Maison Ozenfant: The Living Machine by Jocelyn Wong

Study Abroad - Summer 2018

MAISON OZENFANT: THE LIVING MACHINE Jocelyn Wong

Illinois Institute of Technology

STUDY ABROAD - SUMMER 2018 ARCH 456-01 - Le Corbusier et L’Œuvre Complète Professor Colleen Humer ARCH 468-01 - Analytical Freehand Drawing Professor Martin Majkrak

STUDENTS Eric Drozd Daniel Whittaker Tiffany Chang Yuan Chen Duy Nguyen Dominique Sokan Jocelyn Wong Melisa Ozyurek Peidong Yang Erin Nelson Jingyu Jwa

With Illinois Institute of Technology.

MAISON-ATELIER DU PEINTRE AMÉDÉÉ OZENFANT: A REPORT By Jocelyn Wong

OZENFANT AND CORBUSIER Upon receiving his first commission from Anatole Schwob for the watchmaker’s house, Villa Schwob, Corbusier left his home in La Chaux-de-Fonds in 1917. He made Paris, France his permanent residence. There, he met artist Amedee Ozenfant. Corbusier and Ozenfant began to form a partnership in their work, editing several books together as well as producing similar paintings that would later define a new movement in art, influenced by Corbusier’s background in architecture and Ozenfant’s creative vision. Their partnership would last for seventeen years. Ozenfant was Corbusier’s mentor that taught him the rudimentary elements of art and the Cubist style. However, as Corbusier further advanced his architecture and writing career, he unfortunately ended contact with Ozenfant.

CUBISM AND AND IT’S INFLUENCE ON CORBUSIER’S NEW MOVEMENT Cubism was an art movement formed in the early twentieth century that focused on the abtraction of multiple perspectives in order to bring about the larger context. The subject of the painting was usually broken down, analyzed, and subjected to fragmentation. Both men thought that while the new movement had simplified and removed the distracting elements of realist art, Cubism had turned into something that was decorative instead of substantial. Corbusier and Ozenfant proposed a return to the rational, geometric shapes that defined the subject, while keeping its abstract nature. The movement was named “Purism”, and the men released their manifesto of the idea Apres le Cubism in 1918.

Pablo Picasso, 1910, Girl with a Mandolin (Fanny Tellier), oil on canvas, 100.3 x 73.6 cm, Museum of Modern Art, New York

Amédée Ozenfant, 1920-21, Nature morte (Still Life), oil on canvas, 81.28 cm x 100.65 cm, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

THE BUILDING: CONCEPTION AND CONTEXT THE FIVE POINTS The house is free of supporting walls at its highest level, which gives the space freedom to be designed without restraint. Although it does not have Corbusier’s characeristic pilotis, the walls of reinforced concrete are sufficient enough to be structurally sound. Its facade is void of design, true to modernist principles; however, that does not leave the house wanting in ornament. The large windows, as well as the second floor’s continuous line of glass around the front, are the only decoration needed. The principles that he developed and stood by

Le Corbusier. Oeuvre Complète, Volume 1, 1910-1929. Elevations and plans for the second and third floors. The spiral staircase provides direct access to all the floors without giving up space for the other utilities.

throughout his career are only formative elements in this house; Corbusier, after working with Ozenfant, designing his studio, and showcasing their art together, would manifest in his later book, Vers une architecture, published in 1923.

Le Corbusier. Oeuvre ComplĂ¨te, Volume 1, 1910-1929. Original interior of the second floor, where Ozenfant would have his studio and work. The volumetric quality of the combination of skylight and large window emphasizes the pure geometry of the space.

GEOMETRY IN EVERY ASPECT Corbusier’s early travels to Greece and Rome had a profound impact on his work and design principles. Although he does not explicitly state the importance of the golden ratio or other ancient methodologies used by the Greeks and Romans in their monuments, the result of their impact is shown in Corbusier’s own work. In this house especially, the regulating lines in its design are the same angle throughout- each part of the building is in proportiion to each other. Lines can be drawn at the same inclination from each level of the house.

Le Corbusier. Oeuvre Complète, Volume 1, 1910-1929. Demonstration of the geometry and proportions of the house. The angle is the same from every line drawn in relation to the building.

Le Corbusier. Oeuvre ComplĂ¨te, Volume 1, 1910-1929. Elevations, ground plan of Maison Ozenfant. The first and second floor contains all the necessary essentials of a house: kitchen, bathroom, and various rooms according to need. The second floor, however, is primarily for Ozenfantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s studio. There is no lack of light, as the original plan installed glass panes on three sides of the interior corner, creating a perfect cube of natural illumination for his work.

“THE ARCHITECTURAL PROMENADE” Corbusier’s early travels to Greece and Rome had a profound impact on his work and design principles. Although he does not explicitly state the importance of the golden ratio or other ancient methodologies used by the Greeks and Romans in their monuments, the result of their impact is shown in Corbusier’s own work. In this house especially, the regulating lines in its design are the same angle throughout- each part of the building is in proportiion to each other. Lines can be drawn at the same inclination from each level of the house. An early concept of Corbusier that would be fully explored in his famous Villa Savoye was how one moves around a space. Coined the “architectual promenade”, he described it as the sequence of spaces, or direction of movement that the space moves one through. When a program is designed to showcase “the promenade”, only then can a person fully experience the space in which they are in. For Corbusier, the Ozenfant house particularly demonstrates this through his placement of stairs. On the lowest level of the house, one enters through the door and is immediately presented with a spiral staircase winding upwards towards to the bedrooms and living areas. It is a steep climb, challenging the visitor to forge onwards to the main function of the building. Once on the studio level, the visitor is able to view the light-filled area in its entirety. The second set of stairs is placed on the furthermost side of the studio, with its curved wall leading the eye to a small door at the summit. It is rather steep, and only a thin iron rail guards the exposed side. One almost is forced to hug the wall or climb the stairs like a ladder. Once the journey is made, the visitor is rewarded with a grand view of both the interior of the house and the cityscape of Paris outside the house walls.

Le Corbusier. Oeuvre ComplĂ¨te, Volume 1, 1910-1929. The steep stairs lead to the roof, where one can walk amongst the skylights and view the city from above. However, Corbusier makes sure the visitor is worthy of that view.

Corbusier wanted the vistior of his work to be influenced by how they experienced it as an individual. Although the principle is not as strong as his later works, the early concept of spatial experience still shows, particularly unique to this small space. Walking through the building not only leads the body on a journey through the rooms, but it also leads the eye to look at specific details along the way. The body is used as a reference point to which one can understand and grasp a clearer concept about the function and program of the house.

AltĂźrk, Emre. Cross Reflections: Architecture, Photography and Text, 2016. Closeer view of the stairs in present day. The bookshelfâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s winding path plays on the steepness of the stairs.

LEGACY ONE OF MANY FUTURE WORKS TO COME The lasting impact of this house is small, but meaningful enough to be included in his second volume of the Oeuvre Complete. It is an early precedent to his five points of architecture: the free facade; the pilotis; the continuous horizontal window; the absence of restraining walls; only the roof garden which is seen later is wanting. As an ode to the mentor which he learnt the fundamentals of his art and ideals, this house is a testament to what he would develop in completion. THE HOUSE IN PRESENT TIME Unfortunately, the concept has been lost in recent renovations by the owner of the house now. The sawtooth skylight, one of the more prominent features of the studio, has been now removed and replaced with a flat garden deck. The cube-like studio, which appeared to the vistitor a large expanse of light and connecting oneself from floor to ceiling, is now turned living room, with couches and plants filling up the space. One can only imagine now the spatial quality of the original plan Corbusier had intended.

AltĂźrk, Emre. Cross Reflections: Architecture, Photography and Text, 2016. Aerial view of the third floor interior.

AltĂźrk, Emre. Cross Reflections: Architecture, Photography and Text, 2016. Present day elevation of Maison Ozenfant. Note the flat deck replacing the original skylight.

