108 What is Architectural History?
against the strains of early twentieth-century modern archi-
tecture that had sought to put history to one side and which
were by the 1950s beginning to exert a strong infl uence on
American schools of architecture, themselves reacting to the
tradition of the École des beaux-arts as it had been pursued
there. He also rejected the ‘cold’ Germanic mode of histori-
ography that worried away at tiny details while sacrifi cing
the fl air that was necessary for engaging students and young
architects.
In his role as Chair of Architectural History at Venice,
Zevi conducted ‘didactic experiments’ intended to test the
usefulness of architectural history for future architects.
Refl ecting on a historical studio on the life and works of
Michelangelo, he wrote in 1964 that, for a student of archi-
tecture, an encounter with architectural history and its
methods would rarely lead towards a career in that specialist
fi eld.^16 The study of architectural history by architecture stu-
dents would always prove fruitful, but for the most part in
professional practice rather than in historical scholarship.
For Zevi’s students, Michelangelo shed new light on ques-
tions of artistic leadership combined with civic leadership
and on invention within architectural tradition. Michelan-
gelo had something to say about the problem of the architect-
intellectual in a moment of cultural crisis, and Zevi invoked
the parallels between the Second World War and the Sack of
Rome as upsetting cultural norms and the artistic–architec-
tural traditions into which they were bound.
Zevi believed in design’s morality – its positive infl uence
on families, communities, cities and nations when done well,
and its disastrous impact when done badly. In turn, contem-
porary architecture and the problems of the design studio
suggested the proper subjects of study for architectural
history. Architectural historians had access to rigorous
methods to which they would take recourse in studying the
historical periods and fi gures most appropriate to their own
moment. Zevi and Millon agree that the study of architec-
tural history ought to contribute to the health of culture and
society. Millon’s ideas are more general, though, while Zevi’s
position is coloured by urgent issues of professional architec-
tural practice and education. Zevi’s views are strong, his
ambitions precise.