What is modern? In his essay for n+1 on the legacy of I.M. Pei, Thomas de Monchaux sets up Pei as the quintessential modernist, “among the last practicing students of a teacher from the Bauhaus.” Splitting Pei’s work into his developer towers and commercial projects (Early Pei), and his cultural commissions, like the Louvre pyramid (Late Pei), de Monchaux argues Early Pei‘s buildings, not Late Pei’s “photogenic work,” are the modernism that “will eventually matter most.” He calls the work “vernacular modernism.” Borrowing from another of de Monchaux’s articles, these are buildings that know “where and when they’re situated.” Pei’s early buildings anticipate the needs of their inhabitants. They are quiet and “anonymous” buildings that look simple at a distance but reveal themselves through close observation.
These are fighting words, not just against postmoderist excess, at which de Monchaux still takes a shot, but against modernists themselves. Back in the ’70s, modernism was on the defensive, associated with bleak towers and dilapidated public works. The architects of The New York Five (Eisenman, Hejduk, Graves, Gwathmey, and Meier) gave modernism new life by exchanging ideology for geometry, formalism, clean lines, and a lot of white. Stepping away from low budgets and social causes, they made modernism an aesthetic, a style, a stripped-down classicism now exemplified by extraordinary projects like Thomas Phifer’s recent Glenstone museum–or almost all of Late Pei’s cultural commissions. By defining modern as “ordinary, commonplace, and everyday,” de Monchaux subtly cuts Phifer and Late Pei out of the modern canon. This historical exorcism leaves a direct link from Early Pei and the Bauhaus to a new generation of modernists, such as Pier Vittorio Aureli, Lacaton & Vassal, and Tatiana Bilbao. These architects are re-engaging the quotidian needs and utopian aspirations of modernism’s origins.