In a unique architectural style of the twentiethcentury, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886–1969)realised a new type of modern space defined by anunobstructed clear volume enclosed by framed glassskin. This is generally referred to as Mies’s universalspace and this paper will attempt to interpretMiesian universal space in terms of the idea oftectonically defining space. Mies referred to the term‘tectonic’, or ‘architectonic’,1 as constructiveappearance exposing the skeleton structure. ForMies, the concept of tectonic was connected to aglassy materiality that permitted theunambiguously constructed appearance of a skeletalstructure. He regarded the glass skin as a ‘tectonicmeans’ and the instrument of a new art of building.

Etymologically, the term ‘tectonics’ derives fromthe Greek term tekton, signifying ‘carpenter’ andresembling tectonike, which implies the knowledge ofcarpentry, or ‘the techne of carpentry’.2 While techneindicates art or craft in all fields, tectonics impliesthe art of carpentry, that is, the art of architecturalconstruction. Materially, one can understandtectonics by contrasting it with ‘stereotomics’, bothterms deriving from studies of the technical arts byGottfried Semper. In contrast to a massivelyconstructional or stereotomic type in which solid

mass is piled up, carpentry represents a linearlyconstructional, tectonic type in which lightweightframing elements are linked by joints.

While stereotomically confining space signifies aphysical space enclosed with massive walls, thetectonically defining space of Mies includesphilosophical concepts beyond physicalconfinement. However, it is also distinguished fromso-called universal space. Mies did not actually usethe term universal space, but he referred to it as an‘open room’,3 an ‘open space’,4 an ‘open plan’,5 a ‘freeplan’,6 or a ‘clear, uncluttered space’.7 The last termmore concretely characterises both ideas of theundivided volume of interior space and the vividexpanse between interior and exterior spaces. In theMuseum for a Small City project of 1943, Miespresented the innovative art of building thatcombined framed skeletons with a fully glazed skin.All sides of the interior space were visually extendedto the surrounding environment by a transparentskin, becoming ‘a defining rather than a confiningspace’, as stated in Mies’s description. He created anew framework of space in which works of art orinterior objects were vividly delineated against thechanging nature outside through the medium of his‘almost nothing’ frames. The approach of this

history arq . vol 13 . no 3/4. 2009 251

historyThe tectonic quality of Miesian space is explored in the context

of Oriental ideas that may have been a decisive factor in its

development.

The tectonically defining space of Mies van der RoheRansoo Kim

1 Floor plan of theBrick Country Houseproject, Potsdam-Neubabelsberg, 19241

article, which posits the decisive role of the changing potential of voids and nature beyondtangible architecture itself, differs considerably fromexisting interpretations of Miesian space includingthat of Werner Blaser, who discussed the similaritiesbetween Mies’s architecture and several Easternphilosophies without describing any reliableinterpretation of the link between them.8 However,this research has derived important evidence from Blaser: that Mies was familiar with Lao-tzu’sphilosophy.

Mies’s statements on space In the 1920s Mies presented a novel idea of space byvisually demonstrating it with architecturaldrawings. In the project for a Brick Country House in1923 [1], he created an open plan by abandoningindividual rooms and composing freely withmasonry walls. Mies designed a continuouslyconnecting space in which neighbouring rooms areopen to each other, leading to an open view limitedwithin a frame of a masonry exterior wall. From thepoint of view of spatial extroversion, one can see thatMies’s spatial concerns moved from the inner effectof loosely connected space in the project of 1923 tothat of more dynamic space extending to thelandscape beyond glazed walls in the manuscript of1933, which stated that ‘they permit a measure offreedom in spatial composition that we will notrelinquish any more. Only now can we articulatespace freely, open it up and connect it to thelandscape’.9

Mies created a new ‘series of spatial effects’10 in1923. However, this flowing space was still enclosedby solid brick walls that protected inner space. Heattempted to create freestanding walls, which playeda major part in his open plan, but some criticsremarked that Mies’s freestanding walls of the BrickHouse had been inspired by Wright’s or De Stijl’scompositional approach.11 During the study of theBarcelona Pavilion in 1928, Mies innovativelyconceived a freestanding onyx wall thatcharacteristically articulated inner space andproduced a dynamic force between the material andcompositional effects of the wall itself and thecomplementary effects of the bright landscapebeyond the full glazed walls. In the 1933 manuscript

referred to above, Mies discussed the need for the fullglazed skin in terms of not only the free articulationof inner space but also the continuity of space thatallowed open views towards the landscape, statingthat his open plan could not fully exist without glasswalls. The idea of the Miesian open plan, extendingto the landscape, was also found in the description ofthe project of the Hubbe House of 1935:

The beautiful view was to the east; to the south the viewwas dull, almost disturbing. This defect would have had tobe corrected by the building plan. For that reason I haveenlarged the living quarters by a garden courtsurrounded by a wall and so locked out this view whileallowing full sunshine. Toward the river the house isentirely open and melts into the landscape. Thereby I notonly entered into the situation but obtained a beautifulalternation of quiet seclusion and open spaces.12

