Contemporary Latin American Architecture – ARC 584 Midterm: Cities Rio de Janeiro

Jenerra C. Albert Contemporary Latin American Architecture – ARC 584 Midterm: Cities Rio de Janeiro Palm Trees, Brise-Soleils, and Pilotis In 1952, Rio de Janeiro introduced to the country, its first modern art museum developed by a group of people led by a female art director, Niomar Moniz Sodre. This new museum was very much reflective of what was taking place in Brazil at the time, and Rio de Janeiro specifically, was the scene of radical social change during the 1950s. During this time, Rio de Janeiro was the capital city of Brazil and at the mid-century experienced political, economic, and cultural shifts of seismic proportions. The 1950s was the precise time that Brazil was undergoing its process of modernization. Although this was particularly a time of political change, an important derivative of this change was a dramatic movement of the arts. Political parties, intellectuals, entrepreneurs and artists all believed that a national democratic or socialist revolution was possible within the country. These artists, entrepreneurs and intellectuals played a significant role in constructing the ideal utopia; a reformed and modern Brazil. This new museum, the Museum of Modern Art, in Rio de Janeiro, and the new developments that came with it mark a defining moment in the initial steps to a promotion and re-definition of modernism in Brazil. This analysis seeks to understand, convey and celebrate this political and economic shift in Rio de Janeiro’s history that locates it at the dynamic center of a cultural link that includes architecture, urbanism, art and the collection and display of visual and urban art that

ultimately revealed how Rio’s visual culture was profoundly revolutionized at the middle of the century. Rio de Janeiro was a location with a reputation as the ideal tropical destination. In the midst of this mid-century turn, an elite group of individuals in Rio de Janeiro were determined and insistent upon modernizing the nation’s visual appeal and the current visual standard of the culture. This group felt the way they would do this would be through the Museu de Arte Moderna – the first modern art museum, referenced above. This fortified group of entrepreneurs developed something that turned into one of the most important cultural centers in Brazil. At the time, with Rio known internationally as a tropical haven, and locally as the place of modern reinvention, the development of this museum seems to be the first domino in a larger effect of “tropical modernism”. “Tropical Modernism” was a term introduced by the great Le Corbusier as a way to describe Brazilian modern architecture and was used to reference a hybrid where the foreign and the local meet to create this new architectural style. Additionally, In order to understand and rationalize the aesthetic qualities of modernism and the ways that architects, designers and city planners responded to this mid-century revolution, it is important to understand that many technological advances occurred during the nineteenth and twentieth century that enhanced the ways architects responded to this new modernity. As early as the 1930s, modern architecture was becoming one of the most compelling and widely disseminated, partly even controversial thanks to Le Corbusier, symbols of industrial and cultural progress in Brazil. With that said, it is necessary to recognize the Ministry of Education and Health. The Ministry of Education and Health was the result of a national competition by Gustavo Capanema. This was the building that solidified the Brazilian state’s long-standing engagement with modernism. The project was designed in 1936 by a team of architects led by

Lucio Costa and included: Oscar Niemeyer, Affonso Reidy, Carlos Leao, Jorge Moreira, Ernani Vasconcelos. Also involved in the project, was painter, Candido Portinari and the amazing landscape architect, Roberto Burle Marx. This building was a work comprised of some of the best, young, architectural talent that Rio had to offer. The inclusion of talent on this project grew, when the team invited Le Corbusier to come to Rio and spend four weeks on the project, during which he worked most closely with Niemeyer. Niemeyer became Le Corbusier’s prime interpreter, translating Corbusier’s ideas and intentions to the rest of the team. This partnership between Niemeyer and Le Corbusier would later prove to be phenomenal and would kick-start his remarkable seventy year career. Located in the center of Rio, the Ministry of Education and Health (MES) was Rio de Janeiro’s first rectangular modernist skyscraper. The building was organized as an eleven story slab on pilotis, set back from the street. The building’s north-east façade was marked by an elegant, sculptural use of the brises-soleil, while the south-west façade was faced with plateglass. At the ground level, was a small park landscaped by Burle Marx, dotted throughout with modernist sculptures. Under the pilotis, in the beautiful shaded area, protected from the sun, were walls covered in azulejos – which are amazing blue and white Portuguese-style tiles, covered in Cubist designs done by the painter mentioned above, Candido Portinari. This building was more than just a building, it was one of the first attempts by Rio de Janeiro to showcase its new modernist visual culture. For Rio, a city that was modelling itself in the image of the second empire of Paris, this building was a remarkable beginning. Having Le Corbusier’s involvement in the project gained particular international comment and word of its completion began to travel quickly, making it a world-wide architectural sensation.

