Southeastern Massachusetts University - Scrimshaw Yearbook (North Dartmouth, MA)

Page 10 text:

- . 5 r '?'5f:sKi'..w,5'5.!aTii2':..eM,f.s.:nr.:-u - '--- pg V -- 3.., ' A ' ,:,. . . .,, - 'sgi-J' . . -- - -1i H - 4532f??'f.Q?5335i25i5f32s s- ' ' A.iQ T 1 . - I C ontinued from previous page! dominate our memory of every building were called 'spiralling malls or llsky lobbiesw by Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, Rudolph's biog- rapher. She noted the thrusting horizontals which dramatically violate the plate glass and seem to open every space to the outdoors, This, she said, is a constant reminder of Rudolph's vision of a building which intentionally contrasts Uthe vast void of the open landscape and the measured ratios of instructional spaces. SMU is 'fa centrifugal environment maker and the place where Rudolph's work achieves 'harmonious totality. This is strong stuff for a school whose heating system never seems to correspond to the seasons and whose narrow and sometimes dark corridors exude the heavy air of cement blocks. And this is said about these same interior spaces which so often draw our criticism. What of the exterior? First, the circular plan of the campus and its parking lot 'lf' af' .f , ' V ',, .-'F ' , L' 'W V if ,.c,A,,,,3fvgss,x-1-f--: -if' 1 ' , Q ' -V ' . X - ,. -' , - V' A Q ' ,,,s- f,s-1.-xv-Kiwi? -N 'LST' X' , R' Wigs'-P ,gpg gas f fa 5 - .vi-' J- - ' gf , ., .. :- ' ::s'w:x.: we -4 W :Am ' fn , A X , , 6 sw we -5' X4 3 assf ,f'fwfs- a 'WYKV 1- ' A Q.-s,ut.,g,.1m.i...-Y-a...1i. . J , W ' f. A ,ft .4 sc, ,if- v 'X sf -. :N ' if ,fa 1 f --ex s . Q 'P St P X 7 Xxwxx E 9 L w. . f gf ' -. ' I ' lt- :fha . .t - - f,-gs: Q .XX 5, W , Y---,--gg V . X ,t ,X XX xxx S I . , - ., , x, so N, s... .5 Ar, XR x.xXx,XX ., ,N - xx xx A - 1 N , , , l K - E ., A x ,V M-gr-I-'DN-,-.,,....:.. mounds lend a touch of Stonehengian fundamentality. We are reminded in our approach that Rudolph doesn't really like to have automobiles intrude upon a non-mechanistic environ- ment. Another author, Robert Spade, suggests uthe pedestrian status of the campus centre is . . . the only means of controlling the scale of an . . . institution intended for rapid growth , he is telling us the campus is intended to remain exclusively an envi- ronment for humans, no matter how large it gets. This oddly contradictory statement hits home to those of us who inhabit this place. We are, at various times, struck by the harshness of our surroundings, the uncompromising severity of the surfaces, and at other times compelled to admire a set of buildings which when seen by night or in the dramatic light of sunset becomes a sculptural statement in its most heroic form. 1 Continued on next pagej :Tl E' 5 Q -gi 3 ,l 3 1 I I i .' 5. , -' . , Y . Y ,ij n 5- l . ' I . - . t F V, -,, ll 1 , s V W'

Page 9 text:

1Continued from previous pagej Ada Louise Huxtable, architectural critic for the New York Times, has observed that architectural styles flash by our con- sciousness with the rapidity of changes in hemlines in the fashion world. Fashion in building has gone from the Brutalism of the sixties, to the high-tech reflective skin of the seventies, to today's idiosyncratic 'lcontextualismf' The avant-garde makes its statement, and, having left its most visible mark, moves on. lt is difficult, she says, to dump an unwanted building in a flea market. lt is with us. SMU, we find, is part of the evident remains of Brutalism, an architectural style characterized by rough, even threatening, surfaces on buildings made of unadorned cement. lt is the architect's primal scream. Paul Rudolph's most impressive building complex remains the SMU campus. Its plan and its lllook have influenced dozens of university buildings since its initial design in 1963. These imitators declare at once the appropriateness of our campus to communal design, and by their thin packaging, the poverty of imitation by the unimaginative. What was Rudolph trying to do here that makes SMU a topic of discussion in the eighties, that generates such imitation, and at the same time, makes the lllook of SMU so indisputably of the sixties? What makes this place a current topic of discussion is the undeniable where-ness of SMU. Upon arriving on campus, one feels that this is a place unlike any other. A completeness is felt. SMU is total. From any angle its silhouette changes, yet it remains the same place. lts llIook is inescapable. This, of course, can also be discomforting. But authors, egged on by some scholarly compulsion to write about SMU have seen the drama present here. ln 1970, the giant, three story interior spaces which so K Continued on next pagel . V, . , F ,MY . - t -W S 531 fi i g nr., . ' ya: gg ,J . wi R' .V A 1 5 'Q if -V, l K A , . . S t - ar . 'Zi - .-:,.,---4- ' , QN - Q 'TQ fi -1, T .5395 . Ttu'kN- .- T 1 I Y il l i 3 v. ',, Ji' nf l Y C5 rffhxll Y:- A ,. U' 4 I ' I , , .f. f r' L

