Carmine Gambardella (a cura di)

HERITAGE ARCHITECTURE LANDESIGN

focus on CONSERVATION REGENERATION INNOVATION

Le vie dei Mercanti XI Forum Internazionale di Studi

editing:

Caterina Cristina Fiorentino Manuela Piscitelli

copyright 2013 La scuola di Pitagora editrice Via Monte di Dio, 54 80132 Napoli Telefono e Fax +39 081 7646814
assolutamente vietata la riproduzione totale o parziale di questa pubblicazione, cos come la sua trasmissione sotto qualsiasi forma e con qualunque mezzo, anche attraverso fotocopie, senza lautorizzazione scritta delleditore.

www.scuoladipitagora.it info@scuoladipitagora.it

ISBN 978-88-6542-290-8

Finito di stampare nel mese di maggio 2013

THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSERVATION OF THE 20TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN FRANCE: THE ACTION OF ANDRE MALRAUX IN FAVOUR OF LE CORBUSIER'S WORK
Antonella VERSACI,1 Alessio CARDACI2
(1)

Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Motor Sciences, University KORE of Enna, E-mail antonella.versaci@unikore.it (2) Department of Engineering, University of Bergamo, E-mail alessio.cardaci@unibg.it

The protection of 20th century architecture in France is a relatively recent activity. Apart from one exception, the first safeguarding actions on buildings built in the 1900's, date back to the late fifties of last century. Actually, it is only when the general de Gaulle came to power and a Ministry of Cultural Affairs in 1959 was created for Andr Malraux, that a series of measures in favour of cultural heritage were taken and the notion of monument widened to less restrictive and more modern formulations. In 1964, the Minister Malraux also created the General inventory of monuments and art treasures of France. At its express request, the selection criteria and especially the time range of the monuments susceptible to be included in the list was extended. However, when Malraux asked the responsible committee, to proceed with the classement of several important works of modern architecture, only few of them were accepted. The action of Malraux was, nevertheless, most effective, though certainly not without difficulties, for what concerned Le Corbusier's work. In particular, Villa Savoye's inclusion among the historical monuments of the country in 1965 preserved this exceptional building from demolition, contributing to the overall recognition of its author's work. Focusing on this case study, this paper will examine the issue of the conservation of modern architecture in France. Keywords: Modern Architecture, conservation, Le Corbusier, Andr Malraux, France

Abstract

The process of recognition of 20th century architecture as a heritage is still a highly controversial and debated issue, both from the point of view of theoretical orientations and of the operational practices. Despite the many actions carried out by public entities and private associations and the increasing attention devoted to the issue by intellectuals, the preservation of modern architecture - referring with this term not only to the Modern Movement but more broadly "to all architectures that use innovative construction materials instead of traditional or that produces and uses traditional materials in an innovative way" [1] - still seems to remain distant from social concerns. On the other hand, it is far from the professionals' understanding, perhaps not properly trained to be able to work on architectures too far away to be classified as "current production" but too new to be considered as cultural heritage. The undeniable state of decay, neglect and/or alteration affecting much of this multifaceted cultural heritage of a "recent past" is the tangible evidence of the lack of a consensus on the topic and invites us to reflect further to the real appreciation of these architectural works, recalling in an imperious way the need arising from building a wealth of knowledge. A process that goes through the work of cataloguing and inventorying. It is not a case if the statement of Eindhoven (1990), with which the Do.Co.Mo.Mo. International established its objectives, devotes four of its six points just for that purpose. Beside to a clear problem related to the deciphering of symbolic characters and values of which this spokesman is built, there are objective difficulties determined by the weakness of many modern architectural works, often born on assumptions of renewability and/or in any case not intended to be handed down. The fact of not being part of a monumental category of the architecture created without
424

1.

Introduction

an explicit memorial intention has resulted in a relative neglect of their fate by the social society. In addition, that Modern Architecture also possesses other intrinsic fragilities of typological, ideological and technological nature, that have not been sufficiently deepened by a culture of the restoration of the modern - or of the new as opposed to the old [2] - which is far from being consolidated. In spite of the vast amount of documents that, unlike classical architecture, is often available in relation to the elements of modern architecture, the knowledge of this latter is often superficial, due to the lack of in-depth analysis carried out over the years by the scientists, as result of reflections and awareness. Graphic documentation is often inaccurate, based on design drawings that can differ substantially from the work carried out. The same use of the survey as the basic element for the understanding of architectural work - an instrument which cannot be disregarded in the approach to the comprehension of a historic building - is often omitted in the case of modern architecture that mix the " building familiarity" up with its real knowledge. Unlike historic heritage, the modern one has a few problems and specific characteristics that affect substantially the intervention procedures. Its degradation is frequently related both to constructive and performance problems; the reasons for his decay often widespread and premature are generally to be found in the use of materials and techniques not sufficiently tested, in the lack of consistency between spatial features and new functions or even in an absence of flexibility in the actions dictated by the necessary technology adjustment. Here's how, in the restoration of such architecture, it is necessary to take account of specific modes of operation, subtracting them to the application of the "methodological criteria applied to the restoration of monuments, as well as they have been coded in the last two centuries" that would lead this heritage to "certain death" [3]; implementing, on the contrary, an in-depth knowledge of technical, construction and material aspects, also in relation to their durability, reactivating, or rather re-composing a dialogue, which has become rare in recent times - but yet essential - between both designers and restorers and "architectural conservation and transformation of contemporary contexts "[4]. Finally, the conservation and restoration of modern architecture have inevitably to confront with the question of "quantity", i.e. the amplitude (in numerical terms) of such heritage of buildings. Unlike the "old" ones came down to us after having already been selected by the action of weather, natural disasters and wars, demolitions and replacements carried out by their owners, the "modern" buildings are numerous, both because they were made in large numbers and/or serially and they not have already been scored or destroyed by the factors described above. This raises issues related both to the amount of maintenance interventions and to the question of operating a "selection" finalized to the safeguarding, not devoid of complexity of theoretical nature (such as the establishment of evaluation criteria) and limited by the regulations. A legislation that in Italy appears to be somewhat disturbing to the city's architecture, considering that the verification of the so-called "cultural" value is based on two elements: the buildings have to be the work of the author no longer living and their execution date back to over seventy years. This is a boundary that is dissimilar from the rest of Europe, where perhaps the most striking case concerns the Weissenhof Siedlung in Stuttgart, symbolic element of modernity built for the exhibition of the Deutscher Werkbund in 1927 and put into a regional Denkmalliste in 1958 [5]. Recent publications have sparked the debate on these issues, focusing on the criticality of the law and on possible changes of the legal instruments [6], obliging us to turn our gaze to the laws of other European and non-European countries. All that, in the awareness of the international dimension that today have taken the issues of the protection and management of the territory, considered not only as an economic good but also a powerful icon of identity [7]. In this context, it is of some interest to analyze French reality, taking special attention to one of the main and emblematic cases in the safeguard of Modern Architecture: the one linked to the affaire of villa Savoye.

2.

In France, the first actions in favour of the monuments of the 20 century, begin to take place in the '20s as part of a process of sacralization of the sites of the First World War and of places subject to major fighting (that French wanted to keep symbolically in the state of devastation caused by enemy fire) or even of memorial monuments set to honor fallen soldiers. The derogatory application of the law of 31 December 1913 on the historical monuments that did not allow the classement of recent objects was so motivated by the desire to perpetuate the memory of the "crimes" committed against the country. This desire for protection was confirmed after World War II when other icons of the national martyrdom, such as the Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp or the village of Oradour-sur-Glane were subjected to safeguard procedures [8, 9]. Ruins were regarded as "national monument" to be kept in the "best possible state of destruction" to show to the world and over time, the damages suffered by France during several years of oppression and violence. Before that date, some buildings had already received, however, the privilege of protection. The villa built in 1913 in Bellevue Mont Saint-Michel in neo-Gothic style, was classified by decree of September
425

