Stanley Tigerman in the Context of Postmodernism

 

     

I said to myself: „Well, well, Stanley is something.” I have heard that Stanley hunted tigers in Bangladesh. With a gun? With a camera? I cannot remember which. I must say I feel a bit of what the tiger in the jungle must have felt when was stalked by Tigerman. So here I am. To write on friend’s work. The task is made difficult since I cannot objectively separate the man from the work (in its pure sense).[1]

 

John Hejduk

 

I was not fully aware of the effort I snatch when choosing the life and the work of Stanley Tigerman as the subject of the article. So at the moment I can say the same as John Hejduk asked in 1989 to comment on the work of his fellow: “Well, well, Stanley is something”. And like Hejduk in the face of the white paper in the above description, I'm now in a slight fear, the same that the tiger must have felt, which Tigerman allegedly hunted in Bangladesh...

 

I have met the architecture of Tigerman previously for several times, marveling at it, characterized his graphical approach to presenting the projects and his rich formal imagination. I do know no example of the Polish-language literature devoting more attention to the work of this American architect. For this reason I was a stranger to the ideological and intellectual context of his works. My Polish unconscious, riddled by school and childish-naive stereotype there can not be something very surprising. The America, this mythical country from overseas – the milk, honey and crisis - hides more puzzles than the Polish television could accommodate, pervious influenced by so-called "Americanization".

 

One of such unusual and alien American mysteries for the Polish culture is the phenomenon of postmodernism. Deliberately I use the term - a phenomenon - in relation to postmodernism. It is not merely a formal side of the postmodern architecture, the examples of which can be found all over the world, but a phenomenological background, which contributed to the fact that the birthplace of the stormiest intellectual trends characterized postmodernism, became the United States of America.

 

I

 

What is the postmodernism? The precise answer to this question is given by Charles Jencks – the architecture critic, one of the first scientists - theorists who have drawn the attention to the concept of postmodernism and helped to define the present scope of the semantic of this word. In his book “The Postmodern Architecture”, which emerged from the late sixties to mid-seventies and in the Polish edition was published only a few years later - around 1981, Jencks, answering the question on postmodernism, in the first place sets the lower limit of the concept, stating, what it is not.

 

According to Jencks the postmodernism is not a direct continuation of the trend of the modernism in the architecture, as it was interpreted incorrectly. The postmodernism is in opposition to the modernism and thus to the late modernism and the ultra-modernism. Charles Jencks writes about this in the following way:

 

It seems to me that the importance of the postmodern architecture grows as it differs from the late modernism. While the later is based primarily on the principles of the modernism fidelity and the expression technology, the communication and efficiency, the postmodernism stresses the importance of the context of urban values ​​of the users and the eternal means of expression in the architecture, such as ornament.[2]

 

The avant-garde of the modernism made that for ​​a few decades the importance of the issue of whether the message has disappeared completely in the architecture of the discourse on this subject. The architecture has become an empty stage of the life, the functional background only, no longer being a partner in the dialogue - as in the past. The architecture stopped talking the human symbolic and allegorical language, limited itself merely to the geometric forms stripped of the semantic seams - the components of the sense so you can compare it to the birds singing - it was beautiful, but strange. The postmodernism restored closeness in the architecture; it wanted to restore its voice, but the social changes caused by the experience of war, urbanization and the technological advances made ​​it impossible to return in this regard to the methods of the nineteenth century.

 

The postmodernism developed his own peculiar stylistic language which Charles Jencks gave a detailed analysis in his book, which I has already quoted – “The Postmodern Architecture”[3]. He distinguishes the ways of the architectural communication as a metaphor, the words, syntax and semantics. It is the characteristic nomenclature for the literary communication.

Hence the question is about the architectural “transmission”, not just architecture. Entering the problems of the postmodernism, it is inevitable the flurry of the issues that are beyond the architecture, and concern perception and psychology of the individual. Therefore it can be stated that the object of the interest of the postmodernists is the relationship of the architecture to the society and to the individual.