Present day interior of the second floor, where Ozenfant would have his studio and work. The cube of light has disappeared; although there is stil light, it does not capture the volume of the space as well as it once did when first built.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Le Corbusier. “Five Points Toward a New Architecture, 1926,” in Programs and Manifestos in Twentieth Century Architecture, Conrad Ullrichs, Ed., (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970). Le Corbusier. “Maison-atelier du peintre Amédée Ozenfant, Paris, France, 1922.” Oeuvre Complète, Volume 1, 1910-1929, 11th ed., (Birkhäuser Architecture, June 2006). Peter Blake. The Master Builders: Le Corbusier, Mies Van Der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright. W. W. Norton & Company, Ltd., 1960, 27-28.

JOURNEY TO THE EAST: REFLECTIONS By Jocelyn Wong

The most impactful buildings in this trip let the design and space speak for itself. How one enters the building, discovers its purpose, and exits out to the exterior is clear. The visitor instinctively knows the sequence of space, and moves accordingly. I felt this most in Vienna’s museums (MAK, Wien Museum), Schonbrunn Palace, the Acropolis Museum, and the city of Istanbul. These places felt like more of an experience rather than taking a tour at the surface level. In retrospect, I think that there are three things that most affected my impressions of these buildings. Although the facade is an important aspect to the eye and for first impressions, the substance of ornamentation, or what makes up the exterior image of the building, can be rich and complex. What “good design” in the historic buildings of Vienna could be categorized by its symmetrical, florid nature. However, Wagner’s work exemplified the facade as the ornament, using the placement of windows and minimal decoration as the primary feature of the building. Aldof Loos took this concept even further, choosing building materials and their textures to “decorate” his buildings instead of traditional ornament. This was most likely an influence to Corbusier, as he exclusively uses the windows, doorways and stairs- the practical features of the house- to create the facade of Maison de Ozenfant. The “architectural promenade” was one of Corbusier’s main points. Connecting the visitor to the building and its surroundings, particularly through ramps instead of the conventional stair, was almost unique to his style. Walking through the Schonbrunn Palace grounds, I came to realize that this concept was not revolutionary, but an idea that has been perpetuated throughout time. Through the garden to the glorietta, the palace revealed itself in a new way. I was able to gradually take in an aerial view of the palace and the city beyond the ground level. In a different way, the Acropolis Museum’s main hallway presents the same “architectural promenade”. The museum’s interior space is compressed low at the entrance, and then suddenly opens to a grand view of all its levels. Ramps gradually lead the visitor down towards the 17

center, and then up and and around the main space. Natural light coming through the ceiling reminded me of how Maison de Ozenfantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s skylights created similar depth and volume. Although the museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main entrance in reality is very large, there is a closeness that made it seem tangible and real. I think that the most important aspect I observed on this trip, however, was human scale and designing for the everyday person. Corbusier kept scale in mind with all of his work, and was most likely influenced strongly by his trip to these countries. As this trip drew closer to the Middle East, I could feel how the buildings changed. Although each country had its own vernacular and practicality, Istanbul seemed to have a special connection with its inhabitants. The buildings molded perfectly into steep hillsides; people made the most out of this dense urban network and used every inch of space. Because Corbusier designed this house for an artist, its features are tailored to be practical and specific to what an artist would need. Little details like the size of a table and how large the windows are made a huge impact to its livability. Seeing in person how the people in Istanbul use space according to their purpose helped me understand how Corbusier could create space that was intimately connected to the user.

Blue Mosque, Bursa, Turkey. 5.5x8.5â&#x20AC;?, Colored Pencil.

Ponte Vecchio, Florence, Italy. 5.5x8.5â&#x20AC;?, Watercolor.

Fuego Restaurant Cafe, Istanbul, Turkey.

Street, Istanbul, Turkey.

