Since CIAM and Team X were presented as important chapters in Modern Architecture, my mind tried to neatly categorize their significance as well as differences. I wanted to know, what did Team X stand for that made it different from CIAM? Take, first, for example something as obvious as the difference in their names. The former’s title, the “International Congress of Modern Architecture”, has all the self-importance of an architect who adopts a nom de plum of his own creation, nonetheless one beginning with “Le”, as in introducing a noun. Love him or hate, I lean towards the former with strong reservations, Le Corbusier managed to reach a status worthy of such a commanding name which annoyingly corroborates his titanic significance in Modern Architecture. As for his congressional brainchild, CIAM adopted a similar air of self-importance in its mission to harness Modern Architecture for the betterment of society, not just building buildings, but advancing humanity. Where then did Team X fit into the annals of Modern Architecture? Did CIAM hand off the torch of its mission to be carried by Team X, or was there a schism in Le Corbusier’s church of Modern Architecture? The answer, I believe, falls somewhere in between.
In “The Beginning of Team 10”, Alison and Peter Smithson relate the mission and origins of Team X, stating “we shared a belief in the basic rightness of the original aims and in the worthwhile continuance of trying to make architecture with ‘spirit and hope’… but, observing with fresh eyes, were distressed by the unexpected shortfalls of Modern Architecture” (Smithson 9). Hearkening back to my earlier question, the Smithson’s allude to both a handing off of the torch of CIAM’s mission–or, rather, the recovering of a dropped torch–as well as a disagreement in the practices of the institution Modern Architecture. What I find to be one of the more defining attributes of Team X vs. its predecessor is its resemblance to a family rather than a government. Alison and Peter Smithson describe the rationale behind a familial structure, explaining “it was a deliberate act of faith to do without administration, for a group of individuals to share responsibility for meeting; to do without a secretariat, to exist by the idea of a ‘family’ — somehow sacred, inviolable, although it was only part of everyone’s life — and agree to get together whenever our meetings might be fruitful; as does a three — or four –generation family” (Smithson 10). Furthermore, the Smithson’s argue that “Team X was kept small–by a continuous battle of wills–because we personally found ‘the few’ most effective in making us think” (Smithson 10). Sure, the “family” structure of Team X is one of its defining features, but it represents a larger, more fundamental difference in the ideology of the two groups. Where CIAM under the leadership of Le Corbusier was a authority on Modern Architecture, dictating how it should act in society (with good intentions), Team X was close knit group of highly influential figures who allowed Heroic Modernism to flourish through each of their own special contributions. Team X realized one another’s strengths, and “like a family, everyone had their roles, there was never any competition as to who did what; it was just done” (Smithson 10).
The ‘family’ which the Smithson’s refer to can’t help but make me think of the fictional family of prodigies in Wes Andersen’s The Royal Tenenbaums: Possessing a wide array of talents in a small, tight-knit group which is only ever occasionally all in one place.
Smithson, Alison and Peter. The beginning of Team 10