 

Where talking about the relationships and the language between the two entities, one can not forget about the code, which is a carrier of the meaning. Jencks does not forget about this, specifying the postmodernism as a hybrid, using the method of "double coding". As he writes:

 

The architects wishing to overcome the modernist impasse and failure communicating with users have to use some understandable language, the local and traditional symbolism. But they had to communicate well with their authorities and use the latest technology. Hence there is the definition of postmodernism as a "double coding", the series of the essential duality.[4]

 

And further on:

The basic duality concerns the elitism and populism, the undeniable contradictory pressures, which is reached by any good architect. This conflict can be overcome in the different ways. In a traditional society, it is quite easy because the language of the architecture and the values system of the inhabitants are actually common. The architect, the craftsman and the audience, in fact, read the same meanings in the buildings. In our present [M.Wata: American] society there is much greater diversity. There are many elites (the creative professions, a company-customers and even businesses) with different background and there is (as formulated by Herbert Gans) a whole lot of "the taste cultures" created on the economic, historical and personal basis. As a result the architect can no longer assume that the tastes and the goals is the same thing. The gap between the elite forming the environment and the audience is inevitable.[5]

 

According to Jencks the postmodern architecture is able to overcome the gap between the elite and the public. It should be noted that the description of the society presented by Charles Jencks is a description of the American society, not all components of the sociological situation of the United States of the sixties and seventies can be understood in the context of other societies of the world. Quoted in isolation from the sociological context the postmodernism is seen primarily as an “eclectic” aesthetic and it seems that so far this is just seen in the Polish environment: quasi-aesthetic.

 

Moreover, in terms without context the postmodernism seems like backwardness in comparison with the progressive ultra-modernism. It is a wrong impression that becomes clear during the deep consideration of the issues. The postmodernists like their "opponents" have a very good modernist education. Their actions, their scientific reaction to the achievements of the previous generation were in fact kind of the sinusoidal rebellion against the tradition, were the result of the search for the new means of expression, not a retreat to the past. The past is just a plaything for the postmodernists, the fleeting association. Just as often you can meet with the “the project association” of that time designers related to the future, as evidenced by the birth of the futurological mainstream in the functional art and the science fiction. To sum up: both the postmodernists and the later modernists of a new generation of the architects move in the same direction, looking for the ways grown in parallel on the basis of the avant-garde - modernism. In my approach rather the ultra-modernists act as the conservative epigones and the postmodernists appear as the progressive reformers, the revolutionaries.

 

Sam Jencks, in turn, indicates that the relationship between the postmodernism and the late modernism is rather in the antinomy then in the contradictions:
 

Where the late modernist architecture is pragmatic, the postmodern is pluralistic one, where the first exaggerates the modernism to keep it alive; the latter distorts it creating a new transitional style. (...) In some sense, these movements are mutually defined through the differences and even through the controversy. In 1982 in the headquarters of the Royal Institute of British Architecture (RIBA) in London there was «the great debate" between the two opposing camps, but the later modernists persistently called themselves as the "modernists". No one likes to be "the late" suggested as the half-dead.[6]

 

The existence of a dialectical debate between the postmodernists and the late modernists makes raising the lively problem, forcing the inter-mixing of their theoretical influences. The adaptation of the regionalism by the modernism may be an example of such a dynamic impact. The theoretical expression of this trend has given by Kenneth Frampton in his “The six points in the architecture of resistance” writing about the so-called "Critical regionalism".

 

The unquestionable fact is that the phenomenon of the postmodernism, which in Poland realized in the form of the theoretical pills due to Jencks books and subsequent publications, was a natural result of the events in the U.S that actually took place in the architecture and had the power of the social influence.

 

More and more the environment of the American architects of the sixties and seventies was really engaged in a lively debate on the current issues of the architecture. The participants of these events often remain in the personal relationships, as in the case with Stanley Tigerman and John Hejduk – the two friends, while representatives of the two "opposing camps of the architecture." They are the heroes of the next part of the study.

 

 

II

 

All the above aspects of the times in which the modernism crystallized two parallel trends: the post-modernism and the ultra-modernism, I had carefully considered when I came across the book by Stanley Tigerman, which is a summary of the several years of his architectural activity. It is a book “Buildings and projects 1966 – 1989”, which was released in 1989 by the New York Rizzoli International Publication.

 

The example of the work of Stanley Tigerman not popularized in Poland, as I have already stated in the introduction, shows the deep philosophical postmodernism face related to the proper time and place. His book is an example of the work of the documentary literature created by a man who combines the features of the practice man and the theorist. It opens with the introduction word by Tigerman, which takes the self-reflection, retrospective form and the critical stories about the ideas guiding the formation of the future projects. It is also the story about the road, about the creative process, which resulted in the subsequent years of implementation of the later works, it was crystallizing the keynote. Tigerman, whose works are in the aesthetic canon of the postmodern architecture, seems to emphasize the conceptual, philosophical nature of his architectural activities.
 

The epilogue, the afterword to the Triggerman’s book written by John Hejduk is associated with the current form of the late modernism, one of the stars of the New York Five – the architectural party of “the whites", who under the patronage of Philip Johnson promoted and cultivated the pure modernist thought in the architecture. I think that Tigerman did not choose wrongly John Hejduk as the critic of his works. It's not just a clever promotional move but the successful post-modern joke that introduces the literary paradox and contradiction. It's also a great documentary treatment, which after many years of the “Buildings and projects 1966 – 1989” publication still allows the contemporary reader to feel the dual nature of the dispute about the postmodernism! It allows to feel the authentic social emotions accompanying the existence of this trend in the American architecture and to discover the excitement that existed in the environment of the architects.

 

 

Tigerman would not have to worry too much about the cutting criticism of Hejduk, because from his afterword it was clear that the two men had for not only sympathy, but respect.

 

Despite these very positive, personal relationships Tigerman did not hesitate to openly express his dislike for the purely modernist assumptions. He clearly defined his position relative to what was referred to as "Miesianism", arguing that much mocking the notion of the famous immigrant named Mies van der Rohe. As Tigerman writes:

 

During my architectural studies I was exposed to a strong polemical positions (to be honest, for a student of the architecture in the 50s in Chicago for a good cause it was impossible not to be absorbed by the authoritarian power of the Miesianism), but I never entered enough to consider either the existing rules as my own. Many times I felt that I am an outsider, even in Chicago, which was my home. My resistance to be drawn into the controversy, which I have not co-created, no doubt contributed to my self-exile. At the same time my innate sensitivity has always pulled toward the singularity rather than to what is normalized, both in the society and the arts. Even as a student of the architecture at Yale Rudolph Paul I never had certainty as to the truth recognized in New Haven and as regular as anything offered by Mies in Chicago.[7]

 

As you can see at the beginning of his book Tigerman deliberately tries to impress the reader with his eternal virgin individualism, which has never allowed to be misled by any borrowed theory. Stanley rejects especially the idea of Mies. It can be resulted from the Tigerman’s report that Mies van der Rohe had a cult status in Chicago in the fifties. Using in his assay only the name of this European architect, who brought "the torch of the modernism" to the United States, completes as if there was only one Mies throughout Chicago and exposes the Tigerman’s ironic attitude not only to his fellow, but also to the whole movement, which Van der Rohe has become a symbol.

 

The similar ironic content is expressed in the Tigerman’s photo collage “Titanic”. This collage shows sinking in the middle of a calm ocean under the clear skies of the famous Crown Hall building by Mies van der Rohe built for the Illinois Institute of Technology.

 

It is interesting that Hejduk, referring in his essay for this picture, reverses the meaning intended by the author and highlights its own position on Miesianism. Hejduk writes:

 

In the darkest depths of the sea the marine organisms live. In the dark atmosphere and under the high pressure of the depths the living there organisms are like fibers, like X-rays - thin, lacking volume, having transparent and ghostly appearance. I try to imagine the resting place of the Mies black steel construction, his great work, lying on the sand, sometimes luminous, the seconds passing as the fish ghosts flow. This black German steel absorbed by the black ocean was sanctified by the haunting glow that defines the sound of the sea, the sound, which would be given only by the requiem: this is the aura of the great architecture.[8]

 

In the quoted description John Hejduk turns out the perspective of the insight into the image by Tigerman. Likewise it is the same for his project art, emphasizing the universal ethical and aesthetic values, which shape the modernist rational thinking that are close to his own sensibility. The whole of his statement does seem very sincere in his clear, consistent criticism and personal at the same time, if indeed he could not separate the human from his work. Most importantly, the efforts and objectivity of Hejduk reveal the universality of some trends of the Tigerman’s projects - common to the ultra-modernist and postmodernist architecture.