MAISON OZENFANT: THE LIVING MACHINE By Jocelyn Wong

Le Corbusier’s Maison Ozenfant is a tribute to the defining principles of his career. Although the house is a predecessor to his more refined works, it nevertheless demonstrates some of his most important concepts. Le Corbusier’s characterization of a house as a “machine for living in”1 denotes his own dogmatic pursuit of the individual, and one’s connection with the surrounding space. This utilitarian principle can be traced back to his visits to the monasteries of Ema and Mount Athos, sites on his self-titled “Journey to the East” that would revise his understanding of the relationship of man to building. The most prominent features of the house are most likely derived from these influences. This paper seeks to analyze observations from Le Corbusier’s personal accounts, and therefore demonstrate how the impact of the trip manifested into the Maison Ozenfant. Upon receiving his first commission to design a house for the watchmaker Anatole Schwob, Le Corbusier left his home in La Chaux-de-Fonds in 1917 and made Paris, France his permanent residence. There, he met the artist Amédée Ozenfant. Ozenfant was Le Corbusier’s mentor and taught him the rudimentary elements of art and the Cubist painting style. Le Corbusier and Ozenfant began to form a partnership in their work, editing several books together as well as producing similar paintings that would later constitute a new movement in art called Purism, influenced by Le Corbusier’s background in architecture and Ozenfant’s creative vision. Their partnership would last for seventeen years from 1917 to 1934. In 1922, Le Corbusier designed a small apartmenthouse for Ozenfant in Paris. This was not the first house he had built specifically for an artist’s program. The Maison Citrohan (1920) and L’Esprit Nouveau Pavilion (1925, Paris) were also in development and were precedents to his partner’s studio.2 1 Le Corbusier, “Five Points Toward a New Architecture, 1926,” in Programs and Manifestos in Twentieth Century Architecture, Conrad Ullrichs, Ed., (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970), 9 2 Peter Serenyi, “Le Corbusier, Fourier, and the Monastery of Ema,” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec. 1967), 286.

The Ozenfant house was an early materialization of Corbusier’s “Five Points of a New Architecture”, incorporating the free facade and the horizontal window into the design of this building. Le Corbusier states in his book Vers une Architecture, (1925, written with Ozenfant), that,“Une maison est une machineà-habiter.”31Le Corbusier’s all-encompassing aphorism was a declaration of an ideal that seemed to demand the utmost minimalism from the individual. Le Corbusier designed this apartment-house for a single artist to live alone; this deceptively small house emphasizes essential living in every sense. The idea of the house as a machine meant that every feature had a function; nothing existed without purpose. However, that did not mean the house also needs to be a literal representation of a machine’s cold, rigid interior. As much as a house is a machine for living, it is also a living machine. Le Corbusier’s encounter with the monasteries of Ema and Mount Athos influenced this train of thought. In 1911, Le Corbusier embarked on a trip through central and eastern Europe. On this journey of self-discovery, he specifically sought to visit the Monastery of Ema in Florence, Italy. Through observing the way of life and how the monks used their space, Le Corbusier became “conscious of the harmony which results from the interplay of individual and collective life when each reacts favorably upon the other. Individuality and collectivity comprehended as fundamental dualism.”42 Separate living spaces allowed the monks to live together and in isolation simultaneously. Le Corbusier called these small rooms “cells”when united, they are part of the system that is the monastery. A trip to Mount Athos also made a powerful impression on him. There, he observed more monasteries and further strengthened his ideas about the self and the relationship of man to man.

3 Serenyi, 277. 4 Le Corbusier, The Marseilles Block, (London: Harvill Press, 1953), 48.

Observations from oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own journey to the same Monastery of Ema in Florence can only strengthen what Le Corbusier himself saw. Separate gathering places and hallways allow the monks to keep their silence while also gathering them to be in fellowship with one another. The layout reconciles private and public, and unity and diversity,51thus achieving a balance between such polarities. The solitary cell of the monk did not appear to be confining or melancholy; in contrast, the rooms were comfortable and warm with sunlight coming through each monkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s private garden. It was easy to see how one could live a life both of solitude and in communion with others. Maison Ozenfant can be perceived, therefore, as an extension of the living cell. Although only a single person is meant to inhabit the entire apartment-house, it is similar to the smaller rooms of the Monastery of Ema and the monasteries in Mount Athos. The house and the monasteries both have fluid spaces designed to allow one to move freely from room to room and take advantage of their function with ease.

â ľ Serenyi, 286.

Fig 01: Monastery of Ema, Florence, 1348, Andrea Orcagna. Hall dedicated to silent prayer.

The machine for living- the Maison Ozenfant- is able to breathe because the house leaves no room for confusion of its purpose. By eliminating unnecessary artifact, the house is decluttered and gives sustenance to the dweller’s conscience.⁶1 Another element of the machine present in Maison Ozenfant is its attention to human scale. The relationship of humans to architecture is one of the essential elements that creates efficiency and order. If the volume is larger than the human figure, it minimizes the significance of the role of man in the house. In contrast, too small of a space creates a sentiment of restraint. The perfect medium between these two extremes lies in Le Corbusier’s observations made from his Journey to the East- the human scale that he meticulously adhered to throughout his entire career. What Le Corbusier concluded from his trip can be aptly summarized by Francesco Passanti, But in fact, during the Hungarian and Balkan part of the trip Le Corbusier was not particularly intent on recording architecture. His notes about ⁶ Ivan Zaknic,”Le Corbusier’s Epiphany on Mount Athos,” Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Summer 1990), 30.

Fig 02: Monastery of Ema, Florence, 1348, Andrea Orcagna. Exterior view of the monastery’s private “cells” for each monk.

Balkan houses are skimpy, compared with the attention that he lavished on Pompeian houses in a later part of the trip. The real emotion, in his Balkan notes, concerns people and the relationship of people and their artifacts. It is through this relationship, more than the borrowing of specific architectural solutions, that the Balkan experience affected Le Corbusier's modernism.7 Thoroughly1emphasized is the importance of the human aspect in architecture. The unity of the ensemble,⁸2as described in Le Corbusier’s Oeuvre Complete, entails an understanding that the architect creates a vision of a lifestyle realistic to future owners of the house. This “cell”, brought from his journeys into his work, speaks to the vision of a solitary and introspective life. Observing how the people in Istanbul use space according to their purpose, one is able to understand how Le Corbusier could create space that was intimately connected to the user. Istanbul lives up to its name as the City on the Seven Hills. The streets twist and turn in response to that varied topography; hidden corners and narrow alleyways may yield majestic views of the strait dividing the city. Something that can be observed immediately is the city’s vernacular. Labyrinths of buildings crowd with locals and tourists alike. These dense pockets of activity swarm with vendors, while other parts are more spread out and orderly. The mosques, places of spiritual importance, are the only buildings that stand out in the skyline. This gives the impression that the people of the city understand the significance of scale and its implications. Larger volumes indicate that the building is more important than its inhabitant; conversely, it is up to the individual to make a small space have meaning. Istanbul’s people have learned to maximize their living potential. 7 Francesco Passanti, “The Vernacular, Modernism, and Le Corbusier,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, University of California Press, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Dec. 1997), 439. 8 Le Corbusier. “Maison-atelier du peintre Amédée Ozenfant, Paris, France, 1922.” Oeuvre Complète, Volume 1, 1910-1929, 11th ed., (Birkhäuser Architecture, June 2006), 30.