Andr Malraux and the origin of modern heritage protection in France

th

12, 1931. In 1955, the Parisian apartment of Georges Clemenceau (transformed in 1931 into a museum) was protected thanks to the prestige enjoyed by its owner. However, the first real protection activities grow later, in the late '50s, and then in a more systematic way (following a clear political will) in the course of the '60s. On 11 December 1957, the theatre of the Champs Elyses in Paris by Auguste Perret, built between 1911 and 1913 was listed under the law of 1913 on historical monuments. The death of its author, which occurred in 1954, broken the unspoken rule of historical monuments commission based on the prohibition to protect the works of authors who were born less than a hundred years. It thus ensured a recognition that it was claimed (it would seem) for several years [10] and that for the first time was motivated by the formal characteristics of the work and by the role it played in the history of architecture [11]. At the same time, similar reflections were carried out within the French administration. A preliminary list of 150 modern buildings considered worthy of protection was prepared by the inspector general of historical monuments Albert Chauvel in September 1957. This list, although limited to the city of Paris and the Seine Departament, contained a number of examples belonging to the early 19th century that could be "protgs au titres des monuments historiques". In April 1959, a second list of sixty buildings to be protected was established [12]. Only partially inspired by the previous example, it included only monuments after 1848 spread throughout the French territory: the Sorbonne nouvelle of Henri-Paul Nnot (1882-1901), but also the buildings of Robert Mallet-Stevens, numerous churches and even the department stores Le Printemps (1865) and the Samaritaine (1869), as well as other works such as the iron bridge Garabit built between 1880 and 1884 and designed by Gustave Eiffel, the Viaduct Viaur (1895-1902), the aqueduct of Roquefavour (1841-1847). Andr Malraux, from January 1959 leading the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, however, could not only participate in the formulation of such theories, resulting from administrative logics for him no longer shareable [13]. Man of word but also of action, he felt the need to express themselves through concrete actions: those "whims by honest person" that will characterize his personality and all his work [14]. The repeated complaints by Andr Chastel in the newspaper Le Monde had already attracted the attention of the Minister on the fate of French modern architecture [15]. That's why in 1961, he decided to take action in favour of the protection of certain prestigious buildings of the 20th century, so launching a campaign for the protection of "recent and contemporary" buildings. The large number of buildings to safeguard requested the enrollment on the Inventaire supplmentaire des Monuments Historiques (ISMH) but the article 2 of the law of 1913 disposed, in a very restrictive manner, that only to those having an "archaeological interest" could benefit from this measure. To this end, he will change the rules for historical monuments by the decree of 18 April 1961. From that moment on, two years of unexplained inactivity followed until April 1963, when an ad hoc committee for the modern monuments was created. This committee will define a new list consisting of one hundred exemplary buildings of their age, according to a chronological breakdown that from the Second Empire was concentrated in the early years of the '900 and ended in the period 1925-1940. The criteria for selection resided in the representativeness of large recognized masters, in the majority architects and some still living. Among others: Hector Guimard (recently rehabilitated by Nikolaus Pevsner on the occasion of the exhibition Les sources du XXe sicle: les arts en Europe de 1884 1914 [16]), Tony Garnier, Auguste Perret, Henri Sauvage, Eugne Beaudouin and Marcel Lods, Jean Prouv, Le Corbusier. Technical innovation will be another of the criteria on which the selection will rest. The list included, for example, the first reinforced concrete building built in 1892 by Franois Hennebique at n 1 of rue Danton in Paris on the plans prepared by the Lyonnais architect Edouard Arnaud. In addition, in 1964 by the decree n 64-203, the Minister Malraux created the General inventory of movable and immovable heritage of the country. Malraux hoped that this instrument "at the same time it complements our knowledge, it will suggest a new revolutionary approach to the values on which this knowledge is based" [17]. The official report of his speech shows that the national commission charged with this task "will resume all consecrated ideas as postulates (...) and will probably lead to a deep revision of basic concepts on the evolution of art in France and to a real indictment of the system of values up here admitted" which will turn later in a famous rvolution culturelle. At his express request, indeed, the selection criteria and especially the time range on the monuments that could be included in the list was greatly extended, no longer limited to the works prior to 1830 and only to the churches and castles, but also to the works of the Modern Movement. Despite these efforts (France will be the first European country to engage in the defense -including regulations- of its modern architecture), the recognition of the value of XXth century architecture was still far from being universally acquired. When Malraux requested to the committee responsible, the classement of the Eiffel Tower, the synagogue and the castle Beranger designed by Hector Guimard, a building of Ren Lalique, the theater of the Grevin museum, the Brasserie Lipp, UNESCO headquarters, a garage built by Auguste Perret, and even the Dutch Pavilion at the Cit Universitaire, the opinion was favorable only for the first 5 buildings in the list. The action of Malraux, however, will prove to be most effective, though certainly not without difficulties, with regard to the work of Le Corbusier, and in particular in the
426

