PANTOMIMICRY

Founded in 1870, the École de Beaux-Arts provided students of architecture with a rigorous curriculum that focused on drawing, painting, and sculpture. This included learning through making models and drawings based on observing and reworking classical art10. The system was set up to produce competition at every level, to prepare the student for their future work as an architect11. The school became famous for holding anonymous competitions, with the aim being that the talent of the individual artist would shine through. The students who won these competitions would often later go on to become masters of their own atelier, training architects in their own image. Most students, without the means to travel, would learn about the world through the eyes of their master12. Despite this teaching system being initially designed to encourage creative freedom amongst students, it should be noted that there is evidence of some elements within it that may have had a detrimental towards artistic development of the students.

While the competitions and charettes could be interpreted as a game that combines elements of alea and agon as outlined by Caillois13, there are still two things that mean this game isn’t necessarily an act of ‘play’. Firstly, Huizinga would argue that because the winner of these competitions receives status, recognition and at times even money or the promise of a commission, that it sits outside the bounds of what can be considered play. A true game sits outside of ‘serious’ life, should be engaged in freely (not forced) by the participant, and the motivation to play should be unrelated to any kind of material interest14 .

Secondly, the strict hierarchy present in the atelier, with students looking up to and following their studiomasters15 without question created an environment which meant that ways of organising objects, societal rules, and aesthetic values were rarely challenged. In the context of the Beaux-Arts, the vertical relationship between master and pupil restricts the kind of interactions and environment that foster play, and this results in a lack of skill in critical thinking, something which would be considered essential for architects practicing today.

For Fröbel, the teacher was not a master, but a ‘guide’16 . The proper learning happens through direct interaction, certainly not through any explanation or the experience of another person. The Beaux-Arts, very much a top down down institution, and play is something that can only occur between17. Play originates from the interactions that occur between human and human, or between human and object. Taking one of Fröbel’s gifts as an example, a child spinning a wooden cylinder on a string, will subsequently observe a sphere and inside that, a cube. The child therefore, through play, gains an intuitive understanding of how the natural laws of geometry work in the world18. Could the same level of innate knowledge be achieved by forcing a student to make a study of static proportions, to memorise, draw and redraw the classical orders?

The ultimate goal of the École was to prepare its students to become architects. It knew, only too well, that the only valid environment in which such a proficiency could be achieved was in that of an architectural office, and that the only place for them to learn how to put a building together was on the construction site19. Any extra activities that verged away from architecture were excluded from the curriculum. As skilful as they were, the absence of play meant that the graduates of this system were not necessarily equipped with the ability to, as Fröbel puts it, construct an understanding of their own world, to express their true ideas, feelings, and emotions.

The failure of the Beaux-Arts is that it mostly produced carbon copies of the same architect, building the same old buildings. Even Viollet-le-Duc who famously refused to study architecture at the École des BeauxArts, labelled it as ‘a mould for architects - they all come out almost exactly the same.20’ He deplored that the contemporary use of the classical orders gave no representation of natural principles, or, if it does, uses an out-of-date, primitive image of these forces21. When he took over the construction of the Notre-Dame’s second spire in 1857, where a Beaux-Arts graduate probably would have applied the same learnt classical rules to the restoration, he believed architecture to be a product of synthesis22. Like a child with Fröbel gifts, he broke down parts of a whole in order to gain an intuitive understanding, and like Huizinga, he explored ways of creating order and logic. It could be argued that this resulted in a design language independent of any other existing style.

10 Jean Paul Carlhian, “The École Des Beaux-Arts: Modes and Manners,” JAE 33, no. 2 (1979), 9. 11 Ibid, 8. 12 Ibid. 13 Caillois, Man, Play and Games,9. 14 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, 1. 15 Carlhian, “The École Des Beaux-Arts: Modes and Manners,” 9. 16 Friedrich Fröbel, The Education of Man. (London: Sidney Appleton, 1887), 164. 17 Pascal Gielen, “Playing with the Rules of Play: The Spirit of the Avant-Garde in Arts Education,” The Journal of Aesthetic Education 52, no. 4 (2018), 18 Wilson, “The ‘Gifts’ of Friedrich Froebel,” 238. 19 Carlhian, “The École Des Beaux-Arts: Modes and Manners,” 17. 20 Andrew Ayers, “Romantic Deliria: On Viollet-Le-Duc’s Architectural Vision,” Architectural Review, July 21, 2020, https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/exhibitions/romantic-deliria-on-viollet-le-ducs-architectural-vision/. 21 Martin Bressani, “Notes on Viollet-Le-Duc’s Philosophy of History: Dialectics and Technology,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 48, no. 4 (1989), 340. 22 Ibid, 327. Fig. 1: Architecture Atelier, École des Beaux-Arts, 1937. Livre Grande Masse des Beaux-Arts 1937, Paris.

