Thank you for the thoughtful review of our Paul Rudolph exhibition. I wanted to say that I was interested in these drawings for the same reason that you are – the point at which architecture intersects art and also the role drawing plays in representing large scale spatial thinking. You suggest that The Drawing Center has to answer for not showing the original drawings and for our choice of works.

When I went to the Library of Congress two and half years ago to research the LOMEX drawings this material had been not be cataloged or for that matter conserved. Once that process began it became apparent that the drawings could not be shown in our Drawing Room space (where we had originally conceived of hosting show – since it was not up to the standards of the Library of Congress for loans). The decision to do the show at Cooper Union was initiated through a conversation with Dean Vidler and Steven Hillyer and I for one was excited about placing this show in an educational context. Since Rudolph has been such a maligned figure in the architecture world I thought it might be useful to have this show in one of the premiere architecture schools in the country to allow students to have a chance to evaluate the LOMEX proposal as one of the largest inter modal urban planning project ever dreamed of (which admittedly is fraught with many problems and contradictions) As well, this collaboration allowed the Cooper students to rebuild the LOMEX model, which became a very important part of the show. I hope at least that gives some rationale for why the show ended up a Cooper Union. In regards to our choices of drawings and the way we displayed them – I can only defend our decisions based on what we wanted to try and get across to the specialized audience at Cooper and introduce the project to the general public.

That said, I am most proud of the dialog around this exhibition. For many this is the first time they have seen the project and there were many intelligent pieces written about this show that really dig into the relationship of architecture to urban planning, discuss new ways to frame city planning beyond the dialectic of the Moses and Jacobs positions and also some re-evaluation of Rudolph’s legacy.

Best.

Brett Littman
Executive Director
The Drawing Center

It must have been interesting to spend 4 years in Rudolph’s art and architecture building, which has been restored in a way that makes its circulation even more mysterious by an addition (Gwathmy Siegel?). The complexity of the interior is pretty fascinating, and I have only seen photos and drawings of his houses, so it may well be true that I underestimate his passion for detail. Still, no matter how much one wants to believe in Rudolph, you can’t help coming away from Yale thinking about Kahn’s command of materials, surfaces and spatial relation — and for that matter how much more gorgeous Rudolph’s parking strusture is compared to the forced dynamics of his campus building. (I can’t be the first to make that observation.)

As for “opposititely charged” — a quck compression of what should be a long discussion, but for the record, I am the hopelessly confused product of just such a union.

Ditto to all of the above, esp Daniel’s opening. I spent years sorting through my mixed feelings about the A&A, then visited a beautiful private house in Mamaroneck and was won over. As for art and architecture being “oppositely charged,” I think you’ve just explained almost too much about my marriage, David!

David – Fascinating take on the role of visionary architect’s drawings.

in my narrow experience, the strength of rudolph’s architecture lies in the same intimate detail as the drawings. and while he’ll never match kahn for sense of scale or materials, when rudolph hammers ribbed concrete, that’s pretty nice line in itself.