by Reyner Banham

Architectural Press Ltd., 45/-

mr. reyner banham’s carefully documented history of modern architecture, “Theory and Design in the First Machine Age”, differs from many previous studies in that it is not written by a partisan of the modern movement. Hitherto, most books on this subject have been written by people who have been directly engaged in the propaganda for the acceptance of modern architecture, in most cases practising architects; in fact, the only other book by an art-historian is “Space, Time and Architecture”, but Giedion was so involved with the campaign to popularise modern architecture in the Twenties as to be almost a participant.

A distinction of Mr. Banham’s book is in the selection of the period which he discusses. He limits himself to the first thirty years of this century, a period which he calls “The First Machine Age” and which he defines as the extension of the machine from collective application in industry to individual use, in the form of the motor car, telephone, radio and gadgets in the home. He argues that the average housewife now disposes of more horsepower than did an industrial worker at the beginning of the century. The distinction is a somewhat artificial one, and I suspect it is made at least partly to avoid covering yet again the ground of the Industrial Revolution and the engineering structures of the 19th century, whose influence on modern architecture Mr. Banham minimises. The book discusses the two major forces in modern architecture, the classical tradition and that of technical innovation. This latter gives rise to one of the most interesting and original parts of the book, the re-assessment of Futurism and in particular the Futurist architect, St. Elia.

Mr. Banham believes Futurism to be of crucial importance to the whole of the modern movement, and finds its influences in such unlikely places as the de Stijl group in Holland and the Bauhaus. Its chief characteristics, the glorification of the machine together with an element of chauvinism made it attractive to Fascism, and in fact the Futurists lent much support to that movement in its beginnings, although once it became a mass movement, Fascism found the tradition of Imperial Rome to be altogether more impressive than the sophistications of Marinetti. It is these connections with Fascism which have hitherto been considered an embarrassment and have resulted in the comparative neglect of the study of Futurism in this country.