| |
Japan has a long tradition of expanding its own culture by absorbing elements of foreign cultures and then modifying them in its own idiom. Even Japanese traditional architecture was a mixture of older indigenous building methods and the Buddhist temple style imported from China and Korea. Likewise, the ‘modernization’ of Japanese architecture was essentially synonymous with ‘westernization’; in practice, this phenomenon occurred not only in architecture but in the whole of Japanese civilization after the downfall of the feudal system of the Tokugawa Shogunate (1603–1867) and the emergence of the new Meiji era (1868–1912). Even prior to this era of westernization, a few instances of the transplantation of Western domestic architectural styles had occurred. However, after the Meiji restoration, this transplantation process became one of the most important components of the national policy for the modernization of the whole nation. In accordance with this policy, the Meiji government invited many specialists of the building industry to expedite the task of construction of public buildings and to establish a modern system of architectural education. The British architect Josiah Condor, who was among these foreign specialists, made a great contribution to Japanese architecture as a lecturer at the Tokyo Imperial University.
Since the architecture of the Meiji period was patronized by the government and the academic establishment, acting as motivating forces, its development reflected a definite commitment to technocracy and attached greater importance to structural engineering and building economy than to the creativity of the individual architect.
This kind of literal ‘functionalism’ derived from the concept of ‘architecture for the nation’, combined with the eclectic style chiefly derived from Victorian architecture in Great Britain, gradually came to be regarded in the eyes of young students as oppressive. The Taisho period (1912–26), immediately following the Meiji era, was marked by the pursuit of new architecture by the younger generation. In 1920, several students of Tokyo Imperial University formed the ‘Japanese Secession’, declaring their detachment from the architecture of the past and generating stimulative manifestos and exhibitions of their ‘fantastic’ projects which were undoubtedly affected by the architecture of German Expressionism. Among the founding members of the Secessionist movement were Sutemi Horiguchi, Mayumi Takizawa, Mamoru Yamada and Kikuji Ishimoto. As the Meiji ‘modernization’ was a specifically Japanese phenomenon and its architectural style was in fact nothing new by Western standards, this new movement was virtually the first expression of modern architecture in Japan. In the ensuing years came a number of examples of ‘new’ architecture, competing with the eclectic works of the older generation of architects. If the first buildings, like the early projects of the Secessionists, still showed Expressionist features—for example, the Central Telegraph Office by Yamada (1926) and the Asahi News Press Building (1927) by Ishimoto, both in Tokyo—there was soon a movement towards the purer International Style. Of particular interest is the fact that this revolutionary change in the ‘architectural language’ was reflected in the work not only of independent architects but also of those working for official organs such as the Building Department of the Tokyo Metropolitan Office (which produced several notable school buildings), the Dojunkan Housing Corporation and the Teishin-sho (Communications Services Corporation). In particular, the Teishin-sho staff included a number of talented architects such as Roku Iwamoto, Mamoru Yamada (former Secessionist), Tetsuo Yoshida and Hideo Kosaka. Yamada’s Teishin hospitals in Tokyo (1937) and Osaka (1941) and Yoshida’s General Post Office in Tokyo (1931) could be counted among the most successful examples of the Modern Movement in pre-war Japan.
Although Japanese architects had already demonstrated in this period that their abilities were not inferior to those of most Western architects (a typical example is 28-year-old Renshichiro Kawakita’s project which won fourth prize in the competition for the theatre of Kharkov, USSR), some noted Western masters exerted a profound influence of the architects of Japan. Two of these masters, Frank Lloyd Wright and Bruno Taut, were active there for several years. Wright built the Imperial Hotel (1915–22) as well as the Jiyugakuen Kindergarten (1921), both in Tokyo, and some residences. Taut’s most significant works were writings on Japanese architecture and culture in general. Ultimately, however, Taut’s works proved to have a greater direct influence on Japanese architects than did Wright’s buildings. Wright’s works, in spite of their prominence, were too individualistic and unique to serve as models for Japanese architects who were just beginning to establish their own modern idiom. For this reason, aside from several imitative works by such architects as Shin and Endo, the influence of the American master remained rather peripheral, excepting the fact that some of his collaborators contributed much to the future development of Japanese architecture. Antonin Raymond, a Czech architect who came to Japan together with Wright, remained in Japan until his death (except during the war years) and produced a number of excellent and genuinely modernist buildings such as the Tokyo Golf Club (1932) and the Akaboshi residence (1935). Kameki Tsuchiura, who had earlier been one of Wright’s assistants, designed his own house (1935), a notable work having a special place in the history of Japanese residential architecture. But neither of their styles contained any important features reminiscent of Wright.