His remarks of 1933 and 1935 maintained the contextof spatial openness and extension. Mies intended todesign the living space of the Hubbe House so that itopened to the contemplatively beautiful scenery.Although he had successfully established hisarchitectural identity around 1930 by realising newtypes of open plans, such as those of the BarcelonaPavilion or the Tugendhat House, Mies’s open plansevolved into more clearly free plans in which thelandscape outside attained more influence on theinterior space, as stated in the following descriptionof the ‘Museum for a Small City’ project of 1943:

Interior sculptures enjoy equal spatial freedom becausethe open plan permits them to be seen against thesurrounding hills. The architectural space, thus achieved,becomes a defining rather than a confining space. A worksuch as Picasso’s Guernica has been difficult to place inthe usual museum gallery. Here it can be shown to greatadvantage and becomes an element in space against achanging background.13

The Museum’s steel frame [2] had three elements – afloor slab, columns and a roof plate – and Miesexplained its ‘open plan’ as being a space ‘conceivedas one large area, [allowing] every flexibility in use’.14

In 1958, Mies explained that his ‘free plan’ requiredinner freestanding walls separated from the outerglass plane: ‘The free plan asks for just as muchdiscipline and understanding from the architect as aconventional plan. The free plan for instancedemands that closed elements, which still are a

arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 history252

Ransoo Kim The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe

2

history arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 253

The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe Ransoo Kim

4

3

2 Sketch of theexternal view of theMuseum for a SmallCity project,Chicago, 1943

3 Kolbe’s sculpture inthe pool of GermanPavilion,InternationalExposition,Barcelona, 1928–9

4 Interior perspectiveof the living room ofthe TugendhatHouse, Brno,Czechoslovakia,1928–30

necessity, are set back from the outer walls, as donein the Farnsworth-house. Only in this way oneachieves a free space.’15 As the transparent outer skinexposed the entire interior space, it was difficult toprop objects against walls or to provide visuallyisolated rooms. Therefore, the visually enclosing andconfining purpose of space was imposed upon thefreestanding inner walls. Mies was intent onmaintaining a new spatial system loosely enclosed byinterior freestanding walls but entirely open to theoutside environment.

The museum project of 1943 was fully glazed tocreate a visually undivided space between the insideand the outside. Accordingly, architectural space, inMies’s words, became ‘a defining rather than aconfining space’. He suggested a new idea of space inwhich works of art, instead of being situated inconfined rooms, were set in spaces that enhancedtheir characteristics because the background of thespaces in which they were displayed was changingand revealing works of art more characteristically.Mies’s open plans developed in two stages: in theHubbe House of 1935, Mies designed an open planconditionally confined or open by solid walls,whereas in the museum project of 1943, heattempted to create a tectonically-defining openplan, in which four-sided fully-glazed walls replacedstereotomically solid walls. In order to fully acceptthe spontaneous and inexhaustible force of nature,Mies designed his open plans based on the art offraming construction.

Intending that people experience the surroundinghills as the changing background of works of art,Mies defined his space as ‘changing’ by drawingliving nature into inner space. By comparing Mies’sopen plans around 1930 with that of the museumproject of 1943, one finds that his freestanding wallsserve not only as the background of the Kolbe figurein the Barcelona Pavilion [3] but also for ananthropomorphic sculpture in the sketch of theTugendhat House [4]. In the museum project of 1943

the surrounding hills begin to assume this role.Comparing also Mies’s account of 1935 and that of

1943 above, one finds that he did not use the words‘open’ and ‘landscape’, but instead used ‘changing’and ‘surrounding hills’ in his description of 1943.One should note the change in Mies’s attitudetowards nature in the creation of his open plan, as hedid not use the term ‘landscape’ in the description ofhis open plans after 1943. Like Mies’s terms, themeaning of landscape includes both a humanisedlandscape and a natural landscape. Moreover, in hisdescription of the Hubbe House of 1935, his termsignified an aesthetic representation in whichnatural scenery was the main subject of a beautiful‘view’. In 1935, while he regarded the landscapeoutside the glazed skin as a vista aestheticallyproviding spatial continuity, he revealed thesurrounding hills as a spontaneously animatingelement in 1943. In other words, Mies accepted thechanging nature outside as a defining backgroundcomplementary to the works of art inside for theenhancement of dynamic forces in the interior space.

Mies’s statements of 1943 revealed that he beganprofoundly to recognise the meaning of nature as aliving force in his open plans. In his later buildings,one finds that he focused on a tectonically free planmaximally open and at the same time activelyaccepting the changing environment outside. Histectonically defining space, established on the basis

of technological construction, simultaneouslyevoked Far Eastern sentiments that valued potentialemptiness over structural frames. Although Mies did not publicly mention a relationship between his architecture and Lao-tzu’s philosophy, this study proposes that his contact with Lao-tzu’sconception of space promoted his idea oftectonically defining space.

