Banham made an interesting observation that the machine-romantic features dis-
appeared from the architecture of the decade before World War II: machines inspired
architects as long as their mechanisms were in full view, and only a few actually under-
stood how they worked.^23 Banham argued that Modernists betrayed their vision of the
future of the Machine Age by remaining loyal to the academic canon. In his opinion, an
in-depth study of the first quarter of the 20th century would bring out the real movers
and shakers whose concept of technology was overshadowed by romanticising tradition.
Banham maintained that the Futurists had a decisive impact in the Modernist ideology,
as their imagery was not symbolic like Le Corbusier’s.^24
In my view, Banham overlooked the possibility that the relationship between
architects and technology may have been different in the 1920s and 1930s. Many such
technological systems that were developed as part of military industry had been intro-
duced into the lives of consumers, at least the more wealthy ones, a decade later. Cases
in point are the radio and the airplane. By the 1930s, architects had stopped associating
technological systems with similar futuristic expectations and replaced this with a hope
that technology could help bring about an easier life for the masses. The attitude of
architects towards technology appeared to have become more optimistic.
According to Banham, many 1930s proponents of modern architecture rejected sym-
bolism because they came from outside the pioneering countries and therefore joined the
movement at a later stage, after the creative debates and confrontations that determined
the direction of the movement had already dissipated. Banham sees the prevailing ethos
in society as another contributing factor for the disinterest in symbolism: in the early
1930s, a style could only be justified on logical and economic grounds, and any aesthetic
or symbolistic values would only have been met with sheer hostility.^25
Banham believed that technology based on science could change our traditional
ways of thinking and thereby architecture. Indeed, in his own work he attempted to
expand our view on the relationship between architecture and technology, but was
sceptical of whether the early 1960s architectural thinking and new knowledge about
technology could ever be reconciled.^26 Anthony Vidler, who has studied the historical
enquiry into Modernism, has argued that Banham’s aim was to free the mechanistic
from the hegemony of the academic, and he embraced science and technology in a way
that superseded the symbolism of the modern movement.^27
In his work published in 1969, Banham praised the fact that the previous generation
of architectural historians had brought structures and materials into the narrative of
modern architecture. However, architects themselves had, in his view, failed to inte-
grate technological systems into their artistic expression. To the chagrin of architects,
23 Banham 1999 [1960], p. 328.
24 Banham 1999 [1960], pp. 99–138; Vidler 2005, pp. 116–117.
25 The international style was outlawed in Germany and Russia, while in France it lacked financial resources to
flourish, in fascist Italy its supporters were few, in the UK people had no interest in the aesthetic and the United
States was in depression. Banham 1999 [1960], pp. 320–321.
26 Banham 1999 [1960], p. 329; Vidler 2005, pp. 131–132.
27 Vidler 2005, pp. 155–156.