case of villa Savoye, whose inclusion among the historical monuments of the country, carried out in 1965, saved this exceptional building from destruction, contributing to the overall recognition of the work of its author. Closely related to the rapport of esteem, respect and friendship between Andr Malraux and Le Corbusier is the case of the in extremis rescue of villa Savoye. A subject often approached by international scientific literature but never analyzed in a systematic and comprehensive way, especially from the point of view of conservation practice adopted. The archives of the Fondation Le Corbusier are full of documentation on this topic, but from documents stored in the archives, its not possible to take criteria on which the various campaigns of restoration (or repair?) were undertaken over the last fifty years: the one carried out during the years 1963-67 under the direction of Jean Dubuisson, that undertaken between 1983 and 1985 by the architect Yvan Gury, the work directed during 1985-1993 under the supervision of the architect Jean-Louis Vret, etc. [18, 19] Only recently, new interesting documents came to light from the folders owned by the villa Savoye administration, whose examination will be the object of a next contribution. The issue of the restoration of villa Savoye remains, however, one of the priorities of the Foundation. In this regard, new restoration activities will be shortly undertaken. So, because the causes of degradation phenomena of villa Savoye have unexplainably never been solved. Even more inexplicably is the fact that all conservation projects carried out have been based on the original plans of the author: it would seem that a complete survey of the work has never been realized. 3.1 Villa Savoye: birth and decline of a key work of the Modern Movement Designed by Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret, the villa, called Les heures claires, was built between April 1929 and July 1930 as a summer residence for Pierre Savoye - administrator of an insurance company - and his wife Eugnie. Additional works were carried out until 1931 in order to fix problems and make some changes, in particular relating to the colours of paintings. Situated at Poissy in Yvelines, thirty kilometers away from Paris, the house was conceived as a box suspended on top of a hill. Devoid of face and open to the four horizons, its main body was imagined as limited by four similar walls, drilled along the length of the perimeter from a single window [20]. The basic idea corresponded essentially to two criteria -movement and lightness- that in villa Savoye melted to positively respond to the long course of study and research of its proponent, in order to create the perfect machine for living. A path that led from confusion to the clarity of geometry: "simplicity does not mean poverty but it represents a choice, a discrimination, a crystallization that have the effect of purity itself. Simplicity is a concentration" [21]. Conceived as a country residence in response to a desire of Madame Savoye - the true interlocutor of Le Corbusier and of the workers - the house was for the Savoye a tool for self-representation in high Parisian society but also a place where to live their family life in a modern and comfortable way. A place where they could receive and rest, commissioned to be functional and in which a prominent role was entrusted to the car. The wealthy Savoye charged Le Corbusier with the design of the villa Savoye, perhaps without devoting much care to the "style" but soon they had to deal with exorbitant budgets that forced them to ask several times the architects to review their projects (even five). The estimate overruns (at the end of the villa will cost twice as much as expected), but also the many problems that affected the house, in an economic unhappy context (even in the affairs of Monsieur Savoye), made the relationships between customers and the agence of Le Corbusier very complicated. This is maybe the reason for the growing discontent expressed in numerous letters written by Eugnie Savoye to a Le Corbusier (at least) initially annoyed and reticent, about numerous infiltration of rainwater in most parts of the house: "Il pleut dans l'entre, il pleut dans la rampe et le mur du garage est absolument tremp. D'autre part, il pleut toujours dans ma salle de bains qui est inonde chaque pluie"(letter dated September 7, 1936, FLC H1-12-157). The high level of humidity exacerbated the couple even more due to the fact that their son Roger suffered from tuberculosis and was supposed to spend in the house the necessary period of convalescence. This might be understandable, given the nature of the building, especially because of the materials and techniques of that time, but is certainly strange, given the proverbial care adopted by Le Corbusier for the construction details, often innovative, especially focusing on window frames and on stormwater discharges from hanging terraces. Many failures, however, would have been easy to solve, if only Le Corbusier had responded to the requests of the couple with the same diligence with which preceded the visit of many visitors or even if he had supplied them with the ever delivered "plans de la maison" (letter of 4 November 1939, FLC H1-12-156). Pierre Savoye complained, moreover, the inadequacy of the boiler and radiators: he declared "we are freezing" in a house where it was impossible to reach a reasonable temperature. Actually, in the article published in 1930 on the Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, Posener already wondered
427

3.

