Page 135 - Libro Max Cetto

Cristina López Uribe and Salvador Lizárraga Sánchez

Mexico.” In the aforementioned contract signed by Hatje, Neues Bauen in Mexiko was used
as a provisional title, clarifying that “for the title in English or Spanish, it will certainly be
28
possible to find a solution that does not look too much like the title of Myers.” The agree-
ment was finalized sometime between October and November 1956, and although Cetto
wrote on December 12 that same year to say that he already had the introductory text titled
“Neues Bauen in Mexico,” the manuscript preserved in the archive is dated 1958.

Neues Bauen in Mexiko

There was, in fact, a broad discussion on the title. Despite having agreed to Cetto’s requests
upon signing the contract, the publisher later insisted on this point:

As far as the title is concerned, we would like to use the phrase “Moderne Mexikanische
Architektur” in the German version. There was never a German edition of Myers, so we
can easily take this title. We also prefer it to your suggestion “Neues Bauen in Mexiko,”
because the German architect identifies the term “Neues Bauen” with specifically
German ideas based on German conditions, that is, Scharoun, Häring, Lauterbach, etc.
Determining the Spanish title, of course, will be left to your criterion; I would just say
that we do not particularly like combinations of titles with the term “contemporary.” 29

It should be noted that a term that, for Hatje, was unsuitable for the German public had
been seen as viable two years earlier for Henrique E. Mindlin’s book on Brazil, titled Neues
30
Bauen in Brasilien. But this is not the term that most worried Cetto, who responded bluntly:

If you prefer the word “modern” to “new,” which you yourself used for the book in
German, on my part there would be no inconvenience, to the extent that in Spanish
one cannot say “nueva,” and that “contemporánea” sounds almost as clumsy as
“Zeitgenössige” [in German].
I agree with you that not all of our fellow citizens’ work is modern and, apart from that,
unfortunately, not all of it is good, not even in our selection. The only strange thing is
that this line of thought, which made me ignore the word “modern,” you present for
the opposite argument. So, let’s get on with it, especially if you and many of our friends
are inclined to give more value to the term than I do.
But I can’t yield on the word “Mexican.” One of the main questions I am dealing with is whether
modern architecture in this country can still be called “Mexican” in view of its coincidence with
the International Style. Many young professionals here say yes and many refuse to allow their
work to be constrained by any national feature.
For no reason do I want this question to be answered before the book is opened. Hence, I ask
you to definitively retain the title Moderne Architektur in Mexiko and Arquitectura moderna en
México. 31

For Cetto, it was very important that it was not understood that the architecture pre-
sented in the book was necessarily Mexican, at least not all of it. As we have seen, he clearly
sought to differentiate the title of his publication from that of Myers, Mexico’s Modern
Architecture, but this also had to do with his critical vision of modern architecture become
the “International Style.” Cetto was aware that the question of the national –of the elimi-
nation of its characteristics caused by the presence of an alleged International Style– was

28 Letter from Kaspar to Cetto, October 12, 1956 (AMCC).
29 Letter from Hatje to Cetto, November 26, 1958 (AMCC).
30 Henry E. Mindlin, Neues Bauen in Brasilien, (1956). Given the friendship between Giedion and Cetto, it is surprising
that Mindlin,s book had a prologue by Giedion, yet this possibility was not contemplated for Cetto,s book.
31 Letter from Cetto to Hatje, December 1, 1958 (AMCC).

135