Mies’s collection on Lao-tzu’s philosophyIn the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,Europeans became aware of Lao-tzu’s philosophythrough various routes. For example, MartinHeidegger, a contemporary of Mies who had becomeacquainted with Taoism before 1930,16 attempted, butnever completed, a translation of Tao Teh King intoGerman in 1946. Frank Lloyd Wright confessed that‘my work is, in that deeper philosophic sense,Oriental. These ideals have not been common to thewhole people of the Orient; but there was Laotse, forinstance.’17 Analysing Wright’s statements, KevinNute assumed that Wright was familiar with Lao-tzubefore his first visit to Japan in 1905.18 In RudolfEisler’s 1922 Handwörterbuch der Philosophie, whichMies owned, the meaning of ‘Tao’ was defined andLao-tzu’s Tao Teh King concisely introduced.19 The firsttranslation of Tao Teh King was published in 1868,20

and since that time more than 100 different versionshave been translated into English. Besides Eisler’sdictionary, Mies owned the following books21 whichdescribed Lao-tzu’s philosophy: F. S. C. Northrop’s TheMeeting of East and West (1946); Amos Ih Tiao Chang’sThe Existence of Intangible Content in Architectonic FormBased upon the Practicality of Laotzu’s Philosophy (1956);and a translation of the Tao Teh King (1958).

Tao Teh King is composed of eighty-one chaptersconstructed in poetic form. The phrases areambiguous but their meanings can be so profoundlysensed that the ideology of Lao-tzu, second only tothat of the great sage Confucius in Chinese culture,has deeply affected the spirituality of Far Easterners.Whereas Confucianism has influenced the Chinesein communal, public, political and ethical ways ofthinking, the Taoism of Lao-tzu has deeply affectedthem privately by suggesting the wisdom ofshunning every earthly distraction andconcentrating on life itself. F. S. C. Northrop, in The Meeting of East and West, described that in contrastto Western, scientifically-postulated space, ‘Taoistaesthetically immediate manifold’22 signified theintuitive embrace of sensed nature and anintrospective self [5]. Thus, the aesthetic nature andthe aesthetic self become an undifferentiatedcontinuum that Northrop identified as the Tao ofTaoism. According to Northrop, only if one regardsthe aesthetically undifferentiated continuum asultimate and irreducible, will that individualproperly comprehend nature or appreciate art. InMies’s description of the Hubbe House, in which herecounted that ‘toward the river the house is entirelyopen and melts into the landscape’, one finds thatMies strongly intended the residents of the house toexperience oneness between the house and thelandscape outside and reach an ultimate state inwhich the aesthetic landscape and the aesthetic selfbecome an undifferentiated continuum.

Mies also had in his collection Amos Ih Tiao Chang’sarchitectural theory book, which interpreted Lao-tzu’s concept of space from an architectural point ofview. Mies’s English edition of Tao Teh King used the

arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 history254

Ransoo Kim The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe

term ‘hollow space’23 instead of voids, but originalChinese texts preserved words that corresponded tothe meaning of the ‘void’.24 In contrast to theequivocal interpretation of Tao Teh King, Chang, underthe title of Intangible Content in Architectonic Form,clearly contrasted the concept of the void with thesolid,25 emphasising such characteristics as spirituallife, real infinity and the interpenetrable potentialityof the void in terms of architectural space and form.Chang’s book is neither long nor difficult, so anyarchitect could have understood and used its contentto interpret Lao-tzu’s philosophy in terms ofarchitectural space. To appreciate the Chinesemeaning of the term ‘void’, one had to recognise theidea of ‘allowance for growing’, which was discussedas part of Chang’s interpretation of Tao Teh King in thefollowing couplet:

Without allowance for filling, a valley will run dry;Without allowance for growing, creation will stopfunctioning.26

Chang explained Lao-tzu’s notion of life as therelationship between allowance and function. Asgrowth is considered the basic function of everyliving thing, things that are completely perfect andthat cannot grow any more are treated as dead.Although everything organic grows until it arrives atits fullness, Lao-tzu believed that the non-living alsohad a lifecycle in which it grew and died. Whilechanges during growth are generally visible,whether or not the growing force comes from anorganic or non-organic source, one is not able toperceive the force itself. Emphasising the intangiblerather than the tangible, Lao-tzu believed that theinvisible force was more important than the objectitself. Dohol Kim remarked that one of the tenets ofFar Eastern ideology was that a being reveals itselfthrough its function, so one regards a being ashaving autonomous existence only while it retainsits usefulness. Things have names to match theirfunctions. Nevertheless, if one being takes on thefunction of everything, what does it become? Lao-tzusearched for such an omni-functional being, whichhe called the void. To illustrate this concept, take the

function of a cup, which is to contain somethingliquid. If the cup is full and it cannot hold any more,then the cup is no longer considered a cup, in Lao-tzu’s point of view, as the loss of function means theloss of being. This logic is often referred to as ‘Laoisticontology’27 of the void.

The reason why the void was so important in thetheory of Lao-tzu is that he considered the void asproviding an allowance for growing, that is, apotentiality for being. Potentiality implies thecapability for growth in either a living or non-livingentity such as architectural space. If one applies Lao-tzu’s idea of voids to architectural space, a space thatis not designed to be fully occupied would have thepotential to accept further additions. Thus, thisarchitectural space would make room for a morecharacteristic impression than one in which thearchitectural intention of its space had already beendetermined. For example, in the drawing andmontage of the Resor House project of 1938 [6, 7],Mies presented the living room of the house as avacant frame containing something potential, so themain focus of these presentations was not thebuilding itself but rather the natural vista beyondthe frame of the building, or the Klee painting in theinterior. These presentations showed that the voidspace of the house would be filled with somethingpotential, which encourages an observer to redefinethe spatial character according to the changingatmosphere of space.

