GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience185
and Phenomenal,” Wesley asserts that Guévrékian
wasattemptingtocopytheeffectsofcubistpainting
inhisgardens.9WesleyechoesRoweandSlutzky’s
lamentation that one of the problems of developing
cubist ideas in the medium of architecture is that
buildings cannot suppress the third dimension.10
Wesleyasks,
and conceptually, are central to understanding the
receivedviewofGuévrékian’swork.
J.C.N.Forestier,thechiefdesignerofthegrounds
fortheParisexposition,commissionedGuévrékianto
design a small garden with the intention of creating
something that was at once “Persian” and “modern.”
Forestierexplained:
How could Guévrékian translate the
implied spatial conception of a Cubist
paintingintoathree-dimensionalartwhich
itself deals essentially with the articulation
of a two-dimensional opaque plane? …[A]s
long as the perceiver moved horizontally
along the ground plane it appeared that
it was impossible to create the essential
experienceofspatiallayeringexpressedina
Cubistpainting.11
As part of this Exposition, I very much
wanted to have a garden conceived in
a modern spirit with some elements of
Persiandécor.Unfortunatelytheimitations
ofArabiangardensandSpanishpatiosone
typically encounters tend to be as banal as
they are ubiquitous. Because there is so
little room in an exposition such as this
one, I stipulated that there must also be a
modernspirittothisgarden.14
Thus, Wesley discounts Guévrékian’s “cubist”
gardens because they lack the spatial sophistication
and nuance of the paintings that they ostensibly
mimicked.12
To reach this conclusion, Wesley compares
gardens designed by Guévrékian between 1925 and
1928andpaintingsmadebyPicassoduringtheperiod
retroactivelyknownasanalyticalcubism.13Beyondthe
problemofjudgingtheefficacyofaworkofartbythe
standardsofanothermedium,thiscomparisonraises
other doubts. By the time Guévrékian relocated to
Parisin1921,theculturalforcesoutofwhichanalytical
cubism emerged in the decade before World War I
hadsubstantiallychanged.
ThegardensofGuévrékian,alongwiththoseofhis
contemporaries Paul and André Vera, Jean-Charles
Moreux, and Le Corbusier, exhibit numerous
influencessuchassurrealism,purism,and,inthecase
of Guévrékian, simultanéisme and Persian Paradise
Gardens. Through reconsidering these gardens as
complex cultural artifacts we can better understand
thegardensGuévrékiandesignedduringthisperiod,
therichpanoplyofideasuponwhichtheywerebased,
andwhyhefelttheneedtoescapefromthem.
The garden was triangular in shape, largely
consisting of tiered triangular reflecting pools and
planting beds. At the center of the ensemble was
an electrically propelled and internally illuminated
sphereofstainedglass.FletcherSteeleobserved:
10.FreedomfromtheGarden
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience
GEORGEDODDS
MylearnedfriendMartialCanteralhadinvitedme…tovisitthehugeparksurroundinghisbeautifulvilla….The
Professorhadchosenashisobjectiveakindofgiganticdiamond…whichhadoftenattractedourattentionalready
fromafarbyitsprodigiousbrilliance.Thismonstrousjewel...gaveout,underthefullradianceofthesun,analmost
unbearableluster,flashinginalldirections.…Inreality…thediamondwassimplyanenormouscontainerfilledwith
water.Therecouldbenodoubtbutthatsomeunusualelementhadenteredintotheimprisonedliquid’scomposition.
RaymondRoussel,LocusSolus(1914)
The gardens that Gabriel Guévrékian designed
duringthe1920sinFrancehavelongbeenconsidered
peripheral to the history of landscape architecture.1
The reasons for this marginalization are clear: they
were too decorative for such major polemicists as
SigfriedGiedionandtoobourgeoisfortheCongres
International d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM).2
Eventheirdesignerrejectedthesegardens,suggesting
thatoneneithertakethemtooseriously,normeasure
his worth by these works alone.3 No sooner had
Guévrékiancompletedthemhebegantheprocessof
distancinghimselffromtheentireprojectofthemodern
garden.YetinrecentreappraisalsofbothGuévrékian
andtheearly“modernist”gardeninFrance,hisworks
havebecomedefactoiconsofthegardenartofthis
period.4 Largely because Guévrékian’s gardens are
no longer extant, these analyses often privilege their
representations, in drawing and photographs, over
thephysicalsitesthemselves.Theserecentvaluations
characterize Guévrékian’s gardens as among the
earliest attempts to translate the lessons learned in
cubistpaintingintogardendesign.Theytendtobe
judged, consequently, not by their intrinsic qualities
asphysicallandscapes,butbyhowwelltheysimulate
and stimulate associations with analytical cubist
paintings.Contemporarynewspaperarticlesinwhich
Guévrékian’sgardenforthe1925Parisexpositionwas
called“cubist”aretypicallycitedtobolsterthisreading
of his work.5 Yet references are rare. Moreover, the
precise meaning of the term “cubist” as it was used
inthepopularpressduringthisperiodcarriedawide
range of associations from “communist” to simply
foreign(i.e.,German)orstrange.6Morecommonly,
Guévrékian’s gardens were described during the
inter-war years in such general terms as “modern,”
“modernistic,”and“original.”Firsthanddescriptions
of Guévrékian’s gardens typically focused on the
physicalexperienceofthem.Morerecentdiscussions
ofGuévrékian’sgardenshavemarkedthemasdirect
translationsofdrawingsormodels7oraselaborately
constructed full-scale maquettes meant to be seen
through the medium of photography, rather than
experienceddirectly.8
Manyoftheserecentassessmentscanbetracedto
a single article on Guévrékian that Richard Wesley
published in 1980. This was the first scholarly
treatment of Guévrékian’s gardens, and it did much
tostimulateinterestinhiswork.Usingaconceptual
apparatus developed by Colin Rowe and Robert
Slutzkyintheirseminalessay“Transparency:Literal
2.