Fig. 2: A mixed review of the A.A. Pantomime, ‘Alice’, The Architect and Building News, 24 December 1948. The A.A. tradition of pantomimes started in 1897, most likely as an extension of the kind of organised leisure activities that the members would have partaken in when they were at public school23 . As A.A. the club evolved into A.A. the school, it adapted the obvious choice of pedagogy of the time: Beaux-Arts. The pantomimes remained, not as a part of the programme, but was held onto as a kind of ‘fun’ extracurricular activity. The tradition was continued right up until the 1960s, even after the more radical unit system had been adapted24. But why is a pantomime a game, and what is to be learnt from playing along with it?

According to the definition of play established by Huizinga, A.A. pantomimes can be considered a game because: 1. The actors and other participants have chosen to take part in the pantomime and are free to quit at any time. 2. The pantomime sits outside of ordinary life, and isn’t taken seriously. 3. It has a distinct time (everybody agrees to meeting times, rehearsal times, a show time) and space (a room in the school, a stage, the school itself) 4. Pantomimes have a structure. Carefully organised amongst themselves. They must write a script with a narrative, a score, design a set and costumes, memorise lines, design promotional material... In the final show, there is an audience watching.

Within each of these understood rules of what a pantomime constitutes, lies an opputunity for creative freedom. 5. The people participating were most likely not motivated by material interest, as evidenced by some of the mixed reviews found in the archives (fig. 2), and they did certainly did not get paid for their efforts.

Furthermore it is important to note the kind of play taking place here, and according to Caillois, this would fall under the category of mimeses. Engaging in the act of pretending to be someone or something else, ‘pantomimicry’ allows for imagination to take place. From a Fröbelian perspective, play involving a child’s imagination is vital for creative development25. This notion directly inspired Maria Montessori26, the who went on to further develop her own philosophies directly related to play and imagination. She believed that ability to imagine something that hadn’t yet occured, or something not yet created, can allow one to come up with new ideas and solutions for problems that children might otherwise be ill-equipped to solve. Imagination can also help one see how things are connected in a way that they might not otherwise be obvious. This ability helps to stimulate an understanding of causeeffect relationships between events27. It is one thing for architects to have the ability to design a building that can successfully stand up, but another to imagine how it’s materiality changes over a century, or how all the different kinds of occupants might circulate through it at different moments throughout the day. Imagination is an indispensable tool in architect’s tool kit, and therefore one could argue that something as silly as pantomimicry is actually a constructive educational device.

23 Edward Bottoms, interview by author, London, February 18, 2022. 24 Ibid. 25 Wilson, “The ‘Gifts’ of Friedrich Froebel,” 238. 26 Thomas Fallace, “The Savage Origins of Child-Centered Pedagogy, 1871-1913,” American Educational Research Journal 52, no. 1 (2015), 74. 27 Maria Montessori, The Absorbent Mind, (Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1949), 175.

Fig. 3: The ‘who’s who’ from a playbill of ‘3 Sisters St Leger,’ 1956. It should also be pointed out that the educational effects of pantomimicry didn’t stop with the pantomimickers themselves. The playbill from the 1956 production of ‘3 Sisters St Leger’ (see fig. 3) shows how a range of different people are included the line-up of actors and actresses. There is a student acting in a pantomime for the very first time, a number of past students and members who were at that time already practicing architects, including one who sadly ‘isn’t allowed to say anything in this play because of Scots accent.’ Even a founding member of the A.A. takes the stage. all of these different characters come together, making funny movements, saying something funny, most likely humiliating themselves in the process. Whenever Christmas came, and the school community all gathered ‘round to enjoy the show, there was a complete breakdown of the academic stiffness that any other school of architecture usually would have had. The ridiculousness of the pantomimicry encouraged satire, and nobody in the school was safe. It is quite possible that the space given for a playful criticism of educational system during the Beaux-Arts years led to a revolt against it, and a move towards the radical Modernist unit system. So in a sense, the kind of life and the kind of experience that one has while being involved in or witnessing pantomimicry becomes part of the curriculum of the A.A., even though it can’t be described in a list of classes.

Fig. 4: Photograph of an A.A. pantomime, date unknown.

Fig. 5: Kindergarten play - manipulative exercises using the Froebel’s gifts. Fig. 6: Diagram of the Triadic ballet choreography, Oskar Schlemmer, 1927.

From the outset, students of the Bauhaus were encouraged to take part in their own education by engaging not in the direct study of architecture, but with the hands on learning of all manner of crafts - drawing, sculpting, painting, weaving, carpentry, welding… Learning by doing. Reminiscent of Viollet’s theory that architecture is a product of synthesis, the teaching philosophy of the Bauhaus focussed on education through the confluence of all arts. This included the performing arts, which, containing dance, costume design, set design, props, makeup, etc. also happens to be a combination of all arts into one28. Play was directly incorporated into the curriculum in a much more intentional way, strongly demonstrated by the fact that all first-year students were ‘guided’ by kindergarten teachers, directly influenced by the early childhood pedagogies developed by Fröbel29 .

