Page 122 - Libro Max Cetto

Max L. Cetto and the Territory of Architecture

less could not account for the complexity of the architectural phenomenon: for Cetto, the
architect is first and foremost a creative force that operates not only in conscious, rational
registers, but often those of the unconscious and irrational. Still, he recognized Villagrán’s
value and influence and, against the widespread conception of his work as being merely
functionalist, he praised his balance between sociological, technical, functional and aesthet-
ic factors. Villagrán’s buildings, however, did not do him justice, as, though “solid,” they are
48
“not too inspired.” Instead, the first tangible manifestations of an architectural renovation
were carried out by the functionalist architects Juan O’Gorman and Juan Legorreta (sic), 49
who, against the taste of their time and the entrenched culture of ornament, proposed an
architecture without the formalism that presumably held back Villagrán’s work. Cetto none-
theless criticized the anti-ornamentalism and lack of sensitivity to popular taste of these
architects and signaled their great dependence on the work of Le Corbusier. He observed
this dependence in the work of many young architects, but pointed out that, at first, they
took Le Corbusier’s more technocratic ideas, not his more “lyrical” ones. 50
Despite his criticisms of Villagrán, O’Gorman, Legarreta and other architects (and the
differences he established among them), Cetto lamented that functionalism was already dis-
credited in Mexico, and that “a generation ago the fronts were more unified than today, and
51
people like Diego Rivera stood unmistakably on the side of […] functionalism.” Thirteen
years before, in 1948, Cetto had made a very similar observation about the Mexican ar-
chitecture of the time. In letters to his European colleagues Josep Lluís Sert and Stamo
Papadaki, Cetto stated that, in Mexico, “functionalism was considered passé, an exaggera-
52
tion of the old guard.” At the time, he regarded the architecture that was produced in the
country as being “pseudo-modern.” Other international critics coincided with Cetto on this
judgment, calling Pani and his followers “World’s Fair Modern” (art deco), “neo-Baroque” or
“mannerist.” 53
Mannerism was precisely the term that Cetto used in 1961 to define much of Mexico’s
architectural production; no longer with the negative connotations of the previous years
54
but in reference to forms, but also trends that, developing after the Second World War,
had split from the orthodoxy of functionalism. This new interpretation was based on an en-
thusiastic reading of Gustav René Hocke’s book Die Welt als Labyrinth. Manierismus in der
55
Europäischen Kunst und Literatur (1957). According to Hocke, every classicist movement
of simplicity, clarity and visual unity was necessarily followed by a mannerist movement of
exaggeration, rupture and disintegration, but also of artistic and cultural renewal. Hocke’s
book not only dealt with the famous mannerist period that followed the high Renaissance,

48 Max L. Cetto, Modern Architecture in Mexico, 26.
49 Juan Legarreta. Obviously the error lies in that Cetto never met Legarreta, who passed away five years before his arrival
in the country, and, by 1961, Ricardo Legorreta had become Villagrán’s partner.
50 Max L. Cetto, Modern Architecture in Mexico, 25. The reference was to Villagrán but could have also been applied to
O’Gorman and Legarreta.
51 Max L. Cetto, Modern Architecture in Mexico, 23.
52 The letters are dated January 26, 1948 and are kept in the Max Cetto Papers (folder 11) at the Getty Research Institute.
See Juan Manuel Heredia, “México y el CIAM, apuntes para la historia de la arquitectura moderna en México,” part one
(Bitácora Arquitectura 26, November 2013-March 2014), 31, doi:10.22201/fa.14058901p.2014.26.57137.
53 For example Ann Binkley Horn “Modern Mexico, Personal Observations and Appraisal of Current Architecture,”
Architectural Record (July, 1947), 70-83 and (no author) “Mexico’s Building Boom,” Architectural Forum (July, 1946), 10-13.
See Juan Manuel Heredia, “México y el CIAM, apuntes para la historia de la arquitectura moderna en México,” part two
(Bitácora Arquitectura 27, March-July 2014), 84-85, doi:10.22201/fa.14058901p.2014.27.56083.
54 In his correspondence with Sert and Papadaki, Cetto had already softened his judgments, saying that these architects
“consider themselves progressive, sometimes are, and more importantly, sometimes build things of some interest.” See Juan
Manuel Heredia, “Mexico y el CIAM,” part one.
55 See Gustav René Hocke, El mundo como laberinto: el manierismo en el arte europeo 1520 a 1650 y en el actual (Madrid:
Guadarrama, 1961).

122