Henry Mao Fei is an American architect who may be "lonely and nameless" in the history of architecture, but he is an American architect with the deepest ties to China. From the auditorium, library, science hall and gymnasium in Tsinghua Garden, to boya tower and Bei GongLou in Yanyuan, to the National Revolutionary Army Fallen Soldiers Cemetery and Jinling Women's University in Nanjing (now the Suiyuan Campus of Nanjing Normal University), to Fudan College (now Fudan University), Dalai Building and St. Mary's Girls' School (Zhang Ailing's alma mater) in Shanghai, to the Xiangya Hospital and the early buildings of the Medical College in Changsha, to Fuzhou Union University in Fuzhou... In the past two decades in China, Maofei has designed buildings all over the country.
The "adaptability of Chinese architecture" and "the revival of Chinese architecture" advocated by Mao Fei have had a special impact on modern Chinese architecture. His architectural philosophy deeply influenced the "first generation" of Chinese architects. The following is an excerpt from "Zhuye China" with the permission of the publishing house, which is slightly deleted from the original text.
Original author | [Beauty] Guo Weijie
Excerpts | Xu Yuedong
"Zhuye China", by Guo Weijie, translated by Lu Wei, January 2022 edition of Cultural Development Publishing House.
In 1933, at the age of 56, Mao Fei entered the twilight stage of his Chinese career. Two years later, he retired to the United States and spent the remaining nineteen years in his home of his own design, In Cape Kiram, Branford, Connect. During the last three years of living in Shanghai, Mao Fei lived a lonely but not isolated life. He rented a small apartment near the Bund and set up a sampan boat to share the fun of sailing with friends. He also occasionally works as a construction consultant for a real estate investment firm, helping them design some foreigner homes on the plots to be developed.
Most of the time, his job was basically just hanging up a name, and occasionally he would go to the small office that employed four draftsmen. Among the firm's employees was a young and unruly American architect, Edmund Bacon. Bacon was influenced by Mao Fei a lot, especially his interpretation of the value of traditional Chinese architectural design. Although Mao Fei never received the attention of most foreign architects, he maintained good relations with a number of Chinese architects, such as Zhao Shen and Tao Guilin. The former was a partner at one of the two major architectural firms in Shanghai (founded and operated by Chinese) at the time; the latter was the founder of the Fu Ji Construction Factory, which not only undertook the construction of the Memorial Tower of Nanjing Linggu Temple designed by Mao Fei, but also the builder of a large number of important architectural works across China. In the last few years before his return to the United States, Chinese friends affectionately called him "a man of words and deeds."
In 1935, more than fifty friends in the industry (most of them Chinese) were invited to tao guilin's banquet for Mao Fei. After Tao Guilin delivered a warm and praise speech, the American architect looked back on his career in China in detail.
Mao Fei mentioned two goals he hoped to achieve in China: to be a responsible architect and explore the mysteries of Chinese architecture; so that he could devote himself more effectively to design work. Mao Fei specifically mentioned several works that he considered most satisfying: Jinling Women's University, Yenching University, and Nanjing Memorial Cemetery. Mao Fei thanked his friends in the construction industry for their help, and he benefited a lot from it. He also stressed that he was convinced that China's architectural transformation would be successful. However, the long years of China also made him tired, and he longed to return to his homeland, and he believed that his friends could understand this. Mao Fei did not mention his embarrassing financial situation, and he obediently accepted Tao Guilin's gracious invitation and helped him pay for the ship back to the United States. A few days later, he embarked on a journey to New York.
Architect Huan Maofei returned to the United States for a photo (he sat in the middle of the back row), Shanghai, spring 1935.
These intertwined social connections, along with Henry Mawfei's legendary experiences, sparked discussions about his legacy. How should We Evaluate Mao Fei's Works today? Mao Fei's classical revival architectural works never made him financially rich.
However, after his departure, the American architect's professional status in China was often misunderstood by others. For example, a biographer once called Mao Fei "one of America's most outstanding architects"; it is clear that the writer paid more attention to his title as a member of the American Institute of Architects and ignored the fact that Mao Fei was unheard of in the American architectural world. Mao Fei obviously occupies a position of no high or low in his professional field, but what kind of way should he be accurately positioned?
Here are three ways to consider Maofei's legacy. The first way is to review three trends in contemporary architectural criticism by tracing the relevant literature after Mao Fei's death: Chinese and English journals published and distributed in China, and a large number of cases selected from church or other types of publications, which can reflect the trend of architectural development. The second way to measure Mao Fei's influence is to take a brief look at the careers of several Chinese architects of the same era. Third, Mao Fei's influence is also reflected in the many rounds of exploration of adaptive architectural practices by later architects: Chinese mainland after 1954-1960 and 1979, and Taiwan after 1949. These cases show that the adaptive architectural problems that mao fei "lived his life" have never been solved, and have triggered endless controversies and controversies among Chinese architects.
01
Mao Fei's Legacy:
How has "adaptive transformation" influenced modern Chinese architecture?
In 1933, China Architecture magazine was founded to establish a written platform for Chinese architects to discuss architectural ideas. Given the purpose of Architecture in China, it's no wonder the magazine paid less attention to Henry Mao Fei or other foreign architects. "Chinese Architecture" only mentions The name of Mao Fei when introducing Lü Yanzhi's resume in the first issue of the first volume; Mao Fei not only helped Lü Yanzhi in New York, but also taught him the method of successfully transforming traditional Chinese architecture, and finally achieved the design of Lü Yanzhi's two Sun Yat-sen Memorial Buildings and some Jinling Women's University and Yenching University. While praising Lu Yanzhi, the first issue of China Architecture implicitly regarded Henry Maofei as one of the former's employers and architectural mentors.
The significance of "Chinese Architecture" is that it pushes the ideas, drawings and models of a large number of new generation Chinese professionals to the stage of the times in the form of high-quality print layouts. Chinese Architecture further advanced this architectural change at a deeper level, and Mao Fei himself felt that he had played a positive role in it, because it provided a communication tool for the disadvantaged minorities, and the number of this group increased from 7 in 1926 to more than 50 in 1933.
The magazine's high-quality plates feature a number of design examples of "adaptive transformations," a growing phenomenon that is in line with Mao Fei's expectations and vision for the future development of China's construction industry after his departure, including the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Building (Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum and Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall), the Shanghai Special Municipal Government Building, the Nanjing Nationalist Government Building, and a number of special cases scattered between Guangzhou and Beijing. This magazine became a forum for Chinese architects to spontaneously call for and advocate the realization of "the modern style of Chinese architecture". Although this style is not a complete reproduction of Henry Maofei's vision, in any case, "Chinese Architecture" creates a space for everyone to accept dialogue, discussion, disagreement and development. In addition, the publication made Chinese architects feel that they were also a reasonable part of this evolving "modern architecture" movement.
Old photo of Henry Mawfei.
How many "professional" architects are involved, and how many are related to Mao Fei? In addition, how did the influence exerted by Mao Fei continue on these people? Combined with the journal research that has already been undertaken, it may be possible to look at another aspect: because Mao Fei challenged Chinese architects with architectural ontology before his retirement, his importance can be seen at least in part in those Chinese architects. So, how do these Chinese architects respond to Mao Fei's challenge?
The answer seems simple: in a number of different ways. Chinese architects have different attitudes toward Mao Fei, an American architect who abandoned his earlier (at American universities) training in architecture and instead practiced in China. Some have completely ignored his existence and have given up the opportunity to study Chinese architecture as a valuable tradition. And those architects who have cooperated or worked with MaoFei have naturally become Maofei's fans.
Others, though they knew Mao Fei, were careful to distance themselves from the architect, who was commissioned primarily by the Church to imitate Chinese architecture. They argue that Chinese architects should make use of their own traditions, but must seek a new Chinese approach and style of architecture. Finally, from the perspective of architectural scholarship, some people have gained new inspiration through physical research and survey of traditional Chinese architecture. It was this last group that further carried forward their academic love and eventually gave birth to a new discipline dedicated to the study of Chinese architectural history.
Auditorium of Tsinghua University, designed by Henry Maofei.
Therefore, the uniqueness of Henry Maofei is not that he hired Chinese architects. Although he had recruited some young Chinese students who had just graduated from maodan's eastern affairs department as early as 1920, Mao Fei had apparently carefully selected these few Chinese students from the list of American architecture graduates. Among these employees, in addition to the famous Lu Yanzhi, there was Also Lee Kam-pei, who joined in 1923. The Architecture Office of the YMCA later hired Li Jinpei back to China in 1927, and the latter took over the completion of the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall designed by Lü Yanzhi in Guangzhou, becoming one of the most successful figures of the "first generation" of Chinese architects.
Unfortunately, no record of Mao Fei's employment of Chinese cartographers in New York has survived. However, Mao Fei's cooperation with those graduates who studied in the United States in China has been better documented to a certain extent. For example, Zhuang Jun, the first architect to graduate in American architecture and work as an architect-in-residence at Tsinghua University after returning to China (graduated from the University of Illinois in 1914), was Mao Fei's first employee in China. In 1925, Zhuang Jun came to Shanghai from Beijing and opened his own office. Although Zhuang Jun occasionally deliberately avoids using imported building materials and construction methods, his designs (mostly banks in East China) neither reflect Mao Fei's influence on style, nor does it prove that Zhuang Jun continued to maintain a cooperative relationship with Mao Fei after moving to Shanghai.
The most conclusive cooperation between Mao Fei and his Chinese counterparts took place in the context of Nanjing's Capital Plan. Four of China's "first generation" architects: Zhao Shen, Fan Wenzhao, Tong Liao, and Yang Tingbao (all alumni of the University of Pennsylvania) were invited to design government buildings in Nanjing against some unknown background, most of which were planned and determined by Mao Fei when he was a national government architectural consultant. Zhao Shen and Fan Wenzhao probably met Mao Fei for the first time in Nanjing when they were hired as advisers to the Capital Construction Commission. As early as when they were in the United States, the two of them were classmates (1919-1921). Fan Wenzhao returned to China in 1922 and worked in a foreign firm; Zhao Shen worked first in Philadelphia and New York, and then returned to Shanghai in 1923 after a european trip. In 1927, Zhao Shen and Fan Wenzhao founded Huagai Architectural Office, which was the first architectural firm in Shanghai to be independently operated by Chinese. Two years later, they had built up enough industry reputation to be commissioned to start designing some of the largest construction projects in the new capital.
Mao Fei became a mutual friend of the pair. Mao Fei and Zhao Shen got along well as when they collaborated on the design of the Linggu Pagoda (in the National Revolutionary Army's Memorial Cemetery); after Mao Fei left Nanjing, Zhao Shen still regularly visited Mao Fei's small office in Shanghai; until 1931, when Zhao Shen took on the responsibility of designing the new civic center in Shanghai, he still enthusiastically introduced Mao Fei to his Chinese colleagues. Unlike the former, Fan Wenzhao and Mao Fei quickly reached a consensus on the design concept. Within two years of their meeting, Fan Wenzhao was hailed as "one of the pioneers in the revitalization of classical Chinese architecture in the modern Renaissance movement in China."
Fan Wenzhao integrated Mao Fei's architectural language, rules, etc. into his own design, and tried to open up a new architectural road in China through practical works such as the Guangzhou Municipal Government Office and the Nanjing Central Government Ministry Building. For example, Mao Fei wrote in 1928: "Someone told me... Chinese architecture could not be revived as a way of life today because they could not meet modern functional needs and structural standards and preserve basic aesthetic qualities; in other words, Chinese architecture can still only be regarded as a purely archaeological object of study. ”
Later, in 1933, Fan Wenzhao revised Mao Fei's remarks: "China is increasingly recovering her body and mind in architecture. A small group of people ('they seek to bring the best combination of the old and the new') has proved the majesty and magnificence of Chinese style architecture, which is not only an object of archaeological study, but also a living architectural style that can be maintained and met the needs of modern China. Fan Wenzhao, Zhao Shen and Mao Fei were all key figures in this small group, and Mao Fei continued to praise these two Chinese many years after his retirement, calling them first-class architects.
02
Reflections of the "first generation" of architects on Mao Fei
Although Mao Fei never expressed anything in the formal text, he may have also felt his entanglement with Tong Liao (one of the partners of Huagai Architects) and Yang Tingbao (one of the heads of the engineering department of Jitai). Both Tong and Yang attended the 1935 (as reported by Architecture Monthly) banquet for Mao Fei; in the 1930s and 1940s, both of them worked to solve a thorny problem (encountered earlier during their studies at Penn) about how to use creative design to blend traditional Chinese architecture with "modern classicism." Missionaries' attempts at cultural reconciliation through architecture— in which Mao Fei, of course, were caught—were sometimes the object of criticism by "first-generation" architects.
For example, Tong Liao wrote a wonderful article in 1937, arguing that it was necessary to go beyond stylistic decoration and focus on the importance of structure to create a new Chinese architecture that would become China's contribution to world architecture in the 20th century. In The Chronicle of Architecture, Tong Liao explains what kind of progress the talented Chinese architects have made after Mao Fei. He expands on his argument with a different analogy.
Today's Chinese architecture is often reminiscent of legends about "pig's tail" (referring to braids)... Although it looks chic, it is useless, and (braids) gradually evolve from a symbol of humiliation to personal pride. Equally picturesque and quaint is the roof of a Chinese temple, often borrowed and placed on top of a modern building: once an unavoidable evil, it has since become a major feature of Chinese architecture... The Chinese roofs, which were draped over the upper part of the new building at the time, looked like a cumbersome and superfluous "pig's tail".
Subsequently, Tong Liao also mentioned Mao Fei and some other unnamed architects in a roundabout way. Tong believes that they deviate from a basic principle of contemporary architectural training (derived from the Academy of Fine Arts in Paris, France) that there should be a direct correspondence between the plan and façade of the building.
Old photos of Children's Widows.
In the so-called "revival of classical Chinese architecture", too many arrogant and boastful words have been spent. If this revival is just putting a Chinese temple roof on a factory, then adding a "pig's tail" to a dead man is enough to bring him back to life! Most of the early attempts at this practice were confined to church schools and hospitals, which tended to have a romantic appeal to laymen; for them, the most brilliant and brilliant part of classical Chinese architecture was the brightly colored anti-curved roofs.
However, in the eyes of the architect, the Chinese roof has always been a rather practical design tool, which facilitates him to perform "plastic surgery" on the façade. As a stopgap measure, he could first arrange the interior space of the building according to each modern requirement, and then borrow a Chinese-style roof to complete the design of the external image.
What makes Tong Liao very angry is that a certain eye-catching symbol, or what he sees as a "mediocre antique ornament", has been mistaken for a creative building. Tong Liao believes that if she wants to create a new type of architecture in China, it is necessary to abandon the previous dependence on the form of shuangpo outstate the roof, acknowledge that the "international style" has "come and take root" in China, and then use the experience learned by Tong Liao herself from Paul Crane in Philadelphia to carry out quality design practices:
Whether a building's appearance is Chinese or modern, its plan can only be generated in one way: to scientifically and rationally arrange the rooms according to the latest knowledge available. Therefore, the façade, as a product derived from the plane, can only be modernist. Any attempt to give it a local "character" requires targeted learning, research and innovation.
What Tong Is Talking About here is the lesson That Mao Fei himself learned after more than two decades of practicing in China, integrating old traditions into new architecture, or injecting new life into an architectural tradition that has become reduced to "pure archaeology," which will take at least a generation's lifetime to hope to achieve.
03
Mao Fei and Liang Sicheng
Perhaps no one has demonstrated this pursuit better than Liang Sicheng, the only Chinese architect of the 20th century who can compete with Lu Yanzhi. Rather than a professional architect, Liang Sicheng is more of a tireless historian. His lifelong study of traditional Chinese architecture inspired the "first generation" of Chinese architects and many of his later followers. He drew a renewed focus on an important treatise on architecture, the Northern Song Dynasty official Li Jie's 1103 CE Compilation of the Construction of the French Style, a copy of which was discovered and reprinted in 1920. He not only assisted in the establishment of the Architectural History Course at Northeastern University (Shenyang), but also co-chaired the research work of the China Construction Society in 1931-1937 with other scholars. Founded in 1930, the society published an important academic journal between 1930 and 1937: The Bulletin of the China Construction Society. In February 1930, at the opening ceremony of the Construction Society, the founder Zhu Qizhao used a hopeful speech as the closing words of his speech:
The further we go forward, the more we feel that Chinese architectural research is by no means the private property of our people. Our neighbors in the East help us preserve examples of ancient buildings and carry out painstaking research along the same route; friends in the West offer us the scientific method to share their discoveries in the field.
Is Henry Mao Fei one of Zhu Qizhao's so-called friends of the Construction Society? Even if it is only indirect. Although Mao Fei seemed to be in line with the goals declared by the China Construction Society, he had never met Liang Sifei and had never cooperated with the Construction Society in any way. The relationship between them is like two threads of silk on the same piece of cloth, each winding and stretching but never intertwined. Part of the reason for this may be that Mao Fei is closer to a commercial architect than an academic researcher; he integrates archaeological methods into the precise historical study of buildings. Mao Fei, who wrote the following comments, will certainly not receive a high evaluation from Liang Sicheng:
I myself have always regarded the study of Chinese architecture as a living organism and considered it in the context of current practical problems; it is not the object of pure archaeological research, but can only stimulate the interest and love of some academic circles. Moreover, I must confess that I am not at all interested in those ingenious theories. For example, try to show that the cornices of Chinese roofs reflect the curved outlines of early nomadic tribal tents, or the dancers' swirling flowing skirts, and so on. Why, in addition to the ancient Chinese craftsmen who thought that bending was more beautiful in form than straight lines, still stubbornly sought more explanations for the anti-curved roof?
Liang Sicheng believes that its purpose is to reveal the truth behind beauty.
04
Mao Fei questioned the traditional practice,
And inspire future change
From the evaluation of him by contemporary Chinese architects, it can be found that Mao Fei did not drift away from the depths of many Chinese. In addition to Lü Yanzhi, Mao Fei was also the employer, design partner or aesthetic ally of some of the most prominent figures in the history of Chinese architecture in the 20th century, including: Zhuang Jun, Li Jinpei, Zhao Shen, Dong Dayou, Fan Wenzhao, Tong Liao and Yang Tingbao. But, just as it is impossible to attribute the later designs of these American architects to Paul Crane or any other American architecture professor, it is not only misleading but also unfair to say that Mao Fei was the only source of creativity and diversity in the designs of these architects.
In addition, Mao Fei did not have direct contact with most of the "first generation" of Chinese architects. In addition to Mao Fei himself, there are Chen Zhi, Liu Dunzhen, including the most well-known Mr. Liang Sicheng, who are important figures in the "first generation" of architects who independently carry out high-quality architectural practices. Practice and research conducted by these individuals show that at least by 1935, the relatively emerging Chinese construction industry had attracted a large number of professionals and shown a wealth of diversity. Although Mao Fei had imagined as early as 1928 that such an "adaptive" building was bound to win through a "battle", he could not predict how many twists and turns this "battle" would eventually undergo, and it was difficult to guess how many new architects would join the "battle".
The former Jinling Women's University was designed by Henry Mao Fei and colleagues in the 1920s.