The continuation of this playful culture was especially evident in Oscar Schlemmer’s theatre workshop, where students transformed themselves into dynamic geometrical representations of the human figure. The results of which formed “a party of form and colour,” became known as the Triadic ballets30. Dancing and body movement, gave an opportunity for a new type of spatial experimentation, previously unavailable in the existing structures of the architectural education system. The costumes were carefully developed by Schlemmer and the students to constrict the dancer’s body so that they could only move their limbs in certain directions. The choreography was based on a rational mathematical pattern. The spinning and whirling movements of some of the dances, are very controlled, almost mechanical, but they are successful in that they challenge the dancer and the viewers perception of space, they have jarring and dizzying effect. He encouraged students to move freely through space, using their own bodies as an instrument for exploring new ways of thinking about space. He did so much more than simply teach through drawing; he taught them how to dance with freedom in order make something beautiful out of nothing but pure movement itself.

Like the pantomimes at the A.A., the Triadic ballets could be classified as a game according to Huizinga’s definition. However, in this case, it could be argued that the performers are not really engaging in mimicry. The focus of the game here is closely aligned with Caillois’ notion of ‘ilinx,’31 as the movements allow for the temporary disruption of perception, both for those moving and those watching. Is it possible that Schlemmer and the students even are taking direct inspiration from Fröbel’s gifts? The main figures in the ballet are spheres, cubes and cylinders32 – hence the name ‘Triadic Ballet.’ Using their bodies, and guided by these simple forms, they explore space in a way that is reminiscent of a child playing with a set of wooden blocks.

The human body has always been important when it comes to learning how to be an architect, and this connection to the human body is definitely not alien to the play-less system of the Beaux-Arts. On the contrary, sculpture and architecture, and the proportions of the human body are part of the classical tradition. However, it is one thing to memorise the specific proportions of the perfect classical body, and another thing to explore the same thing in wild movement. Arriving at the same conclusion that Viollet did decades prior to the Bauhaus’s existence, the Triadic Ballet makes one realise that what has been a huge tradition of static proportions is useless, and that a true and more useful understanding of the nature of mathematics, geometry and physics is best arrived at when engaging one’s own intuition.

Finally, the ballet moves not only the bodies of the students as they dance, but also of the students, the staff and the visitors inside the school. While the content of the ballet is abstract; the performance itself is very real. The curriculum relies on the students as the moving parts to manage and carry through with the entire production, thus allows them to become the animators of the project. Again, as with the pantomimicry of the A.A., the audience members who come to view the performances can see other students, teachers (Oskar Schlemmer himself often joined in) and staff in these ridiculous outfits. Again, this caused a breakdown in formality. The structure of the school suddenly becomes a space that is democratic, horizontal rather than vertical. Any direct or indirect role you play in the performance is somehow contributing to your education and your understanding of architecture. It becomes a much more personal, engaged, and intuitive way of producing an architectural education. Fig. 7: Group photo of Triadisches Ballett, 1927.

28 Juliet Koss. “Bauhaus Theater of Human Dolls,” The Art Bulletin 85, no. 4 (2003), 724. 29 Frederick M. Logan, “Kindergarten and Bauhaus,” College Art Journal 10, no. 1 (1950), 42–43. 30 “Oskar Schlemmer’s Ballet of Geometry – in Pictures,” The Guardian (Guardian News and Media, November 24, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/nov/24/ oskar-schlemmers-ballet-of-geometry-in-pictures. 31 Caillois, Man, Play and Games, 12. 32 Koss. “Bauhaus Theater of Human Dolls,” 736.

Fig 8. Photograph of an A.A. Pantomime, 1928. Learning from the lessons given to us by Fröbel, a deep and intuitive understanding of the natural laws of mathematics, physics and geometry, so critical to the comprehension of architecture, are best arrived at through a kind of synthesis that happens through the process of guided play. The pedagogy of the hierarchical École des Beaux-Arts, even with its anonymous competitions of skill, doesn’t hold up to the definition of play as laid out by Huizinga and Caillois’s game theories.

Conversely, when play is present in architectural pedagogy, something magical occurs. Whether intentional or not, the ilinx of the Triadic ballets and pantomimicry of the A.A. broke down the hierarchy of a traditional architecture school. These activities gave people the time and the space needed for the development a deep understanding of the rules that govern both nature and culture. Play gives us the gifts of intuition, imagination and empathy. Without play, an architectural education is just fragmented pieces of knowledge, absent of any satisfying conclusion.