professional transcripts, construction work, watercolor paintings, graduation photos... These historical materials left by the first batch of Chinese architects who graduated from Penn University are distributed in the exhibition space on the fifth floor of the museum. These objects in the first chapter of the exhibition reproduce the study experiences of founders of modern Chinese architecture such as Liang Sicheng , Lin Huiyin , Chen Zhi, and also represent the dialogue they used architecture to have with that era. This group of architects received "Buza" education at Penn. This educational system originated from , the Paris Academy of Fine Arts, , absorbed classical traditions, and emphasized the basic training in architectural structure and architectural painting, with both technology and art. In France in the 16th century, the architects trained by "Buza" brought magnificent buildings to the city. Four centuries later, the first batch of Chinese architects brought them back to China and used architecture to respond to the changes of the times. Chinese architecture began to be "public" and assumed the responsibilities of supporting and educating.
Exhibition site
For the first batch of Chinese architects who graduated from Penn, how to apply the knowledge they have learned to Chinese cities that are undergoing change is a question they have been exploring throughout their lives. Tong Ming believes that the so-called "modernity" is not an external form, nor is it just a classification in the dimension of time, but a response to the current society. From this point of view, the buildings left by the first generation of Chinese architects who entered the modern era are already very "modern". On the other hand, Chinese urban buildings are often trapped in blind pursuit of external forms or "copying" foreign buildings. In a previous interview, talking about contemporary Chinese urban architecture, Tong Ming once quoted Duchamp's words to discuss contemporary architecture, "These chess pieces themselves are not good-looking, but what looks good is the form of chess." For architecture, the way of thinking behind it is "the real wonderful place", and this way of thinking is based on understanding of the current social background and the roots of local architecture. The second chapter of the exhibition
presents the classic works left by this group of architects in Shanghai, including the Great Shanghai Grand Theater, the Maggie Grand Theater , etc. Through the drawings and old photos, we can see the changes in Shanghai's cities and the responses of the architects from the early 1920s to the "Resistance Against Japan".
China's first generation architect: "Awakening" in the face of social change
Lin Huiyin's graduation photo Source: University of Pennsylvania Archives, February 24, 1927.
The Paper: Regarding the exhibition theme "Awakening Modernity", how to define the beginning of modern Chinese architecture?
Tong Ming: The "modernity" mentioned here is a bit different from what we usually understand. We generally regard "modernity" as a historical stage or a node of time. In this exhibition, "modern" refers to this moment at this moment. If we look at it from this point of view, it does not mean that we entered "modernity" only after the 20th century, but in fact, "modernity" has always existed. The ancients also had problems with their modernity. If it is "translated" into architecture, the so-called modern architecture is a current existence related to our overall social life background at this moment.Architecture is actually a kind of translation, and it has to condense various backgrounds, the flow of life, and perception into a concrete result. This is an art, and poetry, movies, music, and paintings are all like this.
This "modernity" is a multi-faceted word. For the "first generation of Chinese architects", after studying abroad, they opened their horizons and learned a lot of new things. Then, after returning to China, they faced the development of Chinese cities and the germination of urban modernization, and developed thoughts and responses. We are also facing this pattern today. In the past twenty or thirty years, the world we live in has undergone many changes. How architecture responds to this matter as a human language of thinking and then forms a concrete and realistic result. This is a topic we are talking about modern architecture.
However, there is indeed another topic about "modernity", which is the issue of time period. We call the theme of this exhibition "China's first generation architects", and we can think that they represent the beginning of modern Chinese architecture, that is, what they are doing is completely different from the past. In the past Chinese society or cities, those who engaged in construction were basically craftsmen, not those who were engaged in architecture in the current sense. Not only did this group of people who came to Penn, but in fact, in the early 20th century, there were about 100 students who went to Europe, the United States and Japan to study architecture. They brought this concept and system back to China and then gradually established and developed. If we put it in a broader world, it is related to the development of the entire era and society. Because in the early 20th century, cities like Shanghai had actually begun to enter the process of modernization, and it formed a different pattern from the past, including modern economy and modern industries. Therefore, it will have a large demand for urban construction. For example, banks or office buildings were something that the craftsman system could not cope with in the past. At the same time, there are technical challenges. New construction technology has also developed and formed. It requires a system to complete this work, which can no longer be completed by a master and an apprentice. We can call this system a modern architectural design system, which contains a lot of division of labor and cooperation and extensive connection with society. It has to face new challenges at all times, and the past craftsman system followed the tradition, which is a big change.