In Tao Teh King, which Mies also owned, Lao-tzu,emphasising the spontaneous force of Tao, said: ‘All-pervasive and inexhaustible, it is the perpetualsource of everything else. For want of a better name, Icall it “Nature” [Tao]’.28 The author of the bookinterprets Tao as ‘Nature’ with a capital ‘N’. AlthoughTao actually signifies more intangible meaningsthan nature, an architect may have regarded thespontaneous phenomena of nature through glazedwalls as the most potential force in his architecturalspace. The Chinese term in the Book of Lao-tzucorresponds to two meanings in English: one is‘nature itself’, as a noun, and the other implies

history arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 255

The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe Ransoo Kim

5

5 Taoist painting ofsage contemplatingnature. Illustrated inThe Meeting of Eastand West, 1946

‘spontaneously’ ( ), ‘following its own way’, or‘becoming its own self’ ( ) as a gerund. Nature,changing at every moment in every season, becomesone of the most potent contents of the voids.

Voids in architecture do not signify simplenothingness but affect the countenance of thespatial silence reflecting an environmentalsituation. Branden W. Joseph introduced thedefinition of the silence of John Cage as ‘the presenceof ambient and unintentional noise rather than thecomplete absence of sound’.29 Cage, associating thisconcept of silence with Mies’s glass houses, stated in alecture in 1957 that ‘[…] opening the doors of themusic to the sounds that happen to be in theenvironment. This openness exists in the fields ofmodern sculpture and architecture. The glass housesof Mies van der Rohe reflect their environment,presenting to the eye images of clouds, trees, or grass,according to the situation.’30 As one connects Cage’sinterpretation of the concept of silence to Mies’svoids seen through glazed plates, the voids could beregarded as a visually silent emptiness containingthe spontaneous changes of nature.

Providing other evidence that Mies read Lao-tzu’sBook, Werner Blaser wrote that ‘concerning thebooks that surrounded and inspired him andinfluenced his thoughts: in his Chicago apartmenthe always had books by Augustine and Laotse at hand[...]’31 Besides, it is postulated that Karlfried GrafDürckheim32 may have familiarised Mies with Lao-tzu’s philosophy. In 1930, when Mies became thedirector of the Bauhaus in Dessau, he engaged

Dürckheim as a lecturer in psychology.33 According toBlaser, Dürckheim, who had met Mies both at theBauhaus and at his home in Chicago, said in asummary of his memories of Mies that, ‘there was anelement of oriental wisdom latent in the plenitudeof calm which he radiated’.34 Recalling a situation inwhich Dürckheim had found Tao Teh King, he(Dürckheim) referred to the moment when he readChapter 11 of the book as a ‘great experience ofBeing’.35 The following is Chapter 11 in its entirety:

Thirty spokes converge upon a single hub;It is on the hole in the center that the use of the car hinges.

We make a vessel from a lump of clay;It is the empty space within the vessel that makes it useful.

We make doors and windows for a room;But it is these empty spaces that make the room livable.

Thus while the tangible has advantages;It is the intangible that makes it useful.36

These words appeared to have astoundedDürckheim,37 who confessed that this first contactwas the most decisive in his life.Chapter 11 of Tao TehKing influenced not only Dürckheim but also Frank

arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 history256

Ransoo Kim The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe

6

7

6 View of nature fromthe living room ofthe Resor HouseProject, Wyoming,1937–8

7 Montage with areproduction of PaulKlee’s Colorful Mealof the Resor HouseProject, Wyoming,1937–8

Lloyd Wright, who confessed that his pioneeringspatial concept obtained from ‘the destruction of thebox’ had precedent: ‘It was called The Book of Teawritten by Okakura Kakuzo [...] in that little book Icame upon quotations from the great Chinese poet-prophet Laotze, things he had said five hundredyears before Jesus[...] “The reality of the building doesnot consist in the four walls and the roof but in thespace within to be lived in”.’38 Kevin Nute posited thatOkakura’s spatial interpretation of Lao-tze’s conceptof voids had been influenced by Paul Carus’s 1898

translation of Chapter 11 of Tao Teh King. Nute alsoposited that Wright derived the idea of ‘space asreality’ directly from Carus’ translation of Chapter11, as Wright used Carus’s spelling of ‘Laotze’ ratherthan Okakura’s original spelling of ‘Laotse.’ WhetherWright derived Lao-tzu’s concept of void space fromCarus or from Okakura, Arata Isozaki claimed thatWright misconstrued it, saying that ‘Wright,however, did not understand this metaphor, butwent about making space his object, tryingphysically to come to grips with it’.39 According toIsozaki, while Wright interpreted Lao-tzu’s conceptof void as a realisable end in itself or a positive entity,Okakura signified it as part of ‘the revolving universeand is thus in constant motion’. According to DavidLeatherbarrow, potency results from essentialopenness between the part and the whole andOkakura’s term ‘vacuum’ signifies anticipatedfullness,40 the meaning of which corresponds to Lao-tzu’s concept of void.

Afterwards, architectural theorist Cornelis van deVen regarded the verses of Chapter 11 as ‘the firstexample of an aesthetics of space’ (1978).41 After all, inWestern architecture, it was not until the latenineteenth century that architectural theoristsrecognised the concept of space as essential toarchitectural creativity. In the first couplet, van deVen referred to the assemblage of spokes constitutingan entire wheel as a ‘tectonic form’, while in thesecond couplet, he related the empty space createdby the hollowing out of a lump of clay to ‘stereotomicform’. He interpreted Lao-tzu’s different types ofspace by applying Semper’s two materially-basedconstructional types. In the third couplet, van de Venclearly showed his admiration for Lao-tzu’s emphasison a ‘continuity of space’ between the inside and theoutside because empty space connected to theoutside is the object of fundamental architecturalconcern. He claimed that Lao-tzu created a consciousidea of space by conceiving three kinds of built spacein this poem and thus revived Lao-tzu as a ‘modernthinker’.

On the basis of the examples from Dürckheim,Wright and van de Ven, this paper proposes thatChapter 11 of Tao Teh King became the conduitthrough which Lao-tzu’s ideas as a spatial conceptreached Mies. In particular, Blaser stated that Mieshad a very special relationship with writingsbyDürckheim.42 Whereas psychologist Dürckheimbecame aware of the existence of an invisible butessential being through the chapter, architect Miesmight have been more intrinsically aware of thecritical existence of ‘empty spaces that make theroom livable’ in his art of building or Baukunst. Oneshould note that in the Museum project of 1943, Miesbegan to focus on the idea of tectonically definingspace with the intention of developing a new lifestyleand abandoning the existing tradition of confiningarchitecture as an environmental protector.

Mies’s ‘almost nothing’ tectonic frames for defining spacePeter Blake contrasts Mies’s project for a Museum for a Small City of 1943 [8] with Frank Lloyd Wright’sGuggenheim Museum of 1959, noting the degree of architectural effacement of the former: ‘For inthese the only elements visible [of a Museum for aSmall City] at first are the photographicreproductions of important paintings and pieces of sculpture; one must actually search with amagnifying glass for any evidence of the architecture[...]’43 Expressing architectural elements in only a few fine lines, Mies presented photographic realitythat transmitted the freshness of artistic works,ensuring that their materiality was stronglyperceived. Blake wrote that Mies reduced hisbuildings to ‘almost nothing’ (Mies’s phrase) for thehighest possible degree of freedom in order tomaximise the effect of artistic works. According toBlake, this intention revealed itself as ‘self-effacingmodesty’.44 In contrast to the restrained architectureof Mies, the powerfully illuminating rotunda ofWright’s Guggenheim Museum is so grandiose thatthe works of art are relatively trivialised, and thestructural compartments of the museum actuallyrestrict their free arrangement. A contrast betweenthe museum designs of Wright and Mies reveals how works of art might be allowed to stand out on their own within an architectural framework;Mies created the self-restrained framing art ofbuilding in order to provide more potential room for the defining outline of artefacts againstsurrounding space. Although buildings areessentially the central interest of an architect, Mies pioneered a new type of architecture that served as a means for a new phenomenology thatencouraged more concentrated operations of the aesthetic mind.

In a description of a similar phenomenon in theTugendhat House, Grete Tugendhat stated that, ‘justas in this space one sees each flower as never before,and every work of art (for instance the sculpture thatstands before the onyx wall) speaks more strongly, sotoo the human occupant stands out, for himself andothers, more distinctly from his environment.’45

Understanding the requirement of temperance forhouses that valued defining space, Mrs. Tugendhatexperienced the ‘enhancement’46 of theconsciousness of life itself. In Far Eastern traditionalarchitecture, the open pavilion type of residence wascommon because the intellectuals wished not onlyto appreciate beautiful scenery in a silent place butalso to live free from worldly cares and refreshthemselves, and to cleanse themselves to allow roomfor that development of new potential that AmosChang, the author of a book found in Mies’scollection, referred to as ‘creative forgetfulness’.47

According to Chang, the action of forgetting wasconsidered constructive in creative work becausecreative power more probably derived fromsubconscious mentality than from existingknowledge. Although the latter is profitable at themoment, the rigid formation of knowledge tends torestrict free thinking. Chang explained that whilespatially one sees through voids, mentally one thinksthrough creative forgetfulness. In other words, whilethe nature outside represents material reality, thevoids defined by minimal frames represent theoutlet that permits people to free themselves fromdaily concerns and leads to creative forgetfulness. In

history arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 257

The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe Ransoo Kim

Mies’s open plan, one feels the voids, seen throughfull glazed walls, as silent and contemplative, owing to the minimal appearance of his innovativestructure and details whose architectural existencegoes almost unnoticed. As both traditional Easternopen pavilions and Mies’s pavilion houses lower their existential voice and silence the scenery beyondthem, their atmosphere enables residents to become more conscious thinkers and sense life increative ways free from ordinary and materialconfinements.

According to Stanley Abercrombie, Mies said thathe ‘wanted to realize his ideal of building beinahenichts—almost nothing’48 through the FarnsworthHouse. Although Mies did not use the term ‘void’ butinstead referred to his architecture as ‘almostnothing’, the two terms have something in common.The enclosing wall of Mies became visually empty, sohe intended his ‘almost nothing’ frames as adefining means of drawing into the command ofview the nature outside, by transforming theexterior walls as a physical confinement into thevoid forces. The minimal frame of his buildings [9]vacates itself to maximally admit the spontaneouscoming and going of nature, that is, theinexhaustible changing potential of nature. In orderto more effectively reveal the changing effect oninterior space, Mies intentionally painted hisbuildings with neutral colors, as he explained:

That? white? was the right colour in the country, youknow, against the green. And I like black too, particularlyfor cities. Even in our tall glass buildings, when you are inan apartment, you see the sky, and even the city, changingevery hour. I think that is really new in our concept.49

Mies’s profound esteem for ‘almost nothing’ framesfor the definition of changing nature reflected in his

designs may be evaluated as novel in contrast to thespatial concept of the existing architecture of his day.In an interview in 1959, when Graeme Shanklandraised the problem of privacy in Mies’s open plan asit applied to the Farnsworth House, Mies answered asfollows:

No, the Farnsworth house is, I think, not reallyunderstood. I was in the house from morning to evening. Idid not know how colourful nature really was. But youhave to be careful in the inside to use neutral colours,because you have the colours outside. These always changeand I would say it is beautiful.50

Considering the clear definition of variously naturalcolours against interior space, Mies used neutraltones such as white or charcoal grey for hisbuildings, reminding one of Lao-tzu’s phrase that the‘way to acquire positive is to contain negative’.51 Withregard to window design, Mies’s approach contrastedwith that of Wright, who, in the living room of theRobie House, used the same pattern of the glass platein all the windows, interior surfaces and furniture,so the interior retained a sense of enclosure, creating‘an integrated whole’.52 In contrast to Wright, whosehouse reads as a confined whole with a dominantlyuniform design, Mies left the glass plate unadornedin all his buildings, providing an open view definedagainst his neutral frames.

arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 history258

Ransoo Kim The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe

8

9

8 Photo collage of aMuseum for a SmallCity project, 1943

9 View of transparentinterior space of theFarnsworth House,Illinois 1945–50

Recognising the potential of nature as an elementcrucial to his open plans, Mies not only painted hisarchitecture with neutral tones of colour but alsocreated it as a ‘neutral frame’, as he explained in aninterview with Christian Norberg-Schulz:

MvdR: I try to make the buildings a neutral frame wherehuman beings and works of art may live their own life. Todo this a humble attitude toward things is necessary.

CNS: When you consider architecture a neutral frame,which role has nature in relationship to the building?

MvdR: Nature should also live its own life, we should notdestroy it with the colors of our houses and interiors. Butwe should try to bring nature, houses, and human beingstogether into a higher unity. When you see nature throughthe glass walls of the Farnsworth-house, it gets a deepermeaning than outside. More is asked for from nature,because it becomes a part of a larger whole.53

Mies appreciated the decisive role of nonexistenceand attempted to minimise artificial intentions for

the sake of higher unity, apparently patterning hiswork based on Lao-tzu’s philosophy described inChapter 11: ‘Thirty spokes converge upon a singlehub; it is on the hole in the center that the use of thecar hinges’. The notion of a harmonious unity isanalogous to the integration of an entire wheelconstituting thirty spokes regularly arranged and asingle hub that is empty but crucial. Mies attemptedto establish a newly tectonic proto-form that not onlyphysically comprised his skin and bone structuresbut also spatially drew the changing forces outsideinto a building. To suggest something beyond thematerial level of technological construction, hesearched for a way in which a physical constructcould be experienced as a refreshing container forthe enhancement of the consciousness of life itself.While Far Eastern architects universally find theEastern sentiment of space in Mies’s architecture,this article discussed the ideas of Laoistic voids andnature found in Mies’s pursuits of the art of buildingas a form of tectonically defining space.

history arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 259

The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe Ransoo Kim

Notes1. Mies van der Rohe, ‘What Would

Concrete, What Would Steel Bewithout Mirror Glass?’, amanuscript of 1933. Published byFritz Neumeyer in The Artless Word:Mies van der Rohe on the Building Art,trans. by Mark Jarzombek(Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991), p. 314.

2. Demetri Porphyrios, ‘From Techneto Tectonics’, in What is Architecture?ed. Andrew Ballantyne (London,New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 134–5.

3. Mies van der Rohe, ‘The H. House,Magdeburg’, in Die Schildgenossen 14,no. 6 (1935). Republished by FritzNeumeyer, p. 314.

4. Ibid.5. Mies van der Rohe, ‘Museum for a

Small City,’ in Architectural Forum 78,no. 5 (1943), p. 84.

