There seems to be some collective misunderstanding or mis-construing of the corbusier's original that would potentially have impacts on the thought of the promenade architecturale.
The drawing attributed to corb shows 6 columns (with footings), 3 floor slabs and a totally cantilevered stair and stair platform.
This image - a photo of a model in acrylic case from a show at Gemeentemuseum in the Hague shows a seventh and a roofless uncapped 8th column (along with an extended lowest floor slab under the stair).
This model image from fondation le corbusier shows a model with 6 columns:
and Quondam, of course, shows 6 columns as well:
but this drawing of a Maison domino has the stair relocated to the center and 8 columns, with one column attached to the stair:
That Rowe later uses for the 1-2-1 structuring comparison to Palladio:
While eisenman maintains 6 columns always puching and pulling the edges of the slab off away from the columns:
And not slotting the slab between columns, but catching onto the clipped corner in fig 24.
Last, is this image, presumably from LC originally, but found on afasia, shows 8 and is presumably another source for the mysterious 8th column along with the extended bottom floor slab:
I think the historical record isn't totally clear here. Anyone have any input on this?
Gregory Walker
Oct 19, 23 9:21 pm
my bet.... is that corb wasn't a purist about the formal reading of it (and could have done variations over time). the model in corb's foundation seems to most closely align with the axon (and quondoms, and eisenman). the hague model seems just incorrect. Rowe isn't really using the purist reading of the domino but the broader idea relative to a specific project. don't know anything about the arch-web version. the last drawing you have... you didn't cite a source but it could either be an earlier idea or a later idea (if it's from corb's archive) or for a specific project or....
midlander
Oct 20, 23 1:09 am
presumably these were multiple iterations of a conceptual idea. though clearly the 6 column version is more satisfying architecturally. maybe the foundation le corbusier or one of the institutions holding the models / drawings could provide more context on the history of each artifact. there isn't much purpose studying the secondary sources- eisenman or rowe. they're just illustrating the idea, not describing its history.
joseffischer
Oct 20, 23 9:11 am
This was great, thank you for pulling all the images together. I really don't have anything academic to add but I do find it interesting that there would be so much variation and arbitrary iteration in a piece of architectural history so simple and iconic. Makes me feel a bit better about moving that column back and forth in DDs for the 6th time!
I have been looking at dom-ino images online.
There seems to be some collective misunderstanding or mis-construing of the corbusier's original that would potentially have impacts on the thought of the promenade architecturale.
The drawing attributed to corb shows 6 columns (with footings), 3 floor slabs and a totally cantilevered stair and stair platform.
This image - a photo of a model in acrylic case from a show at Gemeentemuseum in the Hague shows a seventh and a roofless uncapped 8th column (along with an extended lowest floor slab under the stair).
This model image from fondation le corbusier shows a model with 6 columns:
and Quondam, of course, shows 6 columns as well:
but this drawing of a Maison domino has the stair relocated to the center and 8 columns, with one column attached to the stair:
That Rowe later uses for the 1-2-1 structuring comparison to Palladio:
While eisenman maintains 6 columns always puching and pulling the edges of the slab off away from the columns:
And not slotting the slab between columns, but catching onto the clipped corner in fig 24.
Last, is this image, presumably from LC originally, but found on afasia, shows 8 and is presumably another source for the mysterious 8th column along with the extended bottom floor slab:
I think the historical record isn't totally clear here. Anyone have any input on this?
my bet.... is that corb wasn't a purist about the formal reading of it (and could have done variations over time). the model in corb's foundation seems to most closely align with the axon (and quondoms, and eisenman). the hague model seems just incorrect. Rowe isn't really using the purist reading of the domino but the broader idea relative to a specific project. don't know anything about the arch-web version. the last drawing you have... you didn't cite a source but it could either be an earlier idea or a later idea (if it's from corb's archive) or for a specific project or....
presumably these were multiple iterations of a conceptual idea. though clearly the 6 column version is more satisfying architecturally. maybe the foundation le corbusier or one of the institutions holding the models / drawings could provide more context on the history of each artifact. there isn't much purpose studying the secondary sources- eisenman or rowe. they're just illustrating the idea, not describing its history.
This was great, thank you for pulling all the images together. I really don't have anything academic to add but I do find it interesting that there would be so much variation and arbitrary iteration in a piece of architectural history so simple and iconic. Makes me feel a bit better about moving that column back and forth in DDs for the 6th time!