with lim e museum. Th

ponent of this e thing, but ra s in the interio 11) Haptic is a nce the exter e of both vi ss of stacking t stacked the r detail breaks n condition in of the surface.

the logic rocess. In Zu ransformed in

ent of constru erates to criti nstruction.

Figure 9. Therm Peter

Figure 11. Vi ner disjoint

ey concepts a mthor’s precisi important as peated regular ire builder’s i

he outer stack miting direct su he glass stacki s building. Gl ather is used a or have a mini a better word rior curtain-w sion and tou g triggered by glass by han s the planar s nvites viewers

(fig.7) of builder a umthor’s wor nto designed m

uction techniq icize common

mal Bath, Vals, 19 r Zumthor,

iew through the c ted gap, Kunsthau

and ion the rly.

im-

ked un- ing lass as a im-

for wall uch an nd.

sur- s to

and rks, ma- que.

nly

996,

cor- us

(6)

5. CONCLUSION

This research on the adjustment of technique focused on the inclusion of craftsmanship in the construction of modern and contemporary works. The above-mentioned architects did not prefer organic shapes that often associate with craftsmanship. Instead, they used abstract lines and vo- lumes, while incorporating learning from craftsman training. Unlike modern architects who claimed for new rational methods of construction, they were ambivalent about the rationality and adjusted technology in a creative way. Loos, Mies, and Zumthor are representative architects of one’s own period in response to the development of technology.

Loos gave the builder the freedom to follow their own faithful logic in the belief that the maker of a usable arti- fact knows better about the product than an architect who designs the shape only. As a result, his buildings display the assemblage of various craftsmanship in stone, cladding, and ceiling works. He assembled various old techniques with modern technology. Mies usurped a dictatorial control of builders and presented himself as a Baukunstler, who is proficient at both design and construction. He applied handwork to the assembly of machine produced materials.

His aim was to make the construction look like a perfect condition, achieving an aura of architectural object. Zum- thor works through multiple logics of architect, builder and craftsman in design process by himself. His buildings express new materiality with mass produced materials. In order to achieve new materiality, he borrows construction technique of other materials. As a result, he leaves room for the viewer to participate in the imaginary construction.

Period Architect Craftmanship Training

Adjustment of Techniques

1900’s Adolf Loos Stonemason

Adjusted modern technique with authentic craftsmanship

1900~

1960’s

Mies van der

Rohe Stonemason

Adjusted modern technique to achieve blemish surface

1990~

2000’s Peter Zumthor Cabinet Maker

Adjusted materiality with existing materials

This research can further be expanded to elucidate current adjustment of given architectural technology to the expression of architect’s creativity. While mainstream technology gears toward better performance, this practice that transform current technology operates toward the participatory practice that illicit the creativity of architects, builders, and furthermore building users.

REFERENCES

Adolf Loos, Spoken into The Void: Collected Essays 1897- 1900, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982)

David Leatherbarrow, The Roots of Architectural Invention:

Site, Enclosure, Materials, (London: University of Cambridge, 1993)

Detlef Mertins, The Presence of Mies, (New York: Prince- ton Architectural Press, 1994)

Fritz Neumeyer, The Artless World: Mies van der Rohe on the building art,(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991)

Peter Zumthor, Peter Zumthor works: buildings and projects 1979-1997, (Baden: Lars Muller Publishers, 1998)

Peter Zumthor, Thinking Architecture (Baden: Lars Muller Publishers, 1998)

Peter Darvey, “Zumthor the Shaman,” Architectural Re- view, 1998, Oct, v.205, n.1220, pp.68-74

(Date of Submission : 2010.3.7)

Table 1. Summary Chart