Letter: When to preserve Modern architecture
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Professor Patrick Hodgkinson is right to assert (letter, 18 February) that Mendelsohn and Chermayeff's 'Cohen' house ('One good functionalist deserves another'; Architecture, 10 February) raises 'questions of principle about the listing and preservation of architecture we call Modern'.
He is right, also, to say that the inside and outside of the house arose from a single vital conception - as did the houses of other great Modern architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier. It is, of course, precisely this principle of integrity and honesty that distinguishes early Modernism in architecture from what preceded it - 19th-century 'styles' and mannerism.
However, Professor Hodgkinson is wrong to imply that Mendelsohn would have agreed that his house needed changing because the occupants had aged or have supported the particular changes proposed by Sir Norman Foster. He might well have hated them just as living Modern architects have hated and indeed successfully resisted proposed changes to their designs.
The problem is that it is not just a question of 'use' or 'functionalism'. Erich Mendelsohn designed buildings of stunning power, beauty and elegance of conception. He was an architectural genius comparable to Picasso or Stravinsky.
The impetus of his work came, as Hodgkinson correctly states, from aesthetic movements such as Futurism whose iconoclasm should not be taken literally - they did not actually set out to blow up museums - but as a preamble to an astonishing revolutionary period of creativity.
We are still very much in the process of absorbing the achievements of the great innovators like Erich Mendelsohn. This is not a matter of nostalgia or sentimentality, words which imply a comfortable, lazy perspective on the past, but rather of respect for the ineffable.
Erich Mendelsohn was a very great master of architecture - Foster is a pupil of Mendelsohn's pupil. The sorcerer's apprentice should leave well alone.
Yours faithfully,
DAVID HAMILTON EDDY
London, E9
18 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments