War on Architecture: E.1027

War on Architecture: E.1027
Author(s): Beatriz Colomina
Source: Assemblage, Apr., 1993, No. 20, Violence, Space (Apr., 1993), pp. 28-29
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3181684

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Assemblage

This content downloaded from 185.14.222.46 on Sat, 06 Dec 2025 15:11:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

E.1027. A modern white house is perched on the rocks, a hundred feet above the Mediterranean sea, in a remote place, in Roquebure at Cap Martin. The site is “accessible and not contiguous with this house.” It was designed and built by Eileen Gray for Jean Badovic and herself between 1926 and 1929. She named the house E.1027. E for Eileen, 10 for J (the tenth letter of the alphabet), and designed and built it more most of the summer months until Gray built her own house in Castellar in 1934. After the death of Badovic in 1956, the house was sold to the Swiss architect Marie Louis Schelbert. She found that the house “Corbid did not want a bulb, and even before the inevitable violence in it, it was added with a huld box.” The house had clearly been the site of some considerable violence. In 1969 letter, she comments on the state of the house: “Corbid did not want a bulb, and even before the inevitable violence in it, it was added with a huld box.” The house had clearly been the site of some considerable violence. In 1969 letter, she comments on the state of the house: “Corbid did not want a bulb, and even before the inevitable violence in it, it was added with a huld box.” The house had clearly been the site of some considerable violence.

But what violence is there to the house before that it must be addressed by war. But what kind of war? Most obviously, it was World War II. The bullet holes are wounds from the German occupation. But what violence is there to the house before that it must be addressed by war. But what kind of war? Most obviously, it was World War II. The bullet holes are wounds from the German occupation. But what violence is there to the house before that it must be addressed by war. But what kind of war?

And anyway, what brings him to this isolated spot, this remote house that will eventually be the site of his own death?

“As a young man he had traveled in the Balkans and the near East and had made sketches of struts and scapes, and seen it. It was perhaps through a natural, anti-maritime reaction of maturity that later, as a Purist, he proposed to paint what was duplicable and near-hair.” James T. Soby) We will have to give him a touch of the scene, to the strange, inaccessible places, to the that he had “conquered” through drawing. At the very least, to Le Corbister’s trip to Algeria in the Spring of 1957 and encounter in what will be a long relationship with the city of Le Corbister’s works. “twelve years of uninterrupted study of Algeria.” By all accounts, this study began with his drawing of Algerian wood, but he saw it and knew it profoundly seduced by a type of woman particularly well built“ of which he made many nude studies. He also acquired a big collection of colored postcards representing naked women surrounded by the Central bazaar. Jean de Maisonau (later the director of the Musee National des Arts d’Alger), who as an eighteen year old boy had gudged Le Corbister through the Cashah which later recall that he was a beautiful group together with the Algerian artist turned out acutely and realistically, but he said that they were very bad and refused to show them. “Le Corbiser filled three notebooks of sketches in Algeria which he later claimed were stolen from his atelier in Paris. But Ozzenfant denies, as saying that Le Corbister himself either destroyed or hid them, considering them the “secret d’atelier.” The Algerian hibernation and postmortem appear for a projected monumental composition, of a fetish appropriation of women, of the E. of the other. But Le Corbister, as Samir Rafi and Stanslas von Möo have noted, turned this material into a personal mural for a three women, the woman may reveal as much as it conceals), is clearly a “theme for a psychiatrist,” as Le Corbister’s Vera une architecture says of the nightmares with which people invest their lives. The woman may reveal as much as it conceals), is clearly a “theme for a psychiatrist,” as Le Corbister’s Vera une architecture says of the nightmares with which people invest their lives. The woman may reveal as much as it conceals), is clearly a “theme for a psychiatrist,” as Le Corbister’s Vera une architecture says of the nightmares with which people invest their lives.

The imposition of this apprehension is even more brutal if we remember that Eileen Gray had chosen the site because it was in Petam Aden’s words, “inaccurately and not unworthy of attention.” The violence of this occupation has already been established when Le Corbister painted the murals in this house (there were eight altogether) without the permission of Eileen Gray, who had already in mind. She considered it as a vandalism, indeed, as Adam has put it, “it was a raid. A fellow architect, a man she admired, had without her consent defended her design.”

The defacement of the house went hand in hand When Le Corbister published the murals in his Enreau complete (1990) and L’Architecture de la Murelle (1994) and L’Architecture de la Murelle (1994) and L’Architecture de la Murelle (1994) and L’Architecture de la Murelle (1994) and L’Architecture de la Murelle (1994) and L’Architecture de la Murelle (1994) and L’Architecture de la Murelle (1994)

This content downloaded from 185.14.222.46 on Sat, 06 Dec 2025 15:11:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jusr.org/terms

neary scene, a defaement of Gray’s architecture and perhaps even an effacement of her sexuality, since her relationship to Badovic notwithstanding, Gray was openly gay (but inasmuch as Algerian law allows it to be three women, the woman may reveal as much as it conceals), is clearly a “theme for a psychiatrist,” as Le Corbister’s Vera une architecture says of the nightmares with which people invest their lives. The woman may reveal as much as it conceals), is clearly a “theme for a psychiatrist,” as Le Corbister’s Vera une architecture says of the nightmares with which people invest their lives.