Author, educator, industrial designer, polemicist,
andarchitect,Guévrékianisprincipallyremembered
todayforthethreesmallgardenshedesignedbetween
1925and1928.Theyarethetemporarygardenforthe
1925 Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs
et Industriels Modernes at Paris, often called “The
Garden of Water and Light,” [Fig. 1] the small
triangular garden for the Villa Noailles at Hyères
(1926-27),[Fig.2]andtheterracedgardensoftheVilla
Heim(Neuilly,1928).[Fig.3]TheParisandHyères
gardens, largely because they are similar formally
The mirror globe turning slowly to reflect
lights is rather a night-club trick than a
seriousattemptatgardendecoration.But
it is completely successful in focusing the
interest and relieving, by its unexpected
location, what would otherwise be an
altogetherstiffpattern.”15
A single water jet issuing from a small pylon fed
the basin from a position located midway between
the sphere and the apex of the enclosure along the
garden’s central axis. The metal worker Louis
Barillet designed both the sphere and the pylon,
the latter suggesting the influence of Vladimir
Tatlin’s project for the Monument to the Third
International (1919-1920), exhibited in the Russian
Pavilion. Triangular-shaped planting beds of blue
ageratum, white pyrethrum, red begonia, and green
lawn bordered the pools and sphere on two sides.16
Thewallsandfloorsofthebasinswerepaintedwith
colors and concentric patterns designed by Robert
Delaunay. Two large stone blocks punctuated the
point of connection between the planting beds and
thewaterbasin,visuallyanchoring thecomposition.
The entire ensemble was contained on two sides by
low, diaphanous partitions made of small triangles
of colored glass in white and various hues of pink.
Although the garden was visually open on the side
facing the Esplanade des Invalides, the garden was
designedasatableauthatonelookedat,butdidnot
enter.
ShortlyafterseeingGuévrékian’stemporarygarden
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience187
186GeorgeDodds
Figure1:TemporaryGarden,GabrielGuévrékian,ExpositionInternationaledesArtsDecoratifsetIndustriels
Modernes,Paris,1925.
Figure3:VillaHeim,Neuilly,GabrielGuévrékian,1928.
at the Paris exposition in 1925, Vicomte Charles
de Noailles wrote to Mallet-Stevens suggesting
that Guévrékian be retained to make a garden for
his villa that Mallet-Stevens was then designing
for the Noailles at Hyères; Guévrékian, who had
joined Mallet-Stevens’s office in 1922, was still
working there.17 The villa was to be an artistic and
architecturaltourdeforce,exemplifyingCharlesand
Marie-LaureNoailles’spatronageofavant-gardeart.
InadditiontoMallet-StevensandGuévrékian,Pierre
Chareau, Theo van Doesburg, Eileen Gray, Henri
Laurens,JacquesLipchitz,andJanandJoëlMartel
Figure2:GuévrékianGarden,VillaNoailles,Hyéres,1926-27.
contributed to the villa. A model of Guévrékian’s
project for the Hyères garden was exhibited at the
1927 Salon d’automne and was widely reviewed in
the press.18 [Fig. 4] Georges Rémon published a
constructiondrawingofthegardenthatsameyearin,
JardinsetCottages.19[Fig.5.]
The Paris and Hyères gardens are similar in a
numberofkeyareas.Eachwasbilaterallysymmetrical
andtriangular,andhad,asitsfocalpoint,arotating
sculpturalelement.IntheParisgarden,theBarillet
sphereoccupiedthecenteroftheensemble;thefocus
oftheHyèresgardenwasJacquesLipchitz’sbronze,
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience189
188GeorgeDodds
Figure6:FrontGarden,HôtelNoailles,Paris,1926.PaulandAndréVeraandJean-CharlesMoreux,Photograph
byManRay.
Figure4:Model,VillaNoailles,Hyéres,GabrielGuévrékian,fromSalondíautomne,1927.
Joie de Vivre, which hovered and rotated above the
apex of the garden. Beyond the formal similarities
of the Paris and Hyères gardens, they share key
ideasandthematicdevices.Oneofthemostcritical
of these is the theme of reflection, indicated by the
mannerinwhichGuévrékianrepresentedhisdesigns
indrawings,bythematerialsoutofwhichtheywere
builtand,inpart,byhowoneexperiencedthem.
3.
Mirrored surfaces were an important element in
surrealist,cubistanddadaartandliteratureinParis
sinceWorldWarI.20InLocusSolus(1914)Raymond
Roussel describes a proto-surrealist garden of his
protagonist, Professor Canteral. Like Guévrékian’s
gardeninParis,thecenterofCanteral’sgardenwas
dominatedbyagiganticcrystalthat“gaveout,under
the full radiance of the sun, an almost unbearable
luster,flashinginalldirections.”21WhileRousselfilled
the faceted crystal in Canteral’s garden with water
(aqua micans), the internally illuminated crystal in
Guévrékian’sParisgardenwassurroundedbyfacets
of water. Fernand Léger produced similar effects
in his short film Ballet mécanique (1924), in which
he used “mirrors to complicate images….”22 This
general theme is mirrored in André Breton’s novel
Nadja (1928), in which one encounters images of
glassbedscoveredwithglasssheetsinglasshouses,
“wherewhoIamwillsoonerorlaterappearetchedby
adiamond.”23
During the 1920s and early 1930s Guévrékian
and his colleagues explored the theme of reflection,
both as an iconic device and as a way of altering
one’s experience, in the gardens and buildings they
designed.24Mirrorshavelongbeenapartofboththe
design and experience of architectural interiors and
landscapes.InhisfamousgrottoatTwickenham(c.
1719),AlexanderPopeimbeddedmodestsizedpieces
of silvered glass within the recesses of the grotto’s
walls, affecting an “enlarged aquatic imagery,” in a
grotto too small to physically accommodate such an
effect.25LikePope’smirrors,thereflectivesurfacesin
the gardens of Guévrékian, the Veras, Jean-Charles
Moreux, and Le Corbusier often augmented or
displacedconventionalphysicalelements.
In the triangular front garden for the Hôtel de
Noailles (1926) in Paris, garden designers Paul and
André Vera and Jean-Charles Moreux, clad one
of the garden walls facing a wide street and tall
buildings with a continuous row of mirrors. The
othermajorwall,acompositeoflowshrubsandopen
wrought iron fencing, fronted a large urban square
and side street. The ground plane of this Noailles
garden largely consisted of alternating textures of
colored pebbles, paved walkways, and beds of lowgrowing plants, arranged in triangular motifs. In
Man Ray’s photograph of the garden, taken from
above, the mirrors reflect the triangular patterns of
thepebbledgarden’smulti-texturedpavedparterres.
[Fig.6]Anotherphotographofthegardenfromthe
1920sillustrateshowthemirrors,whenviewedfrom
ground level, principally reflected the other walls of
the garden, one of which is the hôtel’s entry façade.