The MES was gaining much applause around the world with statements such as; “the most advanced architectural structure in the world” by the New York Times. In general, many felt this was one of the boldest and most advanced exercises yet, in modern architecture. While this was the case, there were still many who felt their own disdain toward the project, particularly the Swiss artist and designer Max Bill. Max Bill’s visual art became well known and widely celebrated in metropolitan artistic circles throughout Brazil in the early 1950s, parallel to the Brazilian revolution. During a very inflammatory lecture that Max Bill gave at the Museum of Modern Art in Rio, he criticized the direction that Brazilian architects had taken in their projects toward a modern trajectory, condemning them as “utter anarchy in building, jungle growth in the worst sense.” His comments particularly directed at the MES building described the decorative facades and the use of azulejos, a “dangerous academic”. Lucio Costa being exceptionally proud of his work in Rio, particularly at the MES, and the other modern works of he and his fellow counterparts throughout Rio, was thoroughly insulted by his comments and felt that Bill was merely pretending to know Brazilian architecture after only a few days of visits in their country. Although Bill’s statement seems to be a brash European critique of Brazilian architecture and a puritanical view of modernism, it speaks to two things: how architecture and Rio de Janeiro was perceived abroad in the early 1950s, and the adaptive and creative nature of Brazilian architects to convert to modern architecture and still place their own stamp upon it. Perhaps the innovations and additions that were brought to the modernist table by the likes of Costa and Niemeyer were too much of an aesthetic indulgence for the conservative Swiss artist, however, it is the superfluous forms and elements and curvaceous, monumental structures with free form that set forth the goals for modernist architecture in Rio de Janeiro. By the time the Modern Art Museum was founded and completed in Rio de Janeiro, modern

architecture already had a large international following. Architects such as Oscar Niemeyer and Affonso Reidy were both celebrated and reviled by specialists in the developed world for the liberties they took in reconfiguring European architectural conventions for tropical conditions. The Brazilian’s application of modernist architectural principles in Rio de Janeiro, were four in particular, many of which could be attributed to Le Corbusier’s theories. These four included – free form planning, the all-glass wall, brises-soleils, and pilotis. In the midst of gaining much international attention during the 1930-40s, in an exhibit, “Brazil Builds”, the curators attributed their discovery of Brazilian architecture to the wildly popular Brazilian pavilion for the 1939 Worlds Fair in New York City, designed by Costa and Niemeyer. The pavilion was characterized by some of the same features utilized at the Ministry building: the pavilion was constructed of reinforced concrete, and pilotis and plate glass were liberally deployed throughout both floors. The upper floor of the pavilion was protected from the sun by brise-soleil louvers, similar to the way the northern façade of the Ministry made use of the shading device. The lush grounds surrounding the pavilion featured many of the exotic flora and fauna that are indigenous to Rio. At the ministry, Burle Marx, who would later work with Reidy on the landscape design at the Museum of Modern Art. He filled second floor, and roof terraces with beautiful green vegetation and encircled the building with a variety of native plants. These buildings and their landscaped surroundings combined what were presumed to be the universal forms of modernist architecture with indigenous vegetation. Palm trees, brise-soleils, and pilotis, represented Rio as both modern and tropical, proving that despite Bill’s criticism, these elements could be harmoniously combined to create an original form of architecture, unique to Rio de Janeiro. Reidy, Niemeyer, and Costa, from our research showing to be a dynamic group, among others, joined constituents of both local and foreign derivation – palm trees, brise-soleils and

pilotis – to create a national and local style of modern architecture. In doing so, they managed to demonstrate that modernity and tropicality did not have to be exclusively segregated, but when they were brought together could become mutually constitutive in an expression particular to Rio. As a student and enthusiast of Latin American architecture, one could spend days and pages upon pages admiring and gazing at the works and superfluous and ingenious curves of Niemeyer, the gardens of Burle Marx and the progressive and inventive way of Costa. However, it would be a pity to recognize the indelible marks that the Museum of Modern Art left on the political, artistic and social economy, without specifically recognizing the outstanding design sensibilities of the architecture of the building itself. The Museum of Modern Art, began as merely an artistic movement, remaining conceptual in state. At one point the museum’s headquarters was even ironically housed in the Ministry of Education, but once it established its own physical site, it was amazing. Upon completion, the Museum of Modern Art’s extensive campus would include the Parque do Flamengo, which was intended to offer the citizens of Rio de Janeiro a communal area for relaxation and recreation. Located adjacent to downtown Rio and the residential “favelas” of Flamengo and Gloria. The museum and the park were conveniently placed close to the geographical city center accessible to both the northern working class and industrial neighborhoods, as well as the southern, elite, beach neighborhoods. In 1952 when the city granted a parcel of land to the Museum of Modern Art’s lobbyists for development, the one condition was that Affonso Reidy design the campus. As one of Rio’s most prominent modern architects, this proved to be a great condition. Reidy’s aspirations for the museum were to create an inviting institution for the socially and economically diverse and growing population of

modern Brazil. The Museum of Modern Art planned to offer the city a wide range of events including; art exhibitions, film screenings, dance performances, public lectures, and studio art classes. This meant, that the various programs would require specialized spaces. Reidy deigned a large campus that consisted of three specific buildings which were: the school block, the exhibition block and the theater block – each of which would address a different core aspect of the institutions message. The school block was the first building to be completed with the ground floor of the u-shaped building hosting studios for a plethora of activities, and a canteen for students. The upper level of the building featured a glassed-in restaurant and bar with an expansive terrace made accessible by a ramp that originated in the central courtyard. On the opposite side of this museum campus was the theater block that was a well organized rectangular building with a drum-shaped protrusion on the roof, designed to provide seating for one thousand attendees to the many musical, theatrical, cinematic and dance performances that the museum planned to host. The central position of the campus was occupied by the exhibition block. Rectangular in shape, the exhibition block was taller and longer than either of the buildings and served the sole purpose of displaying art exhibits. The two floors of the exhibition block were also designed to house a library and reading room, the museum’s collections of musical records and films, as well as provide a small auditorium. The architecture of the museum itself demands respect. The museum employ two specific design sensibilities, on one hand it is repeated with concrete and on the other hand, it is formed entirely of metal. A blunt contrasted design that represents the true character of the museum program itself. The structure of the building is another expression of the advancement of technology during the times. Building in modern design was completely free, including the pillars of support from the external of the building. The body of the u-shaped building is known primarily for its

concrete structure. The structure of the others consists of a system whose beams cross and consist of two functions, one holds the slab on the first floor for exhibits and the other joining upper beams suspended and the roof slab of the second floor. This created the opportunity for total freedom in development of plans and determines the absence of columns inside the showroom. Foundations are done via pilotis. The exterior trim is in aluminum with green glass to protect against the intense Rio sun and excessive brightness. Rio de Janeiro’s strong tropical sunlight was one of Reidy’s tropical concerns. This provided another opportunity for him to continue crafting out unique Brazilian responses to modern architecture that had not already been worked out by his European counterparts. Problems created by the climate led to various solutions for protection against the sun, thus bringing about a need for ventilated, shady places. Due to technological advancements, the ability to universalize construction on stilts emerged. The exhibition block is recognizable because of its repeated use of the v-shaped concrete ribs, that function as an external framing device. Fourteen ribs along the two longest sides of hall extend from the ground upward and outward, providing suspension and support for two stories of galleries as well as a roof. These v-shapes bore so much weight that many of the walls, both interior and exterior could be made of glass. This time, instead of using brise-soleils to shield the interior spaces of the exhibition building from the Rio sun’s heat and rays, similar to what he did at the school building, the v-shaped ribs themselves project beyond the building’s edges. These ribs are were so robust in depth and width they helped by providing its own shading, especially because of the positioning of the building, the sun always shone from the northern end of this building. The roof supported by these ribs also extends out past the building’s perimeter to provide the lower floors with ample sun protection. These v-shaped ribs also made it possible for the ground floor to be left mostly open, with few exceptions, like the museum foyer and the

administrative office entrance. Having a large open space on the ground floor under the galleries functioned as a communal gathering place spared of the tropical light and high temperatures. Affonso Reidy was both an architect and urban planner and had a certain reverence for the topography and climate of Rio de Janeiro and felt it was important to design buildings to integrate with the natural setting. In addition to the three museum buildings, the overall design for the museum included several patios, terraces, reflecting pools and fountains, as well as landscaped gardens. Reidy took full advantage of the outdoors of Rio, incorporating the museum into its intended home, the Parque do Flamengo. Once again, Burle Marx was called upon to work closely with Reidy to merge the natural world with his man-made design. Burle Marx used his landscape expertise and applied shrubs, grasses, flowers and trees into these outdoor spaces to highlight such formal characteristics as their color, shape, texture, and size and merge the Museum of Modern Art’s physical setting with the surrounding park and the Guanabara Bay. All of this contributing to the original mission of advancing Rio in the 1950s as a place with high standards of modern visual art. Reidy paid homage to the surroundings of Guanabara Bay. He intentionally created a horizontal design so as not to disrupt the rhythm of the surrounding mountains, and integrated glass walls as frequently as possible to showcase the landscape and enhance certain views from many angles. The Museum of Modern Art was not only a political symbol, it wasn’t just the first step in a revolutionary journey, but it was a statement of modern architecture that radiated throughout the global community. Brazil’s modern architects saw European modern architecture as a schema to be both absorbed and adapted to their tropical conditions, seeking to celebrate rather than conceal the differences that separated the Brazilian context from the European or North American ones. This analysis explores how Brazilians created hybrid metaphors capable of

referencing both Brazil and international modernism and then exploited these creations to advertise the modernization of Rio de Janeiro to a foreign audience, as well as to themselves. Whether or not critics endorsed or disapproved of what was taking place in the Brazilian modern architecture movement, they granted Rio a significant place in international discourse. More importantly, it is important to recognize that Rio de Janeiro did not just place themselves in the conversation of modern architecture, they differentiated themselves. They showed the world that palm trees, brise-soleils and pilotis can all exist in beautiful harmony. Palm trees, brise-soleils and pilotis are the stamp of Rio.

Bibliography Mindlin, Henrique E. Modern Architecture in Brazil. English language ed. New York:

Reinhold Pub Corp., 1956 Ortiz, Renato. “Culture and Society.” In Brazil: A Century of Change, edited by Ignacy Sachs, Jorge Wilheim and Paulo Sergio de M.S. Pinheiro. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009 Pereira, Luiz Carlos Bresser. Development and Crisis in Brazil, 1930-1983. Westview Special Studies on Latin America and the Caribbean. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984. Quezado Deckker, Zilah. Brazil Built: The Architecture of the Modern Movement in Brazil. London, New York: Spon Press, 2001. Reidy, Affonso Eduardo, and Klaus Franck. The Works of Affonso Eduardo Reidy. New York: Praeger, 1960. Szulc, Tad. “Brazil’s Capital a Bursting City: Rio De Janeiro Chops Hills and Fills in Bay to Find Space for its Millions.” New York Times, September 30, 1956.

Venancio Filho, Paulo. “Rio de Janeiro 1950-64” in Century City: Art and Culture in the Modern Metropolis, edited by Iwona Blazwick and Tate Modern. London: Tate Publishing, 2001

Venancio Filho, Paulo and Annika Gunnarsson. Time & Place: Rio de Janeiro 1956-1964.