The emblematic case of Villa Savoye

if the house was not too big in spaces and however difficult both to clean and to heat; " perfect" but certainly not from the economic point of view [22]. The advent of war obliged the Savoye to settle for a certain period in the house in order to avoid the consequences of eventual bombardments on the capital. Occupied by the Germans and then following the Liberation by the Americans that will damage it considerably (portes arraches et meubles emports wrote Le Corbusier [23]) the future of the house will then be strongly affected by the largescale operation conducted by Ford in 1937 which established in Poissy a large factory car. After the war, the factory was taken over by Simca, a motor manufacturer famous in France for its economy cars, which extended it further, increasing also the annexed worker's village. in Beauregard. Built by Charles-Gustave Stoskopf, this grand ensemble included a church, the hospital, primary schools and supermarkets. The only think it lacked was a high school that the Ministry of Education decided, in accordance with the municipal authorities of Poissy, to build right on the ground of villa Savoye so condemning it to the demolition. It followed the actions taken by Eugnie Savoye (in the meantime became a widow) and by his son Roger to get the right compensation, as well as that of Le Corbusier in order to save his work. The Savoye did not oppose, in fact, to the expropriation whereas the villa in their ten years of stay did not offer them the peace and comfort they would like and that would justify the investment of large sums of money to make it habitable again [24]. After many negotiations and legal procedures, in 1959, the court set a compensation considered acceptable both for the town of Poissy and the Savoye (1,271,875 new francs). The villa would be demolished to make place for the new high school in Poissy. 3.2 From the international mobilization to the role of Andr Malraux At the same time, a strong resistance is carried out by Le Corbusier who, alerted by the upcoming demolition of villa Savoye, decided to inform all his connections - first of all Andr Malraux - about this pressing danger. The two had become friends after a journey that the minister had made in India and his discovery of the construction site of Chandigarh, by him perceived as a revelation from symbolic, spiritual and material points of view (fig. 1). An architecture, the one designed for the new capital of Punjab, able to go beyond the assignment and to plenty situate itself, in the field of monumental architecture [24]. The fascination exerted by Le Corbusier became even stronger during the journey of the minister in Brasilia, where the insistence of the local authorities for entrusting the architect with the future project of the French Embassy, attracted the attention of Malraux on the international prestige of which Le Corbusier benefited. An admiration which he manifested in a number of occasions, even more personal, such as the one linked to the 100th birthday of the mother of Le Corbusier (the telegram of congratulations sent by the Minister will make history). Since his appointment as Minister of the Information in 1958 and again later when he will assume the role of Minister of Culture, Andr Malraux's help will be repeatedly called by Le Corbusier, in order to solve problems related to its studies or ongoing projects, as well as to get new assignments (fig. 2 and 3). Since 1959, the issue of the protection of his works will become to Le Corbusier a matter of primary importance: from this date, its relationship with Andr Malraux will then focus on this subject. The news of the beginning of expropriation procedure concerning Villa Savoye, had purged Le Corbusier to contact in the Unites States. Siegfried Giedion, a very famous architectural historian and professor at Harvard, informing him that an association, the Cercle d'Etudes Architecturales de Paris, through its president Pierre Sonrel, had requested the intervention of the Minister Malraux in favour of villa Savoye. Although UNESCO was solicited to proceed with the purchase of the property, lack of funds had been forced to give up (letter of 25 February 1959, FLC H1-12-182). He then asked Giedion to bring into play all his relationships both with UNESCO and the United States to save Villa Savoye. Giedion began as an international mobilization that in a few days was expressed through numerous articles in the British and then in the French press (fig. 4), as well as in appeals to the Minister Malraux such as that of the E.T.H. Zurich whose rector A. Roth will specify that villa Savoye was "not only one of Le Corbusier's universally known masterpieces, but moreover a th monument to 20 century architecture, recognised as such in professional circles worldwide" (letter of 9 March 1959, FLC H1-12-191). Nevertheless, anything was really changing and Le Corbusier wrote again to Giedion informing him that the Savoye property could be purchased for 100 million Swiss francs. He also expressed his intention to create a foundation, the Fondation Le Corbusier which will become his one and only inheritor. The foundation headquarters will be villa La Roche. Focusing on the future of Villa Savoye, Le Corbusier also affirmed that one of its main goals would be that of serving as a point of departure in the Western hemisphere for an alternative means of research (other than academic) into architectural development from ancient times to modern day (FLC H1-12-188). In this regard, it has been observed by Jacques Sbriglio that this touching letter, apart from announcing almost ten years in advance the real establishment of the foundation revealed that Le Corbusier "did not have a very clear idea at that
428

Fig. 1,2 and 3. Le Corbusier and Andr Malraux in Chandigarh and Paris (FLC L4-14-95 and 96). Fig. 4. The cover of Time, May 1961 (FLC X2-1-150).

time as to the future role of the rehabilitated Villa Savoye" [25]. Perhaps Le Corbusier was as little aware of the role that the State could play in favour of Villa Savoye. On 8 June 1959 he wrote to the Minister Malraux to let him know that this international mobilization had been developed behind is back, even pretending that at the time when all the commotion concerning the villa Savoye broke out, he was in the Indies. If on one hand he seemed to apologize for the pressures produced (a mere pittance compared to what he will do after for this and other affaires!) on the other hand, with great cunning he tried to instill in the Minister the awareness that villa Savoye could find its very raison d'tre only in the uncontaminated place in which it had been conceived. Supported by a Comit de sauvegarde de la Villa Savoye Poissy created in April 1959, Andr Malraux recognizing the value of that work, started to concretely take action in his favour. There were, nevertheless, some obstacles to overcome. Conscious of the fact that the commission for historic monuments was not sufficiently "mature" to express a favourable opinion for the protection of this architectural work, he decided to work around the problem hors du champ de la protection des monuments historiques. In a very unusual way, he created the conditions for the acquirement of villa Savoye by the State and, thanks to an agreement signed October 23, 1961 with the Ministry of National Education, this latter, once having become the owner of the land for the future high school, would transfer the building to the Ministry of Culture to there harbor an international foundation. According to the same rule of dtournement, also the site on which the chapel of Notre-Dame-du-Haut at Ronchamp had been built, thanks to Andr Malraux, and despite the strong opposition of his administration, was protected on 11 March 1960. 3.3 From the Villa Savoye's protection to a policy in favour of modern monuments Moving back to the case of villa Savoye, the years that will bring to its protection were eventful and far from being simple. Years in which Le Corbusier intensified his personal commitment in the battle in favour of Villa Savoye. Determined not to be pushed aside in the matter, he strengthened its offensive first of all to prevent the construction of high school, then to get the job on the restoration project, and finally, to maintain a healthy weight in the choice of new eventual functions for the house. In the early '60s, he was invited to take part in a meeting convened by the Section Spciale des Btiments d'Enseignement du Conseil des Btiments de France about the new high school construction project in Poissy, modified following the protest campaign raised following the proposed demolition of the villa. Le Corbusier called to express his opinion, was in favour of the new principle of construction of the high school while stressing the need to preserve Villa Savoye's perspective, so implying, as a consequence, the relocation of the gymnasium near the high school. He also took a stand on the function which could be assigned to the villa, proposing that it could be the headquarters of CIAM, showing himself ready to elaborate the project of restoration and to supervise the work. (FLC H1-12-249). This last question is of fundamental importance for him, so that after a typo in the minutes of the meeting, he reiterated in a note to the Ministry of Culture that "it is out of the question that any architect other than myself be in charge of this work" (FLC H1-12-248). Worried of not being in total control of the situation, he decided to send some sketches to the Minister Malraux showing the degraded state of the villa: the building of a wall near the ramp leading to the terrace and in front of the large window lounge, a changing in the colour paintings particularly strong, the lack of any type of vegetation on the roof, an improper replacement of some windows, etc. (fig. 5 and 6). Working tirelessly to achieve its objectives, Le Corbusier even tried to act on the mayor of Poissy, Mr Touhladjian to which in 15 July 1960 he sent the second volume of his Complete Works, where the

429

Fig. 5 and 6. Sketches addressed by Le Corbusier to the Minister Malraux showing the degraded state of the villa, 2 April1960, FLC H1-12-301).

Villa Savoye appeared on p. 23-31 adding a dedication: "we seal a pact trust-based on the occasion of the Villa Savoye and I will try to deserve your approval and that of your citizens. Here is the villa Savoye, born in 1929. It was clear, bright and cheerful. Me too. Thirty years have passed, heavy of dangerous fights"(FLC H1-12-264). Perhaps for an insane optimism, absurd euphoria or just as a provocative act, Le Corbusier from 1962 multiplied its communications to the Ministry of Culture. Taking for granted that he will be entrusted with the restoration work, it asked for preparation of budgets, alerted his colleagues and his most trusted companies, including Bertocchi's enterprise. Therefore, he also involved the former Minister Eugne Claudius Petit informing him that the future Fondation Le Corbusier will sit in villa Savoye, specifying moreover that he was also making plans for the transformation of the villa in muse Corbu and adding, probably making a mistake, that the heating and electric systems would be completely redone and windows considerably changed. This intention of modifying some original characters of the villa will have a considerable influence on subsequent events concerning its restoration. In September 1962, the Minister Malraux officially informed Le Corbusier of the progress of the Villa Savoye's dossier: the transfer of the property of the Ministry of Education had become effective from February 22, 1962. He then reassured him about the possibility that he would be in charge of all the repair work and alterations to the interior fitting. To this end it was necessary, however, that he would be appointed as architect of btiments civils et palais nationaux and that he was entrusted with the case. An appointment was still possible, in spite of his advanced age, as he was the author of the building. Le Corbusier, heartened by this almost designation drafted some notes accompanied by sketches through which he configured the improvements and changes to be made to the villa: some modifications in the colour scheme (different colours but only on the ceilings), the wall to be used for mural photomontages, painting in white of the structural elements (porticos and columns). Other alterations were also foreseen on the lighting system, which he intended to be indirect. He also added some other technical specification, such as those related to the reparation of waterproofing system or the establishment of a bathroom on the ground floor (FLC H1-12-461, fig. 7). But the process was slow and to Le Corbusier did not remain that supplications: " let me fix this villa before it's too late (...) I already told you that I will work for free" he wrote to the Ministry of Culture in September 1963 (FLC H1-12-444). A few months later, however, the task was entrusted by the Ministry of Culture to Jean Dubuisson, architect of btiments civils et palais nationaux (at the beginning in a provisional, then in an official way, following the decree of 7 December 1964 that listed Villa Savoye among the btiments civils et palais nationaux). Le Corbusier leaned that decision and sent the project drawings, inviting him at immediately taking action. Actually, from that moment on, Le Corbusier was divested of all matrise d'uvre and its field of action limited to an informal role of counsellor and supervisor (fig. 8). This had been certainly due to the slowness of bureaucratic machine but perhaps also to avoid him to do a "Le Corbusier 1963" not in line with the consolidated praxis of Historical Monuments administration. He did not give up and continued to urge persistently Dubuisson that Malraux so that the work would start as soon as possible, "the years go by, the house collapses" (FLC H1-12-418, fig. 9). Later, he accused of inertia Dubuisson, reproached him his silences, then he gave him tips for getting the financing necessary for the commencement of work. Determined to keep somehow the control, Le Corbusier expressed in a note to Max Querrien, the Director of Architecture at the Ministry of Culture,
430

Fig. 7. Sketches addressed by Le Corbusier to the Minister Malraux showing the improvements and changes to be made to villa Savoye (30 September 1962, FLC. H1-12-461).

his willingness to do the work that would follow "fairly the truth," so reconstituting, in an exact way, the construction at his primitive state (letter of 10 November 1964, FLC H1-12-290). In this regard, it is telling the report produced by Franois Gardien, one of le Corbusier's collaborators about the architect's point of view on the work to be performed on the villa [27]. In particular, with regard to certain repairs such as the removing of the walls in front of the glass window of the hall and up the ramp, the planting of trees around the building to re-create an environment suitable; the restoration of polychromy. All points to which inevitably corresponded as much architectural principles of the Villa Savoye - the architectural promenade, the relationship between building and nature, the relationship with colors - which had been altered over time and according to Le Corbusier would have to be restored (FLC H1- 12-312). Again, in a note dated May 12, 1965 Le Corbusier relied on its priorities for action: " lend colour, create a fresco with photographs of the text and the cover of L'Esprit nouveaux, redo the planters, the hanging garden and the artificial mountain (FLC H1-12-293). Against the persistent silence from Dubuisson, Le Corbusier, tired and discouraged sent a letter to Malraux protesting for the last time the lack of operational activities at Villa Savoye. A few months later he died and an elaborate funeral was given, directed and produced by Andr Malraux. The Villa Savoye was declared a Monument Historique on the 16th December of the same year and opened to the public twenty two years later. A few months earlier, on 10 October 1964, the Cit radieuse had been integrated by the Minister Malraux in the first round of the protection of the modern monuments. After the death of Le Corbusier, from September to December 1965, seven buildings were inscribed on the additional inventory of historic monuments: the Swiss Hostel and the Brazilian Pavilion at University City in Paris, the chapel Notre-Dame-du-Haut at Ronchamp, the villas Roche and Savoye. In 1966, the maisons Jaoul and the villa Jeanneret completed the protection of works of the "mitre" (as it was called Le Corbusier by Andr Malraux) thanks to the intervention of his friend, the minister. From the era of Andr Malraux many things have changed. In 1974, a new campaign was launched by Bruno Foucart, technical advisor to the Minister of Culture, Michel Guy. This time, the services of historical monuments were involved at both central and regional level and invited to submit lists of th th buildings from the 19 and 20 centuries eligible for protection. The acute shortage of documentation and the poor awareness of these architectural entities meant that not only the most important or spectacular ones were included but all those of which nothing was known, or almost. The number of protected buildings, so increased fourfold, although they were substantially located in Paris or in other urban areas. An opinion mouvement for the recognition of Modern Architetcure was, however, initiated and will continue to produce knowledge in the next decade, despite the strong opposition of some art historians and the misunderstanding of a large part of civil society. Since the mid-'80s the lists became thematic: first, it privileged railways, hospitals, swimming pools, boutiques, industrial heritage; then, in the '90s it focused on individual and collective housing: from the prefabricated of the '40s to the grands ensembles of '50s-'60s. In 1987, a conference on the Enjeux du Patrimoine architectural du XXe sicle took place in veux: the need to bridge the deficit in the protection procedures through the development of systematic inventories was highlighted. The selection of buildings to protect could be
431

4.

Conclusions

Fig. 8. Covers and pages from The Carnet de Dessins S66 (started on 10 December 1961) and S67 (started on 5 June 1962) regarding villa Savoye. Fig. 9. Note drafted by Le Corbusier of 5 November 2011 (FLC H1-12-418).

rigorously based on the criteria of originality, exemplarity, technical innovation, or related to their significance to the community recognition as well as to a meaningful mass production from the historical, sociological, economic and cultural points of view. The law of 1913 on the historic monuments was considered insufficient to ensure the protection; it appeared therefore necessary to use other tools such as the law on the establishment of the zones de protection du patrimoine architectural et urbain and that for the protection of sites. These three instruments are now in France the normative apparatus regulating the protection of modern architecture. In 1996, one thousand buildings from the 20th century were protected by the law. Today, the knowledge, conservation and valorisation of the 20th century's cultural heritage is one of the main challenges of French administration. However, it represents only the 4% of protected heritage (43 000 buildings and sites in total). Significant work remains to be undertaken in this area. Recently, the Ministry of Culture and Communication has created the "Heritage of the 20th century" label. Devoid of juridical effect, the label is now applied to about 2,300 buildings or urban complexes (one-third between them is not protected under the law of 1913). The main idea of this tool results from the awareness of the limits of protection. Indeed, what is really useful is not to improve or extend the number of protection tools or the subsidies, but to activate the social recognition of the value of this heritage. To protect and transmit to future generations the 20th century heritage, it should be first of all identified and inventoried, then monitored and/or restored. But what appears really important is to develop actions aimed at enhancing the public awareness and understanding of this heritage, in order to re-appropriate and re-inscribe it as a siginificant component of our society.

Bibliographical References
[1] BORIANI, Maurizio (ed.). La sfida del moderno. L'architettura del XX secolo tra conservazione e innovazione. Milano: Unicopli, 2003. 238 p. [2] CARBONARA, Giovanni. Avvicinamento al restauro. Teoria, storia, monumenti. Napoli: Liguori, 1997. 836 p. [3] LA REGINA, Francesco. L'architettura all'epoca della sua riproducibilit. Appunti sul "restauro del moderno" ed oltre. In PALAZZOTTO, Emanuele (ed.). Il restauro del Moderno in Italia e in Europa. Roma: FrancoAngeli, 2011, p. 67- 76. [4] GALLIANI, Pierfranco, CRIPPA, Maddalena (ed.). Continuit critica e restauro del moderno. In Territorio. Roma: FrancoAngeli, 2012, n. 62, p. 67. [5] PACE, Sergio. La salvaguardia dell'architettura contemporanea: un tema complesso. In: Giornata di studi su PIER LUIGI NERVI - Arte e scienza del costruire. Torino, Accademia delle Scienze, 2 maggio 2011. Web: http://it.scribd.com/doc/54646906/La-salvaguardia-dell%E2%80%99architetturacontemporanea-Torino-Accademia-delle-Scienze-2-mag-2011 [6] CARUGHI, Ugo. Maledetti vincoli. La tutela dell'architettura contemporanea. Torino: Allemandi, 2012, 418 p. [7] BELLISARIO, Maria Grazia. Lemergenza il Novecento. In Il Giornale del Restauro, RA. I rapporti annuali de Il Giornale dellArte e Il Giornale dellArchitettura. marzo 2013
432

[8] HAMON, Franoise. Histoire de la protection du patrimoine du XXe sicle. In: Architecture du XXe sicle, le patrimoine protg. Paris: ditions du patrimoine, p. 47-51. [9] TOULIER, Bernard. Architecture et patrimoine du XXe sicle en France. Paris: ditions du patrimoine, 1999, p. 18-23. [10] BRICHET, Robert. Le Rgime des monuments historiques en France. Paris: Librairies techniques, 1952, 237 p. [11] FOUCART, Bruno. Historique sommaire de la politique des protections du XXe sicle. In AA.VV. Proceedings of Les enjeux du patrimoine architectural du XXe sicle (Evreux, couvent de la Tourette, 12-13 juin 1987). Paris: Ministre de la culture et de la communication, 1988, p. 9-16. [12] LAURENT, Xavier. Grandeur et misre du patrimoine: d'Andr Malraux Jacques Duhamel, 1959-1973. Paris, Comit d'histoire du ministre de la Culture/La Documentation franaise, 2003, 380 p. [13] TOULIER, Bernard. La protection des monuments modernes: le rle d'Andr Malraux. In: HERVIER, Dominique (ed.). Andr Malraux et l'architecture. Paris: Le Moniteur, 2008, p. 88-107. [14] QUERRIEN, Max. Malraux, l'antiministre fondateur. Paris: ditions du linteau, 2001, 110 p. [15] CHASTEL, Andr. Architecture et patrimoine : Choix de chroniques parues dans le monde Paris: ditions du Patrimoine/Centre des monuments nationaux, 2012, 239 p. [16] AA.VV. Les sources du XXe sicle: les arts en Europe de 1884 1914. Paris: Les Presses artistiques, 1961, 410 p. [17] BOESIGER, Willy, BILL, Max (ed.). Le Corbusier - uvre complte, Vol. 1: 1910-1929. Zurich : ditions d'Architecture, 1967, 216 p. [18] AA. VV. Le Corbusier's Villa Savoye. Paris: Momum/Editions du patrimoine, 1998. 48 p. [19] ODDO, Maurizio. Le Corbusier dalla pittura al Muralnomad. Palermo: Medina, 1997, 175 p. [20] TENTORI MONTALTO, Francesco, DE SIMONE, Rosario. Le Corbusier. Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2012, 252 p. [21] LE CORBUSIER, Prcisions sur un tat prsent de l'architecture et de l'urbanisme. Paris: ditions Crs, 1930 [22] POSENER, Julius, La Villa Savoye Poissy. In L'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, n. 2, 1930, p. 21. [23] LE CORBUSIER, JARDOT, Maurice, RICCARDI-CANDIANI, Maria Luisa. La mia opera. Torino: Boringhieri, 1961, 306 p. [24] AMOUROUX, Dominique. La Villa Savoye. Paris: ditions du patrimoine-Centre des monuments nationaux. 2011, 64 p. [25] MONNIER, Grard. Andr Malraux et la protection des difices de le Corbusier. In: POIRRIER, Philippe, VADELORGE, Loc (ed.). Pour une histoire des politiques du patrimoine. POIRRIER, Philippe, VADELORGE Loc, (sous la dir. de), Pour une histoire des politiques du patrimoine. Paris: La Documentation franaise, 2003, p. 421-427. [26] SBRIGLIO, Jacques. Le Corbusier: Corbusier/Birkhuser, 1999, p. 152-169. la villa Savoye. Paris, Ble, Fondation Le

[27] QUETGLAS, Jos. Les Heures Claires: proyecto y arquitectura en la Villa Savoye de Le Corbusier y Pierre Jeanneret. Madrid: Associaci d'Idees, Centre d'Investigacions Esttiques, 2008, 617 p.

433