Page 11 text:

1Continued from previous pagel The view between Group I and Group ll is inviting, the cam- panile a focal point. As one slowly navigates the ring road, one instinctively knows the master plan: a circle, cut by an axis between buildings and anchored at a pivotal point by a tower. lt is simple, yet lacks the stiff symmetry and repetition rehension of the organizing principle of an architectural space is what the ancient Creeks desired in their buildings. This is the stuff by which human reason, instinctively stimulated and confirmed, is determined. Do we confront here architecture systematically allied with our own innate humanity? Perhaps that is too much to swallow. But this is the contradiction we all feel. We are challenged by the innate logic of our surroundings, which is something we instinctively admire. Some would say that we even find beauty in this system of order once it is recognized, At the same time, we see the highly structured classroom spaces ffrozen chairs for .: f P frozen stares?l, the day-to-day dreariness of the cement sur- face, and we despair at the challenge to our sense of comfort which it represents. We are often glad we are transients here and we 'llive elsewhere. The images each of us associates with the buildings to which we are so closely related are not always so harsh. Nor are they so often charged with lofty reminders that we are standing in the mainstream of modern architectural history. Whatever our feelings about SMU, its buildings cannot be ignored and one cannot but be aware of the complex responses generated by them. So Paul Rudolph has succeeded, for he once said, 'ia school building that does not provide for its students concep- tual images unknown to the human majority, sells the future of society short of its environmental aspirations. To this, our collective criticism stands witness. - Thomas Puryear Thomas Puryear is the Chairperson of the Art History Department at SMU. -fi a..f--,-f-fi- s' 'ff -- , ,s f Q. i' l 1 Sf v iff' w l- i Ii , . + 1 4- i- -4 4 f A-4 ' , - h v 1 ,.. . A., '- vs wr, -my 1 - ' ' 3' ibn' - . Q, Z- ','x .l.'?fj M,-wrt ' . - x -...-f . . ..,v. T, . A,'-' - . ,ta Y.. www, .g. f '-fe, 1 ,z,..,,a ft . ' ' 'Z 'Q A -ff-'i:i'f1?g2Sw s? W - . , if:-.'?inrI A f 1 five 4. . 4 as Y V . , ,QM , 5 1 A , ,F , W I rf' A Q , , V, AAUBMT . F 'gif Mi? :Jai-,, Bali,- Z QQQTZE-A Ji., , ,f:i'2,gv4.,..L tx , . ' V .A U g,-A guit',.. fii'. .5gjt Ii, ' - T -9. 'f 'Z' . --ffa' ' A . 'ff ff ' . , ' ' I 5 3 X , Q, ,Y 'SJ ve7'i 'x?i'4,Eg,::g,',, Q W.: 3' , +2 ,mf 'r , 5, ' .ah M -:gay-f ,3g,,-rtfaeafrv ?f1f4:',1.f.'-fEaif? f'4 . 1Qf.,ffvl'fI37-if-if-Iv f if.-64,53 yu' ...ah - Mi. 1 ,ug gg- 'Hg g+:.p.,g' 'ps A HL:MEfi!.fg v - . 1- . 71 ff'2 l Q, , f .: , , MQ 'qQ,:X wa? F . 1 ' . i .Q ' ' ' s - A ffm 'w-'m',w1-fnifwfibsffq S Eafswsatkffettfian : ' -,' 42' -'- J.. 1- -- 'ff---.-ass-'Q:. .. in A ' Qf,N?y.z33Qt -A 1. . 2' ttf ,axe miie wi, - ,air -- i . , 5 Zen. .. f ,,3Q Q.g, 4, ,im 1 u.,,.f., N A -5-3, w,4f,,,, f' ua. .Y -'BY-. K fl., . , Q7 ga . , M. My ,f 1- .Q-,. . X1-'S' ' ' F' a '51,-fr.E 'xff 3 Q- A .vqur v. 'Q . -- - - -'V 1'-fi -aff?-f ...iiddfinfx-u-..n ' 5 Q4Ifgm,.-mf6f.l-ff'-b-.E HV!!! H: