1920-1940年英属巴勒斯坦托管地乡村和城市建筑标准的环境语义

IF 0.6 3区 艺术学 0 ARCHITECTURE
Martin Hershenzon
{"title":"1920-1940年英属巴勒斯坦托管地乡村和城市建筑标准的环境语义","authors":"Martin Hershenzon","doi":"10.1080/13602365.2023.2259924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis paper analyses the 1940 exhibition catalogue, Twenty Years of Building: Workers' Settlements, Housing and Public Institutions, published by the Federation of Jewish Workers in Palestine to celebrate its twentieth anniversary. A cross-regional analysis of this publication in the context of Mandatory Palestine and its commonalities with the environmental German notion of ‘rootedness’ [Bodenständigkeit] forms the basis of this paper. It challenges previous scholarship viewing Jewish architecture as progressive, climatically adaptive, and correlating with the 1930s separatist stance of Labour Zionism vis-à-vis the Levant. It argues instead that the Federation's architects reflected a conservative agenda concerning ‘functional’ design. The paper reconstructs how their agenda adapted various rhetoric, from rooted rural buildings, colonial ruralisation, to new urban co-op environments in the 1920s and 30s. The paper also explores the historicist and settler-colonial stance of this agenda as it negotiated progressive building standards relative to the brief tradition of cooperative settlement history and indigenous Palestinian habitats. The paper, thus, identifies the environmental semantics of the Federation’s functional buildings, its structuralist logic, and its role in the legitimation of Zionist settler colonial institutions. In assessing this aesthetic-economic discourse, the paper contributes a missing prelude to the vernacularisation of post-independence development architecture in Israel. AcknowledgementsSeveral mentors and friends have contributed to the development of this essay. I wish to thank in particular David Leatherbarrow, Joan Ockman, Daniel Barber, John Tresch, Daniel Hershenzon, Ayala Levin, Nimrod Ben-Ze’ev, Keren Gorodeisky, Lior Barshack, Duffy Half, and Shani Sladowsky for their contributions in shaping its arguments. I wish also to thank the journal editor Doreen Bernath and the reviewers for their helpful critique.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.Notes1 Folder: IV-250-31-240, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive. The exhibition displayed building activities by members of the collective agricultural labour settlements [Ha’hytyashvot Ha’aovedet], which from the 1910s stood primarily for the agricultural settlements as a geographical sector. This notion was roughly distinguished from the administrative and cultural arms of a Jewish workers’ society, which was identified with the urban settlement.2 See [Anon.], ‘בתערוכה של הבנייה ההסתדרותית’ [‘At the Exhibition of the Federation Construction’], Davar, 21 November 1940, p. 4; and עשרים שנות בניה – התיישבות, שיכון ומוסדות ציבור פועלים [Twenty Years of Building: Workers’ Settlements, Housing and Public Institutions], ed. by E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov (Tel Aviv: Engineers’ Architects’ and Surveyors’ Union of Palestine, 1940).3 The 1958 exhibition celebrating the first decade of Israel’s independence was most likely of a similar scope; see Zvi Efrat, The Israeli Project: Building and Architecture, 1948–1973, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum of Art, 2004), p. 20.4 See Zvi Elhyani, ‘Multi-Contextual Approaches to Architectural Archiving: Knowledge Restoration for the Historiography of Israeli Architecture’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, The Technion, 2014), pp. 18–23; and Duffy Half, ‘A New Materiality in Praise of the Ordinary, in Palestine-Israel, c. 1940–66’, Architectural Research Quarterly, 23.1 (2019), 47–62 <https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135518000702>.5 Oz Almog, The Sabra: The Creation of the New Jew (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).6 See Richard Ingersoll, מוניו גיתאי-וינרויב – ארכיטקט באוהאוס בארץ-ישראל [Munio Gitai Weinraub: Bauhaus Architect in Erez Israel] (Tel Aviv: Babel, 2009), pp. 61–2; Tzafrir Fainholtz, ‘The Jewish Farmer, the Village and the World Fair: Politics, Propaganda, and the “Israel in Palestine” Pavilion at the Paris International Exhibition of 1937’, retrieved from SHS Web of Conferences 63: 10004 (2019) <https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196310004 MODSCAPES 2018>; Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, ‘Performing the State: The Jewish Palestine Pavilion at the New York World's Fair, 1939/1940’, in The Art of Being Jewish in Modern Times, ed. by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett and Jonathan Karp (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 98–115; and Sigal Davidi, ‘״האדריכלות החדשה״ ביריד המזרח ,1934 הבניית זהות ליישוב היהודי’ [‘The “New Architecture” of the 1934 Levant Fair: The Creation of an Identity for the Jewish Society’], Israel: Studies in Zionism and the State of Israel, History, Society, Culture, 24 (2016), 163–90.7 IV 208-1-1771A, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive.8 See the Union meeting minutes: IV-250-31-240, IV 250-36-1-237, IV 250-36-1-236, and IV-250-36-1-238, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive; ‘The Council of the Union of and Engineer’, Habinyan Bamizrach Hakarov, 2 (1935), p. 9; ‘From the Activities of the Union of Engineers and Architects in Eretz Israel’, Habinyan Bamizrach Hakarov, 4 (1935), 15; and H. Promkin, ‘ארבע שנות מאבק, 1936-1940’ [‘Four Years of Struggle, 1936–1940’], Davar, 29 March 1940, p. 2.9 See also Ines Sonders, ‘Julius Posener und das Neue Bauen in Palästina’, in The Transfer of Modernity: Architectural Modernism in Palestine (1923–1948), ed. by Ronny Schüler and Jörg Stabenow (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. 2019), pp. 53–68 (pp. 57–8).10 IV 250-36-1-237, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive. These matters corresponded with interwar discussions in Europe on social housing and welfare; see Iris Graicer, מהשכונה אל השיכון: ההתיישבות העירונית של הפועלים בארץ-ישראל ושורשיה הרעיוניים, 1950-1920 [From Neighborhood to Housing Estate: The Urban Settlement of the Labor Movement in the Land of Israel and its Ideological Sources, 1920–1950] (Haifa: Pardes, 2017), pp. 16–7.11 Or Aleksandrowicz, Daring the Shutter: The Tel Aviv Idiom of Solar Protections (Holon: Public School Editions, 2015).12 Hannes Meyer, ‘Building’, in Programs and Manifestos, ed. by Ulrich Conrads (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), pp. 117–20.13 See Aleksandrowicz, Daring the Shutter; and Aleksandrowicz, ‘Facing the Sun: German-Speaking Émigrés and the Roots of Israeli Climatic Building Design’, in Designing Transformation Jews and Cultural Identity in Central European Modernism, ed. by Elana Shapira (London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2021), pp. 253–66.14 Th. F. M., ‘Twenty Years of Building: A Proud Palestinian Record’, The Palestine Post, 12 December 1940, p. 4.15 Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, ‘Tracing Settler Colonialism: A Genealogy of a Paradigm in the Sociology of Knowledge Production in Israel’, Politics & Society, 50.1 (2022), 44–83 (pp. 46–7).16 For British Imperial perspectives, see Mark Crinson, Modern Architecture and the End of Empire (London: Routledge, 2018); and Alex Bremner, ‘Introduction’, in Architecture and Urbanism in the British Empire, ed. by Alex Bremner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 1–15 (p. 7).17 By employing the term Palestinian in this context, I refer specifically to constructions of indigenous Palestinian Arabs.18 Ingersoll, Munio Gitai Weinraub, pp. 15–20, 28, 81, 84–5. Ingersoll acknowledges also alternative assumptions; see ibid., pp. 20, 153.19 The Chug, a group of architects that gathered in the city in 1932 and promoted ‘new architecture’ through competitions and a journal, emulating the German 1920s Ring group.20 Eran Neuman, אריה שרון: אדריכל המדינה [Arieh Sharon: The State Architect], ed. by Eran Neuman (Tel Aviv: Museum of Modern Art, 2017), pp. 15, 45, 67.21 Efrat, The Israeli Project, pp. 64, 65–6, 69.22 Ibid., p. 59.23 See Alona Nitzan-Shiftan, ‘Contested Zionism – Alternative Modernism: Erich Mendelsohn and the Tel Aviv “Chug” in Mandate Palestine’, in Constructing a Sense of Place: Architecture and the Zionist Discourse, ed. by Haim Yacobi (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 147–80 (p. 153, 156); and Shalom Ratzabi, Between Zionism and Judaism: The Radical Circle in Brith Shalom, 1925–1933 (Boston, MA, and Leiden: Brill, 2002).24 Todd Samuel Presner, Muscular Judaism: The Jewish Body and the Politics of Regeneration (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 157–61.25 See, among others, Shira Pinhas, ‘Road, Map: Partition in Palestine from the Local to the Transnational’, Journal of Levantine Studies, 10.1 (Summer 2020), 111–21; Fredrik Meiton, Electrical Palestine: Capital and Technology from Empire to Nation (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019); and Dafna Hirsch,באנו הנה להביא את המערב – הנחלת היגיינה ובניית תרבות בחברה היהודית בתקופת המנדט [‘We Are Here to Bring the West': Hygiene Education and Culture Building in the Jewish Society of Palestine during the British Mandate Period] (Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Research Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism, 2014).26 See Yael Allweil, Homeland: Zionism as Housing Regime, 1860–2011 (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 12–4, 230–1; Gabriel Schwake, Dwelling on the Green Line: Privatize and Rule in Israel/Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), pp. 21, 31–2, 63; Gabriel Schwake, ‘From Homes to Assets and from Pioneers to Shareholders: An Evolving Frontier Terminology’, Urban Planning, 7.1 (2022), 1–13 (pp. 2–3); Ayala Levin, ‘Exporting Architectural National Expertise: Arieh Sharon’s Ile-Ife University Campus in West-Nigeria (1962–1976)’, in Nationalism and Architecture, ed. by Darren Deane, Sarah Butler, and Raymond Quek (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2017), pp. 53–66 (p. 55); and Ayala Levin, Architecture and Development: Israeli Construction in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Settler Colonial Imagination, 1958–1973 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2022), pp. 27, 37–9.27 For alternative arguments on this progressive architecture, see Sonders ‘Julius Posener’; Yossi Klein, ‘The Architects Leo Adler and Jacob Pinkerfeld: Modern Architectural Regionalism as an Act of Political Resistance’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 225–40; Fainholtz ‘The Jewish Farmer’; Half, ‘A New Materiality’; and Martin Hershenzon, ‘The Architect as Civil Servant: Aviah Hashimshoni’s Architecture Education and Historiography in 1960s Israel’, The Journal of Architecture, 26.2 (2021), 116–46 (pp. 118–9).28 See Harry Francis Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673–1968 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009), pp. 226–9; and Kenny Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit: The Environmental Epistemology of Modernism’, The Journal of Architecture, 21.8 (2016), 1226–52.29 In this article, my use of the notion ‘environmental’ is primarily used, following Kenny Cupers, James Nisbet, and Oliver Botar, to designate that which falls under the premises of ecology, that is, a holistic understanding of the system of bodies and (living) organisms that together form the environment, and a pursuit to develop an analytical discourse that comes to terms with inter-relations between single organisms and their environments. See Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p.1244; James Nisbet, Ecologies, Environments and Energy Systems in the Art of the 1960s and 1970s (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014), pp. 5–6; and Oliver A. I. Botar, ‘Defining Biocentrism’, in Biocentrism and Modernism, ed. by Oliver A. I. Botar and Isabelle Wünsche (Essex: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 15–45 (pp. 18, 25–6).30 In particular, in the works of institutions such as the German Colonial Society and the Homeland Protection League and through figures such as Paul Fischer, Theodor Fischer and Paul Schultze-Naumburg among others; see Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, pp. 1227–34.31 See Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory; and Harry Francis Mallgrave, ‘From Realism to Sachlichkeit: The Polemics of Architectural Modernity in the 1890s’, in Otto Wagner: Reflections on the Raiment of Modernity, ed. by Harry Francis Mallgrave (Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1993).32 See Mary McLeod, ‘Piacé: Ferme Radieuse and Village Radieux’, in Le Corbusier: An Atlas of Modern, ed. by Jean Louis Cohen (New York: MOMA, 2013), pp. 185–91; Sibel Bozdoğdan, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2001), p. 21 and chapter 5; Michelangelo Sabatino, Pride in Modesty: Modernist Architecture and the Vernacular Tradition in Italy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014), pp. 147–8, 157; Mia Fuller, Moderns Abroad: Architecture, Cities and Italian Imperialism (London: Routledge, 2010); and Alan Colquhoun, ‘Regionalism 1’, in Collected Essays in Architectural Criticism (London: Black Dog Pub, 2009), pp. 287–8.33 Bernd Hüppauf and Maiken Umbach, ‘Introduction: Vernacular Modernism’, in Vernacular Modernism: Heimat, Globalization and the Built Environment, ed. by Bernd Hüppauf and Maiken Umbach (Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), p. 12.34 Mark Crinson, ‘Dynamic Vernacular: An Introduction’, Architecture Beyond Europe, 9/10 (2016), 1–8 (p. 1).35 See Hollyamber Kennedy, ‘Infrastructures of “Legitimate Violence”: The Prussian Settlement Commission, Internal Colonization, and the Migrant Remainder’, in Grey Room, 76 (2019), 58–97 (p. 84); Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p. 1244; and on the influences these models had on Jewish farm planning, rather than architecture, see Zvi Efrat, The Object of Zionism: Architecture of Israel (Leipzig: Spector Book, 2018), pp. 28–9.36 Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, pp. 1226, 1247–8.37 See ibid., p. 1247; and Detlef Mertins, ‘Hannes Meyer, German Trade Unions School, Bernau, 1928–30’, in Workshops for Modernity: Bauhaus, 1919–1933, ed. by Barry Bergdoll and Leah Dickerman (New York: MOMA, 2010), pp. 256–65 (pp. 259–60).38 The reconstruction of this worldview merits further investigation regarding the influences of interwar Italian architecture education, German expressionism, and French regionalism. See Myra Warhaftig, They Laid the Foundation: Lives and Works of German-Speaking Jewish Architects in Palestine 1918–1948 (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen, 2007), pp. 88–9, 288, 300, 354; and Fainholtz, ‘The Jewish Farmer’.39 See Anat Helman, Or ṿe-yam hiḳifuha: tarbut Tel Avivit bi-teḳufat ha-Mandaṭ [Urban Culture in 1920s and 1930s Tel Aviv] (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 2007), pp. 104–20, 186–209; Shmuel Duke, The Stratifying Trade Union: The Case of Ethnic and Gender Inequality in Palestine, 1920–1948 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), chapters 4 and 5; and Rakefet Sela-Sheffy, ‘“Europeans in the Levant” Revisited: German Jewish Immigrants in 1930s Palestine and the Question of Culture Retention’, in Deutsche(s) in Palästina und Israel: Alltag, Kultur, Politik, ed. by José Brunner (Goettingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2013), pp. 40–59 (p. 44).40 Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine, 1929–1948 (London: Routledge, 2015), pp. 74–6, 82, 95, 153. Twenty Years of Building also corresponds with visual perspectives on Palestine that were devoid of Indigenous Palestinian voices; see Nadi Abusaada, ‘Urban Encounters: Imaging the City in Mandate Palestine’, in Imaging and Imagining Palestine Photography, Modernity and the Biblical Lens, 1918–1948, ed. by Karene Sanchez-Summerer and Sary Zananiri (Leiden: Brill, 2021), pp. 359–89.41 See Boaz Neumann, Land and Desire in Early Zionism (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009), pp. 31–2, 103–4; and Efrat, The Object of Zionism, p. 37.42 See Graicer, From Neighborhood; and Tal Alon-Mozes, ‘Food for the Body and the Soul, Hebrew-Israeli Urban Foodscapes’, in Food and the City: Histories of Culture and Cultivation, ed. by Dorothée Imbert (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), pp. 55–82.43 See Gilbert Herbert and Ita Heinze-Greenberg, ‘The Anatomy of a Profession: Architects in Palestine During the British Mandate’, in The Search for Synthesis: Selected Writings on Architecture and Planning (Haifa: Architectural Heritage Research Centre, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion, 1997), pp. 149–62; Helman, Urban Culture, p. 26; also key here is Crinson’s notion of vernacularism as ‘demotic modernity’, in ‘Dynamic Vernacular’, p. 4.44 Itamar Even Zohar, ‘Polysystem Studies’, Poetics Today: International Journal for Theory and Analysis of Literature and Communication, 11.1 (1990), 175–94.45 A comparison with the work of British Mandate expert Otto Königsberger is awaiting; see Rachel Lee, ‘Engaging the Archival Habitat: Architectural Knowledge and Otto Königsberger's Effects’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 40.3 (December 2020), 526–40.46 See Neumann, Land and Desire; and Henry Near, תנועה במלכוד: איחוד הקבוצות והקיבוצים בפוליטיקה: העשור הראשון [Movement in Abeyance: The Political Activity of Ichud Hakvutzuot ve’Hakibutzim in the First Decade, 1951–1961] (Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin, 2013).47 David Remez, ‘And We Learned to Build’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 4.48 Otto Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, in ibid., p. 124.49 Arieh Sharon, ‘Public Buildings’, in ibid., p. 116.50 See David Tidhar, Entsiklopedyah le-Halutse Ha-Yishuv U-vonav [Encyclopaedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel], vol. 4, pp. 1593–4 <http://www.tidhar.tourolib.org/tidhar/view/4/1594> [accessed 10 September 2023]; and Graicer, From Neighborhood, pp. 33–4.51 Martin Hershenzon, ‘The Jewish Agency Open Cowshed, Israeli Third Way Rural Design, 1956–68’, in Architecture and Development: Systems and the Emergence of the Global South, ed. by Aggregate Architectural History Collaborative (London: Routledge, 2022), pp. 323–42 (pp. 325–9).52 See also Leo Kaufman ‘Workers’ Housing’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 86–94 (p. 87); and J. Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-op, Flats and Individual Detached Houses’, in ibid., p. 95.53 Anita Shapira, ‘גדוד העבודה על שם יוסף טרומפלדור’ [‘The Work Brigade in the Name of Joseph Trumpeldor’], in ההליכה על קו האופק [Visions in Conflict] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1989), pp. 157–208.54 In fact, 1920s houses with tiled roofs in cities such as Tel Aviv were equally viewed as being out of place relative to an emerging design approach that was based on eclecticism; see Helman, Urban Culture, pp. 21–8.55 Otto Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 124–5 (p. 125). His willingness to acknowledge a scope of settings and tasks was, thus, also distinct from the more conservative stances in German Heimat style discourse; see Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p. 1227.56 On Schiller, see Warhaftig, They Laid the Foundation, pp. 354–5.57 See also I. Shlaien,’Planning the Individual Dwelling in a Housing Scheme’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 96–7.58 Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, p. 124.59 The curators included engineers E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, and the architects Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov.60 In the group Israel Dicker was experienced in editing and writing through his work for Habinjan Bamisrah Hakarov magazine; see Ronny Schüler, ‘The Transfer of Media Strategies: Habinjan Bamisrah Hakarov’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 181–203. On Mestechkin, a Bauhaus disciple who returned to Palestine in 1934 and joined in 1943 the National Kibbutz movement, becoming the movement’s head architect, see Yuval Daniyeli and Muki Tsur, לבנות ולהיבנות בה – ספר שמואל מסטצ׳קין אדריכלות הקיבוץ בישראל [To Build and to be Built – Shmuel Mestechkin’s Book: The Architecture of the Kibbutz ] (Tel Aviv: Ha-Ḳibuts Ha-me'uḥad, 2008). On Chelenov, who was trained at the École de Beaux Arts in Paris and worked for two short periods in Le Corbusier’s studio in Paris before settling in Palestine, see Tzafrir Fainholtz, ‘לה קורבוזיה והתנועה הציונית’ [‘Le Corbusier and the Zionist movement’] (unpublished doctoral thesis, The Technion, 2013), pp. 288–9. Asher Alweill became a leading engineer in the pre- and post-independence period; see Or Aleksandrowicz, ‘The Other Side of Climate: The Unscientific Nature of Climatic Architectural Design in Israel’, in Israel as a Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978, ed. by Inbal Ben-Asher Gitler and Anat Geva (Bristol: Intellect, 2020), pp. 277–303. I did not trace information on A. Freudental nor on the division of the editorial work among these figures.61 The notion of type served extensively in essays in the Habinyan magazine during the second half of the 1930s; see Frederick J. Schwartz, The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass Culture Before the First World War (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 124–46; and Wolfgang Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture (New York: Praeger, 1973), pp. 67–8.62 E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 21, 24.63 Ibid., p. 55. See also Josef Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of the Construction of Educational Institutions in Eretz Israel’, in ibid., pp. 108–9; Shmuel Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, in ibid., pp. 118–9; A. Polatchek, ‘Some Aesthetic Problems’, in ibid., pp. 120–1. For the history of the buildings represented in figures 8, 9, and 10, see Michael Jacobson, ‘Tour in the Cultural House of Kibbutz Ashdot Yaacov Ichud’, in חלון אחורי, ארכיטקטורה ואידיאולוגיה בדיסנילנד מקומי [‘Rear Window, Architecture and Ideology in the Local Disneyland’], 29 December 2021 <https://michaelarch.wordpress.com/> [accessed 1 October 2022]; Eli Alon, ‘The historical “Cultural House” in Merchavia has Turned into a laundry’, News1 First Class, 13 July 2017 <https://michaelarch.wordpress.com/> [accessed 1 October 2022]; and Michael Jacobson, ‘Tour in the Gordon House, Kvutzat Dgania A’, in ‘Rear Window’, 22 February 2022 <https://michaelarch.wordpress.com> [accessed 8 May 2022].64 See John Ruskin, ‘The Lamp of Sacrifice’, in The Seven Lamps of Architecture (London: George Allen, 1903); and Adolf Loos, ‘Architecture’, in Spoken into the Void: Collected Essays by Adolf Loos, 1897–1900 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989).65 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 29. Other authors also chastised urban ostentation, see Asher Alweill, ‘Structural Problems of kibbutz Dinning Halls’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 106–7; and Arieh Sharon, ‘Public Buildings in Palestine’, in ibid., pp. 115–7 (p. 115). For Loos’ influence on architecture in Mandatory Palestine, see Ines Weizman, ‘Adolf Loos in Palestine’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 83–100.66 See Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 7; and [Anon.], ‘מחנות פועלים – המחלקה הטכנית של הסוכנות היהודית לארץ-ישראל’ [‘Workers’ Camps: The Technical Department of the Jewish Agency’], in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 71–2.67 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 9.68 Ibid.69 Jacob Pinkerfeld. ‘Problems of Buildings for Cultural Purposes in the Kibbutz’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 119–20 (p. 119).70 Raanan Weitz, הכפר הישראלי בעידן הטכנולוגיה [The Israeli Village in the Age of Technology] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1967), pp. 65–6.71 See David Remez, ‘Preface’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 4; Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 7; and Körner, ‘Workers Co-ops’, p. 95. For an alternative argument on the cowshed, see Moshe Kesselman, ‘Farm Buildings’, in ibid., pp. 121–2.72 See Pinkerfeld, ‘Problems of Buildings’; and Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, p. 117.73 See Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-ops’\\, p. 95; Ingersoll, Munio Gitai Weinraub, p. 56; and Allweil, Homeland, p. 157.74 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 11.75 Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-ops’, p. 95.76 See Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’, p. 89; and Kesselman, ‘Farm Buildings’, p. 121.77 See בעיות השיכון בארץ-ישראל [Housing Problems in Eretz Israel], ed. by Ina Britschgi-Schimmer, Ernst Kahn, Ernst Lehmann, and Fritz Naphtali (Jerusalem: Economic Research Institute of the Jewish Agency, 1938), pp. 69–73; and Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape, p. 95.78 See F. Naftali, ‘The Financial Aspect of Cheap Workers’ Housing’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 85; and Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’.79 See also Pinkerfeld, ‘The Primitive Arab Apartment’, in Engineering Review (Tel-Aviv: Engineers’ Architects’ and Surveyors’ Union of Palestine, 1942), pp. 33–6; and J. Körner, ‘The Arab Construction in the City’, in ibid., pp. 36–8.80 This paradigm has been unproblematically accepted in Alon Tal, Pollution in a Promised Land: An Environmental History of Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), pp. 37–8. Also see Neumann, Land and Desire, pp. 99–104; and Tamar Novick, ‘Milk and Honey: Technologies of Plenty in the Making of a Holy Land, 1880–1960’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2014), pp. 12–8.81 See Israel Dicker, ‘20 Years of Building’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 120; Josef Eidelman, ‘The Building of Dinning Halls in Kibbutzim’, in ibid., pp. 104–5; Josef Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings for Educational Purposes’, in ibid., p. 108; Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p .11; Sharon, ‘Public Buildings’, p. 115; and Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, pp. 117–9.82 Dicker, ‘20 Years of Building’, p. 120.83 Ibid.84 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 11. Such positions relative to the Palestinian vernacular are typical of Homi Bhabha’s analysis of the colonial encounter; see Homi K. Bhabha, ‘Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse’, October, 28 (1984), 125–33; and Daniel Bertrand Monk, ‘Book Review – Bauhaus on the Carmel and the Crossroads of Empire: Architecture and Planning in Haifa During the British Mandate by Gilbert Herbert and Silvina Sosnovsky’, AA Files, 28 (Autumn 1994), 94–9.85 [Anon.], ‘Palestine Architecture from a Social Point of View’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 126–7.86 See Helman, Urban Culture, pp. 105, 117–12; and Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion: Dreams, Designs, and Realities in a Century of Jewish Settlement (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), pp. 95–101.87 Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, p. 119.88 Eidelman, ‘The Building of Dining Hall’, p. 104.89 See also Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings’, p. 109.90 The catalogue used the notions of standards, types, and models interchangeably; see also Graicer, From Neighborhood, pp. 16–7.91 Shlaien, ‘Problems of Workers Housing’, p. 104.92 See Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, pp. 7–11, 18–21; Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings’; Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’; Shlaien, ‘Planning the Individual’; Meiton, Electrical Palestine, p. 5–6; Markus Reiner, ‘Palestine Architecture’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov; and Eugene Ratner, ‘Remarks on the Planning of Public Institutions’, in ibid., pp. 125–6.93 E. Polsky, ‘20 Years of Histadrut Building’, in ibid., p. 5.94 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 21.95 See also Eugene Ratner, ‘לקראת הסגנון המקורי‘ [‘Towards an Original Style’], in Palestine Building Annual 1934–1935, ed. by Ya’acov Ben Sira (Tel Aviv: Mischar Ve’ta-asia, 1935), pp. 34–36. For analogous discussions in the German Werkbund, see Frederic Schwartz, The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass Culture Before the First World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 120.96 Schiller, ‘Education Through’, p. 125; Bickels, Eidelman, and Reiner voiced similar concerns in the catalogue.97 See Shlaien, ‘Planning the Individual’, p. 103; and Reiner, ‘Palestine Architecture’, p. 124.98 Schwartz, The Werkbund, p. 20.99 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 9. Dicker and Schiller advanced similar arguments in the catalogue.100 See also Yael Allweil, ‘Tent: Uncanny Architecture of Agonism for Israel/Palestine, 1910–2011’, Urban Studies, 55. 2 (December 2016), 316–31.101 William Jordy, ‘The Symbolic Essence of Modern European Architecture of the Twenties and Its Continuing Influence’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 22 (October 1963), 177–87.102 Neumann, Land and Desire, pp. 93–5, 97.103 Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), p. 48.104 See Fuller, Moderns Abroad; and Kennedy, ‘Infrastructures of “Legitimate Violence”’.105 See also Julius Posener, ‘Villages in Palestine’, Habynian, 3.1/2 (August 1938), 1.106 Among others, key architects who contributed to this discourse were Arieh Sharon, Artur Glikson, and Emmanuel Yalan. The related scholarship is extensive; see Nitzan-Shiftan, ‘Modernisms in Conflict: Architecture and Cultural Politics in Post-1967 Jerusalem’, in Modernism in the Middle East, ed. by Sandy Isenstadt and Kishwar Rizvi (Ann Arbor, MI: Seattle University of Washington Press, 2008), pp. 161–85; and Hershenzon, ‘The Architect as Civil Servant’.107 See Allweil, Homeland, pp. 183–4; Allweil, ‘Tent: Uncanny Architecture’; and Nadi Abusaada, ‘Consolidating the Rule of Experts: A Model Village for Refugees in the Jordan Valley, 1945–55’, International Journal of Islamic Architecture, 10.2 (2021), 361–85.108 See Efrat, The Israeli Project, vol. II, p. 731; and Oren Yiftachel, Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2006).109 Arieh Sharon, Kibbutz + Bauhaus: An Architect’s Way in a New Land (Stuttgart: Karl Krämer, 1976).110 Levin, Architecture and Development, p. 61.","PeriodicalId":45765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Architecture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The environmental semantics of rural and urban architecture standards in British Mandate of Palestine, 1920–1940\",\"authors\":\"Martin Hershenzon\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13602365.2023.2259924\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractThis paper analyses the 1940 exhibition catalogue, Twenty Years of Building: Workers' Settlements, Housing and Public Institutions, published by the Federation of Jewish Workers in Palestine to celebrate its twentieth anniversary. A cross-regional analysis of this publication in the context of Mandatory Palestine and its commonalities with the environmental German notion of ‘rootedness’ [Bodenständigkeit] forms the basis of this paper. It challenges previous scholarship viewing Jewish architecture as progressive, climatically adaptive, and correlating with the 1930s separatist stance of Labour Zionism vis-à-vis the Levant. It argues instead that the Federation's architects reflected a conservative agenda concerning ‘functional’ design. The paper reconstructs how their agenda adapted various rhetoric, from rooted rural buildings, colonial ruralisation, to new urban co-op environments in the 1920s and 30s. The paper also explores the historicist and settler-colonial stance of this agenda as it negotiated progressive building standards relative to the brief tradition of cooperative settlement history and indigenous Palestinian habitats. The paper, thus, identifies the environmental semantics of the Federation’s functional buildings, its structuralist logic, and its role in the legitimation of Zionist settler colonial institutions. In assessing this aesthetic-economic discourse, the paper contributes a missing prelude to the vernacularisation of post-independence development architecture in Israel. AcknowledgementsSeveral mentors and friends have contributed to the development of this essay. I wish to thank in particular David Leatherbarrow, Joan Ockman, Daniel Barber, John Tresch, Daniel Hershenzon, Ayala Levin, Nimrod Ben-Ze’ev, Keren Gorodeisky, Lior Barshack, Duffy Half, and Shani Sladowsky for their contributions in shaping its arguments. I wish also to thank the journal editor Doreen Bernath and the reviewers for their helpful critique.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.Notes1 Folder: IV-250-31-240, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive. The exhibition displayed building activities by members of the collective agricultural labour settlements [Ha’hytyashvot Ha’aovedet], which from the 1910s stood primarily for the agricultural settlements as a geographical sector. This notion was roughly distinguished from the administrative and cultural arms of a Jewish workers’ society, which was identified with the urban settlement.2 See [Anon.], ‘בתערוכה של הבנייה ההסתדרותית’ [‘At the Exhibition of the Federation Construction’], Davar, 21 November 1940, p. 4; and עשרים שנות בניה – התיישבות, שיכון ומוסדות ציבור פועלים [Twenty Years of Building: Workers’ Settlements, Housing and Public Institutions], ed. by E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov (Tel Aviv: Engineers’ Architects’ and Surveyors’ Union of Palestine, 1940).3 The 1958 exhibition celebrating the first decade of Israel’s independence was most likely of a similar scope; see Zvi Efrat, The Israeli Project: Building and Architecture, 1948–1973, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum of Art, 2004), p. 20.4 See Zvi Elhyani, ‘Multi-Contextual Approaches to Architectural Archiving: Knowledge Restoration for the Historiography of Israeli Architecture’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, The Technion, 2014), pp. 18–23; and Duffy Half, ‘A New Materiality in Praise of the Ordinary, in Palestine-Israel, c. 1940–66’, Architectural Research Quarterly, 23.1 (2019), 47–62 <https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135518000702>.5 Oz Almog, The Sabra: The Creation of the New Jew (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).6 See Richard Ingersoll, מוניו גיתאי-וינרויב – ארכיטקט באוהאוס בארץ-ישראל [Munio Gitai Weinraub: Bauhaus Architect in Erez Israel] (Tel Aviv: Babel, 2009), pp. 61–2; Tzafrir Fainholtz, ‘The Jewish Farmer, the Village and the World Fair: Politics, Propaganda, and the “Israel in Palestine” Pavilion at the Paris International Exhibition of 1937’, retrieved from SHS Web of Conferences 63: 10004 (2019) <https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196310004 MODSCAPES 2018>; Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, ‘Performing the State: The Jewish Palestine Pavilion at the New York World's Fair, 1939/1940’, in The Art of Being Jewish in Modern Times, ed. by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett and Jonathan Karp (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 98–115; and Sigal Davidi, ‘״האדריכלות החדשה״ ביריד המזרח ,1934 הבניית זהות ליישוב היהודי’ [‘The “New Architecture” of the 1934 Levant Fair: The Creation of an Identity for the Jewish Society’], Israel: Studies in Zionism and the State of Israel, History, Society, Culture, 24 (2016), 163–90.7 IV 208-1-1771A, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive.8 See the Union meeting minutes: IV-250-31-240, IV 250-36-1-237, IV 250-36-1-236, and IV-250-36-1-238, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive; ‘The Council of the Union of and Engineer’, Habinyan Bamizrach Hakarov, 2 (1935), p. 9; ‘From the Activities of the Union of Engineers and Architects in Eretz Israel’, Habinyan Bamizrach Hakarov, 4 (1935), 15; and H. Promkin, ‘ארבע שנות מאבק, 1936-1940’ [‘Four Years of Struggle, 1936–1940’], Davar, 29 March 1940, p. 2.9 See also Ines Sonders, ‘Julius Posener und das Neue Bauen in Palästina’, in The Transfer of Modernity: Architectural Modernism in Palestine (1923–1948), ed. by Ronny Schüler and Jörg Stabenow (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. 2019), pp. 53–68 (pp. 57–8).10 IV 250-36-1-237, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive. These matters corresponded with interwar discussions in Europe on social housing and welfare; see Iris Graicer, מהשכונה אל השיכון: ההתיישבות העירונית של הפועלים בארץ-ישראל ושורשיה הרעיוניים, 1950-1920 [From Neighborhood to Housing Estate: The Urban Settlement of the Labor Movement in the Land of Israel and its Ideological Sources, 1920–1950] (Haifa: Pardes, 2017), pp. 16–7.11 Or Aleksandrowicz, Daring the Shutter: The Tel Aviv Idiom of Solar Protections (Holon: Public School Editions, 2015).12 Hannes Meyer, ‘Building’, in Programs and Manifestos, ed. by Ulrich Conrads (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), pp. 117–20.13 See Aleksandrowicz, Daring the Shutter; and Aleksandrowicz, ‘Facing the Sun: German-Speaking Émigrés and the Roots of Israeli Climatic Building Design’, in Designing Transformation Jews and Cultural Identity in Central European Modernism, ed. by Elana Shapira (London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2021), pp. 253–66.14 Th. F. M., ‘Twenty Years of Building: A Proud Palestinian Record’, The Palestine Post, 12 December 1940, p. 4.15 Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, ‘Tracing Settler Colonialism: A Genealogy of a Paradigm in the Sociology of Knowledge Production in Israel’, Politics & Society, 50.1 (2022), 44–83 (pp. 46–7).16 For British Imperial perspectives, see Mark Crinson, Modern Architecture and the End of Empire (London: Routledge, 2018); and Alex Bremner, ‘Introduction’, in Architecture and Urbanism in the British Empire, ed. by Alex Bremner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 1–15 (p. 7).17 By employing the term Palestinian in this context, I refer specifically to constructions of indigenous Palestinian Arabs.18 Ingersoll, Munio Gitai Weinraub, pp. 15–20, 28, 81, 84–5. Ingersoll acknowledges also alternative assumptions; see ibid., pp. 20, 153.19 The Chug, a group of architects that gathered in the city in 1932 and promoted ‘new architecture’ through competitions and a journal, emulating the German 1920s Ring group.20 Eran Neuman, אריה שרון: אדריכל המדינה [Arieh Sharon: The State Architect], ed. by Eran Neuman (Tel Aviv: Museum of Modern Art, 2017), pp. 15, 45, 67.21 Efrat, The Israeli Project, pp. 64, 65–6, 69.22 Ibid., p. 59.23 See Alona Nitzan-Shiftan, ‘Contested Zionism – Alternative Modernism: Erich Mendelsohn and the Tel Aviv “Chug” in Mandate Palestine’, in Constructing a Sense of Place: Architecture and the Zionist Discourse, ed. by Haim Yacobi (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 147–80 (p. 153, 156); and Shalom Ratzabi, Between Zionism and Judaism: The Radical Circle in Brith Shalom, 1925–1933 (Boston, MA, and Leiden: Brill, 2002).24 Todd Samuel Presner, Muscular Judaism: The Jewish Body and the Politics of Regeneration (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 157–61.25 See, among others, Shira Pinhas, ‘Road, Map: Partition in Palestine from the Local to the Transnational’, Journal of Levantine Studies, 10.1 (Summer 2020), 111–21; Fredrik Meiton, Electrical Palestine: Capital and Technology from Empire to Nation (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019); and Dafna Hirsch,באנו הנה להביא את המערב – הנחלת היגיינה ובניית תרבות בחברה היהודית בתקופת המנדט [‘We Are Here to Bring the West': Hygiene Education and Culture Building in the Jewish Society of Palestine during the British Mandate Period] (Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Research Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism, 2014).26 See Yael Allweil, Homeland: Zionism as Housing Regime, 1860–2011 (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 12–4, 230–1; Gabriel Schwake, Dwelling on the Green Line: Privatize and Rule in Israel/Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), pp. 21, 31–2, 63; Gabriel Schwake, ‘From Homes to Assets and from Pioneers to Shareholders: An Evolving Frontier Terminology’, Urban Planning, 7.1 (2022), 1–13 (pp. 2–3); Ayala Levin, ‘Exporting Architectural National Expertise: Arieh Sharon’s Ile-Ife University Campus in West-Nigeria (1962–1976)’, in Nationalism and Architecture, ed. by Darren Deane, Sarah Butler, and Raymond Quek (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2017), pp. 53–66 (p. 55); and Ayala Levin, Architecture and Development: Israeli Construction in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Settler Colonial Imagination, 1958–1973 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2022), pp. 27, 37–9.27 For alternative arguments on this progressive architecture, see Sonders ‘Julius Posener’; Yossi Klein, ‘The Architects Leo Adler and Jacob Pinkerfeld: Modern Architectural Regionalism as an Act of Political Resistance’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 225–40; Fainholtz ‘The Jewish Farmer’; Half, ‘A New Materiality’; and Martin Hershenzon, ‘The Architect as Civil Servant: Aviah Hashimshoni’s Architecture Education and Historiography in 1960s Israel’, The Journal of Architecture, 26.2 (2021), 116–46 (pp. 118–9).28 See Harry Francis Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673–1968 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009), pp. 226–9; and Kenny Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit: The Environmental Epistemology of Modernism’, The Journal of Architecture, 21.8 (2016), 1226–52.29 In this article, my use of the notion ‘environmental’ is primarily used, following Kenny Cupers, James Nisbet, and Oliver Botar, to designate that which falls under the premises of ecology, that is, a holistic understanding of the system of bodies and (living) organisms that together form the environment, and a pursuit to develop an analytical discourse that comes to terms with inter-relations between single organisms and their environments. See Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p.1244; James Nisbet, Ecologies, Environments and Energy Systems in the Art of the 1960s and 1970s (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014), pp. 5–6; and Oliver A. I. Botar, ‘Defining Biocentrism’, in Biocentrism and Modernism, ed. by Oliver A. I. Botar and Isabelle Wünsche (Essex: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 15–45 (pp. 18, 25–6).30 In particular, in the works of institutions such as the German Colonial Society and the Homeland Protection League and through figures such as Paul Fischer, Theodor Fischer and Paul Schultze-Naumburg among others; see Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, pp. 1227–34.31 See Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory; and Harry Francis Mallgrave, ‘From Realism to Sachlichkeit: The Polemics of Architectural Modernity in the 1890s’, in Otto Wagner: Reflections on the Raiment of Modernity, ed. by Harry Francis Mallgrave (Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1993).32 See Mary McLeod, ‘Piacé: Ferme Radieuse and Village Radieux’, in Le Corbusier: An Atlas of Modern, ed. by Jean Louis Cohen (New York: MOMA, 2013), pp. 185–91; Sibel Bozdoğdan, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2001), p. 21 and chapter 5; Michelangelo Sabatino, Pride in Modesty: Modernist Architecture and the Vernacular Tradition in Italy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014), pp. 147–8, 157; Mia Fuller, Moderns Abroad: Architecture, Cities and Italian Imperialism (London: Routledge, 2010); and Alan Colquhoun, ‘Regionalism 1’, in Collected Essays in Architectural Criticism (London: Black Dog Pub, 2009), pp. 287–8.33 Bernd Hüppauf and Maiken Umbach, ‘Introduction: Vernacular Modernism’, in Vernacular Modernism: Heimat, Globalization and the Built Environment, ed. by Bernd Hüppauf and Maiken Umbach (Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), p. 12.34 Mark Crinson, ‘Dynamic Vernacular: An Introduction’, Architecture Beyond Europe, 9/10 (2016), 1–8 (p. 1).35 See Hollyamber Kennedy, ‘Infrastructures of “Legitimate Violence”: The Prussian Settlement Commission, Internal Colonization, and the Migrant Remainder’, in Grey Room, 76 (2019), 58–97 (p. 84); Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p. 1244; and on the influences these models had on Jewish farm planning, rather than architecture, see Zvi Efrat, The Object of Zionism: Architecture of Israel (Leipzig: Spector Book, 2018), pp. 28–9.36 Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, pp. 1226, 1247–8.37 See ibid., p. 1247; and Detlef Mertins, ‘Hannes Meyer, German Trade Unions School, Bernau, 1928–30’, in Workshops for Modernity: Bauhaus, 1919–1933, ed. by Barry Bergdoll and Leah Dickerman (New York: MOMA, 2010), pp. 256–65 (pp. 259–60).38 The reconstruction of this worldview merits further investigation regarding the influences of interwar Italian architecture education, German expressionism, and French regionalism. See Myra Warhaftig, They Laid the Foundation: Lives and Works of German-Speaking Jewish Architects in Palestine 1918–1948 (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen, 2007), pp. 88–9, 288, 300, 354; and Fainholtz, ‘The Jewish Farmer’.39 See Anat Helman, Or ṿe-yam hiḳifuha: tarbut Tel Avivit bi-teḳufat ha-Mandaṭ [Urban Culture in 1920s and 1930s Tel Aviv] (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 2007), pp. 104–20, 186–209; Shmuel Duke, The Stratifying Trade Union: The Case of Ethnic and Gender Inequality in Palestine, 1920–1948 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), chapters 4 and 5; and Rakefet Sela-Sheffy, ‘“Europeans in the Levant” Revisited: German Jewish Immigrants in 1930s Palestine and the Question of Culture Retention’, in Deutsche(s) in Palästina und Israel: Alltag, Kultur, Politik, ed. by José Brunner (Goettingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2013), pp. 40–59 (p. 44).40 Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine, 1929–1948 (London: Routledge, 2015), pp. 74–6, 82, 95, 153. Twenty Years of Building also corresponds with visual perspectives on Palestine that were devoid of Indigenous Palestinian voices; see Nadi Abusaada, ‘Urban Encounters: Imaging the City in Mandate Palestine’, in Imaging and Imagining Palestine Photography, Modernity and the Biblical Lens, 1918–1948, ed. by Karene Sanchez-Summerer and Sary Zananiri (Leiden: Brill, 2021), pp. 359–89.41 See Boaz Neumann, Land and Desire in Early Zionism (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009), pp. 31–2, 103–4; and Efrat, The Object of Zionism, p. 37.42 See Graicer, From Neighborhood; and Tal Alon-Mozes, ‘Food for the Body and the Soul, Hebrew-Israeli Urban Foodscapes’, in Food and the City: Histories of Culture and Cultivation, ed. by Dorothée Imbert (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), pp. 55–82.43 See Gilbert Herbert and Ita Heinze-Greenberg, ‘The Anatomy of a Profession: Architects in Palestine During the British Mandate’, in The Search for Synthesis: Selected Writings on Architecture and Planning (Haifa: Architectural Heritage Research Centre, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion, 1997), pp. 149–62; Helman, Urban Culture, p. 26; also key here is Crinson’s notion of vernacularism as ‘demotic modernity’, in ‘Dynamic Vernacular’, p. 4.44 Itamar Even Zohar, ‘Polysystem Studies’, Poetics Today: International Journal for Theory and Analysis of Literature and Communication, 11.1 (1990), 175–94.45 A comparison with the work of British Mandate expert Otto Königsberger is awaiting; see Rachel Lee, ‘Engaging the Archival Habitat: Architectural Knowledge and Otto Königsberger's Effects’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 40.3 (December 2020), 526–40.46 See Neumann, Land and Desire; and Henry Near, תנועה במלכוד: איחוד הקבוצות והקיבוצים בפוליטיקה: העשור הראשון [Movement in Abeyance: The Political Activity of Ichud Hakvutzuot ve’Hakibutzim in the First Decade, 1951–1961] (Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin, 2013).47 David Remez, ‘And We Learned to Build’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 4.48 Otto Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, in ibid., p. 124.49 Arieh Sharon, ‘Public Buildings’, in ibid., p. 116.50 See David Tidhar, Entsiklopedyah le-Halutse Ha-Yishuv U-vonav [Encyclopaedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel], vol. 4, pp. 1593–4 <http://www.tidhar.tourolib.org/tidhar/view/4/1594> [accessed 10 September 2023]; and Graicer, From Neighborhood, pp. 33–4.51 Martin Hershenzon, ‘The Jewish Agency Open Cowshed, Israeli Third Way Rural Design, 1956–68’, in Architecture and Development: Systems and the Emergence of the Global South, ed. by Aggregate Architectural History Collaborative (London: Routledge, 2022), pp. 323–42 (pp. 325–9).52 See also Leo Kaufman ‘Workers’ Housing’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 86–94 (p. 87); and J. Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-op, Flats and Individual Detached Houses’, in ibid., p. 95.53 Anita Shapira, ‘גדוד העבודה על שם יוסף טרומפלדור’ [‘The Work Brigade in the Name of Joseph Trumpeldor’], in ההליכה על קו האופק [Visions in Conflict] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1989), pp. 157–208.54 In fact, 1920s houses with tiled roofs in cities such as Tel Aviv were equally viewed as being out of place relative to an emerging design approach that was based on eclecticism; see Helman, Urban Culture, pp. 21–8.55 Otto Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 124–5 (p. 125). His willingness to acknowledge a scope of settings and tasks was, thus, also distinct from the more conservative stances in German Heimat style discourse; see Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p. 1227.56 On Schiller, see Warhaftig, They Laid the Foundation, pp. 354–5.57 See also I. Shlaien,’Planning the Individual Dwelling in a Housing Scheme’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 96–7.58 Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, p. 124.59 The curators included engineers E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, and the architects Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov.60 In the group Israel Dicker was experienced in editing and writing through his work for Habinjan Bamisrah Hakarov magazine; see Ronny Schüler, ‘The Transfer of Media Strategies: Habinjan Bamisrah Hakarov’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 181–203. On Mestechkin, a Bauhaus disciple who returned to Palestine in 1934 and joined in 1943 the National Kibbutz movement, becoming the movement’s head architect, see Yuval Daniyeli and Muki Tsur, לבנות ולהיבנות בה – ספר שמואל מסטצ׳קין אדריכלות הקיבוץ בישראל [To Build and to be Built – Shmuel Mestechkin’s Book: The Architecture of the Kibbutz ] (Tel Aviv: Ha-Ḳibuts Ha-me'uḥad, 2008). On Chelenov, who was trained at the École de Beaux Arts in Paris and worked for two short periods in Le Corbusier’s studio in Paris before settling in Palestine, see Tzafrir Fainholtz, ‘לה קורבוזיה והתנועה הציונית’ [‘Le Corbusier and the Zionist movement’] (unpublished doctoral thesis, The Technion, 2013), pp. 288–9. Asher Alweill became a leading engineer in the pre- and post-independence period; see Or Aleksandrowicz, ‘The Other Side of Climate: The Unscientific Nature of Climatic Architectural Design in Israel’, in Israel as a Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978, ed. by Inbal Ben-Asher Gitler and Anat Geva (Bristol: Intellect, 2020), pp. 277–303. I did not trace information on A. Freudental nor on the division of the editorial work among these figures.61 The notion of type served extensively in essays in the Habinyan magazine during the second half of the 1930s; see Frederick J. Schwartz, The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass Culture Before the First World War (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 124–46; and Wolfgang Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture (New York: Praeger, 1973), pp. 67–8.62 E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 21, 24.63 Ibid., p. 55. See also Josef Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of the Construction of Educational Institutions in Eretz Israel’, in ibid., pp. 108–9; Shmuel Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, in ibid., pp. 118–9; A. Polatchek, ‘Some Aesthetic Problems’, in ibid., pp. 120–1. For the history of the buildings represented in figures 8, 9, and 10, see Michael Jacobson, ‘Tour in the Cultural House of Kibbutz Ashdot Yaacov Ichud’, in חלון אחורי, ארכיטקטורה ואידיאולוגיה בדיסנילנד מקומי [‘Rear Window, Architecture and Ideology in the Local Disneyland’], 29 December 2021 <https://michaelarch.wordpress.com/> [accessed 1 October 2022]; Eli Alon, ‘The historical “Cultural House” in Merchavia has Turned into a laundry’, News1 First Class, 13 July 2017 <https://michaelarch.wordpress.com/> [accessed 1 October 2022]; and Michael Jacobson, ‘Tour in the Gordon House, Kvutzat Dgania A’, in ‘Rear Window’, 22 February 2022 <https://michaelarch.wordpress.com> [accessed 8 May 2022].64 See John Ruskin, ‘The Lamp of Sacrifice’, in The Seven Lamps of Architecture (London: George Allen, 1903); and Adolf Loos, ‘Architecture’, in Spoken into the Void: Collected Essays by Adolf Loos, 1897–1900 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989).65 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 29. Other authors also chastised urban ostentation, see Asher Alweill, ‘Structural Problems of kibbutz Dinning Halls’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 106–7; and Arieh Sharon, ‘Public Buildings in Palestine’, in ibid., pp. 115–7 (p. 115). For Loos’ influence on architecture in Mandatory Palestine, see Ines Weizman, ‘Adolf Loos in Palestine’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 83–100.66 See Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 7; and [Anon.], ‘מחנות פועלים – המחלקה הטכנית של הסוכנות היהודית לארץ-ישראל’ [‘Workers’ Camps: The Technical Department of the Jewish Agency’], in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 71–2.67 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 9.68 Ibid.69 Jacob Pinkerfeld. ‘Problems of Buildings for Cultural Purposes in the Kibbutz’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 119–20 (p. 119).70 Raanan Weitz, הכפר הישראלי בעידן הטכנולוגיה [The Israeli Village in the Age of Technology] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1967), pp. 65–6.71 See David Remez, ‘Preface’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 4; Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 7; and Körner, ‘Workers Co-ops’, p. 95. For an alternative argument on the cowshed, see Moshe Kesselman, ‘Farm Buildings’, in ibid., pp. 121–2.72 See Pinkerfeld, ‘Problems of Buildings’; and Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, p. 117.73 See Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-ops’\\\\, p. 95; Ingersoll, Munio Gitai Weinraub, p. 56; and Allweil, Homeland, p. 157.74 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 11.75 Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-ops’, p. 95.76 See Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’, p. 89; and Kesselman, ‘Farm Buildings’, p. 121.77 See בעיות השיכון בארץ-ישראל [Housing Problems in Eretz Israel], ed. by Ina Britschgi-Schimmer, Ernst Kahn, Ernst Lehmann, and Fritz Naphtali (Jerusalem: Economic Research Institute of the Jewish Agency, 1938), pp. 69–73; and Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape, p. 95.78 See F. Naftali, ‘The Financial Aspect of Cheap Workers’ Housing’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 85; and Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’.79 See also Pinkerfeld, ‘The Primitive Arab Apartment’, in Engineering Review (Tel-Aviv: Engineers’ Architects’ and Surveyors’ Union of Palestine, 1942), pp. 33–6; and J. Körner, ‘The Arab Construction in the City’, in ibid., pp. 36–8.80 This paradigm has been unproblematically accepted in Alon Tal, Pollution in a Promised Land: An Environmental History of Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), pp. 37–8. Also see Neumann, Land and Desire, pp. 99–104; and Tamar Novick, ‘Milk and Honey: Technologies of Plenty in the Making of a Holy Land, 1880–1960’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2014), pp. 12–8.81 See Israel Dicker, ‘20 Years of Building’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 120; Josef Eidelman, ‘The Building of Dinning Halls in Kibbutzim’, in ibid., pp. 104–5; Josef Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings for Educational Purposes’, in ibid., p. 108; Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p .11; Sharon, ‘Public Buildings’, p. 115; and Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, pp. 117–9.82 Dicker, ‘20 Years of Building’, p. 120.83 Ibid.84 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 11. Such positions relative to the Palestinian vernacular are typical of Homi Bhabha’s analysis of the colonial encounter; see Homi K. Bhabha, ‘Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse’, October, 28 (1984), 125–33; and Daniel Bertrand Monk, ‘Book Review – Bauhaus on the Carmel and the Crossroads of Empire: Architecture and Planning in Haifa During the British Mandate by Gilbert Herbert and Silvina Sosnovsky’, AA Files, 28 (Autumn 1994), 94–9.85 [Anon.], ‘Palestine Architecture from a Social Point of View’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 126–7.86 See Helman, Urban Culture, pp. 105, 117–12; and Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion: Dreams, Designs, and Realities in a Century of Jewish Settlement (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), pp. 95–101.87 Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, p. 119.88 Eidelman, ‘The Building of Dining Hall’, p. 104.89 See also Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings’, p. 109.90 The catalogue used the notions of standards, types, and models interchangeably; see also Graicer, From Neighborhood, pp. 16–7.91 Shlaien, ‘Problems of Workers Housing’, p. 104.92 See Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, pp. 7–11, 18–21; Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings’; Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’; Shlaien, ‘Planning the Individual’; Meiton, Electrical Palestine, p. 5–6; Markus Reiner, ‘Palestine Architecture’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov; and Eugene Ratner, ‘Remarks on the Planning of Public Institutions’, in ibid., pp. 125–6.93 E. Polsky, ‘20 Years of Histadrut Building’, in ibid., p. 5.94 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 21.95 See also Eugene Ratner, ‘לקראת הסגנון המקורי‘ [‘Towards an Original Style’], in Palestine Building Annual 1934–1935, ed. by Ya’acov Ben Sira (Tel Aviv: Mischar Ve’ta-asia, 1935), pp. 34–36. For analogous discussions in the German Werkbund, see Frederic Schwartz, The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass Culture Before the First World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 120.96 Schiller, ‘Education Through’, p. 125; Bickels, Eidelman, and Reiner voiced similar concerns in the catalogue.97 See Shlaien, ‘Planning the Individual’, p. 103; and Reiner, ‘Palestine Architecture’, p. 124.98 Schwartz, The Werkbund, p. 20.99 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 9. Dicker and Schiller advanced similar arguments in the catalogue.100 See also Yael Allweil, ‘Tent: Uncanny Architecture of Agonism for Israel/Palestine, 1910–2011’, Urban Studies, 55. 2 (December 2016), 316–31.101 William Jordy, ‘The Symbolic Essence of Modern European Architecture of the Twenties and Its Continuing Influence’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 22 (October 1963), 177–87.102 Neumann, Land and Desire, pp. 93–5, 97.103 Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), p. 48.104 See Fuller, Moderns Abroad; and Kennedy, ‘Infrastructures of “Legitimate Violence”’.105 See also Julius Posener, ‘Villages in Palestine’, Habynian, 3.1/2 (August 1938), 1.106 Among others, key architects who contributed to this discourse were Arieh Sharon, Artur Glikson, and Emmanuel Yalan. The related scholarship is extensive; see Nitzan-Shiftan, ‘Modernisms in Conflict: Architecture and Cultural Politics in Post-1967 Jerusalem’, in Modernism in the Middle East, ed. by Sandy Isenstadt and Kishwar Rizvi (Ann Arbor, MI: Seattle University of Washington Press, 2008), pp. 161–85; and Hershenzon, ‘The Architect as Civil Servant’.107 See Allweil, Homeland, pp. 183–4; Allweil, ‘Tent: Uncanny Architecture’; and Nadi Abusaada, ‘Consolidating the Rule of Experts: A Model Village for Refugees in the Jordan Valley, 1945–55’, International Journal of Islamic Architecture, 10.2 (2021), 361–85.108 See Efrat, The Israeli Project, vol. II, p. 731; and Oren Yiftachel, Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2006).109 Arieh Sharon, Kibbutz + Bauhaus: An Architect’s Way in a New Land (Stuttgart: Karl Krämer, 1976).110 Levin, Architecture and Development, p. 61.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Architecture\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Architecture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2259924\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Architecture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2023.2259924","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文分析了1940年巴勒斯坦犹太工人联合会为庆祝其成立二十周年而出版的展览图录《建筑二十年:工人定居点、住房和公共机构》。在强制性巴勒斯坦的背景下,对该出版物进行跨区域分析,并与德国环境概念的“根”[Bodenständigkeit]的共性形成了本文的基础。它挑战了以前的学术观点,认为犹太建筑是进步的,适应气候的,并与20世纪30年代劳工犹太复国主义对-à-vis黎凡特的分离主义立场相关。相反,它认为联合会的建筑师反映了关于“功能”设计的保守议程。本文重构了他们的议程是如何适应各种修辞的,从根深蒂固的农村建筑、殖民乡村化,到20世纪二三十年代的新型城市合作环境。本文还探讨了这一议程的历史主义和定居者-殖民立场,因为它谈判了相对于合作定居点历史和巴勒斯坦土著栖息地的短暂传统的进步建筑标准。因此,本文确定了联邦功能建筑的环境语义,其结构主义逻辑,以及它在犹太复国主义定居者殖民机构合法化中的作用。在评估这种美学-经济话语时,本文为以色列独立后发展建筑的白话化提供了缺失的前奏。几位导师和朋友对本文的发展做出了贡献。我要特别感谢David Leatherbarrow、Joan Ockman、Daniel Barber、John Tresch、Daniel Hershenzon、Ayala Levin、Nimrod Ben-Ze 'ev、Keren Gorodeisky、Lior Barshack、Duffy Half和Shani Sladowsky在形成本书论点方面所做的贡献。我还要感谢杂志编辑多琳·伯纳斯(Doreen Bernath)和审稿人的有益评论。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1文件夹:IV-250-31-240, Pinhas Lavon劳工运动研究研究所档案。展览展示了集体农业劳工定居点(Ha 'hytyashvot Ha 'aovedet)成员的建筑活动,从20世纪10年代开始,这主要代表了农业定居点作为一个地理区域。这一概念与犹太工人社会的行政和文化部门大致不同,后者被认为是城市定居点见(佚名),”בתערוכהשלהבנייהההסתדרותית”('展览的联合建设'],Davar, 1940年11月21日,p。4;2 .《建筑二十年:工人定居点、住房和公共机构》,由E. Polsky、Asher Allweil、Israel Dicker、Shmuel Mestechkin、A. Freudental和benjamin Chlenov编著(特拉维夫:巴勒斯坦工程师、建筑师和测量员联盟,1940)1958年庆祝以色列独立第一个十年的展览最有可能是类似的规模;参见Zvi Efrat,以色列项目:1948-1973年的建筑和建筑,第1卷(特拉维夫:特拉维夫艺术博物馆,2004年),第20.4页。参见Zvi Elhyani,“建筑档案的多背景方法:以色列建筑史学的知识修复”(未发表的博士论文,以色列理工学院,2014年),第18-23页;5 . Oz Almog,《萨布拉:新犹太人的创造》(加州伯克利:加州大学出版社,2000年)看到理查德•Ingersollמוניוגיתאי——וינרויב——ארכיטקטבאוהאוסבארץ——ישראל[Munio Gitai Weinraub:包豪斯建筑师在以色列Erez](特拉维夫:巴别塔,2009),页61 - 2;Tzafrir Fainholtz,“犹太农民,村庄和世界博览会:1937年巴黎国际展览会上的政治,宣传和“以色列在巴勒斯坦”馆”,摘自SHS会议网63:10004 (2019);Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett,“表演国家:1939/1940年纽约世界博览会的犹太巴勒斯坦馆”,载于《当代犹太人的艺术》,Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett和Jonathan Karp主编(宾夕法尼亚州费城:宾夕法尼亚大学出版社,2008),第98-115页;和Sigal Davidi,“所有“所有”“所有”“所有”“所有”“所有”“所有”“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”,“所有”。 8见工会会议记录:IV-250-31-240, IV 250-36-1-237, IV 250-36-1-236和IV-250-36-1-238, Pinhas Lavon劳工运动研究档案馆;“工程师联盟理事会”,哈比扬·巴米兹拉赫·哈卡罗夫,第2卷(1935年),第9页;“以色列土地工程师和建筑师联盟的活动”,哈比扬·巴米兹拉赫·哈卡罗夫,4(1935),第15页;和H.普罗姆金,“1936-1940年的四年斗争”,达瓦尔,1940年3月29日,第2.9页。另见Ines Sonders,“Julius Posener und das Neue Bauen in Palästina”,载于《现代性的转移:巴勒斯坦的建筑现代主义(1923-1948)》,由Ronny sch<e:1>勒和Jörg Stabenow编辑(柏林:Gebr)。Mann Verlag. 2019),第53-68页(第57-8页)IV 250-36-1-237, Pinhas Lavon研究所劳工运动研究档案。这些问题与两次世界大战之间欧洲关于社会住房和福利的讨论相吻合;参见Iris Graicer,《1950-1920年:从邻里到住房:1920-1950年以色列土地上劳工运动的城市定居点及其意识形态来源》(海法:Pardes, 2017),第16-7.11页,或Aleksandrowicz,《大胆的遮阳:特拉维夫的遮阳风格》(Holon: Public School Editions, 2015)汉内斯·迈耶,《建筑》,载于乌尔里希·康拉德主编的《计划与宣言》(马萨诸塞州剑桥:麻省理工学院出版社,1971年),第117-20.13页。和Aleksandrowicz,“面向太阳:德语Émigrés和以色列气候建筑设计的根源”,在中欧现代主义的设计转型犹太人和文化认同中,Elana Shapira主编(伦敦:Bloomsbury视觉艺术,2021),第253-66.14页。F. M.,“20年的建筑:一个骄傲的巴勒斯坦记录”,巴勒斯坦邮报,1940年12月12日,第4.15页Areej Sabbagh-Khoury,“追踪定居者殖民主义:以色列知识生产社会学范式的谱系”,政治与社会,50.1 (2022),44-83 (pp. 46-7)关于大英帝国的观点,见Mark Crinson,《现代建筑与帝国的终结》(伦敦:Routledge出版社,2018);Alex Bremner,《大英帝国的建筑与城市主义导论》,Alex Bremner主编(牛津:牛津大学出版社,2016),第1-15页(第7页)在这种情况下,我使用“巴勒斯坦人”一词,是指巴勒斯坦阿拉伯土著的建筑。18 Ingersoll, Munio Gitai Weinraub,第15-20、28、81、84-5页。英格索兰也承认有其他的假设;The Chug, 1932年聚集在这座城市的一群建筑师,通过竞赛和期刊推广“新建筑”,模仿德国20世纪20年代的Ring团体伊兰·诺伊曼,《阿利耶·沙龙:国家建筑师》,伊兰·诺伊曼主编(特拉维夫:现代艺术博物馆,2017年),第15、45、67.21页Efrat,《以色列计划》,第64、65-6、69.22同上,第59.23页。见Alona Nitzan-Shiftan,《有争议的犹太复国主义——另类现代主义:埃里希·门德尔森和托管巴勒斯坦的特拉维夫“Chug”》,载于海姆·雅科比主编(伦敦:Routledge出版社,2004年),第147-80页(第153、156页);和Shalom Ratzabi,在犹太复国主义和犹太教之间:Brith Shalom的激进圈子,1925-1933(波士顿,马萨诸塞州和莱顿:Brill, 2002)Todd Samuel Presner,《肌肉犹太教:犹太人的身体和再生的政治》(伦敦:Routledge出版社,2010),第157-61.25页。见Shira Pinhas,“道路,地图:从地方到跨国的巴勒斯坦分治”,《黎凡特研究杂志》,10.1(2020年夏季),111-21页;弗雷德里克·梅顿,电气巴勒斯坦:资本和技术从帝国到国家(奥克兰,加州:加州大学出版社,2019);和达芙娜·赫希,《我们来这里是为了把西方带来》,《英国托管时期巴勒斯坦犹太社会的卫生教育和文化建设》(Sde Boker:本-古里安以色列和犹太复国主义研究所,2014)。26参见Yael Allweil, Homeland:犹太复国主义作为住房制度,1860-2011(伦敦:Routledge出版社,2018),pp. 12 - 4,230 - 1;Gabriel Schwake,《停留在绿线上:以色列/巴勒斯坦的私有化与统治》(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2022),第21、31-2、63页;Gabriel Schwake,“从住房到资产,从先行者到股东:一个不断发展的前沿术语”,《城市规划》,7.1 (2022),1-13 (pp. 2-3);Ayala Levin,“输出国家建筑专业知识:Arieh Sharon在尼日利亚西部的ilife大学校园(1962-1976)”,载于《民族主义与建筑》,由Darren Deane, Sarah Butler和Raymond Quek主编(伦敦:Ashgate出版社,2017),第53-66页(p. 563)。 55);阿亚拉·莱文,《建筑与发展:以色列在撒哈拉以南非洲的建筑和定居者的殖民想象,1958-1973》(北卡罗来纳州达勒姆:杜克大学出版社,2022年),第27,37 - 9.27页,关于这种进步建筑的其他论点,见Sonders的《朱利叶斯·波塞纳》;约西·克莱因,“建筑师利奥·阿德勒和雅各布·平克菲尔德:作为政治抵抗行为的现代建筑地域主义”,载于《现代性的转移》,sch<e:1>勒和施塔贝诺主编,第225-40页;菲因霍兹《犹太农夫》;一半,“新物质性”;Martin Hershenzon,“建筑师作为公务员:Aviah Hashimshoni在20世纪60年代以色列的建筑教育和史学”,《建筑杂志》,26.2 (2021),116-46 (pp. 118-9).28见Harry Francis Mallgrave,现代建筑理论:历史调查,1673-1968(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2009),第226-9页;Kenny Cupers, ' Bodenständigkeit;《现代主义的环境认识论》,The Journal of Architecture, 21.8(2016), 1226-52.29在这篇文章中,我使用“环境”这个概念主要是为了追随Kenny Cupers、James Nisbet和Oliver Botar,来指定属于生态学前提下的东西,也就是说,对共同构成环境的身体和(活的)有机体系统的整体理解。追求发展一种分析性话语,来理解单个生物与其环境之间的相互关系。参见Cupers, ' Bodenständigkeit ',第1244页;詹姆斯·尼斯贝特,《20世纪60年代和70年代艺术中的生态、环境和能源系统》(马萨诸塞州剑桥:麻省理工学院出版社,2014年),第5-6页;Oliver A. I. Botar,“定义生物中心主义”,载于《生物中心主义与现代主义》,由Oliver A. I. Botar和Isabelle w<e:1> nsche主编(Essex: Ashgate, 2011),第15-45页(第18页,第25-6页)特别是在德国殖民协会和国土保护联盟等机构的作品中,通过保罗·费舍尔、西奥多·费舍尔和保罗·舒尔茨-诺姆伯格等人的作品;见Cupers, ' Bodenständigkeit ', pp. 1227-34.31见Mallgrave,现代建筑理论;和Harry Francis Mallgrave,“从现实主义到Sachlichkeit: 19世纪90年代建筑现代性的论战”,在Otto Wagner:反思现代性的服装,Harry Francis Mallgrave编辑(圣莫尼卡,CA:盖蒂艺术和人文历史中心,1993年)。32参见玛丽·麦克劳德,“piac<s:1>: Ferme Radieuse and Village Radieux”,载于让·路易斯·科恩主编的《勒·柯布西耶:现代地图集》(纽约:现代艺术博物馆,2013年),页185-91;Sibel Bozdoğdan,现代主义和国家建设:土耳其建筑文化在早期共和国(西雅图,华盛顿州:华盛顿大学出版社,2001年),第21页和第5章;米开朗基罗·萨巴蒂诺,《谦虚的骄傲:意大利的现代主义建筑与乡土传统》(多伦多:多伦多大学出版社,2014),第147 - 8,157页;米娅·富勒,《海外现代主义:建筑、城市与意大利帝国主义》(伦敦:劳特利奇出版社,2010);和Alan Colquhoun,“地域主义1”,收录于《建筑批评论文集》(伦敦:黑狗酒吧,2009),第287-8.33页。Bernd h<s:1> ppauf和Maiken Umbach,“介绍:乡土现代主义”,收录于Bernd h<s:2> ppauf和Maiken Umbach主编的《乡土现代主义:海玛特、全球化和建筑环境》(Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005),第12.34页。Mark Crinson,“动态乡土:介绍”,Architecture Beyond Europe, 9/10(2016), 1 - 8(第1页)参见Hollyamber Kennedy,“合法暴力”的基础设施:普鲁士定居委员会,内部殖民化和移民剩余”,《灰色房间》,76 (2019),58-97 (p. 84);Cupers, ' Bodenständigkeit ',第1244页;关于这些模型对犹太农场规划的影响,而不是对建筑的影响,见Zvi Efrat,《犹太复国主义的对象:以色列的建筑》(莱比锡:Spector Book, 2018),第28-9.36页。Cupers, ' Bodenständigkeit ',第1226页,1247 - 8.37页。和Detlef Mertins,“Hannes Meyer,德国工会学校,Bernau, 1928-30”,载于Barry Bergdoll和Leah Dickerman主编的《现代性工作坊:包豪斯,1919-1933》(纽约:MOMA, 2010),第256-65页(第259-60页)这种世界观的重建值得进一步研究二战期间意大利建筑教育、德国表现主义和法国地方主义的影响。参见Myra Warhaftig,他们奠定了基础:1918-1948年在巴勒斯坦讲德语的犹太建筑师的生活和作品(柏林:Ernst Wasmuth Verlag tbingen, 2007),第88 - 9,288,300,354页;和菲因霍兹的《犹太农民》参见Anat Helman,或ṿe-yam hiḳifuha: tarbut Tel Avivit bi-teḳufat ha- mandaha[20世纪20年代和30年代特拉维夫的城市文化](海法:海法大学出版社,2007),pp。 104 - 20、186 - 209;Shmuel Duke,分层工会:1920-1948年巴勒斯坦种族和性别不平等的案例(伦敦:Palgrave Macmillan出版社,2018),第4章和第5章;和Rakefet Sela-Sheffy,“在黎凡特的欧洲人”重访:20世纪30年代巴勒斯坦的德国犹太移民和文化保留问题”,载于德意志(s) Palästina和以色列:Alltag, Kultur, Politik, joss<s:1> Brunner主编(哥廷根:Wallstein出版社,2013),第40-59页(第44页)Roza El-Eini,强制性景观:1929-1948年英国帝国在巴勒斯坦的统治(伦敦:Routledge出版社,2015),第74 - 6,82,95,153页。《建设二十年》也与缺乏巴勒斯坦土著声音的巴勒斯坦视觉视角相对应;见Nadi Abusaada,“城市遭遇:在巴勒斯坦托管下的城市成像”,载于《成像和想象巴勒斯坦摄影,现代性和圣经镜头,1918-1948》,由Karene Sanchez-Summerer和Sary Zananiri编辑(莱顿:Brill, 2021),第359-89.41见Boaz Neumann,早期犹太复国主义的土地和欲望(特拉维夫:Am Oved, 2009),第31-2,103-4页;埃夫拉特,《犹太复国主义的对象》,第37.42页。参见格雷瑟,《来自邻里》;和Tal Alon-Mozes,“身体和灵魂的食物,希伯来-以色列城市食物景观”,《食物和城市:文化和栽培的历史》,由doroth<s:1> Imbert编辑(剑桥,马萨诸塞州:哈佛大学出版社,2015年),第55-82.43页。参见Gilbert Herbert和Ita Heinze-Greenberg,“职业解剖:英国托管期间巴勒斯坦的建筑师”,《寻找综合:建筑和规划著作选集》(海法:以色列理工学院建筑与城市规划学院建筑遗产研究中心,1997年),第149-62页;赫尔曼,《城市文化》,第26页;同样关键的是,克林森将白话文作为“民族现代性”的概念,见《动态白话文》,第4.44页。伊塔玛·伊文·佐哈尔,《多系统研究》,《今日诗学:文学与传播理论与分析国际期刊》,第11.1期(1990年),175-94.45页,等待着与英国托管专家奥托的作品进行比较Königsberger;参见Rachel Lee,“参与档案栖息地:建筑知识和奥托Königsberger的影响”,南亚,非洲和中东的比较研究,40.3(2020年12月),526-40.46参见Neumann,土地和欲望;和亨利附近,תנועהבמלכוד:איחודהקבוצותוהקיבוציםבפוליטיקה:העשורהראשון[运动悬而未决:政治活动的Ichud Hakvutzuot ve 'Hakibutzim在第一个十年,1951 - 1961](Ramat Efal:雅Tabenkin, 2013)David Remez,《我们学会了建造》,载于《建筑二十年》,由Polsky、Allweil、Dicker、Mestechkin、Freudental和Chlenov主编,第4.48页。Otto Schiller,《通过建筑进行教育》,同上,第124.49页。Arieh Sharon,《公共建筑》,同上,第116.50页。参见David Tidhar, Entsiklopedyah le-Halutse Ha-Yishuv U-vonav[以色列创始人和建设者百科全书],第4卷,第1593-4页[访问日期:2023年9月10日];Martin Hershenzon,“犹太机构开放的牛棚,以色列的第三条乡村设计,1956-68”,载于《建筑与发展:系统与全球南方的出现》,由Aggregate Architectural History Collaborative主编(伦敦:Routledge出版社,2022),第323-42页(第325-9页)另见利奥·考夫曼《工人的住房》,载于波尔斯基、奥尔韦尔、迪克、梅斯特奇金、弗罗伊登塔尔和奇列诺夫主编的《建筑二十年》,第86-94页(第87页);和J. Körner,“工人合作社,公寓和独立住宅”,同上,第95.53页安妮塔·沙皮拉,“以约瑟夫·特朗普多之名的工作旅”[以约瑟夫·特朗普多之名的工作旅],在《冲突中的愿景》(特拉维夫:Am Oved出版社,1989),第157-208.54页,事实上,在特拉维夫等城市,20世纪20年代的瓦片屋顶房屋同样被视为与基于兼并主义的新兴设计方法不相称;参见Helman,《城市文化》,第21-8.55页。Otto Schiller,《通过建筑进行教育》,载于《建筑二十年》,由Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental和Chlenov主编,第124-5页(第125页)。因此,他愿意承认环境和任务的范围,也不同于德国Heimat风格话语中更保守的立场;参见Cupers, ' Bodenständigkeit ',第1227.56页。关于席勒,参见Warhaftig,他们铺设了基础,第354-5.57页。另见I. Shlaien,“在住房方案中规划个人住宅”,载于Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental和Chlenov,第96-7.58页。席勒,“通过建筑的教育”,第124.59页。策展人包括工程师E. Polsky, Asher Allweil和建筑师Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, a . Freudental和Benyamin Chlenov。 73参见Körner,“工人合作社”\,第95页;Ingersoll, Munio Gitai Weinraub,第56页;波尔斯基、奥尔韦尔、迪克、梅斯特奇金、弗罗伊登塔尔和切列诺夫,《通过展览》,第11.75页Körner,《工人合作社》,第95.76页见考夫曼,《工人住房》,第89页;和凯塞尔曼,“农场建筑”,第121.77页。参见《以色列土地上的住房问题》,由伊娜·布里茨基-希默、恩斯特·卡恩、恩斯特·莱曼和弗里茨·纳弗塔利主编(耶路撒冷:犹太机构经济研究所,1938年),第69-73页;参见F. Naftali,“廉价工人住房的财务方面”,载于Polsky、Allweil、Dicker、Mestechkin、Freudental和Chlenov主编的《建筑二十年》,第85页;和考夫曼,《工人的住房》,第79页参见Pinkerfeld,“原始阿拉伯公寓”,载于《工程评论》(特拉维夫:巴勒斯坦的工程师、建筑师和测量师联盟,1942年),第33-6页;和J. Körner,“城市中的阿拉伯建筑”,同上,第36-8.80页。这一范式在Alon Tal的《应许之地的污染:以色列的环境史》(伯克利:加州大学出版社,2002年)中被毫无疑问地接受了,第37-8页。另见诺伊曼,《土地与欲望》,第99-104页;和Tamar Novick,“牛奶和蜂蜜:创造圣地的丰富技术,1880-1960”(未发表的博士论文,宾夕法尼亚大学,2014年),第12-8.81页。见Israel Dicker,“20年的建筑”,载于《20年的建筑》,由Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental和Chlenov编辑,第120页;约瑟夫·爱德曼,《基布兹的食堂建设》,同上,第104-5页;Josef Neufeld,《二十年的教育用途建筑规划》,同上,第108页;Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov,“Through the Exhibition”,第11页;Sharon,《公共建筑》,第115页;Dicker,“20年的建筑”,第120.83页,同上。84 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov,“Through the Exhibition”,第11页。这种相对于巴勒斯坦方言的立场是Homi Bhabha对殖民遭遇的典型分析;见Homi K. Bhabha,《拟态与人:殖民话语的矛盾心理》,1984年10月28日,125-33页;和丹尼尔·伯特兰·蒙克,“书评-包豪斯在卡梅尔和帝国的十字路口:吉尔伯特·赫伯特和西尔维娜·索斯诺夫斯基在英国托管期间在海法的建筑和规划”,AA文件,28(1994年秋),94-9.85 [Anon.],“从社会角度来看巴勒斯坦建筑”,在20年的建筑,波尔斯基,奥尔威尔,迪克,梅斯特奇金,弗罗伊登塔尔和奇列诺夫主编,第126-7.86见赫尔曼,城市文化,第105,117-12页;和Ilan Troen,想象锡安:一个世纪犹太人定居点的梦想、设计和现实(康涅狄格州纽黑文:耶鲁大学出版社,2003年),第95-101.87页。Bickels,“文化目的的建筑”,第119.88页。Eidelman,“食堂的建筑”,第104.89页。另见Neufeld,“二十年的建筑规划”,第109.90页。目录互换使用标准、类型和模型的概念;参见Graicer,《来自邻里》,第16-7.91页。Shlaien,《工人住房问题》,第104.92页。参见Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental和Chlenov,《Through the Exhibition》,第7 - 11,18 - 21页;Neufeld,《建筑规划二十年》;考夫曼,《工人的住房》;Shlaien,《个人规划》;Meiton,电气巴勒斯坦,第5-6页;Markus Reiner,“巴勒斯坦建筑”,载于《建筑二十年》,由Polsky、Allweil、Dicker、Mestechkin、Freudental和Chlenov主编;和尤金·拉特纳,“关于公共机构规划的评论”,同上,第125-6.93页。E.波尔斯基,“历史建筑的20年”,同上,第5.94页。波尔斯基,奥尔韦尔,迪克,梅斯特奇金,弗罗登塔尔和奇列诺夫,“通过展览”,第21.95页。另见尤金·拉特纳,“”[“走向原始风格”],载于《巴勒斯坦建筑年鉴1934-1935》,由Ya ' acov Ben Sira编辑(特拉维夫:Mischar Ve ' taa -asia, 1935),第34-36页。关于德国工人联盟的类似讨论,见弗雷德里克·施瓦茨,《工人联盟:第一次世界大战前的设计理论和大众文化》(纽黑文:耶鲁大学出版社,1996年),第120.96页。比克尔斯、爱德曼和赖纳在目录中表达了类似的担忧参见Shlaien,“规划个人”,第103页;施瓦茨,The Werkbund, p. 20.99 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental和Chlenov,“Through The Exhibition”,p. 9。迪克和席勒在目录中提出了类似的论点参见Yael Allweil,“帐篷:以色列/巴勒斯坦的神秘建筑,1910-2011”,《城市研究》,55页。2(2016年12月),316-31。 101 William Jordy,“20年代现代欧洲建筑的象征本质及其持续影响”,建筑历史学会杂志,22(1963年10月),177-87.102 Neumann, Land and Desire, pp. 93-5, 97.103 Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), p. 48.104 See Fuller, modernns Abroad;肯尼迪,“合法暴力的基础结构”,105页另见Julius Posener,“巴勒斯坦的村庄”,Habynian, 3.1/2(1938年8月),1.106在其他人中,对这一论述做出贡献的主要建筑师是Arieh Sharon, Artur Glikson和Emmanuel Yalan。相关奖学金广泛;见Nitzan-Shiftan,“冲突中的现代主义:1967年后耶路撒冷的建筑与文化政治”,载于《中东现代主义》,由Sandy Isenstadt和Kishwar Rizvi主编(密歇根州安娜堡:西雅图华盛顿大学出版社,2008),第161-85页;Hershenzon,《作为公务员的建筑师》107参见Allweil, Homeland,第183-4页;Allweil,《帐篷:不可思议的建筑》;和Nadi Abusaada,“巩固专家的统治:约旦河谷难民的示范村,1945-55”,国际伊斯兰建筑杂志,10.2(2021),361-85.108见Efrat, the israel Project, vol. II, p. 731;奥伦·伊夫塔切尔,《民族统治:以色列/巴勒斯坦的土地和身份政治》(费城:宾夕法尼亚大学出版社2006),第109页Arieh Sharon,《基布兹+包豪斯:新土地上的建筑师之路》(斯图加特:Karl Krämer, 1976),第110页Levin, Architecture and Development,第61页。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The environmental semantics of rural and urban architecture standards in British Mandate of Palestine, 1920–1940
AbstractThis paper analyses the 1940 exhibition catalogue, Twenty Years of Building: Workers' Settlements, Housing and Public Institutions, published by the Federation of Jewish Workers in Palestine to celebrate its twentieth anniversary. A cross-regional analysis of this publication in the context of Mandatory Palestine and its commonalities with the environmental German notion of ‘rootedness’ [Bodenständigkeit] forms the basis of this paper. It challenges previous scholarship viewing Jewish architecture as progressive, climatically adaptive, and correlating with the 1930s separatist stance of Labour Zionism vis-à-vis the Levant. It argues instead that the Federation's architects reflected a conservative agenda concerning ‘functional’ design. The paper reconstructs how their agenda adapted various rhetoric, from rooted rural buildings, colonial ruralisation, to new urban co-op environments in the 1920s and 30s. The paper also explores the historicist and settler-colonial stance of this agenda as it negotiated progressive building standards relative to the brief tradition of cooperative settlement history and indigenous Palestinian habitats. The paper, thus, identifies the environmental semantics of the Federation’s functional buildings, its structuralist logic, and its role in the legitimation of Zionist settler colonial institutions. In assessing this aesthetic-economic discourse, the paper contributes a missing prelude to the vernacularisation of post-independence development architecture in Israel. AcknowledgementsSeveral mentors and friends have contributed to the development of this essay. I wish to thank in particular David Leatherbarrow, Joan Ockman, Daniel Barber, John Tresch, Daniel Hershenzon, Ayala Levin, Nimrod Ben-Ze’ev, Keren Gorodeisky, Lior Barshack, Duffy Half, and Shani Sladowsky for their contributions in shaping its arguments. I wish also to thank the journal editor Doreen Bernath and the reviewers for their helpful critique.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.Notes1 Folder: IV-250-31-240, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive. The exhibition displayed building activities by members of the collective agricultural labour settlements [Ha’hytyashvot Ha’aovedet], which from the 1910s stood primarily for the agricultural settlements as a geographical sector. This notion was roughly distinguished from the administrative and cultural arms of a Jewish workers’ society, which was identified with the urban settlement.2 See [Anon.], ‘בתערוכה של הבנייה ההסתדרותית’ [‘At the Exhibition of the Federation Construction’], Davar, 21 November 1940, p. 4; and עשרים שנות בניה – התיישבות, שיכון ומוסדות ציבור פועלים [Twenty Years of Building: Workers’ Settlements, Housing and Public Institutions], ed. by E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov (Tel Aviv: Engineers’ Architects’ and Surveyors’ Union of Palestine, 1940).3 The 1958 exhibition celebrating the first decade of Israel’s independence was most likely of a similar scope; see Zvi Efrat, The Israeli Project: Building and Architecture, 1948–1973, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum of Art, 2004), p. 20.4 See Zvi Elhyani, ‘Multi-Contextual Approaches to Architectural Archiving: Knowledge Restoration for the Historiography of Israeli Architecture’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, The Technion, 2014), pp. 18–23; and Duffy Half, ‘A New Materiality in Praise of the Ordinary, in Palestine-Israel, c. 1940–66’, Architectural Research Quarterly, 23.1 (2019), 47–62 .5 Oz Almog, The Sabra: The Creation of the New Jew (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).6 See Richard Ingersoll, מוניו גיתאי-וינרויב – ארכיטקט באוהאוס בארץ-ישראל [Munio Gitai Weinraub: Bauhaus Architect in Erez Israel] (Tel Aviv: Babel, 2009), pp. 61–2; Tzafrir Fainholtz, ‘The Jewish Farmer, the Village and the World Fair: Politics, Propaganda, and the “Israel in Palestine” Pavilion at the Paris International Exhibition of 1937’, retrieved from SHS Web of Conferences 63: 10004 (2019) ; Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, ‘Performing the State: The Jewish Palestine Pavilion at the New York World's Fair, 1939/1940’, in The Art of Being Jewish in Modern Times, ed. by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett and Jonathan Karp (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 98–115; and Sigal Davidi, ‘״האדריכלות החדשה״ ביריד המזרח ,1934 הבניית זהות ליישוב היהודי’ [‘The “New Architecture” of the 1934 Levant Fair: The Creation of an Identity for the Jewish Society’], Israel: Studies in Zionism and the State of Israel, History, Society, Culture, 24 (2016), 163–90.7 IV 208-1-1771A, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive.8 See the Union meeting minutes: IV-250-31-240, IV 250-36-1-237, IV 250-36-1-236, and IV-250-36-1-238, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive; ‘The Council of the Union of and Engineer’, Habinyan Bamizrach Hakarov, 2 (1935), p. 9; ‘From the Activities of the Union of Engineers and Architects in Eretz Israel’, Habinyan Bamizrach Hakarov, 4 (1935), 15; and H. Promkin, ‘ארבע שנות מאבק, 1936-1940’ [‘Four Years of Struggle, 1936–1940’], Davar, 29 March 1940, p. 2.9 See also Ines Sonders, ‘Julius Posener und das Neue Bauen in Palästina’, in The Transfer of Modernity: Architectural Modernism in Palestine (1923–1948), ed. by Ronny Schüler and Jörg Stabenow (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. 2019), pp. 53–68 (pp. 57–8).10 IV 250-36-1-237, the Pinhas Lavon Institute for Labour Movement Research Archive. These matters corresponded with interwar discussions in Europe on social housing and welfare; see Iris Graicer, מהשכונה אל השיכון: ההתיישבות העירונית של הפועלים בארץ-ישראל ושורשיה הרעיוניים, 1950-1920 [From Neighborhood to Housing Estate: The Urban Settlement of the Labor Movement in the Land of Israel and its Ideological Sources, 1920–1950] (Haifa: Pardes, 2017), pp. 16–7.11 Or Aleksandrowicz, Daring the Shutter: The Tel Aviv Idiom of Solar Protections (Holon: Public School Editions, 2015).12 Hannes Meyer, ‘Building’, in Programs and Manifestos, ed. by Ulrich Conrads (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), pp. 117–20.13 See Aleksandrowicz, Daring the Shutter; and Aleksandrowicz, ‘Facing the Sun: German-Speaking Émigrés and the Roots of Israeli Climatic Building Design’, in Designing Transformation Jews and Cultural Identity in Central European Modernism, ed. by Elana Shapira (London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2021), pp. 253–66.14 Th. F. M., ‘Twenty Years of Building: A Proud Palestinian Record’, The Palestine Post, 12 December 1940, p. 4.15 Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, ‘Tracing Settler Colonialism: A Genealogy of a Paradigm in the Sociology of Knowledge Production in Israel’, Politics & Society, 50.1 (2022), 44–83 (pp. 46–7).16 For British Imperial perspectives, see Mark Crinson, Modern Architecture and the End of Empire (London: Routledge, 2018); and Alex Bremner, ‘Introduction’, in Architecture and Urbanism in the British Empire, ed. by Alex Bremner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 1–15 (p. 7).17 By employing the term Palestinian in this context, I refer specifically to constructions of indigenous Palestinian Arabs.18 Ingersoll, Munio Gitai Weinraub, pp. 15–20, 28, 81, 84–5. Ingersoll acknowledges also alternative assumptions; see ibid., pp. 20, 153.19 The Chug, a group of architects that gathered in the city in 1932 and promoted ‘new architecture’ through competitions and a journal, emulating the German 1920s Ring group.20 Eran Neuman, אריה שרון: אדריכל המדינה [Arieh Sharon: The State Architect], ed. by Eran Neuman (Tel Aviv: Museum of Modern Art, 2017), pp. 15, 45, 67.21 Efrat, The Israeli Project, pp. 64, 65–6, 69.22 Ibid., p. 59.23 See Alona Nitzan-Shiftan, ‘Contested Zionism – Alternative Modernism: Erich Mendelsohn and the Tel Aviv “Chug” in Mandate Palestine’, in Constructing a Sense of Place: Architecture and the Zionist Discourse, ed. by Haim Yacobi (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 147–80 (p. 153, 156); and Shalom Ratzabi, Between Zionism and Judaism: The Radical Circle in Brith Shalom, 1925–1933 (Boston, MA, and Leiden: Brill, 2002).24 Todd Samuel Presner, Muscular Judaism: The Jewish Body and the Politics of Regeneration (London: Routledge, 2010), pp. 157–61.25 See, among others, Shira Pinhas, ‘Road, Map: Partition in Palestine from the Local to the Transnational’, Journal of Levantine Studies, 10.1 (Summer 2020), 111–21; Fredrik Meiton, Electrical Palestine: Capital and Technology from Empire to Nation (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019); and Dafna Hirsch,באנו הנה להביא את המערב – הנחלת היגיינה ובניית תרבות בחברה היהודית בתקופת המנדט [‘We Are Here to Bring the West': Hygiene Education and Culture Building in the Jewish Society of Palestine during the British Mandate Period] (Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Research Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism, 2014).26 See Yael Allweil, Homeland: Zionism as Housing Regime, 1860–2011 (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 12–4, 230–1; Gabriel Schwake, Dwelling on the Green Line: Privatize and Rule in Israel/Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), pp. 21, 31–2, 63; Gabriel Schwake, ‘From Homes to Assets and from Pioneers to Shareholders: An Evolving Frontier Terminology’, Urban Planning, 7.1 (2022), 1–13 (pp. 2–3); Ayala Levin, ‘Exporting Architectural National Expertise: Arieh Sharon’s Ile-Ife University Campus in West-Nigeria (1962–1976)’, in Nationalism and Architecture, ed. by Darren Deane, Sarah Butler, and Raymond Quek (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2017), pp. 53–66 (p. 55); and Ayala Levin, Architecture and Development: Israeli Construction in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Settler Colonial Imagination, 1958–1973 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2022), pp. 27, 37–9.27 For alternative arguments on this progressive architecture, see Sonders ‘Julius Posener’; Yossi Klein, ‘The Architects Leo Adler and Jacob Pinkerfeld: Modern Architectural Regionalism as an Act of Political Resistance’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 225–40; Fainholtz ‘The Jewish Farmer’; Half, ‘A New Materiality’; and Martin Hershenzon, ‘The Architect as Civil Servant: Aviah Hashimshoni’s Architecture Education and Historiography in 1960s Israel’, The Journal of Architecture, 26.2 (2021), 116–46 (pp. 118–9).28 See Harry Francis Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673–1968 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009), pp. 226–9; and Kenny Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit: The Environmental Epistemology of Modernism’, The Journal of Architecture, 21.8 (2016), 1226–52.29 In this article, my use of the notion ‘environmental’ is primarily used, following Kenny Cupers, James Nisbet, and Oliver Botar, to designate that which falls under the premises of ecology, that is, a holistic understanding of the system of bodies and (living) organisms that together form the environment, and a pursuit to develop an analytical discourse that comes to terms with inter-relations between single organisms and their environments. See Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p.1244; James Nisbet, Ecologies, Environments and Energy Systems in the Art of the 1960s and 1970s (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014), pp. 5–6; and Oliver A. I. Botar, ‘Defining Biocentrism’, in Biocentrism and Modernism, ed. by Oliver A. I. Botar and Isabelle Wünsche (Essex: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 15–45 (pp. 18, 25–6).30 In particular, in the works of institutions such as the German Colonial Society and the Homeland Protection League and through figures such as Paul Fischer, Theodor Fischer and Paul Schultze-Naumburg among others; see Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, pp. 1227–34.31 See Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory; and Harry Francis Mallgrave, ‘From Realism to Sachlichkeit: The Polemics of Architectural Modernity in the 1890s’, in Otto Wagner: Reflections on the Raiment of Modernity, ed. by Harry Francis Mallgrave (Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1993).32 See Mary McLeod, ‘Piacé: Ferme Radieuse and Village Radieux’, in Le Corbusier: An Atlas of Modern, ed. by Jean Louis Cohen (New York: MOMA, 2013), pp. 185–91; Sibel Bozdoğdan, Modernism and Nation Building: Turkish Architectural Culture in the Early Republic (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2001), p. 21 and chapter 5; Michelangelo Sabatino, Pride in Modesty: Modernist Architecture and the Vernacular Tradition in Italy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014), pp. 147–8, 157; Mia Fuller, Moderns Abroad: Architecture, Cities and Italian Imperialism (London: Routledge, 2010); and Alan Colquhoun, ‘Regionalism 1’, in Collected Essays in Architectural Criticism (London: Black Dog Pub, 2009), pp. 287–8.33 Bernd Hüppauf and Maiken Umbach, ‘Introduction: Vernacular Modernism’, in Vernacular Modernism: Heimat, Globalization and the Built Environment, ed. by Bernd Hüppauf and Maiken Umbach (Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), p. 12.34 Mark Crinson, ‘Dynamic Vernacular: An Introduction’, Architecture Beyond Europe, 9/10 (2016), 1–8 (p. 1).35 See Hollyamber Kennedy, ‘Infrastructures of “Legitimate Violence”: The Prussian Settlement Commission, Internal Colonization, and the Migrant Remainder’, in Grey Room, 76 (2019), 58–97 (p. 84); Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p. 1244; and on the influences these models had on Jewish farm planning, rather than architecture, see Zvi Efrat, The Object of Zionism: Architecture of Israel (Leipzig: Spector Book, 2018), pp. 28–9.36 Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, pp. 1226, 1247–8.37 See ibid., p. 1247; and Detlef Mertins, ‘Hannes Meyer, German Trade Unions School, Bernau, 1928–30’, in Workshops for Modernity: Bauhaus, 1919–1933, ed. by Barry Bergdoll and Leah Dickerman (New York: MOMA, 2010), pp. 256–65 (pp. 259–60).38 The reconstruction of this worldview merits further investigation regarding the influences of interwar Italian architecture education, German expressionism, and French regionalism. See Myra Warhaftig, They Laid the Foundation: Lives and Works of German-Speaking Jewish Architects in Palestine 1918–1948 (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen, 2007), pp. 88–9, 288, 300, 354; and Fainholtz, ‘The Jewish Farmer’.39 See Anat Helman, Or ṿe-yam hiḳifuha: tarbut Tel Avivit bi-teḳufat ha-Mandaṭ [Urban Culture in 1920s and 1930s Tel Aviv] (Haifa: Haifa University Press, 2007), pp. 104–20, 186–209; Shmuel Duke, The Stratifying Trade Union: The Case of Ethnic and Gender Inequality in Palestine, 1920–1948 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), chapters 4 and 5; and Rakefet Sela-Sheffy, ‘“Europeans in the Levant” Revisited: German Jewish Immigrants in 1930s Palestine and the Question of Culture Retention’, in Deutsche(s) in Palästina und Israel: Alltag, Kultur, Politik, ed. by José Brunner (Goettingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2013), pp. 40–59 (p. 44).40 Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine, 1929–1948 (London: Routledge, 2015), pp. 74–6, 82, 95, 153. Twenty Years of Building also corresponds with visual perspectives on Palestine that were devoid of Indigenous Palestinian voices; see Nadi Abusaada, ‘Urban Encounters: Imaging the City in Mandate Palestine’, in Imaging and Imagining Palestine Photography, Modernity and the Biblical Lens, 1918–1948, ed. by Karene Sanchez-Summerer and Sary Zananiri (Leiden: Brill, 2021), pp. 359–89.41 See Boaz Neumann, Land and Desire in Early Zionism (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2009), pp. 31–2, 103–4; and Efrat, The Object of Zionism, p. 37.42 See Graicer, From Neighborhood; and Tal Alon-Mozes, ‘Food for the Body and the Soul, Hebrew-Israeli Urban Foodscapes’, in Food and the City: Histories of Culture and Cultivation, ed. by Dorothée Imbert (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), pp. 55–82.43 See Gilbert Herbert and Ita Heinze-Greenberg, ‘The Anatomy of a Profession: Architects in Palestine During the British Mandate’, in The Search for Synthesis: Selected Writings on Architecture and Planning (Haifa: Architectural Heritage Research Centre, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion, 1997), pp. 149–62; Helman, Urban Culture, p. 26; also key here is Crinson’s notion of vernacularism as ‘demotic modernity’, in ‘Dynamic Vernacular’, p. 4.44 Itamar Even Zohar, ‘Polysystem Studies’, Poetics Today: International Journal for Theory and Analysis of Literature and Communication, 11.1 (1990), 175–94.45 A comparison with the work of British Mandate expert Otto Königsberger is awaiting; see Rachel Lee, ‘Engaging the Archival Habitat: Architectural Knowledge and Otto Königsberger's Effects’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 40.3 (December 2020), 526–40.46 See Neumann, Land and Desire; and Henry Near, תנועה במלכוד: איחוד הקבוצות והקיבוצים בפוליטיקה: העשור הראשון [Movement in Abeyance: The Political Activity of Ichud Hakvutzuot ve’Hakibutzim in the First Decade, 1951–1961] (Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin, 2013).47 David Remez, ‘And We Learned to Build’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 4.48 Otto Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, in ibid., p. 124.49 Arieh Sharon, ‘Public Buildings’, in ibid., p. 116.50 See David Tidhar, Entsiklopedyah le-Halutse Ha-Yishuv U-vonav [Encyclopaedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel], vol. 4, pp. 1593–4 [accessed 10 September 2023]; and Graicer, From Neighborhood, pp. 33–4.51 Martin Hershenzon, ‘The Jewish Agency Open Cowshed, Israeli Third Way Rural Design, 1956–68’, in Architecture and Development: Systems and the Emergence of the Global South, ed. by Aggregate Architectural History Collaborative (London: Routledge, 2022), pp. 323–42 (pp. 325–9).52 See also Leo Kaufman ‘Workers’ Housing’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 86–94 (p. 87); and J. Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-op, Flats and Individual Detached Houses’, in ibid., p. 95.53 Anita Shapira, ‘גדוד העבודה על שם יוסף טרומפלדור’ [‘The Work Brigade in the Name of Joseph Trumpeldor’], in ההליכה על קו האופק [Visions in Conflict] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1989), pp. 157–208.54 In fact, 1920s houses with tiled roofs in cities such as Tel Aviv were equally viewed as being out of place relative to an emerging design approach that was based on eclecticism; see Helman, Urban Culture, pp. 21–8.55 Otto Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 124–5 (p. 125). His willingness to acknowledge a scope of settings and tasks was, thus, also distinct from the more conservative stances in German Heimat style discourse; see Cupers, ‘Bodenständigkeit’, p. 1227.56 On Schiller, see Warhaftig, They Laid the Foundation, pp. 354–5.57 See also I. Shlaien,’Planning the Individual Dwelling in a Housing Scheme’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 96–7.58 Schiller, ‘Education Through Building’, p. 124.59 The curators included engineers E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, and the architects Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov.60 In the group Israel Dicker was experienced in editing and writing through his work for Habinjan Bamisrah Hakarov magazine; see Ronny Schüler, ‘The Transfer of Media Strategies: Habinjan Bamisrah Hakarov’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 181–203. On Mestechkin, a Bauhaus disciple who returned to Palestine in 1934 and joined in 1943 the National Kibbutz movement, becoming the movement’s head architect, see Yuval Daniyeli and Muki Tsur, לבנות ולהיבנות בה – ספר שמואל מסטצ׳קין אדריכלות הקיבוץ בישראל [To Build and to be Built – Shmuel Mestechkin’s Book: The Architecture of the Kibbutz ] (Tel Aviv: Ha-Ḳibuts Ha-me'uḥad, 2008). On Chelenov, who was trained at the École de Beaux Arts in Paris and worked for two short periods in Le Corbusier’s studio in Paris before settling in Palestine, see Tzafrir Fainholtz, ‘לה קורבוזיה והתנועה הציונית’ [‘Le Corbusier and the Zionist movement’] (unpublished doctoral thesis, The Technion, 2013), pp. 288–9. Asher Alweill became a leading engineer in the pre- and post-independence period; see Or Aleksandrowicz, ‘The Other Side of Climate: The Unscientific Nature of Climatic Architectural Design in Israel’, in Israel as a Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948–1978, ed. by Inbal Ben-Asher Gitler and Anat Geva (Bristol: Intellect, 2020), pp. 277–303. I did not trace information on A. Freudental nor on the division of the editorial work among these figures.61 The notion of type served extensively in essays in the Habinyan magazine during the second half of the 1930s; see Frederick J. Schwartz, The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass Culture Before the First World War (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 124–46; and Wolfgang Pehnt, Expressionist Architecture (New York: Praeger, 1973), pp. 67–8.62 E. Polsky, Asher Allweil, Israel Dicker, Shmuel Mestechkin, A. Freudental, and Benyamin Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 21, 24.63 Ibid., p. 55. See also Josef Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of the Construction of Educational Institutions in Eretz Israel’, in ibid., pp. 108–9; Shmuel Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, in ibid., pp. 118–9; A. Polatchek, ‘Some Aesthetic Problems’, in ibid., pp. 120–1. For the history of the buildings represented in figures 8, 9, and 10, see Michael Jacobson, ‘Tour in the Cultural House of Kibbutz Ashdot Yaacov Ichud’, in חלון אחורי, ארכיטקטורה ואידיאולוגיה בדיסנילנד מקומי [‘Rear Window, Architecture and Ideology in the Local Disneyland’], 29 December 2021 [accessed 1 October 2022]; Eli Alon, ‘The historical “Cultural House” in Merchavia has Turned into a laundry’, News1 First Class, 13 July 2017 [accessed 1 October 2022]; and Michael Jacobson, ‘Tour in the Gordon House, Kvutzat Dgania A’, in ‘Rear Window’, 22 February 2022 [accessed 8 May 2022].64 See John Ruskin, ‘The Lamp of Sacrifice’, in The Seven Lamps of Architecture (London: George Allen, 1903); and Adolf Loos, ‘Architecture’, in Spoken into the Void: Collected Essays by Adolf Loos, 1897–1900 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989).65 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 29. Other authors also chastised urban ostentation, see Asher Alweill, ‘Structural Problems of kibbutz Dinning Halls’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 106–7; and Arieh Sharon, ‘Public Buildings in Palestine’, in ibid., pp. 115–7 (p. 115). For Loos’ influence on architecture in Mandatory Palestine, see Ines Weizman, ‘Adolf Loos in Palestine’, in The Transfer of Modernity, ed. by Schüler and Stabenow, pp. 83–100.66 See Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 7; and [Anon.], ‘מחנות פועלים – המחלקה הטכנית של הסוכנות היהודית לארץ-ישראל’ [‘Workers’ Camps: The Technical Department of the Jewish Agency’], in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 71–2.67 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 9.68 Ibid.69 Jacob Pinkerfeld. ‘Problems of Buildings for Cultural Purposes in the Kibbutz’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 119–20 (p. 119).70 Raanan Weitz, הכפר הישראלי בעידן הטכנולוגיה [The Israeli Village in the Age of Technology] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1967), pp. 65–6.71 See David Remez, ‘Preface’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 4; Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 7; and Körner, ‘Workers Co-ops’, p. 95. For an alternative argument on the cowshed, see Moshe Kesselman, ‘Farm Buildings’, in ibid., pp. 121–2.72 See Pinkerfeld, ‘Problems of Buildings’; and Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, p. 117.73 See Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-ops’\, p. 95; Ingersoll, Munio Gitai Weinraub, p. 56; and Allweil, Homeland, p. 157.74 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 11.75 Körner, ‘Workers’ Co-ops’, p. 95.76 See Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’, p. 89; and Kesselman, ‘Farm Buildings’, p. 121.77 See בעיות השיכון בארץ-ישראל [Housing Problems in Eretz Israel], ed. by Ina Britschgi-Schimmer, Ernst Kahn, Ernst Lehmann, and Fritz Naphtali (Jerusalem: Economic Research Institute of the Jewish Agency, 1938), pp. 69–73; and Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape, p. 95.78 See F. Naftali, ‘The Financial Aspect of Cheap Workers’ Housing’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 85; and Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’.79 See also Pinkerfeld, ‘The Primitive Arab Apartment’, in Engineering Review (Tel-Aviv: Engineers’ Architects’ and Surveyors’ Union of Palestine, 1942), pp. 33–6; and J. Körner, ‘The Arab Construction in the City’, in ibid., pp. 36–8.80 This paradigm has been unproblematically accepted in Alon Tal, Pollution in a Promised Land: An Environmental History of Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), pp. 37–8. Also see Neumann, Land and Desire, pp. 99–104; and Tamar Novick, ‘Milk and Honey: Technologies of Plenty in the Making of a Holy Land, 1880–1960’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2014), pp. 12–8.81 See Israel Dicker, ‘20 Years of Building’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, p. 120; Josef Eidelman, ‘The Building of Dinning Halls in Kibbutzim’, in ibid., pp. 104–5; Josef Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings for Educational Purposes’, in ibid., p. 108; Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p .11; Sharon, ‘Public Buildings’, p. 115; and Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, pp. 117–9.82 Dicker, ‘20 Years of Building’, p. 120.83 Ibid.84 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 11. Such positions relative to the Palestinian vernacular are typical of Homi Bhabha’s analysis of the colonial encounter; see Homi K. Bhabha, ‘Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse’, October, 28 (1984), 125–33; and Daniel Bertrand Monk, ‘Book Review – Bauhaus on the Carmel and the Crossroads of Empire: Architecture and Planning in Haifa During the British Mandate by Gilbert Herbert and Silvina Sosnovsky’, AA Files, 28 (Autumn 1994), 94–9.85 [Anon.], ‘Palestine Architecture from a Social Point of View’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, pp. 126–7.86 See Helman, Urban Culture, pp. 105, 117–12; and Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion: Dreams, Designs, and Realities in a Century of Jewish Settlement (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), pp. 95–101.87 Bickels, ‘Buildings for Cultural Purposes’, p. 119.88 Eidelman, ‘The Building of Dining Hall’, p. 104.89 See also Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings’, p. 109.90 The catalogue used the notions of standards, types, and models interchangeably; see also Graicer, From Neighborhood, pp. 16–7.91 Shlaien, ‘Problems of Workers Housing’, p. 104.92 See Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, pp. 7–11, 18–21; Neufeld, ‘Twenty Years of Planning Buildings’; Kaufman, ‘Workers’ Housing’; Shlaien, ‘Planning the Individual’; Meiton, Electrical Palestine, p. 5–6; Markus Reiner, ‘Palestine Architecture’, in Twenty Years of Building, ed. by Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov; and Eugene Ratner, ‘Remarks on the Planning of Public Institutions’, in ibid., pp. 125–6.93 E. Polsky, ‘20 Years of Histadrut Building’, in ibid., p. 5.94 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 21.95 See also Eugene Ratner, ‘לקראת הסגנון המקורי‘ [‘Towards an Original Style’], in Palestine Building Annual 1934–1935, ed. by Ya’acov Ben Sira (Tel Aviv: Mischar Ve’ta-asia, 1935), pp. 34–36. For analogous discussions in the German Werkbund, see Frederic Schwartz, The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass Culture Before the First World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), p. 120.96 Schiller, ‘Education Through’, p. 125; Bickels, Eidelman, and Reiner voiced similar concerns in the catalogue.97 See Shlaien, ‘Planning the Individual’, p. 103; and Reiner, ‘Palestine Architecture’, p. 124.98 Schwartz, The Werkbund, p. 20.99 Polsky, Allweil, Dicker, Mestechkin, Freudental, and Chlenov, ‘Through the Exhibition’, p. 9. Dicker and Schiller advanced similar arguments in the catalogue.100 See also Yael Allweil, ‘Tent: Uncanny Architecture of Agonism for Israel/Palestine, 1910–2011’, Urban Studies, 55. 2 (December 2016), 316–31.101 William Jordy, ‘The Symbolic Essence of Modern European Architecture of the Twenties and Its Continuing Influence’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 22 (October 1963), 177–87.102 Neumann, Land and Desire, pp. 93–5, 97.103 Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), p. 48.104 See Fuller, Moderns Abroad; and Kennedy, ‘Infrastructures of “Legitimate Violence”’.105 See also Julius Posener, ‘Villages in Palestine’, Habynian, 3.1/2 (August 1938), 1.106 Among others, key architects who contributed to this discourse were Arieh Sharon, Artur Glikson, and Emmanuel Yalan. The related scholarship is extensive; see Nitzan-Shiftan, ‘Modernisms in Conflict: Architecture and Cultural Politics in Post-1967 Jerusalem’, in Modernism in the Middle East, ed. by Sandy Isenstadt and Kishwar Rizvi (Ann Arbor, MI: Seattle University of Washington Press, 2008), pp. 161–85; and Hershenzon, ‘The Architect as Civil Servant’.107 See Allweil, Homeland, pp. 183–4; Allweil, ‘Tent: Uncanny Architecture’; and Nadi Abusaada, ‘Consolidating the Rule of Experts: A Model Village for Refugees in the Jordan Valley, 1945–55’, International Journal of Islamic Architecture, 10.2 (2021), 361–85.108 See Efrat, The Israeli Project, vol. II, p. 731; and Oren Yiftachel, Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2006).109 Arieh Sharon, Kibbutz + Bauhaus: An Architect’s Way in a New Land (Stuttgart: Karl Krämer, 1976).110 Levin, Architecture and Development, p. 61.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Architecture
Journal of Architecture ARCHITECTURE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Journal of Architecture is published by Routledge, an imprint of Taylor & Francis, for the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). Since its launch in 1996 The Journal of Architecture has become widely recognised as one of the foremost peer-reviewed architecture journals internationally. The Journal of Architecture is now published eight times a year, comprising both guest-edited special issues, as well as open issues. The Journal of Architecture has become renowned for publishing texts in the architectural humanities. The editors also strongly encourage submissions from all areas of architectural research, including urbanism, research-by-design, practice-related research, technology, sustainability, pedagogy, visual culture and artistic practices. In addition to peer-reviewed articles, The Journal of Architecture publishes essays on a wide range of topical issues of relevance to the discipline and practice of architecture, together with reviews of books, exhibitions and multimedia. The Journal of Architecture publishes contributions from and about a wide range of locations for a global readership. Its Editorial Board is enhanced by regional editors in around twenty countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信