 

Hejduk does not seem to approve the naming of some phases of the Tigerman’s work such as "surreal" and "Architecture of the Absurd", but in each he finds such examples of the project implementation, which in his belief are the expression of the aura, of the crystallized presence, considered by him to be an indicator of good architecture and art.

 

Formal Generators of Structure: Matrix Studies (1965-1968) and the draft of so-called Instant City with the same period Hejduk  includes to the most interesting achievements of Stanley Tigerman. As he admits, few architects lead the objective - unbiased researches in the field of the architecture. That is the case for Generators of Structure - a series of drawings, which were the reflection of the thought on more than aesthetic evolution of the form.

 

The Instant City of Tigerman makes an impression of the utopian project, which follows the footsteps of Le Corbusier's Ville radieuse. The project is conceived as an urban mega-structure of the future composed of the multiplied horizontally, quasi-pyramidal shapes. The cleanness of the urban system responds to the urgent problems of the presence as: the growth in the population density, the urbanization, the growth of the dependence on public intercity road and car communication. The project involves the expansion of the urban structure along the main communication and trade routes. The mane of Instant City refers to the very easy and quick method of creature of the architectural structure using the lightweight materials. Recognizing the Tigerman’s project as the innovative interpretation of the "primacy", which Chicago certainly deserves, Hejduk draws the attention to the inadequacy of the name given to the concept. Hejduk, seeing the mathematical beauty of the formulas imposed in the urban planning, points out that the used here nomenclature should rather respond to the timeless, abstract power of the artistic expression – to the architecture.

 

John Hejduk include also to the successful the three realizations of this phase of the Tigermans work, which he calls a "surreal". It is a ten-year period, the years 1969 - 1979, completed the search of the forms that go beyond the assumptions of modernism. The projects featured by Hejduk are: The St. Benedict's Abbey Church in Wisconsin (1969-1973), The Hot Dog House (1974-75) and The Illinois Regional Library for the Blind Physically Handicapped in Chicago (1975-1978). As stated Hejduk: This trio represents a Chicago architect in control[9]. It can be assumed that in these three realizations Hejduk recognizes the crazy tendencies of the architect mind pulling it towards the departure of the main doctrine.

 

The project Abbey Church Hejduk considers as the direct continuation of the study on the structures generation, emphasizing the correctness of the output and simple plan and the consistent evolution of form - from the two-dimensional simplicity to the three-dimensional complexity. Finally, the effect of the whole stresses his opinion on the spiritual dimension of the space.

 

On the other hand, the most important feature of The Hot Dog House Hejduk deemed the appropriate linking of the architectural formula with the house surrounding nature and landscape, and also very clear – the "really working" dualistic, "two-piece" division of the functional space: the left side - to the life, the right- to eat meals, on the floor: the left bedroom corresponds to the  right bedroom spatially. (A bi-nuclear scheme that works![10]) The flowing form of the building is called the geometrized nature, which is considered as an expression of the idea of ​​the "holy architectural trinity": the human – the nature – the architecture. A different interpretation of the building - a strictly post-modern – we meet in the description of Charles Jencks in his book “The Postmodern Architecture”:

 

Stanley Tigerman also uses a literal metaphor as the basis of the architecture: The Animal Cracker House, The Hot Dog House, the apartments Zipper and again the phallus-shaped building euphemistically named The Daisy House. Here the justification came from a customer who saw The Hot Dog House and also wanted to get something visually eatable. The final form consists of a lot of the lovely reasons, only one of which is suitable to print that Tigerman wanted to make his client laugh. As for us, the important thing is not only whether the Tigerman’s comparisons are deep and justified, but rather that in contrast to the modernist the architects have felt the need to use a metaphorical level of the expression.[11]

 

But one is mistaken who thinks that The Hot Dog House, the titled hot dog is the only possible interpretation of the theme. The joke is, rather, a matter of the ironic, literary interpretation contained only in the title of the building; it does not apply, however, so much the idea of the architecture. The evidence of this is found in the description of The Hot Dog House by Philip Turner:
 

A simple resting house with the dimensions of approximately 4.3 x21, 2 m, built for 35 000 dollars. The blank wall made in cedar with the entrance and a glass observation wall à la Mondrian. The private weekend house in the countryside always provides an opportunity to the visual jokes; a hot dog is here for only one of the possible metaphors. There are also encoded torso and ampoule.[12]

 

It's hard to tell, with whom Stanley Tigerman sneered creating a house called The Hot Dog House: the universal over-associative modernism, or rather the using a literal metaphor postmodernism. I have a feeling that this is a question to which there is no clear answer, and whenever it makes an effort to reflect I encounter the “feedback resistance. So The Hot Dog House is both a postmodernist variant of the modernism and a modernist variety of the postmodernism. This paradox is made ​​possible by the incorporating literary layer architecture expressed in the title of the building.

