“La Casa” in Frigiliana. Rudofsky’s Manifesto of Contemporary Domesticity

1 preeminence together with the Italian Mediterranean towns of Positano and Anticoli Corrado, but also the awe-inspiring landscape of the dogon communities in Bandigara, Mali. Mojácar, which Rudofsky considered one of the most spectacular examples, is one of the few places with more than one photograph in the catalogue, and it allows him to warn of the dangers of globalization, inasmuch as it means the loss of diversity and the specificity that each place has. In this sense, he understood tourism to be another form of consumerism. The phenomenon of coastal tourism thus contributed to the destruction of local, plural values, homogenizing the landscapes of our memory with hotels and apartments built in a false vernacular. Mojacar, in the province of Almeria, used to be one of the most spectacular Spanish hill towns until last year when tourism caught it up with it. The houses shown in the photographs were torn down or are being torn down, to make space for parking lots, hotels, apartment houses and villas designed in bogus vernacular…7 The photographs of Mojácar by José Ortiz Echagüe included in the catalog offered a historical glimpse into 1930s Hill Towns – its characteristic values had already been destroyed when he set up the exhibition. Ortiz Echagüe’s snapshots of Spanish landscapes were going to become a reference for Rudofsky.8[Fig. 1] Although Rudofsky already knew some individual towns such as Casares, his long-term contact with the Andalusian coastline came after he settled there himself. In 1977, when his house in Frigiliana had already been standing for several years, he published The Prodigious Builders, a natural continuation of Architecture without Architects, in which he proposed an alternative history of architecture. The subtitle of the new book emphasizes his censure of architectures that have been ignored or rejected in the history of architecture: Notes toward a Natural History of Architecture with Special Regard to Those Species that are Traditionally Neglected or Downright Ignored.9He included one of the many photographs taken by himself during the five or six months a year he spent in Frigiliana from 1969 on. It shows a woman whitewashing a wall, offering the ethnological depth of the white towns of the Mediterranean, thus revealing the permanent presence of the dimension of gender in his work.10 “unit Architecture” is the title under which the exhibition accompanying the book approached reflection on the use of building type in the definition of landscape – a reflection that we shall later see taken up in his domestic proposal at Frigiliana. Rudofsky defends the idea that the intelligent use of a type does not necessarily have to produce a monotonous, standardized landscape. The intelligent adaptation to the terrain leads to that wise integration in the landscape, where the terrain is specific to the location, creating the volumetric fragmentation that will later characterize the project of the house. “The use of a single building type does not necessarily produce monotony. Irregularity of terrain and deviations from standard measurements result in small variations which strike a perfect balance between unity and diversity.”11 In Architecture without Architects there are illustrations of towns in the Italian Mediterranean such as Pisticci, together with views of Mijas12and Villahermosa in Spain. The images of whitewashed walls and gable roofs are recurrent in all of them, although the appearance of the town varies in the adaptation of building types. The town of Casares, just fourteen kilometres from the western coast of Malaga, became one of the persistent references of Rudofsky’s images as regards the harmony of its topographic location and the intelligent adaptation of building type. He showed it in his conferences, it appeared in his publications and he revisited it until the eighties, adding images at various times to his personal collection of transparencies.13Another of the traditional Andalusian architectures he recovered from obscurity was that of our beautiful cemeteries – prohibited architectures, scenes ignored because of the reticence of western culture regarding death. Rudofsky brings out the value of funerary architecture in different parts of the world, in particular the humble cemeteries of Mediterranean towns. He praised the essential nature of their shapes and the wisdom of their location, with a logic parallel to that of the towns of the living, emulated by these funerary spaces with their streets and squares. Andalusian cemeteries appear in his The Prodigious Builders together with other types of vertical stacking, and he praised the absence of ornamentation without artistic value, such as statues or decorative gardens.14 Rudofsky likewise defended the sophistication of living in caves, refuting their identification with primitive forms of life. durability, versatility and recycling are some of the terms he used in connection with cave dwelling. From the viewpoint of sustainability, he was to dedicate an important part of both Architecture without Architects and The Prodigious Builders to this subject, also publishing the occasional monographic article where he affirmed that caves are the housing solution of the future.15New York in the 1960s was given the chance to see the caves of Almanzora in Almeria,16 as well as excavated architectures in Greece, Tunisia, France, uSA and China. The caves at Guadix and Setenil, fragments of this unknown, marginalised world, were also visited on Rudofsky’s trips in Andalusia, as witnessed by his collection of transparencies. But it was not merely the architectonic object, or the township as a whole – Rudofsky even reflected on the capacity of agriculture to modify the landscape. For him, the heritage values of an architecture had to be necessarily linked to the activity that produced it. He thus had an interest in the values of the rural scene as a transformed landscape, with a beauty linked to its productive raison d’être. The adaptation of agriculture necessarily implied the architecturization of the place, as we can see, for example, in the walls built to mark a boundary, or to create a system of terraces, shaping the topography. “La Casa” without architecture Berta and Bernard Rudofsky chose a setting in which to build their home that not only benefitted from the conditions of its rural character, but also from the proximity of the sea and the nearby town of Frigiliana, an example of the intelligent adaptation to the landscape that was such a central theme in Rudofsky’s imagery. In the collection of photos he took from and looking towards the site during his first inspection, this condition of being a productive landscape is strongly visible. Although the sea is there as backdrop, just three kilometres CRITICAL dISOBEdIENCE OF MOdERNITY 313 1 “La Casa” in Frigiliana Rudofsky’s Manifesto of Contemporary Domesticity Mar Loren Antecedents of its recognition and conservation The patrimonial recognition of “La Casa” and its protection have been achieved through intense, unceasing efforts culminating in its declaration as a monument in 2011. In 2005 the José Guerrero Centre began to take an active role in its defense, in which it was joined by the Austrian Museum of Applied Contemporary Art (MAk). The Andalusian Register of Contemporary Architecture (RAAC), a project of the department of Culture of the Junta de Andalucía, also rediscovered Rudofsky’s work in the context of architectonic research.1The RAAC undertakes critical research of 20th century architectural heritage in Andalusia and carries out its legal protection. Within our particular research project, Rudofsky’s house has to date been the only building proposed for protection as Monument, although its declaration as such in 2011 has not halted the changes made to it in recent years by the present owners.2The small scale of this domestic construction, the fragility of its patrimonial values and the fact that it is private property have all hampered the effective protection of this valuable piece of the history of contemporary architecture. detailed study has made possible the first comparison of the monographic illustrated documentation held at the Getty Research Library in uSA and all the papers at the Bernard Rudofsky Estate Vienna in Austria. This research has revealed Rudofsky’s integral proposal for contemporary living and his interdisciplinary search for a fulfilling way of life that transcends architectonic discipline. Life as a voyage, travel as a lifestyle3 The importance of travel in Rudofsky’s career involves not only circumstantial contact with the different places he knew, but also the act of living in them. This gave a complementary depth to his experience that allowed him to include his critical and architectonic creation as an integral part of the places where he took up residence. One of these was Spain. In this sense, Andalusia holds an outstanding place, which became more important after he began to live in his own house, thus moving him to a more intimate reflection on its ways of life and its landscape. Rudofsky’s penchant for travel was with him since his student years in the Technische Hochschule in Vienna (1922- 1928), with visits to Bulgaria, Turkey, Switzerland, France and Italy. In 1931 he concluded his doctoral thesis on the concrete vaulted structures of the cave dwellings on the Cyclades Islands in Greece. From 1932 to 1938 he lived in Italy between Capri, Procida and Milan, with occasional visits to the uSA. In 1938 he moved to South America, where he lived in Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. In 1941 he took up residence in the united Sates. In 1969 he bought a piece of land in Andalusia and began to live between Frigiliana and New York. After these nomadic years marked by travel as a lifestyle and manner of direct understanding, Bernard and Berta Rudofsky chose the Mediterranean landscape as the place to build their own house. We are, therefore, talking about the construction of his own domestic universe, a final testament in the context of a brief production of just seven buildings made.4 The consideration of his last building as a critical manifesto of contemporary living is confirmed in Rudofsky’s affirmation as a polemical, but never reformist critic. His aim was to provoke through irreverent, subversive criticism, but not to reform the inhabitants. The houses he made for his clients enquired into his concepts of contemporary habitation based on traditional architecture, and, although adapted to the particularities of the dwellers, he never imposed his holistic, integral approach for new forms of living to its ultimate consequences. The choice of place Man’s physical freedom manifests itself no doubt in his ability to choose the place on earth where he wants to live. Whereas immature reflection tends to judge by usefulness alone, a discriminating mind may ask its share of beauty.5 Rudofsky’s viewpoint considers the wisdom of the choice of place, questioning whether merely functional parameters are able to explain this choice, and with the conviction that there is a necessary search for beauty and an intense experience of the space we choose for our habitat. In this manner he reclaims the architectonic tradition of loyalty to place and thereby its liturgical character. Likewise, the phenomenological, sensitive nature of our relationship with the place is reinforced, as is the wonderment we feel on discovering it and, therefore, the link that binds us to it through our vital, aesthetic experience. Rudofsky’s discovery and acclamation of the values of our Mediterranean landscapes was not new – Andalusian towns such as Casares, Mijas or Mojácar; cemeteries such as those of Almuñécar and Sayalonga; awnings covering the streets of Seville and Cadiz; architectures forgotten in our history of architecture were presented in 1964 in his exhibition Architecture without Architects – An Introduction to Non- Pedigreed Architecture at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, together with other traditional, anonymous and unknown architectures from Italy, Greece, China, Japan, Turkey and Pakistan, among other countries. With an idea of the exhibition free of chronologies or geographic distinctions – dominant centre versus peripheries – Rudofsky constructed a notion of space that brought together architectures that were very different in time and location. He proposed the dismantling of the presumed parallelism between traditional architecture and the underdeveloped world, specifying values that we must learn from, such as serenity, the tangible evidence of more human and intelligent life forms, in contrast – he said textually – to the blight of uS architecture, which caused a response among architects and their institutions.6 The values he praised in these marginalized forms of building were not restricted to architecture as a constructed element, but extended to their urban and scenic dimensions. The wise interpretation of the terrain and its aesthetic strength in traditional urban settlements is a constant in the evaluation of the towns Rudofsky includes in his publications. In the section entitled “Hill Towns” in Architecture without Architects, Mojácar, on the Almerian part of the same Andalusian coastline where Frigiliana stands, is given BERNARd RudOFSkY 312 1 provides the place with cultural depth, reminding us of its ruined condition as a vestige, memory in space. Rudofsky used a quotation from d.H. Lawrence, surprised that it had been a writer who first noticed their power. The awe-inspiring rural landscape around Lago di Garda allowed him to speak of flexibility – the pergola gave him the possibility of closing it to protect the trees from frost simply by placing wooden and glass panels on it. [p. 62 up] Upon the mountain slopes steep by the lake, stand the rows of naked pillars rising out of the green foliage like ruins of temples: white, square pillars of masonry, standing forlorn in their colonnades and squares.24 Rudofsky’s article on the monumental complex built on the outskirts of Rome for the universal Exhibition of 1942 and then abandoned also reflects this fascination with the colonnades of pillars emerging out of the unfinished buildings and their similarity to architectonic ruin.25 [p. 60] In the Rudofsky house, the pillars touch the terrain without modifying it, once again showing respect for the foundation, but also approaching a state of ruin around which the vegetation has grown back. This cultural depth of architecture as ruin from the very moment of its conception is emphasized in Rudofsky’s photographs taken at dawn, with backlit images stressing their mythical condition. [p. 61] The enormous collection of photos of the pergola taken at different times – during construction and throughout the years the Rudofsky’s lived there – underlines the dichotomy between the pillars and the trees, between the house and nature. Together with the pergola, the wall is another element used to bring into prominence the artificial dimension of the architecture. The wall appears without connection to its specific function as boundary, protection or enclosure. In the house-garden – a garden conceived as outdoor rooms almost constituting a house - that Rudofsky designed with and for Costantino Nivola in Amagansett (New York, 1949-50), a wall is penetrated by a tree, a composition that Rudofsky came to call a marriage and that formalized this contrasting integration of the act of architecture. In “La Casa” he made a variation on an L-shaped wall penetrated by a carob tree. Once again he persistently took photographs of the composition, documenting the whole at different times – the growth of the tree, the contact between wall and tree, the relation between them shown in the shadows thrown. [p. 68] Unit architecture. Typological adaptation despite praising the intelligence of architectures that adapt to the place, becoming a prudent interpretation of the terrain, in the projects for Rudofsky’s own home the house predominates as a compact geometry surrounding a patio. From the first designs for a house for Berta in Procida (Italy)26 in the interwar period, when he was thinking of their life together, to his last drawings made in the eighties,27 he dreamed of his domestic ideal as an introverted space, a single volume around a patio. “La Casa,” however, does not stick to any recognisable geometry and is projected on five different levels, spreading out in different volumes on a north-south axis, with the daytime spaces to the north and the sleeping and study areas in the southern part. A loggia acts as a linking element, taking up the extension of the pergola. [p. 64] The first dimensioned drawing already shows this fragmented conception of the project and its winding layout marked by the presence of the trees. Concerning the contemporary reflection of vernacular Mediterranean architecture, we can trace a significant process of maturing: the east elevation shows a variety of spaces and elements such as grilles, small roofs or ledges in a more immediate, picturesque approach to local examples. The endorsed ground plans in the dossier at Frigiliana Town Hall seem to be an adaptation of this first drawing for the Spanish technical survey codes, which we can attribute to draftsmanship done in Coderch’s office, with the walls filled in in black and especially the standardized furniture that we can find in any plans drawn up for endorsement and building.28 These plans served as the basis for the alterations later suggested by Rudofsky, in which he fine tuned his initial proposal, adapting the geometry to the real levels of the terrain and the locations of the trees, simplifying the openings and expressing a contemporary approach more in keeping with Mediterranean simplicity. He refined the façades by designing a single type of opening measuring 0.9 x 1 metres, the grouping of which produced differential nuances. The definitive eastern elevation shows this simplification, confirming the strength the project had acquired by eliminating the variety of sizes of opening and typical elements such as grilles, ledges and projections.29[p. 56] He made no use of curtains or shutters, controlling the intense morning sunlight with frames of rasillón brick outstanding from the wall to protect against the heat of summer. For times when the sunlight was lower, Berta designed brise soleil-type elements resting simply on the brick frameworks. [p. 69] On the western elevation the house is closed to the path, closely guarding the private domestic universe. The façade is a wall, a matt white wall of the rural Mediterranean architecture Rudofsky so often photographed. [Figs. 3 & 4] The more or less folkloric dimension thus begins to disappear, taking on an understanding of the local based on the economy of the place, the building systems and most easily available materials. The construction itself involved a structure of concrete beams and pillars with brick walls and there is no imposition of the bearing-wall as in the traditional buildings of the area. Rudofsky’s photographs of nearby traditional architectures or contemporary houses being built in the area lead to confusion, as they make one think initially that they are snapshots of his own building. The wall protects his private universe from the outside world, and the noise of the modern world with no letter-box, radio, television or other useless domestic appliances. It (the house) has no name or street number, no mail delivery, no radio or television, no telephone.30 His criticism of the need to accumulate possessions as part of the modern idea of progress is suggested with an acid sense of humour: the piano-bed is shown as a contrivance responding to the double need to accumulate and optimize space, which he identified above all with the American way of life.31 [Fig. 5] By way of contrast, the definitive plan shows an almost empty interior in which the standardized furniture has disappeared, revealing absence as a value, emptiness as a luxury, an interior with the bare necessities, to which the photographs of the interior repeatedly bear witness. [pp. 70 & 77] The house therefore represents a criticism, an integral proposal of a style of living. The domestic space as celebration, CRITICAL dISOBEdIENCE OF MOdERNITY 315 1 away, and with the constant reference of the Mediterranean, it is located inland. In the correspondence between Rudofsky and Coderch, the former expressed his certainty of having found the definitive location for his own dwelling, that he had drawn so many times in so many places over the years, but had never built. This time Berta and I liked Spain so much that we bought some pretty land near Nerja, and next Spring we want to build a little cortijo there.17 In the same letter he comments with alarm on the rapid transformation of the coastline as a result of speculation linked to tourism, and goes so far as to state that the Malaga coastline had been taken over by construction mafias. Although he explicitly rejects the power of developers in the indiscriminate, speculative occupation of the coast, he also says he prefers Spain to Italy or any other place in Europe.18 Located in the San Rafael Farm, the 4000 square metre site lies in the same setting as the house of the painter José Guerrero, built in 1966 on the base of a former farmhouse. As a scenario of contemporary exploration of vernacular Mediterranean architecture, the Guerreros’ house was to be a meeting place for the intellectual and artistic circle of Nerja of which Rudofsky formed part. From its inception, the project of “La Casa” stuck to the specific characteristics of the place, its size and its natural landscape. Rudofsky avoided an abstract approach and documented the size and placement of every tree on the site. The eight olive trees living there were photographed and can be seen in the earliest sketch. [Fig. 2] The positioning of the house also respected the terraces, the walls that support them and the rocks as structures belonging to the land. Berta’s role in this process of experiencing and understanding the site was fundamental. In a collection of unpublished site reconnaissance photographs she can be seen locating the elements, marking the boundaries of the sloping site and the positioning of the project that she checked at every step. These photos describe the fieldwork done together, probably in 1969, when the site was bought. Analysis of the graphic documentation for the project in the various collections and in the municipal dossier shows that the first project outline19 already contains the eight existing olive trees and the architecture of the house on the same level. From the very start the project contemplates a volumetric fragmentation to respect both the trees and the original boundaries of the terrain. The house is placed at the highest point of the site, using the uppermost terrace beside the access path, which ends at the site and divides it. In the framework of Rudofsky’s imagery, the terrain characterizes the site. In this case he chose an emplacement sloping strongly east to west. In his correspondence with Coderch, Rudofsky is explicit about his intentions – he has no intention of building a signature house, but a contemporary interpretation of local architecture. In his first letter, dated November 2nd 1969, he already emphasizes the humbleness that must characterize the house at all costs, defining it as a house without architecture, an architecture that is absent, born out of the vocation to disappear into the landscape: At any rate it will be very modest – una casa sin arquitectura.20 This absence of an architect and even of architecture is formalized in the respect for the place, in the determination to preserve its productive memory in farming terraces, maintaining the terrain. unlike the predominant trend of development to start by modifying the original levels and introduce gardens and paved surfaces, the project respects the texture of the terrain, the rocks and earth, trees and shrubs, and the walls of terracing for crops: The owner not only despised the old custom of cutting down the trees and levelling out the land, but took care to keep the rural character of the landscape. He therefore rejected all the suburban features so appreciated by foreigners: false lawns, flowerbeds and herbaceous hedges, arches, gates, fences and walls.21 From the outset, the project’s necessary territorial dimension was transmitted to the drawings, where Rudofsky put all his knowledge of the site, from the cross-section with the steeply sloping terrain to the natural reference elements. The tall pine located at the northeast corner of the site was one of these elements and can be identified in the first drawing and in the collection of reconnaissance photos with Berta, and was ultimately to serve as a reference point for the replanting operations. [p. 54] The architectonic idea of fragmenting the volume was confirmed in the first scale drawings. The project unfolds in a north-south direction, with the house closing it off towards the west and the access path and opening out towards the east. The architecture aims to become one with the setting, with the proposal of a complementary plantation of trees whose intention is functional, as shelter and to improve the conditions of humidity and temperature, but mainly as camouflage – an architecture with aspirations to disappear. The photographs Rudofsky took throughout building and later over the years bear witness to his keeping track of this gradual process of minimization of presence in the landscape.22[p. 58] Any tampering with the natural contours of the land was avoided by building the house on five different levels. [...]. To save eight existing olive trees (the olives are magnificent) the plan follows a slalom course. Thirteen years after its completion, the house is almost entirely hidden by trees.23 The architect therefore does not aspire to blend in or look like nature. Rudofsky rejected the organic approach to architecture, emphasizing the dichotomy between nature and artefact. He does not refuse the architecturization of place or distinguishing between what architecture is and is not. From the very first drawing covering the whole site, there is a clear idea of what was to become a principal element in this design of the house as a decidedly artificial component – a trellis of beams and pillars that cover the site, measuring it and confronting the rural basis with the language of architecture. In the successive plan drawings, both for planning permission and for publication, a first glance is confusing, as the trellis appears to be a construction covering much of the site. In the photographs or when visiting the house, we are surprised to find that the trellis is an exercise, more of a process of ideological construction. The antecedents of Rudofsky’s imagery can be traced through his publications and domestic projects. The lemon orchards at Lago di Garda in Italy are a recurring reference to this dichotomy between rural landscape and trellis. In Architecture without Architects he reflected on this dichotomy in the process of geometrical implantation under the name of skeletal architecture. Moreover, this antecedent BERNARd RudOFSkY 314 1 or less aesthetic ordering of the outside of the preexisting house inasmuch as it contained at least as important a part of the programme as the house itself. In comparison with these examples, the Frigiliana project represents the refinement of the patio as a room bounded by walls framing the sky. In Rudofsky’s house the patio is an enclosed fragment of the rural landscape, with no control over nature – in the photos we can see a wild vegetation and two olive trees that conditioned the positioning of the patio and the volumes that surround it. The use of exhibition strategies formalizes the austerity transmitted by the pleasure of time – we find books, Japanese pottery bowls, stools, sandals and olive trees. [Fig. 11] The loggia is the linking element between outside and inside, between the trellis and the house, understood as the three-dimensional framework of the landscape. The décors are more elaborate, the elements shift between their conditions of décor and furniture, a space that is covered, yet open to the landscape. We find the three sizes of stools, basket elements that speak of their constant use, tubercles and vegetables. [p. 65] The loggia frames the landscape, but it also shows the dichotomy between architecture and nature, olive tree and column, the terrain and the volumes of the house. In this succession of exterior rooms, the external diningroom has an outstanding place in the domestic programme. The austere appearance of the brick bench that bounds it, the material and local crafts – pottery, wicker baskets, cane brise soleil on the windows, kimonos as garments that free the body, the simple Mediterranean diet of olive oil, vinegar, vegetables and wine, the Japanese porcelain [p. 67 up] that respects flavours and does not interpose useless ornaments… The whole formalizes Rudofsky’s aspirations to syncretism, his desire to create a domestic architecture that brings together architectures of all periods from all over the world.41 The set is observed from the kitchen, whose door frames the outside. The liturgy of bathing is united with that of food – everything is in its place and its simplicity brings us closer to the celebration of habitation. [p. 66] The protected “Casa”. Aggression against patrimony. The heritage values of this delicate architecture are extremely fragile and so artists and intellectuals, institutions, researchers and ordinary citizens committed to our heritage came together to demand its protection. However, the international petition drive, the cataloguing and administrative protection of the building have not stopped the aggressive meddling of the present owners. Their interventions are gradually eliminating the strength of Rudofsky’s message as a manifesto of sustainable living, in harmony with the landscape and aware of the economy of things local. In contrast to the rural nature of the site, masses of exotic vegetation are appearing that repeat the standardized and feared process of property development to make it replicate the most banal interventions found along the coast. A ramp now crosses the site from north to south, eliminating the experience of walking leisurely down a promenade, in harmony with the celebration of the minimally modified setting. Wooden platforms domesticate the space around the pool and the loggia following current fashion and extending the horizontal surfaces. The appearance in the middle of the site of park-like benches chosen from any old catalogue suggests a move to erase any trace of its rural origin in favour of comfort and convenience, but not the subtleties of the original sensitive proposal. L-shaped wall penetrated by a carob tree The so-called marriage carob tree has disappeared and in its place stands a gazebo, where no-one will ever be seen, as it is absurd to establish one specific part of the site as a vantage point. The carob tree has been replaced by a chair – with back – and a railing sporting its false rustic appearance as in thematized parks. The railing’s false rustic also spreads to the ramp running north-south. The condition of limitless space also disappears with the inclusion of a gate crudely guarding the inmates’ safety. New installations are imposed on the house’s original programme, indiscriminately occupying the outer dining room with rubbish bins and turning it into a junk room. despite the house’s condition as a recognized monument, such abuse clearly shows that protection is only possible with the involvement of the public and collective responsibility in the understanding that such aggression is being committed against the common heritage. [p. 24] In contrast to the interference caused by the addition of unnecessary elements that trivialize and contradict the value found in absence, in the intelligent interpretation of things local, in a house without architecture, where the beautiful shadows of the vegetation shifting over its white, geometrical walls are all the ornament required. There is no need for anything else. The mere observation of a simple shadow on a wall gives body to the celebration of architecture and of life. [Fig. 12] Notes 1. The RAAC is a project of the Andalusian Institute of Historic Patrimony (IAPH) and the General directorate of Cultural Assets (dGBC) together with Research Group HuM-666 of the university of Seville: “Contemporary City, Architecture and Patrimony.” 2. The technical report in the protection dossier was published in decree 7/2011 on January 11, 2011, which registered the Rudofsky House in Frigiliana (Malaga) in the General Catalogue of Andalusian Historical Patrimony as an Asset of Cultural Interest, typified as Monument (BOJA nº 17, Seville, January 26th 2011, pp.14-19). 3. Bernard Rudofsky, “umriss-Gespräch mit Bernard Rudofsky” Umriss 5, n. 1 (1986), p. 21. 4. Apart from his own house in Frigiliana, Rudofsky concluded the construction of six other residential buildings: Casa Oro, Naples (1935- 1937); the Frontini, Arnstein, and Hollstein houses (Itapetirica), São Paulo (1939-1940); the Costantino Nivola House-Garden, Amagansett, New York (1949-1950), and the extension of the pre-existing James Carmel house and another house-garden, Gross Pointe, Michigan (1962-1964) 5. Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture Without Architects (New York: MoMA, 1964), no page numbers (beside fig. 32) 6. It compares, if only by implication, the serenity of the architecture in so-called underdeveloped countries with the architectural blight in our country. Far from being accidental, this non-pedigreed architecture gives tangible evidence of more humane, more intelligent ways of living. Bernard Rudofsky, Press release for the exhibition Architecture Without Architects (New York: MoMA, 1964). 7. Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture Without Architects. op. cit., text beside figs. 38 and 39. CRITICAL dISOBEdIENCE OF MOdERNITY 317 1 where the individual can become free from social codes and the impositions of a concept of happiness identified with consumerism and technology that apparently sets us free and offers us more time, but whose acquisition in reality has us in thrall. The reference to the projects of Christo Javacheff (Femme Empaquetée and Torso) perfectly fulfill their intention to provoke us, creating a direct connection with Rudofsky’s concept of the packaged citizen.32 [Fig. 6] Architecture should not only liberate space, but also offer a basis for the liberation of the individual, a scenario for life outside the demands of protocol and consumerism. Within the control exercised by social codes, the chair holds a predominant place in Rudofsky’s work. A rocking chair makes him wonder about how bored man is that he need to rock. The image of the Last Supper with the diners lying on their sides – a historically demonstrated custom – reinforces his affirmation of the chair as a later imposition. The back of the chair as an element subjecting one to an unnatural posture is introduced in infancy with baby seats and continues throughout life. This critical history of the chair is not lacking in humour, with the illustration of the Victorian contraption to calm the feminine libido.33Together with Berta, Rudofsky designed a wicker stool in three sizes for the house using the Mediterranean craftsmanship of the area, but also linking to traditional Japanese materials, as wicker is a shared heritage of these two cultural references of Rudofsky. In the photos these stools appear throughout the house, even in the study, at his worktable to show that he worked sitting on a stool. As complements to the stools, we can see a number of elements made of brick to lie on while reading, thinking, eating or simply lying down. [p. 71] The bathroom also holds a place of privilege in his reflections throughout his career as critic, designer and exhibition curator. His subversive stance towards the western hygienistic attitude led to censure of his Island of Living exhibition for the uS pavilion at the 1958 universal Exhibition in Brussels, in which he included a prototype wash-hand basin.34Rudofsky dedicated a complete section of the Exhibition Now I Lay me Down to Eat to the question,35 and in his book The Kimono Mind and a previous article titled “Hedonism for the destitute” he described the pleasurable Japanese bath as a cheaper relaxing social activity than our western cocktail parties.36 Bathing is an activity that is not simply a question of hygiene, but it also involves its own liturgy, constituting a principal element of the hedonistic approach to habitation. In the house as actually built, the bathtub is placed in the centre of the bathroom with its head against the one exterior wall, beneath a single window that formalizes the quasi-sacred dimension of this space. The author’s backlit photographs taken at dusk emphasize this transcendent approach to the act of bathing. [Fig. 7] Several illustrations he collated link the bathroom with the exterior and also the social component in the domestic context. He identified the hedonistic attitude of bathing with western culture, showing highly voluptuous open-air representations complemented with other pleasures such as food, wine and music. The sensual atmosphere illustrated is not incompatible with austerity of means. In the detail he reproduces of Conrad Celtes, as in others from a 16th century series, we can see a wild setting with a simple basin made of brick with an austerity similar to that we can find in a rural water deposit.37[Fig. 8] The swimming-pool Rudofsky built at Frigiliana has many similarities. It is located at the lowest part of the site and consists of a concrete structure finished off with the simple clay pieces he used in the rest of the house completely retaining its rustic appearance. Apart from these references to the historic collection, during the building of the house he stayed at an old olive-oil mill – La Molineta – where he also learned much. The water deposit there, used as a swimming pool, was defined by the presence of a whitewashed wall and ceramic decorations. Rudofsky photographed Berta sunbathing naked at La Molineta water deposit, thus completing the hedonistic impression of bathing. The swimming pool therefore has no grassy area or space designed as a garden, although it is defined on the basis of the pergola and proposes a paved space suitable for the programme of the house. A cubicle is defined by a translucent cloth reminiscent of those to be seen in Japanese engravings of intimate feminine scenes,38[Fig. 9] and also in Rudofsky’s proposal for the repose of Sparta/Sybaris. The mosquito netting hangs from the pergola, defining an ephemeral programmatic container. The stool, sandals and a wicker mat like a tatami make up an improvised room. Berta poses inside the limits of this space, the exhibition strategies become a domestic set design, the house is interior, but above all exterior. [Fig. 10] The programme is located outside at specific places marked by their summery character, spaces where Rudofsky used what he called the art of display39to give us his holistic vision of habitation involving architecture, the ergonomics of the chair, simple food, the nakedness of the body and local materials. The predominance of exteriors in the photographs and in the multiple, changing scenes of habitation throughout the years clearly shows that the programme for the house reaches into every corner of the site. We should not be mislead, however, for this does not translate into a visual continuity between inside and outside along the lines of modern discourse. The wall is not merely a filter, but clearly marks a boundary between outside and inside, between architecture and the rural landscape. The experience of the exterior should be direct, never comparable to what is perceived through a glass.40 The last plan Rudofsky drew was after the house had been built and he made it with the aim of publication. It shows the whole site with the wall, pergola, rocks and tree, architecture and rural background all deliberately represented at the same level. The explanatory legend of the ground plan is very significant, including the bedroom and the kitchen, but also the olive trees, the carobs, pines and rocks, and the programme developed on the outside – in the patio, an intimate space linked to the bedroom, two surfaces can be seen described in the legend as morning sunbathing, and evening sunbathing. This is a patio reduced to its essential elements. Rudofsky had left behind the sophistication of the patio in the Frontini House from his time in Brazil or the drawing of a patio on the cover of Interiors in May 1946, which were both closer to Le Corbusier’s proposal on the terrace of the Beistegui apartment in Paris. The solarium in the garden of the Nivola house also proposes the essential construction of an exterior room. It is defined by four walls, although the presence of Nivola’s frescoes adds an artistic component elaborating on the atmosphere of the patio of the house. The house-garden refused to be merely a more BERNARd RudOFSkY 316 1 A Catalogue of Possibilities. A Voyage Through Rudofsky’s Ideas on Lebensweise Andrea Bocco Guarneri This text proposes an exploration of Rudofsky’s thought on the subject of the art of living (Lebensweise).1 The route taken and its stages are the result of my own personal choice guided in part by a somewhat instinctive understanding. Since the conclusion of my first degree (1991), I have never ceased to take an interest in him, albeit in alternating phases. Since 1993, I have published various articles on Rudofsky, I have spent months with Berta, including three summers in the Frigiliana house, and I am perhaps the only researcher to have had access to some documents – it is well known that the part of the archive left to Berta is now in Vienna and has been inaccessible for years. I have therefore used both published and unpublished sources, as well as personal statements – not only Berta’s explanations, but also my own experience on the lifestyle the Rudofskys practised. However, in my choice of contents I have attempted to give priority to ideas over specific works, for in my view these ideas continue to offer rich opportunities for both the designer and anyone desiring to critically analyze their own way of life and perhaps alter it. However, before entering into the heart of the matter, I must propose some general considerations in a long preamble. Both this first part and the second will therefore be paratactical in form for ease of explanation and in order to suggest the comparable importance of the different passages. “The conduct of life is ars artium.”2There is no doubt that savoir-vivre was for Rudofsky both his main theme of research and the object of attentive daily application to the manner of leading his own existence – not without certain contradictions, as we shall see. Like oriental doctors, he seemed to be much more interested in the description of healthy ways of living and how to be healthy, rather than in studying or trying to cure pathological states.3 One of the main reasons why he researched and presented situations from the past – traditional and more or less local situations, not yet mechanized, standardized and alienating – was not so much because of nostalgia – of which there was some, although this was never admitted explicitly – as the direct experience of an immemorial human capacity to create fulfilling ways of living not lacking in pleasure, even in conditions of limited available resources. Rudofsky put much effort into collecting and recounting fragments of this daily existence lived with dignity and quality. Although it is obvious that he made a choice, and before choosing he took into account only that which offered this quality, and he was not concerned with socially or anthropologically contextualizing the fragments he proposed. However, it is undeniable that Rudofsky was correct in his criticism of the contemporary West for putting futile objectives such as the conquest of space or the possession of useless appliances before the dedication of care to making our earthly existence pleasurable.4In his opinion, this would not have been possible without confronting the three basic questions of food, clothing and dwelling (in point of fact, Rudofsky only occupied himself with the last two, leaving a few notes for an unfinished book on the first, which was Berta’s concern), which were “problems” that could be perceived as being overcome because they had been “solved a long time ago” and transformed into merchandise. Many other than Rudofsky have considered in a more systematic and radical manner the transformation of goods into merchandise and of homo faber into a consumer. Indeed, it is surprising that he mentions them so rarely, Mumford being the only critic of dehumanization he frequently refers to. Although a fierce, entertaining critic of contemporary habits, Rudofsky did not theorize on a negative human nature or ‘original sin’ – we know nothing of his religious beliefs, but I think it probable that he had none, given his Epicurean philosophy. On more than one occasion he argued that children are born with common sense and instinctively healthy impulses, and he admired their talent, as he experienced himself during a few happy months with his son Peter. Adults, however, strive to inhibit children, making them distrustful of novelty, for example, and constricting them in unnatural clothing and punitive furniture designed to control their movements and, by doing so, imposing incorrect posture. Rudofsky indicated his clear preference for sitting on the ground and his discomfort with shoes, as proof that chairs and shoes are cultural products (“the two main symbols of western civilization”)5running counter to natural physical well-being. He observed with disdain and resentment that education seemed to focus mainly on ruining the innate qualities of children. Resistance to homologation was another of his constant concerns, as can be seen, for example, when he denounced the horror of organized play (as well as the expropriation of adults’ freedom to use their ‘free time’). This is not the place to undertake a discussion of the relations with modernity of Rudofsky and others like him that were banished from the establishment.6Nonetheless, we might recall that, apart from pleasing the museum where the exhibition Are Clothes Modern? was shown, its title expresses his tendency to radical reform based on rationality. However, after his expectations were frustrated, he turned his back on the ‘movement.’ In this sense, his arguments against contemporary clothing were clear, accusing it of being “anachronic, irrational and harmful, as well as expensive and anti-democratic.”7Since the “problems” of clothing (and housing) were (and are) approached with prejudice, he found a reason to accuse our civilization of superstitions as stifling as the primitive ones, with the aggravating factors that the present ones are based on lies (we think we are freer and more ‘advanced’ than our ancestors) and have a commercial goal. However, Rudofsky, who rarely spoke of politics,8thought it obvious that fashion, which he despised because of the artificial imposition of futile changes, could only exist where there was a recognizable social division in classes. The question of modernity is not only one of formal rationality or convenience. Rudofsky based the need for a different approach to housing and clothing on health and happiness – in other words, on psycho-physical equilibrium. He thought it was useless to approach the project (or the choice of purchase) without radically questioning what the needs were. This did not mean, however, that he was unaware of the forces against such an approach, or that made us take decisions that contradict it. Conformism, status and social CRITICAL dISOBEdIENCE OF MOdERNITY 319 1 8. General view and detail of Mojácar, ibid. The latter is a fragment of a general view of the town, published in José Ortiz Echagüe, España. Pueblos y paisajes, 9th edition [1st edition 1939] (Madrid: editorial, 1966), p. 291. Aeronautic engineer José Ortiz Echagüe became a well-known photographer in Spain. In 1960, his work is included in the exhibition Spectacular Spain that took place at the Metropolitan Museum of New York. It is possible that Rudofsky discovered his work there. In 1963 Rudofsky took a picture of Velez-Blanco, a town also located in the province of Almería. Published in The Master Builders, this image was almost identical to one published by Ortiz Echagüe in España. Pueblos y paisajes. 9. Bernard Rudofsky, The Prodigious Builders. Notes towards a natural history of architecture with special regard to those species that are traditionally neglected or downright ignored (New York, London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977). 10. The footnote to the image reads: “An Andalusian housewife, wearing dressing gown, trousers and gloves, at the continual work of whitewashing her house.” 11. Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture Without Architects, op. cit., figs. 55- 56-57. 12. Rudofsky is the author of the panoramic view of Mijas. Ibid., fig. 55. 13. It appears on a double page feature in The Prodigious Builders: op. cit., fig 194, p. 232-233. In Rudofsky’s personal collection there are images from the sixties through to the eighties, “Bernard Rudofsky papers ca. 1910-1987”, folder 15, Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. 14. The cemeteries of the Andalusian Mediterranean feature prominently in The Prodigious Builders. op. cit., p. 81, fig. 54; p. 164, fig. 130, and in his personal collection of transparencies. “Bernard Rudofsky papers ca. 1910- 1987”, folder 15, Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. 15. “Troglodytes. Putting architecture underground may turn out to be the ultimate solution to provide adequate shelter for the man of the future”, Horizon vol. 9 n.2 (Spring 1967) pp. 28-41. 16. The image of Almanzora was included in the exhibition, but not the catalogue. It was later published in The Prodigious Builders, op. cit fig. 5 p. 23. 17. Bernard Rudofsky, Letter to José Antonio Coderch, (2 noviembre 1969) Arxiu Coderch / ETSAV. uPC (universidad Politécnica de Catalunya). 18. “In the province of Malaga the situation is anything by idyllic the entire construction business seems to be in the hands of the Mafia. Nevertheless, we decided that Spain is in many respects preferable to Italy and the rest of Europe.” Ibid. 19. The sketches and plans I found in the two main collections cited are not dated. The research proposes an initial hypothesis for a production time-scale. 20. Bernard Rudofsky, Letter to José Antonio Coderch, (16 noviembre 1969), Arxiu Coderch / ETSAV. uPC (universidad Politécnica de Catalunya). 21. Bernard Rudofsky, “Vivienda en Nerja” Arquitectura COAM 206-207 (September 1977) pp. 96-99, 96. 22. The eastern façade is shown at different times in his collection of transparencies. 23. Bernard Rudofsky, “Summerhouse in Spain”, The Bernard Rudofsky Estate Vienna. p. 1. Stanley Abercrombie’s “With Summer in view”, Interior Design, vol. 55, n. 8 (August 1984), pp. 136-145, reproduces Rudofsky’s text with slight changes, here shown in brackets. 24. d. H. Lawrence, “The Lemon Gardens”, 1912, cited by Bernard Rudofsky, Architecture Without Architects, op. cit. fig. 111-112. 25. Bernard Rudofsky, “The Third Rome”, Architectural Review (July 1951) 26. In Bernard Rudofsky, “non si vuole un nuevo modo di costruire ci vuole un nuovo modo di vivere”, Domus 123 (March 1938). 27. drawing dated december 1980, The Bernard Rudofsky Estate Vienna, published in Andrea Bocco, Bernard Rudofsky, A Humane Designer (Vienna, New York: Springer, 2003), p. 307. 28. The endorsed plans found in the municipal dossier on the house are signed by Coderch and endorsed by both the Official Board of Architects of Catalonia and also the former Official Board of Architects of Eastern Andalusia. Rudofsky’s written request to Coderch for assistance in the approval of the project is extant: “Would you be willing to sign for me the plans? I ‘d take it as a great favor.” Bernard Rudofsky, Letter to José Antonio Coderch, (2 November 1969), op. cit. 29. The use of casting shadows in the drawing together with the abstract representation of the trees again suggests the representational codes of the period, which in turn suggests that the drawing may also have been the product of the Coderch Studio, although the original is now to be found in the Getty Research Library. 30. Bernard Rudofsky, “Summerhouse in Spain,” op.cit. 31. “Piano-bed and other contrivances for saving space. Model of prosperity and progress.” Elinor Merrell Collection, in Rudofsky, Now I Lay me Down to Eat. Notes and Footnotes on the Lost Art of Living (Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/doubleday, 1980), p. 182. This is the catalogue for the exhibition of the same name at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum, New York, 1980. 32. Christo’s piece “Torso” and his project “Femme Empaquetée” were published in Bernard Rudofsky, The Unfashionable Human Body (Garden City, New York: doubleday&Company Inc., 1971). 33. The examples mentioned: Bentwood Rocking Chair (ca. 1900, Catskill Area, New York State, Cooper-Hewitt Museum) and the Health Jolting Chair (New York Historical Society. Bella Landauer Collection) can be found in Bernard Rudofsky, The Unfashionable Human Body, op.cit., together with a complete series in the “Sitting ugly” chapter. 34. The Japanese inspired prototype appears once more in his last exhibition Sparta / Sybaris. What we Need is Not New Technologies but New Ways of Living, Museum of Applied Arts, Vienna MAk (October 1987-February 1988). Review of the exhibition published posthumously, Bernard Rudofsky, “Rudofsky in Vienna”, Interior Design n. 59 (Abril 1988) pp. 254-259. 35. See chapter titled “Hygiene at a discount” in Bernard Rudofsky, Now I Lay Me Down to Eat, op. cit., pp.102-147. 36. Rudofsky, The Kimono Mind. An Informal Guide to Japan and the Japanese (Garden City, N.Y.: doubleday, 1965).The section on bathing was previously published in Rudofsky, “Hedonism for the destitute”, Horizon VIII/I (Winter 1965), pp. 106-109. 37. In Bernard Rudofsky, Now I Lay Me Down to Eat. op. cit., p. 136, and also in Bernard Rudofsky, “uncleanliness and ungodliness”, op. cit., p. 216. 38. Specifically the wood engraving by kitagawa utamaro (1753-1806) Prints division, The New York Public Library. Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundation. In Bernard Rudofsky, Now I Lay Me Down to Eat. op. cit., fig. 136, p. 148. 39. Bernard Rudofsky, “The Art of Artless display”, (March 1986) pp. 238- 243. 40. Bernard Rudofsky, Behind the Picture Window: An Unconventional Book on the Conventional Modern House and the Inscrutable Ways of Its Inmates (New York: Oxford university Press, 1955). 41. Bernard Rudofsky, Lecture in Tokio, 1982, p. 54. “Bernard Rudofsky papers ca. 1910-1987”, Box 5,folder 2, Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, California. BERNARd RudOFSkY 318 La Casa en Frigiliana Manifiesto rudofskiano de la domesticidad contemporánea Mar Loren 31 Antecedentes en su puesta en valor y protección La puesta en valor patrimonial y la protección de La Casa se consigue gracias a una labor continuada e intensa que culmina con su declaración como monumento en 2011. El Centro José Guerrero comienza en 2005 un papel activo en su defensa, acción a la que se sumó el Austrian Museum of Applied Contemporary Art (MAK). El Registro Andaluz de Patrimonio Contemporáneo (RAAC), redescubriría asimismo la obra rudofskiana en el marco de la investigación arquitectónica.1El RAAC integra una labor de investigación crítica del discurso patrimonial aplicado a la arquitectura del Siglo XX en Andalucía y la praxis de su protección. La obra de Rudofsky ha sido la única obra propuesta para su protección como BIC (Bien de Interés Cultural) en la categoría máxima de Monumento. Su declaración como tal en 2011, sin embargo, no ha frenado las transformaciones a las que sus actuales propietarios le han sometido en los últimos años.2La escala menuda de esta construcción doméstica, la fragilidad de sus valores patrimoniales y el carácter privado de la misma han dificultado la protección real de esta pieza valiosa de la historia de la arquitectura contemporánea. Su estudio pormenorizado hace posible contrastar por vez primera la documentación gráfica monográfica tanto de los fondos la Getty Research Library en Estados Unidos con toda la documentación de la Bernard Rudofsky Estate Vienna en Austria. Esta labor investigadora hace posible desvelar su propuesta integral para el habitar contemporáneo, así como su búsqueda transdisciplinar de una forma de vida plena, que trasciende la disciplina arquitectónica. Life as a voyage, travel as a lifestyle3 La importancia del viaje en la trayectoria rudofskiana implica no sólo un contacto circunstancial con los ambientes distantes que conoció, sino también el acto de habitarlos, hecho que le proporciona una profundidad complementaria que le permite incardinar su producción crítica y arquitectónica vinculándola a los lugares donde fijó su residencia, entre ellos, España. Andalucía ocupa un lugar destacado por la ocupación de su propia obra, que le fuerza a una reflexión más íntima sobre sus formas de vida y su paisaje. Desde sus años de estudiante en la Technische Hochschule en Viena (1922-1928) la vocación viajera de Rudofsky está muy presente. Visita Bulgaria, Turquía, Suiza, Francia e Italia. En 1931 termina su tesis doctoral sobre las estructuras abovedadas de hormigón de las casas cueva en las Islas Cícladas, en Grecia. Desde 1932 hasta 1938 vive en Italia entre Capri, Procida y Milán, con alguna incursión ya a los Estados Unidos. En 1938 se traslada a Latinoamérica y vive en Buenos Aires, Río de Janeiro y Sao Paulo. En 1941 fija su residencia en Estados Unidos. En 1969 adquiere la parcela en Andalucía y comienza a vivir a caballo entre Frigiliana y Nueva York. Tras esa trayectoria nómada marcada por el viaje como estilo de vida y forma de conocimiento directo, Bernard y Berta Rudofsky fijan en el paisaje mediterráneo el lugar donde construir su propia casa. Estamos por tanto hablando de la construcción de un universo doméstico propio, de un testimonio último en el contexto de una producción escueta, formalizada en siete obras construidas.4La consideración de su última obra pero también junto al paisaje sobrecogedor de las comunidades de Dogons Bandigara, Mali. Mojácar, que Rudofsky considera como de las más espectaculares, es de las pocos lugares a los que dedica más de una fotografía en el catálogo, y le sirve para advertir de los peligros de la globalización, al respecto de la pérdida de diversidad y especificidad que cada lugar posee. En este sentido, el turismo lo entiende como una forma más de consumo. El fenómeno del turismo litoral contribuye así a la destrucción de los valores locales y plurales, homogeneizando, con hoteles y apartamentos construidos en un falso vernacular los paisajes de nuestra memoria: Mojacar, in the province of Almería, used to be one of the most spectacular Spanish hill towns until last year when tourism caught it up with it. The houses shown in the photographs were torn down or are being torn down, to make space for parking lots, hotels, apartment houses and villas designed in bogus vernacular…7 Las fotografías de Mojácar de José Ortiz Echagüe incluidas en el catálogo ofrecen una mirada histórica a las Hill Towns en los años 30 –sus valores característicos ya habían sido destruidos cuando montó la exposición. Las instantáneas de los paisajes españoles de Ortiz Echagüe se convertirían así en un referente para Rudofsky.8[Fig. 1] Aunque Rudofsky ya había conocido algunos emplazamientos concretos como Casares, su contacto prolongado con el litoral andaluz se produjo con la fijación de su residencia. En 1977 –cuando su casa de Frigiliana ya llevaba varios años en pie– publicó The Prodigious Builders, continuación natural de Architecture without LA CASA EN FRIGILIANA 33 como manifiesto crítico del habitar contemporáneo se confirma en la afirmación de Rudofsky como crítico polémico, pero nunca como reformista; su objetivo era el de provocar a través de una crítica irreverente y subversiva, pero no reformar a sus habitantes. Las casas que hizo para sus clientes indagan en sus conceptos del habitar contemporáneo desde la apuesta por la arquitectura tradicional, aunque adaptadas a la especificidad de sus moradores, sin imponer hasta las últimas consecuencias su aproximación holística e integral de nuevas formas de vida. The choice of place Man’s physical freedom manifests itself no doubt in his ability to choose the place on earth where he wants to live. Whereas immature reflection tends to judge by usefulness alone, a discriminating mind may ask its share of beauty.5 La crítica rudofskiana aborda la sabiduría en la implantación del lugar, cuestionando si los parámetros únicamente funcionales son capaces de explicar su elección, con el convencimiento de que existe una búsqueda necesaria de la belleza, de una intensa experiencia del espacio que elegimos como hábitat. Reivindica así la tradición arquitectónia fiel al lugar y a su carácter litúrgico, afianzando el carácter fenomenológico y sensitivo que nos une a él a través del sobrecogimiento de la experiencia vital y estética. Su descubrimiento y reivindicación de los valores de nuestros paisajes mediterráneos no era nuevo; pueblos andaluces como Casares, Mijas o Mojácar; cementerios como de Almuñécar o Sayalonga; velas sobre las calles de Sevilla y Cádiz; arquitecturas obviadas en nuestra historia de la arquitectura se presentaban en 1964 en la exposición Architecture without architects. An introduction to Non-pedigreed Architecture en el Museo de Arte Moderno (MoMA) de Nueva York –y en publicaciones posteriores– junto con otras arquitecturas tradicionales, anónimas y desconocidas en Italia, Grecia, China, Japón, Turquía o Pakistán, entre otros países. Con una idea expositiva que escapa de las cronologías o de las distinciones geográficas –de centros dominantes frente a periferias– Rudofsky construye una espacialidad en la que conviven arquitecturas muy distantes en el tiempo y en el espacio. Propone el desmantelamiento del paralelismo asumido entre arquitectura tradicional y mundo subdesarrollado, especificando valores de los que tenemos que aprender como la serenidad, evidencia tangible de formas de vida más humanas e inteligentes, en contraste –y dice textualmente– con la lacra de la arquitectura de Estados Unidos, provocando una reacción en los arquitectos y sus instituciones.6 Los valores que encomiaba en estas formas marginadas de edificación no se limitaban a la arquitectura como elemento construido, sino que abarcaban su dimensión urbana y paisajística. La topografía, su fuerza estética y su sabia interpretación en las implantaciones urbanas tradicionales, es una constante en la evaluación de los asentamientos que incluye en sus publicaciones. En el apartado titulado «Hill Towns», en Architecture without architects, aparece destacada Mojácar (Almería) –en la parte oriental de la costa andaluza a la que pertenece Frigiliana– junto a los pueblos italianos mediterráneos de Positano y Anticoli Corrado, MAR LOREN 32 Fig. 1. Mojácar, Almería. Vista general, presentada por Bernard Rudofsky como modelo de las «Hill Towns” en Architecture without architects, (Nueva York: MoMA, 1964). Fotografía de José Ortiz Echagüe 35 architects, con el que propone una historia alternativa de la arquitectura. El subtítulo del nuevo libro hace hincapié en la denuncia de las arquitecturas que han sido ignoradas o rechazadas en la historia de la arquitectura: Notes toward a natural history of architecture with special regard to those species that are traditionally neglected or downright ignored.9En él incluye una fotografía tomada por él mismo en Frigiliana, una de tantas que realiza durante las temporadas de cinco o seis meses que pasaría en Andalucía a partir de 1969; se trata de una mujer encalando, ofreciendo la profundidad etnológica de los pueblos blancos del mediterráneo, desvelando asimismo la presencia permanente de la dimensión de género en su obra.10 Unit Architecture es el título con el que la exposición que acompañó al libro abordaría la reflexión en torno al uso del tipo en la definición del paisaje, reflexión que luego veremos recogida en su propuesta doméstica en Frigiliana. Rudofsky defiende que el uso inteligente de un tipo no tiene porqué producir un paisaje monótono y estandarizado; la adaptación inteligente del mismo a la topografía derivará en esa sabia implantación en el lugar, donde la tipología se hace específica para su ubicación, produciendo la fragmentación volumétrica que luego caracterizará al proyecto de su casa. “The use of a single building type does not necessarily produce monotony. Irregularity of terrain and deviations from standard measurements result in small variations which strike a perfect balance between unity and diversity.” 11 En Architecture without architects aparecían pueblos del mediterráneo italiano como Pisticci junto a paisajes de Mijas12 y Villahermosa en España. En todos ellos, la imagen de los muros encalados y los tejados a dos aguas se repiten, aunque diversificando la imagen del pueblo en la adaptación del tipo. La implantación de Casares, a tan sólo catorce kilómetros de la también costa occidental malagueña, se convierte en una de las referencias continuas de su imaginario en cuanto a la armonía en la implantación topográfica y a la inteligente adaptación del tipo; la muestra en sus conferencias, aparece en sus publicaciones, la revisita hasta los años ochenta, recogiendo en su colección personal de diapositivas imágenes de diferentes momentos.13 Otras de las arquitecturas andaluzas tradicionales recuperadas del olvido son nuestros bellos cementerios; arquitecturas prohibidas, paisajes ignorados dado el pudor de la cultura occidental en torno a la muerte. Rudofsky destaca el valor de las arquitecturas funerarias en distintos puntos del globo, y en particular los modestos camposantos de los pueblos mediterráneos. Alaba la esencialidad de sus formas, así como la sabiduría en su implantación –en el paralelo lógico con la ciudad de los vivos a la que estos espacios funerarios emulan con sus calles y plazas. Los cementerios andaluces aparecen en su publicación The Prodigious Builders junto a otras tipologías de apilamiento vertical, y encomiando la ausencia de ornato sin valor artístico, como es la estatuaría o la jardinería decorativa.14 Reivindica asimismo la sofisticación del habitar en las cuevas, desmontando su identificación con formas de vida primitivas. Durabilidad, versatilidad o reciclaje son términos que vincula a estas formas de habitar. Desde una perspectiva de sostenibilidad, le dedicaría una parte importante tanto en Architecture without architects como en The Prodigious Builders, publicando algún artículo monográfico en el que afirma que las cuevas son la solución para el hábitat del futuro.15 El Nueva York de los años sesenta tendría la oportunidad de conocer las cuevas de Almanzora en MAR LOREN 34 Fig, 2. Bernard Rudofsky. La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Olivo preexistente, 1969-71. Diapositiva en color. The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Almería,16 junto con arquitecturas excavadas de Grecia, Túnez, Francia, Estados Unidos o China. Las cuevas de Guadix o de Setenil están presentes también en los itinerarios andaluces de Rudofsky, como testimonió en su colección de diapositivas, fragmentos de este mundo desconocido, considerado marginal. No es sólo el objeto arquitectónico, ni siquiera el conjunto urbano; Rudofsky reflexiona incluso sobre la capacidad de la agricultura para modificar los paisajes. Para él, los valores patrimoniales de la arquitectura deben ir necesariamente ligados a la actividad que la genera. Rudofsky se interesa así por los valores del paisaje rural como paisaje transformado, con una belleza vinculada a su lógica productiva. Su adecuación implica necesariamente la arquitecturización del lugar, tal como nos enseñan por ejemplo los muros para trazar un límite o para construir un sistema de terrazas, moldeando la topografía. La Casa sin arquitectura Berta y Bernard Rudofsky eligieron para la construcción de su vivienda un paisaje que no sólo se beneficia de los preexistencias de su carácter rural, sino también de la cercanía del mar y del asentamiento urbano del pueblo de Frigiliana, ejemplo de esa adaptación inteligente a la topografía, que era un tema central de su imaginario. En la colección de fotos que realiza desde y hacia la parcela en el marco del primer reconocimiento del lugar, aparece con fuerza esa condición de paisaje productivo. Aunque con el mar de LA CASA EN FRIGILIANA 36 MAR LOREN caracterizar la obra a cualquier precio, definiéndola como una casa sin arquitectura, una arquitectura que no está, que nace con la vocación de desaparecer en el paisaje: At any rate it will be very modest – una casa sin arquitectura.20 Esa ausencia del arquitecto e incluso de la arquitectura se formaliza en el respeto al lugar, en el empeño de preservar su memoria productiva traducida en bancales agrícolas, manteniendo su topografía. En contraste con la tendencia predominante del proceso urbanizador a partir de una modificación de las cotas originales, así como de la introducción de espacios ajardinados y superficies pavimentadas, el proyecto respeta la textura del terreno, la roca y la tierra, los árboles y los arbustos, los muros para el aterrazamiento del cultivo: El propietario no sólo despreció la vieja costumbre de talar los árboles y nivelar el terreno sino que cuidó mantener el carácter rural del paisaje. Por lo tanto rechazó todos los rasgos suburbanos tan apreciados por los extranjeros: falsos céspedes, macizos de flores y setos herbáceos: arcos, cancelas, vallas y muros.21 La necesaria dimensión territorial que el proyecto posee se traslada desde el principio a los dibujos, donde Rudofsky vuelca todo su conocimiento del lugar, desde la sección con fuerte pendiente del terreno a los elementos naturales de referencia. El pino alto, localizado en la esquina noroeste de la parcela, será sin duda uno de ellos, identificable en el primer dibujo que abarca la parcela y en la colección de fotos de reconocimiento del lugar con Berta, que servirá en última instancia como punto de referencia para las operaciones de replanteo de la obra. [p. 54] La propuesta arquitectónica de fragmentar el volumen se confirma ya en los primeros dibujos a escala. El proyecto se despliega en dirección Norte-Sur, cerrando la casa hacia el Oeste, al camino de acceso, y abriéndose al Este. La arquitectura aspira a fundirse, a confundirse con el paisaje, proponiendo así una plantación complementaria de árboles cuya intención es funcional, de protección y de mejora de las condiciones de humedad y temperatura, pero, sobre todo, de camuflaje; una arquitectura que aspira a desaparecer. Las fotografías que Rudofsky realiza durante la obra, una vez finalizada y a lo largo de los años, son testimonio del seguimiento realizado, comprobando este proceso paulatino de minimización de la presencia en el paisaje.22 [p. 58] Any tapering with the natural contours of the land was avoided by building the house on five different levels. [...]. To sabe eight existing olive trees (The olives are magnificent) the plan follows a slalom course. Thirteen years after its completion, the house almost entirely hidden by trees.23 El arquitecto no aspira por ello a mimetizarse, a parecerse a la naturaleza. Rudofsky rechaza la aproximación orgánica a la arquitectura que parte de la dicotomía entre naturaleza y artefacto. No renuncia a la arquitecturización del lugar, a dejar claro qué es y qué no es arquitectura. Desde ese primer dibujo en el que abarca toda la parcela, ya comienza a apuntarse lo que se convertirá en un elemento principal en este enunciado de la casa como un hecho decididamente artificial: una retícula de vigas y pilares que ocupan la parcela, midiéndola y enfrentado el soporte rural al lenguaje propio de la arquitectura. En las planimetrías sucesivas, tanto para el proyecto del expediente como para su publicación, la retícula nos confunde en una primera mirada, pareciendo que el proyecto construye gran parte de la parcela [p. 57]. A través de las fotografías o de la 37 fondo –a tan sólo tres kilómetros de distancia– y con la referencia constante al mediterráneo, se posiciona en el interior. En la correspondencia epistolar entre Rudofsky y Coderch, el primero expresa la certeza del hallazgo definitivo del lugar para la vivienda propia, tantas veces dibujada a lo largo de los años en diferentes lugares pero nunca construida. This time Berta and I liked Spain so much that we bought some pretty land near Nerja, and next Spring we want to build a little cortijo there.17 En la misma carta comenta con alarma la transformación rápida de la costa a consecuencia de un proceso especulativo vinculado al turismo, y afirma que el litoral malagueño está tomado por las mafias de la construcción. Aunque es explícito en su rechazo hacia el poder de las empresas promotoras en la ocupación indiscriminada y especulativa de la costa, asegura preferir España a Italia o a cualquier lugar en Europa.18 Localizada en la Finca agrícola de San Rafael y procedente de una segregación de 4.000 metros cuadrados, la parcela se sitúa en el mismo entorno que la casa del artista José Guerrero, construida en 1966 a partir de un cortijo preexistente. Escenario de indagación contemporánea de la arquitectura vernacular mediterránea, la casa de los Guerrero sería el lugar donde se reunía el círculo intelectual y artístico vinculado a Nerja y del que Rudofsky formó parte. El proyecto de La Casa se apega desde el principio a lo concreto del lugar, a sus cotas y preexistencias, a su paisaje. Rudofsky evita una aproximación abstracta y de la parcela, documentando cada árbol, su ubicación, su tamaño; los ocho olivos que vivían allí aparecen fotografiados y están presentes desde el primer croquis [Fig. 2]. Junto a ellos, la implantación de la casa respeta los bancales de cultivo, los muros que los construyen y las rocas como tectónica propia del suelo. En este proceso de experiencia y conocimiento del lugar, el papel que juega Berta es fundamental; en una colección de fotografías inéditas de reconocimiento de la parcela ella aparece localizando dichos elementos, marcando las cotas de la parcela caracterizada por la pendiente, así como la implantación del proyecto, que comprueba paso a paso. En esta colección de imágenes se da cuenta del trabajo de campo colectivo, probablemente realizado en 1969, cuando proceden a la adquisición de la parcela. Analizada la documentación gráfica perteneciente al proyecto de las distintas colecciones y expediente municipal, en el primer boceto del proyecto19 ya aparecen representados al mismo nivel los ocho olivos preexistentes y la arquitectura de la casa. Desde este primer croquis sin acotar, el proyecto plantea una fragmentación volumétrica para respetar tanto los árboles como las cotas originales del terreno. La casa se implanta en el punto más alto de la parcela, aprovechando el bancal superior de cultivo localizado junto al camino de acceso, que termina en la parcela y la divide. En el marco del imaginario rudofskiano, la topografía caracteriza el lugar. En este caso elige una ubicación con una potente pendiente en dirección Este-Oeste. En la correspondencia epistolar con Coderch, Rudofsky es explícito en su declaración de intenciones: no aspira a la construcción de un proyecto de autor sino a una interpretación contemporánea de la arquitectura local. En su primera carta, de 2 de noviembre de 1969, lo expresa de forma naif afirmando que quiere construir un cortijo. En carta posterior, de 16 de noviembre de 1969, ya explicita la modestia que debe LA CASA EN FRIGILIANA Fig. 3. Bernard Rudofsky, fachada muro en la arquitectura rural mediterránea española: Menorca, circa 1967. Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Ángeles Fig. 4. Bernard Rudofsky, La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Boceto de alzado oeste, 1969-71. Dibujo a lápiz sobre papel. The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena 39 LA CASA EN FRIGILIANA visita al lugar se produce una sorpresa, la retícula constituye un ejercicio, un proceso más bien de construcción ideológica. Los antecedentes de su imaginario podemos rastrearlos en sus publicaciones y en sus proyectos domésticos. Los huertos de limones del Lago Garda en Italia constituyen una referencia reiterada de esta dicotomía entre paisaje rural y retícula. Bajo la denominación Skeletal architecture reflexionó en Architecture without architects sobre esa dicotomía establecida en el proceso de implantación geométrica. Por otro, ese antecedente le proporciona profundidad cultural al lugar, haciendo pensar en su condición de ruina en cuanto huella, memoria en el espacio. Utiliza para ello una cita de D. H. Lawrence, sorprendiéndose de que sea un escritor el que haya apreciado su potencia en primera instancia. El paisaje rural sobrecogedor del Lago Garda le sirve para hablar de flexibilidad: la retícula le proporciona la posibilidad de cerrarlo y proteger los árboles de las heladas con el simple gesto de colocar unos paneles de madera y unos cristales apoyados en la retícula. [p. 62 arriba] Upon the mountain slopes steep by the lake, stand the rows of naked pillars rising out of the green foliage like ruins of temples: white, square pillars of masonry, standing forlorn in their colonnades and squares.24 Su artículo sobre el complejo monumental construido a las afueras de Roma con motivo del Exposición Universal de Roma de 1942 y abandonado recoge esa fascinación de las retículas de pilares que emergen de los edificios inacabados, en la proximidad que estos guardan con la ruina arquitectónica.25 [p. 60] En la casa Rudofsky los pilares tocan el terreno sin modificarlo, reincidiendo en el respeto al soporte pero también acercándose a la relación de la ruina, en torno a la cual la vegetación ha vuelto a crecer. Esa profundidad cultural de la arquitectura como ruina en el mismo momento de su concepción se refuerza en las fotos de Rudofsky, que subrayan la condición mítica de las mismas. [p. 61] La ingente colección de fotos de este elemento, realizado en diferentes momentos –desde la construcción y a lo largo de los años que habitan la casa– insisten en la dicotomía entre los pilares y los árboles, entre casa y naturaleza. El muro, junto con la retícula, constituye otro elemento utilizado para poner de relieve la dimensión artificial de la arquitectura. El muro aparece desvinculado de su función concreta de límite, protección o cerramiento. En el jardín-casa que realiza con Costantino Nivola para el artista en Amagansett, Nueva York (1949-1950), el muro aparece penetrado por un árbol, composición que Rudofsky vendría a denominar matrimonio y que formaliza esa integración contrastada del acto de la arquitectura. En La Casa realiza una variable del muro en L penetrado por un algarrobo. De nuevo fotografía la composición constantemente, documentando el conjunto en distintos momentos, el crecimiento del árbol, el contacto de muro y árbol, la relación a través de las sombras arrojadas. [p. 68] Unit architecture. Adaptación tipológica A pesar de alabar la inteligencia de las arquitecturas que se adaptan al lugar, convirtiéndose en una sabia interpretación de la topografía, en los proyectos para su 38 52 MAR LOREN Cuaderno 1 La Casa 28. Los planos de visado encontrados en el Expediente municipal de la casa están firmados por Coderch y visados tanto en el Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Cataluña como en el entonces Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Andalucía Oriental. Tenemos por escrito la solicitud a Coderch para que le ayude en el proceso de legalización del proyecto a través de la firma del mismo, y que demuestra el papel de Coderch en el proceso: “Would you be willing to sign for me the plans? I ‘d take it as a great favor.” Bernard Rudofsky, Carta a José Antonio Coderch, (2 noviembre 1969), op. cit. 29. El uso de las sombras arrojadas en el dibujo, así como la representación abstracta de los árboles, nos aproximan de nuevo a los códigos de representación de la época, haciendo pensar que este dibujo final pudo ser también dibujado en el Estudio de Coderch, aunque el original del mismo se encuentre en la colección de la Getty Research Library. 30. «La casa no tiene nombre ni número de calle, ni buzón para el correo, radio, televisión o teléfono. Un camino privado, sin pavimentar termina en el garaje.» Bernard Rudofsky, “Summerhouse in Spain”, op. cit. 31. «Piano-Cama y demás artilugios para ahorrar espacio. Modelo de prosperidad y progreso.» Colección Elinor Merrell, publicado en Bernard Rudofsky, Now I lay me down to eat. Notes and Fotenotes on the lost art of living (Garden City, Nueva York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1980), p. 182. Se trata del catálogo de la exposición homónima Cooper-Hewitt Museum, Nueva York, 1980. 32. La obra «Torso» o el proyecto «Femme Empaquetée», ambos de Christo, fueron publicados en Bernard Rudofsky, The unfashionable human body (Garden City, Nueva York: Doubleday&Company Inc., 1971) 33. Los ejemplos citados: Mecedora Bentwood, circa 1900. Catskill area, Nueva York State. Cooper-Hewitt Museum; Health Jolting Chair. New York Historical Society. Bella Landauer Collection son publicados en Bernard Rudofsky, The unfashionable human body, op, cit junto con una serie completa en el capítulo “Sitting ugly”. 34. El prototipo con inspiración japonesa aparece de nuevo en la última exposición Sparta y Sybaris. What we need is not new Technologies but New Ways of Living, Museum of Applied Arts, Viena MAK (Octubre 1987- Febrero 1988). Reseña de la exposición publicada tras su muerte Bernard Rudofsky, “Rudofsky in Vienna”, Interior Design n. 59 (Abril 1988) pp. 254-259. También le dedica un artículo monográfico en Bernard Rudofsky, “Uncleanliness and Ungodliness”, Interior Design n. 55 (Junio 1984) pp. 212-221. 35. Bernard Rudofsky, Now I Lay me down to eat, op. cit. capítulo titulado “Hygiene at a discount”, pp.102-147. 36. Bernard Rudofsky, The Kimono Mind. An Informal Guide to Japan and the Japanese (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965) La sección dedicada al baño fue publicada anteriormente también en Bernard Rudofsky, “Hedonism for the Destitute”, Horizon VIII/I (Winter 1965), pp. 106-109. 37. Publicado en Bernard Rudofsky, Now I lay me down to eat. op. cit., p. 136. y también en Bernard Rudofsky, “Uncleanliness and Ungodliness”, op. cit., p. 216. 38. En concreto, el grabado en madera de Kitagawa Utamaro (1753-1806) Prints Division, The New York Public Library. Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundation. Publicado en Bernard Rudofsky, Now I lay me down to eat. op. cit., fig. 136, p. 148. 39. Bernard Rudofsky, “The Art of Artless Display”, (Marzo 1986) pp. 238-243. 40. Bernard Rudofsky, Behind the picture window: An Unconventional Book on the Conventional Modern House and the Inscrutable Ways of Its Inmates (Nueva York: Oxford University Press, 1955) 41. Bernard Rudofsky, Conferencia en Tokio, 1982, p. 54. “Bernard Rudofsky papers ca. 1910-1987”, Box 5, folder 2, Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Ángeles, California. 5554 Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Trabajos previos: la ayuda de Berta en el conocimiento de la topografía, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa, Frigiliana, Málaga, circa 1970, Plano de implantación del proyecto, con datos de cotas, referencias y localización de algunas fotos The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Fotomecánica Quitar chinchetas negras de las esquinas Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Implantación: planta, sección y alzado, 1969-71 Tinta sobre papel Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Ángeles Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Alzado este definitivo, e:1/50, 1969-71 Tinta sobre vegetal. ¿Delineación Estudio Coderch? Circa. 1970 Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Ángeles Bernard Rudofsky La Casa, Frigiliana, Málaga, Planta definitiva de obra (1970) Estudio J.A. Coderch y de Sentmenat (atribuido por Mar Loren y Daniel Pinzón) Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Ángeles 56 57 Fotomecánica Siluetear las tres Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Fachada oeste con el mar al fondo, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. La casa sin arquitectura: proceso de camuflaje vegetal I, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Fachada este, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color. Circa 1971 The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena 58 59 Bernard Rudofsky The Third Rome. Vista de edificios incompletos de Exposición Universal de Roma, 1942, 1951 Impresión sobre gelatina de plata Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Ángeles 60 Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Pérgolas entre los árboles con vistas al paisaje, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Olivo y pilar. Naturaleza versus arquitectura, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena 61 Bernard Rudofsky Jardines de limoneros. Lago Garda, Italia, anterior a 1977 Impresión sobre gelatina de plata Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Ángeles Bernard Rudofsky Vista aérea de parral, s/f Diapositiva en color Research Library, The Getty Research Institute, Los Ángeles Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Vista desde el noreste en paisaje rural, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Vista de las pérgolas, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena 62 63 6564 Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Vista del porche con taburetes, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Vista del porche con taburetes desde la pérgola, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena 67 Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Vista del comedor exterior, escenografía expositiva de verduras y kimonos, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Patio interior, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena 66 Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Comedor exterior desde la cocina, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Brise-soleil de cañas en ventana del salón, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Matrimonio. El algarrobo y el muro, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Matrimonio. El algarrobo y el muro, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena 68 69 Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Vista del estudio, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Vista hacia la entrada desde la sala de estar, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena Bernard Rudofsky La Casa. Frigiliana, Málaga, España. Vista de la sala de estar hacia la cocina, 1969-71 Diapositiva en color The Bernard Rudofsky Estate, Viena 70 71