Le Corbusier strives for Maison Ozenfant to accomplish the same goal. Keeping in mind his clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s occupation, he designed its features tailored to the practical and specific needs of an artist. Little details like the size of a table or the windows made a huge impact to the livability of Maison Ozenfant. He personalizes the features of the house to accommodate the artist. Because the house is so custom-built towards a certain lifestyle, its size fosters the efficiency and minimal ideals of a living machine. Taking a walk through Maison Ozenfant, one has a clear vision of certain early principles Le Corbusier would slowly refine in his career. Although the upper studio is most notable for the large industrial skylights and almost floor to ceiling windows, the lower levels of the house are just as important. Their features all point to the living machine Le Corbusier envisioned for his long-time mentor and friend. One unusual but forward-thinking aspect about Maison Ozenfant is its refusal to blend into its surroundings. It almost seems austere, but the look of the house was not new to its time. Industrial aesthetics originated in the movement of creating a

Fig 03: Grand Bazaar, Istanbul, Turkey.

style from ordinary “found” elements of everyday life in 1928.⁹1 Le Corbusier, influenced by the works of Adolf Loos and Otto Wagner, promoted the “free facade”- by using architectural features as an ornament itself, the exterior is transparent about what the house is comprised of.102Maison Ozenfant is very much The lack of ornament actually liberates the building’s appearance in comparison to the weighty, embellished apartments adjacent. Upon entering the garage, one is presented immediately with the first set of spiral staircases that lead to the first floor. Le Corbusier was always adamant about allowing the visitor to have their own understanding about their relationship to the space around them, and the two spiral staircases of the garage and the first floor provide perspective at every angle. The garage itself is constrained to fit a single vehicle- nothing more, nothing less. It straightforwardly accomplishes its intention. The first floor is also strictly geared towards a single purpose. Curved walls guide the visitor through the short network of rooms that lead to a small parlor and another set of spiral 9 Passanti, 441. 20 Le Corbusier, “Maison-atelier du peintre Amédée Ozenfant, Paris, France, 1922,” 30.

Fig 04: View of lower level and garage.

staircases. The shape of these walls expresses efficiency; its form implies movement. Rooms tucked away into corners of the hallway are reminiscent of the cells Le Corbusier visited during his travels. Sanctioned for only one purpose, for sleeping at night or cooking, the rooms have no need to be larger. One is free to make better use of the more generous space upstairs. A horizontal, continuous window runs along the entirety of the kitchen and utility areas. This feature is one of Le Corbusierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s five points in architecture. The window serves as both an architectural feature of the house, and abolishes the boundary of the exterior and interior in one bold gesture. Suddenly, one is able to see a complete view of the outside; traditional windows yield only snippets of the environment the house is in. Such large windows also let in copious amounts of light. This affects activities that can be done during the day, which in turn maximizes productivity- the main priority when inhabiting a machine for living.

Fig 05: Le Corbusier. Oeuvre ComplĂ¨te, Volume 1, 1910-1929. Second floor axonometric view.

One final turn about the spiral staircase leads into the heart of the machine: a spacious, all white room with a doubleheight ceiling meant for the artist’s studio (Fig 6). Sunlight flooding through the windows on all three sides amplifies the studio’s cubic volume. Le Corbusier’s vision for Maison Ozenfant culminates into this one room. All of the space that was compressed on the lower levels is suddenly released, as if one were holding their breath for the final act of a play. Some Corbusian features of this studio are especially worth mentioning. Inconspicuously attached to the side of the studio is an almost ladder-like metal stair leading to the rooftop (Fig. 7). Le Corbusier always approached stairs as a test to the visitor.111In order to gain a reward- usually the view of the landscape or a vision of what the building is in the greater urban context- one would first undergo an arduous journey up steep flights of stairs or a long, winding ramp. Although it may seem as a superfluous addition to an already grand space, the stairs are nevertheless an element that can only strengthen the overall concept. Two skylights on the exterior of the house (Fig. 8) allude to the modern industrial movement at that time period. The movement at the time, based on the “industrial aesthetics” mentioned earlier, was very in tune with Le Corbusier’s idea of the house as a living machine. Francesco Passanti asks in “The Vernacular, Modernism, and Le Corbusier”: “What role did the vernacular play in Le Corbusier’s construction of a modernist architecture? Its principal role, I have suggested, was not as a source of architectural motifs, but as a conceptual model... for the notion of modern vernacular- one as naturally the issue of modern industrial society, and as representative of it, as the traditional vernacular of common parlance had been of earlier societies.“122

Jose Baltanas, Walking Through Le Corbusier: A Tour of His Masterworks. Place: Thames & Hudson, 2005, 25. 22 Passanti, 447. 11

The design of everyday object had been translated into architecture. Maison Ozenfant can be seen as a product of that idea; the skylights, a simplified take on those found in warehouses, are only one of the many examples. The straightforward nature of the house is to live and to work- and in this, one can find the completeness of domestic life.