This content downloaded from 185.14.222.46 on Sat, 06 Dec 2025 15:11:45 UTC All use subject to https://about.jusr.org/terms

Why then did Le Corbusier vandalize the very house he loved? Did he think the murals will enhance it? Certainly not. Le Corbusier had repeatedly stated that the role of the mural in sense of habitation of weight etc. The mural for Le Corbusier is a weapon against architecture, a bomb. But why then to paint on the walls at the risk of killing architecture? He asks in the same letter, and then answers: “It is when one is painting an artifact in a museum, it is what then is the story that he so urgently needs to tell with Graftie a Cap Martin.”

We will have to go back once more to Algerians. In fact, Le Corbusier’s complimentary letter to Eileen Gray, sent from Cap Martin on 28/4/38, wears the letter head of Cap Martin. Le Corbusier indicates that the Graftie’s house and history is consistent with his stifening of Algerian women. One might even argue that the child in this mural reconstitutes the missing (maternal) philosus, whose absence, Freud are given guidance on organization or through the endless drawing and redrawing as the scene of a violent substitution that in Le Corbusier would seem to require the house, domestic space, as prop. Virtues is organized around or through the careful orchestrated occupation of a house. But the house is in the end effect (eased from the Graftie’s drawings, defaced at Cap Martin).

Significantly, Le Corbusier describes drawing it itself as occupation of a “stranger’s house.” In his last lecture on Sculpture, he writes: “By working with our hands, by drawing, we enter the house of a wanderer, we are enriched by the experience, we learn.” Drawing, as has often been recorded by the pencil, is for good—entered, registered, inscribed. The camera is a tool to fix deep down in one experience what is seen. Once the impression has been recorded by the pencil, it is for good—entered, registered, inscribed. The camera is a tool to fix deep down in one experience what is seen. Once the impression has been recorded by the pencil, it is for good—entered, registered, inscribed. The camera is a tool to fix deep down in one experience what is seen.

This has gained Le Corbusier the reputation of having a photography in his work. But what is the specific role of photography in his work?

The lectures of the Algerian women not only redrawings of the mural but also redrawings of postcards. One could even argue that the construction of the Algerian women in French postcards, widely diffused at the time, would have informed Le Corbusier’s live drawings. More points out from postcards and reproductions than from the original painting in the Louvre. So what then, will he be the specific role of the photographic image as such in the fethiatic scene of the “Femme d’Aigler” project?

The fethiatic is always “presence,” written Victor Burton and sometimes have been told that photographs lack presence, that paintings are to be valued because of their presence? Clearly this separation between painting and photography is what organizes the domain in art history. It is why photography. What these accounts seem to ignore is here the drawing, hand-crafted artistic mediation, is done after the photograph the art reproduction, the postcard, the photographic image.

In face of the whole mentality of the “Femmes de Caasil” drawings is photographic. Not only are they made from photographs. They are developed according to a repetitive process where the images are systematically reproduced on transparent paper, the grid of the original graph paper, and then painted in a way scale. This photographic sensitivity becomes most obvious with the murals at Cap Martin. Traditionally, they have been understood as paradigm of Le Corbusier the painter, the craftsmanship an interpretation to which Le Corbusier himself has contributed with the circulation of that famous photograph of him, maked, working at one Murals (do you realize that this is the added value in art history? That it had to be here, in this scene, is in itself). But what is normally conceived by Graftie a Cap Martin was not conceived on the wall itself. Le Corbusier used an electric project to enlarge the range of a small drawing in the 2.50m × 4米 white wall where he etched the mural in black.

[They say that, in using black, Le Corbusier was thinking about Graftie a Caasil of the year before, and that Picasso, his turn, was so impressed by the range of his own versions of the Femmes d’Aigler. Apparently, he drew Delacoxi’s painting from memory and was “frope” to find out later that the figure he had painted was not in Delacoxi (Rafi). It was of course, Graftie a Cap Martin that he remembered, the reclining crossed-legged woman (inviting but inaccessible) Le Corbusier’s symptomatic representation of the murals had so impaired him, how some Picasso

Like all colonists, Le Corbusier does not think of it as an invasion but as a gift. When recapitulating his life work five years before his death, he sympathetically writes about Algers and Cap Martin in the same terms: “1910 Algers—seven great technicalities on how to do change” and “1918, later—1938 Grey murals painting (of charge) in the Badovici and Helen Grey house at Cap Martin.” No charge for the discharge. Gray was outraged, even now her name had been defamed. And reminding it all, while imitating colonization. Such gifts can not be returned.

P.S. In 1944, the retiring German Army drove up Eileen Gray’s apartment in Memm (Saint-Tropez) having vandalized E1027 and tainted the temple (Gatellier). She lost everything in the house and the building. Le Corbusier went down from E1027 to the sea and swam to his death.

P.S. In 1945, the German soldiers worked in the house “domesticated” the murals. I like to think that he did an omit purpose. Eliger Gray had spent almost three years living on in the site in complete isolation, building the house. Then again, she did the same thing when building her own house at Cap Martin. The museum was lost with a fact, the law, and the museum. She unwieldily perfected what the murals where about. They destroyed them in doing, they showed more enlightenment than most enlightenment.

Colomina