Therefore, the beginning of this modern architecture is actually described by this node, so it is mainly reflected in two aspects. The first is that the entire era of building construction has changed. It faces the modern urban background and various changes. The second is that the working method has changed, which is reflected in the difference between modern factories and traditional handicrafts.
Chinese students at the University of Pennsylvania, second left: Lin Huiyin; first right: Chen Zhi. Photo provided by Chen Zhi's family.
The Paper: What does "awakening" specifically represent?
Tong Ming: On the one hand, the entire historical process is facing changes completely different from those of the previous era. On the other hand, we can return to the issue of "modernity" mentioned at the beginning: When you are in the middle of this drastic change in the times, your awareness of the present will appear very strong, and your cognition and habits are challenged, so you need to find your own positioning or cognition.
So, for the first generation of Chinese architects, there are two aspects to summarize: First, they must find appropriate ways to deal with the challenges of the times at the technical level. Second, who are “we” in this process? What is Chinese architecture? A kind of awakening of self-awareness is also gradually formed in this process.
The exhibition depicts a professional turning point on the one hand, and on the other hand, it also depicts the changes that took place in our city in that era: it is a deep creeping to the superficial waves, all of which have a very complete system.
The Paper: What is the roughly the time span of the development of Chinese architecture presented by the exhibition? What are the characteristics of architectural development during this period?
Tong Ming: The theme of the exhibition is this group of Chinese first-generation architects who graduated from Pennsylvania, so the time span is consistent with their growth experience.Most of them were born in the late 19th century to the early 20th century, and they lived across the 20th century. This is very interesting. This is not just a study of character, but actually a study of the era: What exactly happened in China in the 20th century? In the context, what is the development of architecture?
Overall, most Chinese cities in the 20th century have become modern cities, and both urban planning and architectural design have completed a historic turning point. To put it in detail, I think there have been two major turning points in the 20th century for the entire Chinese society. The first major turning point was the replacement of the Qing Dynasty and the May Fourth Movement. Until the "War of Resistance Against Japan", that is, China began to integrate into the world from its closed state. The second turning point is the tremendous changes and development since the 1980s and 1990s. So this is two openings.
In fact, what our exhibition explains is the previous stage, which is from the 1910s to 1937, and after that, national construction or people's livelihood development came to a standstill. The core theme presented in the exhibition is this era, from the May Fourth Movement to the eve of the Anti-Japanese War, this stage is also the growth stage of this group of "first generation architects". Many of them started to study in China during the May Fourth Movement, and then went abroad to study abroad. After studying architecture, they started working, and experienced the development of the city, such as Shanghai. So this is a very special and concentrated time node. What are the characteristics of architectural development during this period? We can say that it is a comprehensive, from scratch to something.
Chinese students are at the University of Pennsylvania, with the first left in the front row: Wang Huabin; the first right in the front row: Ha Xiongwen. Photo provided by Ha Xiongwen's family.
The Paper: The first chapter of the exhibition starts with the "Buza Education" in the Department of Architecture of the University of Pennsylvania, USA. What kind of education system is this? What impact has such an educational system had on Chinese architecture through these architects who returned from studying abroad?
Tong Ming: "Buza" comes from the French "Beaux-Arts", which actually means fine art and art. This system can be traced back to the 16th century France, when it faced the same pattern as China faced in the early 20th century: on the one hand, various undertakings were emerging, and on the other hand, the environment you were in was still old, an environment formed by an early craftsman system or a low-level living state. Why use art to deal with this problem? Because it is actually a transformation of the entire society, not only economic development, but also people with lower living standards should support and educate them. Therefore, it needs to be solved through art. The earliest source of contemporary art can be traced back to the Renaissance, which mainly bears a responsibility for social communication.
Defining architecture from an artistic perspective, the meaning of architecture will be very different. In the past, buildings did not have public roles. If you build a house, you would not think about what effect or impact it would have on other citizens. But once the public sphere of society begins to appear, such issues will arise. Therefore, France's art system at that time and the entire "buza" training system were constructed with the support of the country. This is an institution established by the state to cultivate talents in architecture, sculpture, painting, and music. After the talent was cultivated, it was applied to various national projects, such as the many magnificent opera houses, churches or parliamentary halls that can still be seen in Paris today.
In architecture, "buza" eventually condenses into a mature architectural education method system, that is, it is not to cultivate architects like craftsmen, but like modern education - its knowledge can be disseminated. The experience of craftsmen cannot be disseminated to a large extent and can only be passed on through masters and apprentices. However, modern education is a classroom where knowledge can be imparted and open and public.The "Buza" system originated from France and then developed and matured. In the 19th century, this system had a huge impact and role in the construction of the entire French country. For example, Paris was formed in that era, and the development of French cities and buildings spread to most cities in Europe and the United States. The formation of "Buza" in the United States was about 50 years later than that in France, and began to reach its peak in the late 19th century. A large number of Americans went to France to study architecture. After they returned to the United States, they promoted the great development of the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Washington, New York, and Boston we see today are actually formed in that era.
So these Chinese architects only started to study architecture in the United States after 1910, so when they went there it was the peak period of the development of the United States along the "Buza" route. After returning from their studies, most of them went to Shanghai, catching up with the tremendous development of Shanghai from the 1920s to the 1930s, and they left behind many projects. For Chinese architecture, the "buza" system has brought about revolutionary changes, allowing China to enter modernity from tradition.
Children's Hall , Protestant Church, won the first prize of the Buza Design Association in the 1928 National College Student Competition. Image source: Buza Design Association Bulletin, Volume 4, Issue 5, March 1928.
China and the West, tradition and modernity: what is important is the way of thinking behind it
Pengpai News: For these "first generation of Chinese architects", have you ever faced the problem of how to apply foreign architectural systems to China and how to graft Western modern architectural theories with Chinese traditions? How did they practice it?
Tong Ming: At that time, they were facing the problem of how to apply foreign architectural systems to China, and how to graft Western modern architectural theories with Chinese traditions. It is indeed reasonable to bridge these broken cracks and differences. For example, Liang Sicheng and Lin Huiyin have to answer a question throughout their lives, how do they view Chinese architecture after learning the Western architectural system? After seeing the development trend of modern architecture, is it possible for traditional Chinese architecture to modernize? Therefore, they engaged in a lot of research to save traditional Chinese historical buildings, and then wrote books to construct the theoretical system of Chinese architecture.
However, if you put it in a larger context, you will find that this is only one aspect. In fact, a larger topic is the problem of tradition and modernity, that is, how can we obtain the current attributes of existence in every change. We emphasize more about the differences between China and the West, but often ignore the broken seams or connections between tradition and modernity. This is true for art, culture, and science and technology. The so-called most developed and advanced technologies are often based on Western technologies as templates, which I think is a deviation. This problem also exists for architecture. Since the 1920s and after the establishment of a modern system, every change has been based on Europe or a certain country, and we do not consider many factors in our own roots and systems. This leads to the problem of "grafting" you mentioned above: a real good development is not grafting, it develops from a seed into a big tree. Regarding this, in this exhibition, we can be surprised to find that what this group of first-generation architects studying abroad at Penn University was actually very pioneering and avant-garde. For example, in the model essay, , a sentence said: A house should be from the inside to the outside, that is, it develops from an internal need to the outside, and must not be from the outside to the inside.
In contrast, many of the buildings in our cities now look very eye-catching in appearance, but in fact the internal structural function is a mess. It does not focus on the state of the building in reality, but only strives for a moment of noise. I think if we look back at the situation at that time, Fan Wenzhao is what our current architects and the entire society should absorb.For example, Tong Rong said, "No matter whether a building has a traditional or modern appearance, its plane may only be one, which is a reasonable and scientific layout based on the latest knowledge that can be obtained."
Therefore, the views sorted out in these exhibitions actually basically reflect the thoughts of their generation. They have made a large number of architectural works, and some architectural works, from today's perspective, I think they are still very outstanding and do not lag behind the times. Although they are old, they are still shining.
Liang Sicheng, Evolution of the Appearance of Wooden Halls in All Erases, 1930s. Photo provided by Liang Sicheng's family.
The Paper: Before the 1920s, China already had a long history of temples, gardens, houses and other architectural types. What needs did the emergence of modern buildings meet in the society at that time? What is its relationship with these traditional buildings?
Tong Ming: If we can accept the previous interpretation of "modernity", then we can simply say that traditional architecture deals with traditional society and traditional lifestyles, while modern architecture must adapt to the current changes and development of the times. The architecture of every era is modern and meets the problems they need to solve at that time. The first generation of Chinese architects conducted a lot of this discussion in their work. Like Liang Sicheng and Lin Huiyin, they have injected a lot of research and thinking about traditional Chinese architecture, but their views are by no means conservative. In fact, they have been promoting modern architecture throughout their lives, including Lin Huiyin's first article discussing residential buildings. The issue they care about is how architecture adapts to the development of the current society and meets the living needs of ordinary people. Like Liang Sicheng, after he founded Tsinghua University in 1946, he tried his best to introduce or establish a modern teaching system to teach the concept of modern architecture.
The Paper: Some of the remarks about Liang Sicheng by Wang Shu have caused controversy before. The ultimate discussion seems to be what kind of traditional buildings are worthy of protection and whether only "important" buildings are worthy of preservation. What do you think about the situation of traditional buildings in the current context?
Tong Ming: I think this cannot be taken out of context, because he said it in a specific language context. From my point of view, I think each has its own reasons. From Wang Shu's perspective, the traditional architectural protection work done by Liang Sicheng and Lin Huiyin is more concentrated on some palace buildings and temple buildings, ignoring the residential buildings, ignoring the architectural environment and architectural methods of ordinary people and the overall society. This is a limitation of the research. Second, some of his views at that time pointed to a conservative attitude, that is, the study of historical buildings may bring about conservativeness. For example, the design project of the Nanjing Museum, Liang Sicheng served as the main planner and coordinator. The final plan was relatively conservative and built in the "big roof" style of the Liao Dynasty, which led to the later retro trend of "big roof". This trend or this tendency actually suppresses the motivation and factors for the real development of modern architecture. Therefore, from Wang Shuo's perspective, this is negative. This is also a situation we are facing now: once we talk about modern or new buildings, they are all from the West and abroad. Once we talk about Chinese, they are definitely "big roofs" and buildings from the Song and Liao dynasties. What about our own? What is a building that we contemporary people have? Become very blank. I think this was a foothold for Wang Shu at that time.
However, if we really read some of the views of Liang Sicheng and Lin Huiyin at that time, I don’t think they are so conservative. On the other hand, I think this is also a difference in the era. In their era, the primary task was a mission, which is what we talked about: When you see the external world so lively and glorious, what are we like? This has obviously become a contemporary mission, and they have made a lifelong dedication to it. So I think this is not an opposition, it is just some considerations that have happened in different eras and clue tracks.
Chinese Institute of Architects, 1933 Chicago Expo Program. Photo provided by The Art Institute of Chicago.
The Paper: You mentioned earlier that traditional buildings meet some needs of the traditional era, and modern buildings adapt to the contemporary environment. So today, what is the meaning of retaining these traditional buildings?
Tong Ming: Let me add it. When we talk about architecture, we usually talk about the object of architecture itself. But from another perspective, especially in our major, we actually talk about whether the way we do this is traditional or modern. If we adopt the latter understanding, that is, architecture is a system of thinking and construction, then its focus is not on whether the building is traditional or modern, but on your way of thinking. Just like Duchamp said, when you play chess, it doesn’t matter whether the chess piece itself looks good or not. The key is the way to play chess. It's the same for architecture. The way of thinking behind it is actually the real excitement.
gathers the "fragments" of history and reflect on the awakening of "modernity"
Exhibition site
Pengpai News: As an architect, in the face of such a document exhibition with architecture as the theme, what kind of considerations will you consider the spatial layout of the entire exhibition and the relationship between exhibits?
Tong Ming: The theme of this exhibition is about architecture, so I think the space we use to show these documentary archives should also be "architecture", but the architectural method adopted, any style and labeled architecture, does not seem to be suitable, because it is neither from this era nor limited to that era, so I think it should be expressed in a more abstract and prototyped spatial way. Therefore, choosing "Siheyuan" to be the space carrier is based on the above considerations, and on the other hand, it is also related to the actual conditions provided by this exhibition hall. This "square courtyard" is an abstract and universal spatial structure. You can see courtyard houses in Beijing or Suzhou and other places, and you can also see four courtyards in ancient Greece and Roman times.