Fig 06: Le Corbusier. Oeuvre ComplĂ¨te, Volume 1, 1910-1929. View of interior studio.

Fig 07: Le Corbusier. Oeuvre ComplĂ¨te, Volume 1, 1910-1929. View of the room opposite window and staircase detail.

Fig 08: Le Corbusier. Oeuvre ComplĂ¨te, Volume 1, 1910-1929. Axonometric view of top floor and rooftop.

All of these small elements assemble into a statement of Le Corbusierâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s early guiding principles. Unfortunately, with the passing of time, and a change of ownership, the house has lost some of its special features. The present day owner has taken the liberty of removing the skylight and converting them into a rooftop terrace. Studio is now transformed into a living room, and the garage has also been converted to a room. Additionally, the front door has been positioned elsewhere. Did the owner commit a grievous mistake in altering a historically important piece of architecture? Perhaps the evolution of Maison Ozenfant achieves a different expression of the same Corbusian ideals. Analyzing photographs of the house in its present-day state may yield some perspective into the ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rationale for such design decisions. The exterior, as pictured (Fig. 9-10), seems fundamentally changed in many aspects compared to when it was originally built. Its front, made so clear and pristine in its architectural features, has been now obstructed with a tree and foliage from the rooftop terrace. Now it seems as if the removal of the jagged skylight further enforces the strong rectilinear elements already present in the windows.

Fig 09: Le Corbusier. Oeuvre ComplĂ¨te, Volume 1, 1910-1929. Original facade.

Fig 10: Emre AltĂźrk, Cross Reflections: Architecture, Photography and Text. 2016. Present-day view.

The studio’s interior, however, might be considered the most controversial transformation. Le Corbusier intended the studio to have the effect of being within a cube of light- which is now lost with the removal of the industrial skylight. Comparing pictures from the date of original construction to present day, one can immediately notice the change in the quality of light in the room. The skylight added a dimensionality to its volume that, once taken away, becomes subdued and flat. However, the next photo gives a different perspective on how the owner is able to interpret the new space. Photographer Emre Altürk summarizes Cross Reflections: Architecture, Photography and Text: The reasons this photograph of the Atelier Ozenfant gives a very powerful feeling of space are apparent from the viewpoint of perspective. The wide window profiles and especially the division bars of the closed ceiling window create a superbly geometric space, adding a depth to the photograph reminiscent of the black-andwhite tiled flooring in seventeenth-century Dutch paintings.13 It is more dependent on the viewer’s perspective to create their own understanding of this space, rather than allowing the architectural features to speak for themselves. The tension between elements in this photo create a depth beyond perspective.1412

13 14

Emre Altürk, “Paris, Maison-Atelier Ozenfant,” 2016, 38. Altürk, 38.

Fig 11: AltĂźrk, Emre. Cross Reflections: Architecture, Photography and Text, 2016. Living room interior.