[Fig.7]Thelonghorizontalbandofmirrorsserved
a dual role in the garden; it reflected the interior
surfacesofthegardenanditssurroundingswhile,at
thesametime,itdeflectedthevisionofonlookersand
the residents of the tall buildings directly across the
street.26AftervisitingthehôteldeNoailles,Fletcher
Steelecommentedontheeffectofthemirrors:“One
quitelosesconsciousnessofthedefiniteboundariesof
theplace.”Hecontinued,“Inthiscaseone’ssenseof
immediatedimensionislostinathoroughlyjustifiable
illusion.”27
Mirrors were an important part of a number of
othergardensfromthisperiod.Amongthesearethe
côté-jardinforJacquesRouché(c.1931)byPaulVera
andJean-CharlesMoreux,andtheBesteiguigarden
(1929)byLeCorbusier.Mirrorswereinstalledinthe
end wall of the côté-jardin, obfuscating the limits of
theenclosure.[Fig.8]Anartificialfountainoccupied
thecenterofthisensemble.Glassribbonscreatedthe
illusion of water jets suspended in time. Below the
glassfountain,actualwaterjetsissuedfromthepylon
intoabasin,settingupatensionbetweentherealand
theimagined.InLeCorbusier’srooftopgardenfor
the Besteigui apartment, that included such devices
asmoveableshrubsandrooflessroomswithfloorsof
greenlawn,horizontalsheetsofpolishedblackglass
simulated the effects of reflecting pools. In these
gardens, mirrors function as devices of illusion and
allusion, de-familiarizing nature and destabilizing
onesunderstandingofvolume,spaceandsurface.
InGuévrékian’sgardenforthe1925Parisexposition,
thereisamoresubtlereflectionatwork(beyondthe
obvious one of reflective surfaces) that returns us to
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience191
190GeorgeDodds
Figure6:FrontGarden,HôtelNoailles,Paris,1926.PaulandAndréVeraandJean-CharlesMoreux,Photograph
byManRay.
Figure8:Côté-jardin,JacquesRouché(c.1931).PaulandAndréVeraandJean-CharlesMoreux.
theideaoftheParadiseGardenandtoGuévrékian’s
gouache drawing. This drawing is often cited as a
direct translation of an “overscaled Cubist painting
inwhichthedepthoffieldwasfrontallycompressed.”
[Fig. 9] Yet it is more accurately identified as a 90°
or“straight-up”axonometric.28The90°axonometric
wasapopulardrawingtypeoftheperiod,usedinboth
architectural drawings and in purist paintings. The
paletteofcolorsthatGuévrékianusedinthedrawing
isneithercubistnorpurist,butanextensionofcolor
schemes of simultanéisme developed by Robert and
SoniaDelaunay.BothLeCorbusierandGuévrékian
used axonometric projections to represent many of
their architectural projects of the 1920s and early
1930s.InadrawingpublishedinLucrat’sTerrasses
et jardins (c. 1929), the Veras represent the Noailles
gardeninParisusinga90°axonometric.PaulVera
also used a “straight-up” axonometric to represent
anearlyversionofthecôté-courgarden(c.1930)for
JacquesRouché.Unlikeperspectivalrepresentations
where one’s perception of an object or space is
Figure7:FrontGarden,HÙtelNoailles,Paris,1926.PaulandAndréVeraandJean-CharlesMoreux,c.1927.
deformed by diminishing ratios and parallax, in an
axonometric all measurements remain true. The
axonometric,therefore,representsanidealizedimage
ofanobject,privilegingpart-to-partrelationshipsand
thegeneralmorphologyoftheobject.InGuévrékian’s
section-axonometric of the Alban studio (1925) – a
projectonwhichhewasworkingwhiledesigningthe
gardenfortheParisexposition–thereisaclearsense
ofavolumehavingbeencuttorevealthevolumeand
objectswithin.[Fig.10]
Guévrékian’s axonometric drawing of the Paris
garden directly relates to the formal and conceptual
programsofaParadiseGarden.Forestierobservedof
it:“Here,Guévrékiansoughttoretrievehismemories
of Persia….”29 The fundamental model of Persian
gardensistheParadiseGarden.30ParadiseGardens
are isolated and idealized enclaves in which a water
element supposedly representing the four rivers of
Paradisedividesthespaceintofourequalprecincts.
Thiswaterelementtypicallyoccupiesthecenterofthis
walledgardentypeinwhichthemysticalsignificance
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience193
192GeorgeDodds
Figure9:TemporaryGarden,GabrielGuévrékian,ExpositionInternationaledesArtsDecoratifsetIndustriels
Modernes,Paris,1925,GouacheDrawing,fromMarrast,Jardins1925.
of trees and mountains are also key tropes.31 The
inherently closed-off and private nature of these
precincts, however, is not at all consistent with the
realitiesofanesplanadeinaninternationalexposition.
OnedoesnotpromenadepastaParadiseGardenina
stateofdistraction,toparaphraseWalterBenjamin,
any more than one promenades past a sacred space.
In Persian culture, the garden “is not a place where
[one] wants to stroll; it is a place where [one] wants
tositandentertain[one’s]friendswithconversation,
music, philosophical discourse, and poetry….”32
Perhapsbecauseoftheincongruityofthesiteforthe
task at hand, perhaps in response to the geometric
and spatial limitations of the site that Forestier
described as “a very cramped triangle,”33 Guévrékian
built only half of a Paradise Garden. Standing on
one of the two paths that symmetrically flanked the
centralesplanadeoftheexpositiongrounds,onedid
notlookata“cubist”tableaujardin,ratheronestood
onavirtualcut-line–theidealizedplaneofreflection
ofavirtualgarden.[Figure11]Bycuttingthegarden
diagonally rather than axially, Guévrékian may have
beeninvokinganothertropeofancientNearEastern
gardens:
[T]he early Mesopotamian settlers
conceived of the sky as a triangle and
depicteditasamountain.Themoon,which
brought relief from the relentless sun, was
depictedasatreeatopthemountainofthe
sky.Astreesmarkanoasisandthemoonis
alife-giver,sothesapofthemoontreemust
bewater-–theelixiroflife.34
InaParadiseGarden,therefore,itisnotthegarden
thatfeedsthetree;rather,itisthetreethatnocturnally
waters the garden through the intercession of the
radiant moon. The central tree in Guévrékian’s
partial paradise is an illuminated sphere that, like
the moon tree, feeds the triangular pools below and
is flanked on two sides by faceted planting beds,
suggesting a mounding-up of earth. In his gouache
drawing, Guévrékian used the Purist technique of
a “straight-up” axonometric to represent half of a
Paradise Garden filtered through the reflective lens
of surrealism and formally structured, not by the
asymmetrical fragments and multiple viewpoints of
Figure10:Section-axonometric,Albanstudio(1925),GabrielGuévrékian.
analyticalcubism,butratherbythefacetedformsand
balancedarrangementofsyntheticcubism.
