The chapter, “The Collision City” from the book, Collage City, by Colin Rowe and Fred Koetter, provides a litany of dualities relating to Modernism- in its attitudes, history, and architecture. The dualities include; fox vs. hedgehog, bricoleur vs. engineer, politics vs. architecture, scientific vs. myth, mono vs. multi, etc..
The duality I am going to focus on is the fox vs. the hedgehog. The authors included the following quote by Isaiah Berlin; “The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” (Rowe, 91) and go on further to describe the nature of the two; “what one is supposed to have here are the types of two psychological orientations and temperaments, the one, the hedgehog, concerned with the primacy of the single idea and the other, the fox, preoccupied with multiplicity of stimulus” (Rowe, 92). This idea is presented as one of the most important dualities described in the chapter but, what is most fascinating, is the analysis in the context of Modernism. It is explored as two psychological states that, throughout history, have been balanced among the ‘greats’, but become unbalanced in the wake of Modernism where “one notices a predominance of hedgehogs” (Rowe, 92). At first glance, compared to centuries past, it may seem as though the early 20th century brought about diverse ingenuity, however, the hedgehog psychology stifled productive creativity and varied innovation. Modernism was plagued by monocular vision.
The fathers of Modernism all fall into the hedgehog category for the singularity of their architectural theories. Wright, Gropius, Mies, and even Le Corbusier in regards to his urbanist theories (Rowe, 92-93), are among those that developed the monolithic dogma that beset the early 20th century (it is important to add that not all Modernist theories were monolithic, simply that the majority were). This absence of ‘foxes’ propelled architects and urban planners alike to believe that there was only one right answer. Now, this is not to say that all architects and urban planners believed in the same ‘right answer’, but that they were rigid in their theories and singular in their scope. Each of these architects obsessively cultivated independent theories on what formal elements stipulate ‘good’ and ‘bad’ architecture. For example, Mies was set in his theory of infinite planes and Wright in his principles of design. This, therefore, closed them off to exploring architecture, design, and urban planning as holistic entities that by their aggregate nature have multifaceted constituents that cannot be prescribed such absolute definitions.
A major fault of Modernism is that it is often obvious who the architect of a plan or building was (because they stuck to their guns). This fact is conclusively adverse because it indicates that there is little creative or thoughtful development between designs or theories throughout these architects’ careers. Although the monocular vision of these architects did not prevent them from producing varied designs, it did, however, prevent them from departing from their principles. I am a proponent of foxes, bricoleurs, and multis. Whether through visual, functional, or emotional quandaries, problem-solving is at the heart of architecture and the solutions are infinite. It is undeniable that multiplicity is the best formula for creating solutions and, therefore, the best formula for developing architecture.
Rowe, Colin, and Fred Koetter. Collage City. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1983