Le Corbusier originally provided the studio with only a pair of tables, since Ozenfant himself would bring in other pieces of furniture. His intention was vastly different; utilitarian, strictly functional, and isolationist, Le Corbusier found comfort in austere simplicity- and he assumed others did as well. However, the studio’s current state proves otherwise. On the inside of the former studio, the owner furnishes the space with a plush living room rich in leather textures and earthy tones. Altürk describes a tension between the Corbusian chairs and the leather sofa against the window. “Canonically modernist interiors are often accused of being sterile- unwilling to allow life to leave a trace on them,” he observes. “...Conversely, with their loose, crumpled, non-geometric cushions, the brown leather sofas bear the traces of their users, betraying the spots that were last or most often sat on.”15 1A comfortable lifestyle contrary to Le Corbusier’s preferred isolation is evident in other signs of life: plants, mugs, and other miscellaneous artifacts are strewn about the room. The owner’s changes may have stripped the house of its former identity, but there is no doubt that a new, more appropriate scheme has taken its place. In context with the new changes and their impact, can Maison Ozenfant still be considered the living machine Le Corbusier once envisioned? A machine has a purpose, and its performance relies heavily on is operator. The house in its present state can be perceived as a deconstructed machine. It has served its role as a simple studio for the artist Ozenfant, but is now repurposed for a different, perhaps more universal style of living. Being one of Le Corbusier’s early works, Maison Ozenfant is an important milestone as a precursor to many of his principles in his later career. Influenced by his significant journey to the Balkans in 1911, the solitary architect experienced an epiphany about the human relationship and the intimate connection between space and body. He refined the concept of the cell, extended the concept to encompass Maison Ozenfant,

Altürk, 38.

and incorporated the industrial vernacular at the time to express his ideas about the house as a “living machine”. The success of the studio-house lies in Le Corbusier’s ability to synthesize small details and bold architectural gestures; his design decisions make clear his peremptory assumptions about the way one should live. Regrettably, these assumptions did not withstand past his lifetime. Irrevocable alterations from the present owner have changed Maison Ozenfant’s identity. A redefinition and a more open interpretation of the living machine, however, enables the modern critic to explore the implications of Le Corbusier and his ideals with a new perspective.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baltanas, Jose. Walking Through Le Corbusier: A Tour of His Masterworks. Place: Thames & Hudson, 2005. Brillhart, Jacob. Voyage Le Corbusier: Drawing On the Road. New York City, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2016. Emden, Cemal. “Paris, Maison-Atelier Ozenfant.” Emre Altürk. Cross Reflections: Architecture, Photography and Text. March 9, 2016. Le Corbusier’s work through Cemal Emden’s camera and further commentary. Işık Art Gallery (Teşvikiye-Istanbul), Istanbul, Turkey. Collaborators and the sponsor: Fondation Le Corbusier, Association of Independent Architects-Istanbul Branch Seranit (sponsor). Klinkhammer, Barbara. "After Purism: Le Corbusier and Color." Preservation Education & Research, Vol. 4, 2011. 19-38. Kohlstedt, Kurt. "Machines for Living In: Le Corbusier's Pivotal ‘Five Points of Architecture’." Podcast. (99% Invisible Inc., February 19, 2018). Accessed August 07, 2018. Le Corbusier. “Five Points Toward a New Architecture, 1926,” in Programs and Manifestos in Twentieth Century Architecture, Conrad Ullrichs, Ed., (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970). Le Corbusier. “Maison-atelier du peintre Amédée Ozenfant, Paris, France, 1922.” Oeuvre Complète, Volume 1, 1910-1929, 11th ed., (Birkhäuser Architecture, June 2006). Le Corbusier. The Marseilles Block, (London: Harvill Press, 1953).

Pantelić, Bratislav. "Nationalism and Architecture: The Creation of a National Style in Serbian Architecture and Its Political Implications." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56, No. 1 (March 1997): 16-41. Passanti, Francesco. “The Vernacular, Modernism, and Le Corbusier.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. University of California Press. Vol. 56, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 438- 451. Peter, Blake (1960). The Master Builders: Le Corbusier, Mies Van Der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright. W. W. Norton & Company, Ltd. 27-28. Serenyi, Peter. “Le Corbusier, Fourier, and the Monastery of Ema.” The Art Bulletin, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec., 1967). College Art Association. pp. 277-286. Von Moos, Stanislaus, and Margaret Sobiesky. "Le Corbusier and Loos." Asemblage, no. 4 (October 1987): 24-37. Zaknic, Ivan. "Le Corbusier's Epiphany on Mount Athos." Journal of Architectural Education 43, no. 4 (1990): 27-36.