 

And what does Stanley Tigerman say on this theme? He puts The Hot Dog House into the wake of his fascination with underlying oppositions and relativism, which is recognized not only in polemics on architecture, but also as a means to recognize the architectural expression. Tigerman writing about the Hot Dog House draws the attention to the formal opposition, which facade of the building expresses: the contrast between what is clear and what is unclear. This statement sums up the overall noticeable contrast, the duality of the Hot Dog House project.

 

The third building highlighted by Hejduk as interesting in terms of the aesthetics of modernism is The Illinois Regional Library for the Blind Physically Handicapped. While Hejduk does not dedicate the room for its separate analysis, we must admit that it is an interesting example of the architecture, which uses a color code (on a similar basis as that arising from the same period the Pompidou Center in Paris Projected by R. Rogers, R. Piano 1972-1977). As Tigerman reports: the most part of the library building is covered by the bright red, shiny panels. The structural elements are covered with the constructive panels in a bright yellow color and the covering parts of the mechanical and electrical installations are blue. This mosaic of colors is contrasted with a wall made ​​of a concrete growing out of the hypotenuse of a triangle, which is the basis for the plan of the building[13]. The skylight with oval, soft shapes blended into a concrete wall is the only announced interior, which is filled with oval forms contrasting with the outer geometric expression of the building facade.

 

In the library of Illinois we meet again the architecture that aims the action by confronting the opposites; in this case, Tigerman confronts the intense colors with the subdued gray concrete, as well as the geometric shapes with soft, organic lines. The means of expression, as he uses here and in the other projects,  seem to give his state of mind - the mind of a relativist that does not know how to reach one view over another, which is read as equally valuable (even though it conflicts with the first).[14]

 

 

III

 

The book of Tigerman The Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989 is a summary of more than twenty years work of this architect. At the same time it opens up a new phase of its business – the phase of synthesis, which he defines as failed attempts at healing an irreparable wound.[15]

It's hard not to get the impression that this definition refers to the relativistic nature of things, ideas, reality... To create is to make the decisions, to choose one of the many roads; Tigerman would like to go a few at a time, in spite of everything. The complexity of the implementation of the architecture by Tigerman comes perhaps from the fact that for many years he has unwittingly undertook the impossible. A number of his most recent projects, as he emphasizes, is an expression of the program making the failed attempts of healing the irreparable wound. But the publication in 1989 is not dedicated to it.
 

In The Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989 Tigerman briefly describes the several works – the works and projects - which in his view have become the milestones on the way to crystallize the concept of "the reconciliation of opposites" that need to be "backfired". This is the nature of all things; it is based on the coexistence of opposites, which despite all attempts to reconcile always remain legible in its diversity.

 

The projects that Tigerman considers essential on the road to self-determination are: The Hot Dog House (1974-75), The St. John's Chapel (1976), The Little House in the Sky in Chicago Seven - the exhibition for the Richard Gray Gallery (1976), the project Baha'i Archives Center (1976-1982), The Pensacola Place (1978-81), Tigerman Takes a Bite Out of Keck (1977-78), The Best Home of All - a project for the Museum of Modern Art in New York (1979), the project for the tea service for the Alessi company (1980-1982), The Architects' Weekend House in Michigan, created in collaboration with Margaret I. McCurry (1983), The D.O.M. Competition Corporate Headquarters Project (1980), the private residences in Connecticut (1982), The Hawthorne Woods (1986-88), a private residence in the suburbs of Chicago (1984-87).

As Tigerman pointed out all these projects are the expression of the search of the dialectical thinking about the architectural form - sometimes the search manifested as a breakdown of ideal Platonic solids, sometimes as the disintegrated, deconstructed starting blocks and the introduction of meanings, including geometrical, outside the original topic, and sometimes it comes to the disjunctive action - a specific act of tearing, breaking, which gives the impression of the formal and internally semantic dissonance.

