< Back to previous page

Project

The Nightside of Modernity - Light Architecture and Metropolitan Culture in Brussels during the Interwar Period

This doctoral research will focus on the genesis of light architecture in Brussels during the interwar period, when the term was brought into use to denote a newly established fusion between architecture and artificial light. Along with the rapid development of lighting techniques in the 1930s arose an infinity of new possibilities for architects eager to give their buildings a splendid appearance at night. This desire to prolong the visibility of a building after dark reflects a changing attitude towards the architecture itself (which needed a proper #look# at night) and also towards the city (which was no longer supposed to sleep). The PhD will deal with the matter in an original way. First of all, light architecture will operate as a prism. It will be used to reconsider modernist culture from light architecture#s point of view. Doing so, modernism might unfold new dimensions, each reflecting another aspect of the matter. Besides this, it is also the specific context that makes the difference: the one of a minor metropolis trying to shake of its provincialimage: Brussels. Whereas light architecture has so far been studied within the evident metropolises such as Paris and Berlin, this research should figure out where exactly Brussels fits in this story. The research will be based on both primary sources (archives) and secondary sources (journals, manuals and technical documentation). The gathered information will be used to build up a framework with light architecture#s main facts and figures. This framework will contain facts such as the different lighting techniques that architects had at their disposal and the way they were brought into use. In addition to this, a #who#s who# needs to be elaborated: a concise survey of key figures, for instance the #light engineers#, who worked for firms such as Philips or Claude, Paz & Silva (for example engineer Nicolaas Adolf Halbertsma). The ever-changing interplay of (light)engineers/architects/commissioners brought about a certain dynamism worth being investigated. Also the role each of them played in the development and dissemination of light architecture has to be examined. Through this general framework, light architecture will be placed in its specific context. More important than this cataloguing approach however, is to explore possible new dimensions of modernist and metropolitan culture. In this context, it would be interesting to take a closer look at the transnational character of light architecture and the specific position of Brussels within this network. Was Brussels inthe 1930s indeed a crossroads of European avant-garde? Did the capital do any pioneering work or was it merely trying to catch up with other #Cities of Light#? What position did Brussels occupy in the international debate: was it one of affinity or particularity, of convergence or divergence? Can we speak of a privileged joint venture between Brussels and Paris? In short, Brussels will not be treated in its national vacuum, but, on the contrary, it will be placed in a transnational network with other capitals. Within these transnational networks, also the corporate culture of the 1930s can be the subject of further exploration. It wasnot uncommon to place the construction of light architecture under the supervision of international firms, such as the Citroën garage in Brussels (from the Belgian architects Alexis Dumont and Marcel Van Goethem, but supervised from France by Maurice Ravazée) or the Cineac in Brussels (#imported# light architecture from the French architects Pierre de Montaut and Adrienne Gorska who built Cineacs all over the world). This kind of early international branding brings up many questions: was it the firm that commissioned a bright facade or was this the architect#s contribution? How was information transferred from one city to another? Few phenomena evoke such a diversity of reactions as artificial light, going from irritation to enchantment. Therefore, it would be significant to studyand interpret the contemporary discourse on light architecture as it was expressed by protagonists as well as antagonists. The debate was characterized by ardent supporters and opponents from both popular and professional backgrounds. This discussion can be retraced through a discourse analysis based on articles in journals, letters, annual reports of assemblies and other relevant texts. This reception history will be a retrospective attempt to understand the significance of light architecture. To what extent was Brussels affected by it? Did it reflect a changing mentality and a new way of perceiving the city? Yet another dimension of light architecture comprehends its visualization. During the conceptual phase of the design process, both architects and light engineers produced visual material of the future building at night. What kind of message did they want to communicate with these very attractive images? What can be concluded by comparing the nightscapes of Paris by Brassaï with those ofBrussels by Willy Kessels? Are these pictures an objective registrationof the city at night or a personal interpretation or even manipulation of reality? This image analysis will try to understand the hidden messages that are enclosed within the images. In sum, light architecture will be understood as an indicator of modernist and metropolitan culture. Thestrategies mentioned above should not only provide a solid understanding of light architecture in all its dimensions but they should also allowmeasuring its impact.
Date:30 Sep 2010 →  4 Apr 2015
Keywords:Brussel, Modernity
Project type:PhD project