Evidence suggests that the "adaptability" of architecture is a dynamic concept that changes not only with the specific characteristics, elements and types of Chinese architecture, but also depending on who is driving the process and what materials and methods are used. Mao Fei's success lies in the fact that he questions traditional practices and inspires future change. Similarly, Chinese architects have pushed tradition to new heights, sometimes inadvertently embroiled in a Mao fei-sparked quest to bring the architecture of the past into a more meaningful architectural future.
To what extent is the future of Chinese architecture meaningful? If the conclusion of this question is positive, to whom does it make sense? To date, this remains an open question. Soon after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, Henry Maofei came to China to begin his own architectural practice, ending in the struggle between the Kuomintang and the Communists and the Japanese invasion of China. It is through Mao Fei's generation's pioneering exploration in design and construction, and long-term pursuit of process and results, that China has finally adapted to the new reality in a revolutionary way.
However, the sudden war has brought new and severe challenges to the Chinese people. Over the past half-century, China has first sought to smooth the wounds of that war and then to find balance in its turbulent society. Since the mid-20th century, China's urban environment has ushered in a wave of large-scale transformation and renewal: from courtyards to high-rise buildings, from bicycles to motor vehicles, from backyard stoves to Internet cafes all over the streets, and Maofei's "adaptive architecture" has gradually become a footnote to this architectural legend.
This architectural legend is still not fully understood. The work and influence of many Chinese and foreign architects, builders, engineers, urban planners and other construction practitioners after the Xinhai Revolution has only just begun to gradually unfold in front of the world. In this research direction, this book is only a limited first step. Since the mid-1980s, more and more scholars have devoted themselves to this field, tirelessly searching up and down, and speaking out on their own views at different levels. For example, in the mid-1980s, Professors Wang Tan and Zhang Fu of Tsinghua University took the lead in creating a professional institution dedicated to the study of modern Chinese architectural history (1840-1949), the Research Society of Modern Chinese Architectural History, and then held a series of academic conferences in different cities to promote communication and exchange among scholars who have research in this field.
At the same time, scholars of Chinese urban history have also organized a number of conferences related to the field and published corresponding academic journals. In the past 15 years, more and more Chinese and overseas scholars have begun to delve into the changes of this era, and this architectural legend has become more and more presented to the world.
Ironically, however, while some are trying to reveal the unique significance of many important people in China's architectural circles (before and after Mao Fei's architectural practice), many more are participating in the demolition of the physical remains of buildings that have witnessed this period of history. Even the most obtuse observer can intuitively appreciate that the face of Chinese cities is undergoing amazing changes. In a new construction boom that began in the early 1980s and continued to accelerate, certain relatively intact neighborhoods and neighborhoods were completely destroyed. With a new round of urban infrastructure construction, the "adaptive architecture" of Chinese cities at the turn of the century is more reflected in the new high-rise residential and commercial towers. In the eyes of some people, these cases show China's tremendous construction achievements, which is undoubtedly worthy of recognition and praise. But in the eyes of others, they are clumsy fakes of kitsch in form, material and culture. The analysis and study of the internal drivers and external effects of these changes has only just begun.
While a growing number of Chinese journals, conferences, and other events are trying to encourage more meaningful discussions about architecture, most Chinese remain as reticent as ever about the architectural upheavals that are happening around them. Like those who came to architecture in the early 20th century, one of the challenges facing Chinese architects today is to flexibly, flexibly, explore and comprehensively find new ways of Chinese high-quality architectural design that respond to specific functional needs, spatial presuppositions and Chinese identity (cultural) identity.
Moreover, for all observers and critics of Chinese architecture, the challenge is to evaluate a series of real architectural landscapes from the past to the present, which are conceptually far richer than what people see. Mao Fei's work provides an illuminating collection of cases for recreating this historical picture. His practice in China thus serves as a useful research springboard, not only to help us understand the context of his work, but also to reveal the intertwined relationships between Chinese architecture, culture, society and politics behind it. Although these problems have largely exceeded the scope of Mao Fei's personal ability.