disappointed with the outcomes of the conference. A group of experts had, based on their
joint analysis, arrived at a statement saying that land was to be acquired for public use but
also stating that the decision fell outside the professional remit of the architect.^509
Why did Aalto refrain from giving a paper on Paimio Sanatorium to the group of
international architects? One explanation may lie in the uncertainty of his attending the
conference in the first place. However, a more likely explanation is his being intimidated
by the politically delicate atmosphere and not considering CIAM the right forum for
him. Aalto managed to avoid any political pitfalls by adopting this line of action. After the
conference cruise, however, he sent copies of the Varsinais-Suomen tuberkuloosi parantola
(The Southwestern Finland Tuberculosis Sanatorium) publication to his friends who
were involved with CIAM.^510 Giedion responded at the end of that year, saying he was
fascinated by Paimio Sanatorium based on the material received. He was curious to know
whether it was Alvar or Aino who had left a stronger imprint in the smallest of details.
Giedion called Aalto the Wizard of the North. He expressed his wish that Aalto should
convey any materials on the building to the international press via CIAM and not direct-
l y.^511 After this, Giedion’s correspondence with Aalto became less frequent, although it
never completely ended.
Giedion had expressly wished that the sanatorium would be publicised through
CIAM’s publication channels. Publishing through the channels Giedion recommended
would have helped to promote furniture Aalto had designed and the Wohnbedarf com-
pany was selling and producing.^512 Due to his involvement in the furniture trading of
Wohnbedarf, Giedion had a personal interest in promoting Aalto’s work. Aalto operated
in the international circuit as an active communicator and unique interpreter of ideas who
left his mark on the debate through his work. CIAM offered Aalto a path for gaining
international publicity for his designs. His close relationship with Giedion, Sven Mar-
kelius and Walter Gropius has been widely discussed in earlier research. The situation in
the Europe of the early 1930s was politically tense and economically difficult. Modernist
architects, in their conscious promotion of new ideology, were easily branded as left-wing.
509 Le Corbusier 1964a [1933], p. 189.
510 See Jokinen and Maurer 1998a, p. 57.
511 Giedion’s letter to Aalto on December 6, 1933. Signum 10851, correspondence. AAM.
512 Arthur Rüegg investigated the collaboration between Aalto and the Wohnbedarf company, represented by Giedi-
on. Rüegg 1998, pp. 119–133.Fig 2.9a. Aalto’s entry to or sketch for the Great Norrmalm Competition. The Royal Castle and
the Storkyrkan church that dominate the landscape of the old town of Stockholm sink in the
background of the enormous multi-storey blocks. Aalto proposed replacing the existing structure
with an open-block structure. Drawing No. 13-8. The drawing has been cropped and edited. AAM.