Many of these themes reappear more vividly in
Guévrékian’s garden for the Noailles at Hyères.
There are important differences among the model
Guévrékian exhibited at the 1927 Salon d’automne
in Paris, the construction drawing published by
Rémon in Jardins et Cottages,35 and photographs
and descriptions of the original garden. These
discrepancieshelpilluminatetheroleofreflectionand
the tradition of the Paradise Garden in the project.
[SeeFigs.4&5]Inthebuiltgarden,theenclosing
wall lowers abruptly at the apex of the triangle,
openingontoanunobstructedviewofthesurrounding
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience195
194GeorgeDodds
Figure12:VillaNoailles,Hyéres,GabrielGuévrékian,1926-27,viewnorthfromvilladoorway.
Figure11:Montage,GouacheDrawing,GabrielGuévrékianTemporaryGarden,ExpositionInternationaledes
ArtsDecoratifsetIndustrielsModernes,Paris,1925.
countryside.Yetthemodeldemonstratesanopposing
intention,forthesurroundingwalliscontinuouswith
ahorizontalopeninginthesouthwallneartheapexof
thetriangle;thewindowisnotrepeatedinthenorth
wall.Thesenseofenclosureandinteriorityapparent
inthemodelisconsistentwithGuévrékian’sdesireto
blockouttheviewoftheadjacentcountrysideandsea
– a ubiquitous sight from the villa and its gardens.36
Alsopresentinthemodelandmissinginthegarden
as built are an elevated rectilinear trough of water
coveredinareflectivematerialandaredpylon,both
ofwhichoccupiedthegarden’scentralaxis.Lipchitz’s
sculptureJoiedeVivreisanothercriticalelementthat
is not present in either the maquette or the Rémon
drawing.37 A series of spheres or discs in the raised
triangularplantingbedsarealsovisibleintheRémon
drawing, but do not appear in either the realized
gardenorthemodel.
Themostcriticaldifferencebetweenthemaquette
and the realized garden, one that returns us to
the theme of reflection, is found at the base of the
triangle nearest the villa, which is contiguous with
a series of rooms at the villa’s lowest level. [Fig. 12
& Fig. 13] The door from these rooms is located
on axis with the garden. In Guévrékian’s model,
four large reflective spheres form a forecourt to the
ascending checkerboard pattern of planting beds
and tile terraces. Guévrékian placed the spheres on
apairofrectangularraisedplatformsthathecolored
green in the model, ostensibly to represent ground
cover.Theplantingbedsfloatonasurfaceofblack
glass.ItisunclearwhetherGuévrékianintendedthis
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience197
196GeorgeDodds
Figure13:VillaNoailles,Hyéres,GabrielGuévrékian,1926-27,viewsouthfromapex.
material to denote a reflective glass surface or real
water.Alternately,hemayhaveenvisionedashallow
poollinedwithblackglass,creatingthekindofwater
terracesfoundinPersiangardens.BothLeCorbusier
and Mies van der Rohe also used this technique of
black-glass-for-water: Le Corbusier in the rooftop
garden he designed for the Besteigui apartment
(1929) in Paris, which also included such features as
moveable shrubs and roofless rooms with floors of
greenlawn.Perhapsthemostpublishedphotograph
ofMiesvanderRohe’sBarcelonaPavilion(1929-30)
istheshallowpoollinedinblackglassreflectingthe
image Kolbe’s sculpture of a standing female nude,
hiding her eyes from the sun. The terrace of black
glass – the water notwithstanding- in the Noailles
garden at Hyère and four chromed spheres, would
have created a powerful tableau lit by the morning
sun and framed in the doorway leading to the villa.
No less spectacular, however, would have been
the view of this tableau at night, particularly if
Guévrékian intended the reflective chromed globes
tobeinternallyilluminatedandmadeofglasssimilar
to the Paris garden. Either as polished chrome or
as radiant glass, the spheres would have hovered
ghostlike above the reflective surface of the terrace,
evoking associations at once of the life-giving moon
trees of Persian tradition and of many key themes
of surrealism. As a water terrace, framed by the
doorwaytothevilla,thereflectiveblackplatformand
spheresalsoconjureanumberofspecificallysurrealist
associations: Raymond Roussel’s suspended crystals
in Locus Solus, the general theme of the useless so
importanttosurrealistimagery,aswellasthewatery
dreamscapes later published in Max Ernst’s collage
novels Femme 100 têtes (1929), and Une Semaine
debonté(1934).38ThesurrealistprogramoftheVilla
Noaillesismoreexplicitlydocumentedinashortfilm
commissioned by the Noailles and directed by Man
Ray (who photographed the garden at the Hôtel
Noailles in Paris). Les mystères du château du dé
(1928)depictsakindofidealizedvisionofeverydaylife
atthevillawithdream-likesequences,manyofwhich
takesplaceatthelargeindoorpoolthatopensontoa
terracegarden.39Muchofthefilminvolvestheactingout of games with hidden meanings. Whether the
ideaofcreatingasettingformystery-ladengamesmay
haveinfluencedthedesignofGuévrékian’sgarden–
particularlyintermsofitslargecheckerboardpattern
–remainsoneoftheunansweredquestionsregarding
thedesignofthegarden.
IthasbeensuggestedthatboththeParisandthe
Hyères gardens were designed anticipating their
translation into photographs – that they were, in
effect, full-size maquettes for the expressed purpose
ofcreatingaphotographicimage.Thethreeextant
photographsoftheHyèresgardenareusedtosupport
this argument, indicating the three principal station
pointsfromwhichthegardenwastobeviewed.40As
represented in the maquette, however, Guévrékian’s
design requires more than the three points of view
to appreciate the experience he intended. Unlike
Guévrékian’shalf-gardenatParis,theHyèresgarden
was designed with physical occupation in mind.
This is evidenced by the diagonal path Guévrékian
creates leading from the door of the villa, ascending
the checkerboard pattern of tile platforms and tulip
beds,tothewindowfacingsouth.Inthedrawingof
the Hyères garden published by Rémon, a notation
indicatesthatfromthislocationtherewasa“vuesurla
mer.”Theunearthlyforecourtofthefourglobes/moon
trees was the beginning of a series of orchestrated
physical movements that were, perhaps, best
understood,liketheParadiseGardens,onamoonlit
night. Passing through the glowing and reflective
spheresandascendingthewalkway,onewouldhave
been bracketed between the converging planes of
the stark white perimeter walls turned silver in the
reflectedmoonlight.Passingthewaterbasinandthe
red pylon/sculpture, one would have arrived at the
uppermostyellowtileplatform.Thehighestplatform
intheiconographiclandscapeofthisgardenisyellow,
suggesting a solar or lunar association. From this
analogouslyplanetaryprospect,one’svisionwastobe
directedthroughthesinglewindow,toaframedview
ofthedistantandmoonlitMediterraneanbelow.