6. Mies van der Rohe, statementscollected by Christian Norberg-Schulz, ‘Talks with Mies van derRohe’, in L’Architecture d’aujourd’hui79 (September 1958), p. 100.

7. Mies van der Rohe, draft of a letteron the project for the AdamBuilding (1928). Published by FritzNeumeyer, p. 305.

8. In his book West Meets East—Mies vander Rohe (1996), Blaser illustratedthe spiritual and structuralresemblance between the modernworks of Mies and the ancientbuildings of the Far East, adoptinga broad approach that situatedMies’s work at its centre to study theramifications of West meets East.

9. Mies van der Rohe, ‘What WouldConcrete, What Would Steel Bewithout Mirror Glass?’ (amanuscript of 1933). Published byFritz Neumeyer, p. 314.

10. Mies van der Rohe, ‘Lecture’,

unpublished manuscript.Published by Fritz Neumeyer, p. 250.

11. Actually, Mies, for a time, formed aclose personal relationship withvan Doesburg. William J. R. Curtisremarked that ‘the Brick Villacombined a generalized“unhistorical” classicism in itsproportions and profile with thepinwheel qualities of Wright’s pre-war house plans, and with apattern of rhythmic lines andintervals inspired by the paintingsof Mondrian, Van Doesburg, orperhaps Lissizky.’ William J. R.Curtis, Modern Architecture Since 1900(New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996), p. 192.

12. Mies van der Rohe, ‘The H. House,Magdeburg’, in Die Schildgenossen 14,no. 6 (1935), pp. 514–5. Republishedby Fritz Neumeyer (1991), p. 314.

13. Mies van der Rohe, ‘Museum for aSmall City’, in Architectural Forum 78,no. 5 (1943), p. 84.

14. Ibid. 15. Mies van der Rohe, statements

collected by Christian Norberg-Schulz, ‘Talks with Mies van derRohe’, L’Architecture d’aujourd’hui 79

(September 1958): 100.16. Heidegger and Asian Thought, edited

by Graham Parkes (Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press, 1987), p. 52.

17. Frank Lloyd Wright, The NaturalHouse (New York: Horizon Press Inc.,1954), p. 221.

18. Kevin Nute, Frank Lloyd Wright andJapan: the role of traditional Japaneseart and architecture in the work of FrankLloyd Wright (London: Chapman &Hall, Ltd., 1993), p. 123.

19. Rudolf Eisler, EislersHandwörterbuch der Philosophie(Berlin: E. S. Mittler & Sohn, 1922),

p. 653.20. Tao Teh King was first published in

1868 in English by John Chalmersand in 1870 in German by Victorvon Strauss.

21. These books are in Mies’s personallibrary in the Ludwig Mies van derRohe Collection of the University ofIllinois in Chicago. Mies might haveread other books, written inGerman, that introduced Lao-tzu’sphilosophy, ones published earlierthan those referred to here. In fact,Mies’s collection was believed tohave been larger, but his familymembers had made selectionsfrom it before the SpecialCollections Department of UICpurchased it in 1969–70.

22. F. S. C. (Filmer Stuart Cuckow)Northrop, The Meeting of East andWest: an Inquiry Concerning WorldUnderstanding (New York:Macmillan, 1946), pp. 331–2, 343–4.

23. Lao-tzu, Tao Teh King: Interpreted asNature and Intelligence, trans. byArchie J. Bahm (New York, 1958),Chapter 11.

24. The following Chinese wordscorrespond to the followingmeaning of the void.

?: the void that signifies an emptyvessel in Chapter 4.

?: the void in Chapter 5.?: empty space and non-existence in

Chapter 11.25. Amos Ih Tiao Chang, 29–30.26. Op. cit., 4, Chapter 39.27. Dohol Kim’s definition in Korean.28. Lao-tzu, Tao Teh King: Interpreted as

Nature and Intelligence, trans. byArchie J. Bahm (New York: FrederickUngar Publishing Co., 1958),Chapter XXV.

29. Branden W. Joseph, ‘John Cage andthe Architecture of Silence’, October81 (Summer, 1997), p. 85.

arq . vol 13 . no 3/4 . 2009 history260

Ransoo Kim The tectonically defining space of Mies van der Rohe

30. John Cage, this lecture wasentitled ‘Experimental Music’ in1957, reported by Branden W.Joseph, op. cit., p. 85.

31. Werner Blaser, Mies van der Rohe –Farnsworth House (Basel: Birkhäuser,1999), p. 80.

32. At the age of twenty-four (1920),Dürckheim first came into contactwith Eastern philosophy when heread Tao Teh King of Lao-tzu andlater resided in Japan from 1937 to1947 as a German diplomat,psychologist and Zen master.

33. Werner Blaser, Less is More – Miesvan der Rohe (Zürich: BirkhäuserVerlag, 1986), p. 14. Hans MariaWingler also illustrated notes onthe psychology lectures of KarlfriedGraf Dürckheim 1930–1 at theBauhaus. Hans Maria Wingler, TheBauhaus: Weimar, Dessau, Berlin,Chicago, translated by Wolfgang Jabsand Basil Gilbert, edited by JosephStein (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969),p. 159.