 

Placing the Tigerman architecture in the context of the times in which it was built, one can say that it is located somewhere between the two dominant mental trends - between the modernism and the postmodernism. Tigerman, as he says, does not fully trust any ideology, being an individualist. Therefore many of his works can be considered rather as an expression of the ethical dilemma of the end of the twentieth century, manifesting itself in the philosophy of relativism, than a clear continuation of any aesthetic concept.

 

 

 

Bibliography:

1. Ch. Jenks, The Postmodern Architecture, ed. Arcade, 1987.
2. S. Tigerman, The Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989, ed. Rizzoli International Publication, New York 1989.
3.  J. Pile, The Design history, ed. Arcade, 2004.
4.   http://www.tigerman-mccurry.com/

 

 

 

---

 

[1] J. Hejduk, Afterwords [in] S. Tigerman, Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989, ed. Rizzoli International Publication, New York 1989, p 257: I said to myself: "Well, Stanley is really no one." I heard that Stanley hunting tigers in Bangladesh. With a gun? With a camera? I could not remember. I must admit that I felt a bit like he had to feel the tiger hunted by Tigerman. Here I am. To describe the work of a friend. Difficult task, because I cannot objectively separate the man from his work (literally). [translated by M.Wata]

 

[2] Ch. Jenks, postmodern architecture, ed. Arcade, 1987, page 6

 

[3] It is worth to be noting that the original English title of the Jencks book is actually: The Language of the Post-Modern Architecture and not, as the title suggested in Polish: The Post-Modern Architecture. This is the language of the architecture but not the architectural examples are considered by Charles Jencks. I'm afraid that the translation of the content of his book contains many of the same linguistic abuses - ironically!

 

[4] Ch. Jenks, The Postmodern Architecture, ed. Arcade, 1987, page 6

 

[5] Op. cit

 

[6] Op. cit

 

[7] S. Tigerman, Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989, ed. Publication Internetional Rizzoli, New York 1989, p 8: During my training and education as an architect, I was expose a powerful polemical positions (Virtually impossible it was to be an architectural apprentice In the 1950s in Chicago and not be thoroughly engulfed by the authority of Miesianism), but was never so completely seduced these that I made ​​my own principles. In many ways I have always felt as if I were an outsider, even in Chicago, which is my home. While my resistance to being subsumed by Polemics I had not helped generate certainly contributed to this idiosyncratic rather than to what is construed to be normative in society as well as in art. Even as a student at Paul Rudolph's Yale school of architecture I was never completely convinced of the truth of what was surely conveyed as righteously in new Haven as Mies anything ever offered in Chicago.

 

[8] J. Hejduk, Afterwords [in] S. Tigerman, Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989, ed. Rizzoli International Publication, New York 1989, p 260: At the sea's darkest depths organisms live. In the high pressure and atmosphere of these dark depths of the organisms are like filaments, like x-ray, thin, with no volume, banner as apparitions. I can imagine the resting place of Mies's black steel structure, his great work, lying in the sand, lit up for quick, passing seconds as the ghost fishes float by. The black German steel engulfed by the black water of the ocean is celebrated by the haunting phosphorescence of light defines Write a sea That sound, and the sound Which only a requiem ca capture: the aura of great architecture.

 

[9] J. Hejduk, Afterwards [in] S. Tigerman, Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989, ed. Rizzoli International Publication, New York 1989, p 262nd

 

[10] J. Hejduk, Afterwords [in] S. Tigerman, Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989, ed. Rizzoli International Publication, New York 1989, p 262nd

 

[11] Ch. Jenks, The Postmodern Architecture, ed. Arcade, 1987, p 113th

 

[12] . Turner [a:] Ch. Jenks, The Postmodern Architecture, ed. Arcade, 1987, p 114th

 

[13] S. Tigerman, Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989, ed. Rizzoli International Publication, New York, 1989, page 52

 

[14] S. Tigerman, Buildings and projects 1966 - 1989, ed. Rizzoli International Publication, New York 1989, 9

 

[15] S. Tigerman, Buildings and projects 1966 – 1989, ed. Rizzoli International Publication, New York 1989, 8