When Guévrékian’s gardens are reduced to the
weakimageofacubistpaintingorenlargedtonothing
more than full-size maquettes for the production
of elaborately staged photographs, their power is
diminished and their meaning obscured. Only in
situ can one successfully experience the oscillating
perceptionofspace,material,andsymbolprompted
by these or, indeed, any gardens. Attempting to
access the program of these sites via photography
alone will always prove to be insufficient. To
appreciate these gardens, absent the original sites,
onemustinventone’sownexperiences,orvicariously
recall the experiences of others, projecting oneself
into the “continuous message”41 of the photographs
anddrawingsofGuévrékian’sgardens.
4.
Having made such a substantial and original
contribution to the emerging idea of a “modern”
garden, why did Guévrékian subsequently work to
distancehimselffromthesegardensandtheideasthey
represent?Guévrékian’sworkwithCIAMmayhold
someoftheanswerstothisquestion.Guévrékianwas
oneofthefoundingmembersofCIAM,servingasits
firstSecretary-general.42Inhisopeningcommentsto
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience199
198GeorgeDodds
thefirstCIAMmeetingattheChâteaudelaSarraz inhismonographsBâtimentsIndustriels(1930),and,
(1928), Guévrékian outlines the criterion of what he HotelsandSanatoria(1931).48Thefinaltwoplatesin
callsa“trulyuniversalarchitecture:”
Hotels and Sanatoria depict a hospital ship on the
open sea. Hygienic, technologically advanced, and
The43architectsunitedhaveinsuccession
unencumbered by conventional boundaries of place,
limited the goal of the Congress by
these images recall the photographs of cruise ships
eliminatingthequestionsofpureaesthetics.
fromLeCorbusier’sVersunearchitecture(1923).
Thequestionoftastedoesnotenterintothe
Guévrékian left behind no record of his thinking
43
discussion. on the matter of the modern garden; yet his actions
Shortly after the CIAM conference, Guévrékian areclear.Inthewakeofthe1928CIAMconference
furtherdistancedhimselfpolemicallyfromhisgardens and Le Corbusier’s “Virgilian dream,” where houses
inParisandHyères.HavingjustcompletedtheVilla on pilotis rose “above the long grass of the meadow
wherecattlewillcontinuetograze,”Guévrékiannever
HeimatNeuilly(1928)heexplained:
made another like that garden for the villa Noailles
[D]ecoration
that
concerns
the
at Hyères.49 There was no place for this kind of
embellishment of objects of utility is
bourgeois paradise in CIAM’s collective vision of a
antithetical to the work of art. In my
utopiantabularasa.
judgement,wantingtodecorateallmanners
In a lecture delivered to the International
of utilitarian objects is an inferior idea. Federation of Landscape Architects in 1962, Bruno
…[M]odern architecture is marked by a
ZeviseemstospeakforGuévrékianwhenheargues,
new organization of plan that is logical
Too many books and essays on landscape
and necessary in response to the differing
architecture are concerned mainly with
conditionsoflife.44
gardens.Isthisright,ordoesitdemonstrate,
The series of simple, undecorated and “functional”
thatthephilosophyoflandscapearchitecture
terraces Guévrékian designed for the Villa Heim
hastobebroughtuptodate?Thetransition
(1928) at Neuilly reiterated his shift away from the
from city-design to town-planning took
ornamental and metaphorical towards that which
place a long time ago: the same cannot be
is “logical and necessary in response to the differing
statedofthetransitionfromthearchitecture
45
conditions of life.” A year later Guévrékian
ofgardenstothearchitectureoflandscapes.
admonished Fletcher Steele in an interview that he
…Do you feel, that the time has come to
notreadtoomuchintohisgardenatHyères.Itwas
establish a distinction … between garden
notexpressiveofhisgeneralpointofview,heclaimed,
designandlandscapedesign?50
46
butratherasingularworkforasingularcondition. ForGuévrékian,LeCorbusier,Giedion,Tunnard,
The Hyères garden was not unique, of course, but
one of two such projects that Guévrékian designed Zevi,andmanyothersofthisgenerationofarchitects,
inasmanyyears.YetbythetimeSteeleinterviewed landscape architects and polemicists, freedom
Guévrékianhehadalreadyretreatedfromindividual from the garden meant freedom to imagine a new
garden design in favor of the CIAM project of mode of living in which landscape and architecture
open, neutral landscapes in the service of collective were different in degree, rather than kind. In this
living.HisworkinParisafter1928resembledwhat new mode, the structure of both landscape and
Christopher Tunnard later characterized as the architecture is spatially open, unencumbered by
propermodelforthedesignerofmodernlandscapes: delimiting garden walls and typically un-bisected by
“orchards,…truckgardensandexperimentalgrounds, idealizedplanes-of-reflection.Intheparadisegardens
Guévrékian designed for Paris and Hyères he used
whereplantsaregrownscientifically.”47
Guévrékian’s pre-CIAM work is highlighted by idealized planes-of-reflection and actual reflective
a desire to reinvent the Persian Paradise Garden in surfaces to destabilize the concrete and to provoke
thecrucibleofParisianavant-gardecultureusingthe new associations, a new territory of experience in
devices of surrealism (displacement and reflection), gardenart.Surrealisminformedthedesignofthese
purism (axonometric representation) and synthetic gardens.MichelCarrougeshascalledSurrealism“a
cubism (symmetrically composed faceted surfaces). movement of revolt,” born out of the “tragic conflict
After the first CIAM conference (1928) any notion between the powers of the spirit and the conditions
ofthegardenisabsentfromhiswork.Onefindsthis of life.”51 Yet if the gardens that Guévrékian and
quiteexplicitlyinhis“orchard”landscapefortheVilla his colleagues designed during the inter-war years
LejeuneinSt.Tropez(1929),[Fig.14]andbythevast in Paris represented a revolution of sorts, it was
industrialandinstitutional“truckgardens”illustrated short-lived.AtthecloseofVersunearchitecture,Le
Figure14:ProjectforVillaLejeune,St.Tropez,GabrielGuévrékian,1929.
Corbusierhadcautioned:
Society is filled with a violent desire for
somethingwhichitmayobtainormaynot.
Everythingliesinthat:everythingdepends
ontheeffortmadeandtheattentionpaidto
these alarming symptoms. Architecture or
Revolution.Revolutioncanbeavoided.52
If revolution could be avoided, so too could
revolutionarygardens.
Freedom from the garden also meant a freedom
fromthinkingaboutlandscapeinpainterlyor,atleast,
pictorialterms.Zeviiscritical,forexample,ofIsamu
NoguchiandRobertoBurleMarxformakinggarden
landscapes “unrelated to architecture,” that seem
more like, “beautiful paintings done with greenery
and exotic plants.”53 Zevi proposes an alternative
path, theorizing a new kind of town planning that
looks to the “action-paintings” of Jackson Pollock
ratherthanthedreamscapesofJeanArp,JoanMiró,
and Giorgio de Chirico. Recognizing that because
of “suburban sprawl, building[s] [were] already in
thelandscape,”Zeviproposesan“action-city”andan
“action-architecture,” that together create a kind of
action-landscapeand“offerthethirddimensiontothe
newimageoftheterritory.”54
We are situated today between the certain
patrimony of Le Corbusier’s dream typified by the
CIAM project of open and unarticulated “green
spaces” where “cattle will continue to graze,” and
the uncertain trajectory towards which these
gardensmighthaveledhadthelittlerevolutionthat
Guévrékian’s gardens represented been sustained.55
Guévrékian’s gardens are not part of the histories
written by Sigfried Giedion, Norman T. Newton,
or more recently, Pregill and Volkman, because
they do not support the narrative these histories
document, which for Newton and Giedion lead to
city planning,56 parkways and highways, and “openspacesystems.”57Whatdoweseewhenwelookatthe
photographsanddrawingsofGuévrékian’sgardens:
arevolutionlongpassedorthepossibilityofanother
territory of experience? While this kind of question
maylieoutsidethenormativeparametersofhistorical
discourse,itmaybethequestionthathaspromptedso
manyarchitects,landscapearchitects,andhistorians
toreturntothiswork,astheyrethinkthewayhistory
iswrittenandtheforcesaboutwhichtheywrite.
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience201
200GeorgeDodds
Acknowledgments
The following individuals and institutions assisted
in the production of this paper: French Institute for
Culture and Technology, University of Pennsylvania,
Barry Cooperman, Director; Hammons School of
Architecture, Drury University, Bruce Moore, Acting
Director; Jori Erdman, Alcibiades P. Tsolakis, and
Caroline B. Constant, the latter of whom read and
corrected many versions of this essay. In particular I
would like to thank the University of Illinois Archives,
Urbana, Illinois, for access to the Guévrékian archival
collectionandforpermissiontoreproducethefollowing
images from Gabriel Guévrékian’s personal portfolio:
Figures1,2,3,10,12,13,and14.
Endnotes
1
Among the basic texts in garden history that have
overlooked Guévrékian’s gardens are, Norman T.
Newton, Design on the Land: The Development
of Landscape Architecture (Cambridge: Harvard
UniversityPress,1971);CharlesW.Moore,et.al.,The
PoeticsofGardens(Cambridge:TheMITPress,1988);
Philip Pregill and Nancy Volkman, Landscapes in
History:DesignandPlanningintheWesternTradition
(NewYork:VanNostrandReinhold,1993).
Sigfried Giedion, Deutsche Kunst (1932), cited in
Élisabeth Vitou, Dominique Deshoulières and Hubert
Jeanneau, Gabriel Guévrékian: une autre architecture
moderne(Paris:Connivences,1987):36.
2
FletcherSteele,“NewPioneeringinGardenDesign,”
LandscapeArchitecture(October,1930),citedinMarc
Treib, Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical
Review,MarcTreib,ed.(Cambridge:TheMITPress,
1993):111.
3
See Dorothée Imbert, “Gabriel Guévrékian: The
ModernParadiseGarden,”inTheModernistGardenin
France (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993): 125146;and“UnnaturalActs:PropositionsforaNewFrench
Garden,1920-1930,”inArchitectureandCubism,edited
by Eve Blau and Nancy J. Troy (Montreal: Canadian
CentreforArchitecture,1997):167-185.Halfofthenew
essaysinMarcTreib’s,ModernLandscapeArchitecture:
ACriticalReview,citeGuévrékian’sgardens.SeeMarc
Treib, Modern Landscape Architecture: A Critical
Review,MarcTreib,ed.(Cambridge:TheMITPress,
1993): passim. Also see Marc Treib and Dorothée
Imbert,GarrettEckbo:ModernLandscapesforLiving
4
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997); Robin
Karson, “Spheres, Cones, and other Least Common
Denominators: Modern French Gardens Through
the Eyes of Fletcher Steele,” in Masters of American
Garden Design III: The Modern Garden in Europe
and the United States, edited by Robin Karson (Cold
Springs, N.Y.: The Garden Conservancy, August,
1994):7-16; Kenneth Frampton, “In Search of the
ModernLandscape,”inDenaturedVisions:Landscape
and Culture in the Twentieth Century, edited by
Staurt Wrede and William Howard Adams ( New
York: MoMA, 1991): 51; Michel Racine, “Gardens of
the Côte d’Azure,” in The Architecture of Western
Gardens, edited by Monique Mosser and Georges
Teyssot (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991): 457-459;
Catherine Royer, “Art Deco Gardens in France,” in
The Architecture of Western Gardens, ibid., 460-462;
Élisabeth Vitou, Dominique Deshoulières and Hubert
Jeanneau, Gabriel Guévrékian: une autre architecture
moderne (Paris: Connivences, 1987); Cécile Briolle
and Agnès Fuzibet, “Une Pièce rare: le jardin cubiste
de Gabriel Guévrékian à Hyères (1926),” Monuments
Historiques, no. 143 (February-March 1986): 38-41;
and Richard Wesley, “Gabriel Guévrékian e il giardino
cubista,”Rassegna8(October,1981):17-24.
See “Le jardin de Garbriel Guévrékian …inspiré des
téories cubistes,” La Liberté (5 March, 1930), cited in
Vitouet.al.,GabrielGuévrékian:Uneautrearchitecture
moderne,144,n.32.ÉlisabethVitousummarizesmuch
ofthepopularopinionofthedayregardingGuévrékian’s
gardenforthe1925expositioninParis.“Hissuccessinthe
pressandwiththepublicwasimmense.Onequalified
it as “the prettiest garden of the exhibition,” “cubist
garden,” indeed a “Persian garden,” the perceptible
reference which substantiated the origin of its author
beyond any precise allusion.” ibid., 34. (All translations
byauthorunlessnoted.)
5
OnPicasso’slatent“Germanic”influences,seeKenneth
Silver,EspritdeCorps:TheArtoftheParisianavantgarde and the First World War, 1914-1925 (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1989):144-145. See for
example, “An Example of Garden Design in the
Modernist Manner at St. Cloud, France – Cubistic
Landscape on the Outskirts of Paris; Mme. Tachard,
Owner,” House and Garden (August 1924): 62-63.
On the problem of terminology, see Yve-Alain Bois,
“Cubistic,CubicandCubist,”ArchitectureandCubism,
editedbyEveBlauandNancyJ.Troy(Montréal:Centre
6
Canadiend’Architecture,1997):188-194.
SeeImbert,“PropositionsforaNewFrench
Garden,”ibid.,172.
7
Ibid., 180. Marked terms are inherently dependent
upon unmarked terms. In this context the marked
terms are Guévrékian’s gardens; the unmarked terms
are the models and drawings from which the gardens
are ostensibly copied. See Roland Barthes, Elements
of Semiology, translated by Annette Lavers and Colin
Smith(NewYork:HillandWang,1984):76-78.
8
Written in 1955-56, the essay did not appear in print
until 1963. See Colin Rowe (with Robert Slutzky)
“Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal,” Perspecta
8 (1963), cited in Colin Rowe (with Robert Slutzky)
“Transparency: Literal and Phenomenal,” Mathematics
of the Ideal Villa and Other Essays (Cambridge: The
MIT Press, 1976). The conceptual apparatus used
by Rowe and Slutzky is largely based on Sigfried
Giedion’s, Space, Time, and Architecture, and Alfred
Barr’s catalogue from the 1936 exhibition , Cubism
and Abstract Art. In Space, Time, and Architecture,
Giedion formulates a direct parallel between the
space/timeimplicationsofanalyticalcubismandthatof
international style architecture. See Sigfried Giedion,
Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of a New
Tradition(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1956):
433 and 490-491 [1941]. Giedion’s reading of cubism is
largelybasedonAlfredBarr’snowfamouscodification
ofanalyticalandsyntheticcubism.SeeAlfredH.Barr,
Jr.,CubismandAbstractArt(NewYork:TheMuseum
ofModernArt,1964)[1936].
9
Lemon(1914).SeeRichardWesley,ibid.,24.Moreover,
the interpretations of Guévrékian’s work invariably
fail to consider how the profound cultural changes in
France after World War I effected cubism in general
andGuévrékian’sworkinparticular.Inthewakeofthe
physical and psychological devastation of the war, the
public turned away from the fragmented, asymmetrical
and highly abstracted work of the pre-war “analytical”
cubists.Picassoandmanyoftheartistsincludedunder
the“cubist”umbrellarespondedtothisculturalshiftby
producingworksretroactivelycalled“syntheticcubism”
and “neo-classicism” which were largely based on
complete and recognizable tropes, often symmetrically
arranged.
J.C.N.Forestier,“Lesjardinsàl’exposition
des arts décoratifs,” L’Agriculture Nouvelle
no.1450(12September,1925):526.
14
Fletcher Steel, New Pioneering in Garden Design,
LandscapeArchitecture,20(1930):165.
15
A. Loizeau, “Le Jardin Persan,” Le Petit Jardin (10
November,1925).
16
Letter from Charles de Noailles to Robert MalletStevens, November, 1925, cited in Cécile Briolle and
Agnès Fuzibet, “Une Pièce rare: le jardin cubiste de
Gabriel Guévrékian à Hyères (1926),” Monuments
Historiques,no.143(February-March1986):38-39.The
Vicomte Charles de Noailles commissioned MalletStevens to redesign and rebuild his villa in Hyères in
1924, when Guévrékian was still working in MalletStevens’soffice.
17
SeeVitou,127-132.
18
Colin Rowe (with Robert Slutzky) “Transparency:
LiteralandPhenomenal,”ibid.,166.
10
Richard Wesley, “Gabriel Guévrékian e il giardino
cubista,”20-24.
11
Imbert concludes, “Wesley was justly reserved in
acceptingthesuccessfulapplicationofcubistprinciples
to the garden….” Dorothée Imbert, The Modernist
GardeninFrance,144.
12
Wesley tests the efficacy of the “cubist” paradigm in
Guévrékian’s garden for the 1925 Paris exposition by
comparingittoPicasso’s,ManwithaMandolin(1912).
See Richard Wesley, “Gabriel Guévrékian e il giardino
cubista,” 18. Wesley concludes his essay by comparing
Guévrékian’sgardensfortheVillaHeiminNeuillywith
yet another Cubist painting, Picasso’s Glass Pipe and
13
Georges Rémon, “Les jardins de l”Antiquité à nos
jours,”JardinsetCottages(Paris,1927):106-107.
19
SeeDaliborVeseley,“Surrealism,Mythand
Modernity,” Architectural Design Profiles 11
(2-3/78):86-95.
20
Raymond Roussel, Locus Solus [1914]
(Paris:Gallimard,1963).
21
See Christopher Green, Cubism and its Enemies
(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1987):112.
22
André Breton, Nadja, [1928] (Paris: NRF,
1963):18.TranslationinVeseley,92.
23
Imbert argues, “Symbolism and iconographic
references played no part in [the design of the gardens
24
GabrielGuévrékianandaNewTerritoryofExperience203
202GeorgeDodds
ofGuévrékian,Moreux,andtheVeras].Materialswere
chosen for their physical characteristics rather than for
their semantic associations, and meaning derived from
thecontemporaneityoftheformandtheintrigueofthe
textures.”Imbert,TheModernistGardeninFrance,63.
Myanalysisoffersanopposinginterpretation.
ibid., 18. Also see James L. Wescoat, Jr. and Joachim
Wolschke-Bulmahn,“Sources,Places,Representations,
and Prospects: A Perspective of Mughal Gardens,” in
Mughal Gardens: Sources, Places Representations,
and Prospects (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks,
1996):25.
John Dixon Hunt, Gardens and the Picturesque:
Studies in the History of Landscape Architecture
(Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992): 94. Nicolas
Le Camus de Mézières argued for the necessity of
a restrained use of the “looking glass,” in, Le génie
de l’architecture; ou, L’analogie de cet art avec nos
sensations (1780). See Nicolas Le Camus de Mézières,
TheGeniusofArchitecture;ortheAnalogyofthatArt
with our Sensations, translated by David Britt (Santa
Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and
theHumanities,1992):111.[1780].SirJohnSoane,who
translatedthefirstfifthofLegéniedel’architectureaspart
ofhislecturesattheRoyalAcademy(1808),strategically
placedmirrorstoenliventheanalogouslandscapeofthe
ruin-filledinteriorofhisNumber13Lincoln’sInnFields.