34. Werner Blaser, p. 14.35. Alphonse Goettmann, Dialogue on

the Path of Initiation, translated byTheodore and Rebecca Nottingham(New York: Globe Press Books, 1984),p. 9.

36. Lao-tzu, Tao Teh Ching, translated byJ. C. H. Wu (New York: St. JohnUniversity, 1961), Chapter 11.

37. Dürckheim described hisexperience as follows: ‘Andsuddenly it happened! Lightningwent through me. The veil was tornasunder, I was awake! I had justexperienced “It” ... two poles: onethat was the immediately visible,and the other an invisible whichwas the essence of that which I wasseeing. I truly saw Being.’ AlphonseGoettmann, p. 10.

38. Edgar Kaufmann, An AmericanArchitecture: Frank Lloyd Wright (NewYork: Bramhall House), p. 80.Wright was paraphrasingOkakura’s following interpretation:‘This Lao-Tz? illustrates by hisfavorite metaphor of the vacuum.He claimed that only in vacuum laythe truly essential. The reality of aroom, for instance, was to be foundin the vacant space enclosed by theroof and walls, not in the roof andwalls themselves.’ Kakuzo Okakura,

Book of Tea (1906), reprinted ed. (NewYork: Dover, 1964), p. 24.

39. Cited in David B. Stewart, TheMaking of a Modern JapaneseArchitecture (Tokyo: KodanshaInternational, 2002), p. 237.Original text: GA1: Frank LloydWright: Johnson and Son,Administration Building and ResearchTower, Racine, Wisconsin. 1936–9(Tokyo: ADA Edita, 1970), p. 3.

40. David Leatherbarrow, UncommonGround: Architecture, Technology, andTopography (Cambridge: MIT Press,2000), pp. 181–2.

41. Cornelis van de Ven, Space inArchitecture: the Evolution of a NewIdea in the Theory and History of theModern Movements (Amsterdam: VanGorcum Assen, 1978), pp. 5–8.

42. Werner Blaser, Mies van der Rohe –Farnsworth House (Basel: Birkhäuser,1999), p. 80.

43. Peter Blake, Mies van der Rohe,Architecture and Structure (Baltimore:Penguin Books, 1960), p. 87.

44. Peter Blake, p. 87.45. Grete Tugendhat, ‘Die Bewohner

des Hauses Tugendhats äussernsich’, Die Form (Nov. 1931), pp. 437–8.Trans. by Richard Padovan, 25.

46. Richard Padovan says that Mies’sintention of the Tugendhat Housegoes ‘to the enhancement of theexperience of life itself’, in‘Machines à Méditer’, in RolfAchilles et al., Mies van der Rohe:Architect as Educator (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1986), p.25.

47. Amos Ih Tiao Chang, The Existence ofIntangible Content in ArchitectonicForm Based Upon the Practicality ofLaotzu’s Philosophy (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1956),pp. 70–1.

48. Mies van der Rohe, in StanleyAbercrombie, ‘Much Ado aboutAlmost Nothing: Rescuing Mies’sFarnsworth House, a Clear andSimple Statement of WhatArchitecture Can Be’, Preservation 52,no. 5 (Sept. – Oct. 2000), p. 64.

49. Ibid. 50. Mies van der Rohe, Interview of the

BBC Third Program (1959). Reportedby Peter Carter, in Mies van der Roheat Work (New York: The Pall MallPress, 1974), p. 181.

51. Amos Ih Tiao Chang, 13. Chang,referring to the phrase of Chapter28, which says ‘the way to acquirepositive is to contain negative’,explains as follows: ‘Negativism incolor, consequently, means thatwhenever a color containsgreyness, it has its intangiblecontent of its opposite and thus iscapable of harmonizing itsopposite at ease.’

52. The author uses Doreen Ehrlich’sexpression ‘an integrated whole’, inDoreen Ehrlich, Frank Lloyd Wright ata Glance: Glass (London: B. T.Batsford, 2001), p. 36.

53. Mies van der Rohe, statementscollected by Christian Norberg-Schulz, p. 100.

Illustration creditsarq gratefully acknowledges:Author, 3Yukio Futagawa; ©1974 Global

Architecture, Tokyo, 9Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 5The Museum of Modern Art, New

York, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8

AcknowledgementsThe research for this paper wassupported by the Korea ResearchFoundation Grant, funded by theKorean Government (MOEHRD: KRF-2007-355-D00023). I would like tothank both Dr. Jinkyoon Kim for hisinvaluable support on this projectand Dr. Ronald B. Lewcock for hisinsightful advice on this topic.

BiographyRansoo Kim, a Korean registeredarchitect and doctoral graduate inarchitecture of the Georgia Institute ofTechnology in usa, is currently anassistant professor in the College ofArchitecture at Myongji University inSouth Korea. She was an architecturalmanager and a post-doctoralresearcher at Seoul National University.

Author’s addressDr Ransoo Kim449–728 College of Architecture Myongji UniversitySan 38–2 Namdong, Cheoin-gu,

Yongin, Gyeonggi-do South Koreakimransoo@mju.ac.kr

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.