The lessons of the ‘New Architecture’ were also introduced into Japan by young Japanese architects who had gone to Europe to study under the leading figures of the Modern Movement. Kunio Mayekawa and Junzo Sakakura worked under Le Corbusier in Paris, and Bunzo Yamaguchi worked under Gropius in Berlin. Yamaguchi’s remarkable Constructivist annexe to the Tokyo Dental School (1934) and Sakakura’s Japanese Pavilion at the World’s Fair of 1937 in Paris exhibited the skill of the younger generation of Japanese architects.
In the late 1930s and early ’40s, however, this new international language had to confront a new situation, a call for a ‘national style’. This problem had already been discussed in the Japanese Architectural Academy as early as 1920, a fact which revealed the Japanese architects’ awareness of their own national identity. This issue had been raised during the long planning process for the National Parliament Building, which was ultimately completed in 1936 in a classic Art Deco style. The rise of Japanese militarism accelerated this call for a ‘national style’ and gave birth to a strange stylistic mixture of European Fascist architecture, which became known as the ‘Imperial Crown Style’. Hitoshi Watanabe’s winning project in the competition for the Tokyo Imperial Museum (1931, built in 1938), which was chosen in preference to Mayekawa’s entry in the manner of Le Corbusier, was among the earliest typical examples of this hybrid style.
Kenzo Tange’s sensational début in two competitions was also marked by a definite tendency toward the nationalistic style. In this difficult period, Japanese architects who were opposed to vulgar nationalism formed the Kosaku Bunka Renmei (based on the idea of the Deutscher Werkbund) to defend the ideals of modern architecture, but the movement soon lost its momentum. During the years of economic recovery after World War II, Japanese architects advocated ‘architecture for democracy’, as represented in Ryuichi Hamaguchi’s book Architecture of Humanism, and the N.A.U. (New Japan Architects Union) was formed in 1947 to further this goal. Mayekawa, Sakakura and other modernists held the leadership in this movement for the next two decades. And in 1949, Tange reappeared as a champion of the younger architects after winning the competition for the Hiroshima Peace Centre. After a short period of optimistic belief in Functionalism, a theory of Socialist Realism was introduced to re-evaluate the problem of a national or regional architectural language. During the 1950s, Mayekawa and Tange, among others, showed their ability to synthesize modern technology and ‘Japanese character’ strongly influenced by the late work of Le Corbusier. In the 1960s the major concern of Japanese architects lay in developing a systematic planning methodology applicable both to building design and construction and to urbanism. Tange, with his Tokyo Plan (1959–60), became once again the leader in this phase, and younger architects formed the Metabolist movement under his influence (Metabolism). Typical works of this period included several of Tange’s public buildings, such as the Kagawa Prefectural Office Building, Takamatsu (1955–8), and the Tokyo National High School (1961–4), as well as Kiyonori Kikutake’s Tokoen Hotel, Yonago (1964), Fumihiko Maki’s buildings for Rissho University in Kumagaya (1967–8) and Sachio Ohtani’s Kyoto International Conference Hall (1966). Concurrently with the growth of the movement of Metabolism, a number of architects (including some of the older generation) produced highly individual works, as if in reaction against the rigidly systematic designs of the Metabolist mainstream. Togo Murano’s Nissei Insurance Building (1964) and Martin Luther Theological School (1970) and Seiichi Shirai’s Shinwa Bank, Sasebo (1968–77), were among these works.
The Osaka World’s Fair of 1970 represented the culmination of the Metabolist mainstream movement after a decade of growth supported by the great Japanese economic boom of the 1960s. Among the works presented at Expo ’70 were Tange’s huge space-frame, the novel metabolic capsules of Kikutake and Kurokawa, and various pneumatic structures. In the wake of this Metabolist ‘orgy’, optimism about the future value of Metabolism evaporated, and the architectural profession was polarized between the ‘professionalist’ majority and the ‘conceptualist’ minority. Arata Isozaki, with his neo-platonic aesthetic, and Kazuo Shinohara, with his intensive symbolism, became the new leaders of the ‘conceptualists’ in the 1970s and continue in these roles. Young Japanese architects today are even more radical and more individualistic, as young artists have tended to be.
Lampugnani, Vittorio Magnago, Encyclopedia of 20th century architecture, Thames and Hudson, 1986 |