SeeRobinMiddleton,“Introduction,”ibid.,62.
33
25
The mature trees that canopied the garden along its
periphery enhanced the sense of privacy and enclosure
providedbythemirror-wall.
26
Fletcher Steel, New Pioneering in Garden Design,
LandscapeArchitecture,20(1930):165.
27
Axonometric drawing was first popularized in
late-nineteenth-century France by Auguste Choisy
to demonstrate structural systems and methods of
construction,
28
J.C.N.Forestier,“Lesjardinsàl’expositiondesarts
décoratifs,”526.
Elizabeth B. Moynihan, Paradise as a
GardeninPersiaandMughalIndia,6-7.
34
Georges Rémon, “Les jardins de l”Antiquité à nos
jours,”JardinsetCottages(Paris,1927):106-107.
35
Fletcher Steele, (1930), cited in Treib, Modern
LandscapeArchitecture,111.
36
The only comment Lipchitz made about the relation
of the garden to his sculpture was regarding how the
workwouldbeviewed.“Becauseofthelocationandthe
problemofseeingthesculptureintheround,Isuggested
installing a machine so that it could rotate. … It is a
culminationofallmyfindingsincubismbutatthesame
time an escape from cubism.” Jacques Lipchitz, My
LifeinSculpture,withH.H.Arnason(NewYork:The
Viking Press, 1972): 96. Guévrékian never commented
onthesculptureinprint.Itisunclearhowtheredpylon
relates to the Lipchitz sculpture. The location of the
sculpture in the as-built garden does not coincide with
thelocationofthepyloninthemodel.Imbertsuggests
that the pylon represents, not the Lipchitz sculpture,
but a vertical jet of water. See Dorothée Imbert, The
ModernistGardeninFrance,135.
37
Dalibor Veseley explains, “The fluidity of water,
whichisalsothefluidityofdesireopposingthesolidity
of matter, remains a permanent obsession of the
Surrealists.” Dalibor Veseley, ibid., 88. The theme of
theuselessextendstoincludeeventhegardensprimary
botanical feature. In that the tulip produces no scent,
withinthefloralhistoryoftheFrenchgardenithasbeen
characterizedasa“uselessflower.”SeeElizabethHyde,
inthisvolume.
38
J.C.N.Forestier,“Lesjardinsàl’expositiondesarts
décoratifs,”526.
29
ParadiseGardensaretheoldestsurvivingexampleofa
gardentradition.SeeElizabethB.Moynihan,Paradise
as a Garden in Persia and Mughal India (New York:
Braziller,1979):12.
30
“Thereverenceforwater,themysticalfeelingfortrees,
the symbolic division of the earth into quarters by the
fourriversoflifeandthesignificanceofamountainare
amongthemostancientandenduringtraditionsofthe
NearEast….”Moynihan,ibid.,2.
31
Victoria Sackville-West, “Persian Gardens,: in
Legacy of Persia, A. J. Arberry, editor (Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress,1953):287,citedinMoynihan,
32
Roland Barthes, “The Photographic Message,” ImageMusic-Text,StephenHeath,trans.(NewYork,Hilland
Wang,1977):17.
GabrielGuévrékian,ibid.
43
“ProposdeGuévrékiansurl’artmoderne,”LaLiberté
(18December1929).
44
“ProposdeGuévrékiansurl’artmoderne.”
45
FletcherSteele,“NewPioneeringinGarden
Design,”citedinTreib,111.
46
ChristopherTunnard,“ModernGardensforModern
Houses: Reflections on Current Trends in Landscape
Design,” Landscape Architecture (January, 1942):
67. After leaving Paris in 1933 and becoming the chief
architect of Tehran (1933-1937), Guévrékian designed a
numberofvillasandprivategardensthatwereunrelated
to either his Paris and Hyères gardens, or his CIAMbasedwork.
47
GabrielGuévrékian,BâtimentsIndustriels
(Paris: Editions d’Art Charles Moreau, 1930)
and Hotels & Sanatoria (Paris: Libraire
Nouvelledel’ArchitectureetdesBeaux-Arts,
1931).
48
Le Corbusier, “Poésie, lyrisme apportés par les
techniques,” in Precisions sur un état présent de
l’architecture et de l’urbanisme (Paris: Vincent Fréal,
1960): 138. [1930]. Translation from Christopher
Tunnard,GardensintheModernLandscape(London:
TheArchitecturalPress,1938):79.
49
Bruno Zevi, “The Modern dimensions of Landscape
Architecture,” Shaping Tomorrow’s Landscape, Sylvia
Crowe and Zvi Miller, eds. (Amsterdam: Djambatan,
1964):18.
50
Michel Carrouges, André Breton and the Basic
Concepts of Surrealism, translated by Maura
Prendergast, S.N.D. (Alabama: The University of
AlabamaPress,1974):1.
LeCorbusier,Versunearchitecture(Paris:ÉditionsG.
Crès,1923),citationfromTowardsaNewArchitecture,
translated by Frederick Etchells, (New York: Dover,
52
Imbert,“PropositionsforaNewFrenchGarden,”175.
40
“Thephotographicmessageisacontinuousmessage.”
41
Zevi,18.
53
Zevi, 19. It is not a little ironic that in light of his
criticism of pictorial determinism in landscape design,
Zevishouldlooktopaintingasapossiblemodelforthis
newvisionoflandscape.
54
See“AuChâteaudeLaSarraz:Lecongrèsinternational
d’architecture moderne, Gazette Lausannne (28 June
1928). Also see Gabriel Guévrékian, “Un congrès
international d’architecture moderne au Château de la
Sarraz,”LaPatrie(31July1928).
42
51
See Michel Louis, “Mallet-Stevens and the Cinema,
1919-29,”inRobMallet-Stevens,Architecte,Dominique
Deshoulières and Hubert Jeanneau, eds. (Brussels:
Archivesd’ArchitectureModerne,1980):123-159.
39
1986):288-89.
In the first edition of, Modern Gardens and he
Landscape, Elizabeth B. Kassler tacitly asserts a
continuity between Guévrékian’s garden art and more
recent works by grouping Guévrékian’s garden at the
villaNoailles(dated1925)withthreeothergardenswith
a similar pattern: a roof garden by Lawrence Halprin
(1952), a terrace by Roberto Burle-Marx (1957) and a
patio by Alexander Girard (1954). See Elisabeth B.
Kassler, Modern Gardens and the Landscape (New
York:TheMoMA,1964):52-53.
55
SeeSigfriedGiedion,Space,Time,andArchitecture,
727-758.
56
See Norman T. Newton, Design on the Land, 586639.
57