So this should be the oldest way of living, and the "Sihe" has formed a protection to the outside world. For people in the past, their external environment was relatively unfamiliar and dangerous. Using the "Siheyuan" was a protective state, but it formed a relatively common place inside, showing a centripetal attitude, so it also represents a kind of collective nature of human beings.
This generation of architects is actually relatively a collective, but in the past we have looked at them separately, such as those who study classical architecture, modern architecture, etc. But if these contents are integrated, I think we will have a more complete perspective of that era and be able to see more problems clearly, which is also an original intention of the entire exhibition. It is not only a display of some historical materials, but more of it can gather together the usually separated, scattered and split factors.
Liang Sicheng, Facade Design, 1926 John Steulson Memorial Scholarship Competition, Entry, Picture source: "University of Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts: Architecture" (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, late 1920s).
The Paper: Another chapter of the exhibition uses Shanghai as a sample to analyze the "modernity" of architecture. What is the common intention of choosing these architectural cases? What kind of causal relationship do they have with current architecture?
Tong Ming: The theme of this exhibition is two, one is about Chinese architects who returned from studying abroad at Penn University, and the building system they brought back, and the other is the city of Shanghai. These two are actually related. Many architects at that time chose Shanghai after returning to China, leaving many buildings here. Because Shanghai is a special city, it has always led the modernization trend of Chinese cities in all stages. This is a city full of modern spirit, and the professions of these architects face many challenges, so this is a very important fit.
On the other hand, many of the works of this group of architects have been discovered again today, and I think they are still shining. For example, there is a section in the exhibition showing the Great Shanghai Theater designed by Huagai Office at that time. There is a photo with a very vivid picture: the left half is a pawnshop and the white and pink walls of a traditional house that are one or two stories high, which is a traditional house with one or two stories high. Then the newly built Shanghai Theater stood side by side, full of glory. I think this is not only a reflection of that era, but also a reflection of this city. Shanghai has always been an eclectic city, so it in turn needs to have corresponding architectural carriers to support and display this kind of life, and the architects of that era were the important "behind the scenes" makers of all this. It is very meaningful to review their works from a professional perspective. For a long time, they were forgotten and ignored, but if you dig a little, you will find that they have a lot of architectural works that are actually very avant-garde. For example, some of Fan Wenzhao's early works adopt the Western classical style, but through spatial analysis of his works, we will find that his works present a "modern" without any delay. In fact, his way of thinking and fusion skills were already very outstanding at that time. Looking back at their works, it is not only a historical integration and sorting, but more importantly, we must reflect on ourselves. From this perspective, I think many of our current professional ways of thinking are actually vague and very "chaotic". Compared to them, it may not be "modern" at all.
Night view of the Grand Shanghai Theater, now the Grand Shanghai Cinema, Huagai Architects Firm, 1933. Photo provided by Tong Hu's family.
big new company, now Shanghai No. 1 Department Store, Chitai Engineering Department, 1936. Photo provided by Zhang Chongxia.
Meiqi Grand Theater (hand-drawn), now is Meiqi Grand Theater, Fan Wenzhao, 1941. Fan Wen took photos from the family.
The Paper: What do you think of urban buildings in China today?
Tong Ming: I think that compared with what our first generation architects thought at that time, I think China's urban architecture today has not gone far, and may even be much behind. Although our society has made a lot of progress compared to that era, I don’t think there has been much improvement in thinking style, thinking structure and work system. Why does this state manifest itself? The first is the lack of self-independence. The so-called self-independence consciousness means how to become creative in the field of art. This creativity is not about making something out of nothing, but how to observe and analyze it from a calm perspective. However, many of us still use plagiarism, transplantation, and grafting to operate. In the past 30 years, China has undergone changes in the world. But many times, we are just pushed forward by these things and factors, and it is difficult to call it independent judgment and conscious work and production. I think we need to re-reflect on the awakening of modernity, how to develop from our own roots and constantly replenish nutrients, rather than seeking our own development through external references. Not only is the case with architecture, but most things are like this.
